e e e e e e e e e call to order um for today's meeting April 3rd historic preservation board
please all rise for the pledge of [Music] allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God
liberty and justice Madam clerk roll call please member young here member Hurley here member dashel here Vice chair Hawkin Smith here chair Larry here we have a COR okay first uh we have on the
meeting the approval of the agenda does anyone have anything they want to add to today's meeting um I have two additions for discussion item um one being um public fundraising
for City owned historic resources or historic designated properties and what those policies and procedures are for that and the other is um kind of a followup and clarification on the utility and communication polls that we discussed in December
um for the historic district but also how they're um being installed throughout the rest of the city too okay so we'll put those down as discussion items 5 C and 5D and then also an update from the
museum okay that will make that 5e anybody else have anything they like to add chair if staff could add an information item regarding a lot combination for 2103 and 2105 golfway
that's what what' you say 21105 and 211103 gol way correct and should we do that a after the discussion does that make sense I suppose or yes okay so we'll make that I guess information item already is one 6B okay got
it okay anyone else I'd like to just talk about the waving of the sod bonds so if that could be perhaps F 5 F and what is that again the waving of the sod bonds for people
that have to do the I thought it was going to be an acronym for something I didn't know so we're talking about you're talking about soing when they demolation right yes okay we'll make that 5f okay um well let's move forward then
um well excuse me this time then I make a motion motion that we go ahead and approve uh the approval of the agenda second Madam clerk roll call please member Hurley yes member desel yes member young yes Vice chair Hawkin Smith
yes chair lry yes motion carries all right next is uh item three approval of minutes um has anyone had an opportunity to read March 6 historical preservation board meeting me minutes I have and I'll approve I think
do we need to do audience comments first oh yeah not that we're trying to shut anybody out this is an opportunity for yall to make comments uh about anything that you'd like to make a comment about however if you're here to talk about something that's specifically on the
agenda you can write wait and make that comment at that time so this is just kind of a general comment uh thing so does anybody have a comment they'd like to make before we start the rest of the meeting okay so as I said if it's you're here for certain things on the agenda
you can make your comments at that time when we do that though you need to make sure when you approach you give your name and and address before you speak all right okay so let's go to the minutes I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for the March 6 2025 historic preservation board meeting all right
I'll second that motion Madam clerk roll call member young yes member Hurley yes member desel yes Vice chair Hawkin Smith yes CH lari yes motion carries all right so moving on to item four action items
um I guess we should at this point I'm going to have those people who intend on speaking at some point to raise uh to be sworn in by Madam clerk at this time so if anybody intends on speaking you just need to we need to get you sworn in
anyone who will be speaking to the board or making a presentation needs to be sworn in please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm affirm that the information that you are about to give or present to the board is truthful yes so one
okay um first action item is election of officers for 2025 to 2026 uh we're here to elect a chair and vice chair for a one- term oneyear term uh does anybody have any motions or
discussions about what we want to do on that I do I would like to make a motion that we opt to maintain our current appointments if our current appointments will accept and by that appointments you're
referring to me being the chairman and Miss hackins Smith being the current Vice chair or vice chair is that correct okay anybody have a second i' second that motion all right Madame clerk roll call please yes yes
yes yes yes yes okay now we'll go to 4B action item which is the local historic designation case number 2497 of the residence located at 410
87th Avenue who's President who's Lynn please good afternoon Lyn Rosetti uh contract plan for the city of St Pete Beach okay this is the local historic designation of property at 410 87th
Avenue this um single family structure was constructed in 1956 and I have uh handed out to you revised Florida Master sight file form that I did I had the wrong date in there but I have
submitted it to the Florida Master site file so they are going to have to edit it for me but I just wanted to bring that up that the correct date is 1956 um North the North Beach area actually is an area of the city that was
the primary single family residential neighborhood of St Petersburg Beach prior to the consolidation in 1957 I believe um
so this house is mid-century in nature that whole neighborhood I've I have undertaken a windshield survey of that neighborhood I and I believe I told you that I have submitted a Grant
application for this whole area to be granted a historic survey Grant and that is pending now I believe I told you that it scored very well and we will know by around the 1st of July if that
is going to be funded as well but in the meantime we encountered or our buildings encountered Helen and Milton which did a some damage to properties in the North Beach area this
particular property was an excellent condition prior to it being flooded and those two hurricanes ripping up its roof the property owner is extremely interested in keeping her property the
character that it was when she bought it and is um you know very interested in keeping the mid-century feel and she said well can we apply for a district you know can we apply for an um a local historic design ation and the way that
we would do that would be by by doing a Florida Master site form sending that off to the state and um you know my I made a determination that should that area be considered a historic district that that would be a contributing
property we have let's see so we've got some photographs of the house and this was a photograph that was taken in 2014 2022 now
2025 you know you can see where the water uh discolored the brick and then the tarp on the roof the house did get flooded inside to some degree and um so there are damages
inside the house that also need to be repaired staff is supporting this application to locally designate 410 87th Avenue as a historic property we find that the building is significant in the following areas it reflects the broad cultural
economic and social history of the north beach neighborhood and St Pete Beach and it's reflective of the north beach and St Pete Beach's Community Planning and Development efforts we are recommending a motion to approve case number
2497 for local historic designation of the single family of this single family structure at 410 87th Avenue thank you I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have okay thank you thank you m Rosetti anyone have questions from M
Rosetti thank you okay is anybody here to speak on behalf of this application okay anybody have any discussion about this our first designation and that District yes yes
okay well with that uh I would make a motion to approve case number 249 2497 410 87th Avenue for local historic designation I'll second Madam clerk roll
call please member young yes member Hurley yes member dasel yes Vice chair Hawkin Smith yes chair lari yes motion carries okay now we're going to 4C local historic designation for case number
25028 uh 1031 18th Avenue Mr uh Martinez you have a presentation okay good afternoon Mr chair board members um this is case number 25028 it is an application submitted by
Carolyn cadell for the passag grill Shores Condominium and its Associated owners um it is for local historic designation for the condominium situated at 1031 18th AV in passag gril neighborhood here are some very early
promotional um documents as well as um renderings and um layout of of the structure going back to 1954 I believe um it was originally apartments and then it became condominium ised and here's
some historic pictures of property as well as some of people that resided in their building even the cat lady apparently okay photos of the property at 1999 as
well as 2015 and here are some current shots of the property in 2025 staff supports this application for local historic designation of 1031 18th Avenue as a historic building staff finds that the building is significant
in that it follows and embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style and period and imp exemplifies and reflects the broad cultural and political economic and social history of the city in the pass gr neighborhood staff recommends approval
of the local historic designation of the four unit structure at 1038 AV case number 25028 I here to take any questions you may have and I believe maybe the applicant is here as well con certain anyone have any questions for
Miss Martinez okay anybody like to speak on this application Miss could you please state your name and address for the record please yes I'm Caroline cadell 1031 18th Avenue Pastor girl St b beach um I'm
here with my co-owners Jan Woodruff Bill Rice and Charles Bishop we we represent each of the units although not every person who is an owner could be here today and Jan by the way is a descendant of the cat lady so
it's wash my mouth there not to ask her we all want to express our appreciation for your consideration of our request we really appreciate your time the interior of this building has been updated but the only two changes that have ever been
made to the exterior are the windows and the addition of a second floor screen porch in the back of the building exactly on top of the original screen porch so the footprint is the same um we think the building has very good bones
we've taken good care of of it and um we hope it's going to be around for a long time two of the units in the building have never been sold the other two have been purchased by the people who own the other two so the building has been sort of in the family since um 1952 when the
four couples who rented the building decided to purchase it together so um we have a lot of memories and um activities there our children our grandchildren nieces and nephews and we're headed toward the fourth generation of
ownership um possibly quickly because we're kind of historic ourselves but um in any event we um are looking forward to we know passive grill is changing um we're looking forward to at least um securing the future of this structure um
on 18th Avenue happy to answer any questions as my co-owners will be as well right well I like to say I love the building that really makes a difference I never knew it was called the Marco I do like that that you actually found the original
plans and I find it really commendable that the idea that people that first rented wound up building it I mean not buying it I mean just shows how much they obviously love P Grill which is a great thing and I would assume there must be some photo albums out there that
have some great old pictures besides of the cat lady so make sure you get those to someone who can preserve those if if they survived the flood cuz I know the uh Museum was always looking for that kind of stuff as well as other people and I also just to comment love
the I've seen these postcards of uh I guess it was the Cameo at the time but it shows your place but also shows it before they had the pool and then after they got the pool which is pretty good um anybody have any questions of
Miss cadell or anyone else I I think the cadel family is going to be noted master curators in St Pete Beach you each own a historic property so that's very nice actually there's three there are three cuz Mel yeah that's probably it yeah and you
know along that line I just was able to uh one of my neighbors has an extensive collection of photographs and or postcards and pamphlets and stuff like that and there's one really great one
that it's not dated but because they mentioned who the governor is I looked up that Governor it's from 19 so somewhere between 1929 and 1933 but it's a really great pamphlet talking about Pastor Grill and the community you know
back then has a bunch of home pictures I got to I'll make copies and bring in it but also one of the homes they have that they just show they don't have an address is is uh your brother's house oh yeah yeah so that thought even back then it was kind of historic you know so it's pretty neat great so I'll get some
copies of that stuff to you folks but it's really interesting and when we I'm going to mention this when we do our our guide book that has a lot of of interesting stuff that we could add to the preface of and that kind of thing but all right very good okay anybody
else have any questions um I think too this would probably qualify if we end up doing a group designation like we talked about at one timein um for properties that have things in common the Builder of this property also built the Cameo
Camelot and a number of other buildings around pass the grill that are still standing and a few of which have local designation too so it's really nice to have it in the collection yeah and this it just made me think of something too because these are
individual Condominiums and I know they're all all four we're talking about now and they're all within the same group uh let's just hope you all stay together you know from the standpoint that uh I mean there's a reason not to but I suppose down the line somebody could decide that they don't want to be
historic not that makes a difference really you can always say that so all right does anybody have a motion yeah I'd like to make a motion um I'd like to make a motion that local historic designation for case number
25028 number I'm sorry 103 18th Avenue be granted I'll second that I'll second that motion yeah Madam clerk roll call please member dasel yes member Hurley yes member young yes Vice chair Hawkins
Smith yes chair Lowry yes motion carries all right thank you folks okay 4 d certificate of appropriateness for demolition demolition case number 25036 for the residen at 207
Gulfway random pull the power please this is certificate of appropriateness case number 25036 for 207 Gulf Way the applicant Sarah Sullivan of dhm construction Services is present for Philip Gardner the owner the
applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the contributing single family structure so you can see here are some photographs of the outside of the structure 2015 on the left 2025 on the right this is of course the third of the
trio that were constructed in similar form back in the late 40s I believe um you've seen the other two over the past couple of months the one to the north was placed on the local historic registry the one of the South is uh proposed for Demolition and you can see here some
interior photos um as always these demolition requests cannot be denied but they can be stayed for up to 30 days however in this case uh staff finds that the applicant has supported um demolition request without need for delay the
structure was found by the city to have sustained substantial damage the lot is capable of supp reporting a replacement single family residents during Reconstruction it won't deprive them of the existing use of the property and uh the damage from the storms has been documented it is evident to
staff so because of that we request a motion to approve case number 2536 for demolition of the residents at 27 Gulf way and that would be without a stay on demolition okay anyone have any questions for Mr
Barry right ises anybody in the audience want to speak on this application okay anyone have a motion I'll make a motion to approve case number one away second yeah it's uh
25036 yeah 207 golfway okay 25036 um the demolition of the property and wave the 30-day stay that's a 207 Gulf way I'll second that motion Madam clerk
roll call please member young yes member Hurley yes member desel yes Vice chair Hawkin Smith yes chair Larry yes motion carries okay moving along for E
certificate of appropriateness for the Dem for demolition case number 25037 for I think this is a this is a duplex at 108 20th Avenue that's correct correct Mr uh Barry please could pull the
PowerPoint so as mentioned this is case number 25037 for 108 20th Avenue the soas are the owners and also the applicant for this request they're requesting a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the contributing single family residence and apartment out building at the subject
property here's some photographs we actually had a photo of this property from 1936 that was included with it property card and there was a historic resources survey that the then board performed back in 1996 you can see that on the right as well it has
been picked up in all of our historic resource surveys you can see here in 2015 this was when the most recent survey that the city completed it was retained on the historic uh survey of
properties you can see here 2025 post hurricane photo there was fairly extensive damage to the structure that was also documented on the inside um this one would be eligible for a 30-day stay staff does not find justification
for a 30-day stay However the applicant has made partial application to develop a new residence on the site this will be brought backd you for design review that is the um request under which it was made uh the the applicant does have the
ability to retain the two units on the property that is a special provision in passer Grill that's not allowed elsewhere in our city however the structure that was submitted for design review initially was larger than the combined living space of the two existing structures on the property uh
the city does limit under the current code as well as a proposal um that we're bringing forward to the city commission for amendments the requirement is to limit the living square footage to the existing developed living square footage we will for existing for sorry
additional non-habitable space like storage parking and so on but there would be the limitation retained for the living space uh compared with what is on the property today I believe the applicant has submitted more recent plans I haven't had the chance to look at them but I just wanted them to
acknowledge that that limitation um moving forward prior to demolition however if that adequate testimony and acceptance is provided I do request that this case be approved for demolition of the contributing structures at 108 20th Avenue without the 30-day
stay okay I have a I have a I think I just need some clarification so I know it's a duplex now or it's two units right correct and if they and if they tear it down duplex for say Walter so Jun I'm the owner of
the property and what it is it's a single family dwelling about 1,800 Square fet with a guest Cottage that sits in the back okay that is connected to each other this has been is it one building two buildings three it's got a
common roof line with a carport between the house and the guest Cottage with the guest Cottage being about 525 square feet okay can I go ahead and you know because this is new to me what I just heard from the city staff right that's
what I was going to question about questioning my integration of the guest Cottage into the property single family dwelling I get that was what I you I am not going through variances okay hold on I think you this board can be fair to me
I can be fair to the city okay if you just wait a minute and let us talk then we can talk about whether we've been unfair or fair to you okay let me go ahead and tell you can I okay let me say as as a as a point of order before you get to talk we get to ask himim questions okay okay so that's I don't mean to be rude so I was going I I'm
sorry I attend these meetings I understand I was going to ask Mr Barry about that very issue that this gentleman wants to bring up so I know that if it's a a situation I know they can't if they
want to rebuild it as two units then they're limited to the footprint but if they wanted to build a single family residence are they still limited to the footprint no no they would not be the same as any other design review now this again was based on the initial submitt
of Flor plans I believe more recent submitt might have been sent in I have not had a chance to look those yet but they are delineated units within the same building so we would consider that to be a two un structure there needs to be complete internal circulation throughout a structure for there for it
to be considered one unit and there was a division between the two units so if it that the structure can be made larger under reconstruction but the two units would not be able to be retained right that's that I I thought that was kind of where we're were at but I want make sure it's the case and that may not clarifi
anything to you right there but it did to me a little bit so go ahead sir please I think the beach the city of St Pete Beach issued a damage determination letter dated 11:21 that provides two solutions
compatible with saving this building one repair and Elevate the existing building which includes a Cottage carport connecting the two to the single family house or number two
abandon the lower level leave it right there and build on top of it isn't that a great alternative I was trying to save this house until I got into the numbers and here are the numbers the national flood insurance
program adjuster has determined the estimated cost to repair the current structure is $273,200 the pelis County property appraiser estimates the pre-storm fair market value of the building to be
$179,450 per of the adjusted pre-storm market value of the building which in my case was 10 15,552 got to get from 105 to 272 or 73 for repairs
but with a repair cost of 273,000 in repairs it can only be defined as a total economic loss adding an elevation cost of 264,000 to the repair cost yields an overall
cost to get it up to $537,475 which only compounds the loss situation exacerbates the economic loss the application for certificate of appropriateness for demolition ask two
questions one is the building capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value and two this perpetuation of the building considering its physical condition its location and anticipated expensive
Rehabilitation economically feasible with pre-storm fair market value of 179,0 411 and minimum repair and elevation cost of 537,500 market value of building would likely
increase and would it increase however the will building would still be have one be built in 1926 the original building was built in 1926 the 1800 square feet and the cottage was built in about 1950 51 for
500 ft it was built to undeterminable living standards or building standards at the time this 99y old beach cottage built for a winter month getaways constructed at a time with unknown building standards
situated in an environment that is susceptible to hurricanes of increasing magnitude all of which does not pretend to Rehabilitation being economically feasible we have submitted new reconstruction plans for design review
and I believe there will be a next meeting if you know we review those whatever but these plans were developed to be a simple and basic 1926 looking
but at a level of 12T above base flood elevation I can't come down less than 12 feet any recommendations to me from the board on the plants would be greatly appreciated I'm open for questions okay
well let me ask you this first are you aware that you could try to have your home designated historic and then get a FEMA variance and repair it get it designated what historic historic these
folks were in here a minute ago they were getting okay I no I am not aware of that and I would not choose to do that okay because if that would I have lived with this building for 25 years I have been here since 1998 okay I have crawled the crawl space
underneath the main house every year for 20 years I stopped crawling about five when I got here in 1998 I went under that CW space and it was nothing but a Labyrinth of 2x4s
4x4s I'm the third owner okay the second owner was was an ingenious little guy who kept this thing up all right okay I tore it all out we got an engineer in there and we releveled the whole building and we put in new struts that
would take water and what have you but we looked at elevating then and the answer was we don't know what's going to be there when we get there right so now maybe elevation science has come a long way in the last 25 years but I'm of the
belief that it's not worth ele to begin with okay because of the structures building materials and that type of thing that wasn't that wasn't what I was asking okay are I think are you you could your house the way it sits right now
okay if it was historically designated which you probably qualify for I'm sure you do because it's over 50 can I finish first well you can but again I didn't get involved in it I didn't know about it until like maybe a month ago okay I'm just trying to make sure I'm just trying
to make sure that you know all the things that are alternatives you have okay one of the Alternatives you have which you didn't mention you just mentioned either you have to elevate it or tear it down there's another alternative which is if you get historically designated then after that
you can apply for a FEMA variance because your house is now historic and you can repair your house even though it's more than 50% so you could re you could repair your house as it is right by taking those steps if you don't want
to that's fine I just want we love old houses we'd love to keep all of them that we can and so I want to make sure that you know that that's an option you have if you've decided it's too big of a hassle or it's better off just being knocked down and something new that's
built that's fine that's your decision okay and so I'm just telling you or mentioning to you that you do have another Al okay now that I know it I didn't know it I didn't miss anything because okay I do
not want to go through this again go through what again go through a storm or go through having to come in here again going through the storm and doing whatever to recover from the storm okay well here's the way I spent 25 years in the Navy and when we came on the
situation or problem we either fixed it or walked away one of two things okay well I'm giving you an opportunity an alternative there's an alternative to fix it that you apparently aren't aware of if you want to do that no I don't okay so you it'll still be at elevation
3T yes correct no okay so as long as you don't want okay now we go to the next issue and that's fine now now that I feel we're all comfortable that you know that you don't want to you want to demolish your house that's fine the other issue that Mr Barry was talking
about is and this is not something we have a choice about if you decide to build elevate it and build a new stru rure okay and if you plan on making it two units again okay then you're limited to the
footprint that it is now Al albe it up in the air all right so you can't make it any bigger if you want to knock it let me finish if you want to knock it down and build one residential home you can bu you can build it
bigger I want the same thing as I got now at 12 feet okay so so you understand the plan say you know it's best we could do it might be plus or minus 25 Square fet I don't you know well that's the issue that we are handcuffed by is that
you can't build it any bigger if you I want to go through the variance issues I'm trying to live within the construction I get that I get that here's the thing for us to Grant you the demolition permit which we would we would do you have to acknowledge you
understand you can't make it a bigger any square the square footage can't be any bigger okay because what we don't want is somebody knock their house down and then say oh I was going to build this bigger house and now you tell me I can't do it so up front we have to tell you if you're using it as two units you
have to maintain the original square footage a lot of people don't want to do that because the property is very valuable and they want to build a bigger place I want the square footage and I believe these plans represent that I don't know I don't review the plans I
think there I think there was a you gotten them already but apparently well no we'll we'll be bringing that forward like you mention next month for design review that'll be for me cor correct that but I'm we're commenting on this now for the reason the chair just brought up I I don't want to create a
situation where yourself or others that have come to this board in the past demolish their homes without understanding that there may be limitations now the footprint I believe is the same I have not looked at the revised design plans but part of the footprint of the home currently is the
carport between the cottage and the main residence that is not currently considered living space it looks like in the current the plans that are proposed you would be enclosing that and making it living space so that would be an increase in living space the footprint
of the building would be the same but you would be enclosing that area so because of that that would not be in alignment with the code and as you mentioned you you would need to go for a very Varian for that if that's something you were looking to do if you were to keep the living square footage the same
you would not face that limitation and you would be able to move forward with it administratively well the setbacks issue has come back and forth back and forth if we live in rlm2 or rlm2 whatever that is it's 20 Front 20 back it that's not
the setb back's not an issue right now it is because what he is saying that I am converting carport space to living space and I am not okay so let me let me ask me ask this question within the setbacks of the historic district 10 ft in the front 15
ft in the back five and five okay square footage comes up to be 23 2400 somewhere in there okay do you have a second floor over the carport will you build a second floor over the carport you're not going to have a two-story carport are you the
carport is going to end up being parking space underneath the building okay is there going to be anything above the carport yes is that going to be enclosed the part that's yes and then you've increased your square footage because now you've added living space
between the two structures the thing is you're you're taking current living space within certain setbacks that are not 10 and 15 feet okay they are like five and we are my the front of my house is on the sidewalk sir I'm not I'm not
here to argue about setbacks okay I mean well I'm not either but we're talking about living square footage area and I'm saying it's the same as there now if you take the cottage exclude the cport add the living square footage to the area of the house it equals the new
building within the current setbacks what more do you people want from us well first off when you say you people I haven't even looked at your plans okay we're just trying to help you out up here as best I could you know I I I get that I get that but I'm trying to make sure without being argumentative that
you understand everything that we're getting ready to do and Mr Barry who we've done many many many things with you're not the first person must me a couple of times now we have gone back and forth and do you understand what I'm saying to you when I say take the
current square footage living area between the cottage and the house move it into the setbacks that are currently in pass gr is is that the same it it it's the same but the plans and again there are revised
plans I I have not looked at those yet the original plans that I looked at briefly it showed a living square footage greater than what the property is built into the rear setback I I understand what you're I understand what you're saying okay I understand what you're saying I just want and and that's
fine I just want to make sure that you understand that if we award you this demolition permit which we are PR bound to do that there are some limitations that we can't control that he's brought up
you seem to understand and and rectify those issues and if that's okay that's fine what we don't want is after you've knocked your house down to come back and say I didn't know that that was going to happen understood Mr Barry do you feel that his testimony is what he said
satisfies what we need to move forward with this I do okay all right thank you all right so with that I will make a motion to Grant the certificate of appropriateness for demolition case number
25037 for the residents of 108 20th Avenue I'll second Madam uh clerk roll call please member young yes member Hurley yes member dasel yes Vice chair Hawkin Smith yes chair lry yes motion
carries and also sorry I should have put this in the motion and we will be waving the 30-day notice you want me to redo that motion so it says it now okay so would want to second that with the 30-day waiver I'll second that all right Madam clerk a roll call again please
okay member Hurley yes member young yes member dasel yes Vice chair Hawkins Smith yes chair Larry yes motion carries okay you're good to go thank you sir you're welcome okay now we're at four I'm sorry
did we do the 30 days notice on this one we waved it one before we waved it I believe was that in part of the motion it wasn't the other one okay thank you okay I did say it yeah I couldn't remember either good thank you okay four uh f is the recommendation of
ordinance 20 25-8 to the city commission Mr Barry yes we pull the PowerPoint again this is a continued on item from the last meeting this is related to the
amendments to the crd 8th Avenue if I can get to it where am I here sorry about that so this is particularly only ordinance 20258 20257 has been
recommended to the city commission I plan to take that to the planning board next next month for formal Rec well actually it's this month now in April for formal recommendation uh that we'll be moving forward we did meet with our design consultant just a few days ago and
anticipate that we'll be working on the design guide book fairly soon so I'll keep you up to date on that as well so the proposed language goes back to the discussion that we had last meeting about the building height and it being out of line with what was originally adopted for the district when
the district was was brought in back in 2013 um what I had drafted was based on the base flood elevation but also giving an exception for those buildings that are eligible to be built at grade um those that need to be elevated would be
eligible for that additional height overrun um subject to a step back I went back and I looked at what was in place when the overlay or sorry when the crd a Avenue was adopted back in 2013 and the city at the time used its definition of height a term called required flood
elevation that's not a defined term it's not a term that the building code uses it's not anywhere in the city's flood ordinance it's also not a term that's used by FEMA so what I went back and forth with the flood plan manager about was how to revert back to that based on
what I believe the intent was preserving that intent where we're not just using the base flood elevation for every structure but going with what is required for the elevation of a structure um that's to prevent the loophole where someone is eligible to build a mixed use or a standalone C
office building at grade and they're then eligible because the base flood elevation on the E side for example is 7 to 8 feet above the ground it gives them the ability to build a structure that's 7 to8 feet taller than it was originally intended however we do want to preserve
what was in place back in 2013 with that required flood elevation um what I believe to be the intent with that and that's for those structures that are required to be elevated to the base flood or above the base flood elevation that's in in the crd 8th Avenue that is
particularly temporary lodging facilities that do not have any ground floor commercial development those cannot be flood proofed they do need to be elevated so we do need to provide for those based on what was in place back in 2013 I had discussed that with the city
attorney's office in the past and I did reviewed them that with them again um the in the past month so what I came up with as a proposal is that that section 40.8 will address Building height and height shall not exceed 35 ft above the required lowest floor elevation of the
structure lowest floor elevation is a defined term that's used in the building code it's also something that is used um by fan and defined by FEMA when this results in a structure greater than 35 ft in height measured from grade a minimum step back of 10 ft on each side
of that floor over 35 ft above grade shall be provided let me sorry to interrupt just so you're right on that but so 10 foot setback North southeast west you're talking about that would be from the frontage from the frontage okay go ahead sorry so
the required lowest floor elevation that is the lowest in habitable floor can be built and still be compliant with flood plane management regulations so that would be for any commercial structure any mixed use structure any Standalone commercial or office that would
generally be at grade along 8th Avenue so it can be built at grade the measurement is taken from grade it replaces that former language that was in the code back when the crd 8th Avenue was developed um that was required flood
elevation again that is an undefined term there's nothing we can really tie that back to but I believe the expectation back then was that it be the lowest uh required lowest floor elevation so again just to iterate
properties that can be flood proofed and left at gray those are commercial office mix use developments must be 35 ft tall as measured from grade those properties that have the lowest level elevated must step back the story above 35 ft by 10 ft so again they would still be limited to
the base flood elevation for that one single use on 8th Avenue that is required to be elevated above the designed flood elevation but when they have that they must step back the story above 35 ft should that um third be um
must be no more than 35 feet tall yeah the second bullet you mean uh the third well both them yes the second both of them should be I mean it's basically saying you have to build a 35 ft must be no tall must be no taller I'm I'm sorry about that yes
no no taller than 35 ft in both cases I have a Clarity question sure so we're building in the middle of the block they've got roughly a 4 foot above uh above uh flood based on
elevation we're not going to hand them another elevated FL flood proofed area and then put 35 ft on top of it you're covered that now no this would be for for anyone who chooses to have a commercial office
Standalone or with a mixed use if they're eligible to build at grade we would start that measurement at grade so it would be 35 ft measured from grade as I have another question to out there along that line mhm so we are limiting
our total height at 35 ft yes um we are giving away the required flood elevation but that's based on sea level not on grade correct yes if they want to flood proof the bottom floor and do something
commercially they can but they're only going to have one floor above them rough roughly to do uh development or are we tacking on extra footage I'm trying to be sure that we've managed to close that loophole so for someone who
chooses to build at grade and flood prooof their structure their required lowest floor elevation is is at grade wherever that might be I I have a map on the next slide that I'll show that send it down to us and um so that they would be measuring 35 ft from grade to the top
of that structure that would be the maximum height so that would be you know possibly two stories over the commercial level but but they would be limited to 35 ft 35 ft is still our maximum height no matter how we slice it correct unless we're talking about a lodging scenario
yeah right so and it would still be 35 ft for lodging but that would be measured from the required lowest floor elevation which would be from design flood so if you were to see a development on the east side I'll move on to that slide um
you can see that the elevation changes from roughly 3 to 3 and 1 12 on pass way it goes up to approximately 5 and 1/2 to 6 ft along Gulfway um on the West and East sides of
the block the elevation is roughly the same relative to na ab88 it's 10 feet Coastal in the center is 9 ft non- Coastal so you would see a lodging facility specifically on
the east side elevated slightly higher than a lodging facility on the West Side proposed that there were new development but when you're measuring from grade if you have a mixed use development standing at grade measuring from grade it's going to be the exact same height on the east side as it is in the center
as it is on the west side so it would be 35 ft okay so my question okay good and and so this what you just showed us a minute ago with the intent the the three bullet points and stuff there the last slide that's now added to the ordinance is that correct correct and I was I had
concerns about rting back to the term that we used in 2015 because it's undefined there's nothing we can tie that to but required lowest floor elevation is something that's defined in the the flood regulation so we we know what that means and there won't be any interpretation questions moving forward
okay and can can you what section is that intent that you're just talking about in 40 40 what this is 40.8 for the building height we took out it had been in a different section we did remove all
those references 40.8 is now where height is measured along I get that but this the part where you have intent so is that in the ordinance this this is in division two of the Land Development code there isn't a unique height definition for the crd eth Avenue
so it reverts back to the general Land Development code definition that had been the definition in place prior to 2015 in 2015 we changed it possibly unintentionally for the eth Avenue where everyone measures from base flood height
is always from base flood and that's created the situation where it gives an additional four to seven feet no no I I get that I I I I understand here's my question I I'm with you 100% on what you've been saying okay my my question is if am I'm if I'm a builder in the future and I want to
look at the new ordinances if they go through where do I see where do I read this part about intent shouldn't we include that in section 40 well because because isn't that isn't that specific to the crd where the 35 ft
thing is is is specific no well the this section was drafted to convey everything that I relay on the next slide it it might be helpful to just add it we don't have a definition section but it I could maybe make a reference to required
lowest floor elevation being is defined in the flood plane man well I I think that would help clarify some things but also uh like I said because this that that intent language
or this building house language does it go to any other section besides the crd section 40 no this is specific to the crd so wouldn't it make sense just to be clear just to add that that the the intent Parts you have just add that in the in
4.08 for clarification we can do that and just so the clarification of no more than or not greater than 35 ft yeah doesn't say you have to do 35 ft yeah it's not tall enough please don't retire that's what we're looking for now so um
and so just so I'm clear in my mind because people ask me and I'm you know a lay person uh so for example right now on in the crde EA the only structure
that this would apply that have already built and of course they're under 35 ft anyway but those you know so we don't really have any structures right now that fit this definition as my understanding right and if a new structure was built the only re reason it would be over 35 ft like we talked
about from grade is if it was purely a lodging place not mixed use no commercial aspect Etc okay okay all right anybody have any more questions about this thing or does that clarify everything I think I mean I
understand so that means anything do we need to make a motion on anything if you could make a motion to recommend if if that's your okay uh this is I would make can we make it as simple as make a motion to recommend
the uh change as Mr Barry has prevented as well as as presented as well as the additional items we've just talked about or I need to be more specific about that I I understand what you're looking for me to do so that that's fine me okay anybody want to second that motion I'll
second that motion Madam clerk roll call member young yes member dashel yes member Hurley yes Vice chair Hawkin Smith yes chair Larry yes motion carries thank you Brandon okay so now we're on to
discussion items and discussion item five a is the status of historic city city facilities so just a brief update on this I'll have likely a lot more information for you next month however
we are looking at potentially the 22nd meet uh meeting of the city Commission on the 22nd to take forward the scopes for the Warren Webster the Sunan Art Center as well as the request for demolition of The Bait Shack and the
shuffle board court Clubhouse um we have had gotten approval for repair of the roof at the Warren Webster but there is some additional flooring and drywall work that needs to be done so that would be part of the scope that's taken forward on the 22nd I
believe the reason for that was because we needed to have a full scope for FEMA purposes and reimbursement before we move forward to taxi actually execute the contracts with our company which looks like the request is with cotton Global uh so I know that was discussed
with the city commission last meeting last week and um we should have more information for you on that next next question Brandon were the new terazzo floors and the Warren Webster building damaged based on the cost I I don't
believe so but I can get that information I think the estimate's only around $22,000 so I would expect I've been in there since then for what it's worth they look fine I mean yeah okay um but we and you mentioned we we
already have a demo department on the clubhouse right correct yes it's just it's just formal um authorization for the demolition from the commission where we back the get the funding to do it that type of thing you're talking about I believe it's tied
with reimbursement um we need to have a full scope to submit to FEMA before we actually demolish the buildings and that's what they're working on and then we'll get that authorization on the 22nd and move forward with both and we're going to have some discussions but yeah um all right really good okay then we're out to
5B historic plaque updates so unfortunately we're we're still working with the company um Kristen I'm sorry to calling you but I don't think we we have any more information right good afternoon Christine Coman
senior planner um as far as reaching out to the companies there's a few actually it's odd that they're all based in Pennsylvania for historic plaques um I had reached out to member Hurley but I hadn't received any information you can't remember where the paperwork was I've been looking for it I haven't been
able to lo I was hoping um and I've been like searching our files it might have been in a house that I was helping with so I'm going to go back there next I've been going through my personal files I haven't been able to find what I found but okay well I appreciate any if you come across that you know golden ticket that' be great so you're looking for
paperwork that has to do with people that got plaques before like or just the whole program what it entitled um it had contact information uh and Etc it had a design already in place there was a cast already done Etc all they had to do is change the numbers on it but but was
this something that was done when my uncle when my uncle was on the historic board so it was probably sometime in the early mid 90s I guess my question is there people who have gotten plaques let's say 10 years ago could they possibly have information yeah that's why I'm going back to another house okay well I'll I might know a few people that
have plaques too is what I'm saying if any of the members might have some information that would be great um I've reached out to again a couple people in Pennsylvania that have done historic I tried to reach out to I believe it was eie that may have done the previous one
from what I could kind of filter through our files sounds familiar but nobody's replied um but I definitely am working on it so if anybody has any information please throw it my way I'd appreciate it I'm still looking thank you oh I have a
quick question it says here that plaqu art in the current commission budget do we know how much those plaques are individually I don't know until I have the information I reached out to what I thought would be the original plaque company to get some of that historic information how much we were charging
how much you know of course over time it's going to go up how much it would be in today's um so I don't know depending again on size and if they're if they're customizable that might bump it up a little bit as well okay I recall the letter that I read had to do with it it
was individual homeowners responsibility to purchase it but they told them where to purchase it and how to go about it correct probably right and that's something we could do as well just facilitate that to make sure they have the accurate number all that information for sure although I was thinking that we should just when people want a demo
permit they got to kick money into the plaques a fun I think they'll slap us for S charges we only get $50 right now for a COA for demolition so it's not really going to go far we'll see okay thank you so much all
right uh now we're on to [Music] five see the public fundraising for historic that's all I got wrote down so that was a um discussion item that I wanted to add someone asked me about
there was something circulating about raising money for the Reconstruction of Mary Pier I don't know where that's originating from or who's organizing that or if it's just fluff on the street but um someone asked me to clarify what
the policy is for public fundraising for city-owned property I I also I'm only aware of it at the level of discussion but it's it's something I'm going to address with the city manager's office office and I'll I'll share information when we know
I I've never been involved with soliciting donations for public building so I just don't I don't know what the current policies and procedures are but I I'll speak with her about that and be I'll let you know okay but also I just so I have been involved in that but I have not done that as part of the
historic preservation board and that's why I've even really shared it with some of the some of these people I have on it because it's I don't think it's something that would ever go in front of us I think it's a separate thing but uh I've even met with the city manager and the Public Works people and we're trying to kind of figure out that you know we
kind of need a starting point understand but it's my understanding there has there has been some precedent I know that Mary Pier was put back together in the early 80s by by the public uh so it can be done and it's just a matter of figuring out how you want to do that and
in an abundance of caution because of the sunshine laws I have not been talking to I don't I I really don't I try to project this ahead and think if it's ever an issue the historic board should be involved with and I'm going to say it isn't I think it's a issue the
Commissioners had to be involved with ultimately but uh you know and we might need to get some clarification because of the people on the board here they may have some interest in being involved in that I've kept that mount essentially at this stage but it seems to me it would make some sense that they would have
some interest in that but there's been a number of people in the community that are uh definitely willing to contribute um there's talks of you there's a street party in a month in uh on 8th Avenue that maybe there'd
be some minor fundraising going on there if we have some sort of idea there's a lot of things going on and I all I can tell you is that it's going to be done by the book as far as that goes but I I just don't know we don't really have a starting point yet
so I'm kind of answering your question with in public so with the sun beating on my head so everyone no so I just I know a lot of people are interested in getting some of those resources back up and usable and and viewable again so
just want to make sure everybody can go about it in appropriate ways and appropriately streamed funds and it's not going to come back to and some of the issues have been you know obviously being on this task force I was
a to see a lot of the damage to and the money involved to the properties that the city own and things they have to do their certainly reasonable priorities before they would get to some of these historic sites and I without anyone tell
me this in directly it would be a significant period of time before those things were gotten to and so that's why I think some people in the community have interest in you know and as quick as we can revitalizing you know the Pier for example I think is the most symbolic
thing we have on on on passor grill even though technically it's not I guess it's not historically designated right it's not as a brand I don't believe it is it's not no although it's it's certainly eligible for site designation we got we got a sign and
it's not designated yeah well see here's the problem and that's what I was going since it's kind of brought up I didn't bring up for discussion item but I think I don't know if we've ever at least since I've been on the board actually in a historic site okay and certainly I don't know what the qualifies for that other than
what I know what the word site means and and because the problem with Mary Pier is you're not going to have a pier that's 120 years old it doesn't last that long you're not going to have a building that's 120 years long it doesn't last that long it's been in location per In Perpetual well that's why I think it's a historic site as opposed to the building being
historically designated and so I think we need to uh look into that and I was one of the things I was going to talk to you dependently about just to see um what we'd have to do or who would have to put that together especially if a LLC group or something is formed to try to
get behind uh the community doing this so Lyn pies I don't do those are so my office I believe um photos of the mar here you don't mind well can we let me let me just do this
for a second hold on SEC though I I don't want to be I'm a little reticent that suddenly the we're kind of talking about this as a historic board because I I'm going to want to have the the freedom to talk to folks on the street without having to come through here every time and I'm not saying we're
doing that but I don't know whether we just kind of keep that as a separate issue right now you follow what I'm saying I understand um um what are they this what are they pictures of all pictures of the Mary Pier yes historic pictures of the Mary
Pier One from 1900 where it is to story yeah I and but but see I've always considered the Mary Pier to be a site yes but I don't know if it's officially been designated as a historic site I don't know if the board has ever done that I'm sure that it's been designated
well the reason I say that and this is where we get bleeding into other areas here if we talk about doing redoing the the the bait shop on it one of the ways would to be doing it with a theme of variation because it's a historic site
or historic structure we may not have to take that route and so I would rather have those discussions independently without the board before we start making some decisions about how we might want to go about redoing if the community is going to be involved to redoing that and
and try to keep the board removed from having to make any decisions about it because it's really a community effort and not a board effort you know so I can tell you I have because of one of my neighbors I
have dozens of postcards from 1908 1920 1930 and the Mary Pierce had about four I mean there was it was a two-story Barn it was a ticket booth it was half the size it is now it was doubled uh and so
it's Chang quite a bit due to the the nature of where it is you know so um but it continues yes and so well well it's condemned now we want to get it over so um I will tread lightly as as is
how I do things but uh I'm doing this solely as a citizen of Pastor girl and not as historic board member at this stage okay and I did want to say we do we do have two historic sites and I believe that's the Hurley and pass gril
Park those are both in our Park too where the shuffle Club is the the building the shuel board courts are still there m mhm well so so is the building but um was the park a site though or just the so we have designated
as a site we have a site but we also have individual building on yes gotcha right MH well I don't think the the bait shop I don't believe would that current structure I think was put up there in the early 80s so it's
not even 50 Years yet mhm and just to throw that out you know so um but again designation of the whole site would mean the structure itself would not be that imperative correct so that's something I that's an option we should be looking at we could also take a look at the
language that was submitted to the state for the marker okay historic marker MH it might clarify that interesting I mean I wrote that or most of it so somebody added something that never remained silent as who they
were but uh so um uh it might have been considered a site it may be if you could if you could perhaps look that up I will check with the clerk's office yes um all right good interesting thank you so
that's a that's a that's a work in progress there's a lot of things that look into that but when and if I get to the point um like I said I'll just keep it as it is right now and we'll just go from
there okay so do we have anything else on the uh where are we at here on the public fundraising now you just brought that up okay so now we're at 5D on the utility B polls but I think that's the the 5G
polls we're talking about probably right right the utility communication polls that we discussed in December MH um a very tall poll was put up on maritana just south of the hotel Zamora and I heard from a neighbor
there very upset with the historic board for approving that as they were told by their commissioner um and just want to clarify we didn't approve that no you didn't you didn't approve we didn't have an we were told it wasn't our option we couldn't approve it or disapprove it that we could make recommendations and
requests and as to design we got to choose color and design we couldn't we couldn't keep it from happening so I just want everybody no historic board did not approve those polls and um and that particular one is quite high is any
I haven't seen that actually that wasn't even one we discussed we discussed only the one south of uh we only discussed the ones in the district but one is out of the district I have they put more than one in I know the one that Hurley Park but I haven't seen another one no there's one that's up around 302s been
it was one of the first ones in it was a picture of our exam in our ex okay mhm yeah I've I've gotten a few comments on it too and had to explain you review those guidelines again Brandon and then just talk about what's happening with that one sure and there's there's very
limited basis for anyone staff any board the commission to deny these um we were fairly heavily preempted back in the late 2010s and anything to do with these small Wireless facilities larger Towers cities can still regulate but if the
equipment meets a certain cubic footage um we're we're heavily limited we've ised issued four so far three were in passor Grill one was the one in the Waterfront at maritana we have been speaking with um the engineers recently they are going to lower the height of
that pole uh there might be a little bit of flexibility in relocating it I don't know to what extent that would actually help the the property owner there but we're just reviewing our options but they are going to at least lower the height of the pole by about 10 ft that should help a little bit at least with
the view from across the water and um really as was brought up before the the ability to limit them is based on safety um if it's a public safety issue um we can require them to relocate them we can't usually outright deny them and
there's very limited design criteria we can you know Implement which is basically pole color and uh making sure that any wires are within conduit or routed within a poll so um it's been discussed pretty extensively and and
those are limitations so I did read something that said it can't be any higher than the highest other pole within 500 ft correct and the the one on maraton in particular was limited to the it's just in range of a
pole on Gulf Boulevard that's significantly taller but we have worked with them and they are going to make it the height of the other polls on Marana which are 38 1/2 ft so they they were willing to lower it to that height thank you
you okay um Museum update 5e yes so we have um a message from Catherine at the Gul beaches Historical Museum April 19th at 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. there will be guided walking tours of historic pass of Grill um you
can find information about that on the museum Facebook page or website um um and there's an event bright link for that as well and I think um um they also have an event in May something to do with the Skyway Bridge at that time too
um and then a reminder that uh May is historic preservation month so cupcakes next month at our meeting I wanted to something that I've been kind of mulling over in my mind especially as we we're getting more and more of these demolitions and things
coming up I know it's near and dear to all of our hearts obviously and seeing the structures go down is heartbreaking is it possible to increase the cost to obtain a permit for for Demolition and then take that money and
put it into the Historic Museum because we have all of these historic properties that are gone or going to be gone what are we going to have to show for it down the road so I kind of feel like if you're going to take down a historic property that is who we are as a
community then you should be responsible for helping to kind of make it permanently remembered I guess I don't know if that's legal or allowed or it sounds like a tough one you already lost your house and now we're going to charge you a fee well not we can't be retro retroactive but yeah that was I
kind of jokingly said you know make them do a well and in some cases it's you lost your house some cases it's I just want to Big you chose you chose to I think the question would be and this might be something we would probably have to get more guidance from staff not that you don't have enough to do already
is is whether or not in a in in like a demolition fee can there be a a portion of that money or some amount of that money that goes to some sort of like you know the museum or some sort plaqu or historic
designation or something like that uh I don't know enough about government to know how that works as far as EOS but I believe there's you know I see lots of add-on charart as everything else there is in the world so I don't know whether
that's something that is doable that we could you know increase the demolition fee and have a amount that is goes towards something historic without designating what that is now so I guess I would just ask maybe for the I know this one wasn't quite on the agenda but
maybe we put it on the agenda for next month that we we talk about whether or not demolition fees uh can be increased and what we can put in them you know if there's other if we can do and I'm sorry I don't know the answer to this already
but what is the fee for making application for historic designation and what is the fee for demolition of historic resource so demolition is $50 um we are currently evaluating our fees not necessarily for trust fund purposes
but it's been decades in some cases since we've updated our fees and there's you know different expectations now than there were back then so that would be something we were looking at local historic designation I think we made the conscious decision and not have a cost associated with that as an incentive um we've never charged for that that I'm
aware of um and I don't know that we would you know want to charge for that service but for demolition given that the staff time that goes into that we're we're looking into that well that is such a gift yeah the amount of time that you all spend on these historic
designation applications is huge that is a really great gift that you're giving but I think it makes I mean I'm glad we're doing it that way but but if if the city over wide o overall is looking at fee increase for certain things that might be a consideration whether that
could be something historic involved and some of that stuff or maybe even just an optional fee maybe someone would opt in if it included their plaque made them feel made them sleep better at night yeah um
okay so and and then Dan or member Delle you wanted to talk about the waving so The Sod bonds and I'm not very well versed on this I only know unfortunately because um there's a couple situations where I've had to recuse myself um and
sod Bonds were paid up front and then I know the commission has just come back and said there is the waving of the sod Bond fee um so are you all aware of the sod bonds so basically and if am I allowed to speak to something that's already
been voted on and and approved or pasted or yeah so as an example I'll use for my mom who had 808 um pass a grow away she was absolutely heart sick over the General Store being de I mean crying
does not begin to put it into words um but then on top of it she had to put forward a sod Bond because when the structure comes down you have to say that you're going to do up to 120% of the value of the sod that's going to be
uiz to kind of go where that structure was interestingly you're not required to put in any irrigation to help the sad grow so basically you're putting in this money um which for her was like $155,000
for I'm sure there's a reason but for her it was really a hard pill to swallow so thankfully now the commission has come back and the mayor I believe to say that the sod bonds are now being waved going forward I I guess my question is is that a Citywide or is that only in
our historic designation that is Citywide Citywide okay is there any reimbursement of sod bonds that were paid we yes we will reimburse if a request is made we're not automatically issuing them um some are nearing completion and they'll be getting their
money back soon anyway that's something we automatically do when we issue the building permit um but for anyone who has paid a sod Bond based on demolition post storm and who wants to get that back just reach out to our building department and we'll we'll process them it does take a little bit of time in a
lot of cases they have already been deposited in the account so it takes a little bit of time to process but it's anybody is eligible for that okay good so moving on I think this is number six information item 6A is the current Mary Pier lease and if I can
just mention that I had asked Brandon to put it on this um because what we kind of talked about earlier with the Mary here and trying to explore some things and I would put is it in the packet did you say you did that it's it's in the packet
yes yeah and I was given one from the city manager a couple weeks ago when I met but uh I don't think there's anything to talk about I mean that's just for information or purposes you all can read those for might be relevant at some point but it was really just a
request um to make sure that we had an opportunity to see that so so with that unless someone wants to talk about it I would go on to 6B which was the information item on 2103 and
21105 Gulf way and thank you to Mr so for his patience I asked if he wanted to attend the historic preservation board meeting to discuss this now based on current code uh regulations and requirements these items do not need to be brought to the historic preservation board
if the amendments are passed as drafted they they would be brought forward to you for comment prior to moving on to commission if we could pull the PowerPoint please get down to that so this is um proposed for 2103 and 21105 golf way these are lots 106 and
107 of block J Phillips division uh with a vacated Alley between the two um that would be combined for a single family development purpose uh the proposed size would be just under 110 by just over 100 ft there are two similarly sized Lots in
the vicinity you have 2200 Sunset way up just north of this property and 102 22nd Avenue um this one is locally historically designated now this of course at 102 22nd Avenue has two structures on it has the cottage on the
west side has the primary home on the east side they work combined prior to any regulations in the city for this type of lot combination um it is not one structure that crosses the lot lines like we tend to see in other in other districts as well as in the case for 2200 Sunset
way the combination would allow for a house large development I have spoken with the applicant briefly about this um this will move on to City Commission after we share this information with you um the applicant intends to build a home that's centered on the lot uh would not
be formerly required provide larger setbacks than the house large which would set be 7 feet on the sides but I do understand that he does look to Center the home on the on the uh combined lot uh this would comply with the combination restriction that's placed on lot combinations in the
forthcoming regulations that would be more than uh no more than two lots of record can be combined to a odate editions or new development you can see here the survey you did see the Northern lot um which was a contributing structure uh was
approved for demolition under a case late last year uh the southern structure is was built in 2004 it is of course non-contributing but both would be taken down uh for single family home development purposes so I just wanted to share that with you as I mentioned this
will move on to the city commission after this did you have any questions generally uh F first I like to say I apologize we would have got to this earlier if I knew you were sitting out there I mean just I know it's more interested in yeah I was G to say I know it's been breathtakingly interesting so
um just so I'm clear if in fact our new proposals go through the commission our past then ultimately this would be something that would come through us correct correct any any project would be subject to design yes okay so we ar we aren't there anyway but and the other
thing is 2103 still exists so we're talking about ultimately a demolition and building a a single home there is that right okay so this is you're just find it if you can put the Lots together before you demolish the other one right okay all right that's so for that's only
question this just for information purposes I appreciate and there's nothing in our code that says I mean it says no more than two lots to be combined but it doesn't have a a finite measurement on no more than two lots or this measurement okay it do not okay are we doing this for
recommendation then or just for information no recommendation in the future it would be for recommendation but based on the current code language I just wanted to share this with you before it moves on okay so all right very good okay so
now we will be talking about the next meeting which is on May 1st 2025 anybody have anything to add to that or any problems with that date all right otherwise we are adjourned