Sep 17, 2020 Historic District Council

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

[00:00:06]

>> I AM CALLING TOGETHER THAT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2020, HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> HARRISON.

>> HERE. >> I THINK SHE IS MUTED. >> MEMBER PROZAC.

>> PRESENT ERIC. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND PLEDGE THE ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE AND WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> DO YOU HAVE ME MARKED AS PRESENT? >> YES.

WE KNEW YOU WERE THERE. THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEAT

MEMBER P. JIM WILL MOVE IT. >> I MOVE THAT WE SEE TAMMY AS A

VOTING MEMBER. >> HARRIS WILL SECOND. >> I SECOND PERIOD.

>> THINK YOU ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, ANY OPPOSITION, HEARING NINE, TAMMY YOU ARE VOTING TONIGHT. IT IS JUST THE FIVE OF US. WE WILL START WITH THE

PROVOCATION. >> I HAVE NONE. MIKE, ANY?

>> YES, MR. NICHOLAS ASKED ME WHAT I THOUGHT OF HIS DESIGN, AND I SAID HE NEEDED TO GET IN

TOUCH WITH KELLY. >> THAT WAS ON GARDEN STREET RIGHT?

>> YES. THERE WERE TWO TIMES. >> THINK YOU.

>> MS. CONWAY, DO YOU HAVE ANY X PARTAKE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE?

>> NO, I DO NOT. >> TAMMY? >> I DO NOT APPEAR.

>> MOVING ON. COUNSEL WOULD YOU LIKE TO DESCRIBE THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURES

WHEN IT COMES TO VARIANCES. >> YES, I WILL. >> TONIGHT ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS. THAT MEANS FIRST CITY STAFF, ARE

YOU THE ONLY ONE MAKING PRESENTATIONS AND I. >> NO.

>> MS. GIBSON AND MR. PRATT WITH CITY STAFF WILL BE MAKING PRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY A PARTY TO EACH OF THESE CASES. NEXT, AFTER THE STAFF MAKES PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCES RECORD, THEN THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT CAN MAKE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. THE APPLICANT IS THE OTHER PARTY OF THE CASE.

AFTER THE EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCED, AND DURING THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE EITHER PARTY MAY CALL WITNESSES, AND EACH PARTY MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER AND EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES. IF THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE PARTY MEANING YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL NOT BE LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU GET TO SPEAK. YOU WILL TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE AS -- NOT AN OATH OF OFFICE, AN OATH BECAUSE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY IS BEING RECORDED AND YOU ARE PROVIDING TESTIMONY UNDER OATH. ANYBODY THAT IS HERE TO SPEAK.

AFFECTED PARTIES PLEASE STAND WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN TO TAKE AN OATH.

AND IF THERE IS AN APPEAL THAT NEEDS TO BE FILED AGAINST THE DECISIONS AGAINST THE COUNCIL, THE APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY COMMISSION WHICH -- WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD'S WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE FACT. AND ONLY PARTIES -- I'M SORRY THE APPLICANT IS PERMITTED TO APPEAL A DECISION AFFECTED PARTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAL THE DECISIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? VARIANCES. THAT MEANS HOW MANY VOTES YOU NEED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. UNDER THE CITY CODE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING

[00:05:07]

THANK YOU. >> I WOULD ASK THAT ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TONIGHT WOULD

PLEASE RISE AND BE SWORN IN. >> RATIO WRITE HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE

TRUTH ERIC. >> ,. >> THANK YOU EVERYONE.

I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION -- I'M GOING TO ASK FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS

MEETING. >> I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY. >> OKAY I AM JUST FOLLOWING THE

[3.1 HDC 2019-37 - MARK AKINS, RICE ARCHITECTS, AGENT FOR FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF FERNANDINA BEACH, 515 CENTRE STREET]

PRO FORMA. >> NEXT MONTH. >> WE WILL BEGIN WITH CASE HDC 2019-37-MARK AKINS, RICE ARCHITECTS, AGENT FOR FIRST PRESBYTERIAN WHO HAS THIS?

>> BY THE WAY I WANT TO THANK STAFF WERE CONTINUING THESE CASES THAT YOU STARTED EARLIER AND STAYING THROUGH THE NIGHT. IT IS GOOD TO CONTINUE AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.

I SHOULD GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE AS WE CAN, I FORGOT YOUR NAME. >> TAYLOR HARTMAN HAS JOINED OUR

STAFF AS THE PLANNING TECH. >> YOUR FIRST TIME HERE. >> YES, FIRST TIME EVER.

SO GOOD. MOVING ON. THANK YOU.

>> DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CONSERVATION. BEAT THE HOST SO YOU CAN SHARE

YOUR SCREEN. >> GIVE ME ONE SECOND SO I CAN PULL THIS UP.

OKAY. THIS IS CASE HDC 2019-37-MARK AKINS, RICE ARCHITECTS, AGENT FOR FIRST PRESBYTERIAN THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 1957. THIS IS A CASE THAT WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 19 REGULAR HDCC MEETING TO ALLOW TIME TO VOICE CONCERNS FOR WHAT WAS RAISED. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS TO THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL. STAFF CONTINUES TO RAISE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS WE HAD ABOUT THE ISSUES WE HAD IN THE JANUARY MEETING AND IS STILL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF HDC 2019 -- 37 BUT THE APPLICANT HASN'T APPLICATION TO GO OVER WHAT WAS CHANGED ABOUT THE JANUARY MEETING. SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS I'M HEAR! HEAR! TO ANSWER THEM.

THANK YOU. >> BRIEF AND SUCCINCT. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH? >> ZOOM ATTENDEES, NOTHING? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY.

>> OKAY, THEN WE WILL PROCEED. >> MR. AKINS, COME ON UP. >> WELCOME.

>> , I NOTE THAT WALK. >> MARK AKINS, WITH RICE ARCHITECTS, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH A QUESTION. COULD YOU MAYBE REFRESH ME SINCE IT WAS BACK IN JANUARY, CAN YOU REFRESH THE PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS OF THE STAFF AND HOW YOU SEE WE ADDRESS THEM AND THE

BASIS FOR DENIAL FOR THIS ROUND. >> SURE POTENTIAL GOING BACK TO, THE JANUARY,.

[00:10:07]

>> THIS HAS A 2019 CASE NUMBER ON IT BUT WE SHARED IN JANUARY? >> CORRECT, IT STARTED IN 2019 BUT WAS LAST VIEWED IN JANUARY. SOME OF THE ISSUES WE TALKED ABOUT WERE, THE IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC BRICK, BOTH THE CUTTING AND OPENINGS OF THE BRICK AND ALSO THE PAINTING OF THE BRICK.

WE FOUND THAT A NUMBER OF THOSE CHANGES WERE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE REMOVAL OF THE ALTERATION OF HISTORIC MATERIALS AND DISTINCTIVE FINISHES.

IT WAS REALLY THE LEVEL OF ALTERATION THAT WAS PROPOSED AND THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. SO OBVIOUSLY THE VISIBLE SIDE IT DOES HAVE TWO STREETS ONE BEING CENTER STREET. THERE IS A PROPOSAL FOR A ROOFTOP CANOPY.

STAFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ROOFTOP CANOPY IT WAS ACTUALY ALTERED IN THE MEETING TO BETTER FIT WITH THE HORIZON AND THE MIDCENTURY DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.

REALLY IT COMES DOWN TO THE PENETRATIONS AND THE BRICK COME OF PAINTING OF THE BRICK, THE STOREFRONT GLASS, CHANGING THAT TO CHANGING DESIGNS, AND I THINK THERE WAS A CIRCULAR FEATURE THAT WAS IN THE DESIGN THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE BUILDING ANYWHERE ELSE.

AND THE PENETRATION IS THROUGH THE BRICK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WEEK, I SENT AN E-MAIL TO YOU GUYS WITH SOME IMAGES. >> I CAN BRING THEM UP FOR YOU.

>> IT -- I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING, THAT THE BRICKS, WE ARE WHITEWASHING THE BRICK AND NOT PAINTING THE BRICK, WHICH IS A BETTER TREATMENT OF THE BRICK, CERTAINLY.

>> MARK WHILE HE DOES THAT WOULD YOU MIND DESCRIBING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHITEWASHING

AND PAINTING? >> IT IS ESSENTIALLY A MIME WATCHER.

MAYBE THAT'S NOT A GREAT ANALOGY BUT SIMILAR. WE ARE NOT PUTTING A LAYER ON IT IS A PENETRATING STAIN. AND, WERE NOT PAINTING A BREAK. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THAT MAINTENANCE ON THE BRICK. AND THE OTHER REASON WAS, MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE BRICK. WHEN YOU PAINT BRICK IT ROB IT OF ITS CHARACTER.

WHEN BRICK IS WHITEWASHED, IT MAINTAINS ALL OF ITS CHARACTER. AGAIN IT IS A PENETRATING SURFACE LEVEL AND IT'S NOT A BUILD UP. THE BRICK MAINTAINS THE CHARACTER IT HAD. SO NOT TO PRESUME ANYONE'S IGNORANCE ON THE MIDCENTURY MODERN BUT JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THIS WAS FROM 1970.

IT WAS A. THAT WAS REALLY CHARACTERIZED BY THROWING OFF THE OLD VICTORIAN, THE ERA THAT PROCEEDED IT AND AFTER WORLD WAR II, THE AUTOMATION THAT WE SAW IN WORLD

[00:15:02]

ON THE ISSUE, IN TERMS OF DESIGN AESTHETIC, IT IS TRUE, YOU DON'T SEE TYPICALLY IN MID CENTURY ON A WALL, HOWEVER THAT FIGURE IS NOT FOREIGN TO THE MID CENTURY MARK.

I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES. SOME MAY BE ALTERED BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ILLUSTRATE A COUPLE OF THINGS. MANY ARE RESIDENTIAL.

LET'S LOOK AT THE PICTURES AND I WILL SPEAK A LITTLE ABOUT IT IN MORE DETAIL.

ONE OF THE BIG DIFFERENCES THAT WE SEE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IS, RESIDENTIAL, YOU SEE A LITTLE MORE COLOR AND MORE PLAYFULNESS ALMOST IN THE PROJECTS.

COMMERCIAL, YOU SEE MORE VARIETY. THERE IS A HUGE VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL CHANGE IN MIDCENTURY MODERN AND IN FACT, THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

THAT IS A MID CENTURY MODEL THAT INCORPORATES THE CIRCLE. AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, OF WHAT'S GOING ON. THERE'S ALWAYS OUT LININGS OF EVERY DESIGN AND THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE. AND THIS IS AS WELL. NOT WHAT WE SEE HERE BUT, KEEP GOING. A MORE ECCENTRIC CASEBOOK RELATIVE BENT TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD POINT. AND ONE MORE.

AND YES, YOU CAN FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE AS WELL. IS THAT THE LAST ONE.

THE LAST TWO, THE LAST THREE I THINK, AND THE ONE PRIOR TO THAT , FOR CHAMPIONS OF ARCHITECTURE. THE POINT IN THE LAST SLIDES IS WHENEVER YOU DO SEE, A ROUND FEATURE OR SLOPES IN MID CENTURY MODERN INDO CURVES INTO DIFFERENT WAYS WAYS.

EITHER LIKE THIS OR BROAD SWEEPING WHERE IT OCCURS. THEY ARE NOT IN HERE.

BUT THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, JAMES, DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAME OF THIS.

IT SAID OKLAHOMA BUT IT HAS BEEN TORN DOWN. >> I DON'T REMEMBER.

>> AND THEN I GUESS WE COULD MOVE TO OUR PRESENTATION. AND I THINK THERE WERE TWO OR

[00:20:12]

WHAT -- WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS, IT IS REALLY DEAD OVER THERE. THE BRICK WAS ADDED AFTER THE BRICK WAS IN THE FRONT.

WE FEEL THAT WE HAD MORE AND ONE POINT. >> LIKEWISE IN THE FRONT.

AS FAR AS, THE WHITEWASHING AND THE COLOR OF THE BRICK, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL SPOIL THE CHARACTER OF THE BRICK.

I THINK, THAT PROPERTY, IT HAS A PRESENCE AND IT IS MUTED AND FADED RIGHT NOW.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL SCHEME, SHORT OF TAKING OUT THE WINDOWS, WE REALLY KEPT EVERYTHING THAT THE STAFF OBJECTED TO EXCEPT THE TRIANGULAR WINDOW SPIRIT WE WANT TO APPEAL TO THE COMMITTEE FOR BRINGING THIS PROPERTY EVERY SINGLE BUILDING IS WHITE.

AND, I AM HAPPY TO CALL THIS MIDCENTURY MODERN ERA. >> QUESTIONS FROM OUR PANEL FOR MR. AKINS AT THIS TIME? MIKE YOU LOOKED AS IF YOU HAD SOMETHING.

>> I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE LIFELINE OF THE BRICK. >> THE LIFETIME OF THE

WHITEWASH. >> IT CAN BE DONE INDEFINITELY. I, WHITEWASHING BRICK, I WOULD SAY DECADES. I DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC OR INDIC EVIDENCE ON THAT.

>> MY FEELINGS OF WHITEWASHING IS IT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT LEAST ONCE PER YEAR.

>> IT DEPENDS. I KNOW THERE'S MORE THAN ONE PRODUCT THAT YOU CAN USE.

THERE ARE SOME WHITEWASH PRODUCTS THAT HAVE A BONDING AGENT THAT HAVE MORE DURABILITY,

LIKE A TRADITIONAL PURE LIME. >> WHY DO YOU WANT TO PUT THE WHITEWASH ON?

>> BECAUSE OUR CLIENTS, WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE THE COLOR OF THEIR BUILDING.

>> AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT IS KEEPING WITH MOD -- MID CENTURY MODERN.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK FAR TO FIND EXAMPLES. >> CAN YOU SHOW US WHAT.

>> AND LOOKING AT THIS, THIS IS PART OF THE CRITERIA TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND SAY IF WE WILL ALLOW THE BRICK TO BE PAINTED, WHAT IS THE RECOURSE IF IN THE FUTURE IT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT

[00:25:07]

>> THAT IS THE CRUX OF WHATEVER DECISION IS. AND AN ANALYSIS, OR THE COMMENTARY THAT WOULD SHOW, PRODUCT LINE, THAT MAYBE ISN'T AS PERMANENT BUT EASILY REMOVED

AND RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE. >> THAT PRODUCT IS MORE LIKE A PAINT WHICH IS MUCH MORE HIGH MAINTENANCE. AND, THEN AGAIN, IT ROBS THE BRICK OF ITS CHARACTER. I DISAGREE, WITH THE ASSESSMENT THAT, WELL LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY. WHITEWASHING THE BRICK PRESERVES ALL OF THE CHARACTER OF THE BRICK. THERE IS NO BUILDUP, NO LAYER BETWEEN THE BRICK AND THE HUMAN BEING. AND AGAIN, IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE MIDCENTURY MODERN

VERNACULAR. >> WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE OTHER THAN CHANGING THE COLOR OF

THE BRICK? >> WELL IT CHANGES THE COLOR, IT IS LIKELY GOING TO, WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE, FIRST, THIS IS A CAMPUS AND THE CAMPUS ITSELF IS ALL-WHITE.

THIS IS THE COLOR THEY WANTED FOR THE PROJECT. I THINK WE RECOMMENDED WHITEWASHING OF THE PAINTING. WE THOUGHT ABOUT PAINTING IT BUT WE PREFER TO SEE THE INTEGRITY OF THE BRICK. BUT, IF YOU LOOK DOWN THE ROAD IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE, IT IS A PRODUCT THAT WILL BE CAP CLEANER. IT GIVES THE BUILDING ITSELF ANOTHER PRESENCE. IT IS BRIGHTER. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS

YOU SEE IN THE BUILDING NOW, IT IS LACKING. >> SOLD-OUT MARKET, BECAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT THE SAME QUESTION AND I HAVE WALKED AROUND THE BUILDING WHEN I HAVE BEEN DOWNTOWN. I THINK YOU WOULD TOUCH LIGHTLY ON THIS END DURING YOUR PRESENTATION THAT IT IS NOT JUST ONE BRICK ON THE BUILDING. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT BRICKS ON IT, AT LEAST TWO OF THEM. AND IN MY MIND, ADDING THE COLOR HELPS TO UNIFY THE BRICK ACROSS THE WHOLE BUILDING. MY MAIN ISSUE IS WHAT IS THE

REVERSIBILITY OF THE COLOR APPLICATION. >> I WOULD NOT WANT IT REVERSEDC PERSPECTIVE BUT I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THE APPLICATION ITSELF IS DEMONSTRATIVE.

AGAIN, A LOT OF TIMES YOU SEE MODERN PAINTING AND WE WOULD RATHER NOT DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT DOES CHARACTERIZE THE BRICK. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> YOU KNOW, I, THE BRICK THROWS ME OFF WHEN I LOOK AT IT.

>> OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE WHITEWASHING.

TAMMY WILL YOU HAVE ANY TELEVISIONS OR SCREENS ON THE ROOF?

ON THE ROOF? >> NOTHING PERMANENT OF THAT SORT, I CAN'T SAY THEY WILL HAVE AN EVENT WHERE THEY MAY DECIDE TO USE IT. THAT WILL BE THE CHURCHES IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT THEY CAN. THAT WAS NOTHING THAT WAS PART

OF OUR PLANNING. >> IF I MAY ADDRESS MS. CONWAY'S COMMENTS, THE REASON SOME OF THE IMAGE THAT WE BROUGHT UP WITH RESPECT TO THE WINDOW, THEY WERE TO ADDRESS THAT SPECIFICALLY IN

[00:30:05]

>> WE WANTED IT THAT WAY. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT SAT WITH THE OVERALL SCHEME OF THE

BUILDING. >> ARE YOU ABLE TO ZOOM IN DO YOU HAVE A BETTER IMAGE WHERE WE CAN SEE THE WINDOWS? THE FRONT WINDOW. GO BACK TO THAT LIST.

RIGHT HERE. REMEMBER THESE. YOU CAN SEE, THE ROUND.

YOU GUYS AT HOME YOU CAN SEE THE REALM. THOSE ARE APPLIQUÉ.

WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THERE WAS NOTHING PERMANENT. IT IS PART OF THE FEATURE OF THE BUILDING IN THIS SPACE. WE FELT THAT WOULD BE CAPTURED WELL BY LETTING IN LIGHT.

THEY NEED LIGHT OVER THERE. THIS IS A SPACE THAT THE STUDENTS AND THE YOUTH USE FOR A VARIETY OF FUNCTIONS. AND THIS GIVES THEM AN INTERESTING SPACE, IT MATTERS.

THEY HAVE A BEAUTIFUL VIEW TO ANOTHER CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE

ENDEAVOR TO DO. >> THINK YOU. TAMMY?

>> NOTHING FOR MARK. TEN THIS IS ON THE FEW WE CAN SEE HOW, ARE THEY THEY ARE VERY SOLO EFFORTS TO THE CROSS. THE -- I GUESS ONCE YOU CALL IT OUT.

BUT THIS IS A CHURCH BUILDING A CHRISTIAN CHURCH BUILDING AND THE ORIGINAL REITERATIONS WE'VE LOOKED TO HAVE THIS DONE IN GLASS WITH A NEW STOREFRONT BUT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS ALONG THE WAY WE SAID WELL WE CAN MAKE THESE ALUMINUM FRAMES REMOVABLE. AND SO.

>> ORIGINALLY, ARE THEY THERE IN ORDER TO REFLECT A ROUND WINDOW ON THE EAST SIDE?

>> THEY DO, BUT I DON'T THINK IN ANY CASE, THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD DETRACT FROM THE FRAMES SINCE THIS CAN BE REMOVED AT A LATER DATE. AND THE ROUND WINDOW, I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS KEEPING WITH THAT VERNACULAR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> HOW MUCH DOES THIS DESIGN, AGE THE FUNCTION TO WHICH THEY WANT TO PUT THE PROPERTY. A COUPLE OF THINGS. SEVERAL THINGS ARE BEING DONE TO THE INTERIOR, BUT, I THINK PRIMARILY, THIS BUILDING AS IT IS, AND I CAN LET OUR CLIENTS SPEAK TO THIS BUT I WILL INSTEAD THIS BUILDING AS IT SITS, IS ON NO MAN'S LAND IT IS SO BLAND IT SIT BACK SO FAR ON THE BLOCK THAT NOBODY NOTICES IT WHEN THEY GO BY.

THE GOAL WAS TO PRESENT THIS BUILDING IN A WAY, THAT RESPECTS THE VERNACULAR OF THE BUILDING BUT BEAUTIFIES THAT CORNER OF THE BLOCK. THAT AESTHETIC, THAT DESIGN INTENT IS REALLY ROOTED IN AESTHETICS AND BEAUTY. I THINK WE HAVE DONE THAT.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY LABORED TO DO THAT. >> IT IS A STRIKING RENDERING THAT YOU HAVE THERE. THE ESSENCE OF IT STRIKES ME THE MOST, THE EMPHASIS ON THE HORIZONTALS AND THE RECTANGLES THAT WERE CREATED. ONCE AN ANALOGY WITH THE CROSS, AND THE CROSS IS AT THE INTERSECTION AND WHAT THROWS ME, IS FIRST OF ALL THE BIG ROUND

[00:35:03]

I DON'T SEE THEM AS BEING RELEVANT AT THE TIME. THAT CERTAINLY MAY BE THE CASE IN TERMS OF THE BROADER DESIGN HOWEVER, THE BUILDING BELONGS TO OUR CLIENTS.

THEY WANTED SOME WAY TO ARTICULATE THE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE HELD THERE.

THIS IS A CHURCH BUILDING. AND THAT IS WHERE THAT WAS BORN. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARK.

IN LOOKING AT IT, TO QUESTIONS ACTUALLY. IT IS SUCH A SUBTLE REFERENCE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE PORTHOLES AND THE ONE ON THE SIDE IS MUCH MORE ROOM AND THEN SENT OF A DESIGN WITH THE OVERALL LOOK OF THE RAILINGS ON TOPIC SO I AM NOT CERTAIN, THE GOAL WAS TO HAVE ANY CHRISTIAN OR A CHURCH REFERENCE AND WAS NOT ACHIEVED BY THOSE ELEMENTS.

AND MY QUESTION IS, WHY DO YOU GO TO THIS BRICK ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING?

>> BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPHICS, THE DESIGN LANGUAGE OF THAT CORNER OF THE BUILDING WITH THE WAY THE ROOF LINE INTERSECTS WITH THAT MASSIVE BRICK, EACH ONE IS A DESIGN CHALLENGE AND WE TEACH -- TAKE EACH ONE AS DIFFERENT. I DO WANT TO ADD, FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, THE ROUND WINDOW IS DEEP ON THE SIDE. IT DOES NOT REALLY PRESENT ITSELF, WE HAVE A CHURCH BUILDING NEXT TO THIS. IT IS ALMOST AN ALLEY WAY BACK THERE. IT IS VERY COLD. AND AGAIN THE GOAL IS TO GET RID OF ALL OF THAT AND GIVE THIS PLACE A BEAUTIFUL PRESENCE IN THE CITY.

>> I THINK THE IMAGES YOU PRESENTED ARE COMPELLING AND BEAUTIFUL I LOVE TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL, THE HARD PLACE WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW IS YES YOU CREATED A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING BUT THEN THERE ARE HISTORIC THINGS WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY AND GO THROUGH.

AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS NOT BEING DESTROYED, AND I HAVE THREE MORE SQUARES THAT CUT THROUGH THAT AND THAT IS A BIG ISSUE. I KNOW IT WAS DONE AT A MUCH LATER DATE BUT THAT MESSAGE LEFT A BIG FEATURE AND IT IS A BIG PART OF THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING. I THINK IT IS AGREED JUST TO WANT TO CUT THROUGH IT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. HOWEVER, I THINK, AGAIN THE DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT WE HAVE INTRODUCED HERE, ARE NOT OUT OF KEEPING WITH A MIDCENTURY MODERN VERNACULAR.

AND AGAIN, WE HAVE PUT IT OUT THERE, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU MARK.

ANYONE ELSE SORRY MARK. >> NO WORRIES PICK IN JANUARY WHEN WE MET, THE ADJACENT STORE OWNER HAD CONCERNS ABOUT KIDS ON THE ROOF. AND COULD YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT

YOU HAVE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT WON'T HAPPEN. >> YES, SIR.

DO WE HAVE OVERHEAD. >> THANK YOU. SO IN THIS IMAGE I HOPE EVERYONE CAN TELL WHAT I AM DOING. AT THE TOP ABOVE THE RAILING, NORTH OF THAT, THAT, THIS ACTS

[00:40:05]

CAN THEY JUMP OVER THE RAILING? I SUPPOSE THEY CAN. >> HOW TALL IS THE FIREWALL

THERE? >> IT IS ABOUT 3-4 FEET. IT IS A LITTLE MORE OVER HERE.

BUT, SO HOP THE RAIL AND I HAVE A THREE-FOOT WALL. >> THIS IS ACROSS 12 FEET OF ROOF AND CLEARLY YOU SHOULD BE ON THE ROOF. BUT THE ROOF CAN BE ACCESSED ANYWAY. THERE IS AN ACCESS LADDER FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

>> BUT YOU ARE NOT SENDING PEOPLE UP THERE EVERY DAY. >> CORRECT.

>> AND I KNOW, THE KIDS ARE NOT UNSUPERVISED. THIS AREA WILL NOT BE

UNSUPERVISED. >> THANK YOU MARK, AND I THINK YOU JUSTIFIED YOUR CHOICES BUT, WHETHER WE LIKE THEM OR NOT. IT IS PRETTY PERSONAL. M ALMOST CERTAIN IN JANUARY WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE BLACK, THAT THE STAFF AND I THINK MYSELF WE WOULD PUSH TO WHAT THE BUILDING WANTS. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, A WHITE CAMPUS AND IT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THERE. WHICH IS STARK WHITE. AND YET, WE ARE GOING BLOCK WITH THESE DESIGN ELEMENTS, PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE. DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?

>> THE BRICK WILL BE WHITE. IT WON'T BE AS WHITE AS THE BUILDING.

SO WE WILL GET A CONTRAST THERE THAT ASSISTS THE WHITE BEING WHITE.

AS FAR AS THE LINES THEMSELVES IT IS REALLY ARTICULATING THE NATURE OF THIS PIECE.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE VERNACULAR AT ALL.

SO, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING GREAT TO SAY. REALLY, IT IS REALLY ABOUT THE LINE. THE LANGUAGE NOW WHICH I BELIEVE , THAT LANGUAGE IS NOW, A YELLOW OR CREAM-COLORED. IT REALLY KIND OF DISAPPEARS. THE LINE THAT WAS INTENDED IN

THE DESIGN TO HAVE A GOOD EFFECT IT REALLY FALLS SHORT. >> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU

SAY IS, IT IS A DESIGN CHOICE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, AS A BOARD TO SAY THANK YOU, FOR THE NUMBER AND CONSISTENCY OF DRAWINGS REPRESENTED.

YOU HAVE GIVEN US GOOD RESOURCE TO JUDGE YOUR PROJECT, BOTH IN RELATION TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES, COLOR WISE AND ET CETERA. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO REVIEW, TO LOOK AT THEM PROPERLY. THE DIFFERENCE IN COLOR DOES ACCENTUATE THE ELEMENT IN THE DARKER COLOR AS OPPOSED TO THE LIGHT WHICH BLENDS INTO THE SKY.

SO I CAN SEE YOUR POINT ON THAT. IT IS TIED TO THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING AND WE WOULD LOSE THAT IN THE NEW VERSION AGAIN I GUESS THERE ARE DEGREES IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS.

ARE WE LOOKING AT A VERNACULAR OR ARE WE LOOKING AT THE BUILDING AND DO I NEED TO

[00:45:02]

EXPRESSION OF MIR -- MAYBE WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. >> I'M GOING TO, GO A LITTLE LONG. WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WHICH IS TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THE CASE, 2019 -- 37. ANYBODY ON THE LINE?

>> I BELIEVE, THEY ARE NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE. >> OKAY.

SO I'M GOOD TO GO. CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. >> FROM THE WEBSITE OF THINGS, YES. WE KEEP EVERYONE OPEN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE, SO WE WILL GO INTO DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO WE THINK?

BRIEFLY. >> I THINK PERHAPS THIS IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION. -- EXCUSE ME. SOMETHING GOT ME HERE.

THE QUESTION FOR ME IS, SETTING ASIDE THE BULK OF THE ARCHITECTURE, AND IT IS 20TH CENTURY. THEN WE HAVE A NUMBER OF, EXAMPLES OF BUILDINGS THAT CAME IN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT IN THE 50S AND THAT WAS THE CASE OF THE BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING THAT WAS THERE. AND, SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE FERNANDINA A HISTORIC TOWN. DO YOU WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE DID MAKE CHANGES FOR IMPROVEMENTS, AND TO DEVELOP IT 1950S STYLE AND THAT IS A VALID CASE, AND WE SHOULD NOT MESS WITH IT. WE SHOULD KEEP IT AS IT WAS, AS IT WAS INTENDED OR YOU TAKE THE VIEW, THAT THE CITY AND THE TOWN IS A PLACE TO BE LIVED IN, THANKS TO THE OPEN TECHNIQUES, AND THE MATERIALS AND YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT YEARS BUT YOU HOLD TO THE BASIC TABS, AND SO,

YOU SHOULD PERHAPS ALLOW THE FORUM TO CHANGE. >> TAMMY?

>> I THINK SOME OF THAT GOES AGAINST, WHAT WE NEED TO DO, I THINK THE SECOND.YES WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO UPHOLD WHATEVER CONSTRUCTION AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE BUILDING. IN THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING, WHAT I FIND IS WHAT WILL BECOME MORE IS THIS WILL BECOME A 1950S OR 1940S STRUCTURE THIS IS EVERY OTHER UPDATED STRUCTURE. YOU WALK INTO ANY PUBLIC SHOPPING STRIP MORE THAT WAS BUILT IN THE '90S AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THIS. THEY ARE ALL DOING THE SAME THING. I THINK WE ARE KEEPING -- CHEAPENING ANY HISTORY WE HAVE.

SO THE THING THAT I CAN'T WRAP MY ARMS AROUND I CAN'T SEE PIERCING THE BRICK IN THE FRONT, I CAN LEARN TO LIVE WITH WHITEWASHING BUT I THINK THE FRONT STRUCTURE ANY COMMENTS?

[00:50:04]

>> WELL, IT DOES NOT BLEND IN OR GO, WITH THE REST OF THE AREA. I REALIZE THAT THIS WASN'T LIGHTER BUILDING BUT IT IS LIKE PUTTING LIPSTICK ON SOMETHING. I DON'T CARE FOR THE WAY IT LOOKS AND I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE ROUND WINDOW, IT IS JUST TOO VAGUE.

BUT -- THE STYLE SHOULD BE THE STYLE ON THE DATE IN WHICH IT WAS BUILT.

I CAN SEE THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT AND DON'T MESS WITH IT AND ADD MORE TO IT.

>> I THINK THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. SOMETHING ELSE, YOU WILL DO THAT BUT I THINK WE HAVE A BRONZE -- RESPONSIBILITY -- IT WOULD BE IF SOMEONE CAME IN WITH A GREAT-LOOKING VICTORIAN AND THEY WANTED TO ADD AN EMBELLISHMENT TO IT.

WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT. IF SOMEONE WANTED A GINGERBREAD HOUSE, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT.

IT IS A TOUGH SELL. I THINK IT IS A COOL LOOKING PLACE BUT NOT RIGHT THERE.

>> I WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE TOWARD SOME OF THE DECISIONS. I THINK THE MASSIVE BRICK WALL, THE CHOICE TO GO WITH JUST THE THREE SQUARE WINDOWS, I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO THE TIME PERIOD AND THE STYLE AND IT STILL ALLOWS THE BRICK WALL TO LIVE AS A LARGE MASS BY ITSELF. IT ALLOWS EXTERIOR LIKE TO GET INTO THE ROOM THAT OTHERWISE HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE EXTERIOR. IT IS COMPLETELY ISOLATED. I THINK THE WHITEWASHING AND THE BRICK, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WAS RESEARCHED AND COULD BE SHOWN TO BE REMOVABLE AND NOT PERMANENTLY AFFECT THE BRICK. I PERSONALLY SEE A GOOD RATIONALE AND REASON FOR TREATING ALL OF THE BRICK TO UNIFY THE WHOLE EDIFICE AS ONE MATERIAL AS OPPOSED TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF BRICK. I DO AGREE WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT I HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH THE CIRCULAR ICONIC IN THE FRONT AND WRAPPING DOWN THE SIDE. IN THE CIRCLE WINDOW, IT HASN'T REALLY MARRIED ITSELF TO THE

STRUCTURE YET. AND THAT IS WHERE I SIT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THAT IS RIGHT. >> I WILL BORE YOU WITH A STORY. AND THEN TELL YOU WHY.

SO, IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE I SPENT MOST OF IT WORKING ON EDUCATION POLICY, SCHOOL FUNDING AND SCHOOL FACILITIES. I CAN HEAR IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD A SUPERINTENDENT THAT I ENJOYED WORKING WITH TELLING ME YOU ARE PUTTING KIDS ON A ROOF, OUTSIDE.

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING. AND, IT WOULD TELL ME THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. BUT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, I COULDN'T TELL.

I JUST COULDN'T DO IT. AND WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE AESTHETICS, WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT CHANGES TO THIS BUILDING, A LOT OF THIS IS A MATTER OF TASTE BUT I THINK WE HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE, I JUST CAN'T GET PAST THAT. IS THERE A MOTION. DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD? I WILL -- DON'T ALL TALK AT ONCE.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. I WAS LOOKING FOR THE LANGUAGE. >> I MOVE TO DENY CASE NUMBER HDC 2019 -- 37, AND I WANT THEM TO MAKE THE FINDINGS THAT CASE 29-37 IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE

[00:55:07]

>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION? >> SURE. >> YEAH, I THINK, MARK HAS DONE A GOOD JOB REPRESENTING HIS CLIENT AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND THINGS COME TO AN END BECAUSE, WALMART COULD SAY WAS THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENT WANTS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE CLIENT. >> MR. AKINS WOULD LIKE

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND I THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE. >> ONE THING I FORGOT AND I WANT TO SEE IT IT COULD BE ADDRESSED. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AS THEY APPLY TO THIS STRUCTURE AND THE HDC AND WHETHER IT APPLIES TO THE MID CENTURY MARK.

>> YES. I WILL TAKE THIS TIME TO WELCOME HIMSELF BACK TO THE TABLE.

WE ARE HAPPY HE WAS ABLE TO REJOIN. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID IT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID IT DIRECTOR BUT GREAT JOB. I WILL SECOND THAT.

THAN YOU GUYS. SO FIRST LET'S RUN THROUGH THE STANDARDS WHICH ARE.

>> SPEAK UP PLEASE. >> THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS ARE THE TENTH SET BY THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FOR REHABILITATION OF PROPERTIES SPECIFICALLY ON CASES LIKE THESE THAT IT REALLY APPLIES. THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF A PROPERTY WILL BE AN NUMBER THREE THAT EACH PROPERTY WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS A PHYSICAL RECORD OF ITS TIME, PLACE AND USE, CHANGES THAT CREATE A FALSE SENSE OF DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS ADDING FEATURES ARE DEVELOPMENTS FROM OTHER HISTORICAL PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE TAKEN. THAT CHANGES, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT. BUT NUMBER FIVE IS RELEVANT. DISTINCTIVE MATERIALS LIKE FINISHES AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES ARE EXAMPLES OF CRAFTSMANSHIP THAT CHARACTERIZE A PROPERTY THAT WILL BE PRESERVED. AND THEN, 9-10 DEAL WITH NEW ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS IN THE SHOULD BE, NEW ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION UNDERTAKING IN THE MATTER THAT IF REMOVED THE INTEGRITY WOULD CAUSE IT TO BE UNIMPAIRED.

THAT IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TE PAINTING OF THE BRICKS COME IN.

AND THEN, I WORKED GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY ARE BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.

I CAN PULL THOSE OUT. THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS IN THERE.

LIKE THE SPECIFIC ONE ABOUT NOT PAINTING THE BRICK AND REALLY KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER, THIS IS A UNIQUE STRUCTURE, IT IS A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT FALLS OUT OF THE AREA

OF SIGNIFICANCE SINCE -- >> THAT WAS THE QUESTION, AND SINCE THIS FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE AREA OF SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT DOWNTOWN AND FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, HOW DOES THAT --

DOES THAT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHAT WE ARE DOING. >> IT DOES APPEAR WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT THIS BUILDING'S HISTORY AND NOT THE GREATER DOWNTOWN.

BUT, BUT THERE IS A QUESTION, ARE THOSE STANDARDS ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED TO THE STRUCTURE

SINCE IT FALLS OUTSIDE. >> AND THAT FALLS UNDER OUR MATRIX OF HOW WE IMPROVE THINGS

[01:00:05]

NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. >> IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT, IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE LEGALLY, WE COULD PUT SOMETHING MODERN IN THERE THAT DIDN'T FIT AT ALL.

AND BECAUSE IT IS NONCONFORMING OR NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE YOU COULD PUT ANYTHING THERE.

AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE. OR CONVERSELY -- ANYWAY. >> I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THE

APPEAL PROCESS IS YOU CAN TAKE THIS -- >> YES.

I JUST WANTED IT RECORDED BRIEFLY. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU MARK.

I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR EFFORTS. LET'S NOT DIMINISH THAT IN ANY WAY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS. ARE WE READY TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE BOAT?

I THINK WE ARE. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER HARRISON.

>> NO. I VOTE TO DENY. >> YES TO DENY.

>> CONWAY? YES. >> MEMBER K.

>> NO. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE I KNOW WE ARE RUNNING LONG BUT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUORUM AND WE NEED TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. HAVING SAID THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER CASE COLLECTS WE WILL GO TO GARDEN STREET. 2020 -- 0025.

[3.2 HDC 2020-0025 - JOEL MIKLAS, 821 GARDEN S]

JOEL MIKLAS. THIS MUST BE ON DIRECTOR GIBSON. >> THANK YOU.

AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO PULL UP THIS AND GET STARTED. AND WE NOTED THERE WERE SEVERAL DETAILS MISSING FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD.

SPECIFICALLY THE DETAILS AND THE FOUNDATION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FOUNDATION.

AND ALONG THREE OF THE ROOF LINES. AND THE RAILINGS SURROUNDING THE PORCH FEATURES ON THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS. SO, I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU AND I WILL PUT IT ON THE SCREEN, ONE ELEMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 821 GARDEN STREET AND THE PRIVATE -- PRIVATE -- THIS IS CONSIDERED AN AFTER-THE-FACT REVISION.

AND AGAIN, IT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REVISIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

THE REVISIONS INCLUDE ADDED DETAILS TO MIMIC WHERE EVENTS MAY HAVE GONE, HAD THE PRIOR FOUNDATION SYSTEM HAD PUT IN PLACE. THE REMOVAL OF THE HANDRAILS FOR STAIRS. AND THEY WERE NO LONGER NEEDED. AND THE REMOVAL -- REMOVAL -- AND AGAIN AS I NOTED EARLIER THIS ALTERATION, NOT THE FINAL INSPECTION DUE TO A MIX UP WITH SOME OF THE PHYSICAL FILES IN THE OFFICE I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND PICKED UP ON THE CHANGES THAT NEEDED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. I CONTACTED THE APPLICANT AND LET HIM KNOW THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE. SO IT IS A LITTLE FURTHER IN ADVANCE THAN EXPECTED. THAT IS WHY HE IS HERE FOR THE CHANGES.

AS PART OF THE REPORT THAT I PROVIDED, THE DETAILS FROM YOUR ORIGINAL APPROVAL I BELIEVE IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR AND THE PICTURES OF THE WAY IT LOOKS TODAY.

[01:05:02]

ONE IS THE DETAILS THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

AND THEN, CONSIDERING THAT THE CHANGE HAS OCCURRED TO THE FOUNDATION ITSELF.

I THINK THE EVENT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY PURPOSE SO, IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU CONTEMPLATE REMOVAL OF THAT AT THIS TIME. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE WITH

YOU THE IMAGES FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. >> QUESTIONS FOR MS. GIBSON.

>> IN TERMS OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION, NUMBER TWO, I AGREED WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE FENCING ON THE FOUNDATION, ARE YOU NOT CALLING FOR ANY INDICATION OF THE EVENT?

>> I THINK AT THIS POINT GIVEN THE CHANGE OF THE SYSTEM, I THINK YOU NEED TO LET IT BE WHAT

IT IS. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO PICK BECAUSE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OR LOOKING LIKE THIS IS OUT OF THE FRAME IS SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN DRIVING AT FOR A FEW YEARS.

IS THERE ANY MECHANISM IN PLACE AFTER IT HAS LEFT THE HDC AND THEN GOES TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT IF SOMEONE WERE TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DROPPED THE SLAB SIGNIFICANTLY AND ELIMINATED ALL OF THE EVENTS EVERYWHERE. IS THERE ANY MECHANISM IN THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENTS TO SAY IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COMES BACK TO TALK TO THAT.

>> PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE IT SHOULD HAVE COME BACK IN AS A PERMIT REVISION.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CHANGES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND KIND OF A BIG DEAL. THAT COMPONENT OF THE REVIEW PROCESS WOULD HAVE NEVER OCCURRED. INSPECTIONS CONTINUED AND THAT

WAS NOT CAUGHT UNTIL THE TIME THAT IT WAS ALMOST FINAL PERIOD. >> WE LOST THE IMAGE OF PEERS ON THE PORCHES AS WELL. WE LOST QUITE A BIT OF DETAILING THAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK FOR,

ESPECIALLY IN OLD TOWN HOUSES. >> GO AHEAD. YES, WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION OF THE APPEARANCE THAT WAS CREATED. PEOPLE WITH GREATER DESIGN AND EXPERTISE THAN I HAVE.

I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD MEANING FULLY INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW, AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF IDEAS AS TO HOW IT MIGHT BE DONE. BUT WHAT IS NO, SIR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON BUT I WILL DIRECT THIS TO SAL SINCE HE KNOWS ABOUT THIS.

[01:10:11]

>> DON'T WE ALWAYS DO PORCH RAILINGS? THE LOWERING OF THE PORCH HERE, NOT REQUIRED BY BUILDING CODE. SO WE ALWAYS REQUIRE IT IN OUR APPROVAL.

I CAN'T THINK OF A CASE WHERE WE HAVEN'T HAD THEM BUT WE ALSO HAVEN'T HAD FOUNDATION SO THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED. SO I JUST REMEMBER, WE WORKED ON CASES WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. THIS IS WHERE THE BILLING CODE WOULD NOT HAVE TRIGGERED.

OH, I'M SORRY. >> LIKE WE SAID. EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDATION IS NOT THAT HI, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OLD TOWN. I WILL GO AHEAD AND ASK

MR. NICHOLAS. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD? >> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MY HOME ADDRESS IS 1917 -- MIKE BOULEVARD.

WANTED TO PUT A PORCH SWING OUT FRONT WHICH IN OUR OPINION WAS SOMETHING MORE VALUABLE LOOKING.

WE DROVE AROUND AND WE SAW EVERY HOUSE UNDER EVALUATION. SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT IT LOOKED MORE IMPORTANT TO PUT THIS OUT FRONT. THAT IS WHY WE DIDN'T DO IT.

AT LEAST HALF THE HOMES OUT THERE. AND LOOKING AROUND, THIS IS ON A FULL SLAB. WE SEE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY.

I KNOW THERE WAS A NEW ONE, A BRAND-NEW YELLOW HOUSE BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE ELEVATION IN THE BACK IS MUCH HIGHER THAN IN THE FRONT. SO AS YOU GO TOWARDS THE BACK THERE'S ONLY THIS MUCH OF THE FOUNDATION SHOWING, THEN IT GETS BIGGER.

IT IS NOT ALL THE SAME SIZE GOING THROUGH. THAT WAS THE REASON WE STOPPED DOING EVENTS. SO IF YOU DRIVE UP TO THE HOUSE AND YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN'T SEE THE SLAB COMING UP BECAUSE OF THE PLANTS WE HAVE PLANET TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE HOMEY.

THE FEEDBACK I'VE GOTTEN FROM REALTORS HAS BEEN PHENOMENAL. SO THEN THE CABLES UP TOP, WE DID AN ADDICT. WE DID THAT WITH THE INSTALLATION SO THE --

>> DETAILS. >> THE THOUGHT WITH THE BUILDER WAS WE WOULD PUT THIS HERE, BUT I COULD ADD PLASTIC, TO NOT MAKE IT GO THROUGH ITSELF. WE WENT AROUND TO THE OTHER HOUSES TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAD THESE VENTS. NO OTHER HOUSE HAD IT.

THOSE ARE THE REASONS WE DID WHAT WE DID. I THINK THIS IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND ONCE THEY TOLD US THE ELEVATION WAS DIFFERENT, THAT IS WHAT MADE US DECIDE TO DO A

PORCH SWING INSTEAD. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR JOEL MIKLAS?

>> WE WILL GO TO THE RESUME PANEL FIRST. MIKE HAS A QUESTION.

YOUR NAME? >> YES, HOW DOES THE CHANGE IN ELEVATION COME ABOUT.

WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS? >> HOW DID THE CHANGE IN ELEVATION COME ABOUT.

>> THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW WE WALKED THE PROPERTY AND IN FACT WHEN WE WERE BUILDING THERE WAS NO FENCE THERE.

I SAW THE DIRT COME OVER AND THE WATER WAS COMING DOWN ALL THE WAY TO GARDEN STREET.

>> I THINK THE UNDERLYING QUESTION IS, HOW DID YOU END UP GOING FROM WHAT YOU WERE

PERMITTED TO WHAT YOU BUILT? >> I AM NOT SURE. >> TAMMY?

[01:15:12]

THAT WAS MY QUESTION OF HOW IT CAME ABOUT. >> I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE PUT BIGGER FENCE UP FRONT. THIS MAY BE 16 INCHES BUT I DON'T HAVE THE ROOM.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK, THIS IS MORE OF A STATEMENT IN GENERAL, WHEN THE HDC APPROVES A SET OF DRAWINGS WE APPROVE WHAT IS ON THE DRAWINGS.

YOU DON'T HAVE LICENSE TO WANDER AROUND OLD TOWN AND POINT TO ANYTHING THAT WAS DONE DIFFERENTLY AND SAY IT WAS DONE THERE AND I WILL DO IT ON MY HOUSE.

IF YOU CHANGE ANYTHING, CERTAINLY AESTHETICALLY OR VISUALLY, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND WE SAY WE WILL DROP THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE, WE DROPPED IT DOWN TO MAYBE 2 FEET OR LESS THAN 2 FEET, AND WHEN WE DO THAT WE WILL CHANGE THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION SYSTEM THAT WILL ELIMINATE THE VENTS. THE BOARD WOULD HAVE SAID NO. YOU ARE NOT GETTING RID OF THOSE BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WE SAID OKAY. ELIMINATING YOUR NEED FOR ADDING SPACE BAR THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE WAS DEFINED BY THE IMAGE AND WE WOULD HAVE SAID YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE THAT. IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE DETAILS. SO ALL OF THESE DECISIONS, THESE ARE ALL MONEY DECISIONS. THE HDC, DOESN'T PIN ALL OF OUR THINGS ON WHAT IT WILL COST YOU TO DO THAT. WE WANT YOU TO DO THINGS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SOMETIMES IT COSTS MORE. WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT WAS APPROVED I SEE MONEY CHOICES ALONG THE WAY. THAT ISN'T REALLY WHERE WE WANT

TO JUDGE FROM. >> THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS.

WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO CASE 202N

STREET. ANYBODY ONLINE? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS, -- I THINK WHAT

JIM JUST SAID VERY ELOQUENTLY AND THE CRUX OF THE MATTER. >> WE ASK FOLKS TO SIGN WHEN THEY GET THEIR CERTIFICATE, THEY FIND THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE CHANGES THEY WILL COME BACK AND CLEARLY THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID NOT CATCH THAT ONE EITHER PROBABLY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LDC BUT NOT WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO DO.

I AM PRETTY SURPRISED. I KNOW IF IT WERE MY CONTRACTOR THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE OTHER THING. THERE ARE EASY WAYS THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. YOU CAN EASILY PUT IN THIS AND BLOCK OFF THE BACK.

YOU -- THEY MADE THE CHOICES AND, IT ISN'T APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AFTER-THE-FACT DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THEN WE HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT IS OUT THERE AND THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN.

SOMEONE ELSE WILL SAY THEY APPROVE THIS HOUSE OR THAT HOUSE.

SO,. >> YOU CAN LITERALLY HEAR THE NEXT APPLICANT SAY JOEL MIKLAS

[01:20:03]

PATH WE ARE GOING DOWN. >> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? >> THEY DID NOT COME BACK.

>> I AM JUST WONDERING, WHAT IS THE CURE OF THIS PROBLEM? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED I THINK, TO TAKE A SITUATION WHICH HAS PROBABLY COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUACIES IN THE CITY PROCESS AND WE ARE BEING ASKED TO SAY IT IS ALL RIGHT.

>> IT HAPPENS. I CAN SEE SOME WAYS IN WHICH IT COULD BE A TROUBLING FACT, AND CREATED SOME MISCHIEF THERE BUT IT COULD BE ALIGNED WITH I DON'T ALL OF A SUDDEN DO WE SAY YES,

IT IS ALL RIGHT LEAVE IT AS IT IS? >> I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT.

>> I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT BUT MY HOUSE IS SO CLOSE TO THE GROUND, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, IT IS NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE IT'S ON A LOW FOUNDATION.

AT THIS POINT, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT BACK. >> REGRETTABLY I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY WAY, WITHOUT IT LOOKING LIKE AN ADDED ON WITHOUT MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL INTENT. AS FAR AS A PORCH SWING, HERE'S AN ELEMENT THAT WAS NOT ON THE APPROVED DRAWING SAID. IT WAS BROUGHT INTO THE DESIGN, ALTER THINGS THAT WERE APPROVED AND WE WERE NEVER SHOWN, ASKED OR GIVEN A CHANCE TO SAY YES OR NO OR OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE OR ADDITIONAL INPUT. I THINK DEFINITELY THE ELEMENTS ARE EASY TO ADD ON AND WOULD STILL LOOK VERY APPROPRIATE AND NOT HARM THE FUNCTION OF THE HOUSE. THOSE DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE PUT ON IN MY OPINION.

AND I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH STAFF, THE ONE OR TWO ADD-ONS RIGHT NOW DON'T LOOK APPROPRIATE

BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. >> QUESTION FOUR YOUTH COLLECTS WHEN THEY DON'T LOOK APPROPRIATE, THE SCALE IS INCORRECT.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN SQUASHED SO MUCH. I CAN'T QUITE TELL WHAT THE MATERIAL IS FROM HERE. SO, I DON'T LIKE THAT APPEARANCE AT ALL.

WHAT IF THERE WAS A WAY, THEN PUT A RECTANGULAR DENT AND THERE THEY TOOK THE ENTIRE AREA AND WENT FROM RIGHT UNDER THE FOUNDATION WITH SOME ARTICULATION THAT WOULD NOT ROT, SO WE COULD HAVE 24 INCHES HERE AND THAT WAY IT COULD BE THE WHOLE HEIGHT OF THE SLAB.

AM I MAKING SENSE? A SPACE IN BETWEEN THAT AS A COVERING OF SOME SORT.

>> I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ENOUGH ELEVATION TO DO THAT. THE HOUSE IS CLOSE TO THE

[01:25:03]

MAY GIVE YOU A FALSE SENSE,. >> WHAT IF I PUT A SCARLET A ON THE HOUSE.

>> AND -- >> ALL RIGHT, DO I HEAR ANY CONSENSUS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. I WOULD WAIT UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY. I GOT HELP OF A MIND TO SAY, AND I THINK WITH THE RAILINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PORCH YOU COULD DO SOMETHING WITHOUT DISTURBING THE PORCH WENT.

I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVING THE EVENT BECAUSE THOSE DESIGN DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEY ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL. IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS HERE? ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS DONE. IT IS DRAGGING.

WE DON'T WANT TO BRING THEM BACK FOR ANOTHER SET OF DRAWINGS WHILE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. I'M NOT SURE IT SERVES ANYONE'S PURPOSE.

>> YES, I DON'T SEE HOW THE RAILINGS WORK WITH THE PORCH SWINGS.

IF YOU WANT RAILINGS, THE PORCH SWINGS UP TOO. IT CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN POSITIONED ELSEWHERE ON THE PORCH. IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE GRIEVING BY FORCING IT INTO THE RAILING WHERE IT EXISTS.

IT SNOWBALLS AND CHANGE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. >> I WOULD BE INCLINED TO

RECOMMEND WHAT WAS PROPOSED, IS THERE SUPPORT FOR THAT? >> I'M THERE HE'S THERE.

>> I AM STILL STUCK HERE WITH THE IDEA THAT THE HDC IS G SOMED NOT OTHERWISE APPROVE SIMPLY

BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY BUILT. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE WERE TO, DENIED THIS, AND THE CITY

MANAGER WOULD INTERVENE AND PROVIDE EXECUTIVE RULING. >> I'M NOT SURE THE CITY MANAGER

HAS ANY -- HERE. TAMMY CAN HELP ME OUT. >> IT WOULD BE THE CITY'S PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE AS AN APPROVED DESIGN THAT WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED.

>> THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE HDC HAS NOT AGREED.

>> JUST AND WE ARE IN THIS PROPERTY AND I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH ANY FURTHER AGONY.

SO, WE ARE OFTEN TOLD WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO COME UP WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS.

I DON'T WANT AGONIZING GO THROUGH IT EITHER BUT I DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE WE ARE HELD HOSTAGE AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL COME BACK TO BITE US. WHAT IF WE APPROVE, WITH THE

[01:30:04]

THE PEERS. >> I THINK MY CONCERN IS THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO DO IT.

>> EVEN IF IT IS A 2-FOOT UPGRADE. IT CAN BE DONE.

>> >> DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SOLUTION THERE?

>> I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THE BOARD WAS CLEAR ABOUT EXPECTATIONS ON THAT.

>> I THINK WE MAY BE ABLE TO PULL SOMETHING INTO A MOTION. I THINK TAMMY WILL MAKE A MOTION

THAT INCLUDES THAT PROVISION. >> THERE IS THAT LANGUAGE AGAIN. >> I THINK WE WILL GET THERE IS

WHAT I AM HEARING. >> OKAY, I WILL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE, TO APPROVE HDC CASE

2019-31, 4 AND AFTER-THE-FACT PROVISION -- IT IS 0025. >> OKAY, I AM READING IT --

>> OH YES, HOLD ON A SECOND PERIOD EVERYONE, HOLD ON A SECOND PERIOD DIRECTOR, THE MOTION -- THE CASE ON MY AGENDA, I THINK IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CASE NUMBER -- YES.

>> IT'S FUNNY, IT'S SIMPLE. IT'S 31 NOT 25. >> THE ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY

APPROVED IN 2019. >> THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS TAMMY NEEDS TO CITE

2020 -- 0025 WHEN SHE MAKES THE MOTION. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020 -- 00254 AFTER-THE-FACT REVISIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

ONE, THE DETAILING WILL BE APPROVED, NUMBER TWO THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING FALSE VENTING ON THE FOUNDATION AND 3, THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH A MORE SUBSTANTIAL FACING THAT GIVES

THE APPEARANCE OR ILLUSION OF -- >> IS THAT SUBJECT TO STAFF OR BOARD APPROVAL.

BECAUSE OF YOUR DOING THAT YOU ARE CONTINUING THE CASE. >> CAN WE DO IT FOR STAFF AND

YOU CAN RUN IT BY ANYBODY? >> THAT WILL BE FINE. >> SO FOR STAFF APPROVAL.

THIS IS PART OF THE RECORD THAT -- >>

>> THE BOARD ACCEPTS APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. THAT IS THE WRONG LANGUAGE.

>> I THINK YOU ARE GOOD. I NEED A SECOND PERIOD I WILL SECOND PERIOD IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE CONCEPE MOTION I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE

A TIMEFRAME IN ORDER TO VALIDATE THE MOTION. >> THIS APPLICATION WOULD NOT

RECEIVE THE FINAL ZONING FOR THE FINAL INSPECTION. >> DID YOU HEAR THAT?

[01:35:04]

>> YES, IT SOUNDS GOOD. >> IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?

SYLVIA WILL LISTEN TO THAT TAPE CAREFULLY. >> HOW ABOUT READ THE MOTION BACK PLEASE. I HAVE, APPROVED HOW DO WE SAY, AMENDMENT OR CONCEPTUAL.

>> AFTER-THE-FACT PROVISION. WITH CONDITIONS. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND THE DETAILS BE INCORPORATED THAT WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED AND THE APPLICANT COMES BACK

WITH A MORE SUBSTANTIAL FACING AND RAISE THE FOUNDATION. >> AND THE BUILDING FINAL ZONE.

THAT IS CONTINGENT ON STAFF APPROVAL OF THESE ITEMS AND THE OTHER TWO CONDITIONS.

WE WILL GET THERE. I THINK I'VE HEARD OF MOTION. IF NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, CALL

THE ROLL WHEN YOU ARE READY. >> CALLING THE ROLL. >> THANK YOU.

YOU CAN WORK WITH STAFF ON SOME OF THE DETAILS. >> AND WE WILL MOVE ON.

[3.3 HDC 2020-0027 - SCOTT JONES, 908 WHITE STREETTREET]

EXCEL HAS IT. -- SAL HAS THE SPIRIT WE HAVE A RELOCATION OF A WINDOW AND MODIFY PLANS REPLACING COVERED CARPORT WITH WOOD PRESSURE TREATED DECK.

>> SO MR. JONES, IS HE ONLINE? >> HIS INTERNET IS GOING IN-AND-OUT.

>> WE UNDERSTAND HE IS WORKING AND TRAVELING. THERE WAS A HURRICANE.

>> HE WILL NEED TO. >> MR. JONES IF YOU CAN HEAR US, UNMUTE TESSERACT UNMUTE AND TURN

ON YOUR VIDEO CAMERA. >> HE WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN. >> WHEN WE GET TO MR. JONES WE

WILL DO THAT. >> SO THIS IS HDC 2020 -- 27 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 908 WHITE STREET HERE ZONED OT1. THIS CASE HAS COME BEFORE THE BOARD A NUMBER OF TIMES.

THE LAST TIME WAS JANUARY 16, 2020 WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS DENIED A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS FOR THE BUILDING STRUCTURE. IN THE CASE DOCKET WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, THE BOARD DID APPROVE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND, A CONDITION THAT IT BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE THAT IT BE UNDER 24 FEET AND THEY WORKED TO BRING IT IN COMPLIANCE WITHIN 60 DAYS. THE APPLICANT HAS RETURNED WITH A NUMBER OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICATION. THE FIRST IS ALTERING THE ROOF TO BRING THE PIPE DOWN TO 24 FEET. THE SECOND ON THE EAST SIDE ELEVATION, THE THIRD REMOVING A GROUND-FLOOR WINDOW ON THE WEST ELEVATION. THE FOURTH ADDING A WINDOW AT THE SECOND FLOOR AND CHANGING THE CARPORT. THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE LAST HEARING.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COLD.

AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION GUIDELINES THAT IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HDC -- 2020 -- 27

AMENDING 2019 -- 47. THINK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE

LAST PART BECAUSE IT CAN BE TRICKY. >> QUESTIONS?

[01:40:04]

>> HOLD ON MR. JONES WE WILL HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN, IN A MINUTE.

BUT SAL WILL TALK TO THE BOARD AND THEN WE WILL GET TO YOU. >> TRUST ME, WE WILL.

>> SO HERE ARE THE ELEVATIONS. THEY BROUGHT THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORIES STRUCTURE DOWN.

THE OTHER CHANGES HAD TO DO WITH WINDOWS AND DOOR OPENINGS. THERE WAS A WINDOW AT THE FIRST FLOOR ON THE RIGHT SIDE THAT WAS ELIMINATED. IT WAS REMOVED.

NOW YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE, THERE IS A DOOR AT THE SECOND FLOOR AND WHERE THE DOOR WAS PREVIOUSLY AT THE GROUND LEVEL. THE OTHER CHANGES ON THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION. PREVIOUSLY IT WAS A CARPORT. NOW IT IS A DECK OFF OF THE SECOND FLOOR. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE CHANGES. AND THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH

THE CHANGES. >> YES THEY ARE. >> WE LIKELY WOULD HAVE APPROVED THEM IF THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN I HAVE ONE FOR STAFF.

>> SO, WHEN YOU WERE JUST POINTING TO THIS, IS THAT SIDING WHERE WE ARE SEEING IT?

>> THAT IS ALL OPEN. WHAT YOU SEE IS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

BUT THAT IS ALL OPEN UNDER THE DECK. SO THAT IS THE SIDE OF THE

BUILDING CORRECT. >> SO THE INTENT TO GET THE CAR UNDER THE PORCH.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO THAT'S NO LONGER A CARPORT. THERE IS BAIT BELOW THE DECK AND

THE DECK BELOW IT. >> THERE IS A DRIVEWAY ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

>> I'M GOING BACK TO THE LEFT ELEVATION THAT WE HAD BEFORE. THAT IS SHOWING THE HOUSE AND THE SHOP STORAGE AS BEING ON THE SAME LEVEL. IS THAT THE CASE ON THE GROUND?

>> WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU ASKING, MIKE. >> THIS ELEVATION THAT WE ARE

LOOKING AT SHOWS THE SHOP BEING THE SAME. >> IT DROPS CONSIDERABLY FROM THE SOUTH INTO THE NORTH END OF THE LOT. THESE ARE HERE BUT THEY ARE NOT

MEANT TO SHOW THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY. >> I WONDER WHAT THE DROP IS.

IT HAS TO BE 18 INCHES AT LEAST FROM ONE INTO THE OTHER. THIS MAY BE A NORMAL QUESTION BUT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS A GARAGE AND NOW IT IS AN ENCLOSED WORKSHOP DOES IT AFFECT ANY CALULATIONS ON THE LAND OR THE USAGE OF -- OR ANYTHING ON THAT NATURE.

THE PROVISION IS FOR THE SIZE AND NOT GOING OVER THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER IT IS A GARAGE OR A WORKSHOP. OKAY, ANY OTHER CONCESSIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO MR. JONES WHICH I THINK HE'S ON TOP. HE'S ON YOUR SPEAKERPHONE.

>> YOU HAVE TO LOVE HIM. WHAT -- WHY DON'T YOU COME UP, WE WILL ASK SCOTT TO STATE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU ARE ALREADY SWORN. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE NEED TO SWEAR HIM IN. I HEAR YOU.

[01:45:03]

I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER PERSON WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> THEY ARE ON VIDEO CALL.

SO RAISE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND, DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES, I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. SO, SCOTT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TELL US? IS THAT A NO? OKAY. OKAY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JONES

ABOUT THESE CHANGES TO 2020 -- 27? >> I HAVE A QUESTION MR. JONES.

>> GO FOR IT. SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT, THE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE NOT EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE IN REAL LIFE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DROPS OFF ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER BUT THE ONE WE HAVE UP RIGHT NOW IT SHOWS BOTH OF THEM, AT THE SAME BOTTOM HEIGHT.

THEN WE HAVE THE BRIDGE ACROSS THEM. WHICH BUILDING IS HIGHER IN REAL

LIFE. >> THE -- I WILL ANSWER BECAUSE I KNOW THE PROPERTY PRETTY WELL.

>> THE GREAT DROPS FROM THE SOUTH SIDE TO THE NORTH SIDE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS SOUTH

AND NORTH. >> SO THE SHOP IS ON THE NORTH SIDE EXCEEDS MEETS THE SOUTH

SIDE. >> SNOW WHICH IS HIGHER? >> THE SHOP.

>> SO WE CAN SEE THE TWO STRUCTURES HERE. IF THE SHOP IS HIGHER, THEN THAT PICTURE IS NOT ACCURATE OR IS THIS ONE ACCURATE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

>> WHAT ARE YOU ASKING? >> THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, IT IS A LEVEL FLIGHT GRADE. BUT IN REAL LIFE, THE GREAT IS HIGHER SO THE SHOP IS TALLER.

>> HOW DOES THAT WORK. >> IT IS SHORTER THAN THE HOUSE. >> I AM GOING TO ASK JIM TO COMMENT ON THIS. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE ELEVATIONS.

>> SO OBVIOUSLY, ESPECIALLY IN RETROSPECT LIFT -- LOOKING AT THE ISSUES THAT CAME ON THE HOUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE LOT CALLED OUT TO DEPICT HOW THE PHOTOGRAPHY

WILL AFFECT THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES. >> THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED YOU TO ACTUALLY SEE THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE BUILDINGS AS THEY ARE IN REAL LIFE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY NOT ACCURATE WHERE THE DRAWING ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, THAT IS SOMETHING -- IF YOU WERE DOING DRAWINGS, AND THERE IS AN 18-INCH DRAWING FROM THE ELEVATION WOULD YOU REFLECT THAT? SANCHEZ, BECAUSE IT SHOWS WHERE THIS TIES THE TWO THINGS TOGETHER AND WHERE THEY HIT ON EACH STRUCTURE ALL OF THIS BECOMES IMPORTANT AND MORE CRITICALLY FOR THE HDC, IS, GIVING THE ALTERATIONS, HOW IS THAT STRUCTURE READING AND WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE IF IT IS LOOMING ABOVE THE HOUSE

COLLECTS. >> ALL OF THESE THINGS COME INTO PLAY THAT IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE YOUR DRAWINGS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE LOT.

[01:50:03]

>> OKAY. I THINK I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE

ELEVATION SHOULD LOOK LIKE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE -- >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE RIGHT. THE ELEVATION THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.

WHICH SIDE IS THIS? OIC THE RIGHT SIDE. >> THANK YOU.

THAT IS THE LEFT. CAN YOU GO TO THE RIGHT, PLEASE. IT IS FURTHER DOWN.

WHERE WE? >> THIS IS WHERE THE GATE IS LOCKED.

THAT IS THE ONE. NOW, ON THE WORKSHOP, THERE IS A WINDOW SHOP THERE, ON THE UPPER

FOUR, I READ IN THE APPLICATION THAT -- >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> WE HAVE REMOVED -- WE'VE MOVED LOCATIONS IT WAS ON THE FIRST FLOOR NOW IT IS ON THE

SECOND FLOOR. >> OKAY, SO THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE

REMOVAL. >> YES, IT WAS AT THE GROUND LEVEL AND THEY ARE MOVING INTO

THE SECOND FLOOR. >> ON THE WEST SIDE? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES.

THAT SOUNDSRIGHT. >> CAN I SAY WHERE WE MOVED TO? >>

>> ALL RIGHT, OTHER QUESTIONS. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND. WE UNDERSTAND.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. AND MRS. OKAY, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED MR. AND MRS. GAINES,.

DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? >> SOMEONE MENTIONED THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE JONESES WERE DOING AN IN-HOME BUSINESS FROM THE GARAGE.

I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPERTY AND CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT.

I DO MAKE THINGS FOR PEOPLE SOMETIMES BUT IT'S NOT A BUSINESS.

>> IT'S NOT A BUSINESS, IT'S FOR MY PERSONAL USE. I DO MAKE THINGS FOR PEOPLE BUT

THEY DON'T COME TO MY SHOP. >> MRS. GAINES, DOES THAT HELP? >> ACID DOES.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR FRIENDS IN TALLAHASSEE? >> NO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS >> ANYONE ELSE.

BOARD MEMBERS WHAT ARE WE THINKING, I THINK THE ELEVATION IS SUBSTANTIAL.

I UNDERSTAND THERE IS -- I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT HOW BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE NICER AND

LET'S JUST SAY THERE HAS BEEN SOME, DEBATE. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT. AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT STRUCTURE, THE APPROVED FINISHED GRADE WAS TO THE PEAK. THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. SO THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THE

[01:55:01]

BUT WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSED TO PUT THE SLAB AND THIS WOULD HAVE SERVED TO GIVE YOU AN AVERAGE NUMBER OF THE PEAK OF THE ROOF. TODAY IT READS DIFFERENTLY. IT IS FROM THE AVERAGE NATURAL

GRADE. >> ARE WE INCLUDING THE SLAB IN THE CALCULATION?

>> I THINK IT IS FROM THE ORIGINAL. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FINISHED

RAID NOT THE SLAB ITSELF. >> I THINK I AGREE WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THIS GOING ON. THERE IS AT LEAST A DROP FROM THE SOUTH END OF THE LOT, TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE SLOT AND SO TO GET THEM TO 24-FOOT, IT WOULD BE MEASURED FROM THERE. DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I HAVE SEEN STUFF ON THAT SITE FOR A YEAR END A HALF.

SOME OF THE WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE NOT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM MOVE ON AND I VOTE YES AT THIS POINT. CAN I BACK UP AND ASKED A QUESTION.

SCOTT IF YOU ARE THERE WHAT DOES >> RIGHT NOW IT IS AT LEVEL FIVE BACK.

IT WILL GO DOWN TO 3. RIGHT AROUND THREE. >> HAVEN'T DONE MY ALGEBRA LATELY BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, WITH THAT GET YOU TO THE 24-FOOT NUMBER THAT YOU NEED TO BE AT?

>> THERE IS NO WAY I WILL BE OVER. >> WE WOULD NEED A CALCULATOR.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, MS. CONWAY, WHERE YOU GUYS

HAD. >> I THINK IT WAS A GOOD SOLUTION AND THEY DID WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE STRUCTURE AND BUILD IT FROM SCRATCH.

THOSE WHO LIVE THERE, THIS IS HOW IT WORKS WITH THE ELEVATION. >> WE SHOULD PROBABLY PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TOO, WHAT ARE THE DRAWINGS ACTUALLY DEPICTING, AND HAVE DATE ACCURATELY SHOWN WHAT

THE CONDITIONS ARE? >> WE DO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE SURFACE IS PRETTY FLAT.

AND OLD TOWN IS ALWAYS DIFFERENT. SO YES, STAFF, TO THE EXTENT

WITH THAT MOTION, IT IS 7:00 P.M. SO LET'S GET A MOTION. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE.

I MOVED TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 202020 -- 27 WITHOUT CONDITIONS. THAT CASE 2020 -- 27 IS AS PRESENTED COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.

AN WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> I SECOND PERIOD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION -- A MOTION AND A SECOND PERIOD ANY ONE OPPOSED?

HEARING NONE, LET'S CALL THE ROLL. >> CALLING THE ROLL.

[3.4 HDC 2020-0029 - JILL COOK, 211 S. 6TH STREET]

[02:00:20]

>> THANK YOU SCOTT, MOVING ON. HDC 2020-29, JILL COOK. >> A VERY.

>> WHO HAS THIS ONE? >> I WILL TAKE THIS ONE. >> SAL HAS THIS ONE.

>> THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 SOUTH SIX STREET AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL, FOR THIS ROOM. THEY HAVE APPROVAL A STAFF APPROVAL UNDER WHAT YOU ARE SEEING HERE. FOR A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS PUT ON AND THEY ARE NOW RETURNING FOR THE AFTER-THE-FACT GROUP THAT THEY DID PUT ON.

I BELIEVE I HAVE SOME PICTURES. HOLD ON ONE SECOND PERIOD. >> HERE IS THE ROOF.

I WILL GET YOU SOME CONTEXT PHOTOS. IT IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE

HOUSE, AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE SO IT HAS A LOW ROOF. >> WE WOULD ASK FOR THESE, TO BE

METAL. >> AND THAT IS WHAT YOU APPROVED.

WE ENDED UP WITH -- HOW BIG IS THIS ADDITION. >> WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT.

IT IS A SMALLER ADDITION ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. I HAVE BEEN IN THIS HOUSE.

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL COTTAGE. I WENT YEARS AGO. >> QUESTIONS FOR SAL?

>> IS THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE, THE SLOPE IS TOO SHALLOW? >> SO, THAT IS WHY IT WAS APPROVED TO BE A STANDING ROOM ROOF. IS THERE A LIMIT?

OR A MINIMUM? >> WE WOULD DO WELL TO GET THE APPLICANT TO THE CONTRACTOR.

>> WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ASKED HER HOW IS THIS DISCOVERED? I BELIEVE THEY CAME TO CLOSE THE

BUILDING PERMIT. >> OH, SO THE PROCESS WORKED? >> YES.

>> THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW. THE PROCESS WORKED, THAT IS GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, MS. COOK,. >> I DON'T THINK THE CONTRACTOR SHOWED UP.

>> TELL US WHERE YOU LIVE. >> EVERYBODY IN THE AREA HAS BEEN IN THE HOUSE.

[02:05:05]

>> PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> 211 SOUTH SIX STREET.

>> AND JUST TO GET YOU ON THE RECORD. >> AND THEN, I THINK THE QUESTION WAS, HOW DID WE GET FROM YOU WERE APPROVED TO WHERE WE ARE@.

>> I WANTED THE METAL ROOF. IT WAS ALL SET TO GO. AND THEN THEY CAME BACK AND SAID YOU CAN'T PUT THAT ON THERE IT IS TO FLAT. HE SAID IT WOULD LEAK WHERE THE

ROOF MEETS THE WALL. >> LET'S GET THE EXPERT UP HERE. >> WHEN WE ACTUALLY WENT TO THE JOB, WE NOTICED THE ROOF WAS LESS THAN ONE HALF OF AN INCH. WE DO NOT RECOMMEND PUTTING LESS THAN I HAVE, AND THIS IS LESS THAN TWO. SO WHAT HAPPENED, WE PUT THE 1 INCH THAT WE OFFER THE CLIENT, AND IT WILL GO THROUGH THE ROOF AND LEAK SO WE DON'T RECOMMEND.

BEFORE THEY HAD A TOUCHDOWN ROOM. A FLAT ROOF.

SO WE OFFERED AND THE LAST ONE IS BETTER AND LAST LONGER, THEY HAVE TREES, A BIG OPEN AREA AND THE SON REFLECTS. SO WE OFFERED A GOOD PRODUCT FOR THE CLIENT.

>> BUT WHEN YOU PULLED THE PERMIT DID YOU PULL A FOR THAT? TANGIBLY SO.

IT WAS FROM THE HBC. >> THEN YOU CHANGED IT WITHOUT CHANGING THE PERMIT?

>> I THINK WE CHANGED IT, A LADY THAT DID THE PERMIT SHE ASKED FOR IT, AND SHE GOT THE ANSWER

BACK ON 7-5 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. >> THEY CHANGED THE CODE IN THE OFFICE AND EVERY TIME I CALLED,

IT WAS SOMEONE DIFFERENT HANDLING THE CASE. >> STOP.

THEY CAME IN AND SAID, AND IF THEY HAD GIVEN UP PITCH WE WOULD HAVE APPROVED IT.

IF THEY APPLY FOR A PERMIT WE WOULD HAVE APPROVED AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> QUESTIONS?

>> NO QUESTIONS BUT I WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT HE SAID. I JUST LOOKED IT UP AND 212 IS

THE MINIMUM FOR A METAL ROOF. >> TO 12. SO WE WERE CLOSE.

ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU FOLKS. >> WE CONTACTED THE HDC AND THEY SAID THEY NEEDED TO BE METALS. SO THEY WANTED IT TO BE METAL. IF YOU DON'T SEE IT FROM THE

STREET, IT WAS FINE. >> YOU NEED A HELICOPTER TO SEE IT.

>> ALL RIGHTS THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO TESTIFY ON CASE 2020 -- 0029. ANYONE ONLINE? IF NOT WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD MEMBERS.

>> GO FOR IT. >> WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM DO SOMETHING THAT WILL CAUSE

THEM A PROBLEM. >> THIS IS A SCREW UP ON THE PART OF THE ROOFING AND YOU CAN'T HOLD THEM TO A STANDARD THAT WOULDN'T WORK ANYWAY. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> THANK YOU. THE TAMI SHOW. >> THE BEST PROGRAM TO BE ON.

>> YOU COULD BE ON AMERICA'S MOST WANTED. >> OKAY.

[02:10:12]

I HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2020 -- 0029 WITHOUT CONDITIONS OR AFTER-THE-FACT AND I MOVE THE THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS THAT CASE 2020 -- 29 AS PRESENTED IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> I WILL SECOND PERIOD. >> ANY COMMENTS? >> CHANGING MATERIAL AND

CHANGING THE FIRM IF YOU COME BACK DOWNTOWN. >> THANK YOU.

YOU COST PEOPLE MONEY AND TIME. WE CAN DO BETTER. >> OKAY WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> CALLING THE ROLL. >> HDC 2020 -- 0007.

[Items 4.1 & 4.2]

THE POTENTIAL HEALTH SPIRIT WHO HAS THIS ONE? >> JACOB.

>> JAKE. >> I AM JUST GIVING HIM HOSTING DUTIES RIGHT NOW.

>> WE WILL DISCUSS BOTH SO HE WILL DO THE PRESENTATION AND THEN WE WILL HAVE SEPARATE

VOTES. >> OF COURSE COUNSEL. >> ALL RIGHT, BOARD MEMBERS, THIS IS HDC 2020 -- ZERO ZERO SEVEN FOR THE PROPERTY AT 115 SOUTH SIXTH STREET.

THIS, INITIAL CAME BEFORE YOU IN JULY WITH A VARIANCE TO SPLIT THE WESTERN LOTS FROM ALLOWING BOTH VAUGHT SPLIT TO OCCUR. TONIGHT'S VARIANCE IS A REQUEST SPECIFICALLY FROM THE AREA TO REDUCE THE SOUTHERN SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5 FEET. I DO HAVE A SITE PLAN HERE SHOWING ALL OF THE DIMENSIONS, SHOWING THE SETBACK AND THE DIMENSIONS FROM THE THREE LARGE TREES AND THE MAGNOLIA NEXT TO THE STRUCTURE. THE INTENT, IS JUST THAT, TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE AS FAR FROM THE MAGNIFICENT TREES ON THE PROPERTY.

THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS THROUGH THE MINIMUM OF 3 FEET AND TO GIVE AS MUCH ROOM FROM THE MAGNOLIA AS POSSIBLE. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN THROUGH MULTIPLE PROCESS INCLUDING THE MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, AND REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND AGAIN, PULLING THE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK ITSELF AND AWAY FROM THE TREES ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. I WILL SUBMIT THE STAFF REPORT AS EVIDENCE.

AND AGAIN THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE ARCHED SETBACK AND REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 5 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. I HAVE MY STAFF ANALYSIS AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE CRITERIA. AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THAT THE DISTRICT CAN TAKE AS EVIDENCE FOR VARIANCES WITHIN THE DISTRICT.

ALL SIX OF THE CRITERIA WERE ABLE TO BE MET IN REGARDS TO SLIGHTING THE STRUCTURE AND PROVIDING AS MUCH SPACE FROM THE TREES ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AS SUCH STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HDC 2020 -- ZERO ZERO SEVEN AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS BEFORE WE -- TANGIBLY EVER I DON'T THINK WE

[02:15:08]

HAVE EVER SEEN THIS. >> I WAS ABLE TO RECOMMEND THIS. IT HAS BEEN A DOUBLE UNICORN, TO ALLOW FOR THIS TO OCCUR AND GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH ON THIS MAJESTIC PROPERTY AND SHIFTING IN THE NAME OF TRUE PRESERVATION WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> DOUBLE UNICORN. >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> IF -- IS THIS PROPERTY ON

SOUTH STREET? OR'S. >> THE HOUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT IS ON SOUTH FIFTH BOTH ADDRESSES SOUTH SIX BECAUSE IT STRETCHES ACROSS THE BLOCK.

>> DID I ANSWER THAT RIGHT? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT I NOTED IT AS 115 SOUTH FIFTH STREET BUT I MEANT SOUTH SIX STREET.

IT WILL GET A SOUTH SIX STREET ADDRESS IT WILL BE AN EVEN NUMBER SINCE IT'S ON THAT SIDE.

>> ARE THERE QUESTIONS? IF THIS IS THE CADE LOT THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE STANDARD SETBACK

AND BECAUSE IT IS 100-FOOT, IS IT 10-FOOT, IS THAT THE ISSUE. >> THE STANDARD LOT WOULD HAVE THE SETBACK AND THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT DOES APPLY.

I THINK THE BUILDING IS JUST UNDER 32 FEET SO IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 3 FEET ON TOP OF THAT. SO BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, THIS IS REDUCING IT DOWN

FROM 13-FOOT, TO A 5-FOOT SETBACK. >> SO BASED ON THE HEIGHT, IF WE AGREED TO THE 5-FOOT TEN THEORY AND THEN TO PUT IT IN COMPLIANCE SHOULD IT BE EIGHT-FOOT?

IF IT IS A PROCESS. >> THE REQUEST IS TO TAKE IT DOWN TO THE MINIMUM.

YOUR BARE MINIMUM, RECOGNIZING THAT YES,. >> I CAN PUT IT RIGHT HERE.

>> STAFF, BEFORE WE PROCEED, I GUESS JACOB MAKES A GOOD POINT. WHY CONSIDER THE HOUSE IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THIS. IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. I DON'T ANTICIPATE A PROBLEM BUT IF THERE WAS AND WE ALREADY

GRANTED THIS AS A VARIANCE, THEN, AREN'T WE IN THE HOLE. >> YES AND NO.

IT IS A GOOD POINT. >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO GO FORWARD WITH THE NEXT CASE WE CAN DO IT, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. JACOB DO YOU MIND, LET'S WENT

WITH ZERO ZERO FOUR. SHE MAKES A GOOD POINT. >> THIS DOES REFERENCE THE ADDRESS. SEEKING FINAL APPROVAL OF A TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

I HAVE INCLUDED, THE REVISED FRONT ELEVATION. GALLUP -- THE APPLICANT HAS MADE REQUEST TO CHANGES THAT THE BOARD SAW IN REGARDS TO THE FOUNDATION AND THE FRONT ELEVATION, AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND I MENTIONED THE OTHER COMPONENTS HERE.

AS FAR AS THE ANALYSIS THAT WERE PROVIDED, THE HOME IS KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DOWNTOWN IS ABSTRACT DISTRICT. THEY WILL USE MATERIAL SEEN THROUGH THE DISTRICT.

[02:20:07]

THE SCREEN PORCH MATERIALS, AND THE DETAILS ON THAT, THE NORTHERN SCREEN PORCH, THE DETAILS AND MATERIALS WERE NOT INDICATED SO I ASKED THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL AS THE PORCH COLUMNS AND RAILS AND THOSE DETAILS AS WELL. THIS SECRETARIES INTERIOR STANDARDS ARE APPROVED AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO OVER, THE PLANS AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

THAT THE BOARD HAS. >> QUESTIONS, TAMMY. >> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IS A 2-FOOT FOUNDATION. AND THAT IS THE LOOK I WAS REFERRING TO WHEN I SAID YOU HAVE MULTIPLE LEFT TO RIGHT, HORIZONTAL APPEARANCE OF A BREEZEWAY BETWEEN HERE.

ENOUGH ON THAT. I THOUGHT IN OUR GUIDELINES WE CANNOT APPROVE TRACKS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I THOUGHT WE CAN ONLY DO IT ON THE BACK OR SIDE PORCH.

END OF REQUEST WOULD BE. >> WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. THE WAY THE GUIDELINES ARE WRITTEN IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT FONDUE CONSTRUCTION. WE DON'T APPROVE IT FOR HISTORIC

STRUCTURES. >> OKAY. THEN THE WINDOWS, THOSE ARE ON

THE APPROVED LIST? >> YES. I BELIEVE SOUTH.

A TENTATIVE YES AND I WILL DOUBLE CHECK WHILE WE ARE TALKING.

NOT ONE OF THE QUESTION. SOMEBODY MENTIONED THAT THEY RECOMMENDED BAY BRIDGE FOUNDATION OR A APPEARANCE THAT HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF ROOT DAMAGE.

>> THERE IS A DETAIL FOR THE BRIDGE WHERE THE CONTRACTOR WORKING WITH THEM WILL PAY

SPECIAL ATTENTION AND USE IT FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL ROOTS. >> OKAY.

>> THAT IS IT FOR ME. >> THOSE WERE GOOD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ON THE APPROVED LIST.

OF THE DRAWING DOES CALL FOR THE EXTERIOR. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> MR. HARRISON? >> NOPE. >>

>> WE ASKED FOR CONTACTS AND I THINK WE HAVE THEM HERE. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT THING. DOES THIS GIVE US WHERE WE WANT, IS THIS THE STANDARD WE ARE

LOOKING FOR WHEN IT COMES TO ELEVATIONS? >> I THINK, THIS IS AN IT EXAMPLE, WITH THIS SET OF PRESENTATION DRAWINGS WE HAVE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHOWING RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORS HOUSE. WE HAVE THE MAIN STRUCTURE SHOWN IN A WAY WE CAN EXPLAIN THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES AND, THE TREE DRAWING REALLY HELPS TO DRIVE HOME, HOW THIS PAIR OF BUILDINGS WILL NESTLE IN BETWEEN THE TREES. I THINK THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB PRESENTING US WITH ADEQUATE REVIEW MATERIALS SO WE CAN REALLY LOOK AT IT AND MAKE A

JUDGMENT. OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. >> OKAY, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, ARE YOU MR. JONES? COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF

FOR THE RECORD INCLUDING YOUR DRESS. >> LANCE JONES 116 SOUTH SIX

[02:25:03]

STREET. >> LEISURE HOME ADDRESS? >> YES.

ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD OR CAN WE JUST GO STRAIGHT TO QUESTIONS.

>> I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE. >> HAVE ONE QUESTION.

>> WHO CAME OUT? WE HAD PAGE TREE SERVICE. >> YOU HAD THREE CONTRACTORS?

>> YES. >> AND YOU ARE COMMITTED TO CAREFUL EXPLICATION FOR THE BRIDGE SPLITTING SO WHEN THIS IS ALL SAID AND DONE THE TREE WILL STILL BE THERE?

>> WE WANT THAT TREE THERE. I CAN'T TELL YOU THERE WOULD BE DIFFICULTY IN THE COMMUNITY IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THE TREE. AND THEY DON'T LIKE THE PUBLICITY.

DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THE FIRST IS A COMMENT AND SHEET 11 SHOULD BE THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD PRESENT TO THE BOARD IT IS SO HELPFUL.

YOU DID A FABULOUS JOB ON THAT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE WINDOWS. I DO SEE THE EXTERIOR BUT THEN IT SHOWS THE WINDOWS WITH DRILLS BETWEEN THE GLASS, IS THAT JUST AN ERRONEOUS SPREADSHEET?

>> I ALSO HAVE, I THINK MARK IS ON THE ZOOM CALL, HE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT SPECIFICALLY.

>> HE WILL HAVE TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF AND BE SWORN FOR THE RECORD.

>> TAMMY YOU CAN DO BOTH BETWEEN THE EXTERIOR AND THE GLASS. >> I THINK HE SAID IT WAS A

RAISED GRILL. >> WE REQUIRED THE EXTERIOR OKAY AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING

THEY ARE. >> OKAY. GO AHEAD TAMMY YOU HAD TWO OTHER

QUESTIONS. >> ANOTHER QUESTION WAS, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE --

>> WHERE IS THIS? >> YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A BLACK BELT WINDOW.

YOU HAVE A PHOTO IN EACH SHEET. YOU ARE PAYING BETTER ATTENTION THAN I AM.

>> I THINK THE PRIMARY DESIGN ELEMENT I THINK IT SHOWS WHAT IT IS.

THIS IS ON THE WEBSITE. >> IT IS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

IT IS ON THE FRONT GABLE FILES. >> WE ASKED TO PUT A SHEET THERE TO POINT OUT THE BLOCKED OUT

WINDOW. >> AN EXAMPLE OF HOME LOOKS LIKE.

I KNOW THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT GLARE BEING REFLECTIVE AND IT IS A MAP KIND OF FINISH IF YOU

WILL. >> I WAS WONDERING WHY. >> MY LAST QUESTION IS, WITH THE BIG MAGNOLIA COMING OVER THE TOP, CAN YOU PRESERVE THE MAJOR ARM THAT YOU WERE GOING TO CUT

AT A CERTAIN POINT. CAN YOU PRESERVE THE TRUCK? >> ACTUALLY, THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL THAT'S RIGHT FOR THE HELP OF THE TREE AND THE PRIMARY BUILDING. SO THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO DO TRAINING BUT IT WON'T PROHIBIT THE HEALTH OF THE TREE AND WILL PROVIDE FOR A BETTER CANOPY FOR THE HOUSE AS WELL.

>> OKAY, THAT IS A. >> FOR THE MAGNOLIA THAT IS COMMON.

>> ACTUALLY, THE AUXILIARY STRUCTURE IS SUCH THAT, THE WAY WE DESIGNED IT, IT WILL FIT

UNDERNEATH THE OAK TREE WITH ENOUGH ROOM FOR ABOUT MAGNOLIA. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

MR. JONES? >> MARK DOES HAVE HIS HANDS RAISED.

>> 0 HE'S JUST THERE, IF YOU NEED THEM. >> ALRIGHT HEARING NONE.

IS ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC ONLINE? SEEING NO ONE WE WILL MOVE INTO

[02:30:05]

I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THE BULK OF THE BUILDING AND THEY HIT EVERY MARK.

>> SO WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE IN THE PROPERTY. WE WILL NEED TWO MOTIONS -- I DID MEAN TO CUT ANYONE OFF. MR. CONWAY MR. HARRISON DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADHERE?

>> ANYTHING? >> I AM READY TO MAKE MOTIONS. >> I THINK WE ARE GOOD.

>> WE WILL MOVE THEM SEPARATELY AND VOTE SEPARATELY. >> I THINK WE WILL HAVE FOURFOLD

SPIRIT. >> I WILL START WITH THE VARIANCE.

I MOVE TO APPROVE HEC CASE NUMBER HDC V2020 -- 007 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS PART OF THE RECORD, 202020 -- ZERO ZERO SEVEN AS PRESENTED AND IN COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY'S COLD AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO

WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND PERIOD. >> I SECOND PERIOD.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> CALLING THE ROLL. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I'VE MOVED TO APPROVE HDC V2020-004 AND I MOVE THEY MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE CONCLUSIONS PART OF THE RECORD. CASED 2020 -- ZERO ZERO FOUR AS PRESENTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE, SEC. OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT ARE WE

DOING CONCEPTUAL OR FINAL -- TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> MOVE TO SECOND PERIOD ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> CALLING THE ROLL. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE BUSINESS. I HAVE A QUESTION, ARE YOU

[5. BOARD BUSINESS]

WORKING ON THE OLD TIME GUIDELINE. >> MEMBER MEETING BUT NEXT WEEK.

>> SO WE WILL BRING UPDATES TO YOU AND THERE WILL BE AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC MEETING THAT WE WILL

DO AT THE TOP LEVEL. > WE HAVE A TIMELINE? >> ABOUT A YEAR.

>> HE IS LEADING A TEAM FROM THE MUSEUM? >> AND YOU ARE THE PRINCIPAL

CONTACT ON THE STAFF SIDE? >> CORRECT. >> JUST GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE TO THE EXTENT, DID ANYONE ON THE TEAM COULD BE PARTIALLY ENGAGED.

I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING THIS STUFF FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS AND IT HAS BEEN VALUABLE TO US AND TO YOU AND TO THE COMMUNITY. SO ACCEPT THAT SOMEONE ON YOUR TEAM WANTS TO PIGGYBACK ON SOUTH. WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM

THE DUTIES. >> STAFF REPORT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

[6.1 Staff Certificate of Approval for August 2020]

I'M GLAD TO BE BACK WORKING WITH YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK MY COWORKERS FOR DOING A GREAT JOB TILLING AND WHILE I WAS GONE. YOU GUYS WERE INVALUABLE SO

THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE WORK. >> ANYBODY ELSE? DIRECTOR JACOB, ANYONE ELSE?

[02:35:06]

PUBLIC COMMENT? >>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.