--------- Excuse [clears throat] me. If you'll uh join me in the pledge of >> allegiance. I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And anybody who's going to offer testimony today, if you'd like to just remain standing, I'll swear everybody at one point wants to offer testimony. [clears throat] Are anybody with you? Are they offering testimony today or they just here? >> I'm not sure if I >> go ahead and get sworn in. That way if
you don't need to be sworn in, you'll be sworn. If you don't have testified, then you'll won't be a problem. Do you all swear from testimony gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. From the agenda, it looks like we have two reductions and uh continued continuation
of last month's hearing. So, I'll cut my introduction short. But for anybody who hasn't been in front of me before, my name is Drew Smith. I am the code enforcement special matter for the city of St. Cloud. My role in these proceedings is to serve as the independent trier of fact. The city will for each case, the city will present its uh evidence, testimony, and witnesses.
When they are done, if you'd like to cross-examine any witnesses, you'll have that opportunity. If you have any evidence or testimony you'd like me to receive, I will hear from the respondent. When I've heard all the evidence testimony, I will enter an order on on what I've heard heard today. That verbal ruling will be followed by a
written order in the mail. With that, click may call. Did you have something? No, >> I was just going to suggest the only individuals are here for the St. Cloud Hotel case. So, if you want to call that one. >> Okay. So, we don't have either of the reductions here. >> Yeah. None of >> Okay, then we'll jump right into it. That's fine [clears throat] with me. >> Case number 2025-960,
St. Cloud Hotel LLC. Owner Dave Fong, registered agent. Location of violation 1004 New York Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Smith. Dan Manzer, city attorney. >> And you may already be be thinking what I'm thinking here. But before we get
into anything where we want to go today, I would like to have an update of where we where we left off from or what has been accomplished since where we left off last month. >> Sure. And I have I have that [clears throat] we put together a short little presentation to basically address those issues. So, uh I'm just going to
if I can get this thing to work. >> Okay. So I did put in as you know in your order your private prior order you found that there were two violations existed on the property both related to the condition of the of the main structure on the property finding it there's a dangerous risk of fire
collapsing and also that the structure in its current state exists is a dangerous structure u and then this is the provision of the order which I know you're very familiar with uh the order included why isn't this thing moving
Okay. So, as part of your order, you you provided that there should be an inspection that occurred prior to today's date uh and or actually prior to February 6th. Uh you also ordered that uh that the respondent make a decision with regard to certificate of appropriateness as you recall as to what
direction they wanted to proceed which was one of the issues that was needed to be resolved before they could get the building permit. Uh and also you wanted to you asked that the respondent bring to you proof that certain order windows have been ordered as they claimed in the last hearing. They need to do that. Uh
and uh um and so what was what has occurred is that on January 26, the respondent and several members of the city staff, the fire department, code enforcement, building department were in the building and took uh and did do a follow-up inspection. I have some pictures to show you and the fire chief
will will discuss mo uh those issues with that they saw on January 26. Uh the respondent did submit on February 9th a request to extend the uh certificate of appropriateness related to the historic preservation issue. I will point out to you that after further review of that,
as you might recall, there was some discussion on the size of the windows for the portion of the property that would be the restaurant. Uh the city [clears throat] has has relooked at that issue and looked back at some of the approvals and essentially the city's okay from from the certificate of appropriateness of those windows the
windows that we understand that the respondent wants to install being part of this of this extension of certificate appropri and hope you're following me on that. So you remember those? >> I I I do and where I where I had left it in the order was for them to go ahead and apply for the extension and then
they could deal with those windows in a new certificate. But it sounds like the city has resolved that issue for them. >> Exactly. Right. There's no need for them to apply for a new certificate appropriates to do the to do those windows. However, um uh we have obviously no we have no information with regard to where the windows are ordered.
And even though they have applied for the extension of the certificate of appropriates, to date, there has no building permit been issued on it on this property. So you can see these are just regular pictures. These are the pictures that we showed at the last hearing. Um, and I just wanted to point
out there was some discussion about fencing around the property. There is some fencing in the rear of the property. Uh, that's the that's the portion of the building that faces Massachusetts Avenue. However, gosh, why isn't this thing working? Any new batteries?
Oh, there you can see there's no fencing on the front of the building that >> Go back. I didn't I didn't get a good look at that picture. >> Okay, you can see this is these were the pictures that were submitted back in uh uh at the uh last hearing. So, there is all that is scaffolding and then and
there is some rod iron or railing in the front, but there is no secure fencing on the front of this building or on the or on the uh uh I guess that would be the south side of the building. Uh there is fencing on the on the on the um north and south. There is fencing on the rear of the building
as I just said right there. There's just more pictures of the scaffolding and the wood. These are all the pictures and this is just to refresh the special magistrate collection of the pictures that were showed last. Okay. I just want to go ahead. Okay. So, um,
as I said, the inspection did occur and I don't know why this is happening. Where are the rest of the January 26 pictures? Are they in there? >> Okay. >> All right. I apologize for this. This is not
>> You have a hard copy of that, Jason? Apologize, Mr. Sh. >> No, no problem. >> Okay. So, here we are. Okay. So, at this point, I'd like the fire chief to go through. This is these are pictures that were taken on the inspection of January 26, which was after the last meeting in
which the fire chief was on it. So, if the if Chief Miller could come up and address the pictures that he saw that uh and go through the pictures and show you what they saw when they were on the interior of the building. >> Which button am I hitting? >> I guess we're hitting this one. don't seem to work. Maybe we'll try it. Maybe
a better. >> Good afternoon, S. Sir. Jason Miller, fire chief cloud fire rescue. >> Um on the during the inspection, we took numerous pictures. However, for the um brevity of the situation, um we condensed them quite down to probably
just a handful of maybe six or eight pictures. In total, we took about 300 pictures. Um, this picture depicts the area in front of the restaurant area, which is the one story off to the side that does not have fencing around the front of it. Uh, there was past a past incident that we know of. I don't
remember the date exactly, but it was a couple years ago of a breakin at the location. That just shows where the window was broken. Um, and the glass is still there. >> But the windows in the windows in the frame, they have been those windows have been replaced breaking. Okay. >> Yep. Um, just just showing the
housekeeping. The next photo, um, obviously this is just showing the frame walls and the floor that it is wood all the way through the building. Um, also you can see the the floor joists that are at the kind of the end of the picture there in the hallway. Um, again, wood frame all the way through the
structure, multiple stories of it. U, this is one of our large concerns as firefighters, right? We're in there, it's dark, it's smoky, we can't see very well. Um, here we have basically where firefighters are crawling upstairs or crawling downstairs to escape from the fire if it's getting that bad. Um,
there's no lower level protection. At a minimum, there should be three three boards on there to protect firefighters if they are crawling so they won't crawl off the side and prevents the fall hazard. Um, in addition to that, the materials underneath the stairwells has to be removed. That is plastic.
As you know, plastic is highly flammable. This building is not sprinklered. it is not secured. When it comes to that kind of aspect, um a match could cause significant fire in that building in no time flat. In the next picture, I apologize for my
bald head being in it. However, um again, this is another picture of the lower stairwell, but also this is the landing where there's no false fall prevention at the landing level. So, if a firefighter is up there, if it's smoky, he could literally walk right off
of that and fall down to the midfloor landing. Um, that's what that depicts. Um, it should also be noted that what I'm looking at there was the gusset plates. Um, there's numerous gusset plates that are noted to be damaged and pulling out of the wood itself. Um, so
we would like a gusset plate reinspection and repair done as needed. Come on. Nope. Um, this is a picture of the elevator shaft. Um, as you can see, they do have two boards across this. However,
um, it's still a fall hazard. Realistically, what should be across there is a piece of plywood preventing full access into that area. I believe this is from the second or third floor. You can see that they have scaffolding inside of that area. Um, that's wonderful, but that's not going to stop
somebody from falling down. Oops. Um, again, this is another picture of where there is an open fall hazard. There's no wall built at this location. Um, according to the um, Matteo there,
he there was a remodel that was approved that allowed for the changing of the stairs and the way the landing was done. However, there was never a wall put in place or any kind of fall resistance. Um, you can literally see there the gap there where they could fall
all the way through. Um, on the other side of the second frame wall there, you'll see where there's the another landing that doesn't have any fall protection for anybody who's who might be on that landing where they could fall directly down onto the stairs. >> Are you talking about the right to the right of the frame? Is that where the
landing is? So, does this have a pointer by any chance? >> Nope. >> Oh, good point. Okay. So, you see the the wider board there that I'm kind of pointing at? >> Yes. >> Um to the immediate right of that. >> Yes.
>> That second frame wall behind there is where you could walk off and land into Yes. That's what I thought about. And then closer to us in that darkened area that's behind there, um, kind of narrower, you can see where that the penetration goes all the way down to the
floor below. >> U, this is a picture of the first floor again showing um that it's primarily wood frame everywhere. Um, unprotected without a sprinkler system. Um, as you can kind of note in this picture, which you'll see better in the following
picture, is the slab itself has been trench cut in numerous places. The reason that's of importance is all this rebar is sticking out. If a firefighter's in there in a in a hostile environment, being the building's under fire and there's smoke conditions, they're going to be get snagged, trip,
fall, the hose is going to get hung up in this. Um, it it's a huge safety hazard. And this goes the full length of the building virtually. Um it there's multiple different cut points kind of leading off of each other. So um
what we have recommendations as far as what could mitigate that in the future. Um obviously pouring the concrete back would be the best one, but we understand they have plumbing and other things that need to be in there. So, we would recommend either instead of having the rebar folded back or bent, which kind of
defeats the purpose of having it in place in the future for pouring that concrete, we'd recommend during construction time until they're ready, they infill that area with dirt. At least that'll prevent the hoses potentially from snagging or firefighters from getting snagged on that in the event of a fire.
Um overall there are some temporary measures to address as far as safety issues. This is a wood frame building built within a block or brick building. Um it falls under special consideration. There's a the system that is in place
currently is a heat detection system that was approved back in March of 2021 that was approved as a temporary measure. The current condition of the building leaves that as a system that is inconsequential. It will have zero
effect because of the openness of the building. All the heat will go to the top. It won't trigger if there's a fire on the lower floors. Um simply put, we've all seen the chimney effect, right? You start a fire in the chimney, all the smoke goes up. Well, doesn't matter if there's a a detection device
here. If all the smoke is free free flowing to the top floor, it's going to take a long time before that heat detection system works. Um the fire marshall has been in contact with Matteo um about some options to alleviate that concern. Um we're talking about either
potentially a fire watch during non-b businessiness hours or some other mechanisms. Also, we're talking about in the future doing work floor by floor because putting temporary sprinkler systems in place is very, very costly. We recognize that. we're trying to be a good partner. Um, even though this
project is drawn out for an extended period of time, um, we worked with them and said, you know, you could go floor by floor, so that way you're not having to put something in, remove it, put something in, remove it, put something in, remove it. Um, we recognize the cost on that. Um,
one of our biggest concerns, um, is that there was a statement made that they're going to be doing work on the outside of the building first and that could take into next year before they actually do work on the inside.
That that's that's that doesn't help resolve our situation as as far as that goes. Um, additionally, the fire marshall had has had correspondence with Matteo. Um, going over some of the items that I uh
had discussed with you. The heat detector placement will not detect heat from a fire in a timely manner. Um, the removal of the sprinkler system years ago, which was on 321, was understood to be a temporary for only a few months while some beams and such were in pla were placed. However, it's been out
since then. The fire extinguishers are not in service or in date. They they need to be reinspected and certified. Um fire loads that were observed meaning the plastics um there overall the condition of the site I would say was
organized but cluttered if that makes sense. >> Um there was multiple areas where this plastic was stored. Um particularly under the stairwells which is obviously is a great concern to us. on the top floor. Um there was a lot of trash and debris still from when the roof was
worked on. These are all things that are housekeeping items that could have been addressed, but as far as the cleanliness of the building itself, I really don't have any complaints as far as that. With the exception of the lower one-story building of the restaurant,
there is piles and piles and piles of old lumber, new lumber, all kinds of stuff strewn in there. The roof is in complete disrepair. Um, including the fact that it was leaking and there was plants growing out of it when we were there for inspection. Um, if there was a
fire that started there, it would have direct access to the main portion of the building and it would, for lack of a better term, be off to the races. um we would be behind the eightball if that were to occur. So that that needs to be addressed immediately.
Um there's some NFPA considerations that the fire marshall reviewed with Matteo as far as the uh the firewatch and some options there. Um it has to be an approved company by the by the fire
department. they have to provide a um a letter providing the fire department with notice of what services they are providing. Um it can't just be, oh, we just hired somebody to sit there, right? That's not what we're looking for. Um and that's in accordance with NFPA 241.
Um we talked about the plywood across the elevator shaft. Additionally, there needs to be um no smoking signs put in place throughout the throughout the project. Um, just I apologize for him not being here today. He had a family emergency. So,
I'm kind of pinch hitting here. So, if I'm being redundant, I apologize. Um, so one of the other things is in in two in FPA 241, um, it says a water supply for fire protection must be present, which would be the stand pipe system for
the upper floors. Um, shall be made available as significant combustible materials are present. Um, all in all, again, um, we're recommending better housekeeping,
on-site security when there's construction workers are not present, the removal of the excessive debris, and to get progress moved to remove some of those additional hazards being the fall hazards and the snag hazards. So,
>> okay. >> Any questions? Not at this point. >> I'm just making sure I hit everything, which it appears I did. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We've been looking at this issue since the last meeting trying to figure out how we want to address it. And that's
why I had the fire chief get up there and speak about all these issues, specifically these what we're calling temporary measures that would that would reduce the public safety issue. So these are and and he went through them all. So with that, I just wanted to go over what we what we as the city would like to see
happen in this particular case, right? As and this these are our um would basically be that the city's recommendation as to uh how to handle this matter, what we'd ask the special magistrate to do. Uh obviously the big issue is to get this construction back
on on board. uh the one of the impediments the issue of the building permit has been resolved that related to the certificate of appropriateness. We uh we feel like there are other measures that can be addressed to get the building permits issued for this drug for this project and get the project going again. The building official is
here. He can talk to you about the necessity of the uh what needs to be done to get the building permit issue from where we stand today as we stand today. >> That was the question that was floating in my head. >> Okay. Would you would you like him to address that right now? >> Now, if now's a convenient time for you, I would like to hear that. Yes. >> Thank you.
Good afternoon. Bob Deathridge, building official. Um, the building review has been done on the plans. Um, fire had comments, zoning had comments, and the historic preservation board had comments which have not been
addressed. >> Okay. >> So, um, we at this point we could not issue the permit. the comments that were made are they are they comments that can be addressed by respondent alone or things like historic preservation
particularly is it something that's going to require meetings >> and I think if I could interrupt Mr. I think the city has resolved that historic preservation issue. So I I believe and Miss Strider is here. She can address she's with historic preservation, but I don't think that's again I don't think that's an
impediment. >> Okay. So leaving out historic preservation then are the comments that have been received from was it and it was fire and it was fire and zoning. Are they comments that are in the complete control of the respondent or are they
things that need city action in addition to action by respondent? uh their action that is required by the respondent. >> Can you tell me what those comments were? Do you do you happen to know? >> I do not know off top of my head. Do you recall Christina?
>> No, but I >> Good afternoon. Christina Sodto, deputy building official or not official but deputy director for building um fire had comments that dealt with his fire sprinklers that still need to be addressed. um the zoning and the historic board. I believe Stephanie can
speak to this, but once she receives that, we'll need her to go and approve the permit. But we are also missing on the permit all the subcontractors that are needed, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. So, we'll still >> Oh, yeah. And that that that last part certainly is completely in the hands of the respondent on the on the fire.
And who's the best witness to explain this to me? I'll let y'all decide, but here's my challenge with if fire is holding up the building permit, it's also fire that's standing here telling me they need to get a building permit so we can address these issues.
>> And if I could so that's why we trying to we that's a good discussion on the building per that's why we were trying to present this case in this manner. >> Sure. I understood >> we obviously when whenever you have a building that's under construction there's always going to be issues with regard to it. I think the issues related
to fire are essentially what are the plans going to anticipate with regard to the the fire suspension suspension no suspension systems not necessarily whether they get done before the billing permit would be issued. >> So the qu let me make sure let me let me
put it into how I'm understanding that because I think now I'm starting to understand it. So the issues from fire were the the endgame what the questions about the fire suppression system when it's done not what we're doing with the temporary measures. Okay, >> the head was nodding back there for the
record, >> right? And the temporary measures issues that we just discussed were to deal with the immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, which we think is out there with the good condition of building. And that's why so from the city's perspective uh that's why we we're making we our petition our
request today is that they be given until March 6 to acquire the permits uh the building permit to do this. they uh that within 10 days after issuing of the permit that they take the remedial temporary measures that the fire chief just went through to to reduce the
public safety issues and then that ultimately that this building and the construction be completed by September of this year uh with uh to get the work done and get this project over with and completed and a certificate of occupancy issued. And that's our that's our request today
to be able to address this issue, this longstanding issue. >> Okay. And of course we did and I'll just we did ask that if in the event that either of those dates are met that the that the special magistrate impose a fine of of $1,000 a day as well as the the cost
administrative cost of $533 that have been incurred by the city. Can when if the city is done with its presentation, if you could leave the slide up that shows the temporary uh measures.
>> There's two slides of it. >> It's the latter of the two I think that I want to have in front of everybody for respondents benefit. >> I'm pushing the right buttons. You want me to try? Whoops. Uh oh. >> That one. Whoops.
>> Yes, >> that's the first. >> One forward. >> That one. >> Yes. >> Actually, I think it's it's both those put together, isn't it? So, it's really those two. So, you can go back to the first one. So, I think those were actually probably the
>> more detailed ones. Okay. Anything else from the city at this time? >> Not at this time. Thank you, sir. >> Respondent. >> Hello, sir. >> If you say start off by stating your name and name in relation to the property for me. >> Mateo, project manager for the St. Cloud
Hotel. >> And so, I don't know. I don't want to jump in and take you anywhere other than where you want to begin, but hearing what I'm hearing now, it at least sounds like we have more we we're more defined on what the issues to be resolved are than we were a month ago. >> Yes.
>> And I know you've been involved in these conversations, but I suspect that maybe this list, I don't know if you've seen this list before or not. You have seen this list? >> Yes. So, as far as the temporary measures, do you have issues or concerns with any of those? Broadly, forgetting the timing for a minute and just what
they're asking for to happen. >> Um, uh, the only one is the guard service and firewatch. Uh, I have cameras on the building. Um, I actually um contacted uh
Corporal Fuier, but I found out that he was um retired, but I wanted a report from the police department to basically prove that there hasn't been any breakins in the building in the past since 2019 to date. There was one theft that happened during construction in
2020, but it was an internal job from uh one of the workers related and the police department caught them and the camera system was the one that helped resolve that issue. I will tell you if you're going to talk to me in in context
of security as in no breakin security I will tell you right now you're you're going the wrong angle for me on this and where I am when it comes to the firewatch concern is what what we all heard the chief say about the existing monitoring that's there and what fire
what a firewatch provides is a live body who can pick up who can who can see what's happening pick up the phone and call fire immediately. cameras do not provide the same thing. >> Um, I understand. Um, would it be
possible, and this is a question for the fire chief, would it be possible to contact the monitoring this the fire monitoring system that's in place right now that was temporarily approved and it's been there since 2021? Would it be possible to contact them and tell them
the issues and see if they can actually extend the monitoring system with more sensors to actually detect and immediately notify? >> I think it's a fair question. Let's put it let's put it on pause. Let's just put leave it let's leave that for a second and let let's let you continue and then I'll bring the fire chief back up in a
little bit when we have a nice break and just in your testimony >> and then I'll ask him that question. But I think it's a fair question to ask and see what the answer is. I think all of the other uh the fire extinguishers I'll have them reserviced. Um the uh stairs uh more protection on the stairs for
falling. Um all of those I have uh no issues uh fulfilling. >> Okay. And Dan, can we can we go to the next page of this just so I can go through all those too and make sure there's no >> storage. Actually, I want to mention uh the fire chief was very graceful saying
that it's a clean job site and I pride myself on having a very clean job site. Um they probably noticed that the majority of the stuff that's in there, it's actually components from the scaffolding because I dismantled it prior to the permit ending and to
hurricane proof the building for the hurricane season. So pretty much what's around and even underneath the stairs is scaffold netting which is like plastic. Um all of that it's basically components that once job site resumes and all of
the scaffolding pieces go back into place they will actually end up going into place. So that will take care of a lot of that. We used to have a uh storage container that the city had us remove the beginning of last year where we kept all of our access storage. And
then the other um um debris that's on the fourth floor that the fire chief mentioned is from the roof. And I we were told to leave it because of our roofcase. Um so um and actually I I may
even speak on that. um everyone that needed to inspect the roof, including the manufacturer, which happened the same day that our inspection happened later on. Um uh um evaluated a report. So now um is just
the uh mediation was scheduled for February 12th. Uh the attorney of the roofer requested that our attorney uh agree to postponing mediation to April because the roofer hired two
subcontractors and now they would like to add the subcontractors to the case and the attorney recommended that we do postpone the mediation because now there will be four insuranceances that will go after to settle better than just two. Uh
but they did say that should we choose to, we could start uh touching the roof again because everybody that needed to to to >> positive news also. >> Yes. Uh the window. Let me let me give you while while you're on the on the topic of particularly the plastic
because that that was there was a point the city's pres point made in the city's presentation about that and and I saw it and I heard it >> and it is the combustibles underneath those wood stairs and I as I look at
that and as I hear the testimony the cons the place the concerned place that my brain goes is if those combustles light it's burning right up those stairs. And if somebody's on those upper floors, they have no way back down. And so I think it's not I didn't hear anybody say the plastics have to be, you
know, 10 miles away, but get the combustibles away from those wood components, especially the wood components that get people up and down in the building. I That's what I heard about those plastics. >> Yeah. And I mean, we could literally resolve that right after this meeting. That's that's not an issue. I'm not
surprised to hear you say I I and I just wanted to put into context what I was hearing that it wasn't about that the plastics are evil. It was simply that how they're stored and where they're stored is creating additional danger. Um and um so I was having a conversation
with fire marshall. Um there isn't any liquid. There isn't any fire um anything that would actually spread and and and combust and and blow out in
the building. that there isn't anything um that will inhibit or or basically blow a fire out of proportion. >> There's no explosives. >> Nothing. >> But there are combustibles. The whole building is a combustible, >> right? It's wood. It's a it's a wood
structure. But that's >> that's why I'm making that distinction. I hear what you're saying. There are no explosives in the building. But the whole building itself is a combustible. >> Correct. But then the other question remains on how the fire would start. The only way or the highest risk that I see
reasonable, it would be arson. It would be somebody literally physically going there to start a fire. Other than that, there really I don't see what else can actually start a fire besides that. >> We talked about a couple at the last meeting. Lightning being one of those.
And lightning causes a lot of fire fires in the state of Florida. >> It can potentially could, but it could cause that to any building. What's different about this one? >> Where it is in its state of repair? >> Yes. But where it is in its state of repair, it's in the best place that it's
ever been for 100 years. >> That may be, but it still is a dangerous building as it is currently situated. >> And what would make that dangerous? >> Well, and and Mr. Smith, this this was the argument discussion we had. >> I understand. I do. I understand.
>> Want to re reissue relitigate that issue. So, as you heard and as I heard at the last hearing, if drywall were there, drywall is a fire retardant. As the pro as the building moves forward in the process, it will become less of a dangerous building. But as it is
situated right now, it is dangerous. I don't think anybody here is tell is telling me otherwise. If it caught on fire, it would be dangerous to anybody in that building because it would go up like that. I I I do not want to be difficult. >> I understand. >> But I want to be reasonable.
>> And I think you are being reasonable. And you've already told me that what they have asked for is able to be done. >> It is uh and and it can be done fairly quick and definitely within the required timeline of it being done >> where we are from this meeting to last meeting. And the benefit really the
benefit that you you kind of leaned into at the last meeting which was let's get in the building and let's take a look. benefit of now being able to see what the condition of that interior is. It gives the city a better idea of what they're dealing with, which lets them work with you more and it lets them bring what they brought to me, which is
more specifics and to narrow in this is what we need. So, this list is what they're saying this is what we need now. >> Yes. and and um I have um I have no issues complete completing the list that I understand
it's making a firefighter's job dangerous. No issues. No issues with the rebars. No issues with more fall protection. No issues with the opening on the staircases in the back and the gusset plates. Maybe we need to review them with the fire chief because the architect and I were looking at all of
that even prior to this meeting. Um, so I have I definitely have no issue with that. I think that firewatch would be expensive. Um, I think it's uh it's un unreasonable
and I think it's uh specific targeting. Um, >> I will tell you this. I represent other cities and there are plenty of buildings in the state of Florida that are on fire watch right now. Um, I was having a conversation with uh the fire marshall
and potentially uh with AI we could do a um monitored camera system that's 24 hours a day, seven days a week monitored uh AI monitored and uh to help mitigate that um and be so that
it so basically what I'm trying to to to get do is let's all be reasonable to get to our ultimate goal into what we all want to achieve. We all want construction to start and we all want the building to be safe should there be
anything and we all want the building to be kept uh in good maintained order and continued. Um as far as uh my um question arose during the conversation because last meeting I
uh presented you a print out from the building department and all the plan reviews were approved and all the comments were accepted. Uh the only thing that was standing was the certificate of appropriateness and I handed that out. So I'm not sure where
that came from today and where the misunderstanding is there. >> I I don't know that it's a misunderstanding. When permits linger for periods of months, often new issues arise because the condition of a building that's sitting deteriorates. [snorts] >> Um, in what sense? Like how would it
deteriorate? >> Just time passes. The other thing that has happened in this case is the city has now been allowed inside the building. So they may have they may have seen things that they were not aware of before that was going through reviews. But until a permit is issued, a city has every right to to find new reasons to say, "Nope, we remembered something else
that we need to add to the list." So then my question is are there new comments because my understanding and the architect's understanding and my design team's understanding is that all the comments have been responded from all disciplines. >> I'll ask that question when we get done too to make sure that the comments that
were that were mentioned to me have been provided to you because that will play into my feelings on timing on the timing of what's being asked for. So um the the statutory evidence of the time frame that it has been under
construction and the statutory evidence of the time frame that it has been vacant and a jeopardized structure. Um there is no debate that this building is
safer today than it has been for. >> That argument is not going to persuade me. >> It's not about persuading you. It's just a simple fact. >> It's not going to persuade me. A dangerous building is a dangerous building. I don't care if it's less dangerous today than it was 10 years ago. >> So then the debate remains really what
makes it dangerous. >> And again, Mr. We renew this. This is what we argued about. >> I understand. You tell me what isn't dangerous about this building. I just saw all the photographs and you saw them too. >> I understand. So in case of fire, the
fall protection and all and and the rebars, but it's a it's a construction site. It's under construction. >> It was a construction site and then you let the building permits lapse. >> Uh that could be a much further deeper conversation. Should we go down that? Uh
>> the evidence before me is expired permits. >> Yes, >> we would not be here had those permits not expired. Had construction not stopped, we wouldn't be here. But construction stopped, permits expired, and now here we are. >> Yes. So, we're helping on resolving
that. >> It's your responsibility to resolve. It's your project. You're not helping to resolve it. You're helping yourself by resolving it. >> But I am trying to supply everything that I'm being asked for. >> And you are doing an excellent job. I'm curious why we're starting to argue.
>> I'm sorry. Uh um the the only argument is that it really isn't a dangerous structure. Should someone choose to break in? Yes, they can break in into any structure. >> It's not the breakin I'm concerned about. It's the fire that starts and
that building goes up like that. >> And what I saw in the photographs is a whole lot more exposed wood than I was expecting to see, frankly. >> Yeah. It's under frame. It's it's in frame stage. Um, >> and it's been sitting that way for some time >> that is correct
>> with expired permits >> for the past since July I believe of last year when it expired. Um, >> and that is all persuasive to me. >> So this is where we the question is then
what is taking so long to get the new permit issued? Because the city made comments in July, the architect and engineer had all the responses to the comments ready by August. They were supposed to be submitted in the architect. Uh
>> respect, we continue to go down the Mr. test specified about what's missing for the permit that falls in the respondents requirement for them to submit to get the permit. He continues to go over the same issues and the city's being
extremely reasonable on this, but extremely frustrated with the process. >> I understand. >> You can continue. >> So then maybe we need to clarify what is left on the permit that needs to be satisfied. >> I will ask those questions. But those
questions are not the questions for me. That is between you and the city ultimately. >> Okay. My role here again is the case that's before me, which is the presentation of this building and its condition with its history and its recent history that I have found is a dangerous building. And how do we
resolve that? I've been presented with requests, temporary measure requests that seem reasonable to me. I understand your concern with cost with cost of firewatch. We'll ask those questions, see if there are any other alternatives that might be more palatable for you. But I've also heard you say that beyond
that that these are all doable. >> Yeah. >> So I don't think I don't hear in the case that's before me, I don't hear the city being unreasonable. I see the city actually like like the attorney just said trying to work with you and I see you trying to work with them.
>> So where are we not seeing each other eye to eye? >> I'm not sure. >> So this is where we need to resolve. Um, so with the list that's been provided, we'll ask the question on firewatch if there are alternatives. But as to the
work is the requested completion date, which I believe was March 9th was the request >> to obtain the building permit. Our initial request was to >> for the completion of the temporary Oh, it was within 10 days. So March 9th for the building permit and 10 days from
that to complete the >> remedial measures. Is that is that timing is that timing doable you know in your mind or does that present problems? >> I understand with the permit >> to certain items >> actually let's let's let's pause here
and let me ask that question on what is between you and and having that permit finalized. Let's get that because that may weigh into your answer to the question I just asked you. Let me ask you to step aside and if so my question will be whichever witness is the best one. What stands between at this point?
What stands between respondent and having that permit issued? What are the remaining comments need to be addressed? >> The second section is the >> and has has the respondent been provided those comments and when was the respondent provided those comments? >> Uh the respondent was provided those comments before the last meeting and
again at the last meeting. And the the main issue is they need before we can issue the permit they need to list their subcontractors. And they have not done that. >> And were the zoning issues strictly
related to the historic preservation? >> Yes. >> So that sounds like that has been resolved. >> Fire can I just get fire chief? Would you mind coming up please? So assuming the temporary measures are put into place and assuming that they are able to do the things the city has asked for,
does that resolve fire's comments or do you have other questions down the road for that? So, fire has had numerous comments that are still, some of which are still outstanding. Um, including that they need to certify the wall between the restaurant and the hotel as a two-hour fire rated wall. Um, they
still have not done that. They still have not demonstrated emergency lighting um in proper locations. They have not submitted for the fire sprinkler plan or I'm sorry, the fire detection or the sprinkler plan are required to be on
separate permits. they have not submitted any of that and we also have noted from the very beginning that a BDA test will need to be completed. Um this was provided to them on December 15th 2025.
Um in addition um if I can just to address those two other questions that were proposed. Um we did not provide a picture of it. However, there is numerous electrical items being stored at the site, which is not that big of a deal other than the fact that there is another fire code violation of note that
there's a refrigerator running in the building for some strange reason. >> There is power to the building. There is power to the building. The refrigeration system or the refrigerator itself is plugged into an extension cord which is probably I don't know 30 to 40 ft long,
maybe even 50 feet running through debris and through walls under construction plugged into it looks like a temporary outlet box there. As far as site security, um NFPA2416.4.2.5 2.5 clearly says guard services shall be
provided were required by the AHJ where required buildings with combustible construction exposed during construction for more than 40 ft above grade. This more than meets that consideration. Um we understand that it is costly
as far as redesigning the current system. My feeling is is the fire marshall, you know, he's a little more versed in that aspect of it. That's his day-to-day. The problem there is he would have to go through an entire new plan submittal
redesign of the current system that's in there. But to to keep the option open and for the benefit of my conversation when the respondent comes back up, would it be for instance if I were to
rule today that he has to have firewatch or an alternative mechanism or means approved by the fire department? to the extent there are alternative means that he might want to pursue with the fire department work with him as long as they
were as long as they satisfied an FPA. >> As long as it satisfies an FBA, state of Florida fire code and the building officials codes, I wouldn't have a problem with it. >> Okay. >> The problem is going to be is getting across that finish line. >> Understood. And and it's the tough spot
that every respondent is in is you know what ends up being more more more expensive at the end of the day because that that could turn out to be more expensive than firewatch. um on the on the firewatch issue. So once permits are issued, once
construction becomes active again, does that change the firewatch requirement at all? >> Not until some of those areas are covered up. As long as there's that much exposed wood, if the site is unsecured or secure but not monitored by an active system, we still have the same concerns.
Nothing's changed just because it's under construction. It doesn't change until those building elements are starting to be covered and protected as you >> once you have the fire protection. It's not until the fire protection and the firewatch requirement could go away. >> And that's why one of the temporary measures is required weekly fire
inspections so that we can see the progress of all that and then ultimately maybe the firewatch does go away. And if I may, all of the comments that we've had here, they're all available
online 24 hours a day to the customer >> to the contractor. >> To the contractor. Yes. Okay. >> Oh, I one I wanted to clarify this. >> My understanding someone could I think Stephanie you address it. There is some revision to the plans that's required
before the permits getting the ones that are currently under review. My understanding that there's a structure on the Massachusetts side of the building that's shown on the plans which needs to be removed from those plans. >> Okay. The record, please. >> I'm sorry. >> We can get that testimony on the record.
>> So, >> Stephanie Straater, principal planner with community development. Yes. So before our uh historic preservation review can be approved, they do need to amend their plans to be in line with what got approved that they extend it. So we did receive their extension request for the April 2022 approval, but
it needs to be in line with that. There's a one-story addition to the rear of the building on the Massachusetts side. That needs to be removed from those plans. If they remove that from the plans, I can approve them. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry.
one-story building [sighs and gasps] that's Stephanie. Yes. Would you mind just repeating? You'll say it better than I will try to repeat it. >> Yes. So, the one-story structure I believe on their plans it's noted as the new lounge which is to the rear of the hotel on the Massachusetts side would
need to be removed from the plans because it has not been captured in any of the certificate of appropriatenesses. Thank you. So, um I'm not sure of the why behind removing those plans because they have been in the renderings. They have been in the
architectural plans. They have been in >> What I'm hearing is the same conversation we had about the windows on the restaurant last meeting is that they're not part of the certificate of appropriateness. >> But they >> your your building plans for your building permit have to conform to the approved certificate of appropriateness. So the certificate of appropriateness
that I'm regarding in 2019, April of April of 2022 has all of that covered. It's actually in the rendering. It's within the certificate of of appropriateness. And the whole thesis behind all of the measurements is the unification of the entire structure,
including the restaurant and the additions in the back. So if they're in the structural plans, in the architectural plans, in the renderings, how are they were they never considered? How >> were they submitted as part of your stigma appropriation? >> It's a whole package. It's everything
together. It and it was submitted to the city since 2022 and again on our major plan revision in 2023 >> and then again on our new application for a new permit. It's always been in
the plans. That's a reconstruction of an existing part of the structure that used to be there that it was in such bad condition that it wasn't original to the structure kind of like the restaurant that it wasn't worth saving. So it got demolished approved for demolition and
it's being rebuilt and it's being rebuilt to the new design including the restaurant and the restaurant design has changed and all the arguments and the thesis behind that has been explained over and over. So >> let me let me pause you. Can the city
just on this point on the certificate of appropriateness the one-story building on the first floor is there a response to what the respondent just >> Yeah. And I think if I may I think the respondent has a a complete diff has a lot of difficulty understanding the difference between a building department
review of its plans and it project and the requirements of the historic preservation ordinance which applies to this building. Not the federal one but the city ordinance. And ultimately it's it those are issues that are not for me to decide but they do play into the timing of everything which is why I want to have a handle on them.
>> So for historic preservation board our motions are very specific and when you look at the scope of work that was approved with that April 19th 2022 approval. It did not include a one-story structure that was never a part of the application. Whether it's in the renderings they did not approve renderings. They approved a specific
scope of work. The one-story building was never included in the scope of work. >> Okay. I understand. >> Thank you. >> Do you understand what that distinction is? >> I understand. But why would that never be brought up? >> Because you made the application.
>> Do you remember? Do you remember we had the And yes, but >> I'm I'm I'm starting to lose patience again. >> So, you remember we had the conversation at the last meeting? >> Yes. >> Judge Sloop Prosay respondent or prosay litigant would appear before him and say, "But I'm sorry you're I don't have
an attorney." and he would say you have you are the project manager. It is not the city's job to hold your hand to the process. It's your job to understand the process and you drive your own truck. >> I understand. I fully understand. >> Then don't stand there and tell me why didn't the city why didn't the city fix
this for me? Why didn't they catch this for me? It was your job. >> I understand sir. All I'm saying is that that part of the project had never considered or had never gained any historic significance. the restaurant. I was told afterwards that it gained
separate historic significance to the structure. We're redoing the entire structure. That portion of the structure, that addition that was there, it never gained any historic significance. It was never brought into
any sort of conversation as it had gained historic significance. It was an addition that was done at some point, very poorly done, including the restaurant. and the fire chief himself at the meeting the at the site inspection noticed how the structure of the restaurant is completely pulling
away from the existing structure of the main building. So my whole presentation for historic preservation, it's the entire package, everything that's attached to that building will be properly attached structurally,
architecturally, and all aspects. >> Yes. [sighs and gasps] But I I I've heard about I've heard about as much on the historic preservation as as is going to be relevant to me today. understand two different spheres in every city I
work in that has historic preservation. These are challenging especially when we wind up in front of code enforcement for this exact issue. Things that building department looks at are not the same things that historic preservation looks at. They are tangential yes but
completely different perspectives and but ultimately these are your issues to work through. I cannot decide them today. They are not mine to decide. My issue today is the building and getting it safe. >> I understand. And what I'm saying is that the building has had three
certificate of appropriatenesses in all >> and I I I'm I'm moving I understand I understand the history. I cannot I cannot decide or control that. I am going to decide on the on the building and what needs to be done to make it
safe. So we can move off certificate of appropriateness now. And I think I have architect ready to provide testimony. Well, if I may, um, I just >> name and relationship. >> I'm Jeff Davis. I'm the architect of record. Um, as far as the the rear portion, it's a pretty important and
integral part of this building in order for it to function in the future. So, I guess my question is because we're kind of in a loop here in order to get to the next step, would it be possible to reapply or resubmit? >> You can always apply >> and have, >> as we talked about the last
>> understand. And I I saw the head nod >> and I was not present for So this is new information to me about that part not being I guess part of the original because it would probably have been before my time. Correct. >> Yes. Yeah. So um well then that answers
my question if we're able to do that but I don't know what that does to your timeline as far as you know. >> Was there anything else from the architect that you I wanted to offer at the moment. >> Okay. >> Did you want to comment on the uh fire
comments? >> Uh and as far as the fire comment, the twohour, that is new information to me. I did not see that um when the comments came in before, but I think we can easily take care of that as far as the calculated assembly, the thickness of the masonry walls more than enough to
make sure that that's a two-hour wall. So, I think we're clear and good on that part. >> Okay. Let me ask you to pause. I want to get building official. I have a question for building official if I could. So with a mindset of trying to get
active permits, active construction moving again, would it be possible to carve out to carve out would it be possible for the respondent to carve out a building permit application?
the one-story building that's causing the historic preservation problem on the ground floor to just basically [clears throat] send easily carve out. I don't mean new drawings. I just mean for everybody to to agree and as you know pros writ and say we'll pull that out
for the time being and then once they resolve the historic preservation issues again plug it back in as easily as it was pulled out just to get this to the the permit line. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> Okay. that that that I think gives us some direction. And now if if respondant
wants to come back up, let's let's have a conversation about that. And architect, if yeah, you stick around. >> So we can take care of that separately. >> That was where I was going to if y'all can just carve that that one point out and so that that's not holding you up from permitting and then work on it and
then just get it added back in once it's resolved. Is the timeline requested by the city at least in the neighborhood of workable for you? >> I would say so. Yeah. So that was March 9th for permit issuance. >> March 6. >> March 6th for permit issuance. >> See those comments again if you don't
mind just because I don't have >> Well, you can certainly have a copy of them and have access to them. But >> um well, just so I can look in order to really truthfully answer your question. >> Sure, please. That's that's I I appreciate that. Take what time you need. >> Let me just skim over these real quick.
>> Matteo, do you mind coming up and looking at these real quick, too? So fire of fire plans. You got you have a guy on that already. The wall. That's an easy one right there. And then these right here. I don't know what that specifically is. Emergency license. I
guess that's a comment. So I can get with him ASAP on that. But do you think do you see any issues about that? I mean this comment here that the SP fire and sprinkler to be submitted with a
separate permit when they were submitted they were asked to be on the same permit. So we can do that >> but that's the BDA survey. Uh we would have to call >> that's Larry right? No, BDA it's it's a
communication system for uh fire department within a building to make sure their radios actually work because sometimes when buildings get too insulated their radio system doesn't function but I don't know why that is mandator question you think we're good
for >> March 9ch sorry Um, I'm not sure. I would have to contact I would have to find a BDA surveyor and see. But the BDA survey and maybe the
fire chief can help with this. Um, >> excuse me. >> These are all issues that should have been done. >> I understand, but but here we are. So, >> but it's a >> I'm glad Davis is finally seeing this. No, because some of these are unreasonable issues. They keep getting brought up.
>> It's the code. >> Yeah. They keep getting brought up for unreasonable issues. >> Um the BDA, are you familiar with I am. >> Okay. Usually the BDA survey, it's done after the building is insulated and
sheetrocked. If we do a BDA survey now, it most likely will pass because there isn't enough penetration in the walls. The BDA survey usually gets done when the building is almost encapsulated to make sure that the radio frequency will travel through. So this is a
conversation that we've had with a fire marshall prior. It's [snorts] something that we want to do before we sheetrock the building. So if we do need to add it, we can wire it in. Um, but it's if we do it now, it's not
going to be the same as if it's done when the building is finished because of the frequency that it will be intercepted from all the finishing products. >> Okay, let me ask the fire chief that question. Just, you know, don't go far. Just just give a couple feet to the
side. Any any wiggle room on on that, Chief? Well, I'm a little confused by the rationale. He's saying that it needs to be done when the building's closer to being done, but then he wants to wire it
ahead of time. Um, in my opinion, they're not that expensive. I would go ahead and do it now because I'd be willing to bet money that as thick as those walls are on that building, it's going to need a BDA. Um, just through experience,
the walls in that building are in some places probably two feet thick. They're particularly in the restaurant area. >> It's the two hours, >> right? I mean, you're talking the radio signals don't typically broadcast through that. If he waits until the drywall is up, there is a good possibility he's going to have to rip
drywall down to to reinstall the wiring for the BDA system. Um, I would I don't understand. He kind of went back and forth there. In my experience, it's been with particularly with old very old construction and new construction that
BDA systems are needed. It's just it's just the reality of today's building products. >> Okay. And I think where the respondent was coming from is if they do it now and they get not needed once they put in more then it they would have to do it again to see >> I would do the test now because the test is not that expensive.
>> Okay. I meant I was going to do it prior to sheetrock. No, I understood what you meant and and I I also understand where the chief is coming from though and I think that there there's a a fire is seeing this as a high likelihood that it's you're going to need a BDA
system no matter what. >> Okay. Do you happen to have the uh print out of the um permit reviews that I submitted to you last? I do not. You do not >> I do not know if I have a
>> It does because >> but again when I I am only concerned today with what gets us moving forward. I'm not particularly concerned with who said what when in the past and I'm I'm hearing very clearly. I'm
seeing you working very very well with with the city to determine what needs to be done. I'm hearing resolutions. So I am not concerned with who said what to whom about what and the past right now. >> Okay. Um All right. It it was my understanding
that everything was reviewed and it was approved and all the comments were satisfactory on all disciplines besides zoning and HPB uh certificate of appropriateness issue on the restaurant.
Uh that was the only outstanding >> again if I may. >> Yes. >> The comments are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week online. I I understand >> it's heard here three times today. >> I I understand. >> I I don't think that we have a an issue
responding to the comments there uh by March 6. >> Um >> okay. So I want to be clear the city's request is not that they respond by March 6 is that the permit >> be issued in hand by March 6th. So then it needs to become crystal clear so that
we have absolutely no no question >> on what is needed for that to become >> that is what we were just that is what we just finished talking about that is addressing those comments those comments are what stand between you and that permit being issued >> only on the fire and sprinkler as a
separate permit >> whatever the comments are >> the comments that have been I don't I don't need I don't need your building I can handle it >> as well as the subcontractors Yes, every comment you've received needs to be addressed between now and March 6. These were the were the ones related to
what we're talking about the building, but the the zoning needs to be addressed. We've addressed we've talked about that here. That can be dealt with by carving out that building for the time being to get to building permit issuance. So, you can address zoning's comments by simply carving out that building for the time being while you work with historic preservation if you
want to add it back in. And the other would be the other the other comments from building which are the list of subcontractors. So the ones that we've talked about are the ones that I would foresee. If there was anything to cause you problems with March 6, we've talked about those. The rest sound sound like pretty standard we
just need more information from you type comments. I'm just going to check on something real quick. You know, your honor, I was I was part of um the HPB presentation in 2019. I was part
of the HPB presentation in April of 22 and June uh or um of 22 as well in all of the HPB meetings and approvals.
>> You're going you're talking about an issue I cannot decide today. >> No. >> And and I we have discussed a way of making sure that issue does not hold you up. So that issue is resolved for my purposes. I realize it leaves work for you to do, but for the purposes of this
hearing, the historic preservation is not going to be one that influences me to do one way, one thing or another because we have found a pathway to carve it out of what's holding you up. >> On our end, supplying a list of the subcontractors and supplying uh the
comments to the fire department for fire, it seems the only one left. It shouldn't be an issue to do that by March 6. >> Okay. Uh and uh yes. So we're should be >> so moving on down the list then the the
next requested time frame would be within 10 days of that permit being issued. Keep in mind that that the way that is phrased means if that permit were issued on March 1st, 10 days would be March 10th. So that is a moving target. It
doesn't necessarily mean March 16th. It could be, but it depends on what day that permit is actually issued. Having those remedial measures in place, is that feasible for you? >> We need to go back to the remedial. >> Sure. Can we go back to those two slides?
>> Okay. in there. >> So, installation of fall protection, no issue. Um, now I have a question uh for the fire chief. Uh, when we presume construction, one of the things that's
left in the main structure is the elevator shaft. Instead of putting plywood across it just to cover it, I would actually like to resume finishing out the elevator shaft all the way to the roof and encapsulated it as it should be instead of doing temporary
plywood. Um, so could we like >> could you do temporary plywood while you work on it, while you finish it? >> Best of both worlds. >> Sure. Uh, and to my question earlier, I
don't I don't know if it was answered. Can we contact the uh company that we have that does the fire? >> Here's what I kind of alluded to earlier where I'm where I'm leaning as far as an order because, >> you know, once I enter an order, I'm
resolving issues. And so, it's not easy to enter an order and leave things, you know, floating in the wind. >> Yes. Um, so where where I'm thinking is to order firewatch or another another I don't know what the fire
fire protection system or program approved by the fire department. So that would give you if there is something that would meet those requirements that would satisfy the NFPA section because they're not making this stuff up. I mean the requirements that
they're talking about are coming straight out of code and not a code that the city creates. National fire prevention code is you know see the is a code the state has adopted. It's also a national code that the state has adopted. It's kind of like Florida building code in that in that the state tells us what fire codes we apply. We
don't create cities do not create that on their own. So they have to satisfy those fire codes. So if there is some other system that would satisfy the fire code that's requiring that's requiring them to ask for this, I want to give them the flexibility to work with you on
that. But something needs to happen more than what is there. So I where I'm leaning right now is to order the firewatch or an alternative approved by the fire department to give you that flexibility to say, hey, can we do this? Can we do that? to continue working with the city to find some alternative, but
something is going to be done and if there is no alternative, it will have to be firewatch. >> Um, I have a question. Last meeting the city mentioned that should there be a fire in the building while there is no construction, there is no one in the building, they're not going to send
firefighters to actually stop the fire. They would let the building burn. Is this list so that if there is a fire in the building, they would actually send firefighters and and and put out the fire? >> I will ask that that question of the fire chief, but I will say that reading the list and hearing the testimony
given, I would say that's exactly what they've asked for is to make sure that when firefighters to go into that building that they are as safe as can possibly be under the circumstances. That's why they were making the statement a month ago that we can't send firefighters in there because we don't know what we're sending them into. Now they've had the benefit of being in the
building. Now they know what the firefighter safety issues are and now you are be are saying yes I can fix those. So it sounds like we are resolving those concerns but I will allow the fire chief to tell me if I'm right or not. >> Yes sir. As those as those safety
concerns are addressed we will go into an offensive mode depending on the fire. Obviously if we were to get there and it's blowing out every window different story. However, >> but that's an assessment you make in every case. There's nothing standard assessment. we would treat this building no other no different than any other at that point. Um and to your to your point
of the firewatch or that system, um I would ask for an effective date to have one or the other decided upon. Um, so that that >> well a as as it as it stands and what's been requested by the city and where I am leaning at this point would be that to to grant what's been asked that by
that 10 days after building permit firewatch be in place and then if they want to move off of firewatch if there is something else that's less expensive less honorous on them they would have that ability to work with you while on firewatch to maybe get off of firewatch sooner rather than later
>> we would be immutable to that. Okay. Um, water supply for fire protection. Um, can we elaborate what that would mean? I believe this has been addressed on multiple occasions by Chief Tonx, but that has to do with the stand pipe and
sprinkler system requirements. um obviously the stand pipes for the as needed for the different floors of the fire and then um as we had talked earlier about putting in those systems as the floors are finished so that that way it reduces that need to do those temporary systems. Um, I think that this
is >> and and really for as as I understand this request, the water supply for fire protection, that has more to do, it has to do with the absence of the sprinkler system, but so really what this means is the stand pipe floor by floor so that if there were a firefighter on that floor,
they have a way of getting water to put out. >> Absolutely. >> Yep. That's that's what we're looking for. Um, there's no backflow. There's no there's nothing on the outside of the building either as far as for fire suppression. Everything is out. So, >> and and with this one to the last question that respondent asked, I mean, this one sounds like to me something
that's also in your best interest to do for the reason that you raised that if firefighters go into that building to put out fire, we all want them to have the water to do so. >> Yes. And it's designed uh that way for the uh fire sprinkler system of the
entire building. And as per a floor, it will build be >> until the sprinkler and whether until the sprinkler system is online, they need a way of getting water. That's what that that bullet point is about. >> So then do we install a a temporary stand pipe outside where the main water
supply is for now? And then >> if that gets water to each floor, then then I believe that would work. Yes. >> I mean that wouldn't get water to each floor unless we pipe to each floor. >> Yes. >> But that would happen in conjunction with everything else on the MEPs. May I
>> I was just gonna sayorasor. >> Yeah. So um okay I will work with the fire marshall on that to have a clear understanding and satisfy him. Um, can we go to the other page? I thought there were two pages.
>> There are. There's a second page. >> There was one about the storage and >> Oh, organized storage. Uh, may I ask the city to give us permission to put a storage container back in the parking lot in the back? >> Absolutely not. That park that trail that storage container that he's talking about was not on their property. Was on
actual city property. They don't have control and it blocked the access way to the alley piece. So, they're going to have to figure out other storage capacity. >> Okay. I mean >> the city gave you permission. >> Yes, the city >> did. City never >> I I understand the issue. So the question was asked and the answer was
no, >> but the combustibles are going to have to be stored in a way to not increase the fire risk. >> Okay. How are we going to get to an end goal together all together? Should we >> That's not a question I can answer and
it's not my job to answer it. I am the tryer of fact. >> I understand. >> I'm not a politician. So, could I ask the city a question? As far as if they kept the alleyway clear and and you would want to there's no alternative as to being able to use a
portion of that for a storage trailer or some kind of >> I mean the the you should understand this. You have a construction project. You have a building permit. The the entirety of your construction pro project needs to be within the boundaries of your
property. You can't extend beyond it without permission from owners. You can't block the rideway. You can't block public public access. >> And I'm asking permission to see if we can >> No, the city's not going to do that. The city has worked with this this project for almost a decade now. And uh this
gentleman to insinuate that the city is not working is frankly frankly just annoy insulting to the city. And we are we have worked very hard to get to try to get them to get off the off the to get this thing moving forward and get a conclusion. And the community is at
their wits end about this project which is why we are being as aggressive as we are. So we cannot provide any further assistance. You're going to have to figure it out on your own. >> I it seems like the community is actually not frustrated with us. Again, you're you're both sides at this point
are talking about about matters that are going to be irrelevant to my decision. >> Yes. But the um with respect the comment, no, I think that the city is just as responsible for all of the delays in this process.
>> And that's and that's those are all things that I I have the joy of not having to participate in because I am here on getting the building safe. How that happens, I won't be here for. I enter the ruling.
Try the facts. >> Well, I'm offering a solution that would satisfy the fire chief's concern on the restaurant with all the wood that's there, all of tidying up the inside of the structure. >> And you're more than free to pursue that that offer with the city after we leave
here. I will enter a ruling today that says that that has to be neat and orderly and stored so that there are not increased combustibles creating fire risks in sight. So how you get to what I order is between you and the city or
between you and your contractors. But I am not going to mediate that dispute. That is not my role. That is not what I've been what I'm what I'm hired to do. I am here to try the cover and protect gusset plates. Can
the fire chief elaborate on that on is that specific to that staircase and that particular trust that's on the staircase that he mentioned earlier because >> so chief you showed a picture is that is that picture representative or was that
the issue or is that representative of issues on each floor? was representative um of various gusset plates we saw. Some of them were peeled back. Some of them looked like they tried to hammer them back on with a hammer, which is not the appropriate way to receat gusset plates.
Um there were I don't know that I saw any missing, but there was numerous that were in various states of damage that need to be readressed. Some of them were backed out over halfway. >> Okay. But so the picture was not the was not the >> it was not the area of focus. It was it was just a representation of the gusset
plates themselves. >> So the issue is that the gusset plates are compromised, not so much that they need to be covered and protected. Correct. >> Well, it's kind of it's kind of both because you have to get them covered and protected eventually with drywall to protect
>> ultimately. But but in context of this being temporary measures, do they need to cover them now or do they just need to >> they need them need them repaired? >> Repair. So that bullet point probably we could for purposes of what we're doing right now that would be better to state as repair gusset plates.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Then uh we would need to have another inspection and go through which ones need repair so that we understand which ones need repair. >> I'm going to ask you a question.
>> Yes. Why is it the city's job to tell you how to repair the building that you were the project manager for? >> Because I did not notice and I do not see any issues with the gaset plates and I need to be made aware that there are
because if I'm not noticing that and the architect didn't notice them either and we walked the entire building. Uh so then if they saw something that we didn't see, >> this is an easy enough issue to resolve. I will ask you to keep it I will ask you
to keep in mind what I just said as you move through this project because there are many projects in the city that the city will will will appear arrive at when permits are called or when inspections are called in. They'll
inspect if there's an issue they'll they'll leave the punch list and those issues will get addressed. But the contractors do not say hold my hand while I do this. And I'm sorry, I do not mean to offend, but I have heard a lot of hold my hand in the last two
hearings. So, this is an easy issue to resolve because part of my order will be for you to allow the city to inspect and make sure that you have performed installed the temporary measures appropriately.
That inspection should occur by March 6th. My suggestion to you then would be that you get those gusset plates fixed sooner than March 6th and what you think needs to be done sooner than March 6th. Call in, ask to come and inspect. That way if they say you missed these three
or you missed those over there that you have time to fix them before March 6th arrives. >> No offense taken. There is no need um no offense taken. But it's not about a holding hand as much as it's a matter of the city making issues and changing
things around on any matter just like the HPV and the certificate of appropriates. These are things that are coming up out of nowhere and they're not being brought up at the time that they really should be brought up. This is what I'm trying to get to. It's not about holding my hand. It's about me
being clear so that things don't change and then become unclear. >> Okay, >> Mr. Smith, the only comment I see your last we have is that we believe the repair of those gussets will require a building permit. So to have them done before the building permit is issued
might be problematic to be able to address those. The fire >> I'm sorry and that was my misspeing because I said March 6. It would actually be within the 10 days from March 6 is when that's supposed to occur because that whole a lot of things in that list is going to be dependent on that building permit. Yeah, that was me misspeaking. So actually you would have
between building permit issuance and the 10 days following building permit issuance would be when those gusset plates need to be repaired. But my comment still stands have it done before the deadline so that if there are a few that got missed that you have time to fix them.
You know, the trust package passed inspection from the building department on the floor trusses and the roof trusses and all the >> building. I know what you're going to say. I I don't think I need to. The length of time this has sat without
moving forward. Every day it sits with those things exposed, the weather affects them. Uh, no sir, it wouldn't. I mean, if the structure sits like that, the structure can literally sit like that for 100 years without an issue as it is standing
today on the bricks and on the entire structure. >> Well, what I have is testimony that the gusset plates do not meet code. So whether they have fallen into disrepair over time or if they weren't installed properly and missed by an inspector,
we'll get it fixed now. Okay. Was there anything else? I really I sincerely appreciate what you've brought today. My reaction tends to be to the butts because you'll say yes, I'll do it, but
then you want to tell me why you're not happy about it. I take no offense at that either, but >> it just simply is what it is. It it is >> and and for I understand all aspects as well >> working for because again my concern is getting to a safe building and it sounds
like we're well on the way there. Was there anything else that either of you wanted to bring to my attention? >> I don't believe you need to see the other sheet. >> This was this is the second page of it. >> Um install functioning standby. My my understanding from the conversation that
we had with a fire marshal on the phone is as as it's going on as it's on ongoing built. But my also my understanding from the city's perspective on this entirety of this is to get the outside shell complete and
looking presentable to the community and that was the prior focus >> that that may be again back to my comment. I am not a politician. Okay, >> that may be the political rumbling in the city. That's not my
concern here. My concern is the safety of that building. So, my concern is the insides of that building, the guts of the building. >> Yes. And and I keep repeating myself because that building is safer today than it has been for decades in this
community from all aspect. All aspects. And this is really starting to u sound very not nice
because we're doing above and beyond to put a product for this community that it will not turn into blight again. And it has been blood, sweat, tears and soul into all aspects of this. And they
all everybody in this room knows this. >> Absolutely not. >> Yes, it has. And we have gone above and beyond to make sure that we do a good product, a product that will sustain the amount of time needed in order for this community to really develop properly.
But the city keeps making decisions that are not really working and functioning properly for this entire community. And the community knows that. And I can actually run a petition on the entire community. You're you're speaking you're speaking politics now and that's just
what drives unfortunately that's what drives I'm here that's not what I do that's not my role >> I understand >> you don't you don't talk politics to a judge because judges are apolitical at least in theory >> but it's politics that brought us here to begin with >> no it's a lack it's >> okay I know why we're here I don't need
I don't need anybody explain to me why we're here and I understand the case >> if I may add I believe one of the very first points that was brought up in the very beginning was um the window order, which you do have. >> I was hoping to get to that at some point. >> It was It was on my list. >> So, that would take Well, I guess where
where I'm going with that is that would take care of the outside to a point >> where everyone's question that you ordered the windows. >> Well, I wasn't finished, but then >> that you ordered the windows. >> Yes. >> The real issue is then inside for fire >> is right. So, >> it's that list.
>> No, that they they are confusing the way the city has presented this case and I want to make sure that this is clear. The measures that are on the screen are to deal with the immediate public health, safety, welfare issue that exists in that building. They are not designed for anything other than that. They are not designed, they are
temporary measures to deal with that. The request that the city is asking for now is to get the building permit issued to move this project forward and then to complete the construction of this project. Right? That's what we're asking for because the problem started because the building permit was expired. Right?
These measures we've we've offered as a way to protect the building and protect the public and to give them an opportunity to allow for the construction to pursue to do it. They are not the res the resolution of the major problem with that building. They are a temporary fix to be able to address that. We certainly would also
like to see the proof that they ordered the windows because frankly I personally by the owner of the building was promised over two year almost two years ago that those was told two years ago that those windows were ordered. So, I'm not going to testify about it because that's not my role today, but I
certainly would like to see it to see if they've complied with the special match order from last month. >> We have and you >> can we see that please? >> Yes. One second. >> Now, if everybody please just address address me moving forward in the hearing. >> Um, yes. You requested that the windows
for the first floor be ordered and I told you that I would make sure that all floors would be ordered and I ordered all of them and I have a receipt that 50% deposit has been made. I have an ETA of 527 for their arrival and uh the 50%
deposit is upon arrival. >> And do you have a copy of that receipt? >> Yes, I do. I have it via email. Can I email it or can I show it to you because I forgot to print it prior to update >> if if you will if you will if you will email it to the clerk. If you can email
it to the clerk first and then you can show it to me. That way this that way I'm sure the city has the record and if you wouldn't mind >> and then you can click on the quote and it shows. >> So tell me where you want me to click. >> So that's the order. Those are all the
specs of the windows and at the bottom it will tell you [snorts] council for the city. Would you like to see? >> Yes. So that's first, second, and third floor of the main structure.
So, um, your honor, I have Can I email this afterwards? >> If you actually email it now, that way I know it gets done. >> Okay. One second, please. I just want to make sure that I
address correctly. >> Yes. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Um um can we u go back into so I think we I have a clear understanding on this
>> the temporary measures. >> Yes. Can we discuss the uh what the city is asking and the time frames? >> Yes. And that was the next place I was going to. If we could put the slide up with the I think there were three three items. Yes, that's it. Let me tell you where where I am at on
the September 6th. Given given the history, I I think building in an end date is appropriate, but I would I would include in that in my thinking where I am right
now the ability for it to be brought before me if there were good cause for an extension. If there were we have an active hurricane season, you know, things like that because there are things that happen in in the world that
can give good reasons for a job to slow down. If the job is simply my contractor didn't move as fast as I wish my contractor would have moved, that may not be a good reason to me. Although you may still have the right to ask me, but I would build into if I were to give a hard date for completion of project, I
would build into that the ability to come before me and present good cause for that date to be moved back once you had time to be into the build process in case things that were genuinely unforeseen and unpredictable were to occur to slow down that process. Or there could be issues that come up that the city is working with you on and both
parties might come to me and say, "Yes, we want to extend this out." So that hard date that they've asked for, I already have in my thinking that there would need to be some means for you to come before me again and say, "Can I move that back? Here are my reasons why." >> Uh, I agree. I mean, that's an
unreasonable date. >> Why is it unreasonable for completion? >> Because of how much it's left there and the nature of the um building. You see, a lot of um a lot of this goes without consideration the the actual
structure and the difficulty it is in order to complete any aspect of this project on this structure. It's an existing building and and >> how much time just let's cut. How much time do you think is necessary for the completion of the work to be done to that building? The city I mean because
we're talking seven months the city is put out there. Uh yes, but that has the additions in the back to be built. That has the restaurant to be rebuilt. It needs fit out on the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, which is not going to be easy on that building because it's a existing.
>> Don't tell me what needs to be done. Tell me how much time you think you need to do it. >> I think it needs 12 to 24 months to be really done properly. You know, the roof on this project has taken over two years to complete and we
we stand in a lawsuit for this roof in order to actually make sure that it is a good roof for this. Were you aware that we gained a CRA grant to do the facade on this building and we started working on that facade
and we started working on that roof and we've paid twice for a roof to be done that we protected the grant and to make sure that it's done properly >> and that's all I understand why you offer it, but none
of it is relevant to what my role here is >> well it becomes relevant to the >> when I talk about when I talk about how much time does it take to get the building done I mean how much time does it take to get the building done I don't care about the history I just want to know a reasonable time to get the
building done and I hear 12 to 24 months I I'm inclined to say okay then let's set 12 months as the end date again with the open end that if there has been something unforeseen something unpredictable good cause for an extension to have the ab
ability for the respondent or the city to ask for that that date to be extended. >> May we address that? >> I I will offer both both parties the opportunity to address that. >> I think you're right in that time frame. So given the nature of how
this is a different type of project. It's not necessarily a new build. Whereas a new build, you probably could get that in in seven or eight months. I think given its existing nature, um 12 to 24 a very good estimate.
>> None of the aspects of this structure are an easy one to complete. This is why this structure has been a problem for this community for decades prior to this ownership.
>> But I will say a lot of the most challenging things have the big hurdles have been tackled >> yes >> at great expense but they are there. So, you know, your honor, >> so
let me let me the city respond to I I have thrown out the number 12 months, which is where I'm I'm leaning to giving you some more time, but I'm I'm I'm not willing to give 24 months. I will I I am open to 12 months with the ability for you to show me good cause why that
should be extended once you're deeper into that build process. And so if I could ask you to take two steps to the side, let me offer the microphone to the city to see what does the city have to say about 12 months. >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. So I'll back up to say we our recommendation that's on the screen today was because this project
has been going on for a considerable amount of time. >> I understand that. >> So to say it's a 24-month project is is right, but this is >> but the statute requires me to give a reasonable time regardless of the history. >> I got it. Thank you. So,
I think the city can address the 12 month period and would be acceptable to that if we could work if we could get some sort of inclusion in an order that almost has milestones. The problem with this
project from the very beginning is that even when we it was mentioned the CRA even when we were working with trying to provide them financial assistance to get this project done they refuse to agree to milestones. So with that being said I think we could agree with the 12 months
period we do that they mentioned that the windows are supposed to be in in May. That's when the ones they ordered. if maybe we could set a time frame to get the the windows into that structure that's a lot sooner than 12 months so that we can see some sort of progress at
least on the exterior of the building. From the pictures we saw today, we agree with you the interior is is uh is in difficult condition and from Mr. I would agree with Mr. Davis's comments that's going to take a lot of work to get that done. So, uh, I think we would if we
could look at maybe a, uh, a phasing of it. >> Here's I'm going to go a direction that neither part is going to like. I think I I hear you. But I think getting to a confident
phasing program today is, I think, more than we can accomplish. I don't think we have the right the right brains at the table. Frankly, it probably at least probably contractor need to be involved in that conversation when the because I understand the respondent has to phase their their their own work so that the
trades aren't stepping on each other. So, I think the addition of five months is reasonable. I understand the history, but again, as I said, the statute requires me to give a reasonable time. I think that 12-month time frame is shorter than you want, but I think
it's workable. I think it's a little bit longer than the city would like, but I I did have concerns at seven months for the extent of work for it to be done well and done right, which everybody wants. I think a little bit more time on the hard completion date
is helpful to the whole process as well as the likelihood of the order being ultimately complied with where I'm so that's the part that nobody is going to like the burden I will offer to the parties if either party wants to run run with it is respondent if you
would like more time what I'm hearing from the city is if you were to give the city a milestone stone plan that actually showed them and gave them a clicker to click through the process to make sure that things are happening on time. The
city may be willing to work with you and give you a little bit more towards that 24 months that you're asking for that I'm not going to give today. So you might be able to achieve with the city the more time you're looking for by working more closely on phasing that
construction so there are benchmarks they can point to and say yes it's moving along we feel comfortable or better yet what I could do today is I could put that into my order and that I could provide that I will set it at 12 months but if the parties want to come
before me and offer a new phased plan that that allows the respondent what the respondent wants which is more time and the city what what the city wants, which is more certainty. I will absolutely amend my order to extend that time. >> That's acceptable to the city.
>> It would have to be acceptable for us as well. Um um even though um I think the suggestion that a city attorney brought is to focus this year on the exterior and the
facade. It would be um I think it's very reasonable and understandable. Um it's important that the facade of this building gets done properly. This is a it's a lime brick and a lime mortar and it will take a lime plaster to complete
that facade. But once that facade is complete, that building will look like that for hundreds of years. It's self-reping. It's already started to self-repair the bricks. It lime functions differently when it comes to fire, when it comes to water, when it
comes to air, to anything. It's a live product. So the thing that the city maybe is not really understanding is the extent that we have done in order to do a substantial proper
renovation to really bring this to life so that it actually functions and looks appropriately. So we want to create a facade, a unified facade from all aspects and give this
city and historic preservation something that they can really preserve for the future. This is why we're unifying the buildings in the back and the restaurant and we're doing it all in biolime. Um
it never needs to be painted. It never needs anything. It will always look that same white color that it's looking right now. It's the natural color of lime. It's what buildings in Europe are. It's what Spain, Greece, all of the thousand-year-old buildings. It's really
what they're made of. Luckily, it happens that St. Cloud had a building that was made out of lime, brick, and mortar. >> I Let me make this comment, and I mean it sincerely. I appreciate your passion for the work. I appreciate your honest
your artistry in the work. And so I am going to make a plea, work with the city on time, get the permit issued, get progress moving, meet those timelines so that you can engage
in your artistry and passion because unfortunately when things wind up between before triers of fact, we're just hammers. We are problem solvers. We don't we don't worry much about the artistry of something when we're looking
at an unsafe building. So work with the city so that you can engage in your artistry because when things wind up in front of people like me, we see the we we we have to it's our role to see the the world in black and white. We don't get to deal in gray because we have to
enter in order at the end of the day. >> I understand and I am working with the city and uh the city is not really in all truth the city is not really upset with me or my performance. the city is upset with the overall completion of the
project. The way that they look at it, it should be completed. >> Yes. And that's what I'm telling you is if if you're before if you're before someone like me and say, "I need more time so that I can engage in the art of it." Somebody like me tends to say,
"Nope, you've lost the opportunity for the art now. Just get it fixed." And I don't want you to have to sacrifice that. That's why I'm making the plea that I'm making. >> I understand. But the the what I really want everybody to understand is that it makes a huge difference. You know,
somebody can >> again now you're talking just things that are not persuasive can't be persuasive to me. It's just not my role in this. That's politics speech. I'm the black and white speaker. >> He is. But we we tend to not be mindful
of the decisions that we make and the things we do. >> And this is what I just said. That's why I made the plea that I did. >> Okay. When you wind up in front of a magistrate, when you wind up in front of a judge, we don't make room for the art of the world. That's and I'm not saying that as a positive. I'm just saying it
as a practical reality. So, I'm telling you, get the timing issues resolved so that you have time to make it art. Because if you're in front of me or if you're in front of a judge, they're not going to care about the art. They're going to care about the safety of the
building. That's just the role that we sit in. people who are sitting in this chair like me today. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So that's my plea. So it sounds like we've worked through the issues. Um I'm going to clerk I'm going to ask you to
send me your draft minutes as soon as you have them. So and if I could get the PowerPoint presentation from the city because I'm going to rely on both of those uh as I put together to to make sure that I I get this precise. But let me say verbally what that ruling is going to contain and let's work through
let's start on this slide. So everything on this slide uh will be as it has been requested by the city with the exception of item C there will be language added to that that provides that the parties either
party or the parties jointly may come before me and ask for an extension of that time. uh it will not be in the order, but I will restate again here, I encourage all to work together and and if if you know you can give the city a timeline that lets the city say yes, we
can work with that. That gets you more time, that is a win-win. And I would love to see that, but I know it it's going to take, you know, work to get there. >> And Mr. Smith, but the date would change. You didn't mention that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that Thank you. That will be one year out, 12 months on C. So
C would be 12 months but with that extension language. Thank you. Um any questions on this part of it from either party? If we could go to the first page of the temporary measures. So [sighs]
on guard service or the firewatch really the firewatch item it will be firewatched but again putting into the order the possibility that if if you and the city agree on an alternative to firewatch that is also appropriate if approved by the city.
>> Um >> go ahead. Then we leave both of those aspects to be in conjunction and work together with the fire department. And the >> it will be firewatch until there is an alternative. It will be firewatch but giving you the ability to come up come to do an alternative arrangement if
there's one that can be presented that will satisfy the NFPA section that is triggering this for the city. But the initial will be it will be a firewatch or. So the ore is what I'm giving but the firewatch will be there until the ore is satisfied.
>> So when would the firewatch start? >> That these temporary measures have to be in place 10 days after the building permit is issued. Was [snorts] there a question? Whether whether any question about that or I can move on
they're all at this point I'm not asking if you like it or not. I I'm simply stating what my order is and making sure that there is an understanding of what will be in the written order. Yeah, there there is a clear
understanding whether whether it's reasonable just functioning and all that's unfortunately it's the nature of where we are and it's the exercise of power and we have to
conform to that because we need to because it's It's it honestly in all honesty it's too much. It's literally it's too much. I have a um a friend that's a fire
lieutenant and I presented him that entire list without having any judgment and his feedback was somebody's mad at you and it's the truth. It's really what it is. So, we will work together, but ultimately we're trying to get to an end
goal. And the more harder we make it for each other, the harder it is to reach that end goal. Until we start working together, it's just going to be a tearing apart. And we need some consideration. And this owner needs some consideration because
prior to him, this building was in much further dangerous as a structure on all aspects and he's gone above and beyond. >> But we all have to deal with the property as it is today. >> We are and we are. But let's be
reasonable. Let's be understanding. >> I understand. >> But it's the truth of the matter. The truth is what it is. I as long as everybody understands what my order is, I have heard I've heard the arguments and I'm rendering my order now. So, I think we're on the same page there. The
other item on this again, it will not be in my written order. I will reference what is here. Add plywood across all elevator shaft openings as you heard. That does not stop you from working on that elevator shaft. It just it is belt and suspenders so that they're covered while the work is ongoing. Can we move
to the next page? Went too far. Back one. There it is. There's a modifi. This is the the second page of it. And the one bullet point that that I believe is modified here through the the hearing. What we've
modified has been the bullet that says cover and protect gusset plates. That will be simply repair gusset plates. I don't think there were any other questions on any of these items from either party. Are there any outstanding
questions on this page? >> Okay. As to all of the temporary measures and going to one of respondent's points, I am going to put into the order your date for completion before potential
fines kick in would be March 6th. That is a Friday >> completion of this list >> of this list. >> I'm sorry. The permit is March 6th. 10 days from March 6th is the completion of
this list because some of these will be part of your building permit. So that actually makes it what? >> A Monday, >> the 16th. >> Is that 10 days? >> Yes. >> So I am going to encourage you to have everything ready for inspection. I'm I
won't I'm not going to make it a mandate of the order, but have everything ready for inspection on the 12th or 13th at the latest. call that inspection and let the city come in and that way if there are issues, simple fixes. Yes, you missed that. No, you didn't. Yeah, you
got everything. You either can sleep easy that weekend or you know what needs to be corrected. So, I'll leave it to you on how much time you think you got to give yourself, but I would strongly encourage you to get the city out there to perform a compliance inspection prior to that that March 16th date.
on the fines. Can we go to the fines page? I know the city has asked for $1,000 a day. Administrative cost. I will award um $533.3. I am going to change the date just because you have other things to be
working on right now than than that. So I will just tie that to the March 16th. So the the payment of cost by March 16th on fines. I I I want to break those down a little bit on these temporary measures. So the building permit
so that the temporary measures safety measures can be implemented. I will assess that $1,000 per day. if my order is not complied with. This means that if you fail to to get the building permit in hand by the time required or you fail to complete the the temporary
mitigations by March 16th, that that fine of $1,000 per day to be imposed for each day. It remains in violation until brought in compliance. on the backend date. I'm going to reserve on
the issue of fines. There's just a lot between now and February, whatever 12 months from today is. And if I were to see just a project that was being ignored and not moved, I
might be inclined to impose significant fines. If I saw a project that had been working hard and it just missed a timeline, I would feel differently. So, I'm going to reserve on the amount of of potential fines for missing the 12-month completion deadline.
>> May I? >> Yes, sir. >> I heard. >> Could we request that the well, we would request that the special magistrate including there at least the opin the option of the city to come back in front of you to address >> up to the statutory maximum. And that is that is and if I'm
>> talking about I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. Oh >> during that because the permit could be issued and then the next milestone date is 12 months down the road. If there's no progress between in the first six months we'd like the opportunity to come back in front of the special magistrate to consider fines in which case the
respondent can show that there's been progress made. >> A a fine for what at that point? Well, if I'm >> finds finds a crew for failing to comply with my order. >> Unless and until I have an order that has benchmarks in it, the benchmark is
12 months. >> Okay. All right. Understand. Thank you. to that point though and my suggestion would be is if we see project not moving for everybody's benefit that as soon as
there is any inkling that a project is not moving and frankly I will I will say the same thing to the respondent if respondent believes that because of something going on with the city and again I cannot decide issues beyond what my role here is which is to enforce code
but there are issues going on with the city that impair its ability to comply with my order. Both parties are welcomed to make a request for a status hearing. And I think that that is for for the city. I know the city is well well accustomed to status hearings. But what
that means is if if something is going on and and you feel like the city something has happened in the city processes that has made it impossible or made it unlikely for you to be able to meet that deadline and you want to come here and talk about it. It may be
outside of the scope of what I can do. But if you make a request for a status hearing, Claudia will put it on our agenda and it will be heard here. The same as if the city put a request for a status hearing on on on the docket. And I again I make that invitation. I do not normally I will say let's have a status hearing on this but I will just
simply make the invitation to both parties that if there's a need for one either party is welcome to request a status hearing in this case. >> Are there any issues I have not covered that either party needs me to address before we adjourn this this item? >> Not from the city
>> the entire think it's an issue for me. >> I I understand that for what I can do and what I'm doing here today. Is there anything else that that you need me to hear? >> Um,
yeah. Uh, there is like the reason why we're even here is because of the city's choices along all of this aspect and us being here when it comes to the expired permit when
it comes to all of this and I have >> but here we are. Those are issues I cannot decide. But here we are with a plan to get to the finish line. Are there issues with that plan? Are there anything about that plan that I'm
missing that you think I need to include in the order? >> I think the plan um I understand you think it's not fair >> and I think that the time period of the plan it's too short. I think that maybe you can make the plan to a year for the
entire outside to be finished and then another year for the rest of the project to be finished. That would be >> right now. I I I think 12 months is reasonable. It may be on the short end, it may be a speedy project, but for a project, and
this is why I made the statements that I did, the work and the art, you want more time for the art. >> I want more time to do it right because >> understood. But I'm I need the I want the work to be done. >> Yes. But it matters on how the work is
done. You know, if it wasn't for me, that roof would have been done. That roof would have been done two years ago. But how would it have been done? What would it have caused for >> There's nothing you're going to say that is going to move me off of 12 months with the ability that for good cause to extend that date. I would highly encourage you to work with the city on a
benchmark plan that lets them have the comfort level to give you more time to do to do it in the way you think it needs to be done >> to do it in the right way. >> Like lawyers, you take put five lawyers in a room, you get five different opinions. [sighs] >> That's
>> creative professionals are no different. >> But >> and I'm I cannot decide that issue. I have decided the issue that I'm going to decide. So if if we're I'm not going to have any more conversation over 12 months or 24. It's 12 months for now. Work with the city. Get the time you
want, but get it by giving them benchmarks so they know when work will be completed each stage along the line. It's um we all need to change. We all need >> respectfully asked that the meeting you
made your ruling. This is just we have other cases to get >> and we do. I I understand the frustration. I do. But what I can do here is what I can do here. I I cannot. If I could, I would. I would fix all the
issues in the world. I cannot. Right now, I'm dealing with a building that now has a plan to get safe and get finished. >> Yes. And this is where we stay hunged up because um
there really isn't anything u major that's unsafe for that building. And once it is construction, >> I disagree. >> Should we be left to to to a certain degree and and as a
statutory evidence, it's actually much better now than it's ever been. >> I know. >> And that I can prove in many ways, in many pictures. >> We've had the evidence. Since we've had the testimony, I've made my ruling. Are there any questions about my ruling? >> What choice are we given?
>> That's a hypothetical. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Reduction of leans under 50,000. Case number 2024-1439. Jacob Stokes Nus, owner. Location of violation 1414 Minnesota Avenue, St.
Cloud, Florida. >> Yeah, Mr. Smith, this is a a request for reduction of a lean. The lean exists for the uh with regard to uh some construction work that was done on this property without a permit. The permit was ultimately obtained. However, uh the
lean that acrewed to $23,500. After discussion with the city manager and agreement, the respondent has agreed to pay $4,700 as a reduction of this fine uh with the stipulation it be paid within 30 days of
your order. So um we'd ask that the special magistrate approve the reduction as requested by the as [clears throat] um agreed to by the parties. >> That request is approved as agreed by the parties under the terms agreed to by the parties.
Thank you. >> Case number 2021-483. Ricardo Rodriguez Santiago, owner Maida Paola, Cox Miranda, owner, location of violation 2730 Parkfield Road, St. Cloud, Florida. >> Again, this is a case for requesting
reduction of an existing fine and lean on the property. Uh, this had to do with a fence being constructed without a permit. Uh, the fence the permit was ultimately obtained. However, a uh fine accured with administrative costs to $7,424.90.
Uh the this the parties, the city manager and the respondent have agreed that the that the proper the fine could be reduced to $1,236.95 provided it's paid within 30 days of the special magistrate's order. And we'd ask that the special magistrate approved that reduction.
>> Yes. And it's approved on those terms. And that's all we have. >> Nate next schedule meeting March 18, 2026. >> Anything else from the city? >> No sir. Thank you. >> Clerk, anything? >> No. We are journed. Part: 2
Excuse me. If you all uh join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. And if anybody is going to offer testimony today, if you'd like to just remain standing, I'll swear everybody in s testimony. Anybody with you, are they offering testimony today? Are they just here? >> I'm not sure if I need >> Go ahead and get sworn in. That if you don't need to be sworn in, you'll be sworn. If you don't have testified, then
then you'll won't be a problem. Do you all swear from the testimony givea is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. From the agenda, it looks like we have two reductions and uh continued continuation of last month's hearing. So, I'll cut my introduction short. But
for anybody who hasn't been in front of me before, my name is Drew Smith. I am the code enforcement special matter for the city of St. Cloud. My role in these proceedings is to serve as the independent trier of fact. The city will for each case, city will present its uh evidence, testimony, and witnesses. When they are done, if you would like to cross-examine any witnesses, you'll have
that opportunity. If you have any evidence or testimony you'd like me to receive, I will hear from the respondent. When I've heard all the evidence testimony, I will enter an order on on what I've heard heard today. That verbal ruling will be followed by a written order in the mail. With that, cler may call. Did you have something?
No, >> I was just going to suggest the only individuals are here for the St. Cloud Hotel case. So, if you want to call that one. >> Okay. So, we don't have either of the reductions here. >> Yeah. None of >> Okay, then we'll jump right into it. That's fine with me. >> Case number 2025-960, St. Cloud Hotel LLC. Owner Dave Fong,
registered agent. Location of violation 10004 New York Avenue, St.Cloud, Florida. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Smith. Dan Manzer, city attorney. >> And you may already be be thinking what I'm thinking here. But before we get into anything, where we want to go today, I would like to have an update of
where we where we left off from or what has been accomplished since where we left off last month. >> Sure. And I have I have that and we we put together a short little presentation to basically address those issues. So, uh I just going to if I can get this thing to work.
>> Okay. So I did put in as you know in your order your private prior order you found that there were two violations existed on the property both related to the condition of the of the main structure on the property finding it there's a dangerous risk of fire collapsing and also that the structure
in its current state exists is a dangerous structure u and then this is the provision of the order which I know you're very familiar with uh the order included why isn't this thing moving
Okay. So, as part of your order, you you provided that there should be an inspection that occurred uh prior to today's date uh and or actually prior to February 6th. Uh you also ordered that uh that the respondent make a decision with regard to certificate of appropriateness as you recall as to what
direction they wanted to proceed, which was one of the issues that was needed to be resolved before they could get the building permit. Uh and also you wanted to you asked that the respondent bring to you proof that certain order windows have been ordered as they claimed in the last hearing. They need to do that. Uh
and uh um and so what was what has occurred is that on January 26, the respondent and several members of the city staff, the fire department, code enforcement, building department were in the building and took uh and did do a follow-up inspection. I have some pictures to show you and the fire chief
will will discuss mo uh those issues with that they saw on January 26. Uh the respondent did submit on February 9th a request to extend the uh certificate of appropriateness related to the historic preservation issue. I will point out to you that after further review of that,
as you might recall, there was some discussion on the size of the windows for the portion of the property that would be the restaurant. Uh the city has has relooked at that issue and looked back at some of the approvals and essentially the city's okay from from the certificate of appropriateness of
those windows the windows that we understand that the respondent wants to install being part of this of this extension of certificate appropri and hope you're following me on that. So you remember those >> I I I do and where I where I had left it in the order was for them to go ahead
and apply for the extension and then they could deal with those windows in a newest certificate. But it sounds like the city has resolved that issue for them. >> Exactly. Right. So there's no need for them to apply for a new certificate appropriates to do the to do those windows. However, um uh we have obviously no we have no information with
regard to whether the windows are ordered and even though they have applied for the extension of the certificate of appropriates to date there has no building permit been issued on it on this property. So you can see these are just regular pictures. These are the pictures that we showed at the
last hearing. Um, and I just wanted to point out there was some discussion about fencing around the property. There is some fencing in the rear of the property. Uh, that's the that's the portion of the building that faces Massachusetts Avenue. However, gosh, why isn't this thing
working? Any new batteries? Oh, there you can see there's no fencing on the front of the building that >> Go back. I didn't I didn't get a good look at that picture. Okay, you can see this is these were the pictures that were submitted back in uh uh at the uh last hearing. So there is all that is
scaffolding and then and there is some rod iron or railing in the front but there is no secure fencing on the front of this building or on the or on the uh uh I guess that would be the south side of the building. Uh there is fencing on the on the on the um north and south. There is fencing on the rear of the
building. As I just said, right there, there's just more pictures of the scaffolding and the wood. These are all the pictures. And this is just to refresh the special magistrate collection of the pictures that were showed last. Okay. I just want to go ahead. Okay. So, um,
as I said, the inspection did occur and I don't know why this is happening. Where are the rest of the January 26 pictures? Are they in there? >> Okay. >> Should be on there. >> All right. I apologize for this. This is
not >> You have a hard copy of that, Jason? Apologize, Mr. >> No, no problem. >> Okay, so here we are. Okay, so at this point, I'd like the fire chief to go through this is these are pictures that were taken on the inspection of January
26, which was after the last meeting in which the fire chief was on it. So, if the if Chief Miller could come up and address the pictures that he saw that uh and go through the pictures and show you what they saw when they were in the interior of the building. >> What am I hitting? I guess we're hitting
this one, but it doesn't seem to work. Maybe we'll try it. Maybe a better one. >> Good afternoon, S. Sir. Jason Miller, Fire Chief's Cloud Fire Rescue. >> Um on the during the inspection, we took numerous pictures. However, for the um brevity of the situation, um we
condensed them quite down to probably just a handful of maybe six or eight pictures. In total, we took about 300 pictures. Um, this picture depicts the area in front of the restaurant area, which is the one story off to the side that does not have fencing around the front of it. Uh, there was past a past
incident that we know of. I don't remember the date exactly, but it was a couple years ago of a break-in at the location. That just shows where the window was broken. Um, and the glass is still there. >> But the windows in the windows in the frame, they have been those windows have been replaced. Breaking. Okay.
>> Yep. Um just just showing the housekeeping. The next photo um obviously this is just showing the frame walls and the floor that it is wood all the way through the building. Um also you can see the the floor joists that are at the kind of the end of the picture there in the hallway. Um again
wood frame all the way through the structure. Multiple stories of it. U this is one of our large concerns um as firefighters. Right. We're in there. It's dark. It's smoky. We can't see very well. Um, here we have basically where firefighters are crawling upstairs or
crawling downstairs to escape from the fire if it's getting that bad. Um, there's no lower level protection. At a minimum, there should be three three boards on there to protect firefighters if they are crawling so they won't crawl off the side and it prevents the fall hazard. Um, in addition to that, the
materials underneath the stairwells has to be removed. That is plastic. As you know, plastic's highly flammable. This building is not sprinklered. it is not secured. When it comes to that kind of aspect, um a match could cause significant fire in that building in no
time flat. In the next picture, I apologize for my bald head being in it. However, um again, this is another picture of the lower stairwell, but also this is the landing where there's no false fall prevention at the landing level. So, if a firefighter is up there, if it's
smoky, he could literally walk right off of that and fall down to the midfloor landing. Um, that's what that depicts. Um, it should also be noted that what I'm looking at there was the gusset plates. Um, there's numerous gusset plates that are noted to be damaged and
pulling out of the wood itself. Um, so we would like a gusset plate reinspection and repair done as needed. Come on. Nope. Um, this is a picture of the elevator shaft. Um, as you can see, they do have two boards across this. However,
um, it's still a fall hazard. Realistically, what should be across there is a piece of plywood preventing full access into that area. I believe this is from the second or third floor. You can see that they have scaffolding inside of that area. Um, that's wonderful, but it's not going to stop
somebody from falling down. Oops. Um, again, this is another picture of where there is an open fall hazard. There's no wall built at this location. Um, according to the um Matteo there, he
there was a remodel that was approved that allowed for the changing of the stairs and the way the landing was done. However, there was never a wall put in place or any kind of fall resistance. Um, you can literally see there the gap there where they could fall all the way
through. Um, on the other side of the second frame wall there, you'll see where there's the another landing that doesn't have any fall protection for anybody who's who might be on that landing where they could fall directly down onto the stairs. >> Are you talking about the right to the right of the frame? Is that where the
landing is? So, does this have a pointer by any chance? >> Nope. >> Oh, good point. Okay. So, you see the the wider board there that I'm kind of pointing at? >> Yes. >> Um to the immediate right of that >> Yes.
>> that second frame wall behind there is where you could walk off and land into Yes. That's what I thought. And then closer to us in that darkened area that's behind there, um, kind of narrower, you can see where that the penetration goes all the way down to the
floor below. >> U, this is a picture of the first floor again showing um that it's primarily wood frame everywhere um, unprotected without a sprinkler system. Um, as you can kind of note in this picture, which you'll see better in the following
picture, is the slab itself has been trench cut in numerous places. The reason that's of importance is all this rebar is sticking out. If a firefighter is in there in a in a hostile environment, being the building's under fire and there's smoke conditions, they're going to be get snagged, trip,
fall, the hose is going to get hung up in this. Um, it it's a huge safety hazard. And this goes the full length of the building virtually. Um it there's multiple different cut points kind of leading off of each other. So um
what we have recommendations as far as what could mitigate that in the future. Um obviously pouring the concrete back would be the best one, but we understand they have plumbing and other things that need to be in there. So, we would recommend either instead of having the rebar folded back or bent, which kind of
defeats the purpose of having it in place in the future for pouring that concrete, we'd recommend during construction time until they're ready, they infill that area with dirt. At least that'll prevent the hoses potentially from snagging or firefighters from getting snagged on that if in the event of a fire.
Um overall there are some temporary measures to address as far as safety issues. This is a wood frame building built within a block or brick building. Um it falls under special consideration. There's a the system that is in place
currently is a heat detection system that was approved back in March of 2021 that was approved as a temporary measure. the current condition of the building leaves that as a system that is inconsequential. It will have zero
effect because of the openness of the building. All the heat will go to the top. It won't trigger if there was a fire on the lower floors. Um simply put, we've all seen the chimney effect, right? You start a fire in the chimney, all the smoke goes up. Well, doesn't matter if there's a a detection device
here. If all the smoke is free free flowing to the top floor, it's going to take a long time before that heat detection system works. Um the fire marshall has been in contact with Matteo um about some options to alleviate that concern. Um we're talking about either
potentially a fire watch during non-business hours or some other mechanisms. Also, we're talking about in the future doing work floor by floor because putting temporary sprinkler systems in place is very, very costly. We recognize that. we're trying to be a
good partner. Um, even though this project is drawn out for an extended period of time, um, we worked with them and said, you know, you could go floor by floor, so that way you're not having to put something in, remove it, put something in, remove it, put something in, remove it. Um, we recognize the cost
on that. Um, one of our biggest concerns, um, is that there was a statement made that they're going to be doing work on the outside of the building first and that could take into next year before they actually do work on the inside.
That that's that's that doesn't help resolve our situation as as far as that goes. Um, additionally, the fire marshall had has had correspondence with Matteo. Um, going over some of the items that I uh
had discussed with you. The heat detector placement will not detect heat from a fire in a timely manner. Um, the removal of the sprinkler system years ago, which was on 321, was understood to be a temporary for only a few months while some beams and such were in plate were placed. However, it's been out
since then. The fire extinguishers are not in service or in date. They they need to be reinspected and certified. Um fire loads that were observed meaning the plastics um there overall the condition of the site I would say was
organized but cluttered if that makes sense. >> Um there was multiple areas where this plastic was stored. Um particularly under the stairwells which is obviously is a great concern to us. on the top floor. Um there was a lot of trash and debris still from when the roof was
worked on. Uh these are all things that are housekeeping items that could have been addressed, but as far as the cleanliness of the building itself, I really don't have any complaints as far as that. With the exception of the lower one-story building of the restaurant,
there is piles and piles and piles of old lumber, new lumber, all kinds of stuff strewn in there. The roof is in complete disrepair. Um, including the fact that it was leaking and there was plants growing out of it when we were there for inspection. Um, if there was a
fire that started there, it would have direct access to the main portion of the building and it would, for lack of a better term, be off to the races. um we would be behind the eightball if that were to occur. So that that needs to be addressed immediately.
Um there's some NFPA considerations that the fire marshall reviewed with Matteo as far as the uh the firewatch and some options there. Um it has to be an approved company by the by the fire
department. They have to provide a um a letter providing the fire department with notice of what services they are providing. Um it can't just be, oh, we just hired somebody to sit there, right? That's not what we're looking for. Um and that's in accordance with NFPA 241.
Um we talked about the plywood across the elevator shaft. Additionally, there needs to be um no smoking signs put in place throughout the throughout the project. Um, just I apologize for him not being here today. He had a family emergency. So,
I'm kind of pinch hitting here. So, if I'm being redundant, I apologize. Um, so one of the other things is in in two in FPA 241, um, it says a water supply for fire protection must be present, which would be the stand pipe system for
the upper floors. Um, shall be made available as significant combustible materials are present. Um, all in all, again, um, we're recommending better housekeeping,
on-site security when there's construction workers are not present, the removal of the excessive debris, and to get progress moved to remove some of those additional hazards being the fall hazards and the snag hazards. So,
>> okay. >> Any questions? Not at this point. >> I'm just making sure I hit everything, which it appears I did. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We've been looking at this issue since the last meeting trying to figure out how we want to address it. And that's
why I had the fire chief get up there and speak about all these issues, specifically these what we're calling temporary measures that would that would reduce the public safety issue. So these are and and he went through them all. So with that, I just wanted to go over what we what we as the city would like to see
happen in this particular case, right? As and this these are our um would basically be that the city's recommendation as to uh how to handle this matter, what we'd ask the special magistrate to do. Uh obviously the big issue is to get this construction back
on on board. uh the one of the impediments the issue of the building permit has been resolved that related to the certificate of appropriateness. We uh we feel like there are other measures that can be addressed to get the building permits issued for this drug for this project and get the project going again. The building official is
here. He can talk to you about the necessity of the uh what needs to be done to get the building permit issued from where we stand today as we stand today. >> That was the question that was floating in my head. >> Okay. Would you would you like him to address that right now? >> Now, if now's a convenient time for you, I would like to hear that. Yes. >> Thank you.
Good afternoon. Bob Deathridge, building official. Um, the building review has been done on the plans. Um, fire had comments, zoning had comments, and the historic preservation board had comments which have not been
addressed. >> Okay. >> So, um, we at this point we could not issue the permit. the comments that were made are they are they comments that can be addressed by respondent alone or things like historic preservation
particularly is it something that's going to require meetings >> and I think if I could interrupt Mr. I think the city has resolved that historic preservation issue. So I I believe and Miss Strer is here. She can address she's with historic preservation but I don't think that's again I don't think that's an impediment.
>> Okay. So leaving out historic preservation then are the comments that have been received from was it was fire and it was fire and zoning. Are they comments that are in the complete control of the respondent or are they things that need city action in addition
to action by respondent? uh their action that is required by the respondent. >> Can you tell me what those comments were? Do you do you happen to know? >> I do not know off top my head. You recall, Christina? >> No, but I >> Good afternoon. Christina Sodto, deputy
building official or not official but deputy director for building um fire had comments that dealt with his fire sprinklers that still need to be addressed. um the zoning and the historic board. I believe Stephanie can speak to this, but once she receives that, we'll need her to go and approve
the permit, but we are also missing on the permit all the subcontractors that are needed, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. So, we'll still >> Oh, yeah. And that that that last part certainly is completely in the hands of the respondent on the on the fire.
And who's the best witness to explain this to me? I'll let y'all decide, but here's my challenge with if fire is holding up the building permit, it's also fire that's standing here telling me they need to get a building permit so we can address these issues.
>> And if I could So that's why we were trying to I we that's a good discussion on the building permit. That's why we were trying to present this case in this manner. >> I understood. >> We obviously when whenever you have a building that's under construction, there's always going to be issues with regard to it. I think the issues related
to fire are essentially what are the plans going to anticipate with regard to the the fire suspenses suspension no suspension systems not necessarily whether they get done before the billing permit would be issued. >> So the qu let me make sure let me let me
put it into how I'm understanding that because I think now I'm starting to understand it. So the issues from fire were the the endgame. What the questions about the fire suppression system when it's done, not what we're doing with the temporary measures. Okay. >> The head was nodding back there for the
record. >> Right. And the temporary measures issues that we just discussed were to deal with the immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, which we think is out there with the good condition of building. And that's why so from the city's perspective uh that's why we we're making we our petition our
request today is that they be given until March 6 to acquire the permits uh the building permit to do this. they uh that within 10 days after issuing of the permit that they take the remedial temporary measures that the fire chief just went through to to reduce the
public safety issues and then that ultimately that this building and the construction be completed by September of this year uh with uh to get the work done and get this project over with and completed and a certificate of occupancy issued. And that's our that's our request today
to be able to address this issue, this longstanding issue. >> Okay. And of course we did and I'll just we did ask that if in the event that either of those dates aren't met that the that the special magistrate impose a fine of of $1,000 a day as well as the the cost
administrative cost of $533 that have been incurred by the city. >> Can when if the city is done with this presentation if you could leave the slide up that shows the temporary uh measures
There's two slides of written. >> It's the latter of the two I think that I want to have in front of everybody for respondents benefit. >> I'm pushing the right buttons. You want to try? Whoops. Uh oh. That one. Oops. Yes,
>> that's the first >> one forward. >> That one? >> Yes. >> Actually, I think it's it's both those put together, isn't it? So, it's really those two. So, you can go back to the first one. So, I think those were actually probably the more detailed ones. Okay. Anything else
from the city at this time? >> Not at this time. Thank you, sir. respondent. >> Hello, sir. >> And if you say start by stating your name and name in relation to the property for me. >> Mate Hodto, project manager for the St. Cloud Hotel.
>> And so I don't know. I don't want to jump in and take you anywhere other than where you want to begin, but hearing what I'm hearing now, it at least sounds like we have more we we're more defined on what the issues to be resolved are than we were a month ago. >> Yes. >> And I know you've been involved in these
conversations, but I suspect that maybe this list I don't know if you've seen this list before or not. You have seen this list? >> Yes. So, as far as the temporary measures, do you have issues or concerns with any of those? Broadly, forgetting the timing for a minute and just what they're asking for to happen.
>> Um, uh, the only one is the guard service and firewatch. Uh, I have cameras on the building. Um, I actually um contacted uh Corporal Fuier, but I found out that he
was um retired, but I wanted a report from the police department to basically prove that there hasn't been any breakins in the building in the past since 2019 to date. There was one theft that happened during construction in 2020, but it was an internal job from uh
one of the workers related and the police department caught them and the camera system was the one that helped resolve that issue. I I will tell you if you're going to talk to me in in context of security as in no breakin security, I
will tell you right now you're you're going the wrong angle for me on this. And where I am when it comes to the firewatch concern is what what we all heard the chief say about the existing monitoring that's there. And what fire what a firewatch provides is a live body
who can pick up who can who can see what's happening, pick up the phone and call fire immediately. cameras do not provide the same thing. >> Um, I understand. Um, would it be possible, and this is a question for the fire chief, would it be possible to
contact the monitoring this the fire monitoring system that's in place right now that was temporarily approved and it's been there since 2021. Would it be possible to contact them and tell them the issues and see if they can actually extend the monitoring system with more
sensors to actually detect and immediately notify? >> I think it's a fair question. Let's put it let's put it on pause. Let's just put leave it let's leave that for a second and let let's let you continue and then I'll bring the fire chief back up in a little bit when we have a nice break and just in your testimony and then I'll ask
him that question. But I think it's a fair question to ask and see what the answer I think all of the other uh the fire extinguishers I'll have them reserviced. Um the uh stairs uh more protection on the stairs for falling. Um
all of those I have uh no issues uh fulfilling. >> Okay. And Dan, can we can we go to the next page of this just so I can go through all those too and make sure there's no >> storage. Actually, I want to mention uh the fire chief was very graceful saying that it's a clean job site. And I pride
myself on having a very clean job site. Um they probably noticed that the majority of the stuff that's in there, it's actually components from the scaffolding because I dismantled it prior to the permit ending and to hurricane proof the building for the
hurricane season. So pretty much what's around and even underneath the stairs is scaffold netting which is like plastic. Um all of that it's basically components that once job site resumes and all of the scaffolding pieces go back into
place they will actually end up going into place. So that will take care of a lot of that. We used to have a uh storage container that the city had us remove the beginning of last year where we kept all of our access storage. And
then the other um um debris that's on the fourth floor that the fire chief mentioned is from the roof. And I we were told to leave it because of our roofcase. Um so um and actually I I may
even speak on that. um everyone that needed to inspect the roof, including the manufacturer, which happened the same day that our inspection happened later on, um uh um evaluated a report. So now um is just
the uh mediation was scheduled for February 12th. Uh the attorney of the roofer requested that our attorney uh agree to postponing mediation to April because the roofer hired two subcontractors and
now they would like to add the subcontractors to the case and the attorney recommended that we do postpone the mediation because now there will be four insuranceances that will go after to settle better than just two. Uh but they did say that should we choose to,
we could start uh touching the roof again because everybody that needed to to to >> positive news also. >> Yes. Uh the window. Let me let me give you while while you're on the on the topic of particularly the plastic because that >> that was there was a point the city's
present point made in the city's presentation about that and and I saw it and I heard it >> and it is the combustibles underneath those wood stairs and I as I look at that and as I hear the testimony the cons the play the concerned place that
my brain goes is if those combustibles light it's burning right up those stairs. And if somebody's on those upper floors, they have no way back down. And so I think it's not I didn't hear anybody say the plastics have to be, you know, 10 miles away, but get the
combustibles away from those wood components, especially the wood components that get people up and down in the building. I That's what I heard about those plastics. >> Yeah. And I mean, we could literally resolve that right after this meeting. That's that's not an issue. I'm not surprised to hear you say that. I I and
I just wanted to put into context what I was hearing that it wasn't about that the plastics are evil. It was simply that how they're stored and where they're stored is creating additional danger. >> Um and um so I was having a conversation with fire marshall. Um there isn't any
liquid. There isn't any fire um anything that would actually spread and and and combust and and blow out in the building. The there isn't anything
um that will inhibit or or basically blow a fire out of proportion. >> There's no explosives. >> Nothing. >> But there are combustibles. The whole building is a combustible, >> right? It's wood. It's a It's a wood structure. But that's >> that's why I'm making that distinction. I hear what you're saying. There are no
explosives in the building, but the whole building itself is a combustible. >> Correct. But then the other question remains on how the fire would start. The only way or the highest risk that I see reasonable, it would be arson. It would
be somebody literally physically going there to start a fire. Other than that, there really I don't see what else can actually start a fire besides that. >> We talked about a couple at the last meeting. Lightning being one of those and lightning causes a lot of fire fires
in the state of Florida. >> It can potentially could, but it could cause that to any building. What's different about this one? >> Where it is in its state of repair? >> Yes, but where it is in its state of repair, it's in the best place that it's ever been for 100 years. That may be,
but it still is a dangerous building as it is currently situated. >> And what would make that dangerous? >> Well, and and Mr. Smith, this this was the argument discussion we had. >> I understand. I do. I understand. >> Want to re reissue relitigate that issue.
>> So, as you heard and as I heard at the last hearing, if drywall were there, drywall is a fire retardant. As the pro as the building moves forward in the process, it will become less of a dangerous building. But as it is situated right now, it is dangerous.
I don't think anybody here is tell is telling me otherwise. If it caught on fire, it would be dangerous to anybody in that building because it would go up like that. >> I I do not want to be difficult. >> I understand. >> But I want to be reasonable. >> And I think you are being reasonable. And you've already told me that what
they have asked for is able to be done. >> It is u and and it can be done fairly quick and definitely within the required timeline of it being done >> where we are from this meeting to last meeting and the benefit really the benefit that you you kind of leaned into
at the last meeting which was let's get in the building and let's take a look. The benefit of now being able to see what the condition of that interior is. It gives the city a better idea of what they're dealing with, which lets them work with you more. And it lets them bring what they brought to me, which is more specifics and to narrow in this is
what we need. So, this list is what they're saying. This is what we need now. Yes. And and um I have um I have no issues complete completing the list that I understand
it's making a firefighter's job dangerous. No issues. No issues with the rebars. No issues with more fall protection. No issues with the opening on the staircases in the back and the gusset plates. Maybe we need to review them with the fire chief because the
architect and I were looking at all of that even prior to this meeting. Um so I have I definitely have no issue with that. I think that firewatch would be expensive. Um, I think it's uh it's un
unreasonable and I think it's uh specific targeting. Um, >> I will tell you this, I represent other cities and there are plenty of buildings in the state of Florida that are on firewatch right now. Um, I was having a
conversation with uh the fire marshal and potentially uh with AI we could do a um monitored camera system that's 24 hours a day, seven days a week monitored uh AI monitored and uh
to help mitigate that um and be so that it so basically what I'm trying to to to get to is let's all be reasonable to get to our ultimate goal into what we all want to achieve. We all want
construction to start and we all want the building to be safe should there be anything and we all want the building to be kept uh in good maintained order and continued. Um as far as uh my um question arose during
the conversation because last meeting I uh presented you a print out from the building department and all the plan reviews were approved and all the comments were accepted. Uh the only thing that was standing was the
certificate of appropriateness and I handed that out. So I'm not sure where that came from today and where the misunderstanding is there. >> I I don't know that it's a misunderstanding. When permits linger for periods of months, often new issues arise because the condition of a
building that's sitting deteriorates. >> Uh, in what sense? Like how would it deteriorate? >> Just time passes. The other thing that has happened in this case is the city has now been allowed inside the building. So they may have they may have seen things that they were not aware of before and that was going through reviews. But until a permit is issued, a
city has every right to to find new reasons to say, "Nope, we remembered something else that we need to add to the list." So then my question is are there new comments because my understanding and the architect's understanding and my design team's understanding is that all the comments have been responded from all
disciplines. >> I'll ask that question when we get done too to make sure that the comments that were that were mentioned to me have been provided to you because that will play into my feelings on timing on the timing of what's being asked for. So um the the
statutory evidence of the time frame that it has been under construction and the statutory evidence of the time frame that it has been vacant and a jeopardized structure. Um
there is no debate that this building it's safer today than it has been. >> That argument is not going to persuade me. >> It's not about persuading you. It's just a simple fact. >> It's not going to persuade me. A dangerous building is a dangerous building. I don't care if it's less
dangerous today than it was 10 years ago. >> So then the debate remains really what makes it dangerous. >> And again, Mr. We renew this. This is what we argued about. >> I understand. You tell me what isn't dangerous about
this building. I just saw all the photographs and you saw them too. >> I understand. So in case of fire, the fall protection and all and and the rebars, but it's a it's a construction site. It's under construction. >> It was a construction site and then you
let the building permits lapse. >> Uh that could be a much further deeper conversation. Should we go down that? Uh >> the evidence before me is expired permits. >> Yes, >> we would not be here had those permits not expired. Had construction not
stopped, we wouldn't be here. But construction stopped, permits expired, and now here we are. >> Yes. So, we're helping on resolving that. >> It's your responsibility to resolve. It's your project. You're not helping to resolve it. You're helping yourself by resolving it.
>> But I am trying to supply everything that I'm being asked for. >> And you are doing an excellent job. I'm curious why we're starting to argue. >> I'm sorry. Uh um the the only argument is that it really
isn't a dangerous structure. Should someone choose to break in? Yes, they can break in into any structure. >> It's not the breakin I'm concerned about. It's the fire that starts in that building goes up like that. >> So, >> and what I saw in the photographs is a whole lot more exposed wood than I was
expecting to see, frankly. >> Yeah. It's under frame. It's it's in frame stage. Um, >> and it's been sitting that way for some time. >> That is correct. >> With expired permits >> for the past since July, I believe, of
last year when it expired. Um, >> and that is all persuasive to me. >> So, this is where we the question is then what is taking so long to get the new permit issued? Because the city made comments in July,
the architect and engineer had all the responses to the comments ready by August. They were supposed to be submitted in the architect. Uh >> respect, we continue to go down. Mr. testified about what's missing for the
permit that falls in the respondent's requirement for them to submit to get the permit. He continues to go over the same issues and the city's being extremely reasonable on this but is extremely frustrated with the process. >> I understand.
>> You can continue. >> So then maybe we need to clarify what is left on the permit that needs to be satisfied. >> I will ask those questions but those questions are not the questions for me. That is between you and the city ultimately. >> Okay. My role here again is the case
that's before me, which is the presentation of this building and its condition with its history and its recent history that I have found is a dangerous building. And how do we resolve that? I've been presented with requests, temporary measure requests
that seem reasonable to me. I understand your concern with cost with cost of firewatch. We'll ask those questions, see if there are any other alternatives that might be more palatable for you. But I've also heard you say that beyond that that these are all doable. >> Yeah. >> So I don't think I don't hear in the
case that's before me, I don't hear the city being unreasonable. I see the city actually like like the attorney just said trying to work with you and I see you trying to work with them. >> So where are we not seeing each other eye to eye? >> I'm not sure.
>> So this is where we need to resolve. Um, so with the list that's been provided, we'll ask the question on firewatch if there are alternatives. But as to the work is the requested completion date, which I believe was March
9th was the request >> to obtain the building permit. Our initial request was to >> for the completion of the temporary Oh, it was within 10 days. So March 9th for the building permit and 10 days from that to complete the remedial measures. Is that is that timing is that timing
doable, you know, in your mind or does that present problems? >> And I understand with the permit >> to certain items. >> Actually, let's let's let's pause here and let me ask that question on what is between you and and having that permit
finalized. Let's get that because that may weigh into your answer to the question I just asked you. So, let me ask you to step aside and if so, my question will be whichever witness is the best one. What stands between at this point? What stands between respondent and having that permit issued? What are the remaining comments that need to be addressed?
>> The second section is the >> and has has the respondent been provided those comments and when was the respondent provided those comments? >> Uh the respondent was provided those comments before the last meeting and again at the last meeting. And the the main issue is they need before we can
issue the permit, they need to list their subcontractors and they have not done that. >> And were the zoning issues strictly related to the historic preservation? >> Yes. >> So that sounds like that has been resolved.
>> Fire can I just get fire chief? Would you mind coming up please? So assuming the temporary measures are put into place and assuming that they are able to do the things the city has asked for, does that resolve fires comments or do you have other questions down the road for that? >> So fire has had numerous comments that
are still some of which are still outstanding um including that they need to certify the wall between the restaurant and the hotel is a two-hour fire rated wall. Um they still have not done that. They still have not demonstrated emergency lighting um in proper locations. They have not
submitted for the fire sprinkler plan or I'm sorry the fire detection or the sprinkler plan are required to be on separate permits. They have not submitted any of that. And we also have noted from the very beginning that a BDA test will need to be completed. Um this
was provided to them on December 15, 2025. Um, in addition, um, if I can just to address those two other questions that were posed, um, we did not provide a picture of it. However, there is numerous electrical items being stored
at the site, which is not that big of a deal other than the fact that there is another fire code violation of note that there's a refrigerator running in the building for some strange reason. >> There is power to the building. >> There is power to the building. the refrigeration system or the refrigerator
itself is plugged into an extension cord which is probably I don't know 30 to 40 feet long maybe even 50 feet running through debris and through walls under construction plugged into it looks like a temporary outlet box there as far as
site security um NFPA2416.4.2.5 2.5 clearly says guard services shall be provided were required by the AHJ where required buildings with combustible construction exposed during construction for more than 40 ft above grade. This
more than meets that consideration. Um we understand that it is costly as far as redesigning the current system. My feeling is is the fire marshal, you know, he's a little more versed in that
aspect of it. That's his day-to-day. The problem there is he would have to go through an entire new plan submittal redesign of the current system that's in there. source, but to to keep the option open and for the benefit of my
conversation when the respondent comes back up, would it be for instance, if I were to rule today that he has to have firewatch or an alternative mechanism or means approved by the fire department? to the
extent there are alternative means that he might want to pursue with the fire department work with him as long as they were as long as they satisfied an FPA. >> As long as it satisfies an FPA, state of Florida fire code and the building officials codes, I wouldn't have a problem with it. >> Okay.
>> The problem is going to be is getting across that finish line. >> Understood. And and it's the tough spot that every respondent is in is you know what ends up being more more more expensive at the end of the day because that that could turn out to be more expensive than Firewatch.
um on the on the firewatch issue. So once permits are issued, once construction becomes active again, does that change the firewatch requirement at all? >> Not until some of those areas are covered up. As long as there's that much exposed wood, if the site is unsecured
or secure but not monitored by an active system, we still have the same concerns. Nothing's changed just because it's under construction. It doesn't change until those building elements are starting to be covered and protected. As you >> once you have the fire protection, it's not until the fire protection and the
firewatch requirement could go away. >> And that's why one of the temporary measures is required weekly fire inspections so that we can see the progress of all that and then ultimately maybe the firewatch does goes go away. And if I may, all of the comments that
we've had here, they're all available online 24 hours a day to the customer >> to the contractor. >> To the contractor. Yes. >> Okay. >> Oh, I had one. I wanted to clarify this. >> My understanding someone could I think
Stephanie you address it. There is some revision to the plans that's required before the permits can the ones that they're currently under review. My understanding that there's a structure on the Massachusetts side of the building that's shown on the plans which needs to be removed from those plans. >> Okay.
Please. >> I'm sorry. >> We can get that testimony on the record. >> So you can >> Stephanie Straer, principal planner with community development. Yes. So before our uh historic preservation review can be approved, they do need to amend their plans to be in line with what got approved that they extend it. So we did
receive their extension request for the April 2022 approval, but it needs to be in line with that. There's a one-story addition to the rear of the building on the Massachusetts side that needs to be removed from those plans. If they remove that from the plans, I can approve them. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. one-story building. That's Stephanie. Yes. Would you mind just repeating? You'll say it better than I will try to repeat it. >> Yes. So, the one-story structure, I believe on their plans, it's noted as the new lounge, which is to the rear of
the hotel on the Massachusetts side, would need to be removed from the plans because it has not been captured in any of the certificate of appropriatenesses. Thank you. So, um I'm not sure of the why behind removing those plans
because they have been in the renderings. They have been in the architectural plans. They have been in >> What I'm hearing is the same conversation we had about the windows on the restaurant last meeting is that they're not part of the certificate of appropriateness. >> But they >> your building plans for your building permit have to conform to the approved
certificate of appropriateness. So the certificate of appropriateness that I'm regarding in 2019, April of April of 2022, has all of that covered. It's actually in the rendering. It's within the certificate of of appropriateness. And the whole thesis behind all of the
measurements is the unification of the entire structure, including the restaurant and the additions in the back. So if they're in the structural plans, in the architectural plans, in the renderings, how are they were they never considered? >> How >> were they submitted as part of your
stigma appropriation? >> It's a whole package. It's everything together. It and it was submitted to the city since 2022 and again on our major plan revision in 2023. >> And then again on our new application
for a new permit. It's always been in the plans. That's a reconstruction of an existing part of the structure that used to be there that it was in such bad condition that it wasn't original to the structure kind of like the restaurant that it wasn't worth saving. So it got
demolished approved for demolition and it's being rebuilt and it's being rebuilt to the new design including the restaurant and the restaurant design has changed and all the arguments and the thesis behind that has been explained over and over. So
>> let me let me pause you. Can the city just on this point on the certificate of appropriateness the one-story building on the first floor is there a response to what the respondent just >> Yeah. And I think if I may I think the respondent has a a complete diff has a
lot of difficulty understanding the difference between a building department review of its plans and it project and the requirements of the historic preservation ordinance which applies to this building. Not the federal one but the city ordinance. And ultimately it's it those are issues that are not for me to decide but they do play into the
timing of everything which is why I want to have a handle on them. >> So for historic preservation board our motions are very specific and when you look at the scope of work that was approved with that April 19th 2022 approval it did not include a one-story structure that was never a part of the
application whether it's in the renderings they did not approve renderings they approved a specific scope of work. The one-story building was never included in the scope of work. Okay, I understand. >> Thank you. >> Do you understand what that distinction is?
>> I understand, but why would that never be brought up? >> Because you made the application. >> Do you remember? Do you remember we had the And >> yes, but >> I'm I'm I'm starting to lose patience again. So, you remember we had the conversation at the last meeting? >> Yes.
>> Judge Sloop, prosay respondent or prosay litigant would appear before him and say, "But I'm sorry you're I don't have an attorney." And he would say you have you are the project manager. It is not the city's job to hold your hand to the process. It's your job to understand the process and you drive your own truck.
>> I understand. I fully understand. >> Then don't stand there and tell me why didn't the city why didn't the city fix this for me? Why didn't they catch this for me? It was your job. >> I understand sir. All I'm saying is that that part of the project had never considered or had never gained any
historic significance. the restaurant. I was told afterwards that it gained separate historic significance to the structure. We're redoing the entire structure. That portion of the structure, that addition that was there, it never gained any historic
significance. It was never brought into any sort of conversation as it had gained historic significance. It was an addition that was done at some point, very poorly done, including the restaurant. and the fire chief himself at the meeting that at the site
inspection noticed how the structure of the restaurant is completely pulling away from the existing structure of the main building. So my whole presentation for historic preservation it's the entire package everything that's
attached to that building will be properly attached structurally architecturally and all aspects. >> Yes. But I I I've heard about I've heard about as much on the historic preservation as as is going to be relevant to me today.
Understand two different spheres in every city I work in that has historic preservation. These are challenging especially when we wind up in front of code enforcement for this exact issue. Things that building department looks at are not the same things that historic preservation looks
at. They are tangential, yes, but completely different perspectives. And but ultimately these are your issues to work through. I cannot decide them today. They are not mine to decide. My issue today is the building and getting it safe. >> I understand. And what I'm saying is
that the building has had three certificate of appropriatenesses in all >> and I I I'm I'm moving. I understand I understand the history. I cannot I cannot decide or control that. I am going to decide on the on the building
and what needs to be done to make it safe. So, we can move off certificate of appropriateness now. And I think I have architect ready to provide testimony. >> Well, if I may, um, I just >> name relationship. >> Jeff Davis. I'm the architect of record. Um, as far as the the rear portion, it
it's a pretty important and integral part of this building in order for it to function in the future. So, I guess my question is because we're kind of in a loop here in order to get to the next step, would it be possible to reapply or resubmit? can always apply >> and have
>> as we talked about the last >> I understand and I saw the head nod >> and I was not present for so this is new information to me about that part not being I guess part of the original because it would probably have been before my time correct
>> yes so um well then that answers my question if we're able to do that but I don't know what that does to your timeline as far as you Was there anything else from the architect that you wanted to offer at the >> moment? Okay.
>> Did you want to comment on the uh fire comments? >> Uh and as far as the fire comment, the two-hour that is new information to me. I did not see that um when the comments came in before, but I think we can easily take care of that as far as the calculated assembly. The thickness of the masonry walls more than enough to
make sure that that's a two-hour wall. So, I think we're clear and good on that part. >> Okay. Let me ask you to pause. I want to get building official. I have a question for building official if I could. So with a mindset of trying to get
active permits, active construction moving again, would it be possible to carve out to carve out would it be possible for the respondent to carve out a building permit application
the one-story building that's causing the historic preservation problem on the ground floor to just basically send easily carve out I don't mean new drawings. I just mean for everybody to to agree and as you know pros somebody right and say we'll pull that out for
the time being and then once they resolve the historic preservation issues again plug it back in as easily as it was pulled out just to get this to the the permit line. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> Okay. that that that I think gives us some direction. And now if if the
respondent wants to come back up, let's let's have a conversation about that. And architect if yeah, you stick around >> so we can take care of that separately. >> That was where I was getting to. If y'all can just carve that that one point out and so that that's not holding you up from permitting and then work on it
and then just get it added back in once it's resolved. Is the timeline requested by the city at least in the neighborhood of workable for you? >> I would say so. Yeah. So that was March 9th for permit issuance. >> March 6. >> March 6th for permit issuance. >> See those comments again if you don't
mind just because I don't have >> Well, you can certainly have a copy of them and have access to them. But um well, just so I can look in order to really truthfully answer your question. >> Sure, please. That's that's I I appreciate that. Take what time you need. >> Let me just skim over these real quick.
>> Matteo, do you mind coming up and looking at these real quick, too? So comfort plans. You got you have a guy on that already. The wall. That's an easy one right there. And then these right here. I don't know what that specifically is.
Emergency license. I guess that's aap on that. But do you think do you see any issues about that? I mean this comment here that the SPI fire and sprinkler to be submitted with a separate permit when they were submitted
they were asked to be on the same permit. So we can do that >> but that's just >> the BDA survey uh we would have to call >> that's right >> no BDA it's it's a communication system
for uh fire department within a building to make sure their radios actually work because sometimes when buildings get too insulated their radio system doesn't function but I don't know why that is mandated to >> answer this gentleman's question you think we're good for
>> March 9th March 6 sorry um I'm not sure I would have to contact I would have to find a BDA surveyor and see. But the BDA survey and maybe the
fire chief can help with this. Um, excuse me. >> These are all issues that should have been done. >> I understand. But, but here we are. So, >> but it's a >> I'm glad Davis is finally seeing this. >> No, because some of these are unreasonable issues. They keep getting brought up.
>> It's the code. >> Ah, they keep getting brought up for unreasonable issues. Um, the BDA, are you familiar with >> I am. Okay. Usually the BDA survey, it's done after the building is insulated and
sheetrock. If we do a BDA survey now, it most likely will pass because there isn't enough penetration in the walls. The BDA survey usually gets done when the building is almost encapsulated to make sure that the radio frequency will travel through. So, this is a
conversation that we've had with a fire marshal prior. It's something that we want to do before we sheetrock the building. So if we do need to add it, we can wire it in. Um but it's if we do it now, it's not
going to be the same as if it's done when the building is finished because of the frequency that it will be intercepted from all the finishing products. >> Okay, let me ask the fire chief that question. Just, you know, don't go far. Just just give a couple feet to the side.
any any wiggle room on on that, chief? >> Well, I'm a little confused by the rationale. He's saying that it needs to be done when the building's closer to being done, but then he wants to wire it
ahead of time. Um, in my opinion, they're not that expensive. I would go ahead and do it now because I'd be willing to bet money that as thick as those walls are on that building, it's going to need a BDA. Um, just through experience,
the walls in that building are in some places probably 2 ft thick. They're particularly in the restaurant area. >> It's the two hours, >> right? I mean, you're talking the radio signals don't typically broadcast through that. If he waits until the drywall is up, there is a good possibility he's going to have to rip
drywall down to to reinstall the wiring for the BDA system. Um, I would I don't understand. He kind of went back and forth there. In my experience, it's been particularly with old very old construction and new construction that
BDA systems are needed. It's just it's just the reality of today's building products. >> Okay. And I think where the respondent was coming from is if they do it now and they get not needed once they put in more then it they would have to do it again to see >> I would do the test now because the test is not that expensive.
>> Okay. >> I meant I was going to do it prior to sheetrock. No, I understood what you meant and and I I also understand where the chief is coming from though and I think that there there's a a fire is seeing this as a high likelihood that it's you're going to need a BDA
system no matter what. >> Okay. separately. >> Do you happen to have the uh print out of the um permit reviews that I submitted to you last? I do not. You do not.
>> Do you have them, Claudia? >> I do not know if I have a >> It does because >> But again, when I I am only concerned today with what gets us moving forward. I'm not particularly concerned with who
said what when in the past and I'm I'm hearing very clearly. I'm seeing you working very very well with with the city to determine what needs to be done. I'm hearing resolutions. So I am not concerned with who said what to whom about what and the past right now.
>> Okay. Um All right. It it was my understanding that everything was reviewed and it was approved and all the comments were satisfactory on all disciplines besides
zoning and HPB uh certificate of appropriateness issue on the restaurant. Uh that was the only outstanding >> again if I may. >> Yes. >> The comments are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week online. >> I understand. and he's heard it here three times today.
>> I I understand. >> I I don't think that we have a an issue responding to the comments there uh by March 6. >> Um >> okay. So I want to be clear the city's request is not that they respond by March 6, is that the permit
>> be issued in in hand by March 6th. So then it needs to become crystal clear so that we have absolutely no no question >> on what is needed for that to become >> that is what we were just that is what we just finished talking about that is addressing those comments those comments
are what stand between you and that permit being issued >> only on the fire and sprinkler as a separate permit >> whatever the comments are >> the comments that have been I don't I don't need I don't need your building I can handle it >> as well as the subcontractors
Yes, every comment you've received needs to be addressed between now and March 6. These were the were the ones related to what we're talking about the building, but the the zoning needs to be addressed. We've addressed we've talked about that here. That can be dealt with by carving out that building for the time being to get to building permit
issuance. So, you can address zoning's comments by simply carving out that building for the time being while you work with historic preservation if you want to add it back in. And the other would be the other the other comments from building which are the list of subcontractors. So the ones that we've talked about are the ones that I would foresee if there
was anything to cause you problems with March 6. We've talked about those. The rest sound sound like pretty standard we just need more information from you type comments. I'm just going to check on something real quick.
You know, your honor, I was I was part of um the HPB presentation in 2019. I was part of the HPB presentation in April of 22 and June uh or um of 22 as well.
in all of the HPB meetings and approvals. >> You're going you're talking about an issue I cannot decide today. >> No. >> And and I we have discussed a way of making sure that issue does not hold you up. So that issue is resolved for my
purposes. I realize it leaves work for you to do, but for the purposes of this hearing, the historic preservation is not going to be one that influences me to do one way, one thing or another because we have found a pathway to carve it out of what's holding you up. >> On our end, supplying a list of the
subcontractors and supplying uh the comments to the fire department for fire. It seems it's the only one left. It shouldn't be an issue to do that by March 6. >> Okay. Uh and uh yes so we're should be
>> so moving on down the list then the the next requested time frame would be within 10 days of that permit being issued. Keep in mind that that the way that is phrased means if that permit were issued on March 1st 10 days would be March
10th. So that is a moving target. It doesn't necessarily mean March 16th. It could be, but it depends on what day that permit is actually issued. Having those remedial measures in place, is that feasible for you? >> We need to go back to the remedial.
>> Sure. Can we go back to those two slides? >> Okay. in there. >> So, installation of fall protection, no issue. Um, now I have a question uh for the fire chief. Uh, when we presume
construction, one of the things that's left in the main structure is the elevator shaft. Instead of putting plywood across it just to cover it, I would actually like to resume finishing out the elevator shaft all the way to the roof and encapsulated it as it
should be instead of doing temporary plywood. Um, so could we like >> could you do temporary plywood while you work on it, while you finish it? >> Best of both worlds.
>> Sure. Uh, and to my question earlier, I don't I don't know if it was answered. Can we contact the uh company that we have that does the fire? >> Here's what I kind of alluded to earlier where I'm where I'm leaning as far as an order because,
>> you know, once I enter an order, I'm resolving issues. And so, it's not easy to enter an order and leave things, you know, floating in the wind. >> Yes. Um, so where where I'm thinking is to order firewatch or another another
I don't know what the fire fire protection system or program approved by the fire department. So that would give you if there is something that would meet those requirements that would satisfy the NFBA section because
they're not making this stuff up. I mean the requirements that they're talking about are coming straight out of code and not a code that the city creates. National fire prevention code is you know see the is a code the state has adopted. It's also a national code that the state has adopted. It's kind of like Florida building code in that in that
the state tells us what fire codes we apply. We don't create cities do not create that on their own. So they have to satisfy those fire codes. So if there is some other system that would satisfy the fire code that's requiring that's requiring them to ask for this I want to
give them the flexibility to work with you on that but something needs to happen more than what is there. So I where I'm leaning right now is to order the firewatch or an alternative approved by the fire department to give you that flexibility to say hey can we do this
can we do that to continue working with the city to find some alternative but something is going to be done and if there is no alternative it will have to be firewatch >> um I have a question last meeting the city mentioned that should there be a fire in the building while there is no
construction there is no one in the building they're not going going to send firefighters to actually stop the fire. They would let the building burn. Is this list so that if there is a fire in the building, they would actually send firefighters and and and put out the fire. >> I will ask that that question of the
fire chief. But I will say that reading the list and hearing the testimony given. I would say that's exactly what they've asked for is to make sure that when firefighters might go into that building that they are as safe as can possibly be under the circumstances. That's why they were making the statement a month ago that we can't send firefighters in there cuz we don't know
what we're sending them into. Now they've had the benefit of being in the building. Now they know what the firefighter safety issues are and now you are be are saying yes, I can fix those. So it sounds like we are resolving those concerns, but I will allow the fire chief to tell me if I'm right or not.
>> Yes, sir. As those as those safety concerns are addressed, we will go into an offensive mode depending on the fire. Obviously, if we were to get there and it's blowing out every window, different story, however, >> but that's an assessment you make in every case. That's not standard assessment. We would treat this building
no other no different than any other at that point. Um, and to your to your point of the firewatch or that system, um, I would ask for an effective date to have one or the other decided upon. Um, so that that >> well a as as it as it stands and what's
been requested by the city and where I am leaning at this point would be that to to grant what's been asked that by that 10 days after building permit firewatch be in place and then if they want to move off of firewatch if there is something else that's less expensive less honorous on them they would have
that ability to work with you while on firewatch to maybe get off of firewatch sooner rather than later >> we would be immutable to that. Okay. Um, water supply for fire protection. Um, can we elaborate what that would mean?
I believe this has been addressed on multiple occasions by Chief Tonx, but that has to do with the standpipe and sprinkler system requirements. um obviously the stand pipes for the as needed for the different floors of the fire and then um as we talked earlier about putting in those systems as the
floors are finished so that that way it reduces that need to do those temporary systems. Um, I think that this is >> and really for as as I understand this request, the water supply for fire protection that has more to do it has to do with the absence of the sprinkler
system, but so really what this means is the stand pipe floor by floor so that if there were a firefighter on that floor, they have a way of getting water to put out. >> Absolutely. Yep. That's that's what we're looking for. Um, there's no backflow. There's no there's nothing on the outside of the building either as far as for fire suppression. Everything is out. So,
>> and and with this one, to the last question that respondent asked, I mean, this one sounds like to me something that's also in your best interest to do for the reason that you raised that if firefighters go to that building to put out a fire, we all want them to have the water to do so. >> Yes. And it's designed uh that way for
the uh fire sprinkler system of the entire building. And as per floor, it will build be >> until the sprinkler and what they're saying until the sprinkler system is online, they need a way of getting water. That's what that that bullet point is about. >> So then do we install a a temporary
stand pipe outside where the main water supply is for now and then >> if that gets water to each floor then then I believe that would work. Yes. >> I mean that wouldn't get water to each floor unless we pipe to each floor. >> Yes. >> But that would happen in conjunction
with everything else on the MEPs. May I? >> I was just gonna say that it's better than the temporary sprinkler system. >> Yeah. So um okay,
I will work with the fire marshall on that to have a clear understanding and satisfy him. Um, can we go to the other page? I thought there were two pages. >> There are. There's second page. >> There was one about the storage in >> Oh, organized storage. Uh, may I ask the
city to give us permission to put a storage container back in the parking lot in the back? >> Absolutely not. That part that storage container that he's talking about was not on their property was on actual city property that they don't have control and it blocked the access way to the alley piece. So, they're going to have
to figure out other storage capacity. >> Okay. I mean >> the city gave you permission. >> Yes, the city >> did. City never >> I I understand the issue. So the question was asked and the answer was no, >> but the combustibles are going to have to be
stored in a way to not increase the fire risk. >> Okay. How are we going to get to an end goal together all together? Should we >> That's not a question I can answer and it's not my job to answer it. I am the tryer of fact. >> I understand. >> I'm not a politician.
Um, >> so could I ask the city your question? As far as if they kept the alleyway clear and and you would want to there's no alternative as to being able to use a portion of that for a storage trailer or some kind of
>> I mean the the you should understand this. You have a construction project. You have a building permit. The the entirety of your construction pro project needs to be within the boundaries of your property. You can't extend beyond it without permission from owners. You
can't block the rideway. You can't block public public access. >> And I'm asking permission to see if we can >> No, the city's not going to do that. The city has worked with this this project for almost a decade now. And uh for this gentleman to insinuate that the city is not working is frankly frankly just
annoy insulting to the city. And we are we have worked very hard to get to to try to get them to get off the off the to get this thing moving forward and get a conclusion. And the community is at their wits end about this project which is why we are being as aggressive as we
are. So we cannot provide any further assistance. You're going to have to figure it out on your own. >> I it seems like the community is actually not frustrated with us. Again, you're you're both sides at this point are talking about about matters that are going to be irrelevant to my decision.
>> Yes. But the um with respect the comment, no, I think that the city is just as responsible for all of the delays in this process. >> And that's and that's those are all things that I I have the joy of not having to participate in because I am
here on getting the building safe. How that happens, I won't be here for. I enter the ruling. Try the facts. Well, I'm offering a solution that would satisfy the fire chief's concern on the
restaurant with all the wood that's there, all of tidying up the inside of the structure. >> And you're more than free to pursue that that offer with the city after we leave here. But I will enter a ruling today that says that that has to be neat and orderly and stored so that there are not
increased combustibles creating fire risks in sight. So how you get to what I order is between you and the city or between you and your contractors. But I am not going to mediate that dispute. That is not my role. That is
not what I've been what I'm what I'm hired to do. I am here to trifax >> the cover and protect gusset plates. Can the fire chief elaborate on that on is that specific to that staircase and that particular trust that's on the staircase
that he mentioned earlier because >> so chief you showed a picture. Is that is that picture representative or was that the issue or is that representative of issues on each floor? >> It was representative um of various gusset plates we saw. Some of them were
peeled back. Some of them look like they tried to hammer them back on with a hammer, which is not the appropriate way to receat gusset plates. Um, there were I don't know that I saw any missing, but there was numerous that were in various states of damage that need to be readressed. Some of them were backed out
over halfway. >> Okay. But so the picture was not the was not the >> it was not the area of focus. It was it was just a representation of the gusset plates themselves. >> So the issue is that the gusset plates are compromised. Not so much that they
need to be covered and protected. Correct. >> Well, it's kind of it's kind of both because you have to get them covered and protected eventually with drywall to protect >> ultimately. But but in context of this being temporary measures, do they need to cover them now or do they just need
to >> and need them need them repaired >> repair? So that bullet point probably we could for purposes of what we're doing right now that would be better to state as repair gusset plates. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Then uh we would need to have another
inspection and go through which ones need repair so that we understand which ones need repair. >> I'm going to ask you a question. >> Yes. >> Why is it the city's job to tell you how to repair the building that you are the
project manager for? because I did not notice and I do not see any issues with the gaset plates and I need to be made aware that there are because if I'm not noticing that and the architect didn't notice them either and we walked the entire building. Uh so
then if they saw something that we didn't see, >> this is an easy enough issue to resolve. I will ask you to keep it I will ask you to keep in mind what I just said as you move through this project because there
are many projects in the city that the city will will will appear arrive at when permits are called or when inspections are called in. They'll inspect. If there's an issue they'll they'll leave the punch list and those issues will get addressed. But the
contractors do not say hold my hand while I do this. And I'm sorry, I do not mean to offend, but I have heard a lot of hold my hand in the last two hearings. So, this is an easy issue to resolve because part of my order will be for you
to allow the city to inspect and make sure that you have performed installed the temporary measures appropriately. That inspection should occur by March 6th. My suggestion to you then would be that you get those gusset plates fixed
sooner than March 6th. and what you think needs to be done sooner than March 6th, call in, ask city to come and inspect. That way if they say you missed these three or you missed those over there, that you have time to fix them before March 6th arrives.
>> No offense taken. There is no need um no offense taken. But it's not about a holding hand as much as it's a matter of the city making issues and changing things around on any matter just like the HPV and the certificate of
appropriates. These are things that are coming up out of nowhere and they're not being brought up at the time that they really should be brought up. This is what I'm trying to get to. It's not about holding my hand. It's about me being clear so that things don't change and then become unclear. >> Okay,
>> Mr. Mr. Smith, the only comment I your last comment we'd have is that we believe the repair of those gussets will require a building permit. So to have them done before the building permit is issued might be problematic to be able to address those. The fire >> I'm sorry and that was my misspeaking
because I said March 6. It would actually be within the 10 days from March 6 is when that's supposed to occur because that whole a lot of things in that list is going to be dependent on that building permit. Yeah, that was me misspeaking. So actually you would have between building permit issuance and the 10 days following building permit issuance would be when those gusseted
plates need to be repaired. But my comment still stands have it done before the deadline so that if there are a few that got missed that you have time to fix them. You know, the trust package passed inspection from the building department on the floor
trusses and the roof trusses and all the >> building. I know what you're going to say. I I don't think I need to the length of time this has sat without moving forward. Every day it sits with those things exposed, the weather affects them.
No sir, it wouldn't. I mean, if the structure sits like that, the structure can literally sit like that for 100 years without an issue as it is standing today on the bricks and on the entire structure. >> Well, what I have is testimony that the gusset plates do not meet code. So
whether they have fallen into disrepair over time or if they weren't installed properly and missed by an inspector, we'll get it fixed now. Okay. Was there anything else? I really I sincerely
appreciate what you've brought today. My reaction tends to be to the butts because you'll say, "Yes, I'll do it, but then you want to tell me why you're not happy about it." I take no offense at that either, but >> it just simply is what it is. It it is >> and and for I understand all aspects as
well >> working for because again my concern is getting to a safe building and it sounds like we're well on the way there. Was there anything else that either of you wanted to bring to my attention? >> I don't believe do you need to see the other sheet? >> This was this is the second page of it.
>> Um installed functioning standpipe. My my understanding from the conversation that we had with a fire marshall on the phone is as as it's going on as it's on ongoing built. But my also my understanding from the city's
perspective on this entirety of this is to get the outside shell complete and looking presentable to the community and that was the prior focus >> that that may be again back to my
comment. I am not a politician. >> Okay. That may be the political rumbling in the city. That's not my concern here. My concern is the safety of that building. So my concern is the insides of that building, the guts of the building. >> Yes. And and I keep repeating myself
because that building is safer today than it has been for decades in this community from all aspect. All aspects. And this is really starting to uh sound
very not nice because we're doing above and beyond to put a product for this community that it will not turn into blight again.
And it has been blood, sweat, tears, and soul into all aspects of this. And they all everybody in this room knows this. >> Absolutely not. >> Yes, it has. And we have gone above and beyond to make sure that we do a good
product, a product that will sustain the amount of time needed in order for this community to really develop properly. But the city keeps making decisions that are not really working and functioning properly for this entire community. And the community knows that. And I can
actually run a petition on the entire community. You're you're speaking you're speaking politics now and that's just what drives unfortunately that's what drives what I'm here that's not what I do that's not my role >> I understand >> you don't you don't talk politics to a
judge because judges are apolitical at least in theory >> but it's politics that brought us here to begin with >> no it's a lack it's the >> it's okay I know why we're here I don't need I don't need anybody explain to me what we're here and I understand the case >> if I may add I believe one of the very first points that was brought up in the
very beginning was um the window order, which you do have. >> I was hoping to get to that at some point. >> It was It was on my list. >> So, that would take Well, I guess where where I'm going with that is that would take care of the outside to a point where >> everyone's question that you ordered the windows. >> Well, I wasn't finished, but then
>> that you ordered the windows. >> Yes. >> The real issue is then inside for fire >> is right. So, >> it's that list. >> No, that they they're confusing the way the city has presented this case and I want to make sure that this is clear. The measures that are on the screen are to deal with the immediate public
health, safety, welfare issue that exists in that building. They are not designed for anything other than that. They are not designed, they are temporary measures to deal that. The request that the city is asking for now is to get the building permit issued to move this project forward and then to complete the construction of this
project. Right? That's what we're asking for because the problem is started because the building permit was expired. Right? These measures we've we've offered as a way to protect the building and protect the public and to give them an opportunity to allow for the construction to pursue to do it. They
are not the res the resolution of the major problem with that building. They are a temporary fix to be able to address that. We certainly would also like to see the proof that they ordered the windows because frankly I personally by the owner of the building was promised over two year almost two years
ago that those was told two years ago that those windows were ordered. So, I'm not going to testify about it because that's not my role today, but I certainly would like to see it to see if they've complied with the special match order from last month. >> We have. And you >> Oh, can we see them, please? >> Yes. One second.
>> Now, if everybody please just address address me moving forward in the hearing. >> Um, yes. You requested that the windows for the first floor be ordered and I told you that I would make sure that all floors would be ordered and I ordered
all of them. And I have a receipt that 50% deposit has been made. I have an ETA of 527 for their arrival. And uh the 50% deposit is upon arrival. >> And do you have a copy of that receipt? >> Yes, I do. I I have it via email. Can I
email it or can I show it to you because I forgot to print it prior to arming it up? >> If if you will if you'll if you will email it to the clerk. If you can email it to the clerk first and then you can show it to me. That way this that way I'm sure the city has the record any if
you wouldn't mind. >> And then you can click on the quote and it shows. >> So tell me where you want me to click. So the order specs of the windows and at the bottom it will tell you
council for the city. Would you like to see? >> Yes. So that's first, second, and third floor of the main structure. So um your honor, I have Can I email this afterwards? >> If you actually email it now, that way I know it gets done.
>> Okay, one second, please. I just want to make sure. Can you please verify the email address correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um
um can we u go back into so I think we I have a clear understanding on this >> the temporary measures. >> Yes. Can we discuss the uh what the city is asking and the time frames? >> Yes. And that was the next place I was
going to. If we could put the slide up with the I think there were three three items. Yes, that's it. Let me tell you where where I am at on the September 6th. Given given the history, I I think building in an end
date is appropriate, but I would I would include in that in my thinking where I am right now the ability for it to be brought before me if there were good cause for an extension. If there were we have an
active hurricane season, you know, things like that because there are things that happen in in the world that can give good reasons for a job to slow down. If the job is simply my contractor didn't move as fast as I wish my contractor would have moved, that may
not be a good reason to me. Although you may still have the right to ask me, but I would build into if I were to give a hard date for completion of project, I would build into that the ability to come before me and present good cause for that date to be moved back once you had time to be into the build process in
case things that were genuinely unforeseen and unpredictable were to occur to slow down that process. Or there could be issues that come up that the city is working with you on and both parties might come to me and say, "Yes, we want to extend this out." So that hard date that they've asked for, I already have in my thinking that there
would need to be some means for you to come before me again and say, can I move that back? Here are my reasons why. >> I agree. I mean, that's an unreasonable date. >> Why is it unreasonable for completion? >> Because of how much it's left there and
the nature of the um building. You see, a lot of um a lot of this goes without consideration the the actual structure and the difficulty it is in order to complete any aspect of this project on this structure. It's an
existing building and and >> how much time it just let's cut. How much time do you think is necessary for the completion of the work to be done to that building? The city I mean because we're talking seven months the city is put out there. Uh yes, but that has the additions in the back to be built. That
has the restaurant to be rebuilt. It needs fit out on the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, which is not going to be easy on that building because it's a existing >> Don't tell me what needs to be done. Tell me how much time you think you need to do. >> I think it needs 12 to 24 months to be
really done properly. You know, the roof on this project has taken over two years to complete and we we stand in a lawsuit for this roof in
order to actually make sure that it is a good roof for this. Were you aware that we gained a CRA grant to do the facade on this building and we started working on that facade and we started working on that roof and we've paid twice for a roof to be done
that we protected the grant and to make sure that it's done properly >> and that's all I understand why you offer it but none of it is relevant to what my role here is >> well it becomes relevant to the
>> when I talk about when I talk about how much time does it take to get the building done I mean how much time does it take to get the building done >> I don't care about the history I just want to know a reasonable time to get the building done and I hear 12 to 24 months I I'm inclined
>> to say okay then let's set 12 months as the end date again with the open end that if there has been something unforeseen something unpredictable good cause for an extension to have the ability for the respondent or the city to ask for that that date to be extended.
>> May we address that? >> I I will offer offer both both parties the opportunity to address that. >> I think you're right in that time frame. So given the nature of how this is a different type of project. It's not necessarily a new build. Whereas a new build, you probably could get that in in
seven or eight months. I think given its existing nature, um 12 to 24 a very good estimate. >> None of the aspects of this structure are an easy one to complete. This is why
this structure has been a problem for this community for decades prior to this ownership. >> But I will say a lot of the most challenging things have the big hurdles have been tackled
>> yes >> at great expense but they are there. So >> you know, your honor, >> so let me let me let the city respond to I I have thrown out the number 12 months, which is where I'm I'm leaning to giving
you some more time, but I'm I'm I'm not willing to give 24 months. I will I I am open to 12 months with the ability for you to show me good cause why that should be extended once you're deeper into that build process. And so if I could ask you to take two steps to the
side, let me offer the microphone to the city to see what does the city have to say about 12 months. >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. So I'll back up to say we our recommendation that's on the screen today was because this project has been going on for a considerable amount of time. >> I understand. >> So to say it's a 24-month project
>> is is right, but this is >> but the statute requires me to give a reasonable time regardless of the history. >> I got it. Thank you. So, I think the city can address the 12month period and would be acceptable to that
if we could work if we could get some sort of inclusion in an order that almost has milestones. The problem with this project from the very beginning is that even when we it was mentioned the CRA even when we were working with trying to
provide them financial assistance to get this project done they refuse to agree to milestones. So with that being said I think we could agree with the 12 months period we do that they mentioned that the windows are supposed to be in in May. That's when the ones they ordered.
if maybe we could set a time frame to get the the windows into that structure that's a lot sooner than 12 months so that we can see some sort of progress at least on the exterior of the building. From the pictures we saw today, we agree with you the interior is is uh is in
difficult condition and from Mr. I would agree with Mr. Davis's comments. It's going to take a lot of work to get that done. So uh I think we would if we could look at maybe a uh a phasing of it. Here's um I'm gonna go a direction that neither party is going to like. I think
I I hear you. But I think getting to a confident phasing program today is I think more than we can accomplish. I don't think we have the right the right brains at the table. Frankly, it probably at least probably contractor need to be involved
in that conversation when the because I understand the respondent has to phase their their their own work so that the trades aren't stepping on each other. So, I think the addition of five months is reasonable. I understand the history,
but again, as I said, the statute requires me to give a reasonable time. I think that 12-month time frame is shorter than you want, but I think it's workable. I think it's a little bit longer than the city would like, but I I did have concerns at seven months for the extent of work for it to be done
well and done right, which everybody wants. I think a little bit more time on the hard completion date is helpful to the whole process as well as the likelihood of the order being ultimately complied with
where I'm so that's the part that nobody's going to like the burden I will offer to the parties if either party wants to run run with it is respondent if you would like more time what I'm hearing from the city is if you were to give the city a milestone stone plan
that actually showed them and gave them a clicker to click through the process to make sure that things are happening on time. The city may be willing to work with you and give you a little bit more towards that 24 months that you're asking for that
I'm not going to give today. So, you might be able to achieve with the city the more time you're looking for by working more closely on phasing that construction. So there are benchmarks they can point to and say yes it's moving along we feel comfortable or
better yet what I could do today is I could put that into my order and that I could provide that I will set it at 12 months but if the parties want to come before me and offer a new phased plan that that allows the respondent what the respondent wants which is more time and the city what what the city wants which
is more certainty. I will absolutely amend my order to extend that time. that's acceptable to the city. >> It would have to be acceptable for us as well. Um um even though um I think the suggestion
that a city attorney brought is to focus this year on the exterior and the facade, it would be um I think it's very reasonable and understandable. Um, it's important that the facade of this building gets done properly. This is a
it's a lime brick and a lime mortar and it will take a lime plaster to complete that facade. But once that facade is complete, that building will look like that for hundreds of years. It's self-reping. It's already started to self-rep the bricks. It lime functions
differently when it comes to fire, when it comes to water, when it comes to air, to anything. It's a live product. So the thing that the city maybe is not really understanding is the extent that we have
done in order to do a substantial proper renovation to really bring this to life so that it actually functions and looks appropriately. So we want to create a facade a unified
facade from all aspects and give this city and historic preservation something that they can really preserve for the future. This is why we're unifying the buildings in the back and the restaurant and we're doing it all in biolime.
Um it never needs to be painted. It never needs anything. It will always look that same white color that it's looking right now. It's the natural color of lime. It's what buildings in Europe are. It's what Spain, Greece, all of the thousand-year-old buildings. It's really
what they're made of. Luckily, it happens that St. Cloud had a building that was made out of lime, brick, and mortar. >> I Let me make this comment, and I mean it sincerely. I appreciate your passion for the work. I appreciate your honest
your artistry in the work and so I am going to make a plea work with the city on time. Get the permit issued. Get progress moving. Meet those timelines so that you can engage in your artistry and passion because
unfortunately when things wind up between before triers of fact we're just hammers. We are problem solvers. We don't we don't worry much about the artistry of something when we're looking at an unsafe building. So work with the
city so that you can engage in your artistry because when things wind up in front of people like me, we see the we we we have to it's our role to see the the world in black and white. We don't get to deal in gray because we have to enter in order at the end of the day. I
understand and I am working with the city and uh the city is not really in all truth the city is not really upset with me or my performance the city is upset with the overall completion of the project the way that they look at it should be completed.
>> Yes. And that's what I'm telling you is if if you're before if you're before someone like me and say I need more time so that I can engage in the art of it. Somebody like me tends to say, "Nope, you've lost the opportunity for the art.
Now just get it fixed." And I don't want you to have to sacrifice that. That's why I'm making the plea that I'm making. >> I understand. But the the what I really want everybody to understand is that it makes a huge difference. You know, somebody can >> again now you're talking just things
that are not persuasive can't be persuasive. It's just not my role in this. That's politics speech. I'm the black and white speech. But we tend to not be mindful of the decisions that we make and the things we do. >> And this is what I just said. That's why
I made the plea that I did. >> Okay? >> When you wind up in front of a magistrate, when you wind up in front of a judge, we don't make room for the art of the world. That's and I'm not saying that as a positive. I'm just saying it as a practical reality. So I'm telling
you, get the timing issues resolved so that you have time to make it art. Because if you're in front of me or if you're in front of a judge, they're not going to care about the art. They're going to care about the safety of the building. That's just the role that we sit in. People who are sitting in this chair like me today.
>> Yes. >> Yes. So that's my plea. So it sounds like we've worked through the issues. Um I'm going to clerk, I'm going to ask you to send me your draft minutes as soon as you have them. So, and if I could get the PowerPoint presentation from the
city because I'm going to rely on both of those uh as I put together to to make sure that I I get this precise. But let me say verbally what that ruling is going to contain. And let's work through let's start on this slide. So everything on this slide
uh will be as it has been requested by the city with the exception of item C. There will be language added to that that provides that the parties either party or the parties jointly may come before me and ask for an extension of that time. Uh it will not be in the
order but I will restate again here. I encourage y'all to work together and and if if you know you can give the city a timeline that lets the city say yes we can work with that that gets you more time that is a winwin and I would love to see that but I know it it's going to
take you know work to get there. >> And Mr. Smith, but the date would change. You didn't need to mention that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that. Thank you. That will be one year out, 12 months on C. So, C would be 12 months, but with that extension language. Thank you. Um, any questions on this part of
it from either party. If we could go to the first page of the temporary measures. So, on guard service or the firewatch. Really, the firewatch item, it will be firewatched, but again, putting into the
order the possibility that if if you and the city agree on an alternative to firewatch, that is also appropriate if approved by the city. >> Um, >> go ahead. >> Then we leave both of those aspects to be in conjunction and work together with
the fire department and the city. >> It will be firewatch until there is an alternative. It will be firewatch but giving you the ability to come up come to do an alternative arrangement if there's one that can be presented that will satisfy the NFPA section that is triggering this for the city but the
initial will be it will be a firewatch or so the ore is what I'm giving but the firewatch will be there until the ore is satisfied >> so when would the firewatch start >> that these temporary measures have to be in place 10 days after the building
permit is issued alternative. was there a question? Were there was any any question about that or I can move on? They're all at this point. I'm not asking if you like it or not. I I'm simply stating what my order is and making sure that
there is an understanding of what will be in the written order. Yeah, there there is a clear understanding whether whether it's
reasonable, just functioning and all that's unfortunately it's the nature of where we are and it's the exercise of power and we have to conform to that because we need to
because it's It's it honestly in all honesty it's too much. It's literally it's too much. I have a um a friend that's a fire lieutenant and I presented him that entire list without having any judgment
and his feedback was somebody's mad at you. And it's the truth. It's really what it is. So we will work together but ultimately we're trying to get to an end goal. And the more harder we make it for each other, the harder it is to reach
that end goal. Until we start working together, it's just going to be a tearing apart. And we need some consideration. And this owner needs some consideration because prior to him, this building was in much further
dangerous as a structure on all aspects. And he's gone above and beyond. But we all have to deal with the property as it is today. >> We are and we are. But let's be reasonable. Let's be understanding. >> I understand. >> But it's the truth of the matter. The
truth is what it is. >> As long as everybody understands what my order is, I have heard I've heard the arguments and I am rendering my order now. So I think we're on the same page there. The other item on this, again, it will not be in my written order. I will reference what is here. Add plywood
across all elevator shaft openings. As you heard, that does not stop you from working on that elevator shaft. It just it is belt and suspenders so that they're covered while the work is ongoing. Can we move to the next page? Went too far. Back one. There it is.
There's a modifi. This is the the second page of it. And the one bullet point that that I believe is modified here through the the hearing, what we've modified has been the bullet that says cover and protect gusset plates. >> That will be simply repair gusset
plates. I don't think there were any other questions on any of these items from either party. Were there any outstanding questions on this page? >> No, sir. Okay. As to all of the temporary measures and
going to one of respondents points, I am going to put into the order your date for completion before potential fines kick in would be March 6th. That is a Friday.
>> Completion of this list >> of this list. That's not >> I'm sorry. The permit is March 6th. 10 days from March 6th is the completion of this list because some of these will be part of your building permit. So that actually makes it what? >> A Monday, >> the 16th. >> Is that 10 days?
>> Yes. >> So I am going to encourage you to have everything ready for inspection. I'm I won't I'm not going to make it a mandate of the order, but have everything ready for inspection on the 12th or 13th at
the latest. Call that inspection and let the city come in and that way if there are issues, simple fixes, yes, you missed that. No, you didn't. Yeah, you got everything. You either can sleep easy that weekend or you know what needs to be corrected. So, I'll leave it to you on how much time you think you ought to give yourself, but I would strongly
encourage you to get the city out there to perform a compliance inspection prior to that that March 16th date on the fines. Can we go to the fines page? I know the city has asked for $1,000 a
day. administrative cost I will award um $533.3. I am going to change the date just because you have other things to be working on right now than than that. So I will just tie that to the March 16th.
So the the payment of cost by March 16th on fines. I I I want to break those down a little bit on these temporary measures. So the building permit so that the temporary measures safety measures can be implemented.
I will assess that $1,000 per day if my order is not complied with. This means that if you fail to to get the building permit in hand by the time required or you fail to complete the the temporary mitigations by March 16th, that that
fine of $1,000 per day to be imposed for each day it remains in violation until brought in compliance. On the backend date, I'm going to reserve on the issue of fines. There's just a lot between now and
February, whatever 12 months from today is. And if I were to see just a project that was being ignored and not moved, I might be inclined to impose significant fines. If I saw a project that had been working
hard and had just missed a timeline, I would feel differently. So, I'm going to reserve on the amount of of potential fines for missing the 12-month completion deadline. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. >> Could we request that the well we would
request that the special magistrate including there at least the opin the option of the city to come back in front of you to address >> up to the statutory maximum and that is that is and >> talking about I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt >> during that because the permit could be issued and the next milestone date is 12
months down the road. If there's no progress between in the first six months, we'd like the opportunity to come back in front of the special magistrate to consider fines, in which case the respondent can show that there's been progress made. >> A a fine for what at that point? >> Well, if I'm
>> fines fines acrew for failing to comply with my order, unless and until I have an order that has benchmarks in it, the benchmark is 12 months. >> Okay. All right. Understand. Thank you >> to that point though and my suggestion
would be is if we see project not moving for everybody's benefit that as soon as there is any inkling that a project is not moving and frankly I will I will say the same thing to the respondent if respondent believes that because of something going on with the city and
again I cannot decide hide issues beyond what my role here is, which is to enforce code, but there are issues going on with the city that impair its ability to comply with my order. Both parties are welcomed to make a request for a status hearing. And I think that that is
for for the city. I know the city is well well accustomed to status hearings, but what that means is if if something is going on and and you feel like the city something has happened in the city processes that has made it impossible or made it unlikely for you to be able to
meet that deadline and you want to come here and talk about it, it may be outside of the scope of what I can do, but if you make a request for a status hearing, Claudia will put it on our agenda and it will be heard here. The same as if the city put a request for a status hearing on on on the docket.
And I again I make that invitation. I do not normally I will say let's have a status hearing on this. But I will just simply make the invitation to both parties that if there's a need for one, either party is welcome to request a status hearing in this case. Are there any issues I have not covered that either party needs me to address
before we adjourn this this item? >> Not from the city. >> The entire think it's an issue for me. I I understand that for what I can do and what I'm doing here today. Is there anything else that that you need me to hear?
>> Um yeah. Uh there is like the reason why we're even here is because of the city's choices along all of this aspect and us being here
when it comes to the expired permit when it comes to all of this and I have >> but here we are those are issues I cannot decide but here we are with a plan to get to the finish line. Are there issues with that plan? Are
there is anything about that plan that I'm missing that you think I need to include in the order? >> I think the plan um I understand you think it's not fair >> and I think that the time period of the plan it's too short. I think that maybe
you can make the plan to a year for the entire outside to be finished and then another year for the rest of the project to be finished. That would be >> right now. I I I think 12 months is reasonable. >> It may be on the short end. It may be a
speedy project, but for a project, and this is why I made the statements that I did, the work and the art, you want more time for the art. >> I want more time to do it right because >> understood. But I'm I need the I want the work to be done.
>> Yes. But it matters on how the work is done. You know, if it wasn't for me, that roof would have been done. That roof would have been done two years ago. But how would it have been done? What would it have caused? >> There's nothing you're going to say that is going to move me off of 12 months with the ability that for good cause to extend that date. I would highly
encourage you to work with the city on a benchmark plan that lets them have the comfort level to give you more time to do to do it in the way you think it needs to be done >> to do it in the right way. like lawyers, you take put five lawyers in a room, you get five different opinions.
>> That's >> creative professionals are no different. But >> and I'm I cannot decide that issue. I have decided the issue that I'm going to decide. So if if we're I'm not going to have any more conversation over 12 months or 24. It's 12 months from now.
Work with the city. Get the time you want, but get it by giving them benchmarks so they know when work will be completed each stage along the line. It's um we all need to change. We all need
>> respectfully asked that the mean you made major ruling. This is just we have other cases to get >> and we do. I I understand the frustration. I do. But what I can do here is what I can do here. I I cannot
if I could I would I would fix all the issues in the world. I cannot. Right now, I'm dealing with a building that now has a plan to get safe and get finished. Yes. And this is where we stay hunged up
because um there really isn't anything u major that's unsafe for that building. And once it res >> should we be left to
>> to to a certain degree and and as a statutory evidence it's actually much better now than it's ever been I know >> and that I can prove in many ways in many pictures. >> We've had the evidence, we've had the testimony, I've made my ruling. Are there any questions about my ruling?
>> What choice are we given? >> That's a hypothetical. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Reduction of leans under 50,000. Case number 2024-1439. Jacob Stokes Nus, owner. Location of
violation 1414 Minnesota Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. >> Mr. Smith, this is a request for reduction of a lean. The lean exists for the uh with regard to uh some construction work that was done on this property without a permit. The permit
was ultimately obtained. However, uh the lean acrewed to $23,500. After discussion with the city manager and agreement, the respondent has agreed to pay $4,700 as a reduction of this fine uh with the
stipulation it be paid within 30 days of your order. So, um, we'd ask that the special magistrate approve the reduction as requested by the as, um, agreed to by the parties.
>> That request is approved as agreed by the parties under the terms agreed to by the parties. >> Thank you. Case number 2021-483 Ricardo Rodriguez Santiago owner Maida Paola Cox Miranda owner location of
violation 2730 Parkfield Road St. Cloud Florida. >> Again, this is a case for requesting reduction of an existing fine and lean on the property. Uh this had to do with a fence being constructed without a permit. Uh the fence the permit was ultimately obtained. However, a uh fine
acrewed with administrative costs to $7,424.90. Uh the this the parties, the city manager and the respondent have agreed that the that the proper the fine could be reduced to $1,236.95 provided it's paid within 30 days of the
special magistrate's order. And we'd ask that the special magistrate approved that reduction. >> Yes. And it's approved on those terms. And that's all we have. >> Nate, next schedule meeting March 18, 2026. >> Anything else from the city? >> No, sir. Thank you.
>> Correct. Anything? >> No. >> We are adjourned.