WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=LaAUQIEKU_4 Part: 1 1 00:01:23.360 --> 00:07:30.319 Oh, I can with the pledge of allegiance. Please rise. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for 2 00:07:30.319 --> 00:07:48.240 all. Okay, >> we will start with a roll call. >> I will do the Okay, good. Sorry. Um, roll call. Um, chair Christine Ladas Drake, excuse absent. Vice Chair Elizabeth Lemu 3 00:07:48.240 --> 00:08:03.680 >> here. >> Member Mitchell Mski, he did call to notify us that he's running late. Member Don Connor, excuse absent. Member John Dulo >> here. 4 00:08:03.680 --> 00:08:20.639 >> Member Carmen Enandees >> here. >> Alternative one, Victoria Moore >> here. >> Alternative to E Katrina Akulova >> here. >> Madam Chair, we have a quorum as I mentioned to the rest of the group. I'm Jack Morgans filling in for Dan Manzer 5 00:08:20.639 --> 00:08:36.800 law partner this evening and we have a quorum and at the moment uh both Ms. Moore and Ms. uh Akulova our voting members if Mr. I guess that will remain as No. Yeah, that'll remain as such this evening. 6 00:08:36.800 --> 00:08:54.399 >> Okay. >> All right. Uh let's start with the approval of minutes. Um has everybody had a chance to review it for the April 14th work session? Right. Um does anybody want to uh 7 00:08:54.399 --> 00:09:09.120 >> Motion to approve? >> Thank you. Motion to a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. And the April 14th meeting minutes. Does anybody want to 8 00:09:09.120 --> 00:09:24.959 um a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Okay. And a second. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Second was from Mr. Dulu. Yes. Passes 5. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. 9 00:09:24.959 --> 00:09:40.240 All right. Um, and then going to the next thing, we are going to go to the new business which is >> 1110 Minnesota Avenue. >> Good evening. Stephanie Strereer, principal planner with community development. Tonight I'm presenting 10 00:09:40.240 --> 00:09:58.880 COA26-00007, a request for demolition and new construction at 1110 Minnesota Avenue. Just a little bit of background. It is located within the central business district 2 CBD2 zoning. It was built in 1910 and over the years due to 11 00:09:58.880 --> 00:10:14.640 improvements, it became non-contributing as identified in the 2020 survey. In September 2022, it did sustain damage from Hurricane Ian. And the home owner reached out to Rebuild Florida. Rebuild Florida reviewed the home or inspected 12 00:10:14.640 --> 00:10:33.240 the home, I apologize, inspected the home and determined that it was eligible for demolition and rebuild. This is just the front of the existing structure, the east elevation. This is the north elevation. 13 00:10:33.680 --> 00:10:50.480 And this is the property to the rear, the west elevation. So for background for the new construction, it will be a stick frame house with a cementation lapsiding hardy board, architectural asphalt shingles, vinyl single hung windows, fiberglass 14 00:10:50.480 --> 00:11:07.519 exterior doors. This scope of work, both the demolition and the new construction were reviewed by the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources. They did provide a letter stating that they felt the new construction and the demolition would not affect negatively affect the historic district and was appropriate 15 00:11:07.519 --> 00:11:23.600 based on the provided massing scale all those. So they provided two elevations. They provided this first front elevation. Uh in the site plans provided one said front elevation, one said historically sensitive elevations. Both are 16 00:11:23.600 --> 00:11:40.279 appropriate. Both were reviewed by staff and we determined that based on the previous build of the home, the 1910, both this front elevation and the historically sensitive elevation are appropriate for the build. 17 00:11:40.320 --> 00:11:59.399 And then these are just the right elevations, the left elevation, and the rear. All consistent with our historic preservation standards. Okay. >> So, we are recommending approval of COA26-00007 18 00:11:59.519 --> 00:12:15.600 with the conditions. These conditions were provided by the state. So, they are long. I apologize. I'll have to read them into the record. Bud, if prehistoric or historic artifacts such as pottery or ceramics, projectile points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any 19 00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:31.519 other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area. The permitted project shall cease all activities involving subservice disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery. The applicant shall 20 00:12:31.519 --> 00:12:48.000 contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, and project activities shall not resume without verbal and or written authorization. And in the event that unmarked human remains are encountered during permitted activities, all work shall stop immediately and the proper authority 21 00:12:48.000 --> 00:13:03.360 shall be notified in accordance with section 872.05 of the Florida statutes. Again, those are two conditions that the Division of Historical Resources added in their letter. And with that, we are requesting approval of COA26-00007 22 00:13:03.360 --> 00:13:23.040 with the conditions stated by staff and both staff and the applicant are available for any questions. >> Want to start? >> I have a question Stephanie >> on the I'm fine with the building. It looks good. What about the um two things 23 00:13:23.040 --> 00:13:38.639 um the elevation >> um as far as the slab on grade? I know it says slab on grade. I know in those locations it's going to be hard to build slab on grade because it needs probably to be 24 in above or at least 16 inches above the crown of 24 00:13:38.639 --> 00:13:54.000 the road. But the way it's designed, you know, might have to have a stem wall or something. But >> well, that would be that >> in building. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Maybe in building or something like that. Right. >> Another thing too is the the actual ground like the state the letter that you have 25 00:13:54.000 --> 00:14:10.720 >> as far as um >> I know that other counties that I I have built in um St. Augustine or even Orlando >> um they have like a a person come out and they check the property before >> you know >> they're not requiring that in this case. 26 00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:26.240 It's just as they do the ground work if they come across something they're able to >> No, I understand that. But what about like us as a board? You know what I mean? Can we do that? You know, >> that would be more of a legal question. >> Like maybe not in this case, but maybe in the future like for um I know there's 27 00:14:26.240 --> 00:14:42.639 a lot of places that I have built in historic districts that they the boards actually recommend like uh when they're turning the dirt to take photographs or maybe um look at some, you know, because there is artifacts in the ground that's 28 00:14:42.639 --> 00:14:56.959 been there since 19. >> I'm not sure. You're you're asking whether the board can go out and do a a recon of its own if it's >> No, no, no, no. It it to make like a archeological maybe condition that like say 29 00:14:56.959 --> 00:15:13.199 to somebody who's going to monitor that like if the state says okay hey if you find anything but >> I think I understand what he's saying >> as as a builder. I don't I don't have the I don't know how to do that. I think that would be something that would be have to be added into the bylaws if that is something that the board is 30 00:15:13.199 --> 00:15:29.760 >> concerned. If I'm inferring correctly or understanding, you're basically saying attaching a a standing condition or any discovery and such that would trigger the actions as stated in the recommendations here in this case is what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. Something like right a condition 31 00:15:29.760 --> 00:15:46.320 to where like someone >> So if I if I may interrupt I understand what you're saying. We have the condition. What he's asking is that even if they don't if the builder does not discover something, someone of the historic preservation board go out and 32 00:15:46.320 --> 00:16:02.320 verify that there's nothing on the ground. >> I don't think you meant the board. >> Not the board >> or a staff member. >> It could be somebody who's a member of the historic society. It could be somebody that knows more than I do maybe. Uh ju just saying to protect our 33 00:16:02.320 --> 00:16:18.240 heritage. That's what you know for the artifacts that are in the ground that cuz it's not like a they're not building like a woodframe uh structure like a floor >> you know what I mean where it's you know lifted up where they're actually going to do a lot of dirt work there's going to be a lot of excavation 34 00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:34.399 >> so it's it's going to apply in those instances but there's not not each and every case that come before the board's going to deal with sub >> that's true >> and so forth so it seems like it would be a case by case type of scenario to me I don't think there'd be a standing I understand the phil >> I would say philosophical approach from staff's perspective. 35 00:16:34.399 --> 00:16:51.519 >> I I would think if any disturbance of soil >> that's how >> would be a recommendation and I think the board can give that feedback. I don't know that there needs to be a formal uh bylaw or implementation of standing approach and I think I would just make the recommendations on a case by case basis or condition. 36 00:16:51.519 --> 00:17:07.760 >> Yeah. I mean there's not we don't have that many cases that come up with that but >> Sure. >> but I know >> because we're trying to not just protect the homes but also the land. Right. >> Of course. Right. So that you know the only way we could do that is if somebody actually goes out there and and and see 37 00:17:07.760 --> 00:17:23.839 it's like gopher turtles like you know when I build homes you know if if they just said hey if you see a gopher turtle man just put you know nobody's going to you know you know it is >> and just to add in don't know if this changes legal's perspective as well. It would have to be someone qualified. Staff wouldn't be able to go out. They 38 00:17:23.839 --> 00:17:38.880 would and that may be a cost to the applicant. >> And and what you're what you in this case, which is really what our focus is, is these conditions are addressing that very concern. >> That have been recommended. >> Yeah. But no, but no. No. Because it's 39 00:17:38.880 --> 00:17:54.160 like the gopher turtle. Just let's use that as a uh the state requires me to have somebody come out and do like, you know, my environmentalist. Yeah. My environmentalist goes goes out there and make sure there's no gopher turtles on site. >> Okay. 40 00:17:54.160 --> 00:18:11.360 >> Before if if there's some in the area. >> Okay. So, but I guess I'm still you're suggesting that you broaden the conditions in even this case to make it environmental that that there be an added condition for any environmental discover. >> No, not environmental. He's just comparing it to that. He's saying that. 41 00:18:11.360 --> 00:18:26.160 >> Yeah, because there are there are agencies I know that there is agencies that do this for free that there is some I think it's the uh FPAN or something like that. I think it's the architectural I forgot what it is, but there is a board that I think they work 42 00:18:26.160 --> 00:18:41.760 for um the state that goes out and they check properties and stuff. >> But with respect to this property, are you suggesting that you're adding that as an additional suggestion? Is that what I'm going to say? >> Maybe for not necessarily, just maybe in the future, you know what I mean? But, uh, you know, I I don't know who would 43 00:18:41.760 --> 00:18:57.120 go do that. You know, go look at the property. Maybe somebody in the city staff. I don't know if they're, you know, >> well, I would I wouldn't necessarily for city staff if we're qualified to do that, but we could potentially in the future we could coordinate with the state once we received that letter of confirmation if they've confirmed 44 00:18:57.120 --> 00:19:12.080 demolition. >> I suggest I just suggested for purposes tonight, maybe tailoring that for workshop. >> Yeah, that's why I was just bringing it up. not not necessarily on on this project >> approach obviously is probably right for a discussion within a workshop >> because in the future because we are 45 00:19:12.080 --> 00:19:29.280 trying to protect the property the land too so it would be nice to at least get eyes on ground to look and see if there's you know that's all those are my point >> anybody else have any questions 46 00:19:29.280 --> 00:19:45.760 comments um I would say myself um I do like the the historically sensitive or um just the second elevation because I like that I know the word I like not but it 47 00:19:45.760 --> 00:20:01.440 seems to be that those windows more match the historical. I'm looking at the windows and the doors. Um because that was one thing that kind of bothered me with the plane double hung. I was like that's just kind of >> the three. Yeah. >> Yeah. So I would you know personally like to see 48 00:20:01.440 --> 00:20:17.919 >> the front elevation. I'm not sure what anybody else how they feel or >> agree it's more visually appealing and seems to be a better match for the surrounding neighborhood. um the historic historically sensitive >> image. >> I don't know if we can put that as a 49 00:20:17.919 --> 00:20:33.720 condition that >> you you would make that in your motion. What the specific elevation >> um if we are thinking of putting that in our motion would the client the >> I'll let the applicant >> applicant Thank you. 50 00:20:36.799 --> 00:20:54.000 >> Hello. Um I'm my name is Michael Arnold. I'm uh with DSW Homes. We've been assigned to this project and I'll be the the project superintendent. >> Um I'm sorry, what was the question? >> Um we were talking about that we prefer the the second elevation. Okay. and 51 00:20:54.000 --> 00:21:09.360 maybe putting that in as a condition. And we wanted to make sure you know you got your say if you're okay with that being a condition, if you have any concerns about that because of the for the historical purposes, the windows and the um not necessarily any of the siding. >> Okay. 52 00:21:09.360 --> 00:21:24.480 >> I don't know about you guys, but definitely the the windows and the doors have that more historical look to them. >> Okay. I mean, it it's I understand you're trying to, you know, maintain the, you know, the integrity and the the, you know, significance of of the 53 00:21:24.480 --> 00:21:42.799 neighborhood. I mean, it wouldn't Would you want windows to look exactly like that or something in that style? That's >> I think it's it's the three. >> Yeah, the three over one um style. Yeah, it's it's and 54 00:21:42.799 --> 00:21:59.760 the three light in the door. Um that kind of craftsman I guess style. >> Definitely period. >> Definitely. Yeah, the window is period. >> Just for clarification on the discussion, I apologize. Is it the discussion on the front elevation only the alternate? Is that >> correct? Yes. >> Okay. So, just so making sure that the 55 00:21:59.760 --> 00:22:16.240 applicant understands it's just the front elevation only. >> Correct. >> It's not all the windows >> because for us we only >> Okay. look at what's street view. So if they want to do the rest of the windows. >> Yeah. I mean I don't really that would 56 00:22:16.240 --> 00:22:32.720 be any significant impediment to to us moving forward. I think yeah I >> we're you know we're just essentially we're just trying to get this homeowner back in their house and we're trying to do it as fast as possible. So >> understand >> if Yeah, that's that shouldn't be a problem. >> Okay. 57 00:22:32.720 --> 00:22:47.760 Um the only other question I have is for legal. Um, I noticed they were doing shingle roofs and because there's been a lot of back and forth with shingle versus metal. Is it going to be okay that it's shingle since it's a re it's a new build >> on this one? 58 00:22:47.760 --> 00:23:03.200 >> Yeah, she gohead. But I think it's appropriate. >> Yes, the shingle roof is still appropriate for that year and it has been reviewed both by the state staff and our consultant. >> Okay. Verify >> for the for the year you said the year. 59 00:23:03.200 --> 00:23:20.000 >> Yes. for the historic character of the >> Okay. I was going to say I don't know if they had it 1910. I don't >> the historic character of the district. >> Um I have a question um for the the condition 60 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:36.799 >> of um if we find if if if the workers find any artifacts or anything, can we put a condition to have a designated person on site who is watching for that and not just a group of 10 people? Oh, if you see something, if you see something, let's say a foreman or lead 61 00:23:36.799 --> 00:23:53.679 man, if to be um specifically assigned to the task, >> I think I think from the board's perspective and purview, I think it's sufficient that you place that condition on the granting of this approval and the management and administration of that would then be within the purview of the 62 00:23:53.679 --> 00:24:10.000 applicant and uh and and their staff and team. the authority from you all is certainly the condition itself but how that's implemented I think that might be overreaching to point someone within the applicants operation >> I think it is 63 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:28.480 >> I mean but there are some counties that that do do that and boards that do do that they make a condition of the COA differently but I think that I think that it's sufficient to implement the proper condition the assumptions and conditions will be followed to the latter 64 00:24:28.480 --> 00:24:45.120 that becomes a compliance issue. >> Does anybody else have any questions, comments? >> Anybody like to make a motion >> to approve? >> I motion to approve. >> I 65 00:24:45.120 --> 00:25:02.720 was just on that motion just that you're considering all the factors and including the conditions as recommended. >> Okay. >> Conditions. >> Yeah. Um, >> is that is that what the motion? I'm sorry. Just clarify the motion. >> Yeah. Let's see here. 66 00:25:02.720 --> 00:25:22.320 >> Okay. I have motion to approve case number COA26-00007 >> with the condition of elevation two. Was it >> alternate? >> Alternate. >> Yes. Two >> condition >> as well as the conditions recommended >> as well as >> Yeah. And then make sure you name the 67 00:25:22.320 --> 00:25:40.240 rest of the ones. recommended. >> I'm sorry. >> The two conditions at the end of the staff uh report conditions one and two. >> All right. >> No, that's not Let me see. I'm sorry. Give me a second. 68 00:25:40.240 --> 00:25:58.400 >> Pages five and six. Pages five and six. Re conditions are one and two on pages five and six. So, you want to do based on these two. >> Okay. These two here. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And the recommendations um 69 00:25:58.400 --> 00:26:13.520 for staff uh one and two >> conditions one and two. >> One and two. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. Just to clarify motion is for approval uh with adopting the conditions as recommended. >> And for and for the alternate elevation 70 00:26:13.520 --> 00:26:30.480 number two as the revation. >> That's the motion. Right. For a second. >> Sorry about that. >> Perfect. >> I will second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Great. Okay. 71 00:26:30.480 --> 00:26:46.720 You're good. Um, okay. So, moving on. Do we'll go around and I'm sorry I'm going to be horrible with names. Um, with Carmen, did you have any questions or comments? 72 00:26:46.720 --> 00:27:01.840 >> Not Not at all. Not today. >> Not today. Okay. >> No. Um, nothing really. We we can work on in workshop. We can go over stuff. >> Okay. >> Um, >> uh, real fast. Um, I I know I heard, you 73 00:27:01.840 --> 00:27:18.000 know, the workshop will be, of course, it was going to come up, but about the building that is being proposed for next door. Um, what is that what is that workshop going to actually be exactly, I guess, is what I'm trying to find out. 74 00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:34.799 So, I believe the recre is for I'm sorry, Tisha Manny, deputy community development director for community direct um community development. Um so, the workshop date is June 23rd if I'm not mistaken. And you will be receiving a presentation at that workshop. 75 00:27:34.799 --> 00:27:50.159 >> Okay. >> On the um potential development. >> Okay. And then um it will still I want to ask now, it will still come before the board when that time comes since it will be in the historic district. I do believe so. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. That was my question. Should 76 00:27:50.159 --> 00:28:03.840 I answer? >> No, nothing for me. >> You answered my questions. That's what I had. So, we're good. >> You covered the question. >> Perfect. Okay. Um, if there is no other further questions, we don't have anybody 77 00:28:03.840 --> 00:28:22.880 left in our audience here. Um, I um >> anyone Oh, >> motion for >> Thank you. Motion for adjournment. And do we need to second that? >> Motion. Give a motion. Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. 78 00:28:22.880 --> 00:28:27.960 >> I. All right, that is it.