Aug 20, 2020 Historic District Council

[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]

[00:00:06]

>> FERNANDINA BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.

COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER POZZETTA. >> PRESENT.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> HERE. >> MEMBER KOSACK.

>> WE CAN SEE HER. KATES IS HERE. SHE'S MUTED.

>> MEMBER HARRISON. >> HERE. >> CHAIR SPINO.

MEMBER CONWAY IS ABSENT. >> THANK YOU. IF YOU ALL MIGHT STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION,

UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> BOARD MEMBERS, MS. CONWAY IS

[Additional Item]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, TAMMI, YOU'RE VOTING. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND ANY CONFLICTS THAT YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY? JIM?

>> NO. I HAVE NONE. >> ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION FOLKS WANT TO DISCLOSE?

>> NO. >> NONE. >> GREAT.

LET ME THINK FOR A SECOND. I VISITED ALL OF THE SITES, BUT I DON'T THINK I'VE TALKED TO ANYONE. GOOD. COUNSEL, PLEASE TALK ABOUT

QUASI JUDICIAL. >> WE HAVE SEVEN CASES ON THE AGENDA.

THEY WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. MS. GIBSON OR MR. PLAT WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION, THEY CAN CALL WITNESSES, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE ANY FOR THE CASES TONIGHT. THEN THE APPLICANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, WHETHER YOU'RE THE AGENT OR THE APPLICANT, EVEN IF WE CAN SEE YOU ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN HERE, PLEASE JUST SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN YOU WILL BE TESTIFYING AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.

YOU MAY ALSO CALL WITNESSES AND BOTH PARTIES, THE PARTIES BEING THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT, MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER AND EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES. IF THERE IS AN AFFECTED PARTY HERE THIS EVENING, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU'RE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, YOU MAY ALSO TESTIFY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE TIMED.

AND YOU MAY ALSO CALL WITNESSES AND ASK QUESTIONS OR CROSS-EXAMINE THE PARTIES.

IF THERE IS AN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN, ON ANY OF THE DECISIONS MADE TONIGHT BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, THAT APPEAL CAN BE FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THERE IS ALSO A METHOD OF APPEALING QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

OR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, PARDON ME, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

APPLICANTS CAN DIRECTLY APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THE DECISIONS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL. MS. MCCAN, THE RECORDING SECRETARY, WHEN THE CHAIR ASKS, GOING TO ADMINISTER THE OATH FOR ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK.

AND THAT INCLUDES COUNSEL. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CASES TONIGHT, WE DO THE SWEARING IN AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. IF SOMEBODY COMES LATE TO THE MEETING AND WISHES TO SPEAK OR TESTIFY, WE CAN SWEAR THEM IN AT THAT TIME.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK ANYBODY PRESENT WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY TONIGHT TO PLEASE STAND AND TAKE THE OATH AS ADMINISTERED BY MS. MCCAN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH

AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE IN

[2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]

DO BOARD MEMBERS HAVE CHANGES TO ANY OF THESE MINUTES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO OUR

ATTENTION? >> NO. BUT I MOVE TO ACCEPT. >> SECOND.

>> SO IT'S MOVED, MORRISON. SECONDED KOSACK. ANY DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE, MS. SYLVIA, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER POZZETTA.

[00:05:07]

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

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

I'M SORRY. MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO. >> YES. >> MOVING ON TO OLD BUSINESS,

[3.1 HDC 2020-0017 - TERESA PRINCE, TOMASSETTI & PRINCE, AGENT FOR HARBOR VIEW-ARTISAN LLC, 211 BEECH STREET]

WE KNOW EACH ONE OF THESE UNITS. MR. PLATT, IS THAT YOU?

>> IT IS. >> WE HAVE OUR OLD TOWN SPECIALIST AND OUR DOWNTOWN SPECIALIST. TONIGHT IS HDC AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COA.

IT'S BEING HEARD UNDER HDC 2020-0017. THIS IS AMENDING AND REDESIGNING THE ROOFTOP ACCESS FOR 211 BEACH STREET. SIMPLY SEEKING TO RELOCATE THE EXIT DOOR TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND TO ALLOW FOR ELEVATOR ACCESS TO THE ROOFTOP.

THIS IS THE EXACT SAME DESIGN THAT WE HEARD A MONTH, TWO MONTHS AGO, REDESIGN.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE 211 BEACH STREET ADDRESS. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THE CHANGES. BUT ULTIMATELY, STAFF FINDS THAT THE CHANGES TO ROOFTOP STAIR ENCLOSURE TO ACCOMMODATE AN ELEVATOR WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS ALLOW FOR.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? TAKE THAT AS A GOOD SIGN. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

>> YEAH, BENJAMIN. >> I FEEL LIKE, LIKE YOU SAID, CHAIR SPINO, WE'VE APPROVED LIKE 20 DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORIGINAL APPROVAL. HAVE WE ALREADY APPROVED THIS EXACT SAME THING, OR DO WE SOMEHOW CONTINUE TO APPROVE SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT?

>> YOU'VE GOT A COMBINATION OF THAT. I'LL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PIVOT ON THAT. KELLY AND I WERE TALKING TODAY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR DEFINING GUIDELINES WHICH THE STAFF COULD USE TO MAKE STAFF APPROVALS FOR THINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE VERY LIKELY TO PASS. IN OTHER WORDS, SOMETIMES WHEN WE LOOK AT OLD TOWN FOR EXAMPLE, AN OWNER WANTS TO MOVE A WINDOW ON A PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED HOME THAT FACES ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF DOESN'T FEEL CONFIDENT IN APPROVING THAT CHANGE BECAUSE WE APPROVED WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE. WE THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS KIND OF A CHANGE TO BECOME A STAFF APPROVAL.

AND SO WE HAVE APPROVED BOTH SUBSTANTIVE AND LESS THAN SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AT HARBOR VIEW. AND THIS IS ONE THAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE LESS SUBSTANTIVE.

BECAUSE WE LITERALLY DID IT PREVIOUSLY. >> I SUPPORT THAT, CHAIR SPINO.

>> THANK YOU. >> I AGREE. >> YEAH.

I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THIS CHANGE IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS ONE THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS

APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON SOUTH THIRD STREET. >> IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE WAY THE STREET LOOKS OR ANYTHING. WE'LL GIVE THERESA AN OPPORTUNITY UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, BOARD MEMBERS. IF NOT, I'LL CALL MS. PRINCE UP. THERESA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THIS?

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THERESA PRINCE, 406 ASH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.

AS YOU HAVE STATED, I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT HARBOR VIEW. I DO HAVE MR. SCOTT ON THE LINE AS WELL. HE HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK.

IF YOU NEEDED HIM TO, HE WILL. HE HAS NOT BEEN SWORN, BUT IF YOU NEEDED HIM TO, HE WILL.

JUST TO ANSWER DIRECTLY THE QUESTION, IT WAS ITEM NUMBER, AGENDA NUMBER 3.1 AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE ATTENDED, BUT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES, YOU APPROVED THIS EXACT SAME CHANGE TO THE ROOFTOP STRUCTURE TO ALLOW FOR AN ELEVATOR SHAFT FOR 117 THIRD STREET AND 111 SOUTH THIRD STREET. AND IT HAS THE SAME CONFIGURATION.

AND THEN JACOB, YEAH, SO WE DISCUSSED HOW IT WAS MOVING THE STAIRWELL IN THE ENTRANCE TO

[00:10:12]

BUT THAT, NOW THE OWNER DOESN'T WANT IT. IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANYTHING VISUAL THAT HDC WOULD SEE OR RESIDENTS WOULD SEE. IT'S JUST A CHANGE IN THE TRUSSES OF THE ROOFTOP, NOW THAT THEY DON'T WANT A HOT TUB. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE EXTERIOR.

SO I REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. IT WAS LOOKED AT AND CONSIDERED AT THE LAST MEETING WE WERE AT FOR TWO OTHER HOUSES. AND THIS IS THE LAST UNIT TO SELL. SO ALLEGEDLY, WE TALKED LAST TIME HOW YOU WOULD PREFER TO NOT HEAR FROM US AGAIN. IT MAY ACTUALLY COME TO FRUITION.

IF THIS CLOSES PROPERLY, AND THE OTHER UNIT CLOSES AS THEY HAVE INDICATED THEY DO NOT WANT AN ELEVATOR SHAFT, THIS SHOULD BE THE LAST TIME WE COME TO YOU. BUT I MAKE NO PROMISES.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MS. PRINCE. HEARING NONE, THANK YOU THERESA, JUST REMIND EVERYONE, WE'VE DONE 22 HOMES, IT WOULD HAVE SEEMED LIKE A LOT MORE WORK THAN THESE 22 UNITS.

I'M NOT UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. WE WILL CLOSE.

IF THERE AREN'T ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. COULD I GET MY COUNCIL MEMBERS UP THERE ON THE SCREEN? IT'S REALLY HARD TO READ BODY LANGUAGE WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. SO THERE YOU GO. COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO GO RIGHT TO THE PUBLIC MEETING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISH TO TESTIFY? DID I MISS SOMETHING? NO. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON CASE 2020-0017? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING, MOVE IN TO BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> I'LL MAKE TO MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> I'VE GOT HARRISON AND KOSACK. A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE, MS. SYLVIA PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

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

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

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

[3.2 HDC 2020-0018 - JOHN HILLMAN, 1001 WHITE STREET.]

>> MOVING ON, HDC 2020-0018, 1001 WHITE STREET. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.

>> THIS EVENING STAFF IS ASKING YOU TO REVIEW AN AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COA FOR THE REFERENCED ADDRESS. DELETING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE ADDITION WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED AND MODIFYING THE GABLE. CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES OF THE WINDOWS AND DOORS. AND I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A LITTLE BIT OF OVERVIEW ON THAT. AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. AND CAN SPEAK TO THE REQUEST AS WELL.

SO THERE ARE TWO IMAGES HERE, WHICH CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE THE CHANGE THAT IS REQUESTED.

PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS AN ADDITION THAT WAS GOING TO WRAP AROUND THE SIDE AND WOULD HAVE MODIFIED THE STRUCTURE TO A GREATER EXTENT. THAT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED.

AND HERE WE GO. TO CLEARLY DEFINE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE PORTION WHICH IS BEING ELIMINATED AT THIS TIME. AND THE GABLE EXTENDING ON THE SIDE PIECE OF THE PORCH. WITH THAT, I WILL SEE IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING THEY

[00:15:06]

WOULD LIKE TO ADD. >> QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON.

>> THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION ANYMORE?

>> I THINK THAT REMAINS IN PLACE. THERE IS NO MODIFICATION BEING

COMPOSED TO THAT COMPONENT OF THEIR PRIOR APPROVAL. >> IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT REMAINS. IF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON, I WILL CALL ON MR. HELLMAN AT THE TOP TO LAY IT OUT FOR US. PLEASE COME ON UP. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE

RECORD. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JOHN HILLMAN, I LIVE AT 1001 WHITE STREET, HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH. I FEEL LIKE A BAD PENNY, I KEEP

SHOWING UP HERE. >> TRUST ME, THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS.

YOU'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE. >> OKAY. SO WITH COVID AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, FAMILY DYNAMICS, THINGS CHANGED, WE REALIZED THAT THE ADDITIONAL PORCH WASN'T GOING TO BE AS UTILIZED AS WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT. WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE EXISTING GABLE AND EXTEND IT OUT TO THE END OF THE EXISTING PORCH THAT IS THERE TODAY.

THERE IS NO FRONT DOOR THAT YOU SEE FROM THE STREET. WE THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BETTER SORT OF PRESENTATION TO THE STREET THAT THERE IS A PROPER FRONT DOOR AND A PROPER FRONT PORCH. THAT IS ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR, ELIMINATE THE SIDE PORCH AND

EXTENDED GABLE IN THE FRONT PORCH IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILLMAN? LOOKING TO YOU, MY VIRTUA NUMBERS HERE. QUESTIONS?

>> NO. I THOUGHT THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED LOOKED GOOD AND I THINK THAT THIS

LOOKS GOOD TOO. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILLMAN. >> I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION FOR

YOU, JOHN. >> SURE. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

>> YES, GO FOR IT, TAMMI. >> OKAY. I LIKE THE LOOK OF THIS A LOT.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN THAT GABLE IS EXTENDED FORWARD, IS THERE AN INTER-PLAY WITH THAT REALLY LARGE LIMB ON THAT LIVE OAK? I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE PHOTO

OR ANY OF THE ELEVATIONS? >> NO. I STUDIED IT AND LOOKED AT IT.

IT DOESN'T AFFECT IT IN THE SLIGHTEST. >> YEAH.

I WAS ON-SITE, TAMMI, LAST WEEK AND THERE IS NO CONFLICT THERE. >> OKAY.

THAT'S IT. >> MR. HARRISON, ANYTHING? KATES.

>> NO. >> OKAY. >> HEY, JOHN.

I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION, I WAS LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS AND I NOTE THAT THE COLUMNS FOR THE NEW GABLE COVERED FRONT PORCH JUST SAYS 6 BY 6 POST AND THEN IN THE STRUCTURAL SECTION YOU'VE GOT STRAPPING AND THINGS CALLED OUT. NO NOTATION ON THE DRAWINGS ANYWHERE THAT THAT COLUMN IS GOING TO BE WRAPPED IN ANY KIND OF TRIM OR ANYTHING.

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE EXPOSED METAL STRAPS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE POSTS?

>> NO. I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. YEAH. THE STRAPPING WOULD BE COVERED AND THERE WILL BE SOME DEGREE OF HEAD STRUCTURE WITH SOME TRIM AT THE TOP.

I MIGHT EVEN CHAMBER THE COLUMNS WHEN IT'S SAID AND DONE.

>> I HAD A PROBLEM YOU WOULD DO THAT. BUT IT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE

DRAWINGS. >> THERE WILL NOT BE ANY EXPOSED STRAPPINGS.

>> ANYTHING ELSE, JIM? >> NO. >> THANK YOU, MR. HILLMAN.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 2020-0018.

HILLMAN 1001 WHITE STREET. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY? ANYBODY ON THE PHONE WHO WISHES TO ASK A QUESTION? HEARING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR

PLEASURE? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> YEAH.

>> I DIDN'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL PLANS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT DID WE ALREADY APPROVE THE RUNNING THE BOARD OVER THE EXISTING FOUNDATION VERSUS HOW THEY HAVE EXPOSED RAISED FOUNDATION?

>> I REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION. I DON'T REMEMBER THE RESOLUTION.

>> SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN. >> WE'RE GOING TO ASK MR. HILLMAN TO COME BACK UP FOR

THAT QUESTION. >> THE HOUSE HAS LATTICE OVER THE RAISED PIER, THE RAISED FOUNDATION, I NOTICED ON THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE RUNNING BOARDS TO CONCEAL THEM AND WE TYPICALLY PREFER TO HAVE THE RAISED FOUNDATION EXPOSED WITH THE PIERS VISIBLE.

IS THAT A CHANGE FROM YOUR FIRST PLAN? >> YEAH.

[00:20:01]

>> SO I APOLOGIZE, THAT DRAWING ISN'T SHOWING THE ORIGINAL PIERS.

SO THE PIERS WILL REMAIN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE HOG BOARD THAT WILL RUN BETWEEN THE PIERS.

SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE FLIMSY PLASTIC LATTICE THAT IS THERE TODAY.

>> GOOD CATCH, TAMMI. ANYONE HAVE FOLLOW-UPS FOR MR. HILLMAN?

>> NO. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN JUST REQUEST THAT STAFF FOLLOW UP ON TO MAKE SURE THAT

IT'S CHANGED BEFORE IT'S PERMITTED. >> YEAH.

WE CAN CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED. I WOULD FURTHER THAT BY

INCLUDING IT WITHIN YOUR MOTION. >> SO MAYBE MR. POZZETTA IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION HERE. VIRTUAL NUMBERS, I THINK MR. POZZETTA MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE A MOTION AND INCORPORATE THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOARD INTO THE APPROVAL, IF THAT IS OKAY BY YOU. GIVE HIM A SECOND TO FIND, REFINE HIS LANGUAGE AND FIND THE BOILERPLATE THAT WE USE WITH THAT. THANK YOU, JIM.

>> NO PROBLEM. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> PLEASE.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE 2020-0018. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, THAT TRIM BE APPLIED TO THE PORCH COLUMNS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE STRUCTURAL FASTENERS.

AND THAT HOG BOARD LATTICE BE EXPRESSED BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION PIER ELEMENTS, SO THAT THE PIERS ARE EXPRESSED VISUALLY ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE.

AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PART OF THE RECORD, THAT HDC CASE 2020-0018, AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION

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

>> MOTION BY POZZETTA AND A SECOND BY TAMMI KOSACK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE, MS. MCCAN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MEMBER HARRISON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA. >> YES.

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

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

>> DIRECTOR, AT SOME POINT MAYBE WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE SURE THOSE THINGS GET DONE IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION. NOT NOW.

BUT IT MIGHT BE PART OF THAT OTHER DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT GUIDELINES, FLEXIBILITY, STAFF REVIEW, THAT KIND OF THING. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO --

YES, SIR. >> IT OCCURS TO ME THAT ON THE PREVIOUS (INAUDIBLE) I DID NOT

GO THROUGH THE WHOLE SPIEL. DO WE HAVE A VALID MOTION? >> COUNSEL, HE DIDN'T DO THE

SECRETARY OF CHAIR STANDARDS ON THAT MOTION. >> YEAH.

GO AHEAD AND JUST REPEAT IT. BECAUSE THAT IS GENERALLY -- >> MR. HARRISON, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW MR. HARRISON TO REPEAT HIS MOTION WITH MORE DETAIL THIS TIME. WHOEVER SECONDED IT SHOULD SECOND AGAIN.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. >> WELL, YEAH, BUT I DON'T HAVE

IT IN FRONT OF ME. >> OF COURSE. >> IF I MOVE MY LIPS, CAN JIM

POZZETTA MIME FOR ME. >> SHE WANTS TO MAKE SURE WE DO IT LEGITIMATELY THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALWAYS THE PROBLEM SOLVER, THAT TAMMI KOSACK.

ALWAYS THE PROBLEM SOLVER. >> ALWAYS OPPORTUNITY. >> LOOK AT THAT.

>> THERE YOU GO. >> THAT'S GREAT. >> ARE WE READY? I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT TO HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0017, WITHOUT CONDITIONS,

[00:25:03]

INTERIOR'S STANDARDS TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> WHO IS THE SECOND ON THAT?

IS THAT BENJAMIN >> MS. KOSACK. >> TAMMI, YOU'RE GOING TO

SECOND AMENDED MOTION. >> RE-SECOND. >> I'M NOT GOING TO ASK FOR

DISCUSSION. >> MEMBER POZZETTA. >> YES.

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

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

>> CHAIR SPINO. >> YES. I THOUGHT THINGS WERE MOVING TOO SMOOTHLY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS WORSE, MIKE, THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE

SITTING HERE DIDN'T CATCH IT. >> WELL, I SUGGEST WE MAKE THAT A NEW METHOD OF OPERATION.

>> ABSOLUTELY. LET'S MOVE ON TO HDC 2020, JACOB, AM I ON THE RIGHT TRACK

[3.3 HDC 2020-0020 - LAUREN KELLY, MOSER DESIGN GROUP, AGENT FOR JACKIE A. & LINDA HARRISON, LOTS 14 + 10 BLOCK 9 SOMERUELUS STREET]

KELLY MOSER. LOOKS LIKE BLOCK 9, SOMERUELUS STREET.

THIS IS OLD BUSINESS. >> WE HAVE A VARIANCE ON IT. >> WE'VE DONE A VARIANCE ON IT

IN FEBRUARY. >> RETURNING FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

FINAL APPROVAL REQUEST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS PROVIDED UNDER THE VARIANCE GRANTED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.

SO I KNOW THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION. I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THAT COMPONENT OF IT. THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROVIDED ALL OF THE DETAILS NECESSARY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION UNDER FINAL APPROVAL. THIS EVENING THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN MADE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES. IN CONSIDERATION OF THAT PRIOR VARIANCE APPROVAL. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT FILE HERE REAL QUICK SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE DRAWING ITSELF. I DON'T THINK THE STAFF REPORT IS AS HELPFUL AS THAT IS. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT IS REQUIRED, WITH THE PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED TERMS FOR GRANTING OF A VARIANCE AND THAT A VISIBLE CORRIDOR BE TREATED AS A MID-LOCK CORRIDOR TO EXTEND THROUGH THE STRUCTURE.

LOCK COVERAGE IS UNDER 45 PERCENT PERMISSIBLE, WITH 33 PERCENT.

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN STANDARD FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

REQUESTING TO HAVE A CRUSHED SHELL DRIVEWAY. ALL OF THE HVAC UNITS WILL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND LOCATED TO THE SIDE OUTSIDE OF THE FIVE-FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK. TO THE ELEVATION, SO THAT YOU

CAN DO THAT IN A BIT MORE DETAIL. >> WE HAVEN'T SEEN THESE

BEFORE, RIGHT? >> NO. THIS IS DIFFERENT IN THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, BUT THEY WERE READY AND PREPARED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT FINAL.

STAFF FELT THEY WERE READY TO PROCEED, GIVEN THE LEVEL OF DETAIL PROVIDED FOR A

STRUCTURE. >> FLASHING BACK TO OTHER DESIGNS FOR OLD TOWN.

>> YES. SO HERE I WILL GIVE YOU A BIT MORE OF THE RENDERING.

THE FIRST ELEVATION WAS THAT ALONG AMELIA STREET. AND THE SECOND IS ALONG SOMERUELUS, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ACCESSORY AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. AND THEN THE SIDE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED HERE FOR YOU.

ALL THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT.

ALSO PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR YOUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

AND STAFF HAS FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION AND THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES. >> GREAT.

QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? >> QUESTION FOR KELLY. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> YOU NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT AMELIA STREET IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT AND THE HOUSE FACES AMELIA STREET. IT APPEARS FROM THE ELEVATIONS THAT THE FRONT IS BEING

CONSIDERED ON SOMERUELUS. >> SO THE FRONT DOOR ITSELF IS ALONG SOMERUELUS, HOWEVER THE

[00:30:08]

OTHERWISE THE SETBACKS WOULD NOT REALLY WORK. >> SO WE'RE CONSIDERING THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AS THE AMELIA STREET SIDE FOR SETBACK PURPOSES?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. ORIGINAL ORIENTATION OF THE LOTS WITHIN OLD TOWN.

>> YEAH. I REMEMBER WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION DURING THE VARIANCE.

>> YEAH. IT WAS INTENSE. >> YES.

OKAY. >> GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU. >> GO FOR IT.

>> ON THE PICTURE THAT I SEE CURRENTLY, AMELIA STREET ELEVATION, THOSE GROUND FLOOR

WINDOWS, WHAT AM I LOOKING AT THERE? >> THEY ARE 2 OVER 2.

>> SO 2 OVER 2. >> I THINK THAT THE INSET OF IT IS DIMMED ON THAT PANEL, BUT

FROM WHAT I'M VIEWING IT, IT'S A 2 OVER 2. >> IT LOOKS FUNNY, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 2 OVER 2. I THINK THAT IS A TRANSCRIPTION PROBLEM ON THE BLUEPRINT.

>> I WOULD AGREE. IT'S NOT REFLECTING AS WELL AS IT COULD BE.

EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THAT ON MY SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY'RE STARTING TO BE INDICATED. BUT IT'S NOT AS CLEAR UNLESS YOU ZOOM IN.

>> THEN ON THE FRENCH DOORS, BEHIND THE LITTLE PORCH THERE, THOSE ARE HORIZONTAL?

>> YES, SIR. >> THEY JUMP OUT AT ME AS BEING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF FAMILY WITH

THE REST. >> DO WE HAVE PICTURES OF THE DOORS IN THE MATERIALS AS PROVIDED? IT MIGHT BE A MORE ILLUMINATING TO SEE AN ACTUAL DOOR RATHER

THAN THE DRAWING THEREOF. >> I CAN TRY TO LOCATE THAT FOR YOU.

>> LET US DO THAT, DIRECTOR. I THINK YOU'VE GOT PLENTY TO WORK ON THERE.

ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO THE DESIGN TEAM?

>> I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> MR. POZZETTA. >> I SEEM TO RECALL DISCUSSION ABOUT IF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE AMELIA STREET, HOW WOULD IT ADDRESS AMELIA STREET. I CAN'T RECALL WHAT WE SAID OR YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT BE APPROPRIATE TO REQUEST HAVING A STAIR FROM THE PORCH DOWN THE GRADE TO AT LEAST SIGNIFY SOME KIND OF FRONTAGE OR ABILITY TO ENTER THE HOUSE OR PROPERTY FROM THAT VANTAGE.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE WE HAVE ACCESS? >> WE COULD LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY. THAT WOULD BE, TO SEE IF WE INCLUDED ANYTHING IN THERE.

I DIDN'T THINK TO GO THAT FAR BACK. JIM, I REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE RESOLUTION.

>> ME EITHER. >> THAT IS THE PROBLEM. 6 MONTHS.

WELL, YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE PANDEMIC IN THAT TIME. >> THE APPLICANTS MAY BE ABLE

TO SPEAK TO THAT TOO. >> LET'S DO THAT. LET'S GO TO THE DESIGN TEAM

>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR KELLY. >> PLEASE DO.

>> I COULD BE WRONG HERE, BUT I THOUGHT THAT, I THOUGHT THAT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK HERE IS FIVE FEET, I KNOW YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH IS THINGS LIKE EVES AND CHIMNEYS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. A MAXIMUM OF TWO FEET.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ISN'T AN EXCEPTION TO THAT FOR PORCHES AND GROOVES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THE FRONT PORCH APPEARS TO BE ENCROACHING INTO THE FRONT YARD

SETBACK, THE BALCONY. >> SO THE FRONT LAYOUT LINE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENT AT FIVE FEET. IT'S AT SIX FEET, AND A QUARTER INCHES HERE.

SO IT'S EXTENDED TO BE CONSISTENT. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE

ENCROACHMENT IS THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> WELL, I DON'T THINK PORCHES ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH IN TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, ARE THEY?

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND FLOOR BALCONY, BENJAMIN? >> YEAH.

>> YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THE DRAWING. >> BENJAMIN, WOULD IT BE OKAY

[00:35:01]

IF WE KICKED THAT QUESTION TO THE DESIGNERS? >> WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF KELLY WOULD VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH IN THE VERIFIED

FRONT YARD SETBACK. >> ENCROACHMENT ALLOWANCE PROVIDES FOR A FRONT ENTRY

STEPS. >> IF THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH OVERHANGS, YOU DON'T THINK THAT

IS APPROPRIATE? >> YES. >> VERY GOOD.

>> LET'S GET, UNLESS THERE IS OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET, IS LAUREN ON THE LINE?

>> YES. I'M HERE. >> GOOD.

>> IF WE COULD SEE LAUREN, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. HEY, GUYS, HOW ARE YOU?

LAUREN, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN? >> ARE YOU SWORN? >> NOT YET.

>> COULD WE SWEAR THEM IN, PLEASE. >> ALL RIGHT.

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

BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES, I DO.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU. >> I THINK YOU HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONS COMING UP. ONE WAS THE ORIENTATION OF THE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO AMELIA STREET. AND I CAN'T, I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T REMEMBER 6 MONTHS AGO.

IF YOU WERE IN FRONT OF US FOR THE VARIANCE OR IF SOMEBODY ELSE HANDLED THAT.

ALSO, THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT THE PORCH. YOU MIGHT WANT TO START WITH THOSE TWO QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE.

CAN YOU GUYS HELP US OUT? >> I'LL JUMP IN VERY QUICKLY. ON THIS POINT.

AND THAT IS QUITE HONESTLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS BOTH STREETS AS FRONTAGES BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH SO IMPORTANT. AND REALLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS, THE STEPS LEAD TO SOMERUELUS AS OPPOSED TO AMELIA. WE COULD HAVE A SET OF STEPS TO AMELIA. BUT QUITE HONESTLY, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE PORCH USABILITY IS SO MUCH BETTER TO PUT THE STAIRS ON AMELIA. BUT WE COULD SHIFT THEM IF WE

NEED TO. >> WE ARE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GO AND LOOK BACK AT THE MINUTES. WE WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE VARIANCE.

AS YOU MIGHT RECALL, THE VARIANCE WAS ACTUALLY, IT WAS LIKE A REISSUE OF THE VARIANCE THAT HAD BEEN ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AND THEN IT HAD EXPIRED. SO THIS WAS TO REAPPLY IN

FEBRUARY. >> THAT RINGS A BELL, LAUREN. WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR A WHILE. AND IT WAS THE UNUSUAL LOT CONFIGURATION THAT DROVE US TO THE VARIANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE. BOARD MEMBERS, QUESTIONS FOR

THE DESIGN TEAM? >> JUST THE PORCH SITUATION. >> I THINK WE WERE ACTUALLY THINKING THAT THIS HAD KIND OF THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE ON SOMERUELUS, WE DID WANT IT TO FEEL LIKE A FRONT ON AMELIA STREET AS WELL. THAT LINE OF THINKING, KIND OF LIKE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, WAS THERE WAS THE AVAILABILITY OF ENCROACHMENT ON AMELIA STREET WITH THE UPPER BALCONY. WE COULD SHORTEN THE BALCONY UP AND KIND OF MAKE IT LIKE A FRENCH BALCONETTE. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF USABLE SPACE ON IT ANYWAY.

>> WHEN I LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS, I THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH DOING LIKE AN 18 INCH JULIETTE BALCONY MAYBE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN, I THINK THERE IS A LIMITATION

ON ROOF OVERHANGS TO TWO FEET. >> WE CAN CHANGE THAT >> I HEAR YOUR MOTION DEVELOPING THERE. YOU MIGHT WANT TO START MAKING NOTES.

AND THEN I DON'T KNOW, MS. SILVI, IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 2020, MEETING, OR THE EARLIER ONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW RELEVANT THAT IS.

>> FIRST VARIANCE WAS FEBRUARY 2018. THAT WAS A CONDITION OF SALE.

JUST HAVE THE VARIANCE GRANTED. >> DO YOU HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF YOU, MS. KOSACK AND COULD

YOU TELL US WHAT THEY SAY? >> NO. >> YOU DO NOT.

>> KELLY IS LOOKING FOR THEM. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DESIGN TEAM WHILE THEY'RE HERE.

>> IT'S FINDING OLD MINUTES, IT'S HARD FOR SOME REASON. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE

[00:40:06]

ANYBODY ON THE PHONE? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.

MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. LET'S TAKE A SECOND. GOSH, I WISH I COULD REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT LENGTH.

>> I'LL THROW A FEW COMMENTS OUT THERE. GET THE BALL ROLLING.

I DO FEEL LIKE THE SECOND FLOOR BALCONETTE DOES BRING A LOT TO THE DETAILING AND THE LOOK OF THE HOUSE. THEY SHOULD DEFINITELY KEEP IT BUT BRING IT WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF THE SETBACKS ALLOWED ENCROACHMENTS FOR FEATURES LIKE THAT.

OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE JULIETTE BALCONY IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL FOR OPENING DOORS AND THINGS, IT WILL STILL GIVE US ALL THAT NICE DETAIL ON THE FRONT. I HAPPEN TO FEEL IF YOU WANT TO CALL THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AMELIA STREET, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WAY TO ENTER THE HOUSE FROM AMELIA STREET. A STAIR ON TO THE PORCH WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.

SO AT LEAST AS FAR AS BOARD DISCUSSION, I WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE INPUT FROM THE OTHER BOARD

MEMBERS IS, REGARDING THAT. >> BOARD MEMBERS, HOW DO YOU REACT TO WHAT JIM SAID?

>> PERHAPS I CAN OFFER A COMMENT HERE, TRADITIONALLY IN OLD TOWN, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS FRONT ON TO THE EAST WEST STREET. AND SO THE HOUSES ON SOMERUELUS STREET WOULD FRONT ON SOMERUELUS STREET. AMELIA WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY A SIDE STREET. WHAT WE DID HERE WAS TO TAKE THE (INAUDIBLE) COMBINE THEM TOGETHER INTO A LOT THAT IS RUNNING PERPENDICULAR TO THE WAY IT TRADITIONALLY GOES.

THAT GIVES US TWO ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE IN COMPARISON WITH THE REGULARLY ALIGNED PROPERTIES. AND ONE OF THEM IS WHETHER THE NEW CORRIDOR IS APPROPRIATE, RUNNING NORTH/SOUTH, WHEN ALL OF THE OTHERS RUN EAST/WEST AND THE OTHER ONE IS WHERE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS. I WOULD ARGUE THAT GIVEN THAT WE'VE GOT A RATHER STRANGE STRUCTURING OF LOFTS HERE, LESS DAMAGE IS DONE TO THE GRID IF THE HOUSE IN FACT FRONTS ON TO

SOMERUELUS. >> INTERESTING. I COULD SEE BOTH POINTS.

>> PRETTY SURE WE DISCUSSED EXACTLY THAT THE LAST TIME SOON.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT OUR DECISION WAS. >> I DID FIND THE MEETING MINUTES. THERE IS NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT IN THEM, AS YOU KNOW.

WE HAVE WIDDLED DOWN OUR MEETING MINUTES. PREVIOUS HISTORY PROVIDED ABOUT THE EXPIRED VARIANCE REQUEST. AND THE BOARD MADE THE CASE FOR GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS. AND THEY READ THIS WAY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR MAKES DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT DIFFICULT WITHOUT THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED AND THAT IT IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP, AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL MAKE THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

AND IT WAS APPROVED WITH THAT CONDITION OF THE VIEW CORRIDOR BEING TREATED AS A MID-LOT CORRIDOR. OTHERWISE I SIMPLY HAVE INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE WHO

SPOKE UP. >> GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE, AS I RECALL.

>> YES. >> 6 MONTHS AGO. OKAY.

SO DO WE SEE A PLACE WE CAN GET HERE WHERE EVERYBODY CAN BE HAPPY?

[00:45:01]

I COULD LIVE WITH EITHER. >> I THINK THE HOUSE IS A VERY GOOD LOOKING HOUSE.

AND I THINK IT CAN FRONT ON TO BOTH AMELIA AND SOMERUELUS >> COULD WE ACCOMMODATE THAT IN

THE MOTION? >> I GUESS I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE CONSENSUS ON THE BOARD IS.

I RECALL WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE VARIANCE THAT WE HAD MORE IN REGARDS, WHAT THE OTHER HOUSES ON AMELIA STREET FACED, AND WHAT THE CONDITION OF THEIR FACING WAS.

I THOUGHT WE MADE OUR DECISION BASED ON WHAT THE TYPICAL CONDITION IN OLD TOWN WAS AS FAR AS FACING AND FRONTAGE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO JUMP IN WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THAT.

AND MAKING SURE THAT WE, I THOUGHT WE HAD ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, JIM. I WANT TO SAY WE CAME DOWN WITH --

>> THERE ARE TWO HOMES ABUTT AMELIA STREET THAT IN FACT CAN BE SET TO FACE ON TO AMELIA STREET. ONE IS THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE MOMENT. JUST TO THE NORTH OF IT. AND THE OTHER ONE IS JULIE SANDERS HOUSE,. NONE OF THE OTHER HOMES ON AMELIA STREET FRONT TO IT.

>> MIKE, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE IDENTIFYING IS THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL BLOCK.

I WAS UP THERE LAST WEEK. IT WAS, IT'S UNLIKE ANY OTHER BLOCK UP THERE THAT I CAN THINK

OF. >> SO HOW ABOUT THIS, IF I'M RIGHT, THIS IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS CONSIDERED AMELIA STREET, WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF THE

PROPERTY? >> WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE. >> IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AT

THIS TIME BUT IT WOULD NEED TO BE ASSIGNED AS AMELIA STREET. >> OKAY.

SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, I THINK IT WOULD BE CONFUSING FOR GENERATIONS FORWARD IF THEY HAVE AN AMELIA STREET ADDRESS, CURB-CUT ON SOMERUELUS WITH THE DRIVEWAY, NOTHING POINTING TO AMELIA AS ANY INDICATION TO THE FRONTAGE. I AM OF THE INCLINATION OF ADDING THE STOOP AND OPENING. KEEP THE OTHER ONE. BUT ADDING ONE TO AMELIA STREET. THE PINK HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR HAS A SIMILAR CONFIGURATION.

MUCH SMALLER. I THINK IT WOULD BE PLEASING TO SEE EACH OTHER, ESPECIALLY IF WE GRANTED THE VARIANCE BASED ON AMELIA BEING THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

>> HOW MUCH KELLY, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO ENCROACH ON THE FRONT YARD WITH STAIRS, 3 FEET.

>> I THINK IT'S, I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK HERE. IT'S PRETTY LIMITED.

>> 42 INCHES. >> THEY PROBABLY HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO MAKE IT WORK.

>> ERIC IS SHAKING HIS HEAD YES. SO I TAKE THAT AS A YES.

DESIGN TEAM, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WHAT YOU'RE HEARING HERE?

>> JULIA BALCONY, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO SCREW UP YOUR PROGRAM TOO MUCH.

>> ABSOLUTELY WORKS FINE. NOT A PROBLEM. >> GREAT.

>> THE ENCROACHMENT READS THAT FRONT ENTRY STEPS MAY ENCROACH INTO A MINIMUM FRONT YARD UP TO

42 INCHES. >> YEAH, JACOB IS RIGHT AND KELLY'S GOT IT.

SO THANK YOU. PERHAPS SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS THAT THE JULIETTE BALCONY ON THE AMELIA STREET SIDE AND FRONT PORCH STEPS ON

AMELIA STREET SIDE IS TWO REQUIREMENTS. >> I WANT TO ASK EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE THERE IS CONSENSUS HERE. THESE ARE CHANGES THAT ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN WE MADE OTHER PEOPLE COME BACK TO SHOW US BEFORE WE WERE WILLING TO PROVE IT. DOES EVERYBODY FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING THIS WITHOUT SEEING

WHAT THESE ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE? >> I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THAT THE JULIETTE CHANGES ARE VERY MINIMAL. JUST STEPPING IT BACK TO ADDRESS WHATEVER THE GUIDELINES CALL FOR AS FAR AS ENCROACHMENT, HOW FAR IT'S ALLOWED. AND THEN THE STAIRS, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE FROM THE OTHER ELEVATIONS WHAT THE STAIRS LOOK LIKE. MY ASSUMPTION BEING THAT THEY

[00:50:01]

WOULD UTILIZE THE SAME STAIR TYPE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, JIM.

CHAIR SPINO, GOING BACK TO YOUR FIRST POINT ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE A GOOD TOPIC FOR STAFF APPROVALS IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF THE OWNERS CAME FORWARD DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SAID WE WANT TO DO THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT KELLY TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE. I THINK WE, FOR ME, IF YOU SAY HOW MUCH AUTHORITY ARE WE GOING TO GIVE OR WHAT SHOULD SHE BE CHANGING, ESSENTIALLY IT IS THE STYLE OF THE STRUCTURE IS BEING

MODIFIED. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I HAVE ONE TECHNICAL QUESTION, I GUESS. IN THE PAPERWORK IN THE APPLICATION, IT SAYS THAT THIS IS CASE HDC 2020-01. BUT IN OUR AGENDA, IT SAYS IT'S HDC 2020-0020.

I GUESS I'M CURIOUS WHICH ONE IS RIGHT. >> THE VARIANCE WAS 01.

THE DESIGN CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, 2020-0020. RIGHT, DIRECTOR.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> REALLY QUICKLY, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

>> PLEASE DO. >> I DID HAVE SOMEBODY WHO RECENTLY CAME ON AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE ZOOM SETTING AND THEY'RE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO THIS CASE.

MR. SIEGFRIED. >> OH, ALEX. >> THEY JUST HAVE JOINED THE MEETING. I KNOW THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY DONE THAT.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS OKAY TO ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK. >> WE'LL ALLOW IT BECAUSE WE ENCOURAGE AS MUCH PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE CAN GET IN THIS PROCESS, AND SINCE INTERESTED PARTIES CAN'T APPEAL IT, WE GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. ALEX, WHAT DO YOU GOT FOR US? IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU HAVE TO BE SWORN IN.

KELLY IS TRYING TO FIND YOU. >> HE SHOULD BE REJOINING RIGHT NOW.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. CAN WE SWEAR ALEX.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> I CAN. >> ALL RIGHT.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALEX, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD,

PLEASE? >> YES, SURE. HI.

ALEX SIEGFRIED. 908 LADY STREET. I JUST HAD A RECOLLECTION REGARDING THE VARIANCE HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE, THE SECOND ONE, NOT THE FIRST ONE.

THE ONE THAT YOU ALL WERE REFERRING TO. AND THE REASON I HAVE A RECOLLECTION ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE I LEARNED SOMETHING FROM YOU GUYS IN THAT MEETING.

AS YOU RECALL, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THE HOUSES WOULD HAVE FACED ORIGINALLY BASED ON THE WAY THE GRID WAS LAID OUT. WHAT I LEARNED IN THAT THE HOUSE WOULD HAVE LIKELY FACED AMELIA STREET. I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED ABOUT THAT. BUT IT WOULD HAVE FACED AMELIA STREET.

SO I BELIEVE WHAT, WE COULD GO LOOK AT THE VIDEO. BUT I BELIEVE WHAT WAS SAID AT THE TIME WAS IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR IT TO RECOGNIZE, OR IT SHOULD RECOGNIZE FACING AMELIA.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT ALSO FACING SOMERUELUS, BUT I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION WAS TO HONOR THE HISTORY, IT SHOULD HAVE YOU KNOW, SORT OF A FRONT FACE ON AMELIA.

>> WHERE YOU HEAR US GOING IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR PREVIOUS FINDING THEN.

>> I'M SORRY. I WAS TRYING TO GET THE ZOOM MEETING GOING SO I DIDN'T HEAR

EVERYTHING YOU GUYS WERE SAYING. >> WE'RE DOING WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING. CONSENSUS ON THE BOARD TO HAVE AMELIA STREET PRESENCE.

THANK YOU, ALEX, WE APPRECIATE YOU WEIGHING IN. IT'S GOOD TO REINFORCE WHAT WE THOUGHT WE KNEW. CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AGAIN. UNLESS THERE IS SOMEBODY ELSE HANGING OUT THERE. NO. OKAY. AND WHO HAD A MOTION?

[00:55:02]

>> I DID. >> THANK YOU, BENJAMIN. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0020, WITH THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS, ONE, THAT A SECONDARY EXTERIOR STAIRCASE MATCHING THE DESIGN AND DETAILING OF THE EXISTING ONE, FACING SOMERUELUS STREET FRONTAGE LEADING TO THE FRONT PORCH. TWO, THAT THE EXISTING JULIETTE BALCONY ON THE SECOND FLOOR, FACING AMELIA STREET BE CHANGED DIMENSIONALLY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR FRONT YARD SET BACK ENROACHMENT.

THREE, THAT THE PROPOSED ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE THE JULIETTE BALCONY BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT GO IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS IT RELATES TO PRIMARY SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. HDC CASE 2020-0020 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> MOVED, MORRISON. SECONDED HARRISON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> THE APPLICANT HAS RAISED THEIR HAND. >> MOSER.

ANY COMMENT THERE? >> ONE QUICK QUESTION, IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR US TO REMOVE THE STAIR FROM SOMERUELUS, JUST MOVE IT OVER AS OPPOSED TO ADDING IT?

>> IF YOU DO THAT, WHAT IF YOU MOVE THE FRONT DOOR TO THE WINDOW TO THE DINING ROOM?

>> THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. NOT FUNCTION VERY NICELY, BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY.

OR WE COULD KEEP BOTH. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND.

>> YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU START MOVING DOORS AR AROUND, YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL. I'M GUESSING, PUT WORDS IN THE DIRECTOR'S MOUTH, SHE'S GOING TO SAY YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO THE HDC. WE OUGHT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO SO THAT YOU DON'T GET HUNG UP AND HAVING TO COME BACK.

AM I STATING THAT CORRECTLY, DIRECTOR? >> YES.

>> WHY DON'T WE KEEP BOTH SETS OF STAIRS, FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, THEY CAN RELISH

THE AMBIGUITY THAT WE FACE NOW. >> YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, MIKE. THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED

ABOUT IN FEBRUARY. IS THAT RIGHT, JIM? >> MY MOTION STANDS, LET'S GO.

>> YOU'RE STUCK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD?

HEARING NONE, MS. MCCAN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER POZZETTA.

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

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

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

I JUST INTERJECT, COUNCIL, IT'S UNUSUAL FOR US TO DESIGN ON THE FLY LIKE THAT, BUT IN THIS CASE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SO THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE WERE IN THE BOOK. AND WE COULD HAVE FORCED THEM TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH OR PROBABLY TWO MONTHS, OR WE JUST DID IT RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THAT IS WHY, FOR THE RECORD, THAT IS WHY IT WAS OKAY.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE HOUSE COLOR, THOUGH. MOVING ON.

HDC -- KELLY, MOSER, THANK YOU. WELL DONE. MOVING ON.

[Items 4.1 & 4.2]

PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, I'M KIND OF INCLINED TO CALL THEM BOTH UP AT THE SAME TIME.

IS THAT OKAY? >> AS FAR AS THE DEMOLITION? >> OR MAYBE MAKE THE POINT THAT THIS IS HDC 2020-0022, HDC 2020-0021, IT'S A DEMO AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.

NOT CONCEPTUAL. BUT CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING

ABOUT RIGHT NOW. >> THAT'S FINE. >> I THOUGHT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT YOU HAVE TO GET A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BEFORE YOU CAN GET A DEMO APPROVAL.

>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND. JUST RECENTLY BECOME VERY

[01:00:02]

SO THAT YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS GOING BACK, WHEN STRUCTURE IS DEMOLISHED.

>> IS THAT SUFFICIENT FOR YOU, BENJAMIN? >> I GUESS SO.

I MEAN, YEAH. I MEAN, WE CAN TALK -- WE'LL GET INTO IT MORE.

BUT I MEAN, IF I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND I MIGHT NOT BE COMFORTABLE APPROVING THAT, THEN I HAVE A HESITANCY APPROVING THE

DEMOLITION PERMIT. >> I THINK THAT IS WHY I WAS TALKING ABOUT BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO MAKE YOUR DECISION UPON. SO YEAH. YOU JUST REINFORCED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA. WHICH IS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THIS BEFORE WE

VOTE ON THE DEMO. HOW IS THAT? >> THAT IS FINE, CHAIR SPINO.

BUT LET ME ADD, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON WHAT IS

PLANNED TO BE REBUILT. >> THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE SOMETHING MOVING

FORWARD SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH A BUNCH OF VACANT LOTS. >> YEAH.

BUT I'M NOT SURE AS A BOARD MEMBER, THAT IF I OBJECT TO WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED TO BE BUILT, BUT OTHERWISE I APPROVE THE DEMOLITION, I AM NOT SURE THAT I WOULD CARRY ANY WEIGHT.

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> YES. >> MIKE, WE'LL CATCH UP WITH YOUR LOGIC THERE. I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT LET'S DO THIS, LET'S HEAR THE STAFF REPORT ON BOTH PARTS AND THEN MOVE INTO THE REST OF

(INAUDIBLE) >> I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. BUT I JUST WANT TO THROW DOWN THE YELLOW FLAG THAT I THINK TIEING THE TWO TOGETHER IS SOMETHING THAT WE (INAUDIBLE)

LET'S MOVE ON. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I WILL GET INTO THE DEMOLITION PART OF THIS REQUEST.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 511 SOUTH, EXCUSE ME, 511 ASH STREET. AND THE DEMOLITION WOULD BE THAT OF ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, C3 ZONED PROPERTY. FORMERLY THE NEWS LEADER BUILDING. ACCORDING TO OUR RECORDS, THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1949. THE MASTER SITE LISTS THE BUILDING AS AN AVERAGE EXAMPLE OF A COMMON RESOURCE TYPE AND IS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.

THE CITY IS CURRENTLY PROCESSING A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WHICH WILL SUBDIVIDE INTO A SEPARATE PARCEL. FOLLOWING THE DEMOLITION REQUEST, OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE.

I'VE GOT PICTURES HERE AND PRESENTATION. HIGHLY RECOGNIZABLE, VERY VISIBLE BUILDING, WITH A VERY LARGE, I BELIEVE 72-INCH DIAMETER LIVE OAK TREE AT THE CORNER OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. AS PART OF THE NEXT PRESENTATION, I HAVE AN APPLICANT PROVIDED A TREE PROTECTION PLAN.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO SPEAK. ADDITIONALLY WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PLANNING TO DO WITH A HIRED THIRD PARTY ARBORIST. THIS IS A SURVEY SHOWING THE BUILDING. YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.

AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANTS ARE SEPARATING THIS WESTERN DOG LIKE PIECE HERE.

PROPOSING TO BUILD THE RESIDENCE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 7 AND THE LOT 8 LEAVING LOT 999 UN ENCUMBERED. I'LL SUBMIT MY STAFF REPORT WHICH HAS THE ANALYSIS FOR DEMOLITION CRITERIA AND ULTIMATELY GET INTO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVE OF HDC 2020-0022, AND REQUEST THAT THE

[01:05:04]

>> JUST KEEP GOING. >> OKAY. >> JAKE, COULD I ASK YOU TO

MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION FULL SCREEN. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> THANK YOU. >> A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR JAKE.

>> GO AHEAD. >> FIRST, WHY DO YOU NOT -- WHY DO YOU WANT TO WAIVE THE

DEMOLITION DELAY. >> I DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS A NECESSARY COMPONENT HERE.

ONE-STORY BLOCK BUILDING. THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK IF THERE IS ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO ANY MATERIALS OR ANYTHING THAT IS WORTH EXPLORING MORE.

CERTAINLY TOTALLY UP TO YOU GUYS. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY

BASED ON THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT IT'S YOUR SUBJECTIVE VIEW, JAKE. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD BE MODIFYING A DELAY BASED ON THAT. THAT IS MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE ZONING HERE? >> C-3 CENTRAL BUSINESS

DISTRICT. >> FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK. >> THE ENTIRE NEWS LEADER

PARCEL AS IT EXISTS TODAY IS CENTRAL BUSINESS LAND USE. >> THANK YOU, JAKE.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. PLATT, C-3, WHAT CAN I BUILD ON THIS?

>> MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS FOR A RANGE OF USES, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND BOTH COMBINED IN MIXED USE STRUCTURES. THE DENSITY IS ALLOWABLE UP TO 34 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF USES THERE.

>> I THOUGHT THE CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT THAT WE LOOKED AT LAST YEAR, ON NORTH 2ND STREET, WHERE THAT EXISTING, NON-CONTRIBUTING HOUSE WAS GIVEN THE DEMO PERMIT WITHOUT IT GOING IN FRONT OF US, I THOUGHT THAT WE, YOU ALL CAN CORRECT ME IF THIS IS WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WE AS A BOARD DIDN'T APPROVE THE DEMO PERMIT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T OKAY

WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED. >> I THINK YOU HAVE THE LATITUDE TO DISALLOW THE DEMO BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PROVIDED.

THE CODE REQUIRES THAT AT A MINIMUM YOU RECEIVE A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING, IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE DEMOLITION REQUEST. IT IS WITHIN YOUR LATITUDE TO

MAKE THAT DECISION. >> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THAT IS FAIR.

>> VERY HELPFUL. MR. PLATT, CONTINUE. >> SO THIS PART OF THE COA IS FOR APPROVAL OF A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE.

THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS LOCATED ON THE REAR PORTION OF LOT 8.

AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROPOSED SITING THE RESIDENCE ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PARCEL BECAUSE OF THE 72-INCH OAK TREE ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, TO ALLOW FOR GARDEN SPACE AROUND THAT TREE. HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LOT, ENTERING INTO A TWO CAR STACK GARAGE.

WITH TWO KIND OF SEPARATE FRONT PORCHES ON THE STRUCTURE. THERE IS NO SIDING ISSUES RELATED TO MINIMUM SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACKS. THIS IS THE TREE PROTECTION

[01:10:01]

SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S GOT AN ATTACHED GARAGE, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL AND I'LL SPEAK TO MORE OF THAT IN THE ANALYSIS. THIS IS THE REAR, NORTH ELEVATION. THIS WOULD BE YOUR EAST ELEVATION ON SOUTH 6TH STREET.

YOUR WEST ELEVATION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ABUTTED BY THE OLD FERNANDINA, I FORGET THE NEW STORE MOVED IN THERE. BUT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FLANKING THIS ELEVATION.

NICE PERSPECTIVES HERE THAT GIVE US A DIFFERENT VIEW. I'LL GO AROUND THE BUILDING.

THIS WOULD BE FROM THE CORNER OF SOUTH 6TH AND ASH STREET. SO AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS, MOST HOMES WITHIN THE DISTRICT ARE LOCATED CLOSER IN PROXIMITY TO THE STREET, AS WE ALL KNOW.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE EXAMPLES WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF STRUCTURES SET BACK TOWARDS THE MIDDLE AND REAR OF THE PROPERTY. DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES DO NOT STRICTLY PROHIBIT ATTACHED GARAGE. ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL DESIGN COMPONENT. GARAGE WILL BE MASKED BY THE WESTERN WING OF THE HOUSE, AND THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. AND ULTIMATELY, PROBABLY EVENTUALLY MASKED BY A NEW STRUCTURE AT THE CORNER OF ASH. THE HOME IS KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER AND NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. UTILIZE MODERN MATERIALS. A COUPLE ITEMS NOTED, THE APPLICATION INDICATES ANDERSON WINDOWS AND DOORS. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS INDICATE PGT. HVAC SYSTEM WILL NEED TO BE SCREENED FROM THE SOUTH 6TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. SHOWCASED CONCRETE AS THE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDED A MORE PERVIOUS PAVER. STAFF FOUND THAT HDC 2020-0021, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HDC-0021 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, CLARIFICATIONS ON THE WINDOW AND DOOR MANUFACTURER, AS WELL AS THE MECHANICAL SCREENING BE PROVIDED.

>> WHAT ABOUT PAVERS? >> IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED. RECOMMENDS USING PAVERS, THE GUIDELINES DO ALLOW FOR CONCRETE. BUT WE DO PREFER TO SEE

SOMETHING DIFFERENT THERE. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? >> YES.

>> IF MY READING OF THE SITE PLAN IS CORRECT, THE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT THE BACK

OF THE LOT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT IS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THIS DESIGN AND SOMETHING THAT I ANTICIPATE THERE BEING LOTS OF DISCUSSION ON. , THE APPLICANT AND AGENT CAN SPEAK SPECIFICALLY BUT IN GENERAL, THE LARGE 72-INCH OAK TREE WAS THE MAIN DESIGN FACTOR THAT PUSHED THE STRUCTURE TO

THE REAR OF THE LOT. >> I MISSED THAT REASON, JAKE. CAN YOU REPEAT IT.

>> YES, SIR. THE LARGE 72-INCH OAK TREE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS THE MAIN DESIGN FACTOR THAT SHIFTED THE HOUSE MORE TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT AND TO ALLOW FOR GARDEN SPACE UNDERNEATH AND AROUND AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT

HOUSE. >> BUT WHAT IS THE NOTE IN YOUR REPORT ABOUT A POSSIBLE FUTURE

HOUSE AT ASH AND SOUTH? >> ON THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE HERE, IT'S REALLY SMALL.

THERE IS A NOTE THAT THERE IS LOT 9, AND YOU WILL SEE THE DASHED LINE JUST TO THE EAST OF

[01:15:02]

SO THE DESIGN INTENTIONALLY DOES NOT CROSS THAT LINE. SO THAT UNDERLYING LOT COULD BE RESTORED. IT'S WHERE THE ASPHALT PARKING LOT IS CURRENTLY.

BUT THAT 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT COULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE.

>> DOES THIS PROPOSAL HONOR THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THAT LOT LINE?

>> YEAH. >> THERE ARE NONE FOR THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT YOUR NOTE TALKS ABOUT A

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON ASH AND SOUTH? >> JUST THE POTENTIAL THAT THAT LOT IS BEING SPLIT. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE INTENT IS TO SELL THAT PROPERTY AND IT MAY BE UNDER CONTRACT NOW. SO THE WESTERN 50 BY 75 FOOT PIECE CERTAINLY ALSO HAS THE SAME POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AS THE WESTERN LOT AS FAR AS

THOSE ALLOWABLE RANGE OF USES. >> JACOB, COULD I JUST ARTICULATE.

IS THAT A 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT AT THE CORNER OF 6TH AND ASH? >> 50 BY 100 FOOT.

>> 5TH AND ASH IS A LOT THAT RUNS THE OTHER WAY. IT RUNS TO THE WESTERN

ORIENTATION AND IT'S 50 BY 75? >> YES, SIR. >> 75 BEING ON THE ASH STREET

SIDE? >> CORRECT. >> CAN WE SEE THAT ON A SITE

PLAN? >> YEAH. >> THERE YOU GO.

THERE YOU GO. DOES THAT HELP? >> OKAY.

>> I WALKED IT LAST NIGHT. IT'S WEIRD, THAT LOT GOING EAST AND WEST THERE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE IT GOT PEELED OFF THE OTHER PARCEL. >> JACOB, ON THE LOT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND ALSO THE FUTURE SUBDIVIDED ON THE 6TH STREET SIDE, WHAT ARE THE ADDRESSES?

>> 511 ASH. >> 511 ASH. TO BE DETERMINED.

I WOULD ANTICIPATE THERE BEING AN ASH STREET ADDRESS OFF THE EASTERN MOST PARCELS.

>> 5TH STREET ADDRESS FOR THE WESTERN SIDE. JUST GUESSING.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? >> GO AHEAD. >> CAN SOMEBODY SKETCH IN WHERE

THIS NEW BUILDING WOULD GO? I'M GETTING CONFUSED. >> I THINK YOU CAN ASSUME THAT

THAT ENTIRE BLOCK GETS BUILT LOT LINE TO LOT LINE. >> THERE IS YOUR DRAWING.

AND THEN IF YOU -- >> CAN YOU SUPER IMPOSE THAT? CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS

-- >> SIDE BY SIDE. >> ONE BEFORE THAT.

OKAY. WHEN I SAY BEFORE, THAT ONE THERE.

>> WHAT IT DOESN'T DO HERE, NONE OF THIS DOES JUSTICE TO THE SCALE OF THIS TREE.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT BOTH OF THEM SIDE BY SIDE. >> BIG BOY.

>> YEAH. >> DOING A GOOD JOB, JAKE. >> I'M TRYING.

>> THE ONE IN THE UPPER RIGHT. YOU'RE PULLING IT IN THERE. >> WITH THE ZOOM TILES THERE, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO FIT THIS IN, WHERE IT GIVES YOU ANY KIND OF --

>> YEAH. >> IF I LOOK AT THE ONE ON THE, JUST TOWARDS THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN, JACOB, AND I LOOK WHERE YOUR CURSOR WAS, THAT IS AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT.

IT'S NOT A RECTANGLE. IT'S GOT A CHUNK OUT OF IT. >> THE HEAVIER WEIGHTED LINE IS THE ACTUAL EXISTING BUILDING. SO THE CHUNK HERE, THAT IS JUST WHERE THERE IS A COVERED ENTRY, A COVERED AREA. THIS HEAVIER WEIGHTED LINE, THAT IS THE BUILDING.

>> OKAY. >> I CAN SEE THE CONFUSION. THAT LOT JACOB, DO WE KNOW, IS

THAT 50 BY 100? >> 75 BY 100. WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THE

RESIDENCE >> GOTCHA. AND THAT LEADS TO THE 6TH STREET SIDE. LEAVING THE STANDARD BUILDING LOT.

[01:20:03]

AND UNUSUAL LOT ON THE WEST. >> TAMMI, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION.

>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION, JAKE. THE CITY IS CURRENTLY PROCESSING A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, IS THAT FOR SUBDIVIDING IT INTO THE THREE LOTS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT

THIS POINT? >> THAT WOULD JUST BE SEVERING THE WESTERN PIECE THAT FRONTS

5TH AND ASH STREET. >> SO THE LITTLE 50 BY 75 >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YOU GOT IT, TAMMI. >> OKAY. SO THEY'RE PEELING THAT OFF AND THEN THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING TO

SUBDIVIDE THE PARKING LOT SIDE YET? >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

THAT COULD JUST BE RESTORED THROUGH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, SINCE IT'S AN UNDERLYING LOT OF

RECORD. BUT NOT AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY.

>> TRADITIONALLY, WHICH STREETS WOULD HOUSES FRONT ON TO, DOWNTOWN, WOULD IT BE THE

NUMBERED STREETS? >> IT COULD GO EITHER WAY. IT LITERALLY GOES EITHER WAY.

AND IT CAN BE QUITE CONFUSING. >> SOME OF THEM GO ONE WAY AND SOME OF THEM GO OTHER WAYS.

>> IF YOU GO EAST ON ASH, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A BUNCH OF HOMES THAT FACE ON ASH.

BUT THEN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THERE, THERE IS ON THE CORNER OF, ON THE SOUTHWEST, ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS 75 FOOT LOT IS A HOME THAT

FACES ON THE 5TH STREET SIDE. IT'S A MIX. >> THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES ON THAT SIDE, VAST MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES ON THAT SIDE OF ASH STREET FACE NUMBERED STREETS AT THE END, NOT ASH STREET. BUT THERE IS A FEW EXCEPTIONS.

>> THE LOTS RUN THE OTHER WAY. >> YEAH. >> SOME OF THEM DO.

SOME OF THEM DON'T. >> IT'S A WEIRD MIX. >> THIS APPEARS TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THE WHOLE OF THIS HALF BLOCK COULD BE CONFIGURED THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CONFIGURED. BUT IT'S ALL GOING TO BE SET IN CONCRETE LITERALLY, WHEN THE

HOUSE GOES IN. >> CAN I INTERJECT? I DID NOT REALIZE THAT I HAD EX PARTE AND NOW THAT I'M LOOKING AT, I REALIZE -- NO I DIDN'T. THIS WAS NOT AN APPLICANT.

THIS IS A PARTY THAT IS GOING TO BUILD WITH THE INTENT TO BUILD ON THAT AREA THAT HAS NOT

YET BEEN SUBDIVIDED. >> GOOD TO DISCLOSE. IT'S FINE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. KATES, DO YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS? >> KATES, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WE CAN'T HEAR HER. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >> I'M LIKE HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES AND THEY'RE HAVING A BIG PARTY NEXT DOOR SO IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU GUYS.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE PLAN. SO THE GARAGE IS THAT THIN TWO-CAR GARAGE THAT IS ATTACHED

TO THE HOUSE, CORRECT? >> YEAH. >> OKAY.

I JUST THINK THAT LOOKS KIND OF OUT OF CHARACTER FOR ME PERSONALLY.

>> JIM, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I THINK JAKE HAS ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION MAINLY. THE TWO LOTS, I WOULD SAY THE EASTERN TWO LOTS.

I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK JOHN DODD IF HE WOULD LIKE TO COME ON UP AND TALK TO US. JOHN THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND WELCOME.

[01:25:02]

>> JOHN DODD, 2775 RACHEL AVENUE. I THINK THE DRAWING CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN MOST OF THE DESIGN ASPECTS. I THINK WE HAVE OWNERS READY TO

CONTRIBUTE AS WELL WITH COMMENTS. >> MR. KEMP, OKAY.

>> CAN YOU SPEAK UP? I CAN'T HEAR. >> SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT, TOM.

>> SORRY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE OWNERS READY TO CONTRIBUTE AS WELL.

AND I STAND AT THE READY TO FIELD ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

QUESTIONS FOR -- NO. LET'S STOP. MR. KEMP, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO GET SWORN SO THAT WHEN WE GET ROLLING HERE, WE DON'T HAVE TO INTERRUPT.

IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? YES. SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND THEN MS. MCCAN IS GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN. UNMUTE HIM.

>> TODD KEMP, 14 HILTON HAVEN ROAD. >> THANK YOU.

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

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MR. BOYER HERE? >> YEAH. >> THE OWNERS ARE VERY

EXPERIENCED. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. DODD, MR. BOYER AND MR. KEMP.

THIS WILL BE THE TIME TO DO IT. >> MR. BOYER IS ASKING IF HE NEEDS TO BE SWORN.

>> OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> MR. BOYER, IF YOU COULD

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> IT'S GOING TO CREATE AN ECHO. YOU NEED TO PICK ONE FOR AUDIO

PURPOSES. >> SORRY. >> CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR ADDRESS,

MR. BOYER? >> YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> CAN YOU REPEAT >> 14 HILTON HAVEN ROAD, KEY

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

TRUTH? >> YES. >> I HAVE VERY FEW CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THE ACTUAL DESIGN, BUT I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS TO REGARDS WITH THE WAY THAT IT'S SITED ON THE PROPERTY. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I THINK WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS IN OUR BOARD DISCUSSIONS, BUT MY QUESTION FOR THE DESIGN TEAM AND OWNERSHIP IS JUST THE ONLY RATIONALE BEHIND WHY THE HOUSE WAS PUSHED AS FAR BACK FROM THE LOT AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE

IMPACTS IT WILL HAVE ON THAT OAK TREE? >> YOU'RE ON MUTE.

HOLD ON A SECOND. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. I THINK THE MAIN GOAL WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE WAS TO HAVE THE HOUSE TO HAVE SOME PRESENCE, THERE IS THE HOUSE IN CENTER STREET, THE HOYT HOUSE, A LOT OF THESE OLD GRANDER HOUSES KIND OF SIT IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

AND HAVE THE NICE GARDENS IN FRONT. THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT OUR GOAL WAS, TO HAVE SOME NICE GROUNDS. THE LOT WENT WAY OVER ON THE LEFT ON 6TH STREET.

WE WERE PLANNING ON USING AS A YARD AT THE TIME. WE WOULD LIKE THAT OPTION DOWN THE ROAD. SINCE WE ARE GOING TO BE LIVING IN THE HOUSE, WE REALLY DON'T WANT A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR SOMETHING BUILT NEXT TO US. WHEN WE DID OUR FIRST ROUND WITH THE DESIGN, WE HAD THE GARAGE IN FRONT UP CLOSER TO THE STREET.

[01:30:04]

WE WERE TOLD NO, THERE WASN'T. WE DESIGNED IT WITH A TWO-CAR GARAGE CLOSER TO THE STREET.

JACOB THEN TOLD US THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO FLY. SO WE HAD TO MOVE THE GARAGE TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. I GUESS WITH YOUR GUIDELINES, WE COULD PUSH THE HOUSE FURTHER FORWARD AND WE COULD PUT A GARAGE IN THE BACK, BUT THEN WE LOSE THE WHOLE BACK OF THE PROPERTY FOR A TURN-AROUND FOR GARAGES AND ALL OF THAT. AND WE DID NOT WANT THAT.

WE WANTED THE HOUSE PUSHED BACK, SINCE IT IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED WITH ZERO SETBACKS, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD LIKE THE HOUSE PUSHED BACK. HAVE A NICE BIG YARD.

BIG SIDE LOT AND WE ENDED UP WITH A GARAGE WE AREN'T HAPPY WITH.

BUT WE DEFINITELY WANTED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE ONLY WAY WE COULD MAKE IT WORK. WAS TO DO THE TANDEM PARKING. LIKE I SAID, WE DID HAVE A TWO-CAR UP FRONT, BUT THE GUIDELINES SAY THE GARAGE HAS TO BE IN THE BACK OF THE

PROPERTY. >> MR. KEMP, JUST FOR CLARITY, THE 75 FOOT BY 100 FOOT LOT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AT THIS

TIME? >> IT'S A 50-FOOT. YES.

THE 50-FOOT ALONG 5TH STREET >> IT'S NOT 50-FOOT. IT'S 100 FEET.

50 FEET ON THE ASH STREET SIDE. IS IT YOUR PLAN RIGHT NOW NOT TO DEVELOP THAT?

>> CORRECT. WE ARE NOT DEVELOPING IT. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF ACTUALLY WALKING BY THIS EVERY DAY. WE KNOW THE TREE.

WE KNOW THE BUILDING, WE KNOW THE LOTS. ALL RIGHT.

I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT FOR CLARITY. >> PLEASE, GO AHEAD, BENJAMIN.

PLEASE. >> I NOTICED THAT IN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT THE ALUMINUM IS PROPOSED TO BE FOUR FOOT HIGH, IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU WANTED IT TO BE FOUR FEET

INSTEAD OF 3 FEET THAT WOULD BE MORE TYPICAL? >> WELL, WE HAVE TWO SMALL DOGS, NUMBER ONE. AND BEING THAT EXPOSED ON THAT LARGE CORNER, WE KIND OF WANTED AS MUCH PRIVACY AS POSSIBLE. BUT THE THREE FOOT FENCE I FEEL IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

MY MOTHER IS GOING TO BE LIVING IN THE HOUSE AS A RETIREMENT HOME.

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE LEFT KIND OF WING THERE. AND WE WANT A LITTLE SAFETY CONCERN. THREE FOOT FENCE I THINK WOULD BE EASY TO STEP OVER.

FOUR FOOT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BARRIER. >> ONE FINAL QUESTION THAT I HAD, I DON'T KNOW, JOHN, MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER IN THE SURVEY WORK THAT WAS DONE OR THE TREE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE, IF ANYBODY IDENTIFIED WHAT THE ACTUAL SORT OF EXTENT DIMENSIONALLY OF THAT OAK TREE CANOPY IS?

>> GOOD QUESTION. >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING PERFORMED.

>> IT'S BIG. >> HUH? >> IT'S BIG.

>> DO WE HAVE A PICTURE? WE PROBABLY DO HAVE A PICTURE FROM THE DEMO PERMIT OF THE

FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT MIGHT GIVE US SOME IDEA. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> WHEN I WALKED BY, I THOUGHT IT SEEMED REASONABLE TO THINK THE CANOPY HAD LIKE A 50-FOOT DIAMETER, GIVE OR TAKE OR SOMETHING. DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE TO

YOU ALL? >> IT SURE DOES TO ME, BENJAMIN.

BASED UPON WHEN I WAS BY THERE EARLIER TODAY. >> I WAS THINKING 40, 50 FEET.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> YEAH. IT'S A BIG BOY.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BOYER, KEMP, DODD. TAMMI.

>> SO IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT BOTH THE PACKET AND YOU KNOW, THE ZOOM SCREEN AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT WHEN I FLIPPED THROUGH, ARE THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE JUST SORT OF THE YOU KNOW, I SEE AN WE HAVE SORT OF THE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.

ALMOST LIKE A SKETCH-UP LOOKING THING. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING MORE DETAILED OR IS THIS THE EXTENT OF PLANS THAT WE'RE GOING FOR, THIS IS NOT A CONCEPTUAL, IS

THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IS THIS THE EXTENT OF ALL OF

THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE? >> THERE IS AN ELEVATION SHEET WITH A COMPLETE LIST OF MATERIALS AND SPECIFICATION, ALL OF THE SIZES ARE CALLED OUT, ALL OF THE MATERIALS ARE CALLED OUT. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS RELEVANT PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, I COULD ANSWER IT IF IT DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE DRAWINGS.

[01:35:02]

>> SO THE ELEVATION SHEET THAT HAS THE COLORED UP ELEVATION, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING

TO? >> YES. >> SO THINGS LIKE YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR QUESTIONS IS OFTEN I DON'T SEE ANY RELIEF OR ANY DIMENSIONS ON HEAD CASINGS OR WINDOW TRIMS OR SILLS, THERE IS A CALL UP FOR HARDY BOARD. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY DETAILS.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED AS A SIMPLE RECTANGULAR FOUR-INCH SURROUND FOR DOORS AND WINDOWS.

TODD, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THAT AT LENGTH AT ALL. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PLANS FOR MORE DEVELOPED CASING ON THE EXTERIOR OPENINGS? IF SO, MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DEVELOP AND SUBMIT. IF WE GET THROUGH THIS CLEAN

ADMINISTRATIVELY. >> ANOTHER QUESTION WOULD BE ON THE FRONT PORCH.

THERE IS NO PICKETS OR RAILINGS ON THAT. IT LOOKS TO BE THAT THAT IS

OVER CODE HEIGHT, TO REQUIRE PICKETS AND RAILINGS. >> WE'RE LESS THAN 30 INCHES

AND THE RAILINGS AREN'T REQUIRED BY CODE. >> KATES.

JUST A SECOND, BENJAMIN. I'VE GOT TO TOUCH BASE WITH KATES HERE.

KATES, ARE YOU THERE AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US FOR THE OWNERS AND DESIGNER?

>> I DON'T SEE HER ON THE CALL ANY LONGER. >> DARN.

UNFORTUNATE. >> IF SHE REJOINS, I'LL MAKE SURE SHE GETS IT.

IT'S MR. POZZETTA'S TURN. >> ONE COMMENT I HAVE IS WE CONSISTENTLY HAVE BEEN ASKING APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE US WITH SOME CONTEXT. AND IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE SITE PLAN CONTEXT SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT BUILDINGS ARE ADJACENT IMMEDIATELY BEHIND OR TO THE SIDE OF IT. WE'VE ALSO BEEN ASKING FOR VERTICAL ADJACENCIES, SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE MASSING OF THIS HOUSE GOING TO LOOK LIKE TO THE BUILDINGS ON EITHER SIDE OR IMMEDIATELY BEHIND IT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT KIND OF INFORMATION TO WORK FROM AT THIS POINT.

WE HAVE BEEN ASKING PEOPLE FREQUENTLY FOR THAT KIND OF STUFF.

BECAUSE IT DOES HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW IS THIS PLACE GOING TO SIT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY. I ALSO WANTED TO KIND OF ASK OR POINT OUT MY WHOLE REASON FOR ASKING ABOUT LOT NUMBER 9, THE EASTERN LOT, IS I CAN SEE THAT THERE IS WINDOWS IN THE KITCHEN FACING THAT LOT AND IF YOU RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE OVER A FOOT SET BACK FROM THAT LINE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE CODE-WISE, FIRE CODE-WISE, IF YOU WERE TO SELL THAT LOT 9, WOULD YOU BE ALLOWED TO HAVE WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE IF IT WAS ONLY A FOOT AND A HALF OFF OF ANOTHER BUILDING THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE BUILT THERE? AND THE SAME KIND OF COMMENT FOR THE GARAGE DOOR, THE GARAGE DOOR OPENING IS GOING TO BE MAYBE ABOUT A FOOT OFF OF THAT PROPERTY LINE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT FIRE CODE-WISE THE FACT THAT THAT DOOR OPENS AND CLOSES. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU RATE THAT POTENTIALLY THAT ENTIRE ASSEMBLY THERE NEEDS TO BE RATED.

BUT YOU KNOW, WHERE THESE ELEMENTS COME INTO PLAY AT SOME POINT AND CHANGE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED OR LOOKED AT.

>> IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE BILLING DEPARTMENT. IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BUILD ADJACENT, THERE IS A SIX FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS REQUIRED FLAT-OUT.

AT THE TIME IF KEMP DECIDED TO DEVELOP THE LOT TO THE EAST, IT WOULD BE BUILT INTO THE SALES.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PLANS TO THE WEST, I HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON THAT SUBJECT WITH THEM AT ALL.

BUT THE EAST SIDE IS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED AND UNDERSTOOD WITH BUILDING OFFICIALS.

[01:40:26]

(INAUDIBLE) >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTEXTUAL DRAWINGS.

>> JIM, YOU'VE GOT TO PUT SOMETHING NEXT TO SOMETHING. YOU CAN'T JUST ONE LINE IT IN.

EITHER A OR B. NO IN BETWEEN. >> WONDERING IF WE COULD GET A

PICTURE OF THE OLD ART GALLERY THERE IN THE DEMO. >> AT LEAST IN THIS CASE, I WOULD JUST SAY WE'VE GOT A CLEAN PICTURE THAT I SUBMITTED SHOWING THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR

THAT VERY CLEANLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IS THERE? >> EXCUSE ME IN THE BACKYARD.

>> I WASN'T ASKING FOR A 3D MODEL OF THE WHOLE BLOCK. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE I

WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT THAT. >> AERIAL VIEW TAKEN FROM GOOGLE MAPS WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO SHOW US WHAT THE RELATION OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS ARE.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GENTLEMEN, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AND I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY, GIVE TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, ADDRESS

AND NAME FOR THE RECORD. YOU WERE SWORN IN EARLIER. >> GREAT.

THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS MICHAEL ANDRE. MY ADDRESS IS 2797 JOHN LAFEIT DRIVE. MY CONCERN IS MY WIFE AND I AND OUR COMPANY OWN THE BUILDING AT 26 SOUTH 5TH STREET. THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE KIND OF WRITTEN OFF.

MR. PLATT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP. >> I WOULDN'T SAY WE WROTE IT

OFF, SIR. >> I THINK YOU DID. >> I'M POLITELY DISAGREEING

WITH YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY SETBACKS TO OUR BUILDING?

>> THERE ARE NO SETBACKS FOR THOSE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT. >> THAT IS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO SET BACK FROM OUR BUILDING? THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD RIGHT UP AGAINST IT. I HAVE NO PLAN DRAWINGS TO LOOK AT. THAT IS WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE.

THERE ARE NO PLAN DRAWINGS SHOWING HOW THIS BUILDING, THIS HOUSE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS AROUND IT. AND THERE ARE BUILDINGS AROUND IT. IT'S NOT JUST ON ASH

STREET. >> OUR BUILDING AT 26 SOUTH 5TH.

IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO ALL OF THIS. >> RIGHT. >> ARE YOU C-3 AS WELL?

>> I SUPPOSE, YEAH. >> YES. >> IT USED TO BE FERNANDINA'S AND NOW IT'S A DRESS SHOP AND MY WIFE WAS PART OF FERNANDINA'S.

BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED BY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AFTER THEY DO THIS BUILDING.

AND ALSO, I'M SORRY THAT I NEVER KNEW THIS WAS, I KNEW THAT WHOLE AREA WAS FOR SALE.

BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE BREAKING OFF THE PARKING LOT RIGHT NEXT TO OUR BUILDING.

OR I WOULD HAVE TRIED MY BEST TO GET IT. BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN US A BUFFER OF SOME KIND AND PARKING SPACE. THE WEST SIDE OF THAT WHOLE PARKING AREA. THAT WHOLE LOT. BUT WHATEVER.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW CLOSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE TO OUR BUILDING AND HOW IF THERE IS A FIRE SOMEWHERE, THAT THE FIRE TRUCKS AND FIRE PEOPLE GET BACK THERE TO PUT IT OUT.

BECAUSE THEY'RE BASICALLY BLOCKING OUR BACKDOOR. THE BACKDOOR OF OUR BUILDING IS UNUSABLE. WE HAVE AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS BACK THERE THAT ARE ON OUR PROPERTY. BUT YOU KNOW, HOW IS THIS ALL GOING TO AFFECT US?

>> YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ZERO LOT LINE, THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT

HAPPEN EVERY TIME ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE DONE. >> I'M SURE IT DOES.

[01:45:03]

>> GENERALLY A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW

COMMITTEE. >> HAS THAT BEEN JOHN ALREADY? >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, AS JOHN MENTIONED, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AREN'T

GENERALLY SOMETHING THAT IS REVIEWED >> COME THROUGH OBVIOUSLY YOU

GUYS HERE AND THEN MOVE THROUGH BUILDING >> THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU DEAL WITH THE ISSUES AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

>> I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE AERIAL, LOOK AT THE SURVEY. THERE'S CLEAR FENCES AND THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING. I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY EVIDENT WHERE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO

BE SITUATED IN RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR PARTICULAR BUILDING >> COULD YOU BRING THAT UP,

PLEASE. >> YES. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL

FOR EVERYBODY. >> IS THERE A WAY TO GET THAT PLAN?

>> THERE IS A SITE PLAN INCLUDED AS PART OF THESE DOCUMENTS.

IT DOES INCLUDE A SURVEY. >> I COULDN'T FIND THAT ONLINE. >> I'M HAPPY TO SHOW THOSE AND

BRING THOSE UP RIGHT NOW. >> I REALIZE THAT THIS MAY NOT MAKE THE NEIGHBOR FEEL A LOT BETTER, BUT ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND HERE IS THAT BY ZONING AND USE, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT A 45-FOOT HIGH THREE-STORY BUILDING BEING BUILT ON THIS LOT.

SO YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE WORSE. >> IT COULD BE A NIGHTCLUB, A SHOPPING MALL.

IT COULD BE A HOTEL. >> SO HAVING A ONE-STORY GARAGE ISN'T AS BAD AS IT COULD BE.

>> JACOB, COULD THAT BE A HOTEL? >> HOTELS ARE PERMISSIBLE IN

THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. >> 45 FEET.

>> NOT THAT WE WOULD APPROVE IT, BUT IT COULD BE. >> YEAH.

WE HAD ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THE PROJECT ON NORTH 2ND STREET.

WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS PATH BEFORE. AND WE GOT HIM DOWN TO 35 FEET,

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 36. >> SIR, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, EXCUSE ME, THE SURVEY. IT'S GOT AN EXISTING, FENCE LINE JUST OFF THE SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR BUILDING. ACTUALLY JUST INSIDE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

SO I MEAN, LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEW, AND THE AERIAL, YOU CAN BOTH GET AN IDEA OF EXACTLY WHERE THIS BUILDING IS GOING. THIS IS THE FENCE LINE.

IT'S INSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. AND THEN THAT FENCE WRAPS AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY. SO THAT IS RIGHT WHERE THAT GARAGE IS PROPOSED.

>> IF IT'S APPROVED THAT IS WHERE IT WOULD BE. >> GO TO THE AERIAL.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TONIGHT >> MR. CAP IS RAISING HIS HAND.

>> OKAY. >> WELL, WE'LL GET BACK TO HIM AFTER THE PUBLIC MEETING.

YES. MR. GOLDMAN, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS?

>> PLEASE COME ON UP IF YOU'VE GOT ANYTHING TO SAY. >> I DIDN'T MEAN TO FORCE YOU INTO TESTIFYING. ALTHOUGH FRANKLY, AS THE MOST CONCERNED NEIGHBOR, YOU AND

SUSAN, I WOULDN'T MIND HEARING FROM YOU. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

FOR THE RECORD. >> LOU GOLDMAN, WE LIVE AT 23 SOUTH 6TH STREET, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE PARK HE'S GOING TO KEEP VACANT, BIG LOT.

OUR LOT IS 50 BY 100 FACING 6TH STREET. WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING. >> LET ME SWEAR YOU IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE

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

>> GO AHEAD, ANYTHING ELSE? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE GENTLEMAN THAT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THEM DOWN IN KEY WEST.

THEY'VE DONE SEVERAL REHAB PROJECTS. ADD ON, BUILT PLACES.

MY FEELING IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A LOT OF MONEY IN THE HOUSE THAT THEY'RE BUILDING. SIZEABLE PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO LET SOMEBODY BUY THE LOT ON 6TH STREET AND BUILD LOT TO LOT 45 FEET HIGH.

THAT IS JUST NOT IN THE CARDS. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE GUYS A LITTLE BIT OF CREDIT AND WE'RE

[01:50:04]

OR SELL A LOT. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THE BUILDING

GONE AND A HOUSE BUILT THERE. >> I FEEL THE SAME WAY. IT LOOKS APPROPRIATE TO THE

COMMUNITY. >> THE CHANCES ARE THE LOT ON 6TH AND ASH ON THE CORNER THERE, LIKE THEY SAID, THEY'LL LEAVE IT FOR THEIR NOT FRONT YARD BUT SIDE YARD.

VERY HAPPY TO SEE THEM PUT A PARKING BEHIND THE TREE SO THEY CAN SAVE THE TREE, BACK OUT OF

THEIR DRIVEWAY AND GO OUT ON ASH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE COMMENTS. I APPRECIATE IT. IT'S GOOD TO HEAR FROM SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY A LONG TIME AND HAS BUILT RIGHT THERE.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. MR. BOYER HAD HIS HAND UP,

DIRECTOR. >> FOR A FOLLOW-UP COMMENT. GENTLEMEN, YOU CAN MAKE

FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. >> I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE NEIGHBOR ON THE LEFT SIDE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CONCRETE BLOCK WALL THAT IS ALMOST 60 PERCENT OF THE NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD, WHICH IS OFFICE SPACE.

SO IT'S A SOLID CONCRETE WALL THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. SO WE ARE ADDING THREE FOOT IN BACK. BUT I MEAN, CURRENTLY NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, THE

NEWSPAPER BUILDING DOES HAVE A SOLID WALL THERE. >> IT'S TRUE.

>> DOES THAT RING A BELL? >> YEAH. >> THAT IS THAT EXISTING WALL.

JOHN, THAT FOOTPRINT IS ALMOST, IT MAY EXTEND A LITTLE FARTHER SOUTH, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THAT

SAME CONCRETE WALL THAT IS THERE, RIGHT? >> I'M NOT SURE.

>> THAT IS THE BUILDING. >> YEAH. THAT IS THE BUILDING.

>> CORRECT. AND I THINK HIS POINT IS THERE IS AN EXISTING CONCRETE WALL THAT IS THERE AND THERE WILL BE A NEW WALL THAT GOES BACK IN THAT SAME SPOT.

>> YEAH. I'M MORE CONCERNED ACTUALLY ABOUT THE OTHER LOT IN FRONT

THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE DESIGNERS?

IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO --

>> GO AHEAD. >> SOME GOOD FRIENDS OF OURS JUST SOLD A HOUSE ON 2ND STREET. FRIENDS OF OURS, WE USED TO HAVE A HOUSE ON 7TH, HAD BEEN BURNED UP BY A FIRE AND WE RESTORED THAT 12 YEARS AGO. SOME GOOD FRIENDS OF OURS ARE GOING TO WANT TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THAT SMALL LOT. IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL.

BUT THEY ARE LOOKING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY ON THAT SMALL LOT.

>> I KNOW THE PROPERTY THAT YOU RESTORED. IT WAS A REMARKABLE PIECE OF

WORK. FOLKS REALLY LIKE THAT HOUSE. >> I THOUGHT YOU GUYS LOOKED FAMILIAR. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. AND BENJAMIN HAD HIS HAND UP FIRST.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT AND SAY THAT I AGREE THAT THE LAST PROJECT THAT YOU GUYS REHABBED IS BEAUTIFUL. I'M SURE THIS WILL BE NO DIFFERENT.

SO TWO GENERAL COMMENTS, JUST ON THE DESIGN. THE FIRST THING IS, EVEN THOUGH RAILINGS MIGHT NOT BE REQUIRED BY CODE ON THE FRONT PORCHES, THE MAIN FRONT PORCH AND THEN ALSO THE FRONT PORCH OFF OF THE MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE AREA, I THINK AESTHETICALLY THEY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE ANYWAY. I'M NOT SURE THAT HAVING A FOUR FOOT HIGH FEELS APPROPRIATE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE FRONT YARD. IF SOMEBODY CAN TELL ME ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT, I WOULD FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT. BUT I CAN'T THINK OF A WHOLE LOT OF EXAMPLES OF THAT BEING A PRECEDENT. OUTSIDE OF THAT, I VI TO HAVE TO SAY THAT THE DESIGN IS QUITE NICE. EVEN THOUGH IT'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSE SCALE-WISE, IT'S BROKEN DOWN PRETTY WELL AND DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A LONG SINGULAR MASS.

AS FAR AS THE GARAGE IS CONCERNED, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO CHOOSE TO HAVE A GARAGE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT'S PUSHED BACK FROM THE FRONT FACADE. TO ME, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY OFFENSIVE.

BUT LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE WITH THE SITING OF THE PROJECT.

[01:55:06]

>> GIVE ME ONE SECOND. >> AS BACKGROUND, I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REVIEW THE AESTHETICS OF ALL OF THESE PROJECTS GOING ON, ESPECIALLY IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONTEXT AND THE RHYTHM OF THE STREET THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ON. AND I JUST HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE SITING OF THE HOUSE BEING AS FAR BACK AS IT IS.

I WANT TO SAVE THIS TREE. I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE HOUSE NEEDS TO BE PUSHED BACK AS FAR AS AS IT CURRENTLY IS PUSHED BACK.

AND JUST TO HELP ILLUSTRATE MY CONCERN, I DID THIS QUICK OVERLAY AERIAL SHOWING THE RED LINES THAT YOU SEE INDICATE THE EXTENT OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE STREET. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT FAIRLY CONSISTENTLY ALL ALONG THAT SIDE OF ASH STREET, MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THEN THE PURPOSE SQUARE YOU SEE JUST REPRESENT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THOSE LOTS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED COULD BE DEVELOPED LOT LINE TO LOT LINE, WHICH WOULD BE FAIRLY NORMAL IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. I APPRECIATE THAT THE OWNERS ARE SAYING THAT THE HOUSE NEXT TO THEM WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT IT DOES HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING DEVELOPED ALL THE WAY TO THE LOT LINE. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANYTHING ELSE ON THE STREET.

THEY'RE FAIRLY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN AND EXCEPTIONAL ON CENTER STREET.

I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT I COULD SUPPORT THE HOUSE BEING SITED WHERE IT IS.

I'M OKAY GENERALLY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE, FOR THE LARGE PART, EXCEPT FOR THOSE FEW COMMENTS THAT I HAD. I THINK IT NEEDS TO PUSH CLOSER TO THE STREET.

>> THANK YOU, BENJAMIN. OTHERS? MR. HARRISON, KATES?

>> GO AHEAD, MIKE. >> (INAUDIBLE) WHAT BEN HAS TO SAY.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONSIDER THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT AS ONE PIECE.

PEN PENDING SUBDIVISIONS COMING ALONG.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD BE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT BLOCKS IN A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THAT BLOCKED IN, UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE GOING ON ELSEWHERE.

>> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WE CONSTANTLY LOOK AT PROJECTS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. I AGREE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE EVER HAVE THE LUXURY OF KNOWING THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS ANY DIFFERENT. WE JUST HAVE TO APPROACH WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYTHING

IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WITH THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. >> MIKE, I WASN'T QUITE SURE I

UNDERSTOOD YOUR POINT. >> YEAH. IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THE DEMOLITION YET. BUT ASSUMING THAT DOES GO AHEAD, IT SEEMS WE'VE GOT YOU KNOW, ALMOST A (INAUDIBLE) BLOCK TO DEAL WITH. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY BEN, ABOUT THE SITING OF THE HOUSE THERE. IF IT WERE MINE, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BLOCK FIRST.

>> SO LET ME CHANGE THAT QUESTION OUT A LITTLE MORE. MR. PLATT, IS IT FAIRLY SAFE TO ASSUME THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED ARE GOING TO OCCUR?

>> I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES AND THE RESTORATION OF THE 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT ON THE

EAST WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION. >> SO IT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN

HERE. >> YES. >> OKAY.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT. KATES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

IS KATES WITH US? >> OKAY. MS. KOSACK, DO YOU HAVE

[02:00:03]

ANYTHING? >> SO I'M THINKING MAYBE SOME MODERATION BETWEEN TWO SIDES.

I THINK THAT THE SITING, I COULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE SIDING AS IT IS, BECAUSE I THINK THE HOUSE IS A MASSIVE STRUCTURE THAT ALMOST SHOULD BE SET BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER ONES FRONTED.

NOW, THERE ARE LARGE HOMES THERE ON ASH STREET. SO CONCEPTUALLY, IT WILL FIT IN WITH THE ASH STREET SIDE. MAYBE IF IT'S PULLED UP A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE BREATHING ROOM BEHIND IT. AND THAT MIGHT HELP THE CITIZEN THAT SPOKE.

THAT GIVES HIM A LITTLE BREATHING ROOM IN THE BACK. IT HELPS, WE'VE GOT A COMPLEX ROOT COMPLEX ROOF SYSTEM HERE. THERE IS GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WATER THAT DUMPS ON TO THE AREA BETWEEN THEM AND THE NEIGHBORING ONE STORY.

WE HAD A SIMILAR ISSUE WITH PABLO AND THE ART BUILDING NEXT TO IT.

ALTHOUGH I THINK THEY WERE ACTUALLY ADJOINING WALLS. MAYBE IF THE BUILDING WAS UP FRONT A LITTLE BIT MORE, NOT AS FAR UP AS MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER RESIDENCES, BECAUSE I THINK THERE SHOULD BE FLEXIBILITY, GRANTED DUE TO THE SIZE OF THAT TREE.

THAT IS A HERITAGE OAK. AND THE ROOTS AND THE CANOPY, THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED.

SO I THINK THE HOUSE OF THIS SIZE SHOULD BE SET BACK A LITTLE BIT.

I DON'T TYPICALLY LIKE GARAGES ATTACHED TO HOUSES. I THINK WE DO HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, C-3 ZONING SHOULD ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY THERE. I DO NOT LIKE THE ALUMINUM FENCING.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT.

AND THAT AREA AT ALL. LASTLY, I THINK SOME SORT OF A CONTEXT MIGHT HELP THE OWNER EHIND IT IF WE COULD SEE HOW THIS BUILDING MOVES OVER THEN

WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. >> THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION THAT BENJAMIN'S FIVE MINUTE SKETCH IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF THING THAT I WAS POINTING OUT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US AS A BOARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROPOSED ETIFACE FITS WITHIN THE CONTRACTS. A QUICK HAND SKETCH THAT USES THE RESOURCE THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US WHO HAVE INTERNET CONNECTION IS ALL I WAS ASKING

FOR. >> I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AS PROPOSED.

I FEEL IT'S NOT UNLIKE THE WHITE HOUSE AND SOME OTHER LARGE IMPORTANT PROPERTIES, THAT ARE LOCATED BACK OFF THE STREET. I THINK THAT TREE IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND BY PUSHING IT BACK, I THINK WE GET THERE.

HAVING SAID THAT, I'M ASTOUNDED THAT A COMMERCIAL LOT WITH A ZERO LOT LINE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO A TRC REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL FOR THE REASON THAT TAMMI SAID, WHICH IS IT'S GOING TO DUMP A CRAP LOAD OF WATER ON THE NEIGHBORS. AND IF THIS WAS TRC, ANDRE WOULD BE SAYING HEY, YOU NEED TO MANAGE THE STORMWATER ON-SITE BECAUSE IT'S ZERO LOT

LINE, IT'S COMMERCIAL. WE'LL GET TO YOU. >> EVERY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN THE CITY NOW THAT GETS PERMITTED GOES THROUGH ANDRE AND YOU HAVE TO SHOW DRAINAGE

CALCULATIONS. >> WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE THEN IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

>> IT WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THERE. >> THANK YOU.

THAT IS VERY HELPFUL. I FEEL A LOT BETTER ABOUT THIS. AM I HEARING CONSENSUS THEN THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY CONTINUE THE CERTIFICATE. AND ASK FOR SOME MODIFICATIONS PERHAPS TO PULL THE BUILDING FURTHER FORWARD. MAYBE SOME CONTEXT.

MAYBE A RAILING. MIGHT BE A CHANGE IN THE FENCE. BUT THEN WOULD FOLKS BE GENERALLY COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD IF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE IN PLACE?

>> I THINK LIKE I SAID, I THINK THE OVERALL DESIGN IS PRETTY STRONG.

>> DETACHED GARAGE? >> I'M COMFORTABLE WITH. ESPECIALLY SINCE LOU GOLDMAN

HAS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME THING IMMEDIATELY BEHIND HIM. >> I THINK HE HAS A DETACHED

GARAGE. >> IT'S ATTACHED BY A BREEZEWAY.

IT'S EFFECTIVELY ATTACHED. IT'S SO FAR BACK OFF THE STREET.

I'M NOT REALLY LOSING ANY SLEEP OVER THAT. OTHERS, THOUGH?

[02:05:04]

WHERE ARE YOU? >> IS THAT ALLOWED PER OUR GUIDELINES IN THIS ZONING?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO ASK JACOB AND KELLY THAT. >> I'M SORRY.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> IT'S NOT DISALLOWED. >> THERE ARE OTHER GARAGE DOORS

FACING ASH STREET. >> YEAH. THERE ARE.

>> DO WE HAVE A PRODUCT LIST HERE WITH SPECS CALLED OUT? DO WE KNOW THE COLOR, THE MAKE,

THE MODEL, I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT? >> WE DO.

>> I'M OKAY WITH IT. >> I'M DOUBLE CHECKING. BUT WE DO HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, GARAGE DOORS, COLORS, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.

>> I GOT IT. >> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS, WELL, LET ME TAKE THE TEMPERATURE. IF WE GOT SOME PORCH RAIL AND WE GOT A DIFFERENT FENCE, WOULD

FOLKS BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROJECT GOING FORWARD? >> YEAH.

SO HERE IS WHAT I THINK, YOU GUYS CAN TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.

SO I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYBODY AGREES, BUT I THINK THERE IS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE THINK THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD A LITTLE BIT ON THE LOT, BUT THAT IS A SUBJECTIVE COMMENT TO MAKE AND IT DOESN'T HELP THE APPLICANT FOR US TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW FAR WE WANT IT TO MOVE. SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, IS IF THE OWNER GOES BACK TO THE ARBORIST THAT DID THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN AND GETS THE ARBORIST TO DO AN ASSESSMENT FOR US AND GIVE US A LETTER THAT STATES IN HIS OPINION HOW FAR THIS HOUSE NEEDS TO STAY OFF OF THAT TREE AS TO NOT CAUSE DAMAGE, WE CAN USE THAT AS A PRECEDENT FOR HOW FAR THE HOUSE MOVES FORWARD ON

THE LOT. >> IT'S LITERALLY PAVED OVER WITH TARMAC AND CONCRETE RIGHT NOW. SO LITERALLY ANYTHING WE DO IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THIS TREE'S LIFE. I THINK YOU COULD LOOK AT THE SCALE OF THIS TREE, WHICH IS AT LEAST 50 FEET, AND ITS EXTENSION AND SAY PUT THE HOUSE AS FAR BACK AS YOU CAN TO

PROTECT THE TREE. >> JAKE, CAN YOU PULL UP THAT AERIAL IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH

THAT YOU HAD UP EARLIER? >> YEAH. >> YOU'LL SEE WHEN HE PULLS IT

UP THAT THE CANOPY DOESN'T ACTUALLY GOES AS FAR BACK. >> WAY OVER ON ASH STREET SIDE.

>> YEAH. >> IT MIGHT GO BACK 20 FEET. >> YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> 25 AT THE MOST. >> IT'S HARD TO TELL WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING THERE FROM GROUND LEVEL. ALL RIGHT. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR

CONSENSUS? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO HERE? >> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH

INFORMATION TO APPROVE THIS AS A FINAL. >> OKAY.

>> TAMMI, COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY IT IS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE?

>> WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BUILDING MOVE FORWARD, SO DO WE GIVE THEM AN AMOUNT CERTAIN OF HOW FAR TO MOVE IT, OR DO WE SAY JUST MOVE IT FORWARD? I THINK WE NEED TO SEE A SITE PLAN WITH REVISIONS ON IT WITH WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. THINK ABOUT NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS THAT COME TO US AND SAY ONCE THIS GETS SETTLED, HOW DID THIS GET APPROVED? WELL, WE TOLD THEM TO MOVE IT FORWARD. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.

>> MY CONCERN IS THAT WE CAN'T JUST TELL THEM TO MOVE IT FORWARD BECAUSE THEY COULD COME BACK AND MOVE IT FORWARD FIVE FEET. THAT IS ENOUGH FOR US TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT. MY POINT IN SAYING LET'S LET THE ARBORIST HELP TO MAKE THAT

DECISION SO IT'S NOT AN ARBITRARY DECISION ON OUR PART. >> I GOT GOOD ADVICE.

WHO IS OKAY WITH THE BUILDING LOCATED AS IT IS? >> ME.

>> I'M OKAY WITH IT. >> JIM IS OKAY WITH IT. >> TAMMI.

>> I'M CONCERNED WITH DRAINAGE AND THE NEIGHBOR. >> WHICH NEIGHBOR?

>> GIVE ME A SECOND. TAMMI, DOES THAT MEAN YOU WANT TO MOVE IT OR IF THOSE ISSUES

COULD BE RESOLVED YOU WOULD BE OKAY? >> I THINK IT SHOULD MOVE FORWARD TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE AND BREATHING ROOM BEHIND IT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> KATES IS NOT VOTING SINCE

SHE IS NOT HERE. MIKE, WHERE ARE YOU? >> I THINK IT'S TOO FAR BACK ON

THE LOT PERIOD. I WOULD LIKE IT MOVED FORWARD. >> YEAH.

AND THEN BEN, YOU WANT TO MOVE IT FORWARD. >> YEAH.

YEAH. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. >> OKAY.

I AM COMFORTABLE WHERE IT IS. BUT YOU'VE GOT THREE VOTES THERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THAT. BENJAMIN, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANALYSIS AROUND THAT MOVE

[02:10:04]

>> SURE. THE ARBORIST MIGHT SAY THAT WE NEED TO KEEP A 40-FOOT RADIUS

FROM THE CENTER OF THE TREE >> THANK YOU. >> I COULD ARBITRARILY SAY 25 FEET AND BE WRONG. SO I THINK THAT BENEFITS THE APPLICANT HERE IN GIVING THEM

THE ABILITY TO GET OPINION FROM SOMEONE ELSE. >> JOHN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO COME BACK UP. I'M ASKING MR. DODD TO COME BACK UP AND SEE IF HE'S GOT

ANYTHING HE WANTS TO ADD HERE. >> I WANTED TO ADD, I'M NOT SURE, WE HAVE A 10-FOOT SETBACK OF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE GARAGE. EVERYTHING ELSE, IF YOU LOOK ON

THE SITE PLAN, WE'RE TEN FOOT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. >> DID YOU HEAR THAT, FOLKS? I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS MASSIVE DUMP OF WATER IS GOING TO GO ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY IS

GOING TO OCCUR. >> I THOUGHT THE HOUSE WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK.

>> TEN-FOOT SETBACK WHICH WAS A NOTION BY THE KEMPS FOR THE GOLDMANS TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE

BIT OF SPACE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> 50-FOOT BACK RIGHT NOW FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, JUST AN EXAMPLE, IF THE ARBORIST SAID 40 FEET, WOULD THE BOARD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT NUMBER, JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE IF THAT IS SOMETHING, WE WILL SEND SOMETHING FROM THE ARBORIST, IN BLACK AND WHITE, BUT TEN FEET GOING TO MAKE THIS

WORK? >> I FEEL PERSONALLY THAT IF THE ARBORIST GIVES YOU SOMETHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT NUMBER, THEN I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

>> TAMMI, WHERE ARE YOU? >> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> MIKE.

>> YEAH. >> THEN I'M GOING TO ASK THE FIRST QUESTION IS, WILL WE APPROVE THE DEMO, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US AND SECONDLY, SHOULD WE CONTINUE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE LAID OUT AT THIS TIME? WHAT IS YOUR CONSENSUS?

>> GO AHEAD. >> SO MY CONCERN ABOUT THE DEMO IS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD WAIVE THE DEMO DELAY THAT WE JUST PUT THROUGH AND MY CONCERNS STEM FROM TWO SITUATIONS. RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, THIS IS BEFORE THE DEMO WAS PUT THROUGH, THE SISTER HOUSE THAT WE LOST ON BRIM STREET. NOW THE PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED NOT TO BUILD, DUE TO COSTS AND CURRENT SITUATIONS. SO WE'VE LOST THE HOUSE AND WE HAVE A VACANT LOT. WE RECENTLY HAD ANOTHER HOUSE ON 8TH STREET TO APPLY FOR A DEMO ON THE 13TH OF JULY AND THEY WERE APPROVED ON THE 22ND OF JULY AND IT WAS DEMOED ON THE 8TH OF AUGUST. THAT WAS A 1900 HISTORIC HOUSE. IT'S GONE.

SO MY CONCERN HERE IS NOT THAT THIS IS A GREAT BUILDING, HOWEVER, TIMES ARE HARD RIGHT NOW. IF THIS NEW HOUSE, BEAUTIFUL HOME, DOESN'T GO THROUGH, THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT THE OLD NEWS LEADER COULD BE ADAPTED TO REUSE.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD, I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE NEED TO SAVE THE NEWS LEADER.

I'M ADVOCATING THAT WE SHOULD WAIVE -- THEY HAVE TO COME BACK ANY WAY.

WE SHOULD STICK TO WHAT OUR LATEST APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE WAS.

>> WELL, WE HAVE MET THE CONDITIONS ALREADY. BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS HEARING.

WE HAVE SEEN A DESIGN. WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS AROUND THE DESIGN.

SO I THINK WE'VE MET THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. BUT WHAT DO OTHER MEMBERS THINK

ABOUT THE DEMO? BENJAMIN? >> WELL, I GUESS IT IS POSSIBLE. I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO ASK THE OWNERS IF ANYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT AND ASKING THEM TO CONTINUE THIS CASE AND COME BACK, IF ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WOULD CAUSE THEM TO HAVE ANY SECOND GUESSING AS FAR AS MOVING

FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. >> FAIR QUESTION. MIKE.

>> WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? >> WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DEMO,

BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU? >> I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THE DELAY TO BE WAIVED. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEMOLITION.

BUT YES. THE DELAY SHOULD REMAIN. >> 90-DAY DELAY PERIOD.

>> CERTAINLY MAKE THAT A CONDITION. I CAN PUT THAT AS PART OF MY

[02:15:04]

BUT I THINK MS. KOSACK MAKES A GOOD POINT. >> I CAN'T HEAR YOU, JAKE.

>> I THINK MS. KOSACK MAKES A GOOD POINT, AS FAR AS THE TIMES WE'RE IN.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEMOLITION DELAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES IF THAT

IS WHAT THE BOARD LIKES TO DO PREFERS TO DO. >>,

PREFERS TO DO. >> I ASKED WHEN THIS CASE WOULD LIKELY BE HEARD AGAIN AND IT IS LIKELY TO BE OCTOBER. LET'S ASK MR. BOYER AND MR. KEMP.

IF THEY HAVE HEARD ANYTHING TONIGHT THAT WOULD CAUSE THEM TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS

PROJECT. >> NO. I THINK IF WE HAVE TO MOVE THE HOUSE FORWARD, TEN OR 15 FEET, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THE RAILS ON THE FRONT PORCH AND ON THE GUEST SIDE, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. THE COST FACTOR ON THIS RAIL SYSTEM, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

BUT MAYBE THE EXTRA LOT WE KEEP THE CHAIN LINK THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE FOR NOW.

I THINK WE NEED TO WEIGH FACTORS OF WHAT TYPE OF RAIL IS WHAT YOU GUYS WANT.

I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THE DEMO, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY BACK IN FEBRUARY, WE HAD THE CITY ARBORIST OUT BECAUSE THE TREE WAS IN, DIDN'T LOOK SO GOOD.

I BELIEVE IT WAS HIT BY LIGHTNING. I BELIEVE THE CITY HAS DONE WORK TO TRY AND TAKE THE DEAD OUT OF THE CENTER OF IT. BUT HE SAID THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE ROOT SYSTEM HAS BEEN COMPROMISED BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING AND THE BLACK TOP.

SO THAT HAS BEEN OUR WHOLE GOAL, TO TRY AND SAVE THE TREE, GET SOME NUTRIENTS INJECTED IN THE SOIL TO TRY AND SAVE THIS TREE. SO I JUST THINK TO PUSH THIS DEMO BACK, I WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND GET THIS BUILDING TAKEN DOWN AND GET THE BLACK TOP OUT OF THERE SO WE CAN START TRYING TO SAVE THIS TREE. BECAUSE THE TREE IS THE FOCAL

POINT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELPFUL.

OKAY. SO BOARD MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION.

>> I THINK TO MR. KEMP'S POINT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY A VALID ARGUMENT.

I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WAIVING THE DELAY PERIOD TO REMOVE THE BLACK TOP.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY NEED A PERMIT TO DO THAT ANYWAY. >> OKAY.

>> I THINK THE BUILDING ENCROACHES ON THE ROOF TOO, NOT JUST THE BLACK TOP, IS THAT CORRECT? TOO, NOT JUST THE BLACK TOP, IS THAT CORT TOO, NOT JUST THE BLACK TOP, IS THAT CORS TOO, NOT JUST THE BLACK TOP, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THE BUILDING HAS BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS OR SO.

>> LET'S MOVE ON. SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION WITH REGARDS TO 2020-0022, CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO DEMO. I THINK I HEARD INTEREST IN NOT WAIVING THE DELAY PERIOD. WHAT IS IT USUALLY? 90 DAYS? COULD MAKE IT 60. IF THAT DELAY PERIOD WAS 60 DAYS, YOU WOULD BE SEEING THEM

AGAIN, HOPEFULLY, BEFORE THE DEMO WOULD KICK IN. >> NOBODY WANTS TO BITE THIS

APPLE. >> I'LL TAKE A SHOT AT IT, I GUESS.

>> THANK YOU, BENJAMIN. >> SO FIRST, I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC 2020-0022 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE 90-DAY DELAY PERIOD FOR DEMOLITION NOT BE WAIVED PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD, 2020-022 AS PRESENTED IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND THAT. >> MORRISON AND HARRISON.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> HEARING NONE. MS. MCCAN, PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

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

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

[02:20:04]

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

2020-0021. I THINK I HEARD CONSENSUS ON A CONTINUATION.

>> WHAT WOULD THE DATE OF CONTINUATION BE? >> OCTOBER, CAN WE SAY THE

OCTOBER MEETING. >> YOU CAN SAY THE OCTOBER MEETING.

>> HOW IS THAT? >> OCTOBER 15TH. >> I MOVE TO CONTINUE HDC CASE

2020-0021 TO THE OCTOBER 2020 REGULAR HDC MEETING. >> SECOND.

>> MOVED MORRISON. SECOND KOSACK. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> DID YOU WANT TO TAG IN ANY OF THE COMMENTS OR IS THAT -- >> I THINK THEY HEARD WHAT THEY NEEDED TO HEAR. I DON'T THINK WE NEEDED TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

BUT IT IS ON THE RECORD BECAUSE IT'S ON THE TAPE. I THINK THE ARBORIST REPORT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT. NOTHING ELSE, THEN, MS. MCCAN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

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

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

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

>> YES. I WOULD HAVE APPROVED IT AS IS. MOVING ON.

MARK, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THANK YOU, MARK.

>> LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT OUT OF THE GROUND. YOU GUYS DID GREAT WORK.

I'LL TELL T AND CARLOS YOU SAID HI. HDC 2020-0019, AKINS, RICE,

[Items 4.3 & 4.4]

>> SURE. ABSOLUTELY. THERE IS TWO VARIANCES BEING SOUGHT TONIGHT, SPECIFICALLY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 5.01.10, RELATION TO FENCING.

AND 5.01.04A1, RELATED TO THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO, SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE

REAR OF THE PROPERTY >> CAN YOU PULL UP THE SCREEN PLEASE, JAKE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER, AS ALWAYS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT ONLY ALLOWS FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE. THE OBJECTION SECTION OF CODE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM IS TO ALLOW FOR AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. EXISTING ADU IS APPROXIMATELY 732 SQUARE FEET, ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE.

NEXT PART OF THIS WOULD BE A COA TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSAL FOR A COVERED FRONT PORCH, EXTENDING OFF THE SECOND FLOOR. HERE IS A RENDERING OF THE PROPOSAL.

IF THE VARIANCE IS ALLOWED. AND GRANTED TO ALLOW FOR AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. FRONT PORCH, WITH A SHED ROOF. THIS ALSO SHOWS THE EIGHT-FOOT FENCE ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY LINE. HERE IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE EXISTING SWAN KELLY HOUSE AND THIS FOOTPRINT SHOWS THE PROPOSAL WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE COVERED FRONT PORCH ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A NEW STAIR, NEW ENTRY STAIR EXTENDING OFF OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S ALSO NON-CONFORMING WITH REGARD TO SETBACKS, IT SITS ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND A LATER PORCH ADDITION, I BELIEVE IS ABOUT TWO FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. SO AS PART OF THE RECORD, I SUBMIT MY STAFF REPORT.

[02:25:01]

BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, STAFF IS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THEY MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING BOTH SECTIONS OF THE CODE FOR THE VARIANCE. AND STAFF THEREFORE HAS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF HDC 2020-006. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND GO THROUGH ANY SPECIFIC CRITERIA, IF THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS AND GO THROUGH THE PLANS AS WELL.

>> CAN WE JUST GO TO THE PLANS. >> MR. CHAIR, WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I THINK THE APPLICANT PROBABLY KNOWS, THAT SINCE EVERY VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, SO TONIGHT WE HAVE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE TO VOTE. AND IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE YOUR VARIANCE, IT WOULD

REQUIRE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE MEMBERS TO VOTE IN FAVOR. >> MOVING IN TO THE SECOND PART OF THE REQUEST, COA FOR THE, IT INCLUDES A NEW FOOTING AND FOUNDATION AS WELL AS THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT PORCH ADDITION, EXTERIOR STAIR ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

REPLACING THE GARAGE DOORS AND PAINTING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS, THE ADU ACTUALLY A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIES ITS OWN RESOURCE. KIND OF WENT THROUGH THAT. FRONT ELEVATION SHOWING THE PROPOSAL WITH THAT FRONT PORCH, SECOND STORY FRONT PORCH ADDITION.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO SHOWING THE SCREEN? >> I'M SORRY.

>> THAT'S OKAY. >> I GET AHEAD OF MYSELF. HERE IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION SHOWING THE PROPOSED PORCH ADDITION AS WELL AS THE NEW STAIR, NEW GARAGE DOORS.

THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE PLACED ON A NEW FOUNDATION, ELEVATED SLIGHTLY.

SITE CONDITIONS THAT ARE CAUSING DRAINAGE ISSUES AND ROT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITE GRADING. SO AS PART OF THIS COA, IT DOES INCLUDE RAISING IT AND PLACING IT ON NEW FOUNDATION AND ADDRESSING THE GRADING ISSUES. THIS IS THE LEFT ELEVATION SHOWING THE NEW ENTRY STAIR. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS A MID-INTERIOR ENTRY STAIR TWO THE TWO FRONT GARAGE DOORS. THIS WILL REPLACE THAT. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SOUTHERN ELEVATION, SHOWING THE EXISTING PORCH ADDITION AS WELL AS THAT NEW FRONT PORCH ADDITION AND OVERHANG. NOTHING IS CHANGING ON THE REAR ELEVATION.

SO AS PART OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED AS A GARAGE TO THE SWAN KELLY HOUSE AND LISTED AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

SITS LESS THAN A FOOT OFF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. EXISTING PORCH IS TWO FEET OFF THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. HISTORIC GUIDELINES CALL FOR NEW ADDITIONS TO BE LOCATED ON THE REAR OR SIDE, NOT VISIBLE TO THE STREET. STAFF FINDS ELIMINATION OF THE FRONT ENTRY AND ADDITION OF THE FRENCH DOORS TO THE SECOND FLOOR TOGETHER WITH THE PORCH DRASTICALLY ALTERS THE FRONT FACADE OF THIS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

RICE ARCHITECTS PROVIDED AN ANALYSIS AND DETERMINED THAT THE BUILDING WILL NEED TO BE ELEVATED AND THIS CALLS FOR BLOCK FOUNDATION RAISING THE STRUCTURE A LITTLE BIT.

DURING STAFF REVIEW, NOTED THAT THE PLANS CALL FOR REPLACING THE TWO GARAGE DOORS, BUT MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS WEREN'T PROVIDED. NEITHER WERE SPECIFICATIONS ON THE NEW DOORS PROPOSED. THE EXISTING HVAC EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED IN A NOOK ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE. IF IT'S STAYING THERE, IF IT'S BEING MOVED, WHEREVER IT IS BEING LOCATED, WE WOULD LOOK FOR IT TO BE SCREENED ACCORDING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND SOMETHING THAT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME IS HOW THE CHIMNEY IS BEING CARED FOR WITH THE ELEVATION AND JUST ASK THAT MARK KIND OF SPEAK TO ANY ISSUES OR HOW THAT IS BEING HANDLED.

[02:30:02]

OF THE BOARD AT THIS TIME. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? >> I HAD TWO QUESTIONS, I GUESS. MAYBE IT'S GETTING LATE OR MAYBE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME.

TWO THINGS THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR, ONE IS TO BUILD AN EIGHT FEET FENCE IN THE BACKYARD AND IS THE SECOND ONE TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S 700 SQUARE FEET. EXPANDING THAT EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SITUATION.

VARIANCE FROM THE SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO ADUS BEING NO GREATER THAN 625 SQUARE FEET.

>> MAYBE IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT I SEE LIKE EXISTING DRAWINGS AND THEN NEW DRAWINGS. MAYBE I'M MISSING THAT. THE EXPANSION, IS THAT ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR? OR DO YOU KNOW?

>> SO AN EXPANSION OF THE PORCH WHICH IS A COVERED FRONT PORCH, SO THE WAY THE ACCESSORY DWELLING, OR THE WAY WE MEASURE IS BUILDING FOOTPRINT. SO IT'S A COVERED SECOND STORY FRONT PORCH. BUT IT'S THAT OVERALL FOOTPRINT IS BEING EXPANDED.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? >> JAKE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE EXTENT OF THE EXPANSION IS THAT FRONT FACING PORCH WITH THE COVERED ROOF ELEMENT? THAT IS, AND THEN THE NEW SIDE STAIRS. THAT IS THE EXTENT?

>> LOSING THE CENTRAL ENTRYWAY BETWEEN THE TWO GARAGE DOORS. >> OKAY.

IF THERE AREN'T ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? >> I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT.

>> COMMENT OR QUESTION? >> I THOUGHT THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS HANDLED, I THOUGHT THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WAS ONLY THE ENCLOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE APPROVED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN OLD TOWN, DOWNTOWN, MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT HAD PORCHES BIGGER THAN THAT, OR CARPORTS

OR DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. >> IT'S THE ROOFED PORTION, REALLY IS HOW WE TREAT IT.

THE CODE SAYS FOOTPRINT. BUT YES, THERE ARE EXAMPLES WHERE WE HAVE ALLOWED NON-COVERED OPEN AIR DECKS BEYOND 625 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM. IT'S REALLY THE ROOFED PORTION.

IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO UNENCLOSED OR CONDITIONED SPACE, BUT WHERE YOU HAVE A SOLID ROOF, WE'RE

CLASSIFYING THAT AS PART OF EXPANDING THE FOOTPRINT. >> SO IS OLD TOWN DIFFERENT

THEN? >> YES. >> OLD TOWN, THE FOOTPRINT IS LIMITED TO 500 SQUARE FEET BUT THE CONDUCTIVE ELEMENTS ARE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY.

>> WHENEVER THE QUESTION IS OLD TOWN DIFFERENT, THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS YES.

OTHER QUESTIONS? >> HAVE A QUESTION JAKE. ONCE THEY GET INTO DOING ANY SORT OF WORK ON THIS BUILDING, AREN'T THEY GOING TO HAVE TO BRING MUCH OF THE NON-CODE

ISSUE BACK UP TO CODE. >> FROM A BUILDING CODE PERSPECTIVE, YES, MA'AM.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A THRESHOLD AND MARKETS SPEAK TO THIS MORE SPECIFICALLY.

BUT ONCE YOU PASS A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, ALL OF THE BUILDING CODE COMPONENTS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CURRENT BUILDING CODE STANDARDS. IT'S DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT SAY,

THE REAR YARD SETBACK BE NOW MOVED TO 3 FEET. >> RIGHT.

>> IT DOES NOT. >> DOES NOT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> ANY TIME YOU DO ANYTHING TO A BUILDING THAT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE,

[02:35:02]

O YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THAT INCONSISTENCY, EXPAND THAT INCONSISTENCY, WE HAVE GENERALLY REQUIRED VARIANCES. ALL RIGHT.

MR. AKINS, COME ON UP. YOU'RE SWORN, RIGHT? >> I AM.

>> GOOD. SAVE THAT. WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?

>> MARK AKINS WITH RICE ARCHITECT. 687 GATEWAY BOULEVARD.

YOU GUYS TELL ME IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COVERED PORCH PART OF THE COVERED PORCH. WE'RE NOT COVERING THE ENTIRE PORCH ITSELF. WE'VE LEFT PORTIONS OF THE PORCH ITSELF OPENED.

AND JAKE, IF YOU COULD FORWARD TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A LITTLE BIT. ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THIS AND WHAT ARE WE DOING. I THINK THEY'RE UNDER ITEM 4, ARCH DRAWINGS, I BELIEVE. I'M LOOKING AT THEM RIGHT NOW. THERE IS A SIX PAGE DOWN OF

THOSE SHEETS. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

SO THIS SHOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH A LITTLE BETTER CONTEXT AS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A SOMEWHAT DILAPITATED COVER THAT IS GOING TO COME OFF. WE'RE COMING SIX FEET FOR A DECK.

ENOUGH FOR A CHAIR OR TWO. REALLY TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LIVING SPACE OF THE YARD, THE ENJOYMENT OF THE HOME AND THE PROPERTY ITSELF. OBVIOUSLY SINCE THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, IT BACKS UP AGAINST A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE FENCE IN THE BACK.

WHICH BY THE WAY, WE'VE ALWAYS PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD, AN APPROVAL FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY FOR THAT FENCE.

BUT THERE AND ON THE SIDE, THE PROPERTY, THE LINES ARE SO CLOSE THAT IT REALLY PROHIBITS US FROM BEING ABLE TO PUT AN ENJOYABLE DECK ON. AND AGAIN, I DO KNOW DECKS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THESE TYPE STRUCTURES, FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.

THE FACT HERE, WE ARE ASKING FOR A COVERED DECK SO THEY CAN ENJOY THIS IN FLORIDA WITHOUT BEING SOAKED ALL OF THE TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MR. AKINS. >> I'VE GOT ONE. MARK, DO WE KNOW, I'M ASSUMING THAT CANALEAVERING OF THE SECOND STORY WAS A PART OF THE REMODELLING.

>> THIS WAS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. I'M GOING TO READ, IF YOU GUYS WILL INDULGE ME I'M GOING TO READ FROM A LETTER THAT I SENT. IN ADDITION TO THE WORK BEING PROPOSED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE OUT BUILDING, WE'VE DETERMINED DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THIS SIGNIFICANT BUILDING AND STRUCTURE HAS BEEN COMPROMISED DUE TO POOR SIGHT DRAINAGE, WHICH JACOB MENTIONED.

WHETHER THIS WAS DUE TO BUILD-UP OF ORGANIC MATTER OR ORIGINAL BUILDING PLACEMENT, THE EXISTING SLAB OF THE GARAGE LIES BELOW THE GRADE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.

AND THE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL SERVES AS A GARAGE AND STORAGE. OF COURSE, NOW IT SERVES AS A

[02:40:03]

SO I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT THIS WAS A POST AND BEAM WITH NO INN-FILL WALLS.

YOU GO IN THERE AND I'VE PROVIDED JAKE WITH PHOTOS. YOU CAN SEE THAT OVER THE YEARS THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL ATTEMPTS AT IN-FILLING BETWEEN THE POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE.

SOME OF THAT IS ROTTING. SOME OF IT HAS BEEN REPLACED. THEY'RE STARTED TO SCAB ON NEW STUDS TO TRY TO KEEP IT FROM FALLING AWAY. THE APPROACH FOR US IS TO PRESERVE THE BUILDING. PART OF WHY WE'RE RAISING THIS BUILDING UP AS WELL.

BUT THAT CONDITION BY THE WAY, SINCE YOU ASKED, IF YOU NOTE IN THE NEW PLANS, WE ARE BRINGING BEAMS AND COLUMNS TO SUPPORT THIS DECK WHOLLY AND DO NOT INTEND TO RELY ON THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE TO HOLD THIS UP. >> FOLLOW-UP? >> YEAH.

I MEAN, THAT'S SURPRISING. THAT IS AN UNUSUAL DETAIL FOR BACK THEN.

I WAS SURPRISED THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS THAT OLD. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS WAS BUILT

IN THE '80S. >> WE DID TOO ORIGINALLY. YEAH.

>> ONE OTHER QUESTION, SO YOU'RE PROPOSING NOW TO RAISE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OR YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WILL, TO GET SOME POSITIVE DRAINAGE, SIX OR EIGHT OR 12 INCHES, ONCE YOU START RAISING THE STRUCTURE, THE INCHES ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE PERIOD.

THAT IS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT TO RAISE THIS BUILDING UP HOWEVER MANY INCHES. NOW WE'VE GOT A CHIMNEY STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AS WELL. AND IS THE APPLICANT WILLING TO DO ALL OF THAT?

>> THANKS FOR ASKING. YOU MENTIONED THAT BEFORE, SOMEONE DID.

WE DID GROUND WORK INVESTIGATION ON THIS BEFORE WE STARTED.

WE CONTACTED A COMPANY THAT LIFTS HOUSES FOR A LIVING. AND THEY ANALYZED THE PROPERTY.

WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE THE GROUND FLOOR FRAMING ON THIS ANYWAY.

SO THIS THING HAD TO BE, WAS GOING TO BE HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED.

SO IT OCCURRED TO US AS WE WERE TALKING TO THE OWNER, YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO, IT'S BELOW GRADE. LET'S GET IT UP OUT OF THE DIRT.

WE HAVE TO SUPPORT IT ANYWAY, TAKE OUT ALL OF THE GROUND FLOOR STUFF.

LIFT IT UP AND PUT A NEW SLAB IN DOWN THERE SO THIS THING CAN CONTINUE TO LIVE.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MR. AKINS? BENJAMIN, WHERE ARE YOU? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIVE DOWNTOWN. SO IT DOESN'T MAKE AS MUCH SENSE TO ME AS MAYBE IT DOES TO SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD THAT DO.

BUT THERE IS ALWAYS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT FENCES DOWNTOWN BECAUSE WE HEAR ABOUT IT FROM APPLICANTS ALL OF THE TIME, PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY DO YOU FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU GET A VARIANCE TO BUILD A HIGHER FENCE IN THE BACKYARD?

>> WELL, TWO WAYS TO APPROACH THIS. ONE, IN FACT, WE RECEIVED OUR CLIENT RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT, SAYING LOOK, GO AHEAD, YOU CAN BUILD AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE BACK THERE. ONE AVENUE WOULD BE FOR THE NEIGHBOR TO BUILD THE FENCE THEMSELVES, WHICH SENSE THEY ARE IN A C-3, I THINK, THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND BUILD 8. BUT THEN THAT FENCE WOULDN'T BELONG TO MY CLIENT.

AND THAT COULD GET TRICKY IN THE FUTURE. SO WE DECIDED THAT WOULDN'T BE SUITABLE. SINCE THEY'RE ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IT'S POSSIBLE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUILDING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE LOT LINE. ZERO LOT LINE THERE.

SO HAVING AN 8-FOOT FENCE HERE, 8TH STREET IS RIGHT BEHIND THAT.

THIS IS A RESIDENCE, WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE PRIVACY. >> WHAT IS RIGHT BEHIND THIS

PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? >> JAKE, WE HAVE PHOTOS FROM 8TH THAT LOOK RIGHT BACK

[02:45:02]

TOWARDS OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY. >> PARKING LOT, RIGHT? >> YES.

A PARKING LOT AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF SOME SORT. WHO KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO BE

THERE IN FIVE YEARS. >> AND THEN I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, I GUESS MIGHT BE BETTER FOR JAKE. JUST SO I'M CLEAR, SO THE APPLICANT COULD BUILD THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH AS THEY WANT, WITHOUT A ROOF OVER IT, WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

AND THEY COULD PUT LIKE AN AWNING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO PROVIDE COVER WITHOUT A VARIANCE, IT'S JUST THE COLUMNS AND THE ACTUAL METAL ROOF THAT IS CAUSING THE NEED FOR A

VARIANCE? >> TECHNICALLY, YES. >> GREAT.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> MR. HARRISON, QUESTIONS?

>> NO. >> GREAT. MR. POZZETTA?

>> SO I THINK I'M GOING TO START WITH SAYING I HAPPEN TO FIND A LOT OF APPEAL IN THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING. I THINK IT LOOKS REALLY NICE. THE ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT I BELIEVE STAFF STATED THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. AND THE PROPOSD CHANGES, ESPECIALLY TO THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT. GETTING RID OF THAT FRONT DOOR AT THE GROUND IS ALTERS THE KIND OF FEEL AND LOOK OF THIS HOUSE SIGNIFICANTLY.

PUNTING A PAIR OF DOORS AT THE SECOND FLOOR UP THERE, ON THE FRONT, ONCE AGAIN IS A

SIGNIFICANT CHANGE -- >> PARDON ME. >> I REALLY LIKE THE PROJECT.

BUT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE ON THE VERY FRONT OF IT. AND ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT

CHANGES. THEY'RE NOT MINOR CHANGES. >> NO. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. NOT ALL CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES NECESSARILY SHOULD REMAIN UN-ALTERED, I THINK WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS TO BEAUTIFY THIS PROPERTY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, FORGIVE ME, WHO ASKED FOR CONTEXT. I THINK IT WAS -- YOU ASKED FOR CONTEXT EARLIER. WE SHOULD HAVE CONTEXT PICTURES OF THEIR HOME.

THIS LITTLE BUILDING NEXT TO THE HOME REALLY LOOKS OUT OF PLACE.

IT TOOK A LITTLE BIT TO LOOK AT IT, I GUESS THIS HAS BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE.

WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE SITE HOLISTICALLIHOLISTICALLIA. DESIGN DETAILS.

IN CONTEXT WITH THE HOUSE, I INTERRUPTED YOU. I'M SORRY.

>> DO WE THINK THERE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR IS IT

HARD TO SAY? >> IT'S HARD TO SAY. THERE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL WORK DONE. YOU CAN LOOK UNDERNEATH AND SEE THE WALLS HAVE BEEN FRAMED AND REFRAMED. NEW POSTS HERE. OLD POSTS.

THIS IS THE SIDING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OFF AND REPLACED. AS FAR AS THE SECOND FLOOR, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING ACCESS FROM THE SIDE, WHERE IT SORT OF MARRIES IT TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, IT'S

A GUEST PLACE. >> I FIND IT VERY CONFUSING. IT'S ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE ON THIS STRUCTURE AT SOME TIME AND IT'S BEEN BROUGH DOWN TO WHAT IT IS

NOW. >> I THINK ACTUALLY MAYBE WHAT HAPPENED IS THESE DOORS, THIS WAS JUST A STICK STRUCTURE WHEN THEY FIRST DID IT. I THINK THE STAIRS WERE THERE.

MAYBE. IT'S HARD TO TELL. >> ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE

IS A LATER ADDITION. >> I'M SORRY, I INTERRUPTED YOU.

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON WITH YOUR ANALYSIS THAT PERHAPS THE GROUND FLOOR WAS OPENED.

BUT MAYBE THE STAIRS WERE ENCLOSED. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS

[02:50:15]

>> I THINK PROVIDING THIS WITH A SIDE ENTRY, IT SPEAKS MORE TO THE HOUSE, THE STAIRS ON THAT SIDE. BRING IT MORE INTO THE FAMILY OF THE HOUSE, MAKE IT A PARTNER WITH THE HOME.

AND REALLY THAT WAS THE INTENT. THAT WAS OUR CHARGE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

>> THANK YOU. IS THIS MR. O'DONNELL HERE IN THE BACK? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE SWORN?

>> SURE. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.

>> MIKE O'DONNELL, 214 SOUTH 7TH STREET. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH

AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO. >> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

>> MY WIFE AND I MOVED HERE FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS, 6 MONTHS AGO.

BOUGHT THIS 1889 HOUSE. YOU WILL SEE SUSAN OUT IN THE YARD.

I'M RELEGATED TO THE INSIDE, SO YOU WON'T SEE ME. BUT AS MARK SAID, THIS CARRIAGE HOUSE WAS BUILT 8 TO 12 INCHES BELOW. IT'S A CONTAINER FOR WATER WHEN IT RAINS. SO IT'S QUITE ROTTED. IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN TO IT EVENTUALLY. SO WE WANT TO TREAT IT HOLISTICALLY AND DO RIGHT. AND I THINK MARK HAS DONE AN ADMIRABLE JOB WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO REMARK, AS A NEIGHBOR IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PLACE FALLING DOWN. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE MAKING AN EFFORT TO RESTORE IT. NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET ON IT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING ON THE HOUSE.

AND FOR TAKING ON THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AS WE LIKE TO SAY, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THESE PROPERTIES, YOU JUST TAKE CARE OF THEM FOR THE NEXT PEOPLE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. O'DONNELL. IF NOT, ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE PHONE?

>> I'VE JUST GOT A QUESTION FOR MARK. ANOTHER ONE FOR MARK.

>> LET ME OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, OFFICIALLY. ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD, TAMMI. >> SO MARK, I'M STILL CONFUSED, LIKE THE REST OF THE BOARD ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THIS STRUCTURE. AND HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS BUILT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE HOUSE? WHAT HAS GIVEN US THIS DATE OF

1899? >> TO BE HONEST, I'M RELYING ON JACOB'S FEEDBACK ON THAT.

>> I DON'T THINK -- >> CAN YOU REPEAT, PLEASE? >> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS BUILT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS THE SWAN KELLY HOUSE. IT SHOWS UP ON THE -- IT SHOWS

UP ON THE 1946 MAPS. >> DID IT SHOW UP ON ONE BEFORE THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT SHOWS UP ON THE 26. SO I'M GUESSING IT WAS BUILT

SOMETIME BETWEEN THE 26 AND THE 46, THAT TIME FRAME. >> OKAY.

SO CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WAS BUILT MUCH LATER. >> NOT THE EXACT SAME ERA AS

THE SWAN KELLY HOUSE. >> KELLY, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? >> LOOKING AT IT, I CERTAINLY

WOULDN'T CLASS IT AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. >> I'M GOING TO PUT FORTH THIS THOUGHT, IF THIS WAS BUILT LATER, THEN IT SHOULD REFLECT THE DESIGN PERIOD THAT IT WAS BUILT IN AND NOT TRY TO MIMIC THE HOUSE AND THEN WE DON'T GET INTO THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE DRASTICALLY ALTERING SO MUCH. IT WAS COMMON AT THE TIME. WHEN A HOME WAS BUILT, IN 30, 40, 50 YEARS LATER, THEY REDID SOMETHING. THAT IS WHAT THE DESIGN SHOULD REFLECT. AND YOU KNOW, THIS WAS DONE IN THE 30S, IT CAN STILL BE CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING, BUT IT SHOULD BE MORE REFLECTIVE OF THAT PERIOD, WHEN IT'S DONE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME IT WAS BUILT IN.

YOU CAN CERTAINLY PUSH IT LATE ENOUGH AND IT'S OUTSIDE THE PERIOD OF HISTORIC

SIGNIFICANCE. >> I KNOW. IT MIGHT HELP.

YOU'VE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE MAJOR ALTERATIONS ON THE FRONT. THE OTHER THING IS, HAS THERE

[02:55:02]

I AGREE THE DESIGN LOOKS FAR BETTER THAN WHAT IS THERE. BUT I'M TRYING TO STICK TO THE INTENT OF THE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND YOU KNOW, THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION

REHABILITATION BOOK. >> THANK YOU, MARK. OKAY.

BOARD MEMBERS, WE'RE IN BOARD DISCUSSION. WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO HERE?

SORRY, BENJAMIN. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO REITERATE THE COMMENT THAT A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE MADE, PERSONALLY, FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT, I THINK THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOOK REALLY NICE.

I MEAN, IT'S WELL DESIGNED. IT FITS THE SCALE AND IT ALSO, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING MAIN HOUSE. BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN HERE IS THAT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, THIS IS A VARIANCE, THERE IS A CERTAIN YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE SIX SPECIFIC CATEGORIES THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY SAY THAT THE CONDITIONS EXIST FOR THIS TO BE ABLE TO BE APPROVED.

YOU KNOW, WE SEE COUNTLESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PROPOSED THAT WE APPROVE ALL OF THE TIME, BOTH IN DOWNTOWN AND IN OLD TOWN. AND WE HOLD EVERYBODY TO THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS. AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE THING PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT THAT CREATES, OR JUSTIFIES ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT WOULD MAKE IT IN MY MIND ELIGIBLE TO BE ABLE FOR US TO EVEN LEGALLY JUSTIFY A VARIANCE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ACTUALLY ALREADY A PRETTY LARGE PORCH OFF THE SIDE OF IT THAT IS EXISTING. YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A PORCH THAT OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES HAVE.

THEY CAN'T WITHOUT GET A VARIANCE, BUILD A PORCH, PUT AN AWNING OVER IT, INSTEAD OF A ROOF AND IT WILL LOOK GREAT. SO I JUST DON'T THINK IT SETS A GOOD PRECEDENT.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT WE HOLD TO THE SAME STANDARDS TO GIVE A VARIANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE IN THE BACKYARD. I THINK GIVEN THE ZONING IN THE

EAST BACK THERE, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE. >> TAMMI, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I AGREE WITH THAT. MY NEXT QUESTION WAS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, FROM STAFF GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA, FIVE WERE NOT MET. ONE WAS FOR THE PORCH.

THAT IS A LOT FOR US TO MAKE CONDITIONAL FOR AN APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE.

I'M HESITANT TO HAND OUT VARIANCES ANYWAY. AND WHEN THERE IS THAT MANY

CRITERIA THAT WERE NOT MET, I CAN'T DO THAT. >> JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HAVE A COVERED PORCH ISN'T A GOOD ENOUGH REASON FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GRANT A VARIANCE.

>> MIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> MIKE HARRISON, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I'M WITH BEN. >> JIM, WHERE ARE YOU? >> I ACTUALLY, I AGREE WITH BEN'S COMMENT REGARDING THE PORCH. I THINK TAKING AWAY THE ROOF ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. I ALSO DON'T PARTICULARLY SEE A REASON TO NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE. YOU CAN DO A SIX-FOOT FENCE WITHOUT A VARIANCE, IF YOU NEED THE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY, YOU CAN PLANT PLANTS THERE ALL DAY LONG THAT CAN GROW WAY ABOVE EIGHT FEET. SO I DON'T SEE A REASON TO NEED AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE EITHER. YOU INSTALL PLANTS TO DO THAT FOR YOU.

>> EXCEPT THEY'RE AGAINST THE LOT LINE. >> TRUE.

>> PLANT INSIDE YOUR PROPERTY. >> NO. THEY'RE AT THE LOT LINE.

>> SO WHAT IS THE FENCE BLOCKING? >> THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ON

THE OTHER SIDE. >> PARKING LOT. >> I'M NOT SEEING SUPPORT HERE

FOR THIS PROPOSAL. COUNSELOR >> THEN WE NEED A MOTION TO

>> KILL IT OR CONTINUE IT. >> WHAT ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE IT ON A NEW FOUNDATION.

I THINK WE WOULD ALL SUPPORT, OR IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS SUPPORT.

>> WOULD THEY NEED US FOR THAT? >> MODIFICATION TO THE FOUNDATION.

[03:00:01]

>> SEE, I THINK THAT IS A RENOVATION. >> I WOULD THINK NOT.

>> WHAT'S THAT? >> IF IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE AESTHETICS AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE WINDOWS OR DOORS OR FINISH MATERIALS, IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT US.

>> MY SUGGESTION IS WE CONTINUE AND LET THESE GUYS DO SOME MORE WORK AND SEE IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK TO US WITH SOMETHING ELSE. THERE IS NOT A REASON TO KILL IT COMPLETELY UNTIL THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY HEARD TONIGHT.

THEY MAY BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO US WITH A PLAN TO RENOVATE THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL,

WOULD ACCOMPLISH ALL OF THE GOALS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> WHY DON'T WE KILL THE

VARIANCE AND CONTINUE THE OTHER? >> THAT IS WHAT I THINK.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I'VE LEARNED IN A LONG TIME IN THE LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS, YOU NEVER CLOSE THE DOOR UNTIL YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY SURE YOU WANT THAT DOOR CLOSED.

MAYBE THE VARIANCE GETS MODIFIED. MAYBE IT'S SO MINOR AT SOME POINT THAT YOU GUYS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. BUT I WOULDN'T KILL IT RIGHT NOW AND STOP YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO CONSIDER IT LATER. BECAUSE THEY WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO FILE ANOTHER VARIANCE DOWN THE ROAD. SO YOU'VE GIVEN THEM PLENTY OF GOOD GUIDANCE HERE. LET'S LET THEM WORK WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.

NOT GOING TO BE BACK UNTIL OCTOBER AT THE EARLIEST. I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONTINUE

BOTH ITEMS. >> MAKES SENSE TO ME. SOUNDS GOOD.

>> TO MAKE IT EASY TONIGHT, EVERYBODY, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION AND INCLUDE BOTH CASE

NUMBERS, ONE MOTION. >> BENJAMIN IS GOING TO, OR MAYBE JIM IS GOING TO MOVE.

I PRESSURE YOUR FLEXIBILITY AROUND THIS. >> IT'S A REALLY GOOD LOOKING PROJECT. I WANT TO EXPRESS TO THE OWNER, WE APPRECIATE HIM WANTING TO

PRESERVE THIS STRUCTURE. >> IF THERE IS ANY WAY WE COULD FIND SOME HISTORICAL STUFF.

YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET IT. WHEN YOU SAID 1889, I WAS THINKING HORSE AND CARRIAGE.

AND THEN 1920S, IT WAS PROBABLY AUTOMOBILES. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> CHAIR SPINO, FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANTED TO NOTIFY THAT THE VARIANCE HAS A TYPO AND IT

SHOULD BE CASE 2020-0006, INSTEAD OF 19. >> THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO CONTINUE HDC 2020-0006, AND HDC 2020-0019, TO THE OCTOBER

MEETING OF THE HDC. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOVED POZZETTA. SECONDED KOSACK. MS. MCCAN, PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

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

>> YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA. >> YES.

>> CHAIR? >> YES. >> THANK YOU.

[5. BOARD BUSINESS]

>> BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS TO DISCUSS WITH REGARD TO BOARD BUSINESS.

KELLY AND I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES. SO BOARD BUSINESS-WISE. WE WANT TO GET STARTED WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS. THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT ONE THAT I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND DELIBERATION ON IS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PRESERVATION REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE GRANT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

AND RIGHT NOW, THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS TO SHIFT IT FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED, AS A RESIDENTIAL EXCLUSIVE GRANT PROGRAM EFFECTIVELY AND OPEN IT UP TO ALLOW FOR NATIONAL REGISTERED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT HAVE EITHER NON-PROFIT STATUS OR I THINK IT'S LABELED NON-PROFIT OR SIMILAR TYPE OF STATUS SO THAT THEY COULD QUALIFY FOR THIS

[03:05:04]

AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE THERE. BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND DOLLARS THIS YEAR. THAT IS A RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL GRANT PROGRAM.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE APPLICATIONS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DEFINED. SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO SEE IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT TO OPEN IT

UP A BIT FURTHER. >> SEEMS REASONABLE. WHAT DO FOLKS THINK?

>> I SEE SOME NODDING. DO YOU NEED A VOTE ON THAT? >> I WOULD LIKE A VOTE ON THAT

SO THAT WE CAN CAPTURE THAT FOR THE COMMISSION CONSIDERATION. >> MR. POZZETTA IS GOING TO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE PRAG. PRESERVATION REHABILITATION.

>> OKAY. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE PRESERVATION REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE GRANT TO INCLUDE NON-PROFITS AND SIMILAR TYPE

PROJECTS WITHIN THE SCOPE. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> YES.

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

ALL THOSE OPPOSED. VERY GOOD. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO A SECOND POINT FOR THE BOARD, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS APPEARED ON YOUR AGENDA UP TO THIS POINT. BUT IT IS MORE OF A BRIEFING. TO KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP ABOUT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERATION, A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE OF INTEREST. I KNOW YOU PARTICIPATED IN A CALL ABOUT THAT LAST WEEK.

SO THERE IS TWO ITEMS OF INTEREST, THE FIRST BEING THE CHANGES FOR EXTERIOR MOUNTED TVS AND JUST AS A BIT OF AN UPDATE ON THAT, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DID DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF THESE CHANGES WITH AMENDED LANGUAGE AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEND THAT TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW IT. BUT I THINK IT IS VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THIS BOARD WAS LOOKING FOR. THE OTHER IS THAT WE HAVE STARTED A FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO REQUIRE EXTERIOR MOUNTED COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, TVS EXTERIOR MOUNTED IN A COMMERCIAL AREA WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT FROM NOW ON. THAT WOULD APPLY CITY-WIDE. SO A SECOND LAYER TO CATCH ANYTHING THAT MAY APPEAR BEFORE WITHIN THE CITY, BUT JUST AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING STAFF

TO HAVE REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT OF THAT. >> I MIGHT ADD THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS HAPPY TO PASS THE LANGUAGE THAT BENJAMIN PREPARED WITH ONE CHANGE.

THEY TOOK OUT SATELLITE DISHES AND ANTENNAS. THEIR CONCERN WAS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A FEDERAL PROBLEM WITH THOSE TWO ITEMS. SO YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS LIKE TO DECLARE VICTORY IF I CAN. SO WE SAID YES, ABSOLUTELY. SO THOSE PROVISIONS ARE MOVING FORWARD AS PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK WE DID GOOD WORK THERE.

WE GOT PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. AND IT'S MOVING FORWARD. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND THANKS TO THE STAFF FOR PUSHING THAT FORWARD. >> HAVE TO MAKE THINGS URGENT.

>> SOMETIMES. BECAUSE I THINK WHEN THE PANDEMIC IS OVER, CONSTRUCTION STARTS ANEW, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING IN TOWN AND WE'RE GOING TO WANT THIS CONTROL BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO PREVENT A LAS VEGAS STYLE TIMES SQUARE STYLE EXTERIOR PRESENTATION AT THE MARINE BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I JUST WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER ROSS TOO, BECAUSE THEY BOTH HELPED GET THAT LANGUAGE TOGETHER AND GET IT THROUGH. SO I APPRECIATE THEIR HELP.

>> GOING TO GET TO THE COMMISSION YET, BUT WE CERTAINLY ARE MAKING GOOD

PROGRESS. DIRECTOR >> THE LANGUAGE WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, I BELIEVE THAT FALLS ON THE 15TH. KEEP YOUR EYES OUT FOR THAT ONE.

IF YOU WISH TO COME AND SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF IT AS INDIVIDUALS, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE MEETING TO ATTEND. ANOTHER ITEM OF INTEREST THAT I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IS A PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT REALLY AFFECTS THE APPEALS PROCESS FOR THE HISTORIC

[03:10:04]

THE PAB HAD ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

I AM BRINGING IT UP HERE JUST TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK THAT YOU MAY WISH TO, AS A BOARD. AND ALSO TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS WILL ALSO APPEAR AT THE SEPTEMBER 15TH CITY COMMISSION MEETING, AS AN ITEM FOR THEIR

CONSIDERATION. >> COUNSELLOR. >> HOLD ON.

>> WE WANT TO HEAR FROM COUNSEL FIRST. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT BENJAMIN.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO WHAT KELLY WAS SAYING BECAUSE SOME MAY THINK THAT BECAUSE THE HDC APPEAL PROCESS GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION FIRST THAT SOMEHOW, THAT THIS LANGUAGE WOULD NOW AND HAS DENIED AFFECTED PARTIES, NEIGHBORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, FROM ANY TYPE OF APPEAL. AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IF ANYBODY, ANY AFFECTED PARTY, OR AGRIEVED PARTY, WHAT THAT MEANS CAN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, THAT WE CARRY ON THESE HEARINGS AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. THERE IS ALWAYS AN ABILITY FOR AN AGRIEVED PARTY, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN BE A NEIGHBOR BUT YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY LIVE ALL THE WAY ACROSS TOWN. HAVE YOU TO HAVE A BIGGER INTEREST SO TO SPEAK THAN ANY OTHER CITIZEN WHEREAS, HERE, WHEN WE DEFINE AFFECTED PARTY, WE LET ANYBODY GET UP AND PRESENT EVIDENCE. WE SAY IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT, YOU'RE IN.

BUT THE COURTS MAKE YOU PROVE THAT YOU HAVE SOME INTEREST. SO NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, SOMEBODY RIGHT ON THE STREET. SOMEBODY THAT JUST SIMILARLY HAD A SIMILAR APPLICATION.

THEY MIGHT WANT TO APPEAL IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE NEIGHBORS BEING ABLE TO APPEAL AND PUT ON YOU KNOW, TESTIMONY AND SOME TYPE OF QUASI JUDICIAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. I'M SORRY TO BELABOR IT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I ADDED THAT THOSE NEIGHBORS STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. IT HAS TO GO TO COURT.

>> BENJAMIN. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY WHEN IT CAME UP AT THE PAB A WEEK OR TWO AGO, BOTH CHAIR SPINO AND I REACHED OUT TO THOSE MEMBERS AND MADE IT CLEAR THE WAY THAT WE FEEL ABOUT IT. AND BEFORE IT COMES IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION, I THINK THAT MOST OF YOU ALL AGREE WITH IT BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD AT THE JOINT WORKSHOP.

BUT IF YOU AGREE THAT YOU KNOW, YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA, I ENCOURAGE EACH OF YOU TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES AND E-MAIL THE COMMISSIONERS TO LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL.

>> I CONCENTRATE ON CRAIGER. I AGREE. THE LANGUAGE CREATES ANOTHER HURDLE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE OR CONSTRUCT IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT WE DON'T NEED. AND WE LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY COME IN HERE.

THEY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. BUT I THINK I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE MISCHIEF. SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING HAPPEN IN THE CITY, I COULD LITERALLY APPEAL EVERY DECISION OF THIS BOARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND SLOW EVERYTHING DOWN BY AT LEAST 30 DAYS. AND YOU NEVER WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO SKIN IN THE GAME TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SCREW UP THE PROCESS. SO IF THEY INSIST THAT WE HAVE THIS PROCESS, THEN AT LEAST THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF A FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT APPLICATION. I WOULD ASK US TONIGHT TO -- COUNSEL, DO I NEED A MOTION OR

A CONSENSUS >> YOU CAN GET A MOTION. >> BENJAMIN IS GOING TO MOVE

OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE APPEAL PARTIES. >> YEAH.

I THINK IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS IN AGREEMENT, I THINK IT WOULD BE A STRONG MOVE ON OUR PART TO

[03:15:01]

IT. >> I CAN DO THAT. BUT I NEED YOU TO MOVE IT AND

TAMMI TO SECOND IT AND WE'LL VOTE ON IT. >> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT

I'M MOVING ON, THOUGH. >> YOU'RE MOVING THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH THE CITY COMMISSION'S PROPOSD LANGUAGE TO CHANGE WHO HAS STANDING FOR APPEAL.

>> I MOVE THAT WE AS A BOARD OPPOSE THE CITY COMMISSION'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO WHO CAN

APPLY FOR APPEALS FOR HDC CASES MOVING FORWARD. >> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> HEARING NONE, MS. MCCAN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> THIRD. FOURTH. >> MEMBER KOSACK

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

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

>> YES. >> CHAIR SPINO? >> YES.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TONIGHT? >> THE ONLY OTHER ITEM THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP, CONSIDERATION OF SOME GENERAL PARAMETERS.

AT SOME POINT LEAD TO ADDITIONAL LDC AMENDMENTS, BUT SOME PARAMETERS FOR THINGS THAT MAY PROCESS CONSTRUCTION, IF AN APPLICATION COMES IN, ALLOWING FOR STAFF APPROVAL.

WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL INSTANCES RECENTLY, HARBOR VIEW IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN PRIOR APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE HDC, WHERE OTHERWISE WOULD BE CONSISTENT, VERY LIKELY TO BE DETERMINED CONSISTENT WITH YOUR STANDARDS, THAT PERHAPS ALLOWING STAFF APPROVAL OF THOSE ITEMS WOULD BE OKAY. RATHER THAN HAVING A 45-DAY TIME FRAME AND WAIT.

AND THE TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF AN AGENDA ITEM.

AND I WOULD START WITH INITIALLY PUTTING TOGETHER GUIDELINES FOR WHICH YOU MIGHT CONTEMPLATE THAT. RIGHT NOW WE'RE REQUIRING ANY CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

COA TO COME TO YOU FOR REVIEW. >> FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY HAS GOT A HOME IN OLD TOWN, DECIDE THEY WANT TO MOVE A WINDOW FIVE FEET, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SET UP A SET OF PARAMETERS SO THAT WE ALL AGREE THAT FIVE FEET, YEAH, FIVE FEET STAFF CAN APPROVE THAT. NOW, MOVING THE FRONT DOOR AROUND THE CORNER, NO, THEY CAN'T DO THAT. BUT THERE WOULD BE A SET OF THINGS THAT WE THINK THAT THE STAFF COULD APPROVE THAT NOBODY HERE WOULD HAVE ANY HEARTBURN OVER.

I THINK HARBOR VIEW IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT. THAT WAS NOT REALLY A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE AGREED TO. WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST LET THE STAFF DO THAT? AT ANY TIME IF THE STAFF IS NOT CERTAIN THAT WHAT THEY'RE APPROVING IS APPROPRIATE, THEY KICK IT TO US ANY WAY. THEY TEND NOW, THE STAFF NOW TENDS TO KICK STUFF TO US BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CERTAIN THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY.

AND I THINK IF WE PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR THEM, IT MIGHT SMOOTH THAT PROCESS OUT.

>> WELL SAID. >> I AGREE IF ANYTHING, STAFF TENDS TO BE ERR ON THE SIDE OF

BEING CAUTIOUS WHEN IT COMES TO US. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> TAMMI, GENERALLY COMFORTABLE? >> I THINK IT'S FINE AS LONG AS WE KNOW WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE AND WE DON'T CREATE MORE QUESTIONS.

SIX FEET, IS THAT OKAY. >> I THINK YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT.

WITHIN SIX FEET, OKAY. IF IT'S MORE THAN SIX FEET, IT'S NOT OKAY.

AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING WINDOWS, NOT DOORS. ROOF VENTS, NOT STAIRCASES.

>> WHETHER YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE STREET OR NOT. >> YOU'LL HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT INTO THIS PROCESS. ANYTHING ELSE, DIRECTOR?

>> I DO HAVE ITEMS. >> GO AHEAD. >>

>> I HAVE ONE COMMENT. I'LL DO THIS QUICK, TONIGHT'S WHOLE SESSION, I FELT LIKE ON QUITE A FEW OF THE PROJECTS, WE LACKED SUFFICIENT DRAWINGS FOR US TO DO OUR JOB EFFICIENTLY.

LIKE WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY DOCUMENTATION ON SEVERAL OF THESE PROJECTS FOR THINGS THAT IN THE PAST WHEN WE SEE THEM PRESENTED, IT MAKES OUR JOB A LOT EASIER. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY STAFF, IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO

[03:20:05]

BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF HERE 30, 40 MINUTES AGO IF WE HAD THE RIGHT DRAWINGS PUT

UP ON THAT SCREEN FOR US. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ASH STREET.

>> YEAH. THAT AND I FELT LIKE WE DIDN'T GET ANY EXISTING DRAWINGS OF THE LITTLE ACCESSORY DWELLING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE.

SO THAT WE COULD SEE, WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE BEFORE AND WHAT ARE THEY PROPOSING TO DO TO IT?

WE GOT TWO ELEVATIONS. >> THAT IS THE WHOLE QUESTION OF CONTEXT AS WELL.

>> YEAH. I THINK THE CONTEXT PIECE IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING FOR TOO. THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO INCLUDE IN OUR APPLICATION AS TO WHEN

THAT APPLIES AS WELL. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SHOWS UP ON THE CHECKLIST RIGHT NOW.

BUT MAYBE IT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADDED. >> DIRECTOR, ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE ITEM TO SHARE. AND MANY OF YOU, THIS IS GOING TO COVER STAFF AT THIS POINT, I'M GUESSING. JUST PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE, WE HAVE A NEW STAFF PERSON AND MANY OF YOU MAY ALREADY BE AWARE BUT FOR THOSE

OF YOU WHO ARE NOT -- >> I'M BACK. >> SAL IS RETURNING.

>> AND WE'RE VERY EXCITED AND APPRECIATIVE AND THANKFUL AND CANNOT WAIT FOR HIM TO GET

STARTED ON MONDAY. >> GOOD. >> YAY.

>> HAVING SAID THAT, THESE GUYS LEARNED A LOT ABOUT WHAT SAL DOES IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND THAT HAS BEEN HELPFUL. AND I THINK THEY WILL GIVE HIM GUIDANCE GOING FORWARD.

SMART GUIDANCE. BECAUSE THEY HAD TO DO THE JOB. >> YES.

I WILL SAY I GENUINELY APPRECIATE HAVING HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET AS INVOLVED AND ENGAGED WITH THE HDC. I HAD NOT BEEN THIS INVOLVED THROUGHOUT MY CAREER UP TO THIS POINT. AND I FEEL MUCH BETTER POSITION TO BETTER SUPPORT SAL AND THAT POSITION IN HIS ROLE, SERVING THE HDC. I ALSO SEE AREAS FOR WHERE WE CAN MAKE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS MOVING FORWARD. AND JUST GENERAL APPRECIATION FOR THIS WORK AND THIS ACTIVITY THAT WE GO THROUGH EVERY MONTH. IT IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF

WORK AND THERE IS NO DENYING IT. >> WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE SAL COME BACK AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK THAT YOU AND JACOB HAVE DONE OVER THE INTERIM WHILE SAL

WAS ON SABBATICAL. >> MICHAEL HARRISON. >> DO WE HAVE A DATE YET FOR

THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER? >> SEPTEMBER 30TH.

SO YOU'LL HAVE A WEEK IN BETWEEN. >> WHAT ARE THE DATES FOR

SEPTEMBER AGAIN, KELLY? >> YOUR MEETING DATE WILL BE SEPTEMBER, SORRY.

I WENT TO JULY. YES. IT WILL BE THE SEPTEMBER 17TH

AND THEN WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 30TH. >> OKAY.

SOUNDS GOOD. THAT IS GOOD NEWS ABOUT SAL. >> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR

PATIENCE TONIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. >> CHAIR SPINO.

>> YES, SIR. >> WHAT DID I DO NOW? >> CHAIR SPINO?

>> YES. >> HELLO. >> YEAH.

WHAT? >> I'M GUESSING WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE (INAUDIBLE)

>> YOU'RE BREAKING UP. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YEAH.

GO AHEAD. >> YEAH. CAN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SOUND, PLEASE, PARTICULARLY FROM THE (INAUDIBLE) THE AUDIO (INAUDIBLE) BUT THE CHAMBER IS HARD TO HEAR. AND SECOND, CAN WE GET A CAMERA ON THE PODIUM TO SEE WHO IS

PRESENTING? >> WE'LL LEAVE THAT WITH STAFF TO WORK ON.

>> WE CAN ASK. >> I DO HAVE AN UPDATE. >> REGARDING, FOLKS, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, CAN WE, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

BUT WE'VE ALREADY, THE CITY HAS ALREADY HIRED OUTSIDE ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO OR 3 MONTHS AGO NOW, WE HAD AN OUTSIDE AUDIO VISUAL CONSULTANT COME IN TO TRY TO GET IT SO WE COULD HAVE THESE ZOOM MEETINGS. WE HAVE FIXED CAMERAS IN THE CHAMBERS THAT ARE AROUND THE

[03:25:03]

SO THAT YOU CAN SEE >> NO. JUST USE ONE OF THE SIX.

>> I'M SORRY? >> JUST USE ONE OF THE EXISTING.

>> THE PROBLEM IS THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> RIGHT.

WE CANNOT MAKE ANY PROMISES. SO WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST. BUT REGARDING VIRTUAL MEETINGS, VERY EARLY THIS MONTH, VERSUS PRIOR MONTHS, THE GOVERNOR DID EXTEND THE ABILITY FOR US TO HAVE VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND NOT HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM PRESENT FOR ANOTHER MONTH.

SO WE HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST. IN SEPTEMBER OUR MEETINGS ARE AVAILABLE TO ATTEND VIRTUALLY.

>> GOOD. BECAUSE I'M NOT SITTING IN HERE WITH A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE.

>> UP HERE, YEAH. IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE BOARDS WHERE SOME MEMBERS HAVE CHOSEN TO COME, WE'VE HAD TO PUT SOME MEMBERS OUT IN THE AUDIENCE.

IT'S AWKWARD. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THINGS GO MONTH BY MONTH.

FOR NOW, SEPTEMBER WE'RE COVERED FOR VIRTUAL MEETINGS. >> THANK YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.