WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=8Xq1Fi5mjw8 Part: 1 1 00:04:21.919 --> 00:04:37.040 Stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and 2 00:04:37.040 --> 00:04:52.560 justice for all. Roll call, please. >> Member Young, >> here. >> Member Zeleleski >> here. >> Member Dashiel >> here. >> Vice Chair Hurley >> here. >> We have a quorum. 3 00:04:52.560 --> 00:05:08.800 >> Um, do we have any changes or anything need to be made to the agenda? >> Not today. At this point, >> I actually would like to add a discussion point to our agenda if I may. Um I was hoping to do it last week um or last month I should say but we really 4 00:05:08.800 --> 00:05:25.600 didn't have the opportunity. Um I know we are coming up with um some design guidelines >> uh for the pasel overlay and for the city. Um and I would like to add the discussion of color um to the pas overlay discussion. 5 00:05:25.600 --> 00:05:41.840 >> It should be fine. That's going to end up being then discussion might put it with design book. Any suggestions? Or just put it on as D. 5D >> or just include it with the design book? 6 00:05:41.840 --> 00:06:02.080 >> I have it as 5D. >> That's a matter of preference. >> We're going to add it with design book. Is that right? >> The design conversation. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. >> Any other changes to the agenda? 7 00:06:02.080 --> 00:06:18.240 noted. >> No. >> Okay. Do we need to do a swearing in of the people that are do giving testimony today on any of these items? >> We just need a motion on the agenda. To approve the agenda. >> Thank you. >> Motion to approve the agenda. 8 00:06:18.240 --> 00:06:39.280 >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for Thursday, July 9th, 2026. >> I second that. Okay. Uh, this is time for general audience comments. We're here to make a general comment on something. If you 9 00:06:39.280 --> 00:06:55.280 have a case with us, pardon. >> Oh, you we still need to have a vote for the agenda. >> Oh, I guess roll call. >> Okay. Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Young? >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Hurley? 10 00:06:55.280 --> 00:07:09.919 >> Yes. >> Motion carries. bit rusty at this. >> Sorry. >> Um, this is the time that we would go to audience comments. If you have comments on anything that's going to be, but if you're giving testimony, you don't have 11 00:07:09.919 --> 00:07:24.800 to do that at this point, but if you have any other general comments, this would be the time to do it. Not seeing any. I would say we move on from there. Do we need to Well, let's go for the approval of the 12 00:07:24.800 --> 00:07:41.520 minutes. Anybody have a motion to approve the minutes from last month? >> I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes from last month. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Roll call. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. 13 00:07:41.520 --> 00:07:57.360 >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Young? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Hurley? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Do we need to do swearing in or etc? >> Yes. >> Giving testimony today. Okay. If you anyone who will be speaking 14 00:07:57.360 --> 00:08:14.319 or testifying before the board needs to be sworn in, please stand. Raise your right hand. Thank you. >> Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give or present to 15 00:08:14.319 --> 00:08:35.959 the board is truthful? >> Thank you. Okay, at this point I guess we're moving into our action items. Do we have a staff report for item 4 A? >> Yes, we do. If we could please pull up the presentation. 16 00:08:36.959 --> 00:08:52.880 >> So, this is a revision of a certificate of appropriateness that the board approved back toward the end of 2024 just before Hurricane Helen. This is for the property address of 257 Passil Way. It's case number 24053. 17 00:08:52.880 --> 00:09:07.519 Owners Sherry and Ron Cino. Staff is requesting board reconsideration of the certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a carport onto a single family residence. Here's some photos showing the preconstruction. Just to remind you of 18 00:09:07.519 --> 00:09:26.000 the scope on the north side of the residence, a utility platform was added. On the south side of the residence was the most significant addition. and it was a carport addition as well as modifications to the upper story of the residence to create a walkout deck. 19 00:09:26.000 --> 00:09:41.440 And you can see that here. These are post construction photos. They are winding down in the building permit. They had at the time applied for a an advalorum tax exemption request that had been recommended by the historic preservation board at the time. Because 20 00:09:41.440 --> 00:09:58.360 the basis for signing off on this request requires that the certificate of appropriateness be followed exactly. There have been a few minor design modifications that I wanted to point out to the board for your reconsideration. 21 00:09:58.800 --> 00:10:16.320 You can see those here looking at the drawing that was accepted by the historic preservation board on the left on the walkout deck itself. The intermediate post are thicker than they were shown on the design. The fascia board below the deck is also thicker. 22 00:10:16.320 --> 00:10:32.079 There is less taper to the columns that support the deck above the pedestal. Um they did keep the brick siding for that. Um but the top of the pedestal is a thicker cap than what was shown um in the drawing. You can see that on the 23 00:10:32.079 --> 00:10:49.200 left there. So with that um again we would just like to get the Historic Preservation Board's input on these changes. Staff finds them to be relatively minor. The only change that's a little bit more contemporary is the thicker pedestal cap. Um but we 24 00:10:49.200 --> 00:11:04.240 don't think it's anything that is is major cause for alarm. We would like the board to re r re-recommend this case to the city commission if you find that these changes were appropriate. If not, if you could make modificate or re 25 00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:25.480 recommendations rather on modifications that would allow you to make a recommendation to the city commission. We do plan to take this case forward next Tuesday to the city commission for a vote on the advalorum exemption that the owners had requested. Happy to take any any board input. 26 00:11:27.440 --> 00:11:42.720 >> Are the owners here? >> Be the next question. The owner or owner's representative want to stand up and make come up to the microphone. Please state your name and your address and speak into the microphone as the signs say. 27 00:11:42.720 --> 00:12:00.000 >> Hey everybody, I'm Sher Cino, 257 Pascal Way and that's my adorable blue house. historic house. >> Um, did anything transpire during the asbuilts that required you to make these changes or cause you to make these changes versus what the plans were? 28 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:15.200 >> Well, I didn't even know they had been made until Brandon pointed it out. I those those boards up on top, they seem it needs it seems like they needed to be a bit thicker just to hold up the railing to make that a little safer. And 29 00:12:15.200 --> 00:12:32.000 the bottom um the little white stuff on the stucco is just more of a design thing. It was built out by with wood and then we just put stucco on top because the wood was starting to dry and our our contractor 30 00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:46.800 stole our money and abandoned the project. So, we ended up having to do um that um in order to not have to rebuild the whole thing cuz the whole thing was just wood and it was drying and starting 31 00:12:46.800 --> 00:13:04.480 to split. So, we had to not have to do it again. [laughter] So, so that's what happened, I guess. Um it like I said, it's incidental. It looks like the house down the street. That's kind of what we modified to made it look like that. And I actually think the white looks a 32 00:13:04.480 --> 00:13:20.399 little thicker white looks a lot better than the the thinner white. That's just my opinion. >> Okay. But you're So you're no one other than the contractor that tried to help you finish the job changes that came along with that. There was no 33 00:13:20.399 --> 00:13:35.680 necessarily structural changes. >> Oh, there's no structural changes. No, >> they're purely cosmetic. >> But that Yeah, it's just that we have you can see on that picture, we have is those those the actual thing that holds 34 00:13:35.680 --> 00:13:52.000 up the little railing is a bit thicker than or was originally called for, but I I think that it should be thicker. I mean, it seems like it should be thicker. That was something that the contractor had done on his own, and I 35 00:13:52.000 --> 00:14:08.320 don't actually know what the plans say. Do you know, Brandon, what the plans say? because that's what it it's drawn but say and what's drawn may be different. >> I think the intent was for 12 in. It was just an estimate. I think it was around 36 00:14:08.320 --> 00:14:27.079 18. And it's not that staff has any ne necessarily has any concerns with the design changes. We just need because of the certification we need to provide for the advorum. We wanted this board to see and and reertify these changes >> just so it's it's consistent. Anybody 37 00:14:27.360 --> 00:14:42.720 on the board have any questions? >> Would would you you know your house is very it's a bungalow. It's a craftsman and one of the hallmarks of craftsman is tapered post in the front. Would you be open to 38 00:14:42.720 --> 00:15:01.760 tapering those posts back the way they originally proposed? Um we're in litigation right now with this attorney. I mean, with this contractor, and I can't even imagine fixing. I mean, we 39 00:15:01.760 --> 00:15:19.519 we could fix it, I guess. But I'd rather shoot myself on the head than do another thing on this house right this second, if you know what I'm saying. [laughter] It's just been so bad. Stole our money, cut our roof off, brand new roof. I mean, I can't even go into all of it, 40 00:15:19.519 --> 00:15:34.399 but I'd rather not. And it it's not really a craftsman house. It just we added that. So, it wasn't those those weren't there to begin with. It's just it's a craftsman 41 00:15:34.399 --> 00:15:51.279 style. So, we didn't have any columns before. So, it wasn't like we were matching them. >> But, I understand what you're saying. And so would I I imagine at some point in my life I might. But I I just can't 42 00:15:51.279 --> 00:16:08.639 be messing with this house anymore because we lost every single thing we own. [laughter] And then the contractor stole all our money. So we're still I mean I can't even I don't want to get involved. But do we need to fix it? Tell me. You tell 43 00:16:08.639 --> 00:16:24.480 me. If I need to fix it, we just won't approve it and we'll just go on. I just, you know, because I can't I can't tell you I'm gonna do that. I would, Am I opposed to it? No. But I will not do it in this next year and I might do it at 44 00:16:24.480 --> 00:16:41.199 some other point in my life when I get some energy, you know. So, it wasn't didn't start out as a craftsman house. It became a craftsman style house when we added this because the approval of the carport was 45 00:16:41.199 --> 00:16:59.199 pre hurricanes, which is what gave the illusion of it being the craftsman, right? >> Yeah. This whole thing was approved prior to Right. Yes. >> September 5th, 2024. It was go back in time. 46 00:16:59.199 --> 00:17:14.160 >> Well, I'm still living back there a little bit. The storm. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it was all everything was perfectly fine. >> So, prior to that, this didn't exist, which is part of the >> Yeah. which is what I'm saying is I understand >> it didn't even exist. So, >> right. 47 00:17:14.160 --> 00:17:30.160 >> And it was but we we got approval from the historic committee to do it like this. >> Correct. I understand. >> Yeah. >> I'm just saying that that's what gives it the illusion. So, in other words, that's what's giving it the illusion of the craftsman, which is a nod to you of 48 00:17:30.160 --> 00:17:45.120 being, you know, forward and thinking and having it tie into your home. So this is not a, you know, I'm giving you credit for basically making it continue to aesthetically look pleasing. I guess my question is, so 49 00:17:45.120 --> 00:18:02.320 this suggestion, this wider intermediate post, thicker fascia board, less taper, this is suggestions from >> staff >> staff. >> Not not necessarily asking that any changes are made. I'm just pointing out the differences between the plans that 50 00:18:02.320 --> 00:18:18.960 the historic preservation board accepted and and what has actually been constructed. If you have any concerns about any of these changes, now would be the time to bring them up. If you feel that it's necessary for the modifications to be made prior to the item moving forward to the city commission, which I think we just 51 00:18:18.960 --> 00:18:35.200 discussed would that would delay it quite a bit. Um, we'll take that into account, but this board does have authority on these requests and you had approved a slightly different plan than what was actually built. So, if you have concerns about these changes, we would address that now. If not, you would just 52 00:18:35.200 --> 00:18:50.640 reapprove the certificate of appropriateness and allow her to move on. >> I would I mean, personally, on my behalf, I would say let's approve it and move forward and allow them to get going with their lives. >> Yeah. the the changes that were made between the drawings and the asbuilt 53 00:18:50.640 --> 00:19:06.559 don't seem to be that significant. I mean, obviously, until you have the the drawings next to the picture, it's hard to tell that's not meeting the the expectation of trying to put a a structure that matches the existing 54 00:19:06.559 --> 00:19:23.120 building. >> I would agree. And I I think it would maybe help us move forward also if if we knew these changes were for structural integrity versus aesthetics. Um that would certainly cemented in my mind 55 00:19:23.120 --> 00:19:39.440 that this was these were necessary changes. You know once we had the storm you realized you need some stronger support post. So they were wider thicker. Oh, upstairs the they're really 56 00:19:39.440 --> 00:19:55.679 the same size downstairs, those posts, but the one upstairs the um those were thicker because they thought they it should be stronger. I don't know if we're a storm or what, 57 00:19:55.679 --> 00:20:10.880 just because of wind and everything else, you know. So, I know that those were that way. That that would be more logical. The ones downstairs, they're just it's the same size. >> Well, except for it's just not slightly 58 00:20:10.880 --> 00:20:27.120 tapered. It is It is actually tapered. It just isn't saw. They're tapered. >> They do have >> There's just It's not a 4 inch taper. It's a 2in taper. I mean, it's a taper. So it in 59 00:20:27.120 --> 00:20:43.919 >> in your opinion would it be these these would be structural integrity changes that that were made posttorm? >> I would say so it's >> okay. >> All right. Well then I'm happy to make a 60 00:20:43.919 --> 00:21:00.400 >> I'd like to ask one question. So um excuse me. So on the pedestal cap um is that concrete? >> What is what is that material on the top of the brick? >> Stuckco. >> That's a stucco. Um I think from a design element where I getting I like your idea of having it more tapered. Um 61 00:21:00.400 --> 00:21:17.200 if you could paint that top section of that um because it looks like that stucco is two sections. Is that is that >> pedestal cap? >> The pedestal cap. It looks It looks like it's two sections on that. Is it not? >> Yeah. I You have to point out what 62 00:21:17.200 --> 00:21:34.080 you're talking >> the white stucco on top of the brick. >> Yes. >> Is that two different sections of stucco? >> It's one. Are they but they look to be two different sizes. >> Well, it's I'm not I'm not really sure what you're 63 00:21:34.080 --> 00:21:50.159 asking. So, um what I'm >> Is it stepped in? >> It was built. >> It looks to be stepped in on the top section of the the stucco. >> It is. >> Okay. >> But it's not two section. I don't really know what you're talking about. So, >> so it's not two separate pieces of wood 64 00:21:50.159 --> 00:22:07.520 >> or a stucco. It's not one like this and then one that's square on top of it. It's all in one together. >> It's all one piece >> with stucco over it. >> Okay. So, my thought is to give that illusion of a little bit more of a of a taper. If you could paint that top 65 00:22:07.520 --> 00:22:23.280 section, the top stepped in section of um the pedestal cap that same blue, it would go back to that look of the thin white that you had on the original design. See, because it is looks like two 66 00:22:23.280 --> 00:22:39.760 sections and you could you can paint stucco. It's a thought that would give more of that look that you were asking for originally. Would you be interest able to do that? I know it's just painting. It's just 67 00:22:39.760 --> 00:22:53.760 painting a section. >> Yeah, you got to get a painter. You got to >> Okay. >> There's a lot. It isn't I don't paint. I'm not going to paint it. I mean, somebody might paint it. you that if you need me to paint it, I'll paint it. If 68 00:22:53.760 --> 00:23:14.240 that's really that critical, I mean, it's it's >> I I understand. I do. >> I just think that's an easy fix for that to get to the original design on that aspect. 69 00:23:14.240 --> 00:23:40.320 Anybody want to try and put forward a motion either to go forward with changes or to go ahead and just allow them to [clears throat] allow us to um amend the certificate of appropri just to accept it as it sits now. 70 00:23:40.320 --> 00:23:59.679 Thoughts? I will make a motion that we accept the certificate of appropriateness the way it does now. >> I'll second that. >> Member Dashiel? >> Yes. >> Member Young? >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. 71 00:23:59.679 --> 00:24:18.240 >> Vice Chair Hurley? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Item 4B, certificate of appropriateness for 108 Pass Way, number 26110. 72 00:24:18.240 --> 00:24:35.840 Brandon or anybody? >> Yes. And I'm sorry, this description is incorrect, but this is for 108 Pass Way. It's case 26110. Mark Laughler for Susan D. Russell Cameron. They are requesting to install an AC condenser on the south side of the 73 00:24:35.840 --> 00:24:53.039 structure. The residence in the property is a masonry vernacular single family structure with Mediterranean influence constructed in 1942 according to the 2003 boundary increase. 74 00:24:53.039 --> 00:25:08.640 It was approved for a posttorm garage door replacement. Air conditioning units currently exist on the southern side of the structure required to be elevated upon replacement due to storm damage pursuant to the 2023 Florida building code. This is one of the exemptions that the board cannot grant as part of your 75 00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:24.559 certificate of appropriateness and substantial improvement waiver capabilities. Units are required to be elevated even with a historic preservation board waiver. So you can see where the units are proposed. It's on the south side of the 76 00:25:24.559 --> 00:25:41.120 building. This is a double frontage lot. The east side of the lot faces Pasal Way. The north side faces Second Avenue. It also has an alleyway frontage on the west side to the south as a neighbor. Staff finds that the request is reasonable. It elevates the replacement 77 00:25:41.120 --> 00:25:56.240 units in the most reasonable fashion and location on the property. Potential that the units could be slightly more visible when viewed from the frontage is an acceptable trade-off for the substantially reduced time. the structure would be unoccupied under a future storm event or would need to remain without central cooling that 78 00:25:56.240 --> 00:26:11.760 could significantly mitigate mold growth and the risk of the structure needing to be substantially remediated in the future. We do prefer to see these modest improvements when when viable to make the structures more storm resilient. Staff does recommend two conditions of 79 00:26:11.760 --> 00:26:26.880 approval that they retain the existing vegetative buffer along the southeastern frontage of the structure. If it's damaged or remove removed in the future, should be replaced with mature vegetation of similar opacity. And the platform and brackets supporting the elevated air conditioning unit shall be 80 00:26:26.880 --> 00:26:42.400 painted to match the building. All new exterior wires shall be placed within shrouds matching the color of the building. So with that, we do ask that you make a motion to approve this case for 108 Pastoral Way with the two conditions as recommended by staff. We do have the applicant and the owner 81 00:26:42.400 --> 00:27:00.400 present. Would the applicant or representative like to speak answer questions please approach please >> please approach the microphone see so other people can hear you too. >> Well know that um the house is built in 82 00:27:00.400 --> 00:27:18.880 1951. It says 1942. It was built before there were even air conditioners. So >> go ahead. The bad news is you have to state your name and you need to state your address. Depends on the day. Um Susan Cameron 108 Pastor Way 83 00:27:18.880 --> 00:27:35.440 >> and uh you're aware that the height of the air conditioning units the condensers or the compressors now have to be elevated so high. So this is creating this question >> which we had 5T of water. So clearly that you know 84 00:27:35.440 --> 00:27:52.159 >> she had taken sorry Mark Leler 108 passed railway >> I guess >> um the compressors she took money from FEMA when they got destroyed. >> So that's what her concern is because 85 00:27:52.159 --> 00:28:09.279 FEMA wants them up high and that's part of why we're here is because FEMA wants them up as high as we can get them I guess 11 feet off the ground. Our air conditioning guy doesn't want to go that high, but whatever we have to do, but to put them up that high on a house, you have to go before this board to get the 86 00:28:09.279 --> 00:28:25.279 approval to put them up at 11 ft on an historical blowing. Is that correct? Is that why we're here? >> Correct. Yes. Just because of the elevation of the units. >> So, but the elevation is not something that we can deal with because there because of the new building code requirements. 87 00:28:25.279 --> 00:28:41.679 >> That's correct. The board could not wave the elevation requirement. However, if you find that there's a more appropriate place on the property for the units, you could make that recommendation. Staff does feel this is the most appropriate location given that the three frontages along public thorough affairs. But if 88 00:28:41.679 --> 00:28:59.440 you feel that there's another condition that could help mask the units or that they could be in a better location, you're welcome to make that recommendation. >> A better location would be a little lower to the ground, but she's all willing to go up high also. So >> yeah, that's that improve that portion 89 00:28:59.440 --> 00:29:15.520 has been taken taken off of our hands. That's >> in addition um with the house being when it was built in 1951, it was built where there were places for the what's the thing that goes inside? >> Air hangers. >> Air. So there's consideration that air hangers have to go in certain places 90 00:29:15.520 --> 00:29:30.640 because I've already had to get closet two closets. So we kind of kind of like the vest. >> You're talking about outside. I know, but I'm saying that the inside has a factor with the outside, too, because it can only be so far from the >> whatever you call that thing. 91 00:29:30.640 --> 00:29:46.399 >> So, where do we go from here? >> You guys vote to say they have to be >> basically basically that we're we're moving forward. The request that's been put in front of us is a motion of for the certificate of appropriateness that if you make the 92 00:29:46.399 --> 00:30:02.159 changes such as keeping the heavy vegetation to the east side of it, uh painting the struct painting the new support structures the color of the building and also uh having any attachments in conduit or etc that it 93 00:30:02.159 --> 00:30:16.960 would also match the color of the building. Of course. >> And be able to just give you the certificate of appropriateness if you are okay with those those choices that staff brought forward. >> Yes. >> You're not taking that tree out, right? >> No. >> So, you can't even see the units from 94 00:30:16.960 --> 00:30:32.399 the street cuz those trees are so thick. So, >> and next door there's going to be condos, I guess, eventually on the corner there. I don't know. It's been a while since that got approved, but nothing started. So, I didn't know what's going on with that. >> I don't know if it got approved because it had a lot of questions. 95 00:30:32.399 --> 00:30:53.919 >> Did it? It it did go through the variance process. We have not received a site plan, so we're not sure if it's been moved forward or not, but >> correct. Yes. Well, I'd like to make a motion 96 00:30:53.919 --> 00:31:10.159 >> um that we approve certificate of appropriateness 26110 for 108 Pasigrow Way with the two conditions as recommended by staff that the vegetative buffer along the southeastern front edge of the structure 97 00:31:10.159 --> 00:31:27.200 shall remain in place. If it's damaged or removed in the future, it'll be replaced with mature vegetation of similar opacity. And then all the brackets and supports for the platform um will be painted to match the 98 00:31:27.200 --> 00:31:42.720 building. And that all the new exterior wires will be placed in shrouds or conduit matching the color of the building. >> I'll second that. >> One more question. Say we want to even though they're 99 00:31:42.720 --> 00:31:59.440 hidden by vegetation, put a little uh privacy fence around it for both of them and enclose it because I know there's a house right by the tennis or the baseball field. They just did that and they put like a little fence around it and it's painted the same color as 100 00:31:59.440 --> 00:32:14.880 the house. So to kind of hide them and make it more aesthetically pleasing, would we be able to do that also? >> Brandon, do you have any >> I want to have any issues with that? No, >> four dozen. >> And it would meet, you know, all the requirements for ventilation. 101 00:32:14.880 --> 00:32:31.919 >> Correct. >> Is is that allowed? >> It's it's allowed under the as long as they meet the ventilation requirements. Does Does the board have any concerns with that? >> No. >> No. >> Agreed. >> So, at this point, we had our second, I 102 00:32:31.919 --> 00:32:48.960 guess, roll call. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashiel? >> Yes. >> Chair Hurley? Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. On to item 4C, the certificate of approprius for demolition number 26108 103 00:32:48.960 --> 00:33:06.240 at 101 11th Avenue. >> Yes, we have applicant owner of JBS Contracting Incorporated for Sixth Game Investments Incorporated. They are requesting a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a single family residence. was formerly a conversion from a garage um that existed 104 00:33:06.240 --> 00:33:22.080 behind a home that originally fronted more directly along 11th Avenue. That garage, even with its conversion, is considered a contributing structure to the Pastoral Historic District. As I mentioned, they are seeking to demolish the one-story converted 105 00:33:22.080 --> 00:33:38.159 residence. The the larger front residence was also a contributing structure. However, it was demolished back in 2010. It was considered a what is remaining is considered a contributing resource to the Pasil Historic District as of the 2015 RE survey. However, it was not found to be 106 00:33:38.159 --> 00:33:54.320 a contributing resources during the 2003 National Register of Historic Places boundary increase. The structure was determined to sustain have sustained substantial damage from the 2004 hurricanes. Permits for demolition and new construction are currently pending. 107 00:33:54.320 --> 00:34:13.280 So you can see here the location of the site, the photo of the former front structure on Google Maps from 2008. You can see here the current staff photos. This is a contributing structure. It is 108 00:34:13.280 --> 00:34:27.839 not locally designated. Structures that have been designated pursuant to the contributing structure status are eligible for a stay of up to 30 days by this board. If you would like for staff to discuss preservation incentives with the applicant, here are the criteria 109 00:34:27.839 --> 00:34:45.119 that we review in our staff report. The board cannot deny this request. You would be able to impose that 30-day stay. Um staff finds that the historic integrity of the structure is slight. It's not independent of the long demolished front home, a significant contributor to the historic integrity of 110 00:34:45.119 --> 00:35:00.720 the historic district. Uh it's also unclear when the garage was converted as is it is not a flood plane compliant structure. Staff does recommend approval of this request without a delay on demolition. And you can see our recommended motion here. I do not 111 00:35:00.720 --> 00:35:16.079 believe the applicant is present, but we're not recommending a stay on demolition. If the board was to recommend that, we would ask to continue this case to bring in the applicant. Any questions for staff? >> No. 112 00:35:16.079 --> 00:35:32.960 I I have a question. So the primary structure was demolished originally in was it 2014 >> 10 >> 10 >> and then this remained for what purpose? I I'm pretty sure it was rented out 113 00:35:32.960 --> 00:35:49.839 >> originally. Um the there was a house with the garage or had a small apartment structure with a garage in between the two. Actually, the when it went up for sale, the owner of the property to the east of it, 114 00:35:49.839 --> 00:36:05.040 purchased it and demolished the the front structure, kept the apartment building and then added the pool area. Um, they then sold or I believe sold to another relative and then after the storm, I don't know what all is going on 115 00:36:05.040 --> 00:36:22.000 with it. Um, I know it went up for the front house went up for sale. I assume it included the back parcel also, but I don't know the history of it since 2024. >> I would just be curious. So, 116 00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:37.280 given that there hasn't been a residential parcel solo by itself for a number of years, what would be the buildable size on this lot? So, this would be a house medium or house large. 117 00:36:37.280 --> 00:37:10.320 >> I believe it's a house medium. I just I'm a little concerned. I think it's I you know for the owner applicant to not be here and then ask for this demolition. I it makes me a little apprehensive to be honest. Slavon grade did get pretty inundated 118 00:37:10.320 --> 00:37:27.040 from the storm. >> So, >> and we we can't not deny them to to demolish it. We can only ask them to wait for 30 days. And as in that 30 days, is anything going to change? 119 00:37:27.040 --> 00:37:48.240 >> Probably not. I'd be willing to make the motion to uh approve the certificate of appropriate demolition without a stay. >> I'll second that motion. 120 00:37:48.240 --> 00:38:04.320 >> Member Dashiel. >> No. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Zeleleski, >> yes. >> Chair Hurley, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Right. Our last action item for today. This is 121 00:38:04.320 --> 00:38:21.280 local historic designation case 26098 for 1076th Avenue. Susan Cameron, manager of Grac LLC, requests local historic registry redesation of the primary dwelling on the property that was originally listed on the city's 122 00:38:21.280 --> 00:38:37.599 local historic registry in 1998. It remains on the registry. However, that was prior to the city earning certified local government status, which is what gives this board the authority to take action on incentive cases for historic properties such as substantial 123 00:38:37.599 --> 00:38:54.720 improvement variances. So, this would if redesated, it would allow the applicant to take advantage of those incentives in the future. They were also seeking new designation of the accessory dwelling, which was not designated back in 1998. You can see here the aerial of the 124 00:38:54.720 --> 00:39:11.680 property. It is of course along 6th Avenue and then a survey of the property. I will point out that the bay on the west side of the main residence does slightly extend into the alleyway. That is obviously a very long-term condition at this point in time. It is a 125 00:39:11.680 --> 00:39:26.720 wider alleyway 18 feet on that west side, but it does have a slight extension over into the public alleyway. Here is the photo of the home from 1936. There was a significant renovation that 126 00:39:26.720 --> 00:39:43.680 took place in 1968, I believe it was. So, that itself, that renovation is now historic in its own right. Um, it did make it give it a little bit more of a a Florida flare to that front residence. There had previously been a replacement 127 00:39:43.680 --> 00:40:01.280 of the now insized support post. You can see in the top right photo here. This is a current photo of the property taken last week that um column had been replaced. I I don't know the exact time, but it was sometime in the last 10 years. It had previously been a rot iron 128 00:40:01.280 --> 00:40:18.000 column. Um we do feel that that exchange is is a little bit more appropriate for the style of the structure. And then you can see the bay on the left photo that that slight extension into the alleyway. And then in the center photo, the rear accessory dwelling. Um staff would 129 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:35.040 consider both of these to be frame vernacular with some craftsman features included. And here are some photos that were sent by the applicant. This is for the rear dwelling specifically. Staff does support the application to 130 00:40:35.040 --> 00:40:50.800 both redesate the primary residence on the property and designate the rear accessory dwelling. We did want to get some testimony from the applicant. Um, just as the board found back in 1998, both structures possess strong architectural integrity and staff finds 131 00:40:50.800 --> 00:41:07.359 that preserving these modest multi- dwelling properties to be more essential today. We are losing a significant number of these properties that contain multiple dwellings, smaller smaller dwellings um both due to development pressure and these storms. Staff finds the buildings meet criteria 1A due to 132 00:41:07.359 --> 00:41:23.040 their expanding importance in the development patterns that created Passograil and 1D by embodying the frame vernacular and craftsman influence style that was common in the early 1920s the time of their construction. Both structures are contributing to the Pasil Historic District. They also have 133 00:41:23.040 --> 00:41:38.560 Florida master site files. We did just want the applicant to note whether there is any needed interior work to the rear dwelling. Um that would affect the exterior. Again, that's specifically for the rear dwelling which is not elevated to the extent of the 134 00:41:38.560 --> 00:41:54.480 front dwelling. And as I pointed out before, the bay on the west side of the building overhangs the public alleyway. This condition has existed for many decades. Um, if the applicant chooses in the future to elevate the front dwelling or add onto 135 00:41:54.480 --> 00:42:10.160 it, we would need to address that at this that time, it could not be elevated within the alleyway. Um, it would also potentially reduce the ability to modify that bay in the future, but this is obviously a condition that has ex existed for a long time. This would be 136 00:42:10.160 --> 00:42:25.839 something that they'd be allowed to renovate and maintain on into the future. So, I just wanted to point that out so the owner could acknowledge it. With that, um, again, just seeking applicant testimony of any kind of renovation that needs to be take place in the rear dwelling. Uh, we do 137 00:42:25.839 --> 00:42:41.359 recommend approval of this case for both the redesation of the front primary dwelling and designation of the rear accessory dwelling as local historic resources. Happy to take any questions. And of course, we have the owner present. 138 00:42:41.359 --> 00:43:06.079 >> Any questions for staff? >> [clears throat] >> owner or owners representative or both you want to come back up to the podium 108 passway >> Cameron manager of Gracie LLC 1068th Avenue I'm very excited to see the old pictures I've never seen that I'd like 139 00:43:06.079 --> 00:43:23.440 to turn it back to that >> um staff had a couple questions about the >> what was it the structure the rear structure >> it was specifically do you see see the need for any alterations or renovations to the rear structure have those been 140 00:43:23.440 --> 00:43:44.319 completed >> they have not we're not going to change anything on the outside >> okay perfect >> board any questions >> I don't I don't have any questions Okay. Um, 141 00:43:44.319 --> 00:43:59.680 following the applicant testimony, we need to make a motion. The motion I'll make the motion to approve case number 26098 for the redesation of the front primary dwelling and designation of the rear accessory dwelling as a local historic 142 00:43:59.680 --> 00:44:14.960 resource. >> Second. >> Member Dashill. >> Yes. >> Member Young. >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski. >> Yes. Ch. Uh, Vice Chair Hurley. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. 143 00:44:14.960 --> 00:44:35.760 >> Thank you. >> Discussion items. >> Stay for a little while. I think you can go. >> Yes, you can go. >> Discussion items. >> So, our first item, which Kristen Kman, >> thank you. >> will present on is an update to the 144 00:44:35.760 --> 00:44:51.200 historic plaque order. Hello everyone, Kristen Coleman, planning manager, and I'd like to give a quick update on the historic plaque program. Well, not all of the historic plaques have been shipped yet, but we've been advised that the remaining plaques will be shipped within the next two 145 00:44:51.200 --> 00:45:08.160 weeks or so. Um, and we anticipate having all of the plaques in time for our next historic preservation board meeting. So with that in mind, um at the August meeting, staff would like to hold a brief presentation recognizing the historic plaque res recipients and distribute the plaques to those who are 146 00:45:08.160 --> 00:45:24.480 able to attend the meeting. If they are unable to, we can arrange for pickup here at city hall for them. So we're we're really excited. I have seen the first batch that has come in. Um and we're excited to be able to recognize those recipients and and everything. So, 147 00:45:24.480 --> 00:45:39.599 if that's okay with you, we're going to do that at the uh I believe it's August 8th meeting. >> Okay, >> that's wonderful. >> And if they have any questions, happy to answer those as well. >> I think it's great. I I can't thank you guys enough for all of your hard work in 148 00:45:39.599 --> 00:45:54.880 making it happen and and hopefully there's been a great turnout and people are still thinking, but I think it's wonderful. >> We've had a few stragglers come in. Um but o overall we've had 26. >> So, pretty good for the first batch. Yeah, >> exactly. 149 00:45:54.880 --> 00:46:14.240 >> Nice. >> Thank you. Um, moving on. Discussion item 5B, the design guideline guide book update. >> Yes, if we could pull the screen back up. I did just want to share with the board that our consultant has provided 150 00:46:14.240 --> 00:46:30.640 the first draft of the Coastal Craftsman design guidelines and we have been working on this. This is from a few weeks ago. I know that they're actively working on the background and putting together a more thorough guide book with 151 00:46:30.640 --> 00:46:46.960 all the different architectural designs that the board promotes down in Pastor Gril. I wanted to share this just because it is our first concept. Um there were a few slight modifications made based on staff comments, but I felt that they did an excellent job at 152 00:46:46.960 --> 00:47:02.640 capturing what we would want to see in the guide book. You of course have seen this home before. This is going in up at 24th Avenue. She's going and this is for each of the styles that will be in the guide book. Um providing a basic framework, a um 153 00:47:02.640 --> 00:47:18.400 effectively a template for designing the building based on the primary secondary massing, the shared common elements, the different design criteria that come out of the city's local code, our our division 20 for design elements, and then a focus more on the actual 154 00:47:18.400 --> 00:47:33.440 architectural style that's being promoted. This example is the coastal craftsman. It gives identification of the features that are common for this style. These are there's uh three different columns. So this would help guide both staff applicants and the 155 00:47:33.440 --> 00:47:50.160 board in required characteristics. Those features that are not typical of in this case the coastal craftsman style such as avoiding the prairie style horizontal windows, any kind kind of clay tile roofs. you tend to see more more asphalt and and features like that in the 156 00:47:50.160 --> 00:48:05.440 coastal craftsman. And then some of the optional elements, these are not essential elements that would be required in the design, but that would include exposed rafter tails, which are are fairly common down in St. Pet uh Beach and uh standing seam metal 157 00:48:05.440 --> 00:48:21.280 roofing, which is another more modern contemporary feature of the craftsman style. So, this would be provided for each of the architectural styles. You would have a required column, a not typical column, and then a compatible optional elements for those who wish to 158 00:48:21.280 --> 00:48:36.319 add those features onto their home. You would have some feature designs um showing the different types of windows, columns, typical roof lines for these architectural styles. And then again just another modification showing 159 00:48:36.319 --> 00:48:54.079 the um the again the the construction of a residence based on the framework provided in the guide. You would see a an example of a home that did not have any of the features applied. One with the architectural standards applied and then with the architectural and 160 00:48:54.079 --> 00:49:09.119 landscaping standards applied. Landscaping standards are standard across pasil, but there might be locations where it may be more appropriate to have a larger, more canopy style tree or palms based on the architecture of the home. So, this is 161 00:49:09.119 --> 00:49:25.839 the basic template. Um, again, just using one of the architectural styles. our consultant is working on a more thorough guidelines for all of the styles that would be included in the guide book, but we're happy to get the board's input. Um, if you feel that this is going the right direction, if there 162 00:49:25.839 --> 00:49:44.880 are other features that you would like to see in the guidelines, we'd be happy to take your input. I think maybe this is one area where I'll I'll step up and make my comment about color um as a feature to add to the to the design guidelines because 163 00:49:44.880 --> 00:49:59.680 they are one of the pillars of architectural um features color and um I've lived in this community for five years and I did go through pass and I have to say I am struggling to find a 164 00:49:59.680 --> 00:50:15.599 new build uh in the last five years that is not a shade of white. And when you look up what Pasa Grill is known for, it's known for its vernacular style and it's known for its colorful architectural homes, coastal colorful 165 00:50:15.599 --> 00:50:32.160 homes. And I'm feel I really fear that we're losing that in the pasural community. Um, so being that it is a pillar of an architectural feature, uh, one of the seven pillars, I would like to have a discussion of adding some type 166 00:50:32.160 --> 00:50:54.880 of color options to future design. I I really I I went around and I I cannot find a new home that's not white. >> I understand what you're saying. I just find it difficult to call out somebody's 167 00:50:54.880 --> 00:51:11.119 color on their house >> specific. I mean, recommendation that, you know, I don't know if you can take white off the table completely. Oh, I I I understand, but it I can't find a new home that's not all white. 168 00:51:11.119 --> 00:51:28.000 >> You're you're suggesting a suggested color palettes. >> Well, this is what this is happening here, right? We're suggesting coastal craftsmen. So, are we saying that anybody that's building a new home in the Pasa Grillil community moving forward needs to build a coastal 169 00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:44.800 craftsman home? No, that is just one of the it the design book goes into several different styles. >> Okay. >> What it tries to do is is help guide a new homeowner or new land owner and their architect in these are the type of styles that we would like to see here. 170 00:51:44.800 --> 00:52:06.160 Um that's this is one chapter, one page out of that sign book that they they've shared with us at this point. >> I I appreciate that. And I think we can also make one chapter of these are the palette colors that we would like to see >> for each style. I think we've got the 171 00:52:06.160 --> 00:52:22.319 craftsman. We've got I don't know what what others that we have got coming, but for each style maybe a suggested color palette. >> I think we can definitely do. merely a suggestion, but 172 00:52:22.319 --> 00:52:40.480 that might solidify somebody's thought process or creative process when they're maybe deciding on a style of home. Of course, we all know that they can still build what they want, but this just gives them a little bit more 173 00:52:40.480 --> 00:52:56.480 guidance on what the board would like to see. So that would be more like an earthy palette for example for the craftsman. Maybe not necessarily the coastal coastal white might be more appropriate and key west would be more vibrant 174 00:52:56.480 --> 00:53:11.520 color. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> I just know that I have lived in two historic neighborhoods before for like 20 years. One colonial, one federalist. And those homes that are in Salem, Massachusetts and Marblehead, Massachusetts, which is prior to the 175 00:53:11.520 --> 00:53:28.480 Revolutionary War, those homes have to be a specific color that is that is designated to that um that the age of the home like colonial colors. So that's my thought process here. and that I feel 176 00:53:28.480 --> 00:53:44.480 that the Pasil overlay is losing the colorful aspect because every home that we've seen that is being demolished, they were all colorful. They had last month there were two of them. They were both yellow and I can guarantee you the new homes that are 177 00:53:44.480 --> 00:53:59.040 going to go up in that block and that lot are probably going to be white based on what's going up right now. Brandon, you know, is it something that you've seen or suggest or would be talking to Tara about it again or 178 00:53:59.040 --> 00:54:16.319 >> I'll talk to Tara about it. We I'm fairly certain in other design guide books she's put together, she has had recommended pallets. So, that might be something we can just draw forward from those if the board is in agreement with including this. >> Draw forward and give us some direction on it. 179 00:54:16.319 --> 00:54:33.680 >> Good. Thank you. >> And bring that forward. Okay. Any other questions or discussion about the design book and etc. >> I think it's looking great. >> I agree. >> Okay. Uh item 5C, standing topics of 180 00:54:33.680 --> 00:54:50.400 interest and updates. I guess this is where we learn about shuffle boards and everything else. >> So I think our major update for this month is just an update on some of the surveys. We do have the major bulks remaining center of the city survey that 181 00:54:50.400 --> 00:55:07.839 has been authorized by the state. Um it has been funded. So that is majority along Gulf Boulevard in district 2 I believe. And then we are also making application to reservey passer. The last survey was done in 2015. 182 00:55:07.839 --> 00:55:22.480 At the time it was recommended that we update our survey every 10 years. We feel that especially by the time those grants start to be funded by the middle of next year, um hopefully we start to see a slowdown in demolition and reconstruction and we can reassess where 183 00:55:22.480 --> 00:55:38.960 the neighborhood is. Um, we focus a lot on the demolitions, but these surveys do tend to pick up some of the changes that were made certainly during hurricane restoration, changes to windows, roofs, doors, those other features that are associated with contributing structures 184 00:55:38.960 --> 00:55:55.119 that this board may not have seen that might have gone through an administrative process. It's really important to survey where um where the homes are at with with the changes in features since 2015. So, we're hopeful for that grant. We're working on it now. Thank you to the members who have provided the letters of support. We'll 185 00:55:55.119 --> 00:56:10.480 include those with the application when they go out tomorrow. And uh Kristen, do you have any other updates? >> Just because you brought up the shuffle board. So, um I am part of the group that will be speaking with the contractor going forward. I think it's next week. So, as we work through that 186 00:56:10.480 --> 00:56:28.079 process, I'll be sure to bring any information I have with that um forward to you guys. So, I'm willing to share. >> Appreciate that. Welcome. That's all from staff. >> All discussion. >> Oh, no. Go ahead. Go ahead. 187 00:56:28.079 --> 00:56:45.599 >> No. Is that the end of discussion for the updates? >> Yes. Yes, it is. >> Is it too late to add something to be discussed? >> No, we're discussion. >> And I'm I'm just throwing it out there. is the there is a sign at Corey Avenue 188 00:56:45.599 --> 00:57:02.880 and Gulf Boulevard right by the light that says it's got a sign. It's got a flower box supposedly it's lit up. Do we know who has who owns that box? Is it city property? 189 00:57:02.880 --> 00:57:18.559 Is does it belong to like the merchants of Corey Avenue? It's just very dated and sad looking. >> Is that the center median sign that you're referring to that out toward G Boulevard? >> I believe that's a city sign. I can talk 190 00:57:18.559 --> 00:57:33.359 with our public services department, but I believe it's city. It looks like it just just from the mechanics and that it's got electricity and but it I think maybe as as we're trying to 191 00:57:33.359 --> 00:57:50.000 beautify the city that might be a place in a very important historical area that a lot of visitors see. It looks straight out of 1957. Um it doesn't look like it has a 192 00:57:50.000 --> 00:58:13.440 historical element. It just looks like it's been neglected for 68 years. >> So that be a recommendation to look at potential restoration options for that sign. Is that what you would like? >> And I don't I don't think it has to be 193 00:58:13.440 --> 00:58:29.760 extensive. It it just needs the the light post fixtures. Um look like they came off a horse barn. Um there's no planting in the flower boxes. All weeds. 194 00:58:29.760 --> 00:58:44.880 Uh I don't recall it ever seeing it lit up, but I I haven't made a particular um trip to see if it lights up at night. you know, maybe we make that as an 195 00:58:44.880 --> 00:59:00.559 initiative to look citywide on all of these parks. And the only reason why I say that is because the city has a multitude of micro parks. And I know the one on uh Pasigril Ursas Park has an American Legion sign and they have not been supporting that park for years. And 196 00:59:00.559 --> 00:59:16.000 the Paso Women's Club has taken that over to uh replant and uh Janice Tropicals is taking that on. And so the Posa Girl Women's Club is having a sign because they're going to maintain that park now. And if that's happening and 197 00:59:16.000 --> 00:59:30.640 that park has just been neglected. So this is exactly what's what you're pointing to at Cory and maybe there are probably quite a few of them throughout the districts in the city that are all having the same issue and they've just been neglected. And and perhaps as we 198 00:59:30.640 --> 00:59:47.599 identify those, we we could elicit support. Like for instance, the Corey Avenue one, >> ask the Corey Avenue Merchants Association to adopt that and keep it planted and watered and weed-free. 199 00:59:47.599 --> 01:00:04.480 >> Right. >> I agree. I think I think that's they're great call outs because I think that you know if we're welcoming people into Corey Avenue and saying this is our historic cute community and we've got the beach theater and we've got all these things it should have a little bit of life to it and I was recently talking 200 01:00:04.480 --> 01:00:20.799 with someone who said you know the city looks blighted going up and down G Boulevard and I thought gosh you know that's a good unfortunately it's a good call out. Um, so kind of to your both of your points of maybe each commissioner can go 201 01:00:20.799 --> 01:00:37.520 to a group of people and say this area is a project area and will you guys take it on or who wants to take it on just to help out because I know the city has a lot on their plate. But we also have a responsibility especially to our historic areas and then other areas of the community that'll hopefully be historic, you know, not too many days 202 01:00:37.520 --> 01:00:55.440 from now. So I think those are good call outs. >> Yeah. So, Brandon, what do you suggest on that? >> You can talk with public services. Um, I'll speak with the city manager and we'll go from there. >> Great. 203 01:00:55.440 --> 01:01:10.799 >> Is there a regular review of like park signage, even the micro park signage? >> That I don't know. Um, I'm not sure. I >> just happened to notice one on my way here today just down the street, two blocks here on Bay Street, I guess it is. 204 01:01:10.799 --> 01:01:25.839 >> And it looks terrible. Looks like it's mostly storm damage, too. I just didn't know if we have a time to review these or not. >> I don't have any refurbishment schedule for them. I I will talk with public services and our parks department to see 205 01:01:25.839 --> 01:01:43.920 if they have anything on file. >> Board, any additional discussion or anything? >> No. >> No. Our next meeting is August 6th at 2:30 and 206 01:01:43.920 --> 01:01:49.240 is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.