At the heart of the meeting was the presentation of proposed changes to the city’s architectural design standards, specifically for Mediterranean-style buildings. The changes are designed to refine the criteria for awarding a Mediterranean bonus, which currently allows for additional height and stories in building designs that meet specific requirements. The Board of Architects supported the introduction of more detailed language regarding ground floor design, rear access, sustainability, and open space. Moreover, the new standards would encompass three levels of criteria for the Mediterranean architectural bonus, with the highest level necessitating the fulfillment of four additional requirements.

The discussions evidenced a deep concern over the subjectivity of the criteria and the degree of discretion afforded to the Board of Architects in granting the Mediterranean bonus. Commissioners contemplated the implications of this discretion, especially regarding the potential arbitrariness in the approval process and the City Commission’s role in overseeing the decisions made by the Board of Architects. Deliberation also extended to the conditional use process, the impact of development on traffic, and the broader considerations that transcend design when evaluating projects.

Further, the commission tackled the appointment process for the Board of Architects, with particular focus on the city manager’s power to appoint board members. Concerns were raised about the sway this power could have over the city’s developmental trajectory. The qualifications of architects serving on the board and the necessity for them to maintain high standards in historical and classical building styles were also points of contention. Speakers at the meeting emphasized the importance of the Board of Architects in upholding the historical architectural details and proportions that contribute to the city’s unique landscape.

The conversation extended to the importance of involving the community and the Board of Architects early in the development process. A speaker highlighted a case where a project, initially rejected, was successfully redesigned through collaboration with the community and the developer. The commission debated the timing and methods of notification to the community, with suggestions ranging from improving the visibility of signage to employing technology such as QR codes and a city-controlled website for project information.

The commission also addressed a building project that had been previously denied due to concerns over compatibility and excessive height. Upon its return with a revised, scaled-down design, the project was met with the commission’s satisfaction. However, this led to a broader debate on the necessity and timing of public input at conceptual meetings and the Mediterranean bonuses for architectural designs.

In terms of improving communications with residents regarding development projects, there was a spirited dialogue on the effectiveness of the current notification methods. The visibility of small signs, the potential use of larger signs, and alternative methods like WhatsApp or neighborhood ambassadors were discussed. A resident brought attention to a loophole in the code that permitted certain developments to bypass notification to affected residents and skip review by the Planning and Zoning Board or the Commission, prompting the commission to acknowledge and consider the issue.

The commission ultimately tackled a proposed text amendment concerning the use of door hangers as an additional method of notification for public information meetings regarding multifamily and mixed-use projects. The effectiveness and practicality of door hangers were debated, leading to a motion to deny the resolution, which passed with a majority vote, save for one dissenting vote.