A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the board’s ongoing debate about adopting a historic color palette for the city, a topic that had stalled discussions for several months. The proposal to adopt the St. Augustine color palette gained traction, with members recognizing the need to align it with Palatka’s unique architectural history. A member emphasized the necessity of a reference point, remarking, “I be I’m happy that we’re going to ha hopefully have something that we can refer to.” The consensus was that while the board could recommend a color palette, it could not mandate compliance, requiring a text amendment to the city code and two public hearings before the city commission.

During public comments, a participant highlighted the existence of pre-Civil War buildings in the North and South Historic Districts, such as the Bronson House and St. Mark’s Church. This spurred further debate about the historical significance of these structures and the implications for the proposed color restrictions. Members considered whether to specifically mention structures from before 1821 in the motion, but opinions varied, with some opting for a more flexible approach.

The procedural aspect of implementing the color palette was also discussed. Members acknowledged the need for collaboration with city staff to draft appropriate text amendments based on the extensive research that had informed the St. Augustine palette. Ultimately, a motion to recommend adopting the St. Augustine color palette was seconded, allowing for further discussion. General approval of the palette marked a step forward in the board’s efforts to establish coherent aesthetic guidelines for Palatka’s historic districts.

In parallel with the color palette discussions, the board tackled compliance issues associated with COAs and the responsibilities of property owners within historic districts. A member highlighted non-compliance instances, particularly noting an unpainted iron fence in the South Historic District. This prompted a broader conversation about enforcement and the need for a follow-up mechanism to ensure property owners adhere to board decisions without immediately resorting to code enforcement actions.

A representative from code compliance outlined a new approach, transitioning from enforcement to a more cooperative compliance model. This included a “friendly reminder” system allowing property owners a 15-day period to address issues before a violation notice is issued. The department’s current case load exceeded 200, necessitating a prioritization of health and safety issues first, as resources were limited.

The board also considered the introduction of a formal follow-up request for COA applicants to report on their progress after a specified period. This idea was proposed as a way to monitor compliance without overstepping the board’s authority, prompting suggestions to consult with the city attorney to ensure legality.

As part of their ongoing agenda, the board reviewed a contentious after-the-fact request for a certificate of appropriateness for modifications on North 3rd Street. The property owners had replaced a window with a sliding glass door due to water leakage, raising questions about historical integrity. The debate centered on whether the door was appropriate for the home’s period aesthetic. A board member motioned to deny the sliding glass door, preferring a return to a window or an installation of period-appropriate French doors as a compromise. The motion to deny was passed.

Additional applications for property modifications were reviewed, including a deck installation at the same address, which was approved, and a black steel rod iron fence proposal on Kirkland Street, which also received unanimous approval.