board meeting for the city of St. Pete Beach. This is on April 2nd, 2026. If we could all rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. >> Uh madame uh clerk would you give us a roll call please? >> Memberurley >> yes here.
>> Member Young here. Vice chair Hawkinsmith >> here. Member Dashel >> here. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. Here. >> We have a quorum and we ask that everybody speaks directly into their microphone. Thank you. >> Okay. First on the agenda is the
approval of the agenda. Um, everybody had a chance to review it and does anybody have something they'd like to add? Brandon? >> Staff is just requesting rearrangement of a few items and removal of one. Um the owner of item 4B has asked that that
case be pulled. Uh the property just sold and the new owners will be representing that case. So that's a removal of 4B. We do have one of the applicants present for item 6A. So if we could potentially take that in advance of item 5C, which
is amendments, which we did, that's the third item. Um earlier today we uh disseminated an interpretation in lie of a change to the code. Um and we'll get into detail on that, but if we've um pass those out, if we could just have
that replace item 5C. >> Okay. So, we're doing 5C is being passed to basically being 5D arguably and then we're doing 6A after 5B, right? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Anybody else have anything to add to the
agenda? >> Um, I'd like to add an update from the Gulf Beach's Historic Museum. >> Okay, we'll make that 6D museum update. >> Anyone have anything else?
Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as changed. >> I'll second. Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Young, >> Vice Chair Hogen Smith, >> yes. >> Member Dashel, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. Next, we go to audience comments. Um, members of the audience, if you're here to speak specifically on something that's on the agenda, you can hold your time until that actually comes up. This is an appropriate time if you just have
some general comment you want to make to the historic board. Now's the time to do that. Does anybody have a general comment they'd like to bring up? Okay, seeing none, we'll go forward to
three, which is approval of minutes. Has anybody had an opportunity to read the minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for the March 5th, 2026 meeting of the Historic Preservation Board. >> I'll second that. Madame Clerk, roll call, please.
>> Member Dashel, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Hogen Smith, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Um I think probably before we get the action items on number four, do we need to place people under oath? That's
that's pretty much a routine thing that we're doing. Now, what the madam clerk's going to do is if you're going to testify or give information about something today, uh we want you to stand up and just take the oath. That's just become routine now. So, if you plan on
speaking, if you'll stand up and face Madame Clerk, >> thank you. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give or present to the board is truthful? Thank you.
I can't I can't hear them. So, >> okay, let me I just got a note here from one of the board members who's having such a hearing problem she can't hear anything from the podium and so she's going to go ahead and leave which still leaves us with a quorum of four. So, for
the record, uh Holly is going to be stepping out. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Holly. Okay. So, let's go to action items. 4A is the local historic designation case number 2640 for the residents of 360 Belle Vista
Drive East. >> Hi, Lynn. Please. >> Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. Get this PowerPoint up first. Okay, this is a local designation request for 3600
Bel Vista Drive East, case number 26040. Applicant owner Daniel and Debbie Bowen. And this local designation request is of a single family residential structure. You can see that it is located on the
water and it's on a kind of the end of a curve and also the survey of the house. This is what the house looks like. I will be talking about its architecture in a moment.
So, the property owners are requesting a local landmark designation for their for their property at 3600 Bel Vista Drive East. The architecture form of this house is a general ranch type form, but
with mid-century Spanish styling on the exterior. As previously noted, the residential Spanish influenced ranchstyle building was built in 1969 and is a masonry vernacular which is a block house with an outer layer of
stucco that helps create the Spanish influence and styling. The roof is terracotta tile which further supports the Spanish styling. This property reflects the broad cultural history of the township of Bel
Vista and predominantly predominant residential nature. It embodies the distinct and visible characteristics of the masonry vernacular type of architecture along with the ornate Spanish styling of the
stucco over block exterior and the terracotta tile on the roof which further enhances the Spanish theme style of this house. The applicants are not proposing to alter this historic use of the building as a single family residential
structure, nor any alterations or adaptive use proposals are being uh brought forward at this time. staff has analyzed this house according to specific um criteria and finds that
this house reflects the broad cultural history of the Bel Vista neighborhood with a strong Spanish styling and it embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of a Spanish influenced masonry vernacular residence in style period and method of construction. I'll
be glad to answer any questions you may have. Um or otherwise I guess the applicant could come could come up and speak. >> Anybody have any questions for Lyn? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Lyn. >> Um the Bowens or either one want to come
up and speak? No. Okay. They're not present. >> I spoke with them. They weren't able to attend the meeting. I did advise that if the board had any questions, we would ask that this case be continued to next month. >> Okay. Does anybody would anybody have had any questions for that?
>> I don't see an issue with it. >> I don't either. So, um it's pretty straightforward here. It's clearly old enough. It's clearly has some historic elements that are welcome to the area. Um we like to give historic designations
when we can. So in that regard, I would make a motion to grant the local historic designation case number 2640 for the residents at 360 Belle Vista Drive East. >> I'll second that.
>> Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, >> yes. >> Member Dashel, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. 4B being removed. We're now going on to 5A discussion items. This is
a design review. Uh case number 2495 for the residents, potential residents at 1303 Gulf Way. Mr. Barry. >> Yes. So, this is a resubmitt of a case that this board looked at earlier last
year. It had originally come in in late 2024. Uh we do have the agents Jenny Callahan and John Wolf present for Audane Ross owner property address of 1303 Gulf Way. This is a design review of a new single
family residence originally reviewed as I said at the March 2025 historic preservation board meeting. Uh you can see the uh the form study on the left from the 2024 submitt. Uh the new submitt on the right. Um we have
worked with our design reviewer uh Terara Salmiieri and the applicant for well over a year now on the submitt. Um the what is shown on the right our designer reviewer does find meets the criteria uh the architectural standards for um a new home in the Pasal Overlay
district to the house medium standards. Here's another shot. Uh you can see to the northeast on the left and then the rear of the structure is proposed on the right from the alley. Here are some photos of other buildings in the vicinity. Uh the two homes to the
north on the bottom left. Uh the vacant lot on the right and then a slightly older um Sable Palms in uh photo on the north or on the top of the slide. Here's the site plan for the property.
uh we have discussed with the owner the vegetation requirements at the front and they do intend to meet those uh requirements. So for the design uh the city's design reviewers worked with the architects and finds that the current design meets the design requirements. There's a clear
ground support for the upper stories. There is a clear secondary massing common pallet of design elements. Grace stucco and brick work that's shared between the floors. Those are some of the more recent a modifications they made to the front facade of the structure reflecting that stonework on
the ground level as well as the upper uh the upper story on the top left there behind the palms. Uh there are voids in the structures required and there is a asymmetry to the facade. Staff had a few minor zoning comments as
I mentioned. We've worked with the applicant for about a year. Um there are just a few minor remaining comments. There have been a proposal to use some artificial turf. They have scaled that back. If used, uh, it does need to be located out of swelles. The pool deck appears to slightly encroach into the
sideyard. There's a slight can lever on the north side that will need to be scaled back. And we did have a question about the total height of the building. Um, it appears that it is measured correctly, but that is something that they are going to have to justify through the measurements that are submitted at the time of the building
permit submittal. As always, the board may make comments that assist to ensure compatibility of the structure within the district. This is a single family use. There are no other former mass limitations that are um specific to this type of structure.
So, with that, as I mentioned, we do have the agents present if you have any questions about the design and um if not, we're happy to take your feedback. Okay. I have some questions for you, Mr. Barry. And I guess if you could go to the elevations because
what I'm what I'm concerned about and I'm I'm sure you can answer is based on something we're going to talk about later uh in discussion items because this is a rooftop that's appears to be partially a flat roof and partially a angled roof. Is that
accurate? I I believe it's all flat, but the agents can confirm. >> So, what do where are we as far as the height of the elevator shaft? The height of the elevator.
>> I believe the elevator shaft specifically is is right about 32 feet. The there is a parapet that does end at 28 feet. Uh there is a safety railing that extends above that. And so,
and then we're going to talk about those this a little bit later and and you know, please interject anytime you want, but so I know we've been talking about how in a flat roof the absolute height is 28T. And so this is a this is a design which
they want to go to 32 feet to fit the elevator in. Is that right? Is that fair to say? >> Correct. the the elevator and the safety railing. You can see in the right image there, those do extend up to 32 feet, give or take. >> And so if again, you know, some of the stuff I said we're going to talk we're
going to talk about later, pardon me. Would this if the city commission accepts our interpretation of of height, would this not be allowable under that accepted if they accept that that height
interpretation? it. Like you said, we're going to have a discussion on that later. I based on that. Um, again, not knowing exactly where the elevator equipment is located. We don't have that detailed to the plans
yet. Um, the the top of the elevator shaft might might be an issue under that interpretation. >> And I guess my question is, I mean, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I know it's a little premature, let's say, but are I know that in the discussions we're going to have later, we talk about
things being in the permitting process and and where they are. This is this is still not been permit permitted. Correct. >> Correct. This is not under permit review. And this is just more for the as we talk to the folks here in a minute,
you know, uh I may want to talk about that and find out if they understand where that could potentially be and what we had discussions about and and why we might have some problems with that overall height. So unless you have
something else to add, that's just that's why I had thought there was some relevance to to bringing that up to see if this is something that >> you know eventually they have to change again or they could talk about doing that now or whatever. So uh you haven't had a conversation with them in regards to that I assume.
>> No, this this is all something that came up very recently. So it's and typically what what was drafted for your review today, the commission can accept it or not. Um, it would allow for those that have gone through design review and building permit review, made complete an
application to utilize the current interpretation. So, if that's extended to design review, um, it wouldn't it would encompass this case, but again, that really just comes down to a later discussion. >> Okay. So, so, so this one's still in in limbo then, for lack of better words. Is
that fair to say? >> We just we haven't received a building permit for it yet. This is the This is the design review, the continuation of the case that started early last year. So, >> and the other one we're looking at today, too, same scenario. >> Correct. Yes. >> All right. Anybody have any questions
for Mr. Barry? >> And as far as the height goes, it doesn't matter if it's elevator carriage or attic access or whatever the structure is. If there's a structure up there, then it has to be counted in the height, right? Doesn't matter if it's elevator or otherwise. So that's that's
what we're hoping to clarify today. Um the the challenge that we've consistently run into is that the standard for the 28 ft is to the top of the parapet of the flat roof and that the structure does comply with that. The
top of the parapet is 28 ft above the measurement uh starting point. The challenge is with the elevator and the um the safety railing those do extend above not to exceed 32 feet. So, we're hoping to get some clarification on what is if anything is allowed in that that 4
foot span. >> As I recall a case we had on um Passagrell Way around 27th Avenue where there was the question of adding an elevator for rooftop access and >> I I think we had issue with that. I
would not sure how those folks would feel if all of a sudden we agreed to let it happen at another property and they were not allowed to have it there. If if I recall that case went for variance because they were looking to exceed even the 32 feet. I don't think it was a
challenge with that. >> The moon roof for the higher and the wheelchair never bought the house. >> Right. >> Yes. >> And again, that was different because it included the elevator on going up to the top floor. It wasn't the the mechanicals for the elevator. Right.
>> Correct. And we're we're going to further discuss this later. And I I just think, you know, when these folks I I don't want to summarize the later discussion at all, but you know, that
the the bottom line is how what do you do between 28 feet on a flat roof, which is the absolute height maximum, and 32 feet, which is the height maximum on a peak roof?
Do you allow in those four feet things to be like elevators which then which is not a elevator shaft or is not a chimney. It's actually an occupiable space. And so
then we have these maximum height flat roof buildings that have essentially added another floor over the 28 ft. And you know that's always we've talked about the interpretation of that. And so you know we're getting more and more of
these where it's a flat roof and they want to put the stuff on top of it up to 32 feet. And the question is should that be allowed or is that a violation of the height limitation? And you know when you look at it from the street it kind of looks like more
than not that there's limitation of three stories but most places aren't more than three stories. And we've got a higher situation from that. And I'll save some of that for when we talk about the discussion later, but for the purposes of what we're doing right now, I just wanted to bring it up because it could have some relevance.
And when we talk to the folks, who did you say was here to representing the owners here or the owner? >> No, the the owner is not present. We do have the two agents for the case present. Uh Jenny Callahan and John Wolf. >> Okay. Do you folks want either both want to come up to the podium and please
state your name and uh business address or whatever? Good afternoon. I'm Jenny Callahan. I'm one of the architects that worked on the And this is >> John Wolf. >> John Wolf. >> Hey, Mr. Wolf. How are y'all? Miss uh and Jenny. So, I don't know if you
understood what I was just talking about at all or not, but we've been having some discussions lately about clarification or the the proper, let's say, interpretation of height on pass. And
just so you know, Oops. Just so you know that I'm not trying to be a bad guy about any of this stuff. I That's okay. >> Don't move. >> That's great. >> I know, but I can't. It's broken. So, I can't move this anymore. So it uh in division 20 which is what the pascal
overlay is in and I assume are you are they building this under the under the overlay or under Okay. So you are familiar with the overlay >> and and that's part of what you know the historic board you know we're created obviously as part of this division to be
able to try to enforce it or at least have some involvement in this. And one of the things they talk about is, you know, if you if you're building another overlay, you've been given some uh less restrictive setbacks because it's in the overlay, right? And
the reason those less restrictive setbacks are there is because of the historic nature of this past a girl in the historic district. So we are obviously supposed to be very cognizant of historic homes and and other things. So, you know,
essentially you've taken advantage of having a better setback because it's in a historic district, right? But part of that that that we have to do in in the purpose and intent of the overlay is when we talk about existing structures
and and additions. That's one thing that the historical homes we can talk about. But they also say and new development that is consistent with the existing mass and scale within the district. Okay. So we're very cognizant of the
existing mass and scale within the district. And I don't believe that means compared to new houses, it means to the historic district. So we're getting more and more homes that are built to the act absolute maximum height and then they want to add things on top of it. And personally, I
think that's not the correct interpretation, but it's also kind of a violation of the spirit of what the historic district is supposed to be about. And so, one of the things we're looking at now is like in your scenario where you've taken a flat roof, which is maximized at 28 feet, but have had an
elevator on top of it. And so, now you have 32 feet, which isn't a roof. It's an elevator. And your design has I mean I I you can probably answer this question. How many what what's the ceiling of your first
floor? You know that >> on the ground level or? >> Yes, the ground level. >> Uh 9 foot floor. >> Okay. And then what's your ceiling on the the second floor to be the first living area? the same as before.
>> Thank you. >> And is that the same on the the third floor or the second living area? >> The third floor is 10 ft. >> Okay. And so our concern or my concern would be that you have pretty high ceilings
and you've maximized all that and then added on the top of it. You know, I mean, if you didn't have that four extra feet between 28 and 32 feet, you couldn't have your elevator up there unless you decrease the heights of your
ceilings, which you could do. So, you've I mean, you've made the choice to pick those numbers and then get it up to the actual maximum and then put the elevator on top of it. And I don't mean to we're going to talk about that later this today. Uh, but we have a
concern for that. And so it's possible, I guess, and and Mr. Barry can can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but this is a interpretation that I think we're going to talk with the
historic board, but but the staff and uh the attorney and and ultimately perhaps the city commission would agree that the recent interpretations perhaps that have allowed elevators to go up to 32 feet,
for example, might not be the way it's going to be interpret it and you're not in in permit processing yet or that hasn't happened so it could affect your design. Um I think so I just want you to be aware of that and if you have any comments on
that that's fine but um if you don't we can just kind of move forward. I have some other questions but >> sure I think one thing to note on this design specifically is it is an elevator overrun. We're not raising the elevator to provide access to that roof deck.
It's an elevator overrun. So, it's enough space to get the machinery off and then the roof system above that. >> We're also providing a door at a lower landing that complies with that building height so that you can actually get up to the roof deck. And then we're doing a
parapit around mechanical equipment on that level. >> Gotcha. >> So, we're trying to follow. >> Okay. Well, I couldn't tell that through the plans. Yes. So when the elevator door opens, you're not on the roof. >> No, >> no, you are on the third floor.
>> Okay. And so the the difference between the 28 and 32 is is is the mechanical of the elevator. It's that high 4T. >> It's an extension of the shaft and a
swing door, a man door to step from the stair landing to a a platform outside. Then you ascend a stair to the upper level. >> So we tried to stay within that max. >> Okay. Well, that's that's I I didn't realize it said did that and that's
certainly >> No. Okay. >> The spirit of the >> lecturing. Okay. So, um, so you've got, so from the landing when you get on your elevator, you have to take like two or three or four steps to
get to the roof. >> No, you have to ascend the stairwell to the roof. >> That's what I mean. >> A full level. You have to you have to ascend the level to the roof. >> It lands on the second living level and then they have a full stairwell that leads up to the roof.
>> Yeah. Okay. And so I guess say this again. So there's there's a full on five feet above the elevator that that is mechanical >> seems a lot >> continuation of the shaft and then the the roof structure above that being flat
roof we're spanning with I think a the 16inch floor system on top of that. So man door happens at the midspan landing of the stair. So you ascend half of the level, step out to the landing
outside, stepping out and down so that water doesn't come into the door, and then you continue that stair. We do have a set of plans here. If you >> Yeah, that's it. I I'm still stupidly confused, I suppose. >> I can't I can't visualize it what I'm
saying. So >> yeah. So if you look at this space here essentially on the lower level. So on the lower level is the last >> And that lower level you mean essentially the third floor the second living.
>> Yeah. >> Second level right >> is the last door for the elevator. Then you ascend this stair. >> As you get to this level you then come to a landing here. Step outside. as the
remainder of the the elevation and there is no elevator door on that level >> and and you have it a little bit raised because of water flow and that kind of thing. You don't want water going down into the >> I don't want water going through that space. >> So, okay. Well, thank you for clarifying
that. That's that's very illustrative. Now, another thing I'm going to ask, excuse me, is back to what I said, and and and I don't know, and you don't have to answer these questions, but you this is a very modern design,
and I'm just wondering, you know, being that it's in a historic district, I mean, is do your owners, have they ever lived in Pasigril? Do they are they going to live there? Do you know, or are they just going to rent it out or do you have any idea? >> This is their retirement >> and Do you know if they've ever spent
any time in Pastor Girl? If you don't, that's fine. I just wonder >> because, you know, and and that's what we're here for, just to kind of encourage some things. And I know you've done all this work and stuff, but this is a this is a a modern home in a historic district. And I'm just
wondering, even though maybe you can build it, why build it? I mean, do the do do the owners have any idea that this this structure is really significantly
different than the historic district. I mean, I I know I know it's difficult for you to answer, but I I need to ask these questions because I that's what we're here for. >> I know they've been working on this home for many years now. So, I know they came
to this meeting multiple times over and have had a lot of communication and effort going into producing this. So I know this is the intent. I know it's in alignment with the new residences in the area. That's not what we're talking about.
>> Well, I I understand that and and I appreciate the fact, yes, there's a fairly recent building that has a lot of similarities to this to some degree. And you know, I just wonder the motivation sometimes because if we all if we just keep building new homes like this, we're
not going to have a historic district and we're going to lose all the uniqueness and charm of that neighborhood. And I wonder why people buy there to build these if they can just do it someplace else. And I know you're not you can't answer that because you're not the owners, but you know, it's like
and frequently don't have the owners here, so we don't know how they really feel. They may be from out of state and don't even know anything about Pastor Girl, you know. I don't know. But let me ask you a question on this. The one that's up here now. This I guess it would be the southwest
corner of the building. Is that like the prow of a ship that comes out at a at a at a angle away from the building? >> Comes out an angle vertically and away from the building. >> Yeah. To the southwest leg. >> Not not in if you're looking at the front elevation, it's flat. Yep.
>> So, it's just coming out in on the side elevation at an angle >> if that makes >> but yes, but I mean it's like I said when it's like a prow of a ship, it it it it's it comes out whereas the front of the building or house faces west.
All right. That piece actually faces to the west and to the south, too. >> And directing out to the water. We brought it out so that we could carry the element
and have it turned into a vertical element that kind of folds over that second story mass. So that we do have that holistic design where this this element is affecting the the massing of the structure and it kind of becomes this intersection of two folded planets
that kind of nurture. >> No, I and I I appreciate the architectural sweat that was put into designing that. I I I think it's interesting just as as you know in the historic board I'm just questioning the historic nature of it which it doesn't have any obviously and of course can't
make you build what you know what fits into the neighborhood. I'm just questioning because uh you know we get more of these and I'm just concerned about the future of the area if if everything becomes modern and is a modern look. So okay well that's my little story for the day. Anybody else
have any questions with these folks? Is uh is the structure as far west as the home to the north of it >> or is it set back a little? >> Um I think they're both complying with that uh 20 foot front setback
and the uh pass extension for that lower level. So we're utilizing the that area for our pool deck and our building entry with the the kind of patio area on that lower level for that main entry. But if you
look at the the modeling there, >> um you can see in the background a which is the structure. >> I Yeah, I was looking for >> and I know that structure is quite a bit further west than the one to the north of it on the corner.
Just wondering if this one if this new one is in line with the house on the corner or the one just adjacent to it to the north. the one. >> Yeah, I I can I can answer that. The one on the corner two up was built under the underlying zone. So therefore, it didn't get the advantages of the reduced
setback that you get building under the pasil overlay >> and then it lost its view to the south when the new house was put up. >> Correct. And so what we're getting is, you know, people wanting the overlay so they can get a bigger house with a
better setback and then building a modern house. So that's the part that sticks with me is the spirit of what we're supposed to be doing there is really not being followed in my opinion. Uh and that's something that you know we're trying to rectify a little bit
with some of the changes we've talked about. But but that's the problem is you've got a house who's who who built under the you know the underlying zone and now their whole view's gone. And of course, every new home is going to be
built under the overlay, even if they didn't have to because it gives them a bigger footprint to build a home. >> Yeah, >> just for a moment. >> Um, so if you look at your first floor,
this is that um setback area right around here. as you go up levels knowing that the the house to the west is to that setback. >> Not to the west to the to the north you mean? >> I'm sorry to the north. >> Yeah. >> Was built to that full setback.
>> We have intentionally reduced the uh building enclosure here and introduce transparency in the corner to kind of respect the the structure to the south >> which this area is all open. >> Right. The south is is the onestory
sable palms, right? Exactly. Which really is a historic building. So they don't even have anything that high that would look through that part. Maybe in the future when somebody builds another house, >> right? >> So we we intentionally took the building footprint and stepped away from that setback at the front. We did carry it
forward on the the right side if you're looking at the the uh looking away from the home u because that structure to the north is to that 20 foot. But we tried to respect that that that setback there as well. This also carries to the next
level above where we've introduced transparency and the the lenai outside of the common space on the second living level as well. So if you look at the the renderings that were on the screen, >> there are basically two boxes in that
folded mass that introduce more transparency at that corner so that we are not feeling like this structure that's really coming up to that 20 foot setback. While we do have that plane that folds up and around, it is full of transparency on the side.
Well, I would say I I do appreciate the attempt to open that up a little bit. Although, I mean, I'm sure people like to have some outdoor seating as well. Anyway, you know, so whether that's done to to benefit the neighbors or to benefit the owners, I'm not quite sure,
but uh >> you sure? >> Yeah. So, okay. I mean, I understand I understand your your design and and how it fits within what's, you know, capable of being done at this state. Anybody else have any questions?
>> Is there a pool on the property? >> Yes, that's on the front of the level. in this position. >> So in the front
>> so it's on the second level. It's not at ground level. >> The top of the pool is at the floor level of the >> and that's what um is encroaching into the sideyard setback. Brandon that needs
an adjustment or no >> this can piece >> it's just that small canal levered piece on the correct it was I just noticed that when I was going through the review but it's it's a very minor encroachment you can work that out per minute >> and it doesn't come down to the ground
either Okay. So, let me ask you just a couple more questions. What's And then this may be a question for Mr. Barry. Is so we have the parapits at 28 ft and then we have a
railing above that, right? Okay. And and what's the height of that railing that goes around that? >> It's just I believe just under 32 feet as measured. Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions?
>> I appreciate. Thanks, folks. Uh, so we don't need I mean we it's just for purpose of design review. Um, anything that you want to tell staff that we need to have them check into or whatever or is that can we move on to the next one?
Guess not. So, let's go ahead to 5B, which is the design review case number some, you notice I broke my glasses a second ago, so I can't see very well. >> I know it's the 205 Gulf Way, but
somebody gave me a case number here. >> 2650. >> Okay, Mr. Perry, >> what what magnification do you have? >> Oh, you got whatever whatever you have. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. So, this is for 205 Gulf Way.
It's a new single family home uh built to the house medium standards. Frank Frey is a phrase designed for Deborah Martin, D AJ Investments. Uh this is the first time this board has seen this design. So, uh this came forward for demolition
back in February of last year. The proposal, as I mentioned, is for a new single family home built to the house medium standards. You can see here the front and the rear elevations of the home as proposed. This one has a um split roof design.
There is a slanted roof at the front or sorry at the back. Um the front is a flat roof with a paraped and a railing. I can see the left elevation here. Here's some photos of other structures in the vicinity. Um you can see the
vacant lot of course with the palms in front. You see the structure to the south as well as looking to the north. Uh the city's design reviewer found that the design review elements were met. Um the required elements were included in the design. She did have concerns about
the visual emphasis placed on the stairs which deemphasized the porch massing created through elevated deck variation at the northern frontage. You can see that on the left side of the rendering. Uh there was a recent development uh that had come forward to this board that had a similar element on the north side
of it was a little bit smaller of a lot. Um but that uh this has a similar um porch balcony extension element on the on the north side of the structure. Uh this one does also have these stairs coming off the front. uh she's just had some concerns about especially with the
setback of those elements that being viewed as the uh you know the significant massing at the front of the structure instead of the porch itself. Uh she did find the other elements to be to be met the vertical and horizontal visual support. They've actually extended that stonework a bit above the
ground level. So it helps to integrate the upper levels of the residence better with the ground level. Uh there's a common material and color palette, particularly the stonework and the cement siding and the facade elements are shared as well.
Staff had a few comments for zoning um just that there be a full landscaping plan required at time of submitt. They had referenced the requirements, but we're typically looking for species and shrubbery types. Um we had trouble determining if the height standard is
met. Um, and I I did just contact the applicant about this shortly before the meeting. I don't know if they've had a chance to look into it, but I can I can try to answer questions on that if needed. Uh, the parapet is limited to 28 feet from 8t above grade. The measurements that were provided were for
primarily the floor height. I had scaled off the design. It appeared that the parapet was about 32 feet above the measurement starting point. So that is something just based on the plain interpretation of the code, not even getting into what we're talking about later on today. Uh the parapet would need to be scaled back in height to 28
ft. And also the hex pavers at the front edge should be preserved or replaced. Um this is on a section of Gulf way where we do want to make sure that those hex pavers are um preserved instead of going with the concrete uh stamp design. So that's really just a note for the uh for
the building permit review. So as always, Let me I'm sorry to interrupt. Let me just clarify something on the hex papers. Are we talking about in the sidewalk? Right. >> Correct. Yes. Yes. >> Well, is it up to the builder to I mean the home builder to to put in the sidewalk?
>> So, typically if there is no hex paver sidewalk at the front edge, we require that a the sidewalk be replaced and be be replaced with the stamped hex sidewalk. But with those out there, um we actually just recently found a supplier for the 16inch hex pavers. So,
we want to make sure that those are preserved. They're not damaged during construction. >> I get that. But what I'm saying is >> I can get how you're asking them to preserve them so they don't get damaged by equipment and stuff like that, but it's not it's not up to the homeowner to
replace the sidewalk. The city's doing that, right? >> So, under new development, the city does ask that the sidewalk be replaced with the hex stamp when required. >> I know >> by the builder owner. It would be at the applicant. >> Oh, okay. So,
>> it is not the city. >> No, sir. >> That just for clarification. I get it now. Okay. Very good. I understand. >> So, with that >> I have a bigger question. Why are we offering a curb cut on Gulf Way? >> I don't think they are. Are they? >> Yeah, they are.
>> That that property was originally accessed from the rear of the structure from the north. It crossed across a property that was just north of it. Now they're asking to do a curb cut on Gulf Way. >> There's a different rendering that shows a wall across the front and a pool where
those big pavers are on the right side. There's a pool in another rendering in this package, isn't there, Brandon? >> I believe so. >> There's a picture of the pool in the plans on the right side, but on the left side, they're showing a driveway coming all the way out to Gulf Way. >> They can speak to that, but I I don't I
don't believe that's the intent. You can see at the bottom of this image, and it does cut off. It's a little bit hard to see, but there are those um elements on the street side of the sidewalk, which I I don't believe there's any intent for there to be a curb cut, but but >> I think there's a pedestrian gate there.
Okay. And a sidewalk, not a driveway. >> So, with that, um happy to take any comments from the board. And we do have the agents present for this case. >> Well, before we get to them, so we We don't know what if they've met the higher requirements.
>> Uh correct. It's they they the top of the parapet measures approximately 32 feet above the designed flood elevation. They do have the option to use the 8 ft above grade standard due to the height of the lowest level but the parapet of the flat roof portion of the structure
appears to be at 32 feet which just based based on the code it would be limited to 28. >> Okay. So I I I I guess my question would be so >> shouldn't they be bringing those that this back to us when that stuff has been
done and been corrected so we know what what we're really looking at. >> We can just like with the prior case. Um as I mentioned I I just discussed this with the applicant a few hours ago. So this is our first pass at looking at the plans. We just wanted to present it to you and and get your feedback. Okay. So,
>> I just want I'm not trying to scold you as far as being it just seems like their plans are incomplete. I don't mind us looking at it at this point and making some suggestions or whatever, but I think ultimately we're going to have to see these again.
>> Well, they they can they can if if they do find that it meets the height limitation, they can possibly explain. As I mentioned, it doesn't have the actual zoning height standards on the plans at this time. We do have the floor heights in the packet. That was the set of plans that was sent out with
the agenda, but it doesn't actually provide the measurement. I I did try to scale it off myself, but they could potentially speak to what I just brought up. >> And and like this this last one that does this have this is a combination of a flat roof and a slanted roof,
>> correct? Yes. >> And do we have an elevator that goes above 28 ft? >> How do you get to the flat roof? I guess >> there are stairs and I can I can show you on the left elevation here. >> They
align with this. Do you see that there in the center of the structure? >> So right in the center of the building we have stairs that that go up. >> That's correct. On the north north side, I believe. And so there's and this isn't
a cutout, but the the that north side you're saying, but I assume that means >> standing on the north, correct? >> And so that roof line is is not complete all the way across. It's it's got a cutout with where the stairs and the uh
there's a fencing area there. Is that right? Or is that is that a cutout that's showing what's behind the roof? I don't think it is, but >> No, I don't believe it's a cutout. I believe this is the actual >> looking to the south elev. >> I think you'd see the railing from that
elevation. If you were looking at the side, you'd see >> Yeah, that's what I'm asking. I assume that was the Okay. So, if you want to get on up on the roof, you get off on the elevator on the third floor and you walk up the stairs to the flat roof. And and I assume the top of the as if you
look at this, the top of the roof is 32 feet, not the parapit. And then the parapit right now appears to be at 32 feet, but should be at >> 28. >> Correct. >> Okay. And we have some folks here. You said
>> I believe so. Hi, please state your name for the record. >> My name is Fancy Renard with Phrase Design. >> Okay. >> So, I guess you you've just been listening to us talk about this height stuff. Do you can you illuminate us all
on that parapit? >> Yes. So I think we were thinking we would be under the 32 height because we do have the peak roof here, but from what I'm understanding of the previous project and this one that even the parapit you're saying would have to go down to that 28 max. Correct.
>> Well, when we talk about a flat roof, I understand this is a bit of a hybrid, but we're trying to not >> we're trying to have some consistency what's going on. Okay. Mhm. >> A flat roof is the maximum height is 25
ft and that includes the parapit. >> Okay. >> Okay. So whether you have a one foot >> chair Lowry, I I apologize. To the extent you're going to advise on what the interpretation is, I think that we should handle that discussion item first. >> Um okay.
>> Before advising on what the standard um that the interpretation of the standard to be applied is going to be. >> That's not where I'm at. M >> Okay. I just wanted to um >> I understand m Mr. Barry, please illuminate us on what the height is for
a flat roof by by code. >> So by by code, the top of the parapet of the flat roof cannot exceed 28 ft. Now with these plans, we don't have an exact location for 8t above prefill grade. So they are eligible to use that standard.
that might be more favorable than the measurement that I started out when I was reviewing the plans, but it it may work out in their favor. I just don't know if it would account for the >> four talking about the flat roof height and parapit is right out of the >> That's directly out of the code. Correct. That is
>> interpreting it just exactly what >> correct that that is what it says. Yes. And so, yes, I don't know if that's going to make a difference in the way you do this or not, but I I think you had said, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but you thought the 32 feet kind of controlled even
potentially on a flat roof or the parapit of a flat roof. >> Yeah, I was thinking because we did have a peak. We have a combination obviously and I was under the impression that it was 32 ft to the top of the peak which our top of peak kind of lines up with the parapit we created as well.
>> So um and again we just got this feedback about the height a few hours ago so we haven't been able to dig into it much yet. >> Okay. >> But >> okay. Um anybody have any questions about the design elements or any other thing about the case?
>> I do like the coastal design. Can you confirm that there is not a curb cut on the on the west side? >> Correct. Yes, that's just a walkway to the street. >> It was the way the flare was at the end of the sidewalk. It threw me off. >> Understood. It's a wide walkway, too. So, >> thank you.
>> Yes, I do like the, you know, the way you've got the roof and the uh supports underneath. It's very nice. And one of the things, and this being a few for Brandon as well, you know, we have these comments from the design review that says they have concern about the
stairway and other than just saying we have concerns, then we do anything with that. You know what I mean? It's like I I look at this and I I can understand how they say, you know, the stairway is kind of front and center and kind of takes away
from the the whole look of the of the house. And you know there's there's many designs where they put the interior the stairway in the interior because you know you can have a foyer that's not you know on the ground floor and and it hides the stairs. And so I don't know if
anything's been done in the plans to speak to that or rectify to that or it's just a concern we have that we just put on a piece of paper and just forget about afterwards, you know. So I did I did speak with the agent just before this meeting and currently the code does
allow for additional landscaping to compensate for some of the frontage requirements. We did speak and there is a plan to you know put vegetation in the front of the stairs there which I think will help with some of the screening. >> Right. Yeah. Totally agree. Okay. All right. That's a good answer. The basis
for that comment was effectively that typically we want the home to be set closer to the street, but we also want that secondary element, the porch or the stoop to be the element within that front 10 ft. So that was really the basis for that request. In this case, it's the stairs so they could compensate
with landscaping unless the board has another concept. Can you go to the slide that has the front rering with the garden wall? I may not have Can we pull up the overhead? >> Oh, I didn't see those. Someone
>> And there's another one that shows it kind of from the sidewalk where you actually see the garden wall across the front and Oh, maybe I'm thinking of something else. I thought there was a Well, there's got to be a wall across the front because of the pool. A wall or fence. So,
>> we've done multiple renderings. >> And these colors look much darker than the ones that we have >> printed a bit darker. Yes. Um, we are still trying to finalize what stone stone work. >> And so back to we talking about a minute
ago, the vegetation, this grouping that we have in front of the stairway, we're talking about putting something with more elevation to it. Is that right? Okay. >> Can we talk about the height restriction for the fence across the front fence or wall across the front? So we're because of the pool. We're seeing a lot more
pools in the front yard. >> We don't want to see a lot more six foot fences in the front yard. So they will need to put the gate latch up at 4 and 1/2 ft, but they would be allowed to have a 4ft wall that meets the Florida pool code. So that that would comply with the the standards and anything taller than that in the front
10 feet would need a variance. So it wouldn't be something that we would administratively approve. >> Okay. >> And can you go back to that picture right before that one that you you showed us? >> Yes. >> So I'm I'm trying to focus on the rooftop there and I and because of the
clouds and stuff. So, we've got that on the right hand side. We see what would be, I guess, the fencing for the flat roof. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. And >> right in the middle. Is that like a a white wall that's right there? >> Um on the the left hand side.
>> It would be right in it'd be right in the middle of the building, but the left hand side of the >> Yes, there is a peaked roof right there. From this angle, you can't quite see it, but that would be directly to the left of the fencing. But does the top of that wall that's right there eventually is that the same height of the back of the
peak roof? >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. So that wall is kind of like an angle. >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> But but that wall just for Brandon's that wall we think might be at 32 feet though, right? >> Yeah, we're at 314. We we measured it
after we got his his um comment on that. So to the top of the parapit. So, okay. I I I don't know what how to I don't know if that's Mr. Barry. Would would that be a situation even though it's it's got a wall that's going over
the 28T? Is that considered like an architectural feature or that be just the height? You know, I I'm sorry to ask you that, but you know, that's the problem with this hybrid roof scenario. I mean, I guess what I'm saying is, does there have to be a wall there or could
it also just be open space? You have to have a wall there. Is the wall potentially too high because it's part of the flat roof? >> So, the building code does require a barrier. I believe it's 3 and 1/2 ft on the on the roof if if it's going to be used for occupiable space. Um, it could
be a railing. I think there are other features that could be substituted. The code specifically says a parapet is limited to 28 feet. So with the preceding case we saw they did have a a safety railing that extended above the paraped but the parapet met the 28 ft
safety railing extended above. So >> okay well not to parse words but that a solid wall I would say is a parapit. >> I agree with that. >> So so that is over 28 feet as a solid wall. There >> there are parts of it I believe that
exceed 28 feet. his >> Well, I I guess I would say, and anybody else have any questions for this lady? >> Could that wall be lower and still meet the safety requirements? >> Um, we could only take it about a foot lower than what we currently have it um
to be at that three and a half. So, it still wouldn't get down to 28. We'd be off about two feet. >> Well, see, and this is this is what brings up thought that I was having earlier is, you know, I assume you all designed this house to to take advantage of your maximum
ceiling heights on each floor. >> Okay? And so therefore, this issue of what's over 28 ft is >> is a result of you going to the maximum heights of the floors below. >> Yeah. And and because we're concerned
about height in the historic area where historically it was one house, you know, one story houses, twotory houses. Obviously, when FEMA came around, you had to add a floor to everything and that's changed the overall look. >> But now we're like talking about having
stuff on which essentially is creating part of a fourth floor because we have, you know, people want to be up on the rooftop. Why? I don't know. they're going to find out fast enough that it's not very comfortable up there. But um
and to me it's like we're having this argument about these these two or three feet that could be rectified by your floors being lower. >> And so you know it's like we've created this issue that we seem to have conflict at by accepting the fact that you're
building it to its maximum height. Whereas if you I mean I like to say in your garage, do you need a 9 foot or 10 foot garage? It's just storage. What are you going to put in there? You know, uh if you lowered your garage to 8 feet, does that suddenly take care of that problem about what we're doing on the
rooftop? And so, you know, uh that's obviously something we're going to be talking about later this afternoon, but I just throw that out for for discussion today because I think you can tell from where we are, you're going to we're going to have to you're have to come back with some of these changes so we
can look at again and maybe those will all be rectified at that point or we can discuss them at that point. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Does that make sense? Anybody else have any anything you want to add? I would just say that visually and I'm having a tough time for whatever reason with this iPad, but >> the first image that we have in our
PowerPoint or the packet, the agenda packet, it shows um it doesn't show the poll and but you can see the side. I would be curious to see kind of a visual of the other side where there will be the exposed stairwell
>> just because of the neighbors obviously, you know, to the south of it. I would be interested to see what that'll look like. >> Definitely. >> Um for the next go around. >> Yeah, that sounds good. >> Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank you, ma'am. appreciate it very much for
listening to us. >> Okay, so now we're moving on to uh what's 6A out of turn which is find information items on the hardship variance number 255043
and for 240 and I guess is that just 2000? >> Uh that is it's unressed currently. It does have a parcel number and it's part of the plaid, but it just doesn't have an address. >> Case number 255043. Got it.
>> So, the alleyway in question, this is a request that will be moving on to the board of adjustment at the end of this month. It went for technical review yesterday, which is the staff level review. And this is particularly a variance to section 20.19 of the land
development code, which prohibits alleyway vacations in pass. That was one of the amendments that was passed by the city commission back in early 2017. Um you can see the alleyway on the screen. It's between 21st and 20th
Avenue. It abuts a um small shopping center to the north. To the south is a parking lot currently used for the Red, White, and Booze restaurant. To the northeast of that parking lot, uh you can see the survey of it on the right side of the screen. Uh it's a 15 foot
wide alleyway. It runs uh west to east. It terminates at the properties that front along Gulf Way. And then of course there's the the H pattern to the alleyways. That's common throughout the other avenues in in this area of Passenger. Uh and and what's shown on the screen
there in the red box on the image on the left side, that is the only portion that is requested for vacation. The north south alleyway to the west of this is is not requested to be to be vacated. Say that last thing again. The >> so the the north south alleyway to the
west of the area in red. That's that's there there's no request to vacate that. >> So there are two applicable standards in the code. The first is the one to which the applicant is requesting a variance. That's effectively states that alleyways should not be vacated. Um the other standard is actually out of the city's
charter. that is the process for a vacation of a right of way which is that any alleyway that is dedicated uh to the public which is usually through a plat process. Uh this plat um the Phillips division was originally created in 1913
I believe. Um so this is a request to vacate that. Um I believe one of the last remaining west alleyways that connect from a north south alleyway to passway or Gulf way. Um, I know there were several that were dedicated, never necessarily used. Those have been
vacated over time. This is one of the few that is remaining. It of course is a an improved um west alleyway. Those requests do need to move on to the city commission. That's a request that the uh city commission would hear. It would not be through the board of adjustment. It
does require a super majority, four of the five commissioners to approve a vacation of any alleyway. So, I just want to go through next steps on this. This is actually a two-part process. The hearing is to the standard that would allow for this request to be
made to the city commission. The board of adjustment would not approve the vacation of the alleyway. They would authorize effectively find that a hardship is present that this request would be able to move on to the city commission. This item is a quasi judicial item. If it moves on to the
city commission, that is a legislative um item that would be handled separately. If this item is approved by the board of adjustment, if the applicant chooses to move forward with this request to the city commission, that is an item that under resolution 20234,
we did note um the historic preservation board would be eligible to make a recommendation to the city commission prior to their review of that legislative item. That being the actual request to vacate the alleyway, only the city commission has the authority to grant that approval. So, if this item is
approved by the historic or sorry, by the board of adjustment to move on to the legislative request, um that is an item we would bring back to this board to make a recommendation at that time. For this item to uh this afternoon, we are only presenting this as an information item. We wanted to let you
know that it is an item that is being considered. So, with that, um we do have one of the agents for the case present. I'm also happy to answer any questions. Well, I first off, I appreciate you're explaining the procedures. It makes it a lot simpler for, you know, how we move
forward and stuff because the bottom line is we may we may be involving it and making a recommendation. We may not. So, again, this is for information, but I I did read through it and I just had a couple questions that I think you can answer. If not, the agent probably can. I know
it said that the current building that's on the north side of the alley was a foot from the rightway. >> I believe >> it's it's hard to see, but that that it's approximately a foot. You can see the outline of the building there, and
it's it's about a one foot setback from the property line. >> Well, okay. My my question is do you know if that foot set back and you may not know the answer is the bottom of the building or because the roof has about a one foot
overhang that goes to the south. >> It's typically measured to the wall of the building. So I believe the eaves do hang over to either the property line or potentially um slightly more than that. And do you know because that building was just redone, at least the exterior,
>> which I assume they had to get permits on. Do you know whether or not that roof line was extended that foot or whether it followed the original building plan? >> I don't I don't know about the roof line. The agent might be able to answer that. I do remember speaking with the
architects concerned about the wall of the building because they were adding some cladding on and we did work through that during permitting. They actually have they are eligible for a zero foot side setback here. That is the allowable setback for a commercial building. >> Okay. >> In the overlays. So, um it's not an
issue with the wall of the building, but they can potentially speak to the eve. >> So, just I didn't know that. So, so they're allowed for zero setback. So, if they say there's a hardship, it's too close to the alley, they're allowed to be that that close or closer even. >> They are eligible based on the building
type. Yes. >> And When that building was redone, which was still in the process, I suppose, but I think the outside's been completed, how did they deal with the issue of the right away during construction, if you
know, did they ask for some sort of permission to block the alley off or get some, you know, something for the city so they could work on the side of the building there and not be standing in the alley, which seems to be a hardship. >> That was never reviewed by planning and zoning at least. we typically see the
rightway permits. There might have been an agreement with the building department which the agent should know. >> I think that's that depending on where this go that's some information that would be neatly be interested uh to find out because as I said that's part of what they say the hardship is right now
but they clearly went through that hardship building that building uh without too much problem. Um, and then also, do you know or does this the staff know what was there in the past? I mean, I think a building was built what, early
60s or something like that. >> It sounds about right. >> I think I think the property appraiser puts it early 60s, which isn't always accurate, but you know, we probably need to find out if we have those files when it was actually built. But considering
it was platted supposedly in 1913, there's a good 50 years almost that probably some structures were there. I mean, I've seen some maps that show what some of those are, but I think that would be something that would be ultimately very relevant
>> to either the board of adjustment or the uh city commission about what was there because there has to be some history why that alley lasted as long or why it's been there for 100 plus years.
Also, the other thing I'd like to ask is it's a one of the other hardships they say is it's a 15 foot alley. Are you aware of any alleys that are wider than 15 feet in Pastor Girl? >> We have a few 18. They're not common, but we do have a few that are 18. >> As far as east west, aren't most of the
alleys 10 feet? >> Most um I believe just west of here is still 15. Um as you go further south, they do narrow down to 10. >> Right. And there's an issue about the hardship of the maintenance. Are you aware of this? Is this this alley is any in any
worse maintenance than the other alleys on Pastor Grill? >> Um I don't know about compar in comparison. Um he did submit some photos. There is some you know significant degradation to the the pavement in this alley. So >> was it stated as a hardship to the maintenance of the alley or to the
maintenance of the building? >> She's asking but I think it was both. So, I believe part and and the agent can speak to this, but I believe part of the narrative had to do with the condition of the alleyway and the effect on the abuing properties.
>> Yeah, he he can speak to that, but it's really both. >> Are there any utilities in the alleyway now? >> Yes. So, there is um this was something that staff recently permitted on the south side of the alleyway just adjacent to the parking lot. There is a
uh utility line, Duke maintain line as well as a pole. Um we the applicant or sorry the agent did um submit letters from all of the utilities that we typically ask for vacation authorizations from. I did submit them
all yesterday. Duke was the only one that did not provide the no objection. Um, a few of them others, a few of the others provided it conditionally, but they did state that if the city were to pass a resolution for this, we would need to approve it with a uh utility
easement in place. So, there would need to be a utility easement maintained through that that location. >> So, is the power pole obstruct the use of that alley now anyway? Is it not navigable? It's not used by trash trucks or >> um emergency vehicles.
>> Trash truck uh because Yeah. It is navigable with a with a passenger vehicle. Um I believe it's about 2 feet away from the property line. So there's probably about a 12 to 13 foot clear width. Um >> but the dumpsters are on the adjacent
lot anyway. So it's not like they would use that for trash pickup regardless. >> Correct. It opens into the parking lot the doors on that. And it and if I'm not mistaken, that same east west continues to run down behind the homes. Correct.
Heading towards Golfway. >> Correct. >> And those are all still city parcels, not vacated. Correct. >> Correct. Right. >> So this section is the request >> to have it vacated, but the remainder is
all city. >> Got it. >> It's essentially 15 feet by 100 feet, right? >> That's correct. Yes. >> And do you know whether or not if it was separate property owners on both sides whether that makes a difference? >> Um they
>> vacate if there's two separate owners. >> You can you can both both abuing property owners can request to vacate. What what typically happens uh and this is throughout the state of Florida. If a rightaway is vacated each abunding property owner gets half. So it's you know seven and a half paid. In this
particular case, I mean, I would say it's obvious, but I don't think it really ever says it in the person asking for this request is asking that that property be given to them. >> That's correct. It would be the city
gives up its fee interest, I believe, in the underlying right of way. So, that we would effectively say we we do not need this for public purpose anymore. And in this case, it I do want to clarify it is the same individual representing both LLC's, but they are owned by different
LLC's on both sides of the Yeah. >> And is there anything that would prevent if this was vacated them joining those properties together? >> Um, not not joining them together. There would of course potentially be an issue with building um based on how the
utility easement is is written. um if there's any kind of pedestrian or other kind of easement that's still maintained in that right ofway, what is now a vacated right of way, that would potentially dictate what could be built, but in terms of joining them, not necessarily. So,
>> okay. >> So, if one property owner to the north who's requesting gets half of the vacated the alleyway and then the property owner to the south is then forced to take the other half, what if they don't want it? They would typically make the application together. That's I
I don't I don't know if there's ever been a situation where somebody forced them to take half. >> I I've never They'd certainly be an interested party and if one applicant tried to do that. I I've never seen that happen before. Um >> I think the point being that we don't
get these unless people own both sides of the property really. I mean I mean I guess you could have an agreement >> and I think there were a few on Gulf Way. The last of the ones on Gulway were vacated in the early 2000s. I believe that they were under different ownership, but they they both applied at
the same time that to receive that seven and a half feed. >> Which ones are you talking about? >> Um, I can get the exact number. I believe it's somewhere up in the 20s along Gulf Way. There was one that came forward in maybe the mid 2000s to be vacated. Now, >> East West Alley, >> it wasn't it wasn't an alley. It was It
was platted as a 15 foot rightway and it was vacated. >> 22nd and 23rd. >> Correct. I I believe that's right >> because there's still a north south alley that only goes halfway >> right >> into a house. That's right. Okay. >> And there were and you you could see it in the plat that was uploaded. There
were dozens of these down in Paser Grillil. They've all been vacated over time. Of course, most of the north south have been maintained as well as the center of the age between the houses. >> And I think this is just, you know, again, depending on how this evolves, I think that's a very interesting thing
that the commission would need to know is I know We've got we've got a a plaque from 1913 that shows the east west valley east west alleys going to all the way to Gulf way and all the way to pass girl way and
my understanding is that was the second grouping of platting for pass I think it was like between 12th and 22nd they started expand a little bit >> um I think it's very important to note that there was no cars on pass till 1919 so it really wasn't the same concept
that we have today. But if you look at the uh property appraisers maps, it shows all those Eastwell West alleys uh that go to either Gulf Way or Pascal Way being VAC, which I assume means
vacated. And I would assume the h the city has some history of when that might have happened because I don't think there was ever anything. I don't think they were ever utilized, you know, as
alleys. In fact, may have been platted that way except for up where this occurs because that was a commercial center that had a whole bunch of different buildings and stuff there. And so there's a reason for alley to be used at that point. And so I
would assume that the persons that are going forward with this would like to be able to tell us the history of that alley and how it has been used since this is a historic district and we're not really concerned about making things modern. I know they said a typical alley
is 20 feet in modern world. Well, okay, this is a 110 year old alley in the historic district. So anyway, I'm just saying those are things that I think will be uh we need to if it goes that far, there needs to be some more research into some of those items
because, you know, there was a reason for that alley historically. Anyway, okay. Anybody else have questions for Mr. Barry? >> I'm good. >> Okay. Does the agent want to come forward? Please state your name for the record. John Sapir with Randmar Development.
>> Okay. >> And you heard some of the questions I asked. Mr. Barry, do you do you know any of those answers offhand? >> Why don't you start with your questions? >> Okay. Um, do you know what was there along those alleys, let's say, before that building was built?
>> No idea. >> Okay. And so if I know you've suggest so if I get this straight there's a hardship because the building I is a foot away from >> approximately >> okay and you can't do maintenance on the
building. That's the other reason. >> Well you're approximately one foot from the rightway. So future maintenance the question is how do you get to the building? >> Okay. is is are are is there a process that you're aware of with the city where
you can get, you know, an alley closed off during maintenance, you know, like put orange cones out and that kind of stuff? >> I'm not aware of it, but I'm sure there is. And do you know what if the alley is vacated, what it's proposed to be used as?
It would stay the way it is. That's the proposed use. >> No, no changes. It would just I mean except for you there was something about a hardship to maintenance. Does that mean you would then maintain it to be a more level surface? >> Yes. Yeah. I mean our the hardship was
the maintenance of the building. Also, the other additional is the deterioration of the alleyway, which has been torn up, patched back together. There's some pictures on the back of the application. It's a mess. It's actually
dangerous. Um, and the owner, as Mr. Barry had said, the owner owns both sides. It's under different LLC's, and he is willing to resurface the uh the alleyway. So, it's at least a flat surface, >> but it use would just be pedestrian.
>> Correct. >> You know, so you wouldn't be parking cars. >> I I'm not aware of if you know. >> I I have no idea. >> Yeah. This is just information. >> Sure. Yeah. No, I truly have no idea. >> So, if if the city were to come in and just repave the alleyway, that would take care of the hardship because it was
the deterioration is a concern. >> Well, uh that was one of the uh hardships of it. you know, the being so close to the building. Also, our concern is with cars going by, you're one foot away, if somebody's
trying to make that turn to uh if you're heading westbound, make the turn to the north, I guess, you know, clipping the building, so on and so forth. I mean, you're just so close. And should a uh I don't want to use trash truck. Uh you
say, >> it's an inside joke. I have a few >> They don't anymore. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I mean those vehicles are so large and to make the turn >> uh and it's it's just dangerous. So, you know, using the alley going north and
south coming off of 20th or 21st is so much more safe. And then also cars trying to get on going down the alleyway heading east trying to turn on to pass a grill way. I've done it. It's very dangerous because you have a stop sign right there at 21st. Cars are backing
up. People are going through the stop sign. So I mean just for a life safety purpose of that you eliminate that right uh that alleyway there in the rightway for people coming out it's probably going to be a lot safer along past a girl away too. >> Are are you aware there was a place
there called Janiro for a very long time. It was a pizza place. >> I saw it in I think in I googled the address and I think the picture of the pizza place did come up. >> So they were there for forever. >> Okay. uh wonderful familyowned and operated place and they were packed all
the time which was great. So there was cars that were parked there all the time >> in the alleyway. >> Uh no in the parking spaces in front and they maintained their business and they had people coming and going literally around the clock and I don't believe there's ever been any I haven't looked
at any of the records you know from city of St. beach and then sheriff's department to see if there was any accidents or anything. But to my knowledge, I don't think that there's ever been anything thankfully, knock on wood. >> Um, so I'm just curious
again for the hardship purpose. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I mean, I think we're just like I said, this is for information purposes. We, you know, had some questions. Obviously, you may get involved again later depending on what's going on. >> Uh, anybody else have any questions of this gentleman? >> No.
>> Anything else you'd like to say or anything else? Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now, we're back to or no, we're to going back to 5C, which is amendment to
ordinance 20250 clarifying height limitations for residential development in the passing girl overlay district. So, we um we significantly modified this item for this hearing. This was published as potentially a code amendment. We wanted to talk through
with this board, but we did meet with the city attorney earlier this week. Um it does appear that we can at least propose a um correction on the interpretation of the height standards in in Pasigril. So, I handed out um a
revision which gave a draft of what could potentially become an interpretation. I know we had the design reviews earlier and they gave a pretty good introduction to this, but the challenge that staff has is not what is allowed for a flat roof structure. It's
clearly 28 ft from the measurement starting point. There are two options that are um available to applicants. The issue is more what is allowed over the 28 foot parapet top of the parapet top of the flat roof whatever it ends up
being. Um there is an overall 32 foot height limitation and for sloped roofs um that is clearly 32 feet that's to the ridge of the roof. 28 ft is to the midpoint of a hippergable roof. But the flat roof is where there's a little bit of a challenge and I know it's something
that we we talk about frequently through design reviews just generally as um as staff communicating with the board. So if we could pull up the presentation, get back to it. So what staff is proposing and we talk a lot about flat
roofs, but a lot of times the roofs you're looking at aren't exactly flat. there is some kind of a pitch to them. Um, but in the code it also specifies that it's not just a flat roof structure that's limited to the 28 feet with the parapet. It's actually a low sloped roof
as well. So, uh, consulting with other staff, looking at the building code and other references, architectural references. We find that a reasonable slope for a low slope roof is one with 2 to 12 or less. >> Does that mean every 12 inches it slants to two inches?
>> Correct. Two inches. two inches up. >> Yeah, I did major in this. Go ahead. And >> um there was a recent project where there was a fourth floor and it actually wasn't totally flat. There was a pitch of I believe 1 to 40. Um so there was still a pitch to the roof. It was just very slight. Um so that would define
what a low slope roof is within the uh application of this standard. So as we already specified um I don't think there's any ambiguity that the maximum height from the measurement starting point which whichever of the two options is used to the top of the parapit of a flat or low sloped roof is
28 ft that is written clearly in our code and I I don't believe there's any any ambiguity in that. Um where we run into the challenge is that there are multiple other references in our code to what is excluded from the height limit.
We have the land development code division 2 height standard which is applicable everywhere else in the city. It's applicable on 8th Avenue. It's applicable in the city's downtown but it's not applicable in pass. We do have a definition specific to division 2 uh
sorry to division 20 um that is applicable specifically to the overlay which is where the 28 to 32 foot height limit comes from. There is also land development code section 7.2K 2K, which does explicitly state that nonoccupiable
features are permitted above the roof line. And it does give examples of what those features include. It doesn't give all of the items. It does state that um other similar nonoccupiable rooftop pertinances are permitted, but the type
of features that it allows and that we would interpret to be allowed to ex exceed the 28t height limit would be things like spires, koopalas, belfreeze, antennas, water tanks, ventilators, chim chimneys. It also does specify elevator
shaft enclosures, but I believe the discussion we've had is whether or not that accommodates the actual landing for the car within the enclosure. Is it really just the mechanical space that would be permitted within that 4 foot limit and then it does like I said um
get into other similar nonoccupiable rooftop pertinances. >> Mr. Mary, can I just interrupt you for a second just because I want to be clear when we talk about some of these things like when we say a coupa? >> I mean, I know what that is visually, but that's
>> it has a roof, but it that's a architectural feature that would be so small people wouldn't be standing in there. >> Correct. And it does it does state specifically for this standard in section 7.2K, 2K which then the following sentence in that standard says
these are elements that are not allowed in the overlay but this does not say that. So, >> so like when we see bell freeze and we think, "Oh, there someone they're ringing the bell." I mean, they aren't those size. These are just small architectural features that keep that people aren't in. >> Correct. It's not intended for human occupancy. Someone may get into it for
maintenance, but it's not intended to be occupied in any recurring basis. Um, when a home has a roof that is partially sloped and partially flat or low slope, the 28T height limitation applies to the portion of the roof that is flat or low slope. That came up with the design
review today. I believe that was effectively already applied. That is our interpretation. We would just want to make that that clear if that's something that this board and the commission supports. Um this interpretation would not apply to homes with sloped roofs of
greater than a 2 to 12 pitch as if that is the standard we go with which maintained defined limits of 28 ft to the midpoint 32 feet overall from the starting point utilized. I I feel that that is clear. Um, I don't believe that there's any ambiguity in that standard,
just like there's no ambiguity in the 28t to the top of the parapet of the flat roof. Where these issues come up is what is allowed as an overrun above the 28 up to the 32 feet. That is that is where I think there's been some some uh challenge to the consistency of that
interpretation. And a lot of this comes up now, and I know we've talked to this board about this in the past, but we haven't historically seen homes proposed to be built to the height where this comes in to be a be an issue. We do have some homes, I believe, on 13th Avenue
that were built historically back in the 80s at a fourtory height, but we, you know, even when I started here in 2018, we didn't typically see homes that were this tall. Now, it's an item that comes up on a recurring basis. So, we agree that there is an need to either have a
code amendment or an interpretation that we're consistent on. And um with that, you have what we passed out. Happy to take any input, answer any questions. >> I have a question. Um the last time or last meeting when we brought this up,
the question had to do with a nonoccupiable roof space. Um, however, it was a large space, which beg the question, how much space do you need to have in this unoccup? Um,
how we how can we limit that? How can we somehow address that? that you know it's an nonoccupiable roof whatever not to exceed 10 by 10 or >> so that that that is what was published with the packet but we th this is this
is even stricter than what was published with the packet. So, we were looking at if we were to use the term habitable because there's and not to get into too much detail, but habitable is defined by the building code and it excludes sorry, it includes spaces and it excludes
spaces that would typically still be occupiable. So, storage areas are not habitable space, but I would consider them to be occupiable space. You can go into and occupy a storage unit. So based on this interpretation, storage would
not be allowed above the 28 foot height limitation. So that that would not be something that would be permitted in the future. It's it's not a question of habitability. It's a question of o whether it can be occupied. >> So So fourth floor storage units for
example that go to 32 ft would not be allowed. >> Right. Okay. >> And that's what happened in the last case that we discussed. >> Correct. Okay. >> What precipitated some of this stuff? Just as arguing, you know, like you said, a elevator that has a car that
goes up to 32 feet isn't allowed either, right? So, uh I understand it and I think this was the clearly was if you read all the stuff uh the intent of everything in the past,
but one of the things that I I I think Brandon and correct me if I'm wrong. So, today we're we're the historic board is being asked whether this is something this interpretation is something that we agree with. Okay.
staff. I think I think you've said this staff has already basically suggested that you're comfortable with this or you're okay with this interpretation and uh the city attorney has said that as well. And so the next step I believe would be would be be going if we agree
that we're all in unison that this that this is the essentially the the correct interpretation of that that that would go to the city commission for them to confirm that, right? or decide there has to be a change to the code itself. Is
that my understanding? >> They they could always propose that and I would certainly think for something like this we would want to eventually codify it. We have Senate Bill 180. Unfortunately, that's not being amended this year. So, we we have some limitations, but this is an interpretation. I do want to be clear
that the city attorney did say of course we we could still be open to challenge on this. So, it's not that doesn't render us immune from that. But this would be something that we would carry forward in lie of code changes to be consistent on this. >> Right.
>> So can you further put some size limitations on these elements like spires and belelfries and >> well I don't mean to answer for but but I think those are just gingerbready architectural features that really I
mean none of them can really go in there a limitation anyway. there would be 32 feet to the over. So they would be allowed in that 4 foot. Um in terms of the square footage as as was mentioned if they're occupiable so if you have a very large
uh coupoopa where it you know there's stairs leading up to it I believe that that would fall under occupiable space and we could potentially prohibit it under that grounds. But I don't know if we could add standards. >> I adding any dimensional standards that aren't already in our code. uh I believe
would raise an SP 180. Um >> I don't know practical application where you know someone could build a Koopa and hang out up there because it's occupiable and even if you know water tank or a spire or those things that are
in 7.2K there's still an absolute limit on those. It's is there not I mean can you have can you have a spire over 32 feet? >> No. No, that would be the highest point of any element. >> Right. So these are just like I said gingerbread kind of architectural
features that no one can really be in that would be able to be over 28 feet but let but no higher than 32 feet. Right. >> Does that >> it does I'm just trying to avoid the possibility of somebody putting a lovely belfry on top of their home and being
allowed to do that. You hang a bell in it and you've got a beautiful rooftop deck. you know, um there's got to be some sort of a definition somewhere that is not open to interpretation. And >> so with that, um and this this is where
we we really work with the building department when we review new homes. So they would need to have some kind of access to that for it to be a definitive deck space. It would either need to be an elevator or stairs. In certain cases
when it's clearly not in use as a occupiable space, the building department does allow for a hatch with a ladder. It needs to be a permanent fixture, but we would not allow a hatch with ladder up to a space intended to be
occupiable. If it's being used as a roof deck for anything other than the storage of mechanical equipment or other features like that, there does need to be some permanent element. And this would not include stairs that overrun. So that that would somewhat regulate
that that height of that feature. >> And if at some point someone decides to bend the grace that they were given and use that space, are there any repercussions? Once it's done, it's done, right? >> Can't make >> Maybe a code enforcement issue depending on what our code says. Yeah. Um,
>> yeah. I don't think Yeah, I understand your concern, but I I I I think this is all couch and architectural features, right, that that aren't occupiable. >> Correct. >> To be allowed in the first place. So, if you want to put a coupla, it's got to be
something small on a corner that and no one does it anyway, I suppose. But uh you know you could do something like that and was maybe a very very small child could go in there but then they had to get access to it which they have they don't really have like you just
said. Um something else I wanted to bring up with the board and this again this is a this is a first draft. It's ultimately up to the city commission how this is applied. However, we had drafted that this would become effective for any project that is
applied for after the date of the interpretation being accepted by the city commission excluding those projects that have submitted for a building permit. That's typically standard as well as those that have undergone a completed design review. So the ones
that have been accepted under the code, they have met the standards as they're currently applied. They would move forward at that point in time. They've typically brought on an architect. They've spent quite a bit of money designing those plans. So they would be allowed to move forward. Those projects
that have not gone through that process, that have not submitted for permitting, they would be subject to the standard. So, it would behoove us to implore the city commission to hear this as soon as possible, right? And so, is that something we could get on a calendar in
two or three weeks? Is there any notifications that we have to put out? I mean, I know city commission meets every two weeks that seem relatively simple what we're trying to do and with the number of demolitions and new homes being built, you know, sooner
rather than later. We we do need to meet with administration on this. We put this together in a very short period of time. So um we could we could look at >> try to do that as long as >> well I guess in that regard then do of
the members here do you agree that this is the the interpretation that should be going forward or maybe has existed but now has been rectified >> I think as it can be without >> causing another issue with SB180. Do we
need to have a vote on that? >> I Yeah, I was going to say procedurally um maybe the best thing to do would be have everybody go individually and say whether um you support recommending this interpretation uh to the city commission. >> Right. I would I would also like to just
add um if it's possible to do maybe like pictures or examples of what each of these would be just because then that way for the area of uh interpretation, you know, maybe it would make it a little more black and white instead of fuzzy to say this is what we're talking
about when we say Aspire or a Koopa or a Belelfrey. >> And so the water tank doesn't look like a hot tub. >> Yeah. Exactly right. open air tank >> or an aquarium. Why not? Right. >> I I agree and I disagree. The problem is
that's going to take time and effort to start putting together photographs and doing things of that nature. And to me, I think we need to It's fairly Maybe later on we might want to do that. Uh >> or as a supplement to our design guide book. >> Exactly. Exactly. Something like that.
But for the purposes of getting it in front of the city commission, I don't think we should be, you know, looking for that kind of thing. I would say the sooner the better to get it moved forward. >> Well, so let's all say what you think. Is this something, you know, >> I would say I would like to go forward
with it to the city commission with the recommendation that that they adopt it. >> Okay. And I I'll say as well that I think this is think this is the correct interpretation. I think it should get to the city commission as soon as possible
so we can go forward. If I may, are you also in agreement with staff's like as far as the timing being that those that are have not applied for a building permit and part of design review? >> The last thing that Brandon Brandon said
uh kind of I well I don't know if we have any authority to make it do any other way. I I assume there's a kind of way of doing business, >> right? that you all kind of so my understanding is so obviously if no one's done anything yet I'm not
concerned with that you know for example the design review you looked at earlier today if if that became an issue are they far enough along that they can't be affected and what's the cut off is what I'm saying >> and that is what we're trying to establish >> I'm saying so we know what was the word
you use that they've had a completed design review I I understand that where's the the other between the design completed design review and and putting it in for doing nothing where are we now >> we I think we have some flexibility on
this it's it's clear when it's an ordinance change when it's an actual code change where the cuto off is if if they apply and it's complete prior to the to the code change they are vested under the prior code as long as they keep a current but with an interpretation it's a little more
ambiguous that is one of the things we need to discuss so we're trying Um, >> and so I'm going forward, let's say, with the recommendation for its work that this does not require a code change. Okay. >> Correct. We are not looking at a code change. >> No, no, you're not. So now we're talking
about the people who maybe put in plans, if they have not been completed, then their plans could be changed by this interpretation. If we once the city commission if they say yes, this is the interpretation, right? If you're asking
whether or not those can be vested >> and I think we have to speak to the city attorney's office and kind of clarify because it's it's a change in interpretation that >> Sure. No, I I Yeah, that's why I'm saying I feel I'm not really comfortable trying to say what you should should
should or shouldn't do. I mean, clearly if it's been complete, it's been complete. And I don't think it's fair to go back in time and I mean, I'd love to say to do that, but I don't think that's fair to do that. >> So, I would it's going to need to be a case by case basis. And that's why I'm suggesting we get in front of the
commission as quick as we can because then we will have less of those issues. Does that make sense? Is that >> It totally makes sense. It's like I just want the board to be aware of that in in the instance of the cases that we had before us today. If that is
>> where we land that they would not be subject >> to that. >> And and that has the support of the city attorney. >> I'm sorry. And that has the support of the city attorney too that um what Brandon described. >> Yeah. Okay, that's fine. I'm not trying
to upset that now. >> So, but does that answer your question though? >> It does. Okay. It does. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, I think we need to hear another country be heard from since we,
you know, I think Sean and I have both said that we think that this is, you know, should go forward as it is and Chloe suggested that or the city attorney has suggested that we should all individually give our feelings about it. >> Yeah, I agree with moving forward the way it is. It's the best we can do right
now under our constraints. So, it's a move in the right direction. I would support this. I would also agree and I would add that I think in the design guide book there needs to be examples of what is outlined um as far as what's not allowable um and
what what is a nonoccupiable feature and not allowing that area of interpretation. We need a glossery in the back of our design guide book. This is getting to be such a big book. >> Well, okay. Okay. Well, >> here's an example.
>> Occup guide books. >> They got historic plaque program. >> Everything. >> Oh, you are we good on on 6A? >> I think so. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So then we're going going to thank everybody too. 6B is historic plaque program updates.
>> Yes. So just give a quick upate update on that. We have gone through our historic designation list and had to go through property appraiser and it looks about there is 94 properties >> that letters will be going out to with
the application. Um we're still putting the finishing touches but at least we have attached the designation number to who the current owner is. Um and at least that stuff is done going forward. So there's a there's a good number >> and actually added I'm sorry 95 with
today's today. I'm going to tell you that I think that is awesome that you that the city is picking it up in that fashion and sending the letters out. That makes it >> so much easier for a lot of people ask those questions and so I'm glad to see we're kind of get some finality with that. That's good.
>> And for the plaques, is that also for commercial properties? >> Anybody that has a historic designation, it will be sent to. Um there is one thing that went in my head and out at the same time. Um, oh, just going forward once that is officially uh
reinstated, once we give their letters out after they've been designated, that will go with the package as well. So, >> that's great. >> Yeah. >> Nice. Nice. Okay. Great. All right. 6C design guide book update if known. >> So, we're starting to look at some of
the architectural vignettes. Um, I'm trying to get everything together so I can send it off to this board. I know that you had requests of the information as soon as we have it all packaged so we can get that ready for review at at one of these meetings. So, I will be emailing it out as soon as I have everything together. It's just still a
little bit of a work in progress >> now. And I and Brand Brandon, you do you do so much obviously and I I know it's it's ownorous at some point, but you know, obviously we've been talking about this for for probably over a year now and that's you know what's happening.
So, I would also say if there's anything I don't know if any if if you need help with anything, uh I would certainly be available to help you or maybe some other other uh board members if if it's a manpower situation on some of this
stuff that doesn't require much brain power, you know. Um so, yeah, I'm just just waiting. I'd love to have it done. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> All right, I think that covers everything, does it not? So, >> museum. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. That was on my other piece of paper that I added that. Okay. Yes. 6 >> D, the museum update. >> Yeah. So, I wish I had more news on the progress of the rehabilitation of our
building, but the rehabilitation of the documents and the artifacts is going really well. So, um they're all in a safe place. Um, we may I think we might have our next meeting or the meeting after at the uh at the place where all of our goodies are stored. Um, but we do have the Gul Beach Historic Museum
Sunset Cruise and Eggmont Key Tour coming up on April 11th. That's from 6:45 to 8:30. It's a nice little sunset cruise. You'll do a toast at sunset out of Eggmont Key. Um, it's $75 for members, $85 for not yet members. Um,
and we do have a nice display out in the lobby here now from the museum. And I had some brochures to put out there, but they're all gone. So, I'll um put some more out, which is nice. Um, if you're not a member yet, it's so cheap. It's embarrassingly cheap. If you're not a
member, you should be embarrassed. So, um, there's also going to be storytelling and a 5050 raffle. So, um, it's on the Facebook page, on the museum website, or you can call me All right. Very nice. Anything else?
Okay. Our next meeting is May 7th. Does anybody have any conflicts at this stage they can tell us about? >> If not, okay. Otherwise, we are adjourned. Thank you all.