March 5th, 2026. Please rise and give the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Hello. Hello everybody. Um, first thing we have is the roll call. Madame clerk. >> Member Hurley >> here. >> Member Young >> here.
>> Vice Chair Hawkinsmith >> here. >> Member Dashio >> here. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. >> We have a quorum and we ask that everybody speaks into their microphones directly. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Okay. Uh, first on the agenda here is the approval of the
agenda. Has everybody had an opportunity to look at today's agenda? And does anybody want to add anything uh to this agenda? >> Chair Lowry, if I may? >> Yes. >> Um, staff would like to request to add an item for discussion for public services update on 10th Avenue Sidewalk.
And if possible, we do have our public services dire or public services director here if he may be able to go first in the agenda. >> Okay. In addition for our action and discussion items, if you've looked at the agenda, we've kind of concentrated onto Fourth Avenue and we would like to
do um after the certificate of appropriatenesses for action item B have the discussion item A for the design review. >> Okay. And I also Yeah, go ahead. >> And then also for action item C, go
ahead and do the discussion item B. >> Right. So, we're going to do both things for 102. >> Correct. >> 102 and both things for 104. >> Exactly. So, we're not jumping around. >> Asked to do that. That makes sense. Okay. >> All right. So, for 5e, uh, discussion
item, let's add the update on the 10th Avenue. And we'll get to that quickly. But before we get to that, uh, anybody have anything else they want to add as a discussion item? Um, I think per the last meeting there was going to be possibly status updates on the historic
plaques and I wasn't sure if that's taken place or if we have any updates. So maybe 5F. Okay, 5F will be just an update on plaques. Um, I would actually add just just an update or what we know on the uh design
guideline book where we are with that. We'll make that 5G. Oops. Did I say 5G? >> Yes. >> Um, okay. >> That's accurate. >> Um, anybody have anything else they'd like to add? >> Um, I'd like to add just a disclosure
item for historic districts and locally historic designated properties. >> So, it Okay. Disclosures >> 5H. Okay. Anything else? Anybody have a motion on the agenda?
>> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as as altered. >> I second that motion. Madame clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Hawkins Smith, >> yes. >> Member Dashill, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Okay. Next is uh audience comments. Uh if you're here to make a comment on something that's on either action item or discussion item, you can wait and speak at that time. If you want to make a comment on something that's not on
today's agenda, that is now is the time to do that. Does anybody have a comment? Just a general comment. Okay, seeing none, we'll move along. Uh, and madam attorney, do we need to swear
people on on for this >> um for a certificate of appropriates? I would. >> Okay. If anyone does plan to give information, we need to have you sworn in. So, if you'll please stand, the madam clerk will just swear you in. >> Do you swear or affirm that the
information or factual representation that you're about to give to the board is truthful? >> Thank you. Okay. Has anybody had an opportunity to look at the minutes? We're looking at two of them. One from January 22nd or 7th, excuse me, January 27th, our
special meeting, and one from our regular meeting on February 5th. And I would like to I've read both of them. I would just like to say for the special meeting from January 27th, which is our recommendation to the board of adjustment
on 702 pass away. Uh it's my I found out a couple days ago, yesterday that that um is being appealed and I just have some caution that when we approve the minutes that obviously
any court or any person that might look at what was said or done on the on that date actually look at the record itself and not just the minutes, which of course is even though Madame Clerk does a great job and I saw nothing in the minutes that would indicate anything was
picked. wrong. I just want that condition to be recognized and I'll make the motion to to approve uh that special meeting, but with just with the caution that the record speaks for itself and the minutes shouldn't be taken as part of the record.
>> I'll second that. >> Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Hucketsmith, >> yes. >> Member Dashel, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. Yes. Motion carries. >> Okay. Next, we have uh the approval of
minutes for the February 5th, 2026 meeting. And I will make a motion to accept those minutes. >> I second that. >> Madam Clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Member Young? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Hawkinsmith? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Okay. Now, let's jump ahead to five E. uh so we can get Camden on his way. >> Good afternoon. For the record, Camden Mills, public services director. Appreciate your time this afternoon and and for being able to fit me in here. Um
so yeah, just wanted to give a brief update um as a followup from from the last meeting about the status of the 10th Avenue um that we're proposing to replace with the um hexagonal type pavers. um we we didn't have um enough of those existing pavers on hand uh to complete that
project. So we did source them um from uh manufacturers. Uh we did find one site that had the the gray pavers in in the same shape and size as the historical ones and then another um provider that had um the colored ones. Um so we purchased a couple pallets from
each um so that way we can uh maintain that same size, shape, and then the multicolored look. Um we do one of the pallets um arrived last week and then we're purchasing the other ones this week. So within the next couple weeks we expect to have that that project completed and and wrapped up to um
comply with the the um historical resolution of matching um the historical papers when replaced. >> Just a question on that. Thank you very much. You said gray and red. Do they have any other colors? Because historically there were some greens and they're mixed up mixed in sometime. I just wanted >> We we didn't look at any greens, just
gray, gray and red. >> All right, that's great. And and just so I know because you know I'm familiar with the project there's they're going to replace some trees there in the median. Is that right? >> That's correct. Yeah. Once we >> details on that. Thanks. >> Yes sir. Yep. Once we complete that
sidewalk then we'll we'll come through and install Washingtonas um along there. >> And do we know how big they're going to be? >> I do not. But I I can email um the group separately here with that. I'm just concerned that sometimes, you know, we wind up with saplings or two feet trees
that are replacing, you know, 30 40 foot trees and so Okay, that sounds great. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Mills? >> Yeah. >> All right. Great. Thank you, Camden. Appreciate it. >> Take care. >> All right. Now, let's move back then to
action item 4A. This is a certificate for appropriateness for the demolition of 103 First Avenue. That's case number 26021. Mr. Barry, >> good afternoon. This is a certificate of
appropriateness for demolition of the remaining residence on 1031st Avenue, case number 26021, Sun Coast Wrecking and Asset Recovery LLC for Marilyn Nolan. Uh the owner is present at this meeting. The property address is 103 First Avenue. The
applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the two family structure that is contributing to the Pastor Grail Historic District. It's also one of the city's earliest locally designated resources. It was designation number three. It was placed on the registry back in the mid 1990s.
I can see here the property. Um, earlier this year, the Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the two extensively damaged residences at the back of the property. Um, this proposal is for the remaining um, primary
structure at the front of the lot. You can see some photos there on the right. You can see some current staff photos showing the condition of the exterior of the structure on the screen. Um, as always, the criteria in the land development code for demolition permits,
uh, the historic preservation board may not deny a request. However, because this structure is on the local historic registry, a stay of up to 90 days to discuss preservation incentives may be contemplated um, as a condition of approval.
And here are the criteria that we look at that were responded to in your staff report. Uh with respect to the proposed demolition, as I mentioned before, the um board cannot deny but can impose a stay of up to 90 days. Um we did ask for a little bit of additional information
from the applicant who um I I know the owner is present pertaining to the inability to reasonably save the building. Uh the structure was not noted in the staff um visit as well as in the letter produced for the structure post storm to have sustained the um clear and
significant damage of the rear two structures. Um, should adequate testimony be provided to that. Staff recommends approval with no stay. Uh, the owner has recently received an extensive letter detailing redevelopment options. They have been made aware of the redevelopment restrictions of the
existing non-conforming density buildings. Typically, we ask for confirmation from the owner that they are aware of the limitations on redevelopment. But in this uh property's case, the owner is aware of the um the limitations on the building. We have had extensive discussions with them as well
as produced a letter Uh so with that being said, um should the applicant provide adequate testimony, we request a motion to approve this case 26021 for demolition of the remaining building on 103 First Avenue without a stay on
demolition. Happy to answer any questions. Um, I guess I only have the question that when you when it was first looked at after the storm and you say it didn't look like it was in that bad a sh I'm paraphrasing or in that bad a shape. Had
the were the floors and all that stuff missing at that time. >> Um, I believe that assessment was only the exterior assessment of the structure. >> All right. >> Because I've seen it. And I've been in there and obviously the floors are all gone and it's a significant
issue, you know, to try to repair all that, I'm sure. Uh, all right. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Barry? >> I believe that house has one of the original historic plaques on the front of it if I'm not mistaken. I think it's
within the first hundred maybe. >> Yeah, it did. And then at part of our staff visit, it was removed. So possibly the applicant could speak to that where where it is. >> Yes, because it was there as of just a couple weeks ago. So >> correct. I agree.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Would the applicant step forward, please? Or their representative or whoever wants to come speak. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Marilyn Nolan. Uh, I'm the owner of 103,
but I currently live in Gulfport. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Nolan. Go ahead. >> Um, I did want to The neighbor behind me took the plaque off for safekeeping, but
she emailed me to let me know that she had it. >> Good. Very nice. >> Okay. Well, so one of the things we have to do here today, I don't know if you saw the staff recommendation because your house has been historically designated at one point, we can delay
demolition up to 90 days if we feel like there's a need to do that. Uh so one of the things we need to get from you today is hear testimony uh about how delaying for 90 days your
demolition would would or would not make a difference. >> It's not a tough question. It's just just where you say, >> you know, I hadn't I had not thought about that. we have the people lined up to do all of the demolition. But
>> um one of the things when James and I uh met with uh folks about looking at what could be done there, we did talk about there are some items in there that we would like to um try and save to
hopefully give to the historical museum because there's some pretty >> interesting in the upstairs area. So that's one of the fir I wanted time to be sure that we get that done. >> Well, here's and just so this this is a procedural thing and I don't it's
because staff has found that the house in their opinion maybe they didn't do a full evaluation is not particularly substantially damaged and because it's historic structure you can fix it up if you if you wanted to. Okay. there's
probably a reason you don't want to. And so this is the part where you tell us the reason you don't want to so then we can get the adequate testimony as to why you're not fixing it up. So that's just something that's required for the record. >> Okay.
>> Um I'm this was not my first storm. I think it was my third storm and I've been jumped right in and done everything to ailarate and and stay down there. Um, but I'm
I've gotten older and I'm 75 and um I just decided I'm not up to fixing it up. Okay. So, and and then back to what you said a moment ago about taking some items out
of there. Obviously, you can do that whenever you want prior to the demolition. And so, if we I think, you know, we have to grant the demolition. The question is whether we just grant it with with with no stay or grant it with
delay. And >> apparently doesn't seem to be a reason to do that. But you should make sure you get in there as you work with your demo person to know because you'll know what the timing is if we don't give you a stay. Does anybody have any comments on whether there should be a stay on this or not?
>> I think we discussed this a little bit in the last meeting when she was working on the back two building. >> Yes. >> She was willing to do well willing to wait on the front building to see if anybody would have any interest in moving it or right >> her donating it and it seems that that
did not come forward. >> Right. So, I don't see a reason to delay. >> Well, I would just like to say it's a great old house. It's one of the neatest ones on pass girl. You know, it's obviously what 125 years probably or something like that. I'm glad the plaque was kept. Uh whether that's something
you want to keep or donate. That's great, too. I love the fact that you're thinking about trying to take some pieces out of there. One of the questions I have just because we're talking about stuff in the pictures there's a picture here from like 1938 36
and uh that structure on the second floor right the the real narrow thing was there some belief that was one of the military barracks at some point >> the my understanding is the commonant
>> okay >> lived there, >> right? >> So, I guess you would call it bears because he was he was housed there >> and and there's a in the there was like an up periscope in the ceiling. So, you can still see some of the the periscope
isn't there or the Right. Yeah. But you can tell where the mechanism was. >> Well, the reason just because the the the photo says it's dated 1936, you know, it's like 1936 is 5 years before World War II. So they I don't think they had the barracks down there in 1936. So
I don't know if that's a bad >> but but that second floor that's the same. It's been as far as you know that's been there for since way back then. Yeah. It's pretty neat little >> pretty tight quarters but you know I guess that's the way it was. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you all.
>> I I just have a a quick question just for yourself and then going forward. Obviously you love this home which I'm sorry that unfortunately the storms have done this. Would it be possible just for you to write down all of the facts that you know about the home to be able to
supply to the city so that way they have that information? >> Yes. And James and I have been kind of making a list of people that have told us stuff. So, we're going to try and compile not just from us, but from people that know more. >> Thank you. I think that would be great. And then maybe if the plaque could just be brought up so the city can just see
what it looks like in person so as we move forward we can honor the past as much as possible. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Nolan. >> And you wouldn't happen to have any hex block pavers, would you? >> Thank you. >> Appreciate you all.
>> Thank you. >> That's a question we should ask everybody, right? Um >> start asking everyone. >> Good idea. All right. Um, I'll make a motion that we grant the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of 103
First Avenue, case number 26021, and do that with no stay. >> A second. >> Madame Clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Dashiel, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Huckenith, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry,
>> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Next, moving on to action item 4B. We're going to do two things. One is a certificate. Is that order? We're going to do that in certificate of appropriateness for uh the home at
1024th Avenue, which is COA number 26024. And then after you make a ruling on that, we are going to Wasn't there another part on this too? >> Discuss. Yeah, discussion. >> So that would be discussion item 5.
>> Yeah, we're going to talk about Sorry. Thank you, Sean. the discussion item which is 5A which is the design review case number 255025 on 1024th Avenue. Hi Lynn.
Hello. Good afternoon everybody. Um let me get the right here we go. So, this property owners of this local historic landmark are requesting a certificate of appropriateness to
elevate the existing residential building in a manner that is above the base flood elevation. That's um for them. They're going up about 12 feet as um and this elevation foundation is only
going to be allowed to accommodate access, limited storage, and parking. They um my understanding is that they are looking to get out of having their house flood and
house was built in 1963. The property was included in the pastor grillil boundary expansion of 20 2003. Florida master site file was done on the structure that's PI2531
and was submitted to the state in 2015. the building was locally landmarked and also um I would say that let me see so the structure like I said is
currently listed on the city's local registry and Florida master sight health form has been done on it and it is considered a contributing structure in the pastoral
National Register Historic District. The applicants are seeking to elevate this existing masonry vernacular structure in a manner that's above the base flood elevation and will alter its appearance. So, they are
also requesting a delisting of the local landmark status. the elevated home. Um although the home itself is not really going to be altered, they are adding the elevation
which substantially changes the character of the house and its look. So such changes would really likely damage the integrity of the overall historic and architectural nature of the house. However, staff does recognize that the
problematic nature of leaving this house at grade um is in an area that's of the city that's subject to frequent flooding. They are proposing to create a new elevated foundation, stairs for access,
and create a balcony with railings for safety. Be glad to try and answer any questions you may have. If not, Brandon will be presenting the certificate, the um design review guideline request.
>> Yeah. I I I have a question. This is more for procedures as we go forward, maybe other cases and stuff, but I think this is the first case we've had that I'm aware of where someone is it's a
historically designated structure and somebody is voluntarily removing that historic designation, which we all know that's totally appropriate and fine as long as they've gone past a year, which I'm sure they have. So it's a chicken or egg kind of question
here procedurally. Okay. So if they if a if somebody not necessarily in this case if somebody decides to remove their historic designation do they still have to have a COA when it's or is that just because it's a contributing structure still even though
it's no longer historic? You follow what I'm saying? I just want to make sure for future use I have kind of understanding what's going on. uh because we've suggested if they raise it like they're going to that it's going to change the
look so it would no longer be historic. So they could lose their historic designation but here they're voluntarily agreeing to get rid of that. So, I'm just wondering, I guess, what our authority is,
you know, do do we do they still need need to get a certificate of approp of approprius? And like I said, I don't think we've had that come up before, so I don't really know the answer. Does anybody have a feel for that? Brandon, you got any idea? >> No, >> I was not in on some of those.
>> Yeah, I I figured this was >> Yeah, this is a novel. Really? >> I I agree with the way you categorized it. It is kind of a chicken chicken or the egg situation. But with the local designation, that is what this board has control over. You can approve the local
designations. You don't necessarily have any say in the DD designation, but you have the say in the the certificate of appropriateness for demolition. Um it was staff's recommendation that if they go forward with this extent of elevation that they ddesate at on the local
registry level. The structure is technically contributing until it's reserveyed. I think we're looking at another year or two to reservey the district post storm. Um I felt it was appropriate for them to still get the certificate of appropriateness in the interim because there is always a
possibility that it remains on the registry um or on it was picked up as a survey as a contributing resource. So it is we're in a kind of in between space here, but I did want them to still go through that process. Yeah, and I appreciate that and I think that certainly makes sense. And I think the
way we can kind of go forward that like I said in another case of somebody removed their home from the historic designation significantly prior to us having an issue like this, would that be brought for to us like as an information only
kind of thing or or do we still have a hook into it because it's it's a contributoring structure until it becomes non-contributing? So, what brings these items forward for a certificate of appropriateness when they're not demolishing um is when they're making an addition that encroaches into a required yard. That
would typically be under your jurisdiction through the design review, which we brought it forward as for as well. Um we would if it's on the contributing structure list and it's not a redeveloped building, we would still bring those forward. >> Okay. >> So, >> all right. I think that'll make sense. I
just like I said, it's kind of new. All right. Thank you for that. So, do you want to talk about the the design review now or does anybody have any questions about the COA uh part of this? Um, >> and we need to vote on the COA.
>> Yeah, we first we'd have to do we need to do that now or we want to have the conversation about the design review. >> We Let's Let's vote first. That's fine. Um, >> okay. Well, does do we need any information from the applicant on this?
I know sometimes since they've already suggested they're going to remove it from the designation, then I assume they already know the issue behind that and they're in agreement with that. >> We we had talked to them. Yes. >> Okay.
All right. Anybody have any questions about the COA? I'd go ahead and make the motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for number 26024 for 1024th Avenue to be removed from
designation >> and for the elevation right elevate the home is that the COA is for >> there's actually more for that too for >> adding decks >> adding decks and stairs in conjunction with the elevation.
So, I guess maybe I should back up for a second before we see if there's a second on that motion. >> I'll make sure. >> Okay. is so do we have the staff have any uh um
recommendation about the decks and deck and and stairs that's in conjunction with the elevation because that I assume is for a situation where we're then we're going to set back through setback scenarios right >> correct so this board may make a
recommendation to the board of adjustment I covered that a little bit in my presentation on the design review, but if you would like to make a recommendation to the board of adjustment, you're you're welcome to do that relative to the request being made. And I'll pull up the site plan so you can see on the on the right is the
proposed uh the areas in gray are at the front on the north side and the side on the east uh right side. Those are decks and stairs. Um on the west side is a stair that leads to an existing opening. Um they are not adding on to the living
square footage. They will as as Lynn had pointed out um being con constructing a non-habitable ground level that will be used for parking, storage and access. Um but however the the only additions to the living level are those decks and stairs that you can see in gray there.
>> The the dark darkest color >> dark gray. Correct. Um staff found especially for the historic development patterns of this street uh most of the homes are pushed out to about a 5-ft setback from the front property line.
They are proposing just under five. Um the massing and the the scale of the additions aren't significant. I don't feel that they'll overpower the structure. under the design review, uh staff does have a few recommendation just for stylistic changes and material
changes, but the actual footprint, what's being requested through the board of adjustment, I I don't have any major concerns about under the historic uh COA criteria. >> Okay. So just so we can do this one at a time on on the COA part of this, we
would if we approve this, we would basically be approving that they can do deck they can do the decks and stairs, but that is conditional upon what the board of adjustment is going to rule on that. Right. >> That is correct. Yes.
>> Okay. And so also if we accept this as planned, it doesn't necessarily mean we're approving this particular plan of the decks and chairs of decks and stairs because that would be conditional on what the board of adjustment eventually finds. Right. >> Correct. Any portion of the deck or
stairs that encroach closer than 10 feet to the front or rear property line would require the board of adjustment. >> Okay. Okay. And so just so I know where the the encroachment is because the front of the house, they want those those stairs on the the west side because it's within 5 ft.
>> Um not not on the west side. The west side actually meets. Um it's the north side, the front. Their current setback is approximately 10 ft. And they are proposing some stairs in what is currently a screen porch. It's a little bit hard to make out on the existing survey, but it's at the northeast corner
of the building. They're taking >> I'm looking upside down. I see it now. Okay, you're right. Okay. >> Um they're taking out the screen porch. They're going to be putting in open stairs and then projecting out from the front of the home um closer to the property line will be the um will be a
deck. And then on the east side as well, they're putting that wraparound deck. It does match up with the rear of the structure, but because they have a portion that extends within 10 ft of the alleyway south property line, that portion also requires a variance through
the board of adjustment. That's not something the historic preservation board can approve. You're just looking at the certificate of appropriateness for the design. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. And you said I think you've already said this, but now that I'm looking at the plan right side up, uh
the other houses along that along four, a lot of them go up to the five foot set back. Is that right? >> Correct. Most are within 5 to 10 feet. We we do have a few demolitions on the west side, but that has been their historic setback. >> Okay. The neighbor is also making a similar application and request. Do they have
any >> um feelings about this? Is it going to encroach in their visual access? No. >> Uh they are undertaking the work at the same time they are present if they want to make any comments. >> Well, when they do something like this or is that when they ask neighbors where
they have a problem with it with what they want to do? Is that for the board of adjustment and not for us? You follow what I'm saying? >> That can be a consideration. Sometimes the uh neighbors will will write a letter appear at the hearing. >> Well, I'm saying don't they usually send letters out to neighbors on that kind of
stuff. >> We we will notice them for the board of adjustment. Yes, >> Board of adjustment. That's what I'm saying. Okay. >> All right. Anybody else have any questions, Mr. Barry, about what we're voting on here or what the
the procedures are or what we're doing? or do does anyone think we should make a specific recommendation to the board of adjustment about uh these setback changes and I I know we'll talk about that more
in the I guess after in the design review we could can we make after we hear that if we wanted to make recommendations to the board of adjustment could we do it at that point I suppose so >> it's technically the certificate of appropriateness that they make the
recommendation under could they defer action on the certificate of appropriateness to hear the design case and then take action or would that be >> I mean as long as it's two separate motions um then that would be appropriate because there's overlap between the two um I did want to make sure though did the applicant have an
opportunity to speak if they're present um and wanted to >> anybody want to come up and speak >> please state your name for the record and your address please >> Gild deola 1024th having you. >> Mr. Damala, how are you today?
>> Very good. >> Thank you. >> While I do not have an artist rendering, I do have a picture of what the finished product will look like that I gave to the engineer to design it after. Can I >> Yeah, but I think if if we scroll down
there, we might have it unless it's something new. Uh >> I don't believe so. >> If you put your facing top facing up, they can pull it up on So you could get a little >> better understanding. >> Okay. So there's been from the plans and
Brandon, this might be for you too. One of the concerns I know and kind of jump into the design review was what they're using maybe for there been has it been a change in these plans from what you had before on the design review? >> Yes. >> Okay, good. I I get it now. All right.
Okay. Um, anything you want to tell us? >> Um, as far as the historically registered, we had no idea we were on it. We appeared we appeared here in 200 >> um 20
>> 2020 with Ralph Licen. >> Yep. >> Right. And at that time he uh he applied for historic registry and as far as I'm I know that's when we became historically >> it's okay. I mean like we you and I have
talked anyway. So yeah I think you are historically registered but that's a voluntary thing and that's not a problem and >> we don't hate you because you're dregistering. Okay. >> No no I I got it but we are trying to keep it passive friendly per se.
>> Okay. Yes. >> All right. Anybody have any questions? >> I have a question. Not necessarily for the applicant, but is it necessary to come off the historic register if you're elevating your home? >> I'm making eye contact with the guy who
knows. >> No, definitely not. We actually we had a case over in the Dawn Cesar neighborhood a few months ago where they were placed on the register and elevated at the same time on during the same day. Um staff's concerned with this one and again I I believe it was well designed. We have a
few comments to make during the design review but it's the extent of the elevation. Um it's going up more than one floor height which especially for a one-story building is usually inadvisable. Um they don't technically have to go up to the height that they go
to. We usually don't advise um property owners to not elevate to the height that they would like to, but if they had gone up to five, six feet, I I think we definitely could be having that conversation, understanding why they would want to turn that into a usable ground level. Um we're not trying to preempt them on doing that, but
typically there there is a consideration on the extent of elevation. So, >> so we we we to kind of answer that to we've never had there's there's there's always the caution that when things are done that it might make them non-contributing
or non-historic, but we don't really we don't necessarily make a finding of that until there's a later date that we have to do something like that. In this particular case, they're going ahead and just saying right off the bat, and it really doesn't make a difference because the house is the house when it's when it's done. So I
guess technically they could years from now somebody could decide they could try to see if they could get it back on the historic designation if you really wanted to do that and then there would be a determination at that point whether it's been altered so much it doesn't look historic or not. But for the
purposes of what you're doing here today it's probably simple simpler to dregister it like you said. So six of one half dozen of the other >> Lynn. >> So to that point, if you recall, I gave a presentation
last year about Secretary of Interior standards guidelines for elevating historic houses out of floodprone areas. And in that case they said you know 5 6 feet is probably
appropriate for a onelevel house but when you go more than that it becomes non-contributing to the area. So they don't really you know want you to do that or at least that's what it said in the publication. You probably remember
us going over that. And then when I looked at this house, I mean the house is the house is being preserved, it looks, you know, I think it's going to look good, but also we may find out when we do the survey update if if we
left it as, you know, a historic structure that it would become noncon non-conforming, >> right, >> to the district because it it has been elevated. even though the house itself
has been preserved. So, just thought I'd bring that up. And and that's kind of a sticky wicket. Um I've been looking around to see what communities around Florida or other areas that have flooding issues, how far do they go and trying to protect
the historic buildings with respect to the elevations? And I haven't found too many examples yet, right? >> But I'm still looking. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else to make questions or comments? >> I do not.
>> I'm thankful that you're saving the little house and taking it out of harm's way. >> Yes. >> So, I think that's >> and unfortunately I do not have any hex blocks. >> That was going to be my next question. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, I will make a motion that we grant the certificate of appropriateness, uh, case number 26024 for the home at 1024th Avenue, um, without a specific recommendation to
the board of adjustment. >> I'll second that, >> Madame Clerk. Roll call, please. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Huckmith, >> yes. >> Member Dashill, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. Yes. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Okay. So, now we're going to jump, I guess, to 5A, discussion item on the design review for the same home. Mr. Barry, pull up the PowerPoint. And this is the design review portion. Um, this is what allows for a partial
setback encroachment. The board of adjustment, as I mentioned before, is responsible for the um the remainder of the encroachment toward the front yard and the the rear yard. We discussed the existing and proposed. No additional living space is proposed under this project. It is all exterior
deck stairs and then the ground level parking, storage and access. Uh you can see the north elevation which is the view from 4th Avenue at the top left of the screen. The rear elevation from the alleyway to the south on the
top right. Um the middle uh sketch is the side elevation looking from the um the neighbor side and then the uh side elevation to the east is on the bottom of the screen shown from the alley.
Uh you can see the footprint of the home again just affirming that it is um not adding any additional living space. staff had a few design comments. Although the rendering that was just shared by the owner, resolve the major comment. Um, our recommendation was to
continue uh the stucco with patterning to the ground floor. That's something that we generally recommend under design reviews. Um, having the band of a different material between the two floors is is typically appropriate. Uh, in this case, it's a band formed by the deck that extends out toward the um
front property line. Uh the second is that a deck barrier should be a vertical aluminum picket style or another style that's contemporaneous with the age of the structure. Um rather than cable, it appeared to be cable on the building plans uh which you see on the right
there. However, in the rendering, it does appear that they were going with a vertical um aluminum picket. Um so that that I feel would be appropriate for the design of the home if that is the direction that they're going. and the not to belabor this point. Um we already discussed it before, but given the
extent of the elevation, um we do feel that there there is an possibility that it's at risk of being determined a non-contributing structure during future surveys. We have discussed this extensively with the owner. They are aware of that and and they have um proposed the ddesation.
So, in terms of the zoning, the property layout, um, as I mentioned before, the design and layout requires the applicant to obtain variances for front and rear deck encroachments. The historic preservation board may make recommendations. You chose not to do so. And we do find that the block has an average primary home front setback of 5
to 10 feet. We do feel that that is consistent with the proposal that the applicant is making. As always, um, if you have any design centric comments that you wish to make to ensure compatibility of the structure within the district, you're welcome to do so. This is a single family use, so there are no other former mass
limitations other than those required under the design regulations. Happy to answer questions. >> Can you go back to that first that where you had the one before that? Okay. And this is uh
have you had a conversation with the de moles about your comments? >> No, this is the first and and again it's really just a recommendation. Um I I'm not sure if they're going to have that patterning of stuckco at the ground level. They could potentially answer that and it looks like from the
rendering they resolved the second point. Uh the third we have discussed and they're they're aware. >> Okay. So let me let me ask the applicants that Mr. Demol, you come back up for a moment, please. >> You know what he's talking about, right? And everything. >> Yes, I do. And and we are going to continue to stuck.
>> Okay. >> Straight down. And we'll have the band. >> Okay. And then the other I think in the picture that you had on your phone is different than this. What what we're looking here now as far as the fencing and stuff in the front. I think you've got different
I think they were concerned or thought that this one on the picture up there >> was cable. cable. >> Yeah. The in in the uh plans it says the engineer it will be done by others. >> Okay. >> So he he just designed it.
>> Okay. So so what I'm >> it will be it will be a vertical >> like like the picture you showed us >> in the picture. >> Excellent. Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Anybody else have any questions? All right. So this was just for discussion. We
don't have to go any further on this. Is that correct? So, other than what we've talked about. All right. Thank you folks. Appreciate it. >> All right. Now, we're back to Sorry, Brandon, making you jump up and down there. >> We're at 4C, their certificate of
appropriateness, case number 26026 for the residents at 1044th Avenue. Okay. this case um certificate of appropriateness case number 2626
um is really it's just across the street from the last house that you looked at and >> it's right next door >> next door right next door >> across across 4th Avenue. >> No, it should be right just west of it. >> Oh 102 and 104.
>> Okay. Anyway, um this property was included in the U Pasigril boundary expansion of 2003 and a Florida master site file structure form was submitted to the state in 2015.
Um this the Florida master site file indicates that this building and garage is a contributing resource in the national register listed pasil historic district. This is how it looks. Ex. This is how
its existing appearance is. And they are also going to be elevating in a very similar manner to the last house that we looked at. And that would more than likely change its local designation. It wouldn't change its local designation. I'm sorry. would
change whether or not it's contributing to the district or not. And our experience with that would tell us that it would probably be taken off the list of contributing properties. And um however,
staff is recommending like in the last case, we are recommending, let me see, approval of this proposed certificate of appropriateness to elevate the house as requested to protect it from future
flooding. They're going to be creating, sorry, let's go back. They're going to be creating a new elevated foundation with stairs for access and also to create railings for safety. So, that's um staff's recommendation,
like I said, is um to approve this because it will at least protect the building and they won't need to demolish it. >> And do you have I'm just scrolling through here. I think I found that the
the plans for what they intend to do. Is that page 76 out of 111? >> I do. I think I don't know that. >> I've got it up here, but I don't know if we can. We actually could go forward in the PowerPoint and the plan should be in the
PowerPoint as well. >> Thank you, Christian. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Clicker. >> Clicker. >> I think it's back further. >> Oh, you have it. I think the the remote
one is It's closer to this side, I think, >> by the black box. >> By the time clock or is that a time clock there? >> No. >> Sorry, I'm able to get >> Were you looking for the floor plan or the
>> I have on my agenda packet. It's I think it's page 76 out of 111. I don't know if that correlates to what you got. >> I got 77 has the facade. >> If you continue going, Brandon, there should be the floor plans.
>> There we go. Elevations. >> That's That's what I'm talking about. >> And I I know we're in a situ sim similar situation as we were in the last one is the fact that they're raising it. Are they also raising it? What's the amount they're raising on on this?
I believe this one is also approximately 12 feet. >> Okay. So, it's it's they'll be similar in height anyway in some in look. All right. Then we've had discussions with them about well obviously about the problem that has changed that could become
become non-contribut contributing and they've already determined that they were going to delist it as a or dregister. Right. >> Correct. We had the same same conversation. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh, I know there's a design, well, this
isn't really a design review. This is still the certificate of appropriateness. And even though it's mentioned in the design review, the to me the biggest problem is they've moved the garage from the back to the front. Right. >> Yes.
>> Good. which means it's going to take a curb cut and it's going to take away not only a parking space but most of those homes on fourth and at that end of the pass the grill do not have garages in the front yard.
That's been a historic look. A few new structures have them but not many. I think there's only about one per block if that many. And personally I have a significant problem with that. I know that we've talked about changing some of the
ordinances to make it a requirement that they have to if they're on an alley, they have to use the alley for uh vehicle access for a number of reasons. Just to state them just so because that's what the alleys are for. It also
puts the car in the backyard. It puts a garage door which is not architecturally as nice looking uh in the back so people be able to see it. And it also provides a parking space which is very very limited on pass that would be taken away
if there's a curb cut. And it's also been my experience that when there's a curb cut, many people don't use their garages, park their car in the front yard or their second car. So now we have a car in the front yard that also is unsightly and takes away from in my
opinion what is very unique about that old end of Passa Grillil which I'm going to say is basically from 10th Avenue or so or 12th Avenue South maybe 10th Avenue makes more sense. So I don't know
what if anything I don't think we have any real power unless correct me wrong to say that you know uh or just me speaking for myself that I don't like this. I don't have a
problem with them elevating. I don't have a problem with all that stuff. you know, I think it would be uh against the principles I've been stating if I was to potentially vote to grant a COA um where they've radically changed the
look of the house. So, I don't know if staff has any comment on that. Um I'm sure the applicant does and I'd love to have a a conversation about that. I I guess my question would be does are the are the people aware did staff make them aware
that they have to go in front of another at least I believe they have to go in front of another uh city group to get a permission to to get a curb cut right and who do they have to go through for on that >> would be public works correct
>> so that would be handled as part of the building permit permission it would be something that staff looks at through a rightway permit. This this like the previous case will go on to the board of adjustment. You do have the ability to make a recommendation or comment if desired.
>> Okay. So So for for clarification purposes on that on a curb cut, does the board of adjustment make that decision or staff? >> That is that's a staff decision and currently the code does allow for a curb cut. I understand that's something we're looking at changing, but
>> yes. And and so as we are at this moment, I'm just thinking about potentially where we're going here. Uh staff doesn't really their hands are tied as far as the recommendation, right? Because it's allowed. They can't say we
don't want that, can they? >> Uh correct. We we have to follow the code for that. >> Right. Exactly. So So we're not making a recommendation to the board of adjustments since they don't make a decision on curb cuts. Right.
you you are making a recommendation on the certificate of appropriateness which is the alteration of the residence. Um you would not they are not deciding on the garage but if it's something that from a design standpoint you have a
concern about you might be able to make that comment. I do want to point out um this doesn't necessarily resolve your whole concern but this is the existing floor plan. If we could pull up the overhead. Um you can see it's a little hard to
make out but at the back of the structure currently this is a onecar garage and what they are um proposing is a twocar garage. It'll be a tandem garage but they'll now be able to fit two vehicles within the ground floor uh
parking access from the the north side. So, they will be removing a one parking space, and I I believe the applicant can speak to this, but they will be picking up an additional parking space on the property. So, that removal of that parking space is is being compensated.
They have a pool, I believe, in the southeast corner of the property. So, there's no ability to park a car in that location. I I know it's a little hard to make out on the screen, but >> I can't First of my looking >> There's an overhead site plan picture that shows the pool and it shows the
garage and the driveway and etc. >> where my cursor is that is a garage. >> There's a 4th Avenue and then there's 58 garage. >> Okay. But when you say there's a tandem garage, you mean they're stacked or they're side by side? >> They will be stacked in the new residence. I mean, this whole house will
be elevated. So, they could go tandem from the rear with a onecar garage door. >> That's true. >> If they're going tandem anyway. >> That's That was my point. That was my question. Right. And so,
All right. And then the house next door that we just reviewed has access from the side, >> from the alley. Right. Okay. Would the applicant like come forward? My name is Andrew Schiff. I'm speaking on behalf of my parents, Ronald and Margaret Schiff, the homeowners. We're
at 104th Avenue, right next to Mullis. >> Right. I think I've I think I've met your mother before. >> Yeah, I think so. There you go. Um, >> okay. So, you understand my and I'm just speaking for myself at the moment, but I just don't I have you know,
just so you understand a little bit more than I that I've said. You know, we have been making some proposals to change. Not a great deal of things on pass to grow in the in the overlay. That's maybe some issues that have come up in the last few years. And we've been trying to get that probably would have had it
passed a year ago if it hadn't been for the hurricane. >> Right. >> And one of those things was we want to make sure people do use the alleys for access. And I think I don't have to go for the reason why, but there's sense to that. Okay. >> Sure. like I already already said and so
you know personally me speaking and you know the board as a as a group had decided that was something they wanted to see going forward >> and here we are in a situation essentially being you know asked to not follow that rule that hasn't come in
effect yet. Okay. So um so is there any possibility that you can change and put the the it in the back? I mean, maybe it's just a pet peeve of me, but I drive go up and down those streets, you know, and you know, the houses that have
a >> absolutely have a curb cut and now have a car or a >> a golf cart parked in the front yard >> and it's inconsistent with the historic nature of that, you know, and so, uh, that's the motivation we have behind
trying to make the alleys in use. Uh, so I'm just bringing it up. So, >> absolutely. I mean, I think we can totally understand the concerns. Nobody, especially on Fourth Avenue, nobody wants the streets looking like a parking garage or something like that. We put a
lot of thought into how to lay out the house. I'm sure as you can imagine, when you're elevating a structure as opposed to building a new one, there's so many more considerations to put into the foundation, what's going to be underneath the layout, keeping the space actually usable, especially for the cost
of such a project, maintaining value in the home. For us, the reasoning for moving the garage to the front was primarily the restrictions to access we currently have in the back. If you look at the full block layout, we're actually not on one of the full size wide alleys.
We're on one of the narrow 10-ft alleys. We're surrounded by a 6ft tall picket fence on both sides of that. So, the turn into that alley is already incredibly narrow. In fact, it's basically impossible to park in the driveway as is without having to go into
the the rear driveway of the property behind us, right? To to, you know, three-point turn into the driveway. So, that was part of the consideration. And then as far as the overall look of the street itself, um, with the curb cut, the house next door, Mike Waldron's house, um, newer construction than ours,
he does have a front garage driveway, uh, garage with a garage door on the street, curb cut >> with also, um, you know, closer to the easement than even we're trying to go. So, as far as the overall look of everything, this is kind of what we landed on that looks the best. It looks
the most past the grill. It maintains the original characteristics of the house but also functionality and uh we actually have a a bit clear of a render of what it would look like done if you guys are interested in >> for sure >> in seeing that. So um
>> see right here this is still just kind of >> I can't all I see is a white page. >> Why isn't that working? >> I'm not sure. Brandon, do you have any tips to make a phone screen appear more vivid? >> You can send it to Gil and Gil can use
his phone. >> Are you able to email out to me? >> Yeah, I can send it to you right now. >> Yeah. Appreciate you. >> Did you have anything you want to add while I'm sending this to Brandon for why we put the >> Well, one other one is is my my husband's going to be 87
>> and the trash is is in the back and the garbage men used to come down the alley and they can't get down anymore. So, we now have to drag it all the way around like almost a block. >> Yes. >> And at least if it was in the front, we could we can put it there and then drag
it out like a couple steps. And I know that's old and lazy, but that's >> No, no, no. I I mean, >> it's it's a >> we've been talking about trash for years. >> Yes. I mean, here's the thing. It's the irony of it's the classic tail wagon the dog from the standpoint that we've been
trying to battle the city to get garbage pickup for two and a half years or three years and now here we are with people that want to put >> and understandably want to put garages in the front because of the garbage, >> right? >> And you know that's an excellent another
point why the city should get back involved in maintaining these alleys. >> Can't fit a truck down that alley. >> Yeah. Yes. but he used to walk down it. And that's just a matter of >> the way the city contracts with the garbage pickup people. >> And believe me, >> they were great.
>> We were on the I won't say on the cusp, but we were hot on it when the hurricane hit. >> And now that's become less of a priority with some of the other stuff. But we haven't give up given up the idea of garbage being picked because the whole thing, >> like I said, it's a tail wagon. It's the
garbage. It's the garbage pickup is now dictating what our houses look like, >> right? And >> you know, and that's just not the way it should be going. Okay. >> Across the street is the schoolhouse, the oldest schoolhouse in P. It also has a curb cut and a portico. >> I know there's some there. I I I think you understand.
>> All the ones around us, there's a there's a garage or parking space, so we would fit in. Um >> I understand. >> Yeah. >> And and Brandon, do you know if if is that alley planted at 10 feet there? Okay.
>> And we thought about doing a carport as well to keep the open vibe, but at the end of the day, we that's going to require a curb kite anyway. >> And at least with a door, you know, we can when a storm does come, if it's not big, we can keep everything protected, keep tools and beach supplies closed off. So, it's kind of what made the most
sense. And hopefully once you see the render, you'd see that it will still fit the vibe of >> No, I hope you know >> what my situation is, at least personally, as I said, it's kind of a principal thing for me, and I totally understand your situation, and I'm not
suggesting you're off on that. Um, let me ask you this. You're adding elevator, too, right? >> Yes, sir. >> And it's going Okay. Sorry. >> Go ahead. explain the and that that's located where where is that >> the front of our house at the end of our
glass salarium porch >> and we are coming out an extra 8 in from the setback we're still less than 5T right from the setback but but we're out a little a little bit more than than we
currently do. So >> and do you think is there a reason that lends itself to putting your garage in the front because of the elevator. >> I think it's mostly because of the lack of access from the rear is the mere the
the real motivator. Um I mean, how long have you owned the house? >> Uh this is our eighth year. >> Eight year eight years we've never parked a car in the rear just because it's just too it's too difficult to get back there. >> I It's It's just really tight. You can't
>> I can't do it. Um, probably you could, but I can't. >> Okay. >> So, are you keeping your swimming pool? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And then you'll have a courtyard wall at the back. >> Yeah. We would just continue the existing fence line over right into uh
into Walrren's fence next door. So, it' all be and that would also continue into the Demola's fence as well. So, it' all be the same for all three homes. >> A little more grass. >> I think I have this. >> There we go. That's the front. >> Oh,
>> so the elevator is that kind of center shaft in the middle. >> Um, and we played a lot with where we could put that, but there was with a 5 foot x 5 foot plus block footprint. There's nowhere inside without losing half of an entire room, >> right? Um and here on the front it
maintained access for my parents and um only comes out you know eight inches additional from where we are currently >> and you have stairs on both sides. >> We'd have stairs on both sides. The way the house is currently set up, it's zoned as a single family home, but it
was built as a multif family home. So the back unit is actually separate from the front. So, one set of stairs goes to the back, the other set of stairs goes to the front. And and and Brandon, this is similar to the last situation that because the certificate of
appropriateness is really to add the elevator, decks, and stairs, right? It doesn't anything to do with the garage under what you said. Is that correct? >> Not directly. Correct. >> Okay. And
again, this would be a situation we can make a recommendation to the board of adjustment on the elevator decks and stairs. And I say that's because the elevator comes forward 8 in. Is that what they were saying? And how far away is that from the the front?
>> It's still not as far out as the next neighbor. >> That's right. Thinking, right? Okay. So, it's all it's behind that. All right. >> All right. What do you all think about those aspects, the elevator, deck, and stairs? Any any comments on that? Any
reason you think there should be a recommendation specifically to the board of adjustment on those items? >> No, I think they've obviously given every element a lot of thought. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, I'm going to say this before any motion is made. I just want it it recognized that that the historic board at this moment and correct me if I'm wrong, but our our hands are essentially tied as far as
what's going on with the garage. Everybody understand that and agree with that? >> Yes. >> Because what I'm concerned about is if if going forward we have other folks coming in, this will be used as an example of why they should be able to have a garage
in the front. Uh because as you know the way we propose the changes is they could always get a variance depending on their specific needs. And this might have been one where that could have happened. That's why I was asking questions about the elevator itself. Okay. >> So uh all right with that being said,
does anybody have a motion or anything else they want to add? >> I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for file 26026 for 1044th Avenue as requested. >> And would that include any kind of recommendation to the board of
adjustment or not? >> Recommendation with the board of adjustment moving forward on other files to take into consideration parking from the rear of the property. >> But as far as I'm I'm sorry, >> not necessarily on this property. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Um I'll second
that motion. Madam clerk, roll call, please. Member Member Dashill. >> Yes. >> Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Member Young. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Hawkinsmith. >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you.
>> Although now we have a design review on that, right? >> Kind of the same thing. I think we've gone through. >> Yeah. >> And I'll be brief on this. Um this is the design review for the improvements. Um you saw the existing proposed site
plan just as with the previous case uh previous property to the direct east of this one. Um they are not adding any additional living space. They're adding the elevator at the front on the north side of the top top side of the proposed site plan. On the west side the left
they're adding a stair. On the right side they're adding a deck and stair. Um the right side and the north side is what requires the board of adjustment approval. Um the one on the east side extends about 2/3 of a foot into the
required side setback. The addition at the front uh the elevator it extends as the um owner stated um just about 8 in off the existing front of the structure. It's a couple inches less than the deck is proposed for the structure to the
east. However, the required side required front setback is 10 ft at this location. So effectively any addition to the front of the home does require a variance. We show the uh elevations. One thing I did want to point out and it was a
recommendation or a comment by staff was this was the design schematic for the um elevation itself. The elevator might be handled by a different entity. Um they had a flat roof uh elevator under this proposal and what was shown in the
markup or the uh the rendering was a um hip hip style roof um that extends a little bit above the existing roof line. And you can see the layout um as the applicant pointed out there is a delineation between the front of the
structure and the rear of the structure. They are separate units. There is no apparent uh cross access between them at least from the interior of the structure. They do have separate entries on the exterior. Staff had a few design comments on this one. Um we did feel that the front
elevator addition was appropriately designed. It was secondary. It it is secondary and massing to the main home. It doesn't imitate a historic feature. Um, now with the sloped roof, it does appear a little bit more like the um, historic portion of the home itself, but um, it does appear to still be secondary
and massing based on the rendering that was shown. Um, the board had already pointed this out. The front garage access is a substantial change to the frontage of the residence. Um, were this to remain in the local historic registry, that is definitely a consideration we would have had. Um and then the extent of the elevation will
likely preclude the home from contributing status consideration under future historic surveys. We have discussed this with the owner. They do understand that limitation. Uh in terms of the zoning, um as I mentioned before, there is a variance required due to the front elevator
edition and the eastern side deck edition. You may make recommendation on these encroachments if desired. As was the case for the previous residence, the block has an average primary home front setback of 5 to 10 feet. That is consistent with this proposal. The elevator addition also generally aligns
with the front of the home. If you have any comments, you're welcome to make them. And of course, the applicant is present. >> Anybody have any questions? >> I did not. >> Yeah, I think we went through that quite a bit a minute ago. All right. Thank you very much.
All right. So, now we go on to I think we're at 5C, design review on case number 26029 on 301 Gulf Way. >> Yes. Uh this is the third and final design review. This one is not a
contributing resource, so it did not require a certificate of appropriateness. Uh the applicant, owner, Todd and Susan Herman, 301 Gulf Way. The request is to add decks and stairs associated with the elevation of a residence. It is non-contributing as of the 2015 historic resources survey.
The building type for the lot size is house small. So this is also a case that we'll move on to the board of adjustment. I'll give a little bit of context for that in a moment. Uh you can see the existing survey on the left side of the screen. It's a one-story frame craftsman bungalow style
residence. Has a >> I'm sorry to interrupt. Do you have a picture of what the house looks like now? I don't think I got this in my package that didn't download. I don't think I can get that pulled up. Let me see. >> Is this the house? It's like maroon and >> Mhm.
>> It is. Okay. M and on the corner, right? I I know. I I guess I I have a feeling now for what it is, unless you have a picture or or a ground level shot. I'm trying to remember what it looked like from the front, but >> No, I will point out in the rendering because it does it depict it fairly.
They're not making any significant facade changes that I'm aware of. So, you can see what's elevated above that deck. That is fairly close to what it looks like today. Um with the uh the deck is new. Um they do have a shallow um front porch, but the
remainder of the uh rendering of the of the elevated living level is is accurate to what's out there and I can pull up the plans if you would you like the plans. >> Yeah, I'm just Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. If you show show the plans. Like I said, I don't know. I couldn't access that
earlier. And so and so just so I understand so I know the house and the house was determined to be non-contributing because of some of addition because it's an old house right >> correct um there was an extensive renovation I believe it was in 2010 and
um in the 2015 survey it was determined to be non-contributing >> right and so now they're turning the first floor into storage >> uh they are going to be elevating and adding a ground floor that's to use
being used for parking, storage, and access. And I'm pulling up the plans here. I'll show you what the current home looks like. Thanks. If we pull up the overhead, it's the other direction.
Not having any luck with this. And then I have the plan showing the existing front. >> Thank you. >> Say when you look at it directly viewed, all you see are you. So >> yeah, I was going to say that whole
archway in the beginning doesn't look doesn't seem but I get it now, right? Okay. And so is this is this like the other I know they don't need a COA, but are these like these other two homes that
they're just putting it they're building they're elevating the house and what how how much how high are they elevating it? >> Uh with this one I believe they're going up approximately 9 ft. Let me get to the side elevation here. >> 11 feet. I apologize.
I can see the southside from Third Avenue. Um, just in terms of design, again, this is not a contributing structure. So, this is related more to the design of the house. Um, it is a modern craftsman appearance. It has the arched windows, has a shallow porch instead of the
deeper porch that you tend to see in the the older pastor grillil craftsman bungalow houses. Um, it also has the ornamental uh columns on the side. I know it's not really part of the style where they have more of an arts and crafts look to them adjacent to the entry. It doesn't have the rafter tails that you tend to see on um some of the
older bungalow structures, but um staff feels that the elevation does preserve the appearance of the residents. Vehicular access remains from the alleyway, which is preferred. Uh the elevation, and this is to, I believe, the ceiling. That was the measurement that was shown, but as the applicant pointed out, it's it's actually an 11
foot elevation to the uh finished floor. I believe um they do elevate a reasonable distance to make use of the ground floor space that doesn't overwhelm the um the structure. The proposal utilizes Stuckco rather than horizontal lap in the ground floor. Um,
usually the continuation of the upper element to the ground level is preferred, but the the applicant can speak to their um, decision to to differentiate between the two floors. Um, the only recommendation from staff was potentially choosing a thicker top railing for the front deck, um, which is
generally more appropriate for the Craftsman bungalow design style. They may have a reason for why they chose a a thinner thinner top railing for that. In terms of zoning, um the reason why this item is being brought forward is as a um it's being brought forward for
consideration prior to moving on to the board of adjustment. They are elevating the home in place on both the north and on the east side. The home is being elevated with less than a three-foot setback from the property line under the land development code. That does require a variance to the setback standards
despite the fact that they are only elevating up in place. Uh the home itself is not getting any closer to the property line, nor are they adding on to the home uh to encroach closer to the property lines. Uh they are also adding a deck that will not even extend out as
far. It it it aligns with the existing south secondary frontage of the property on the third avenue side. But even with that, um they are within the required building envelope. So they would require a uh variance to the southern side setback as pointed out on the screen.
Generally speaking, staff finds the proposal is welldesigned. It preserves the detailing and features of the modern craftsman style home. I just wanted to point out that there is an existing wall on the right ofway on the third avenue side. It may be preserved, but any kind of new fencing. They are proposing some
new fencing adjacent the deck on the um red circle side where the uh on the bottom of that image. Um they are proposing some new fencing there that is subject to approval by public services. So with that, um, as with the prior cases, the board is welcome to make any
comments that you feel help with the compatibility of the structure within the district. Any questions for me? >> No, I I I don't. But if you'll put it back to the staff recommend or the comments on design. Yes. And then just leave that up there, I suppose. And I I
would like the uh applicants to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Uh, good afternoon. I'm Mark Gennady with Gennady Architecture, 211021 US Highway 19 North in Clearwater. I'm the
original architect of the renovation and the Hermans hired me to to aid him with this lifting project. And um we made some decisions to uh essentially keep the existing building. So um there are virtually no changes to that existing
building as we raise it up. Um the clients are design sensitive and I think the building looks like a little jewel. Uh and they wanted to keep the impression of that the the visual impression of that building from the
right away the public areas. Um, one of the reasons why we went with the cable railing is we thought it would obscure some of that architecture from uh, Gulf Way. Uh, another decision we made and
um my clients are in a position where they could use any material they wanted obviously for the railing and for the lower section of the building. But that third avenue um elevation is very visible and we thought we felt that the
siding on that uh length of building was really too much and the stucco gives us a chance to change colors subtly. that's it acts as a nice backdrop for the landscaping that they have on that site. Um and uh we we thought that was the
best solution. Um so that addresses I think the design comments and and I I'll answer any questions if you have any further ones. Well, I would just just to start off I would say it's a great house and I didn't know that it was not even
contributing. I know that there have been an addition done, but to me it still looks like good old Pastor Girl house there very well. I love the Craftsman style. Not that makes a difference, but and I appreciate everything you're doing and raising and keeping that. It looks great. I love your color scheme, too. Um Brandon, can you only because I wasn't
paying attention, I guess. Well, maybe you can answer this. I'm sure on the f what will be the first floor third avenue side. >> Mhm. >> Is there any kind of windows or anything or just a solid wall? >> No, it's Yeah, there there I think
there's two windows on that side. >> Okay, right. >> Two Yeah, there's two windows in that side. There's some plant material. >> Like I said, for some reason this didn't download at my Okay, I see it now. Okay. >> All right. the the garage from the alley
actually is recessed back in the building for the similar condition of situation for what the previous application is actually further back but oh I got it an elevation view so there's no door on that side on that facade but there are
two windows There's that little recessed area that's kind of existing with the building and the stair curls up from that little recess. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions? Please ask away.
>> No, it it appears that the front elevation is still set back further from the road or the front set back than the house next to it. So, there's no no visual encroachment there at all. We comply with the setback on golf. >> I mean, it's it's just the exact same
house just raised up in the air. There's no no additions to to either side of it other than vertically, right? Or Yeah. Okay. Some interior changes. We're adding an elevator. Um, but uh
second floor is >> as is. Anybody else have any comments, questions? >> I have nothing. >> All right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Very nice. Appreciate it very much. Thank you for listening to us. Okay, that takes us through fives up to 5D
which is height interpretation new buildings in the passenger overlay district. Hello Brandon. >> Yes, this is a um follow-up item to a request made at the board made by the board um at the last meeting.
Get to that. Uh there was a specific property that was requested um to be discussed to talk about the height interpretation. This item did not come to the historic preservation board. They had designed this home to meet the underlying setbacks which they were eligible to do. So it did not come
forward to this board for uh review. Um so this is a home that is built on Gulfway. Um, I believe it's nearing completion of construction and it is built um to what staff interprets to be effectively the maximum height that
would be allowed under the code based on how it is currently applied and the definition currently in place. So, I pointed out um maybe a little bit hard to see on the screen, but there are three different measurements um that I'm calling out on this slide. You have the basis for the height measurement. That's
the lowest circle in red. And that is an 8 foot above grade measurement. So that is the natural grade. Um and I have another slide that shows how that was established. That is 8 feet above that point provided that the ground floor is only used for parking, storage, and
access. That is the basis for the height measurement in the city's code for single family. um for large multifamily projects in certain areas of the city for commercial it does start at the base flood or at the design flood but for
residential with that underlying single family zoning um it is they are eligible to use it 8 ft above grade measurement which they chose in this case we also look at the maximum building height for a flat roof structure the maximum height
to the top of the habitable floor is 26 ft 7 inches for this residence that is measured from that 8 foot above grade point and that's what that's the left upper circle uh is showing that height there. So that is to the top of the
railing 26 ft 7 in uh the maximum allowed for that habitable roof as we interpret it is 28 ft. We also consider the overall height in passil. We don't in other districts that's specific to pass. That is any element of the
structure. That's antennas, that's steeples, that's koopalas, it's anything else that extends above the roof line. All has to be within that 32 foot overall height measurement. Now, there is a larger upper story as you can tell.
Um that is and I'll I'll show the interior floor plan in just a moment. That is all non-habitable space. That is marked and shown in the plans as storage as well as access to the roof area. That
highest point is 32 feet above the 8 foot above grade measurement. So that portion of the structure is at the absolute maximum height that would be allowed. It's actually I take that back. It's one inch under uh the absolute maximum height allowed um for this
property based on the uh the zoning interpretation and the application of the single family height standard. >> Brandon, before you go on that rendering, is it required that that top level be set back from the building envelope there?
>> Not if they meet the required underlying zoning setbacks, the front setback. So the set back to the closest point other than the balcony extension which has allowed a little bit of an addition um it is 20 ft from the Gulfway property
line um under the design overlay. They would be eligible for a 10-ft setback which they did not go forward with. So we would expect a recession for the upper story as part of the design review if they had gone through that process. But under this there there's it's it's
really the use of that space, not necessarily the um the massing of it. >> All right. Well, let me let me ask you this. This is I'm going to try to simplify it if I can. So,
isn't right the very top of that structure is 32 feet over the over the 8 foot >> correct? Right. And isn't a flat roof capped at 28 feet >> for for the primary residence? Yes. But
the overall height that is that is not habitable space. >> Okay. So I I say it is. I mean it it's that's the roof is the the highest structure is the roof. Are you saying the roof is actually the top of the
third floor and not the top of the fourth floor? >> Based on the overall definition of height in the city's land development code, um the measurement is typically taken for the primary roof measurement of the highest point of the habitable floor. I >> you have to show me where it says
primary where it says primary roof because I don't th this and I'm let me say this. I'm not trying to change this building, okay, or play a gotcha with staff or anything
like that. I just want to know as we go forward in looking at things >> because as I said before and one of the reasons I'm doing this, you know, many people have said this building is so big and so high and visually it does look
like it's too high. And so when I do a simple reading of the height, the height for a flat roof is 28 feet over base flood elevation. In this case, 8 ft. So, but
this is at 32 feet. So, I say it's 4t higher than it's supposed to be. A and I don't think you can play games and say it's nonhabitable when you've put a a rooftop on top of
what anert pertinance an accessory. I mean it's that's the roof. The roof is at 32 feet not 28 feet. And so as we go forward I just have a problem with everyone coming in here architecturally and basically saying oh we're going to put a fourth floor on it but it's
non-habitable. It's got a It's got windows and a wall and a roof. How you gonna How you gonna keep people from What is it for? It's not a chimney >> and >> it's not it's not elevator shaft. It's a It's a whole area. What are they going
to use it for? Storage on the fourth floor when they've got storage on the ground floor. So, be argumentative. I'm just saying I don't think it makes sense. >> Well, we do have floor plans. So, if we can go to the next slide and just explain building height and our land development code and I and Cherry, I understand your points, but I just would
like to have Brand. >> Yeah, please. I I I I want to be educated. I want to understand why this the what appears to be a simple reading of these rules comes out results in this. Mhm.
So again, and you know, it's this is on me for not putting the general definition of height in this code, but you can see here the definition. You already summarized it, so I don't really have anything to add on to that. It's measured from 8 ft above grade. That's not really the issue here. 28T to the
top of a parapet of a flat or low sloped roof, 32 feet overall. Um that I think that 4 foot difference between 28 and 32 is where there's some some difference in interpretation. Yes. >> And you can see here the floor plan. Um
I don't know that it's really relevant to the discussion that we're having. Um but you you will see that that is storage and rooftop access space. At least as shown on the plans. This would qualify as non-habitable space under the Florida building code. That's that's not
to say that the 28 to 32 ft um measurement isn't up for interpretation or discussion. It's just showing that that is the space that um that is how they described it and that is how they showed it on the plans. >> Okay. Okay. But now you're but you're
referring to it as everything I read that talks about height. They well for example you talk about this the examples fall into a more informally defined occupiable space.
Where does that come from about a distinction between habitable and occupiable? I mean, everything I read about height, besides the the the limits we've talked about 28 ft on a flat roof, >> then they talk about how you can go
higher than that as defined in the code as if it's a chimney or an elevator shaft or things of that nature. But nothing comes close to saying you can put a a whatever an 8 foot structure up
there with a roof and walls and windows in it. I mean that's a floor. That's not a that's not that's not a and as we go forward we've got to get a hold of that in in my opinion because you know look we all know we all know when people you know build their home
and the first floor is all for storage. You know, people do some things. They can't put bathrooms in there supposedly, but they, you know, it's not exactly used for storage. We know how people get around that. And people are going to do that. But, but they have to do that because that's a base flood elevation,
but they have to build that first floor like that. This floor is like putting a BF on top of a building. And so I I I I'm trying to figure out how staff interprets this as being like a chimney or an elev
or an elevator space or whether we've just kind of gradually made it an acceptance of of determining that height can include something like this. >> So that that's what comment in the agenda report was referring to. if you I
don't know if you had a chance to look at the height definition that was in there um from 199 >> well that that that is the current codes but when the pasil overlay district was adopted back in 1999 the definition for height and the overruns that are allowed
were significantly different from how it's written now currently it says non-habitable space it does give those examples that you brought up that are more in the occupiable space category >> okay let let's go through that piece by piece then so show show me. It's what's included. I think I printed this stuff
out. Show me where the where the would you say the 1999? >> Um, one of the first documents and I'm sorry, my battery died. I don't have my computer in front of me. But one of the first documents in the agenda packet under this item should have been a definition for building height that was
in the code at the time of um the passage of the overlay. and it used language that was less aligned with the building code definition for habitable. I I'll read it to you here. It's I don't have the page number, but
building height um and again 1993 the vertical distance measured from the 100year flood level at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs to the deckline of mansered roofs and to the mean height between the eaves and ridges for gable hip and gamrel roofs that is consistent with our current code. further provided
that decorative features, elevator lift houses, stair towers, air conditioning units, television or a radio antenna or other mechanical or functional features extend no more than 10 ft above said vertical distance.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm looking at that's from 1993, right? Definition. >> So that didn't use that term habitable. So that doesn't have that building code. >> I I get that. But if you if you read the definition of building height, okay,
it's talking about architectural features, not roofed space that's habitable. And the only reason it's unhabitable is because the the builder says, "Oh, I'm not going to habitate it." I mean, come on. Of course they are. Number one, they're not going to
use that for storage. We all know that. And so that's why this definition here of building height, we're talking about Eaves and ridges for Gableh Hip and Gamble Roose. Okay, that obviously that's you can't get out of the rain in
there. Uh decorative features. This is not a decorative feature. This is this is an absolute room. Elevator, lift housing, stair towers, all of that would be not something that would be open to, you know, uh
I mean it totally is habitable. Just because they say it's not doesn't change anything. And all these examples are here has nothing about, you know, it's okay to have walls and a roof and windows and build a basically a a
structure on top of your house. This is talking about radio antennas, television, mechanical features. That's not a mechanical feature. Doesn't about storage features. And you know, we we've got to get a g a grip on how we're going to start doing this or everyone's going to start doing
this. And I just don't see any any justification for that being 32 feet as opposed to 28 ft. And if it was stuck at 28 ft, there wouldn't be a four story in my opinion. And it wouldn't look near
as big because it would be shorter. And I I I I I'm I'm happy to go through every thing you cited because I've looked at all this stuff and I haven't found anything that changes that a flat roof is 28 ft. And I haven't found anything that
changes that anything on top of a roof is supposed to be like a chimney or a mechanical feature, not an not an entire room. Whether you want to I also haven't found anything where they give an example of what habitable means. They
certainly give it as an example when they're saying a chimney is not habitable because we know a chimney is not habitable. >> We've taken this now to to have, you know, a party room with walls and a ceiling on it that's four feet higher
than it's supposed to be supposed to be. And so the the purpose, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose of this discussion is for the staff to educate me if I'm wrong about this or if they
have a different opinion or a different interpretation. I I kind of understand what your interpretation is, but I also think that this is an issue for the city commission to determine how they evaluate this. Is this how they interpret
height? And so I don't know if anybody else has anything they want to ask. I I think for me I don't know if it's possible to look at the original applicant application where they had what their plans are going to be because
this is to me if I'm just whoever looking at this it looks like it's an additional like I would think that's maybe their master suite or something up there because it's going to have the best view of the house to be honest. So you know when you're looking at this coming down Golfway
it's alarming. it's it's not it's not cohesive with our community. And so I think if we can look at the way that the application was submitted to the city and maybe we can see how they were able to work the measurements to their advantage
to get to something like this. Maybe that gives us a point of saying, okay, this is how we need to readress the way things are stated or the way that things are done. So there's not it's not clear as mud. it's, you know, crystal clear and and it's not open for
interpretation because I feel like maybe that's where this has happened is we can't let it happen again. And I think over over the years as the definitions have changed and I think that was Brandon's intent including you know the height definition from 1993 and the
ordinance from 1999 and 2023 and the definition and how it's morphed over time how you could if you were here at the time you would understand that was the spirit but when it goes over time and they have certain habitable non-habitable well we referred to the
Florida Building Code on that. So, Florida Building Code says, "Well, bathrooms aren't considered habitable. Storage areas aren't considered habitable." And yes, that's how they described that on the building permit application in their floor plan,
understanding where you're coming from, but as a as a plan reviewer on that other side, I got to kind of have to take a further word for it >> on on that standpoint. I understand just just says that. So, I think we're trying to show how it's changed over different
revisions and everything like that. And when you have to fall back on a certain definition, where do you go? And like you're saying, we have to see where where are we finding that and what can we morph? But also not take away somebody else's rights if they've
already started. >> Okay. But but here's first off, I understand kind of what you're saying, but I don't see from a plain reading how things have really changed over time. It's it's been 28 feet and 32 feet overall for a long long time. And that
building height from 1993 talks about coupoopas and and mechanical features, not not storage areas or rooms. No. And so that's been a atrophy that has occurred over time by staff allowing it to happen. Again, I'm not I'm not
blaming any I'm not throwing stones. I don't know how we go forward on this. The simple way for me to look at this is what's the how high is that building? 32 feet. It's got a flat roof. That's higher than 28 feet. End of story. End of story. It's not a matter of them
having an elevator itself or having a stairway or or something else on top of the roof. This is a whole floor. And when we talk about the sensitivity of height, we've totally perverted the
whole reason for height if we're suggesting you can build a storage unit on top of your roof. Where does it stop when a when a plane hits it? When the a when aviation says it's too high, could this guy have built it 20 feet high? If
he if he if he calls it storage, I guess he could. >> No, he couldn't have because he he is limited that 32 feet is the absolute maximum for anything of this structure type. >> Okay, then then why is it limited on 30? If it's 32 feet is the limit, then why
doesn't isn't the flat roof 28 ft? you know, you're what you're saying is you've got a flat you have a flat roof, but we're not calling the the the roof the roof. We're calling that the top of a storage unit. And so, let me go back to what you just said because it it'll help me answer
that. You had mentioned that if this were a stair tower or an elevator shaft or something like that, you would you would be okay. >> I would not be okay. >> You would not be okay. Okay. But what I'm saying is that at least >> you can say that's clearly not habitable
because you know I still say you still make the same argument that it's not a function of what goes on below the rooftop like a chimney is not the fireplace. It's what goes on below the rooftop. If you want to have your chimney on the roof or have a fireplace
on your roof that's fine but the roof has to be lower than 28 feet. Okay. elevator shaft, not an elevator. If you want to have an elevator on your roof, that's fine, but it's got to be lower than the maximum. And so that's the
spirit of what all this means about being on rooftop. It's on it's something that has a function below the roof level mechanical for the air conditioning that goes on under the roof. It's not designed that people can put entertainment complexes on their roof in
violation of overall height because we're very height sensitive on the beach and the concept that you can just add a storage unit on your rooftop is absurd. If I may, I I would suggest if
there's an action that the Historic Preservation Board wants to take to change what um Chair Lowry is clearly um unhappy about, the best way forward to do that would to be to recommend a building code amendment to the city council, which is something that will
take time um given the current legislative climate. But that is I if there is something that you want to do about that, I'm suggesting that that would be the most productive way to do it. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to say it doesn't take a building code amendment. It's
already in the building code. We're just not following it. We've misinterpreted and perverted the spirit of how that what habitable means and occupiable. And all it takes is this. In this case, I'm going to talk to the city commission
about it. Is them making a decision to follow the code as it means in spirit and not how it has been interpreted and changed and morphed over time to have this result because this is the first one we've had like this that I'm aware of, but I can guarantee you we're going
to get a lot more. So, this is not the need of an amendment. It's it's the need of interpreting it as it was written. So, this was the opportunity for me to gather information from staff as to
because maybe I've missed something. And so now I've heard your version of of what you're basing stuff on. I disagree with it, but I'm fine with it to go forward. So, uh, I appreciate the advice, but I don't know if anybody else
has questions about this particular thing. Within the code, is there a clear definition of habitable and occupiable? >> No. >> Could we create a concrete definition of those terms and without having to change the code, we could make a
>> a concrete definition >> of those terms and then we could kind of control the code that way by definition rather than a change of the code. And then is this box on the top floor next to the stairs, is that an elevator landing or is it equipment that pulls
the elevator up to the floor below it? >> That I'm not sure. >> I mean, it's it just it doesn't look like a storage room. Again, maybe we need to get down to to limiting the size of what these >> unoccupi nonoccubable
>> habitable versus potentially habitable. Maybe they're saying it's not habitable, >> but it is potentially habitable and we know where it's going. >> Like the ground floor is potentially habitable. >> The ground floor is potentially habitable. >> Nobody will talk about that before the house gets built.
>> But but you have to have the ground floor but you have to have it because of flooding. You have to have that area. It's not going to flood on the rooftop, >> but you do have to have any outlets above a certain height. You have you can't have any plumbing down there. So maybe you can't have any outlets above a
certain height. You can't have any plumbing or mechanical except for what's you know maybe a an air conditioning component up there, but nothing usably mechanical up and enjoyable above that restriction. >> I'm just going to say this. When you
when you look at the construction of how ordinance are put together or how bills are passed, there's a there's a plain meaning of those things. Okay? And when they talk about rooftops and they say,
you know, you can't go over there over over the height unless it's like a chimney. And and the examples they give, the plain meaning of that is what you're allowed. Okay. And to go from a an example of a chimney, as I
said, to talk about that's functional for something below the roof. Okay. That's that's what they allow on top of the roof of things that are functional for what's below the roof. And that's a clear and plain meaning understanding of
what the definition already is. where it got tricky and you know is when they talked about other other nonhabitable meaning non-habitable as defined in these examples we've given you not
meaning a builder can just say well we're going to put a room up there we're just going to call it non-habitable because that changes otherwise it eliminates the reason why they gave examples of chimneys and mechanical and elevator shafts not of elevators so it's
already there it just takes a plain understanding and interpretation of what is intended. I can't believe that anybody would say when we said the maximum height is 32 feet or 28 feet that they said, "Oh, but what if what if
you wanted to put a storage box on top?" Oh, that's fine. Nobody would say that. This is just years and years of developers pushing it more and more and trying to get more and more and more and us conceding in some fashion. And again, I'm not trying to throw rocks. I'm not
trying to, if I come off angry, I probably do. I'm just saying I disagree entirely with where we're where we're at. And we need to determine that as we go forward. And it doesn't take an act of Congress. It would would just
take the commission if they agree with me. And if they don't, then they don't. But if they agree, then they can say to staff, "This is how we return. we we how we go forward interpreting this like it says, not the not this other stuff. And
so again, this was just a chance to find out how staff goes about looking at it because I said maybe I missed something. I don't know. And so first off, I thank you all for your honesty and your your tolerating me on a tyrate up here, but I'm I'm trying to do
something that's good for the community in the future. And I think we really need to get an answer to this question or a way we do it. Yes, Lord. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No problem. Thank you. >> Hello, Laura Canary, community development director. So, um, just a
couple items. I think that, um, as we know, um, consistency is key and I think when it comes to the interpretation or looking at potentially interpreting things differently, we would want something more concrete than that because whether it's the existing staff or new staff, we want that consistency
moving forward. And just in the last year since I've been here, I'm seeing this over and over and over again because frankly things have changed. Um we're not seeing that first floor activation any longer. You don't have the first, you know, the front porch anymore and a lot of that activation and activity is moving up whether you're
residential or commercial, frankly. So my recommendation would be and I'd like to take this back um to the city manager and propose um having a discussion workshop to discuss height specifically again because this is something that's not going away and I think that we need
to once and for all if it does arrive at that we need to make amendments to the code um to Khloe's point you know we have kind of some um restrictions in place right now per SB80 but I again I think it's something that is a little bit beyond the interpret portation. I think we need to get it documented and
then moving forward. Um that way we will have that consistency moving forward. >> I think that's an excellent suggestion and that's you know I'm just trying to light the fire in a way. Okay. So I think that's a good idea. I would hope we'd be included in that workshop. >> Absolutely.
>> Because I know having talked to my city commissioner for the district 4, it's a concern he has as well. And so, you know, this is a situation where we do need some resolution and not have these gray areas where, like I said, people on
the street are saying, "How'd that happen?" And and I and I look and I go, I don't know. I read this and this is what it says. I don't know how that happened. So, that's a great So, please talk to uh the city manager. maybe we can get something on that and and
maybe my our commissioner will say something at a meeting as well to try to get something going on that >> and I'll just add I know it's not as specific for um PAG but um as we move forward with the community redevelopment plan and for the CRA and through that
engagement obviously again height and as we talk about even uh on those commercial and mixeduse properties. So we thought that that might be a good opportunity to again facilitate some community engagement and hear from the community as well because again it it just comes down to years in the of
probably different interpretation and then but again more recently we've we've heard over and over again that how we're looking at it has been consistent to how we're looking at it um you know in in recent in recent reviews. So, um I will come I will provide that information
back to staff if I'm not at the next meeting and we'll um at least have some a plan in place on how we can have a robust discussion regarding height. >> Thank you very much. That's very very very helpful. All right. So, let's move on then. Thank you all again for indulging me. Uh now
we're at at unless there's any any other discussion about this issue that any of the board members want to ask questions about. Again, I think just to go back, I would just be curious to see what the initial application looked like for construction, just because again, just
driving by every single day, which I do, >> uh, I kind of get caught up myself looking at it and, you know, it's just a lot. >> Yep. Okay. So, 5F, update on plaques. Anybody have an update on that? >> I most certainly do.
>> Thank you. Um, so currently where we are with the historic plaques is we have actually decided to go more full service and the fact that we would no longer have to put the applicant or the the property owner in touch with the company
in order to place the order and everything else like that that you will be coming to us. We will probably do one bulk order in the beginning. Um, but we had to in the meantime we're doing behind the scenes work and working with financing and getting our GL code straight so that we can put it
in I work so when we receive them we have the appropriate uh accounts to put in the funds and then of course give the funds when we pay the company. Um so that's in place. Uh our application we're going on two different versions not knowing which way we could go full
service or having to do it the other way. Um, we're gathering our spreadsheet of information on the homes that were designated, their numbers, um, any information, email addresses, anything we have on that to just compile um, an
active list. Um, and going to start working with our, um, PIO with publication on the website, social media to get that information out. >> Okay. So, thank you. That's very helpful. When someone says to me, when can I get a plaque? What do I tell them?
They can contact us at planning. We can give them a status update, but we are diligently working along with eight million other things that we're doing. >> No, I I appreciate it. I'm just >> No, this is this is very exciting and I know that May is historic preservation month and I'm I was fingers crossed
trying to get everything straight. So, I know there's a lead time of 68 weeks. Um, so there might be a really brief time frame in which we try to get that bulk order out and then probably do quarterly after that. That sounds great. And thank you for that, too.
>> And just an just an idea slashquest. So, I know last meeting and thank you for this. >> Um, the new plaques were going to be $249 per plaque >> with with the person going to, you know, thank you for also taking on that additional task of taking care of
everything. Is it going to remain the 249? >> So, that's a lot of extra work. So, just an idea. I mean I don't know if you know when you go to Publix as an example and they're like oh do you want to round up your change to whatever if maybe when people are coming forward and saying we
want to get our plaques maybe at that time we can say you know would you be willing to make and I don't know legally if this is allowable >> you know if we could say would you be willing to make that 300 or 27 whatever the dollar whatever you got and then take that dollar amount to put
towards hex blocks for the historic communities. ities just because I feel like as a city we need money and maybe that would be a way to do it and keep it in historical relevance and also if you know once we have our fill of hex blocks maybe that goes
towards everything else that needs to be taken care of in the >> Yeah. No, what we need what we need is when they come in and tap their card that has a little box there that has 15 20% or 25 to add to add on to it. Yes. No, that's a No, that's a good idea. If
there's a time frame that you can that is a time frame where you could >> or would you also like to buy a hex block and maybe it could have your name on it? >> Not that's probably going to cost too much money. >> I'll decorate it for them if they want to be dazzled or put on it.
>> So, finger paint. >> Thank you, Kristen. That's that's really good. And it is exciting. And I would say this to board members because one of our duties is to think about adding uh not well plaques to the historic houses but also we do historical markers
okay which is slightly different and there's not a whole lot of them I think there we should talk about perhaps some other areas where we can do historical markers and just just as a topic for discussion at a later time for for example
you know the beach theater would that be nice to have a historical marker in front of them. The shuffleboard court would be nice to have one in front of there, you know. So, some areas that really haven't been mentioned that we as a committee are supposed to be kind of paying attention
to that. Just throwing that out. Okay. So, maybe when we bring it up again on plaques, someone can say they thought of some place that might need an historical marker. And we know the last one how long that that took. Uh, excuse me. And then we have 5G
update on the guideline book. What do we know on that Brandon or whoever? >> So I spoke to Tara last month uh right after the meeting. She is working on it. She indicated about an 8 to 10 week lead time. So I don't know if I'll have anything for the next meeting, but for
the one after that I should. Um I did want to point out as far as SP 180 is concerned, there is a bill that significantly modifies that. it would scale back the applicability for most of it to July, I believe, of this year. It looks like there is a House companion to
that bill now. So, we'll be tracking that, but this may line up better with should that pass. Um, you know, this might line up with us being able to get the item forward, the final reading of the the commission. So, I'll keep you updated. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. F uh 5H disclosures. Yeah. So, um, coincidentally, Mr. Deola mentioned with his application and, um, and design review presentation that he wasn't aware that he bought a historic
home. So, I don't know if this was because of all of my whining and emails and phone calls to the state and the association of realtors, but our sellers property disclosure now has questions that specifically ask the seller to disclose this is a historic property or
this is in a historic district. Um, one place I'd like to take that further is um with the Panelis County Property Appraisers Office. For instance, in the city of St. Petersburg, if your home is in the Granada Terrace historic district, that is part of your legal description. So, everyone knows if
they're looking at this property and this is the legal description, it is in a historic district. They might ask, "What does that mean to me?" But at least they know. Um, so I do think it would be really nice if we had properties that are within the Pasigil Historic District or what may by one day
become the Belle Vista Historic District that that's part of the legal description. Um, with the Association of Realtors disclosure form, not everyone has to use that particular form. And if it's a private sale, those sellers to buyers aren't necessarily making those disclosures. But if it were on the
public record, then it would be more readily available and better knowledge for the consumers. >> That's great. >> It is great. I for the record, I'm going to Mr. Dealola, he didn't buy when he
bought his house, it was not historic. when he had some work done on it with Ralph Likton as part of that they made it historic. So he may not it may not have dawned on him that it was historic but he really was behind and Brandon
you're you're shaking you're nodding your head on that. So that wasn't quite >> what you thought >> right but >> but it does but it does happen. >> Yeah but Ralph educated him on that right. So and if it were in the legal description that it's in a historic district he may it may have prompted him
to ask another question. >> Yeah. No no I I that I agree with everything you said. The only thing I'm saying is that when he bought the house, it was not historically designated. It became historically designated through him. >> Okay. I misunderstood that. >> Yeah, I understand it. That's all all I was trying to say. I'm not saying
everything you said is great and makes sense. I agree. >> And there's probably a lot of people that buy and don't know. >> They don't know. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> They don't know that it is. And even if they knew what it was, maybe they wouldn't know what it meant. But at least if they know and they see it, they'll ask the question.
>> I would agree. I think that's a great call out. >> Okay. Oh, no. In the same token, in looking at our designation list, there are some missing numbers that I can't put to a property. >> You mean historic numbers yet?
>> Yeah. Like 14, 19, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 51. Like, I just don't know where they went on our list if they were deseated or possibly demolished and then they were erased from our list. So um
>> I think on our current list if they were demolished they're still on the list but they're struck through and then they have a demo date. >> That is absolutely correct. But when you look at the list those certain numbers are missing like the whole line was just deleted. So that is another conundrum but I not
finding >> you know also on that on that same along that same thing about when they came through and they looked at homes and decided whether they were contributing or not. Okay. Do they do that for commercial buildings as well or
just for homes? Does anybody know the answer to that? >> I think it's just for residential depending on what the survey was for. That would be my guess because the other day I I know um the wararf wants to get historical designation and when I meet with you next Monday and some stuff I'm
gonna I'm going to bring some of that stuff with me but I was looking to see if it was >> contributing and it the the address just doesn't exist which makes me think probably none of the commercial buildings were >> generally not like for our grants that
we get now it's for residential unless it specifically branches out like I know Lynn is interested Ed on doing >> right >> others like kitchen sink we call it. >> But if if if a commercial structure wanted to become historically designated
are they prevented from that because they're not because they're commercial. >> Well, you did the seahorse >> and the beach theater >> and the beach theater >> and the keystone. Oh my gosh. >> You're >> so No. >> Yeah. No. I just don't know why. Yeah. I guess it's just because >> it's just not part of our survey.
>> Got it. All right. Very good. Thank you so much. >> Yep. >> Right. again. Thank you everybody.