Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Uh, madame clerk, roll call. Member
Dashiel, yes. Member Hurley, here. Member Young, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith here. Chair Lowry, yes. We have a quorum. Okay. Uh, first on the agenda. Well, hello everybody. We'll keep moving along here in just a moment. First, we have the approval of the
agenda. Are anybody wants to add to the agenda for today? I had asked for something to be added and it may be covered in section C. Um a discussion about elevated homes and
incorporating that into our design guide book. Okay. But C may cover that or we'll call we'll call it C1. C1. Yes. and chair for that one if staff we we
had a presentation but next next month's agenda is going to be a little bit lighter so I think we can still talk about that in the context of the guide book but we were going to provide a more holistic overview of the uh national park service guide for elevating homes. So if we can handle the education next
month but we can we can it could be item C now to talk about well at least it puts it on our radar to potentially include it into Okay. Guide book. Okay. Anybody else? Before we get to me, of course. Uh, I would like to just get an update. Just
see what staff has can tell us about the Mary Pier. Anything since last month or the shuffle board clubhouse. Just a mention of that. Uh, I also want and we'll call that D. I guess that's just information. And then,
uh, E. Um, and this is really more for uh the attorneys, I think, and and I don't expect an answer today, but maybe from next meeting we can get an idea. And that's uh I'd like to find out where we
stand or what's the status of our Airbnb enforcement process. Uh, I know we were doing pretty good there for quite a while. Maybe we still are doing good, but we switched lawyers and I'm not sure, you know, what's happening with that. So if we can maybe next month get
an idea of of what's of what the status of that is. So we don't really have to have that as a discussion item. We can mention it, but I just did. So um the other thing I would like to talk about just briefly is on uh
demolitions um and the moving of potentially houses to be demolished. And so I'd like to have there's a few things I kind of learned about. I had met with Brandon earlier this week and we talked about
some things and I just want to make the board aware of some options that we really have never kind of used but uh just add that to our our fund of knowledge for uh you know perhaps be used in the future. Okay. Anybody else
have anything to add? Okay. The next on the agenda is uh we just need a motion. Excuse me. Yeah, there we go. Then I'll make a a motion to approve the agenda. And I'll second with the changes. Madam clerk,
roll call, please. Member Hurley? Yes. Member Young? Yes. Member Dashel? Yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith? Yes. Member Lowry? Yes. Motion carries. Okay. Um the next thing on our agenda here is audience comments. uh which means that
anybody in the audience can stand up and give a three minute um commentary on anything that they would like to that they think that might be relevant to what we do here at the historic board. I would point out that if you are here for something that's already on the
calendar, you can reserve your time and just come up and speak then. So if it's something on the calendar, I would just ask you to wait. You can talk then. And if it's something that's not on the calendar that you just want to make some general comments, now's the time to do that. Does anybody in the audience want to make comment?
Okay, having none, we'll move along. Next is item three, approval of the minutes. Has anyone on any board members had an opportunity to read the minutes from June 5th, 2025? I have and I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for the historic preservation board meeting of June
5th, 2025. I'll second. Madame clerk, roll call, please. Member Hurley, yes. Member Young, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, yes. Member Dashel, yes. Chair Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Okay, now we're going on to action items 4A, which is local historic designation
number 25509 for the residence located at 3116 West Deasen Avenue. Miss Rosetti. And madame clerk, I'm so sorry to interrupt. Do you need to swear anybody in for this meeting? I sure can. Yes, you go ahead if you want to do
that. Anyone who will be presenting or speaking to the board needs to be sworn in. Please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give to the board
is truthful? Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Miss Rosetti, item 4 A. Thank you, Lynn Rosetti, a consulting planner in historic preservation for the city of St. Pete Beach.
So, this first case is located at 3116 West to Basin. See, there we go. And you can see the sliding doors that are in the front of
what had been a garage structure. And it is still a garage. We'll get into that in just a minute. But the owner applicant um is Marcus. I'm gonna try I'm gonna try and get this name right. Leto Vit.
I don't think you got it right. I don't think you I really don't. We'll let him speak when he gets a chance right. So this is he's request the property owner is requesting the local historic designation of this masonry vernacular single family
residential structure at 3611 west to basin. The zoning there is RU2 single family residential and it's surrounded by such except for the park lazarella park to the norththeast.
Let's see. So, the front area, the front of the house is where the driveway is. And that originally was a carport, an open carport. It was enclosed a number of years ago and has had those sliding
doors ever since. I did speak with the owner and it's a functioning garage as far as being able to put a motorcycle in there. And then he is a a an artist, a crafter of custom furniture, especially
outdoor furniture. And I know that he originally used his garage as his main shop. Since then, I'm not positive exactly how much he uses it for his shop, but he probably still does some work in there. I had a word woodworking
uh father-in-law who did a lot of woodworking in his garage. He never put a car in there. So the staff finds that this house was constructed in 1957. It's a masonry vernacular residential structure and it was determined during
the 1924 historic survey to be non-contributing to the historic um district of the Donsesar place neighborhood because the original carport had been enclosed in 2006
to convert uh the carport into a garage. And although it has a sliding door across for for access instead of a typical garage door, as I mentioned earlier, staff did confirm with the owner that is still in use as a working garage. It does have the same footprint
as originally and the house as altered continues to support this neighborhood architecturally as it's not dissimilar to other properties within the Donsesar neighborhood. Furthermore, since 2003, the owner has built a unique local
business called Island Time Design, which is a custom furniture design business. And in fact, the uh the furniture that is at the Dawn Bazaar out around by the pool is his design.
So basically staff felt that the potential local historic association relating um to this owner's business has led staff to find that the property warrants a contributing design because architecturally it's not dissim
dissimilar from other properties within the Donsesar neighborhood and it continues to be used as a single family residential and now also has an association with a business that could well be
well remembered for many years to come. Therefore, whoops, trigger finger there. Um, staff is recommending a motion to approve case number 25509 for local historic designation of the
single family structure at 3116 West to Basin Avenue. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Not. Thank you. Anyone have any questions? Okay. Does anybody want to uh come up and speak about this?
Don't have to if you don't want to, Marcus, but you can tell you can pronounce your last name for us anyway if you want. Right. Curious. Yeah, you don't have to. I mean, we But if you want to, you can. Does it doesn't It's not going to hurt you, I don't think, if you speak, but it's not going
to hurt you either. Help you either a talker when it comes to public speaking. Okay, that's fine. Otherwise, I will talk. I I wasn't prepared to say anything. I was just going to It's all new to me this whole thing. So, okay.
Um, do me one favor before we start. Just just say your name for the record so it's on there. All right. Why not? So, you're close, Len. Yeah, I'll give you lessons. So, I I I'm very thankful if if you
grant me this. I mean, uh I uh I can say that I love the area. I love Disar Place. The only problem is we're low and uh so we felt that last um September and it's been a tough year and uh
ah what can I talk all day about that experience but I hope for the city that the city comes up with a good plan if this happens again and it's probably I'm my I'm an idea guy so
I have an idea for Florida, beach town, there's a Florida Florida itself comes up with a plan. These are the things you as a city need to do. Plug in your plan into this plan and
then this is how it works. If you got a bridge that comes, you know, if you're on the island basically like we are, you come over the bridge and and and then you know when do who has to leave? What if you don't leave? What happens, right? Um, is there power on, is there power
off? It needs to be known. It was so many unknown things. Yeah. That it was extremely stressful and and I was kind of like, well, lucky one, I suppose. I mean,
um, I know people who, uh, lost their home. I mean, they're older people. They left. Yeah. Yeah. Then on the top of that, you get this letter that just says that you're over 50%. Now you got to demolish your house or lift it up or just move it
away. You're right. Yeah. This is my American dream. That's in that picture there. That's my house. That's my dream. I got a letter. It said 47.5. Yeah. You slid right in. My neighbor got 100%. Right. and the other neighbor
there across the street. All of this on ground level, he got 7%. I'd like to see that that never happens again. And it's not you guys. It's it's Yeah, it's not. Yeah. The city and the city is doing a lot to I mean, this was
obviously hopefully one 100year kind of storm, but they're they're tightening up some things and I think we're all trying to figure out a better way to approach it, but uh you know, I guess this was the season to work some kinks out anyway, unfortunately. So hopefully we'll it'll be easier next time if there
is one. And I guess this will help me if we get another one this year. Absolutely. Because if I we get another one this year, I'm done. Let's hope not for that. Well, now this this kind of helps with that. Yeah,
that's one of the main reason. I mean it's serious serious business. So Okay. Very good. I appreciate it. Thank you. Does anybody have a motion? I'd like to make a motion. I'll move to approve local historic designation case number 25509
for 3116 West Debasin Avenue. I'll second that. Madame Clerk, roll call, please. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith. Yes. Member Dashel? Yes. Member Hurley? Yes. Member Young? Yes. Chair Lowry? Yes. Motion carries. Happy birthday, Marcus.
Okay, moving on. 4B certificate of appropriateness for an addition case number 255083 for the residents at 3108 Pass Girl way. Thank you chair. Can we pull up the
PowerPoint please? So for this this is for the property of 3108 Pasil Way specifically the primary residence on the property. It's case number 255083. Joshua Joseph Trrosclair for Celeste
Kleitanic and Jacob Kitanic III. The applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a front star and deck addition on a structure determined to be contributing to the pastoral overlay district as part of an elevation project at the property.
So you can see the current and proposed um the rendering of course on the right side and the current on the left. Uh this is a fairly recent photo. This uh request specifically to the board is because of the encroachment of the deck that you can see on the
proposed drawing toward the front setback. This will need to go for a variance both for the deck as well as for the retention of the chimney on the north side of the structure. You can see it on the right side of the rendering. Uh it's set less than three feet from the property line and that is a general
zoning code requirement. This structure is not on the local historic registry. So that this is not necessarily being reviewed for architectural compatibility with the historic integrity of the structure. Um this is something that they would be able to do should the setbacks have been met. They would have
been able to elevate in place. Late last year the city commission passed an ordinance amendment that allows for in place elevation of structures. Um obviously not withstanding those on the local historic registry which would need to come forward for historic preservation board review. Uh this is
being brought to you due to the encroachment of that deck into the required front and the side setback. And you can see this here outlined on the screen showing the uh the setback of the deck. It'll be approximately 4 and 1/2 ft from the property line along
Pastor Way, approximately 25 ft from the curb line. And here are some more photos of the structure. Um, again, this applies to the primary structure on the property. I believe there may be some renovations. The applicant can speak to the other two
structures on the property, but um the additions to the uh the structure other than the elevation include decks at the front and the rear. There is no additional living space being created. It's all ground floor space and and deck encroachments. And then you can see in
the bottom left photo uh the setback of the home. It is it is located very close to the uh the northern side property line. So in terms of the deck uh that's being requested, staff does support the request for this certificate of appropriateness. We do find that the
design of the deck is in relative keeping and in relative um consistency with the design of the structure. Uh we would have preferred instead of that cable railing that's being shown and I'll go back to the rendering. um we would have preferred the more horizontal
ballastrades that are shown on the rear of the structure but we do feel that in terms of scale um in terms of design. It is in keeping with the structure that it augments um of course access to that upper story will be required from the outside due to the elevation.
That being said um in terms of the historic integrity of the structure the existing living levels of the structure approximately 8 feet in height. Um that would be from floor to ceiling. This elevation is 12 feet. General guidance
um from the National Park Service is that structures of this scale and massing would be recommended for an elevation of 3 to 4 feet. Um we have as I mentioned before given the ability for homeowners to elevate their structure um to any extent that they see fit. given
that it still complies with the height standards for the district, they will still comply with the height standards for the pass overlay with this elevation. Um, however, in terms of future historic surveys of this neighborhood or the ability to later
place this home on the historic registry given the elevation, I do think that that might might be a challenge um moving forward um given the extent to which this home is being elevated. um it is still something the applicant can undertake. I do still feel that the
deck is um well designed for the structure but and of course one of the one of the major benefits of the his local historic designation is to be eligible for those flood plane variances. They would not need those moving forward. The only other incentive that the city currently offers is that
advalorum incentive which would also not be applicable in this situation. That would apply to a future renovation. the applicant would or the owner would choose to undertake. Um, I just wanted to mention this because while it's not necessarily in the purview of this case,
it would likely affect the ability for the structure to be later listed as a local historic resource. So, with that being said, um, regarding the deck itself, staff does recommend the certificate of appropriateness. Again, as for the reasons that I mentioned, I do feel it's compatible with the structure. I do feel that it's
compatible with the design criteria relative to um those those standards that we have in the overlay. So we do recommend approval for the certificate of appropriateness. What I just mentioned was conveyed to the contractor will be reiterated when they move forward for the variances. I do believe
we have the applicant present. If you have any questions for me as staff, I'd be happy to answer them. A couple questions now. The chimney obviously you mentioned something about that, but that's been there for the longest time, hasn't it? So what what what requires something to be done about it now? So the requirement is for
structures, they can be elevated in place, but any element that is closer than 3 ft to a property line needs to either be removed or it needs to be the structure needs to be relocated during elevation. That will be slightly closer than 3 ft to the property line. So that that will be part of the variance
request. Okay. And then I think you said I may have I wrote it down but I may have not done this correctly. not on the registry, meaning it's a contributing structure. It was picked up in our 2015 survey, right? And it was part of the original 20 2003 expansion, but they
have not individually listed this as a local. Gotcha. Okay. All right. And uh what is the minimum elevation they would have if if they want to be FEMA compliant, what's the minimum elevation
they would have to go up? Do you know that? I I mean I know I had to have a guess, but you know if it's I believe it's around four and a half feet. Okay. And they're going 12 feet. Is that right? Approximately. Yes. Can you go to those other pictures that after this you had a series of three
photos? Yeah. So this is the back of the house, right? Uh the two the top and the right photo are the front. The bottom left is the back. Yes. Okay. So, I'm just trying to figure this out
in my brain here. So, the one on the the lower left, I believe at one point these were two houses, okay, that were were joined together some time in the past. But this this structure you see in the lower left, that's the back of the house or is that a garage? The little white
structure is on the adjacent property. Those are the cottages next to the Marco Gallery. Okay. So, that's that's a whole different piece of property that I'm looking at there. Is that correct? Correct. There are two detached structures, one story at the rear of the lot. Um, those are not being modified.
It's a footprint. So, and in that lower left photograph there, that gravel area where a car is parked, that's the part that's part of the parking for this home. That is That's correct. Yes. All right. And and I notice in that picture
there's a car there from Tech Travel, which I think is next door. That is Or is it a city car? That's a city vehicle. Yeah, you're not in the picture, Brandon. Don't throw me off. Yeah. Um, I might have been in the car.
Okay. All right. I see. All right. Anybody else have any questions for Brandon? Okay. And do we have a representative here in this case? And just state your name for the record, please. Um, Patrick Payne of Pain
Building Movers and JS Builders. Okay. Um, anything you want to say? I have a couple questions for you, but anything you want to say before that happens? So, no. Okay. Ask away. I guess my biggest question is why why 12 feet? Why 12 feet? So, I've worked all over the
entire east coast of United States lifting houses, tens of thousands of houses. After Hurricane Sandy specifically, we hit a 100red-year flood mark. And then we hit the following year with Irene, we hit a 500year flood mark. So the houses that were previously lifted to the bare minimum re-entered that flood zone the following year. So the houses that were once compliant 12
months prior were then back in a flood zone that needed to be lifted once again. So in those terms, this was 103 years since we got hit by our last storm essentially here. But progressively since 2019, since I moved down here, it's gotten worse and worse each year.
Okay. Well, I I mean I don't you sound like you obviously know what you're talking about, but you know, the last storm basically came up three feet. Yeah, we and we dodged the bullet on that one. You know, I understand that, but obviously if it comes up 12 feet, we're all going to be in a lot of trouble. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So, I
guess my question is I mean, does it this is why we're concerned about it. Obviously on Pastor Girl, we're very we are very concerned about heights. Yep. Okay. Especially it's an old place. Most houses were one story, maybe one maybe two stories and now we're taking part of a two-story house and making it, you
know, adding 12 feet on the bottom and and and is the only reason because we might get a thousand-year storm or something. BFE has 12 over there. Correct. And pass beach. I don't know. That's why the first question I asked you you you to be FEMA compliant, you'd have to go up about four feet. So you're
going beach alone, you have three feet of freeboard, which is 3 feet above BFE. So the difference of your elevation to BFE. So if our elevation there is elevation five and BF is 12, that means there's going to be a difference of 7 feet plus your additional 3 ft on top of
that. So that puts you 10 feet. I don't think so. I mean I'd ask Brandon. I'm sorry. I missed I misspoke for this property. I should have had the plans up. Um grade is at four. Base flood is at nine. We do require one foot of freeboard here. So that would put it at six feet above grade. That would be the
the minimum for compliance. And and that that I understand. So, so the FEMA compliance is six foot. So, but you're going you're going an additional six. Only reason I asked this is this, you know, most people either they just go up six feet and have a crawl space or whatever, which is usable, but not you can't park a car in
it, or they go up 10 feet or 9 feet and park a car, but going up 12 feet, it's I'm just so more or less for the way that we're doing things here, we're making a very resilient storm resilient structure. So what we don't really show in these pictures is that we build an entire skill substructure beneath the
house which gives it a much higher elevation. So when we lift the house we go to that measurement is going to be taken from your lowest horizontal structural. So on top of that in between each pier you're going to have a W1033 which is 10inch I beam. And then if it's
a woodframe structure and you have a floor joist that's running one direction and another going another you're going to have a carrying timber that's going to go beneath that. So that's going to step down. So your floor system in general is going to put your actual finished floor elevation DF much higher than what really needs to be there just
due to the fact of the wood structure of the house. So basically we build an entire steel grid beneath it that stays in place. Then it's all welded and since strapped to the structure itself, then those beams are welded to the peers that they're sitting on top of.
But I assume there's going to be a open area for storage or cars or that kind of stuff in that area. It's not all like steel beams and stuff, right? No, no, no. That but that's why it's much higher. That's that's why we Is that because the the I'm not you know I'm not
saying you're speaking a foreign language, but I'm not quite following you here, which I totally understand. No, what I'm saying is so the the ground floor and by that I mean if you're on the what would normally we call the second floor but the first floor of living space. Yeah. Underneath your feet
you've got a significant sub three or three feet or something from like your pier height to the top of the floor deck is probably going to be additional like three and a half ft from the top of the pier just due to the framing the framing that's there your seal plates and then the steel that's beneath that. So, if you have a if your floor joists are
going this direction and then you have center carrying timber that sits beneath that and you have a 10-in beam that sits beneath that, right? You need to be able to support that joist that runs across. So, it has to sit on top of the peers because or else you needed to back fill it all which underneath and coastal AE
and AE in general, we're not allowed to have any sort of structural fill. Okay. So, question across the I guess I'm looking at the back, but the front of the house um on on the left, are those going to be overhead garage doors
on rendering? Let me on the rendering. Yeah, there you go. So, those are garage doors on the front. Is that right? No, just architectural screening. You have any garage doors there? Okay. Um and what's the height of those? Do you know
the plans are showing from grade to the top of the screening as 11.5 ft. Okay. So what would be the total height? The highest point of the structure independent of the chimney which goes up
a few feet that is still compliant is 30 feet 6 in above the required design flood elevation. So that would be to the very ridge of the roof. Um the majority of the structure is a story below that.
So thank you. Okay. Is is the owner here as well? said who you are. Can we speak to you just for a moment? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. And would you put Huh? Yeah. And would you put your name on the record, please? Uh, Celeste Clay Tennic. Okay. Um, I was going to ask uh Yeah, I
guess just tell us. I mean, this the the the ground floor area. I mean, I know you know you can't use it for any kind of living space. It looks like you have no windows or anything like that as far as that's concerned anyway, right?
No. No. We're the the on the one side as it lines up with our driveway in the alley. That'll be actually the garage. So, we'll pull in from the alley and go into the garage door and go into the garage. And then on the other back side,
we're going to use garage doors, but it's not going to be a garage. We just want to have a way to enclose the outside living space when we're not here. Right. And so see so see so see so see so see so see so see so see so see so see so part of the you know of course we sit here and just look at this is all we see you know and so I don't know if there's a landscaping plan or something
like this but I assume there probably is of some sort. Right. We've submitted a minimal landscaping plan but we intend we actually were about to hire somebody to landscape when the storm came. So I'm glad we didn't do that. Right. Um, but
yeah, we plan on landscaping it and you know, we're making a a big investment, right, in this and we we want to keep this house for a long time. We love it and good and and you know, I I think you you heard Mr. Barry speak before and
again he said it would be mentioned at the variance hearings you have, but there's the the risk and I I think you you're familiar with that. I just want to make sure you're we're clear on the record. I suppose there's a risk that in the future you could lose a historic designation if you wanted to do that. Do
you understood what he said about that? Yeah, we understood that and we actually we really weighed our options for months about what we wanted to do. I had actually even spoken to some people who had gotten their houses historic designations and you know we really
tried to do our research on it and at the end of the day it just didn't seem like enough of the the code like people weren't lifting and so we were a little afraid to do a historic designation and then be denied the ability to lift and
so we don't ever want to go through this again. This is our first coastal home and it was almost our Well, well, I would tell you that there there's no being historically designated does not at all keep you from lifting your home. You may change it. Like I said, if you
lift it as high as you do, right, then it might not have that look, but you know, if it was lifted whatever, you know, four feet or five feet, uh, not only would it be FEMA compliant, but it could still be historically designated. And but as long as you've gone through the Yeah. We don't want to change the h.
We love the house. I mean, we are we, you know, we loved it the minute we saw it and, you know, we just want to get it to a point where it's usable and where we're not going to flood again. And did you let me just because I'm asking almost everyone this kind of
question. What kind of damage did you get to how much did you get water actually in the house? We had about 5 in of water in the house and it was in the house for a while and then we found a design issue that we didn't know about because it was under a bathtub, but they okay and they put the tub in. They
didn't finish under the tub. So, we had a big hole under the tub and the water just bubbled up from the crawl space into the house. And had we not had that hole, we might not have had the damage that we had. So, but I assume your your damage when you got a letter and stuff, you weren't substantial. You were not
substantial. Okay. Good. All right. Yeah, we actually got approved today to start our renovation. So, we're excited. So, we're hoping you guys are going to approve for us, too. I mean, we're we love the house. We love the area. And it was important to us to to to keep it the
way that it is. And, you know, it's going up, so we've got to have stairs to get in and out. You know, if anything, for safety reasons, but aesthetically, it would look really weird if there was no front entrance. Yeah. So, and um we tried to keep it, you
know, we we did multiple designs and they all, you know, I was like, "All right, try it like this." I was driving the the engineer crazy because I he'd send it to me. I'm like, "No, that looks terrible. We can't do that." And so, we tried to come up with a design that that, you know, was as close to fitting
the house as possible, but with the smallest footprint as possible because we don't have that space in the front. And we're trying to keep the chimney, too, right? And that fireplace. I'm I'm not I'm just trying to scroll
through something here. And there's two additional structures in the back. Is that right? Yeah. One is like a small cottage and then the other is a garage. Would they be able to historically designate those
separately or not necessarily? Um they they can usually those and they were not picked up on the survey so they would need to be individually evaluated but they can stand apart. Usually they go together with the primary residence but it's it's possible. So I think the one
the cottage was leased out by the former owner but we don't have any intention of renting or leasing or Airbnbing or any of that. And where's your new front door? Is that on the uh the bumped out? Yeah. So, it's
if you if you go up the steps and there's a window that you can see is sort of recessed. The you can't see the front door in any of these pictures. It's sort of it's in that little cubby. Um, so you'd go up the steps and go right to the front door. Okay. And then
we we added the little bit of decking because number one, just the stairs alone looked really it looked like we just threw stairs on the front of the house. And then it also gives us a little bit more space in the front when you go in and out. Okay, Brandon,
I'm just trying to procedurally wrap my head about kind of what we're doing here. Okay, so this is a certificate for approval. Of appropriateness. Yeah. I mean, certificate of appropriateness for a
home that's not historically designated but is going to be FEMA compliant. I mean, right. So, our code requires whenever there's an encroachment into the underlying setbacks that's not handled through a design review, it come
forward to you for recommendation prior to going on to the board of adjustment. Board of adjustment will be the end of this month. So, we're bringing this forward to you at this time to So, are we making a recommendation on the variance? Is that what we're doing? That's correct. But through you you would be making a finding on the
certificate of appropriateness criteria that that is what is required to be issued by this board before the board of adjustment. And basically for our consideration that encroachment is the front stair and the fireplace. The deck and the fireplace. Correct. Yes.
Okay. You have any other questions? Um, I don't think so. But let me just We haven't really, you know, had a vote here, but but and again, unfortunately, we don't get a lot of the information. It's sometimes early on and things of that nature. And, and you
know, my concern, I don't know about the rest of the board here, is uh, you know, we just look at this one proposed picture, which you know, it doesn't have any landscaping of things of that nature and all that kind of thing. And so, you know, I would just want to be assured
that, and maybe this is a question for you, Brandon, that you know, there's a landscaping plan that goes with that because to me that makes a big difference on how I would say, you know, vote on an approval, clearly if that lower area, which is significantly
higher than most first floors because it's, you know, 12 feet as opposed to 9 or 10, you know, are we going to have midsize trees there? Are we going to have high plants? You know, things of that. and and I just don't know the answer to that. But I of course I would I would hesitate to say or I would say I
I would vote to go ahead and give the certificate approval, but I really would want to make sure that we had a landscaping plan and in in place that that hid most of that just blank space. You know what I mean? And that's not y'all's fault. I'm just saying it's just kind of a thing where
Yeah. And this is early stages. I have I we found this through a building permit review which which is currently in house but that that's been communicated to the applicant. Um it they will need a landscaping plan as if it were a new home due to the substantial improvement.
So can we make a vote with a caveat or whatever that says that it's p that that the voters p you know pursuant to the landscaping plan being approved as well or something along those lines. you know, I don't I don't want them to have to come back here so we can say, "Okay,
the landscape bill is great." Approval with the landscape. Yeah, we can do staff approval in that regard. Sure. Yeah, we we'll require that regardless. We vote, but I'm just saying. Okay. Yeah. And I can say that like I know for the It was really hard because they said, "Okay, you need to tell us what kind of trees and where you're going to put them." And I'm like, "Oh my gosh, I
don't know." So, we really had to think about it, but we are um on the right side of the property on the property line. We're going to plant two canopy trees over on the far left side. We're going to put two canopy trees. It's hard to kind of put them close to the house
because the house would be in the way. Um but then on the left where um it's shaded gray or black, you know, in front of that area. We do there's landscaping there now and we plan on replacing, you
know, landscaping all through there. And then there'll be additional landscaping on the left and you know whatever we can do in front of the stairs as well. Okay. Right now it's all almost the whole front is seashells right now. Right. Very there's very minimal landscaping
and we had intended on adding more and that's the nature because I live down there and I drive by it. I look at it and I say if this goes up that high then hope Yeah. That's why we want it to look tropical and pretty just as much as everybody else does. Okay. Good. All right. All right. Anybody have a motion?
I mean, I I will make a motion that we uh approve the certificate of appropriateness for the addition in case number 25508 2583 for the residents at 3108
Pass Girl way with the uh addition that there be approved that the staff approved the landscaping plan for that. And I guess we're making a recommendation to the or I would be in this motion. I'm making a recommendation to the board of adjustment that the variance be granted.
Does that sound right? That is correct. Okay. I'll second that. Uh Madame Clerk, roll call, please. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith. Yes. Approve. Member Dashel. Yes. Member Hurley. Yes. Member Young here. Chair Lowry. Yes. Motion
carries. What would that just Okay. I'm sorry. First up, come come on up and state your name just so it's on the record so we know who's talking. Okay. Right. Lauriani Gavvara with Jazz Builders and I was been working with Brandon who by the way is amazing. Um but we did turn in a landscaping plan. So what do you
need something that's a little more detailed? Do you need something from an official landscaper? What are you guys looking for to make sure? Well, we haven't seen the landscape plan. We haven't seen anything at all because that's just we're just a the board our board wouldn't necessarily see that. And so all I want to make sure I it could be
totally fine. I just want to make sure that there's a landscaping plan that goes along with it. Okay. And I want to make sure that that the staff is able to say yes, we accept this. Okay. And so I I don't think it's going to be a problem or anything. So I don't think you need
to add anything other than you've done. Okay. All right. I just want to make sure cuz I'm the one that goes back and forth with him and I No, I think it's we just we're just in the in the in the dark on that. So, we haven't seen anything and he has You'll let me know. But from what you've all said, I feel pretty assured we're all in a good spot. So, Okay, cool. Awesome. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for staying. Yeah. Okay. Uh 4 C certificate appropriates for demolition case number 255073 for the residents of 113 13 no 113rd Avenue.
If we could pull the PowerPoint please. So this is a request for demolition BCA for Michael Peltier and James Tobin 113rd Avenue requesting certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a single family residence.
You can see the photo on from the 2015 reurvey of historic resources on the left um and then the photographed in the right in uh 2023. And you can see here the post hurricane photos not representing them. They're
out of state. Okay. Okay. I knew I recognized you, but your name didn't match. So, he's on there somewhere as being a representative or somethingwhere. That's why screwed me up about where the house was located because I couldn't. And this will be the case for the other cases that you see
today as well. We do request um that the motion be made to demolish the building without a stay. Um this case in particular, the home was substantially damaged based on the staff's estimate and the uh the city's consultant's estimate. Um the property could be redeveloped with a similar use and
arrangement to what exists currently. Um as we say for all these cases, we do of course have the pending amendments to the overlay uh pending second reading. So there is a possibility when new development comes forward it may be required that the design be to the overlay. Currently the option exists for
both the overlay and the underlying development. That's the only note I wanted to make about this case. So, with that being said, um staff request a motion to approve this case for demolition of the single family residence at 113 Third A without a stay on demolition.
Okay. I got I got a couple questions and I don't know if you can answer these Brandon or Roger needs to or if we even have answers. So, do do we know was this 100% damage? Is that what maybe if you remember? I don't or do you remember? And Roger, you could you come up just
put your name on the record so just It is and it's under number five. Okay. So, I guess my my question on that and Roger, you may know, have you been
in the house? Yes. Okay. Is it is is there a structural issue with the house or is it mostly all interior damage? There's no floors left. It's mostly interior. I don't know if there's a structural issue. Okay. It held together pretty well. Okay.
And the and as far as you know, the the owners themselves have gone through the the mental gymnastics of determining where they want to get historically designated and rehab the house, get around FEMA variances. They don't want to do that. They want to go ahead and just demolish it, build new if anything.
So, okay. But you you've talked to them, you know, they've gone through the I always want to ask this because sometimes people don't I guess know there's another option, but as far as you know, they do. I know you know, so you've probably had conversations with them, right? Explored everything. Okay.
Another thing, and I'm decid I'm going to start asking this on on a lot of these demolitions, and you may not know the answer since you're not the owner, but if if if hypothetically somebody out there decided that they would move that house on their dime, do you think the
owners have a problem with that? It would certainly saving the cost of demolition. No, I don't think so. Okay. I'm just like I said, I know you're not the owner, but uh that's gonna later kind of dovetail on some other stuff we want to talk about. All right, good. Okay. Anybody else have any questions
for anybody? Anybody have comment on the 30-day stay or anything like that? I don't think it's necessary. Okay. I don't disagree. Anybody got a motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve case 255073 for demolition of the single
family residence at 113rd Avenue without a stay on demol demolition. I'll second that motion. Madam clerk, roll call, please. Member Dashill, yes. Member Hurley, yes. Member Young, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, yes. Chair
Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Okay, moving on. 4 D. Certificate of appropriateness for demolition case number 255079 for 206 Passer Girl way. That one's mine. The owner present for this one. Um same request certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the
single family residence. Uh you can see some photos here. Um there were several included with the packet. Um it clearly sustained substantial damage. Um it was declared an unsafe structure by the building official following the storm.
So on the basis of that um as with the other proceeding case um the property could be redeveloped with a similar structure obviously elevated to a greater degree than the current home um but it would allow for a similar footprint um similar setbacks to what currently exists with slight
modification along the north side. Um as with the other case all development will need to meet the new overlay requirements. With that said we do request approval of this case uh without a stand demolition. Okay. Okay. Um, Roger. So, unlike this
other house, I don't know. I'm going to ask you, but you your this house receives some pretty some structural damage. I think it's pushed off the it's pushed half off the uh correct support blocks and the whole front is obviously gone. That that you got I'm so sorry about that, but you you got a lot of it
hit there, right? Okay. And and and the reason I was asking that questions before, this is just, you know, my thought process. a person could, and I'm not saying you should, could could, but you could move the house on another street to your location. I I'm just saying, but when some of these
demolition of these old houses that I think people should start thinking about financially instead of building a new structure, they might be able to move one of these houses that was damaged in the interior because I think, as you know, the historical board doesn't care about the historic nature of the
interior. It's just the outside shell. So, some of these homes might be able to be replaced from ones that got structural damage like you did, the ones that just got interior damage. So, anyway, that that was just me vomiting on out loud. So, anybody got a motion on
this? I'll move to uh approve the certificate appropriateness for demolition number 255079 of 206 Pass Way without a stay. I'll second that. Madam clerk, roll call. Member Young, yes. Vice Chair
Hawkinsmith, yes. Member Dashill, yes. Member Hurley, yes. Chair Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Thank you, Roger. All right. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. 4E certificate of appropriateness for demolition case number 255078,
the residence at 1209 Passer Girl way. As for this one, we have Sam Irvin of JBS for thus Vanderult uh living trust and this is another request for certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the single family residence. The applicant
was not able to attend but we are able to call him in if if need be. He is on standby. Uh so you can see a photo from the reservey of historic resources on the left. Um the rear of the structure photographed after the 2024 hurricanes
on the right. Uh some more photos of the extensive damage. This one was declared 100% substantially damaged by the city's consultant. On the basis of that, um we do recommend approval of the request to demolish
without a stay. Um there's no there's really nothing about the arrangement of the building on the property. Um of course, except for the elevation that would prevent it from being redeveloped in the future. Um, the applicant should be aware that all new development will need to be the overlay, which I did
communicate to the agent for this case. So, with that being said, we do recommend approval without a stay on demolition. Now, is this is this the house the first one on the water or is this on passway? This is the second one on way. First one's a block structure and this is a
blue wood structure. Gotcha. Okay. I thought I didn't think that was the first one. All right. They had two strikes against them. They just finished a large remodel after the last flood. And this one really lifted the place off its foundation, etc.
Okay. And this I I just know this just for curiosity, these lots are pretty narrow. What's the size of that lot, but they they can still build like a house medium on it or something like that? They could um Yes, they could. Let me see here. 94 by 73. Is that what it is?
58 by 79. Am I looking at the right one? I got a 58 plus 14. Yeah, it's 68 72. So roughly 94 by 72. Okay. Oh, so it's pretty wide. All right. Anybody have any more discussion on this?
All right. I'll make a motion that we grant the certificate of appropriateness. I'll second that. And that would be on case number 255078, 1209 Passway without a 30-day stay. Roll call, please. Member Young, yes. Vice
Chair Hogen Smith, yes. Member Dashill, yes. Member Hurley, yes. Chair Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Okay. 4F, certificate of appropriateness for demolition, case number 255072, residence at 2604 Passing Way. Another
request for demolition. This is for both the detached single family residence and the detached garage, which was considered a contributing out building. a photo of the residents from the 2015 survey on the left and the structure photographed on the right after the 2024
hurricanes. Staff did not notice significant structural damage. However, based on the city's estimate, the structure did sustain substantial damage at 85%. And that would be for the primary structure. Uh with that being said, we do support
the request to demolish without a stay. Um as mentioned for the other cases, a similar development uh could be created at the site um barring the uh the elevation that is required and the overlay requirements would apply to this property.
So with that, we recommend approval of this case without stay. Uh the applicant is not present, but they are available by phone if the board has any questions. Just a couple questions for you. I guess Brandon if you know this is a block house masonary I believe so is that the
story and then do you see and you do you do you know whether or not or did you have a discussion are you aware with anybody from the from the city that might had discussion with the owners about becoming historic and
rehabbing it under historic designation I believe I believe the applicant looked into that and I'm just verifying through their application, but I don't believe they I believe they explored that option. Um, it was 100% damaged and they
felt the only reasonable path was to tear down the building and build new. So, okay. All right. Anybody have any questions? Is this one of those that we needed to have an affidavit signed acknowledging their options or No,
it's not multif family or anything. Yeah, that's when they're they just can only build what they have, right? We typically ask that when they have multifamily and they couldn't redevelop without limiting their living square footage, but this is not one where that's applicable. I only ask because there's no one here on their behalf. So,
okay. Well, let's deny it and see what happens. No, I'm just kidding. Um, all right. I'll make a motion to grant the certificate of appropriateness for demolition case number 255072 for the residents at 2604 Pascal Way. Second
without a 30 without a 30-day stay. I'll second. Madam clerk, roll call, please. Member Dashill, yes. Member Hurley, yes. Member Young, yes. Vice Chair Hogginmith, yes. Chair Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Now, we move on to 4G. We're getting away from the
demolitions finally and we're going to an addition to ordinance case number 2025-07 section 20.22 fence height limitations. Yeah. So, this is a followup to the board's request from last month to have standards for fences in the front yard
for development down in Pastor. Uh there's three standards in this block. I'll just summarize. The first is that for those properties that are built to the overlays, so those developments that we see come in for design review. Um, and that will be any new development in pass provided that the the final reading
of the overlay amendments are approved as written. They will need to comply. Any fence or wall in front of the primary building must meet the standards required for a new development. That is a fence that's compatible with the
structure. It can't exceed 4t in height. Um, if it's a wall, it needs to be compatible with the design of the home behind it as well. And we have those frontage requirements that are already in the code. Um, it just references those. So, someone would not be able to come in and put up a 6-ft PVC fence in
front of the uh the porch there. There's already design standards in our code that relay that. And as we move forward and we see more homes that are developed to the overlay, uh they will need to comply with that standard for all properties within the overlay, regardless of whether or not they've been built to the
design standards of the overlay. Those fences that are either set closer than the front setback of the building for those that are on a typical rectangular lot or that would be installed in a way that would obscure the front of the building. And that would be for a pre
section 20.15 home. Um they would not be able to exceed 4t in height or the Florida pool code. Florida pool code requires a 4 and 1/2t gate latch. So it would continue to provide for that. So even if the structure were not built to the overlay, even if they didn't have to
comply with those material standards, they would still need to comply with the 4ft height for any fence placed in front of the home um as viewed from the roadway. Once you get past the front of the home, um once you're out of the the front setback of the residence, they would be able to go up to eight feet in
height as is allowed for um fences on residences and in pass. So that's what staff drafted. Um if you have any comments, we ask for a motion to recommend this as an amendment to ordinance 2020.
I'm sorry, I should know this off hand. um 20257 um as an amendment for the final reading. So to make it a little bit easier, we have the different setbacks from the property line based on a front yard.
Mhm. If they're in the first setback, which is at 20 ft, uh it would be 10 to 15 for most res. If they're 10 to 15 from the property line to where they want to put the fence, the fence needs to be at 4 foot. However, if they are starting their
fence behind that behind the 10- foot mark, they can have the 8ft fence. And I I think our concern was that um in some cases, they can set back further. For example, structures built next to the the uh the bay or the beach can be set
back further than 15 ft. So, we didn't want to specify a distance because if they choose to set it back further, it would still have the same issue. And for those existing residences that are set back further than 15 ft, they could still have a fence. Now, we can we can reiterate that in the building type
standards just to make it clear that they're subject to this standard. So, I I'll I'll include that as well. Okay. So, yeah, I we have two we have in different sets. We have different front setbacks. So, let's say that the first one starts off with a 10- foot. If they
or if they're putting the fence in that 10- foot area, it has to be at the 4 foot. But if it is back further than 15 feet from the property line, they could build it at 8 foot. I don't know. Is that right?
I I think I think our concern, Sean, is right. Well, there's two different there's two different zones. There's a first setback and a second setback. And where you are in those is what's going to dictate what kind of fence you can put up. Right. So what that's why I was going to ask you a moment ago when you talked about front yard uh is a front
yard determined by the setback or is it determined by where the house is? It's or the front door? No. Because I'm saying is I think we all recognize that beside a house as you go around the house to go in the backyard if they had
a a high fence there or an eight foot fence there I guess we would kind of understand that. But when you have a 8ft fence in the front yard that prevents you from even seeing the front door is that is that allowed the way it is now? Obviously I guess we know of an
example where that's been done but I think that's part of the point of we're trying to keep that from happening. And so Sean, your concern is that yeah, they could be four feet, but after they get 15 feet into the yard, they could put they could go back up to 8 feet, which is basically what that one has done
because it had such a large front yard setback. Yes. But this says or where the front of the house starts, right? So, so they could be 10 feet from the sidewalk, but they choose to be 15 feet from the sidewalk. The 4 foot fence
has to start from the front of the structure going toward the sidewalk or front orientation regardless of how far back the house is set. However, they would be allowed to have an 8ft fence if they had enough setback because if it's outside of that 10 to 15
ft that we just kind of identified, then they have the ability to do the 8ft fence as as it is currently done right now. So, we would want the maximum of a 4 foot height um whether it's the structure or the
setback, whichever is greater. Yeah. And so what was what was drafted was to take into account that it if a structure and we we've seen these before where they built to the overlay, but they choose to set the home back at 20 ft, which typically the standard is 10 to 15, but if they're adjacent to the water, they
are able to set it back further. So if they chose to set it back at 20 or 25 ft, my understanding was the board wanted to make sure that the fence line for anything taller than 4T moved with that setback. That's that's what I understood from last Yeah. Yeah. I think that we're Is that what this says
though? That's what this that's what this is intended to say. And we But an 8 foot 8 foot fence is still allowable under the current code under the current from the front of the house toward the backyard but not in front of it. has to do with the front yard and the front
yard setbacks and the different the primary setback and the secondary setback. If you're in the secondary setback, you'd be allowed to have the eight foot fence. If you're in the primary setback, you'd have to have the four foot fence. Right? So, what we what we want so we're clear maybe if we would
like nobody to have an 8 foot fence in their front yard. Correct. Right. And so there's and and of course what we don't what what Sean's saying and I don't know if this we're all on the same page of that is as a as a silly thing. You could
say okay I'm going to put a I have a big front yard. I'm putting a 4ft fence up at 15t and then 5t behind that I'm putting an 8ft fence on. Well they could go all the way across the front of the property. Right. But what I'm saying is you know stay back that far from the property. And so what we would like to
see and and I know because we have potentially pools going in the front yards which has caused some of this issue and there has to be what four and a half ft to the gate pool enclosures. Then can we draft something that just says you're that you can't have a a
fence higher than 4 and 1/2 ft in the front yard as defined by where the front of the house is. You follow what I'm saying? Right. That's that that is what this is intended to say. It may be saying that's what I'm saying. I'm I'm I So my computer went down for some
reason. So I'm trying to follow is the type of material like there's a big difference between a PVC fence 8 foot in the front yard versus an iron fence
that is see-through if somebody wanted to have a security fence or perhaps create a courtyard behind a block fence with an iron gate. So currently the standards require for
those overlay built homes it does need to be of a specific material. I believe it's wood shell or concrete um stucco concrete. So those would be required for any new build and that would be in the front of the structure within that
setback zone. For homes that are not built to the overlay standards. There are no current material standards. um you know, we don't allow for scrap metal and things like that, but other than that, there's no specific requirements for pass. So, if someone chose to put up
a PVC fence, they would be able to. But what this is drafted is not to change the material standards, but it's to state that regardless of whether the home is built to the overlay or whether it's existing, anything any fence set
closer to the front property line than the building, regardless of what that setback is, cannot exceed 4t in height or 4 and 1/2 ft if they have a pool in the front yard. So I'm I'm rereading. So, so for the purpose or you have for the purpose of this requirement, a federal mall is considered in front of
the main front or secondary front of the primary structure. I don't know. Is there reason we need to put secondary front in there? Does that confuse issues if it has a lesser setback than the yards property line than the primary? So, the the secondary front is for those
corner lots. Um, if the board is not concerned about those, if you're only concerned about the primary, we can take that out. No, I like it. I I you you've clarified what that means. Corner lots. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. And then the part that clears it up, I think, is placed on the lot in such a
way that the facade of the structure, which would be the front of the house, is obscured by a fence or wall greater than four feet. Right. Okay. And we don't want to talk about I mean I think you know Holl's got a good point but at four feet I'm not I'm not really
concerned about what the the material is at that point. You're not at 4 feet. Yes. So that's okay. But uh I I think almost well if we do this then that's fine. Yeah. I'm not concerned about it at all. And but this would if we so if we tell
you we approve this language and then it goes to we add that to what the commission is going to be voting on at some point. Do they have to do like a first reading of this little part or can we just kind of put that in there and tell them this has been added? No, I believe in the title we we defined this
section already as amended. So we would just add this in and we would point it out to them for the second reading. So Okay. All right. Do we need to vote on this at all or we're just If you could make a recommendation to the city commission. The recommendation would be that we approve this language to be this
proposed language to be added addition to the ordinance. Right. All right. Well, then I'll make a motion that an ordinance 202507 the proposed section 20.22 which is the fence height limitations as presented here. Uh that that be approved and added
to our proposed changes to the ordinance. I'll second. Roll call, please. Member Hurley, yes. Member Young, yes. Vice Chair Hogen Smith, yes. Member Dashiel, yes. Chair Lowry, yes. Motion carries. And Brandon,
good job. Thank you for that. That's really well done in a quick period of time, too. So, okay. So, the next thing we have is discussion items, I believe, which is first 5A is Key West design guidelines.
Yeah. So, this is a continuation, well, carry on from last meeting. Um, the board's homework was to to review this manual and um make any recommendations for what you would like to see for the city's design guideline book. Now, I did
want to say um just before we get into discussion, there are quite a few elements of this guideline book that are more um regulatory in nature. The way we have envisioned this is that we have the land development code. We have the
regulations for the district that actually assign setbacks and height and other requirements like that. Uh that would be within the land development code. We didn't make significant modifications to those with the overlay amendments, but there were there were a few adjustments. The the fence for
example being one of them. Um, our guide book we had envisioned as more of a series of guidelines for how to comply with the overlay design standards and as member Young had pointed out, we might also consider elements for um, for
elevation of homes, appropriate elevation. So, um, I just wanted to point that out. Um, I'm happy to hear from the board and and include these recommendations. So, I'll kind of just share a couple things that I went through. I think what I found pretty interesting throughout
their guide book um or throughout their language, it speaks to um new additions uh an adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired. So, I thought that was a really good way of basically saying, "Please build something that fits the size, scope, scale of the community." Um, and even though we probably shouldn't have to ask people to do that, I think we've seen repeatedly
that we do. Um, and then also I noticed that they have that new elements that were added to a historic structure should be reversible to allow restoration at a future date. So basically if someone comes in and buys a historic property and they make changes
to it that then at the future it would be able to be basically removed and restored back to original. Um is does that mean though that they have to use some sort of that's just is that just allowing the people the new owners
like to do that or does that mean they have to use some sort of building material that can be removed? You follow what I'm saying? So typically, and we we've seen cases, Lynn's brought several before you that are lateral additions where there's minimal finishing between an addition
and the original home. So if they came in and, you know, hopefully the original home were never to be destroyed, but if if one of them were damaged, it wouldn't necessarily affect the integrity of the other. That's a way to comply with that. There's others, you know, balconies and other additions that um the original
home's integrity can be restored. And we do have a provision that says, you know, the addition will clearly be an addition. So, well, in the big picture stuff and I read through this uh and it's great and
I I I I know and I appreciate Danielle you bringing this to our attention especially as we're kind of putting together this guide book because I think there can be some language that we can take from this perhaps, you know, and use in ours at least maybe
the tone of it and the way they do it. Um the thing that if I remember correctly that struck me I thought the best in this design guideline which may or may not be something we can ultimately do. It's clearly you know our
first step is we have to get what the proposed changes we've already got to go in front of the commission pretty soon and then of course we're on to potentially something else I would hope. But I really like where they said that the they talked about maximum height
being two and a half stories. And I think that's something that it would be great if we ultimately could have something like that in our historic district because that's essentially correct me if I'm wrong stops the big shoe boxes, right? Because the the third
story basically or the it is not a complete story. It has to have, you know, some angled roofs, some things of that nature, which is typically what the old historic houses look like, you know, other than maybe a um Mediterranean rev. And that's not the
word I'm looking for. What are those those old Spanish re, you know, uh ones kind of had square roofs, but so, you know, I know we can't we can't do anything about that right now. Uh, and I know that I think we talked about before that might take some a referendum
of some sort to start making some big moves like that, but I was impressed by that's what they do down in the Keys. And I think if we had done that years and years ago, perhaps when we first had the historic district, that might have changed some of these homes that are being built today. Uh,
so I don't know, just throw that out because as we sit here, as time goes on, there'll be some things that become relevant in the future maybe that we should be thinking about. Um, I would I would agree. And then I also
noted pages 52 and 53. So they have the historic architecture design principles. So um basically they kind of go through a checklist which I thought was good and then also the project categories and the architectural guidelines which goes
through um and speaks a little bit kind of gives it just a bulleted easy to read. So my thought was if someone could just go through as a lay person without really knowing anything, they would be able to read through and say, "Okay, this is allowable. This is not allowable. This is what they're looking
for. This is just something." So then they don't have to go through a lot of effort or also reach out to you guys all the time asking questions and things like that. And at this stage are we allowed to say allowable or preferable?
Um I I think we can say allowable within the context of individual architectural styles because there are clear, you know, incompatibilities, but um I think that'd be fine. Okay. Mhm. Well, I've said this before, but I I I
think the the the really good thing, assuming we get these changes that we've proposed passed, is, you know, putting the onus on the builder to show how they comply with the design guidelines
as opposed to us telling them whether they do or don't. And I think that's ultimately the the point of this. We put this together with original intent, at least on the staff side, to have a guide book that someone who may not have the, you know, knowledge of of an
architect could put together a home that would be compatible. For those that choose to not use the guidebook at all, those who've hired an architect and have the ability to defend their design without the use of the guide book, they still have the ability to do that and that could be accepted by the board, but they have to defend it. They have to
defend it, right? And I think that changes the onus of kind of what we had before. So I think that's that's that's really one of the the best things. Um and so I don't know I mean this kind of in a way dovetales into you know our I guess that's our ne the design guide
book example at the seminal heights. Uh I mean do you want to move on to that kind because we're kind of talking about the guide the guide um book in general. Sure. And I I just included this as an example. the board doesn't need to engage with it if they don't want. But I
this is almost a combination of what we have in section 20.15 which is the um you know the height of porches and the degree of you know the depth of a porch things like that elements that need to be included but the mockups as well as the photos um that I believe is more
what we're envisioning for our guide book saying you know these are the features that you would typically have with a bungalow home um you know a mission style home so on. So yeah, I I was going to say I think one thing we can talk about a little bit today on the guide book and how we're going to formulate this a little bit and this
sounds kind of silly, but you know, I'm less concerned with the architectural detail that it says, you know, oh, it's supposed to be a 2:1 roof slant or things of that nature because I don't know that. You know what I mean? I mean, I can look at a house and say, oh, that's a bungalow or whatever. And so I
think though Tara and and and Brandon you two and and on in both of the the guide book the seminal heights guide book they that detail is is great and I would defer to your
guys expertise on that. You follow what I'm saying? Because you know I don't not an architect. I don't really know the nuts and bolts of you know that type of thing. However, I think what we can help with is, you know, I've looked at a
couple. I've looked read the seminal Holtz guide book. I read you I don't know if you all seen this one from 200, what was this from? 1994, excuse me, and then amended in 1998. We did a design guideline manual,
city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, which is here. And then we did that pagal pattern book back in September of '09. And I know staff has copies of that stuff and I don't know if you all have seen that thing or not but what what strikes me as
in both of those as well as in the seminal heights guide book it talks about the different types of homes that exist and of course I think we're going to replicate that in some fashion but I think what we need to do is determine
you know what are the styles of homes that we want to put in the guide books. You know, you know, for for example, you know, we have frame vernacular, meditator, Mediterranean revival, bungalow, colonial revival, cra craftsman. These
are all the ones that are in it. Cypress cabin, Florida cracker, American uh foursquare, that's out of Seminal Heights. We not may not have any American four squares in Pasigril. Okay. Folk Victorian Seminal Heights. I don't know if we have any. what we I mean some
of them all kind of they're pretty morphous anyway. Okay. Queen Anne, Prairie Ranch, um minimal, traditional, contemp contemporary, modern, split ranch, Spanish, eclectic, which I think is interesting because that's includes
Mediterranean revival, mission, and PBLO. I'm pretty confident we don't have any PBLO in Pastor Girl, but but but something like mid-century modern, which is a common, which we use that term a lot for homes, but there's not that's not represented in here. And and then
maybe we don't want it to be, you know, because when this was a historic district, when was that, the early 90s, I guess, when we became a historic district, you know, mid-century moderns weren't within 50 years. They weren't historic homes, you know, and so the
question I think we have on the guide book a little bit is what are we looking for? What are we saying past the gorill's look is? Okay. Mhm. And you know, and and in my opinion, it seems to me that that the the true
historic nature of what made Pascal historic, whatever, you know, in the '9s when it became a historic district, was that it was a barrier island that basically was created before there was a bridge, you know. So, these these were a lot of homes that were built in the teens and the 20s, maybe the 30s and
40s. and and the the nature of the beach and the architecture on the beach didn't really change till post World War II when you know mid-century modern came and things of those nature and so maybe in our guide book and this I'm just throwing this out for discussion maybe
we want to keep it with architectural styles or the recommendation is for architectural styles that were like pre-1950 I don't know if that makes sense or not but you know uh since this is a guide book and not it's not mandatory in any
fashion. Um you know I don't know so that's one thing to consider but when we talk about and and you know I think we need to have an have examples and maybe we can
maybe hash this out this afternoon to some degree. What do we want to include? You know is a Florida cracker house is that really a frame vernacular? I mean, you you follow what I'm saying? There's there's there's parts that kind of that go together, and I think we need
to identify what houses do still exist. In fact, when you go through these two books that I mentioned, most of the houses are still around, the pictures that are taken, or at least probably twothirds are. And so, there's still examples of everything that we
thought there was, you know, 30 years ago. Um, so you know, I'd like I think we need to kind of talk or at least try to define that because when when when terrors, we can't just copy obviously seminal heights because there's, like I said,
there's houses there that probably we don't even have and pass a grill. And so, and I think it's great that we have, you know, Cypress Cabin, they there are some still there. If that's actual a if that's actually a description that we
can say this is a look then I think we should have that you know Florida cracker. I think there's some houses still that are Florida if that whoever made that term up I don't know but you know we can call it whatever we want I suppose. Um
I pastor we don't have any Victorians. We don't have any true mid-century moderns. I don't believe I think we we have quite a few mid-century moderns. I would say mid-century modern in the aesthetic of a mid-century modern with
the windows and or mid-century modern contemporary which is a basically 1950s block house that looks like all the rest of the 1950s blockous. Well, you know, I I I do think we have
some like the one that's on we did a approved a demolition for that's a rectangular masonary block house. There's my glasses. I made a noise somewhere. I got them. Thank you. Um, but then there's mid-century moderns that have distinctive
type of windows, sort of like the library. that was a mid-century modern and that is distinguished by the windows across well right I mean I I think in in in uh seminal heights we refer to a contemporary modern which I don't know
if that's kind of what that is right and so that's why I'm saying when we talk about what we want to include in this guide book do we go to any house that was built up to 1975 because that's potentially historic or like I said we're looking to preserve
the older right because you you know if you again if you look at at the beach our our beach St. PE Beach, you know, um, most of the homes that were built, and I'm not really including Belle Vista, but like north of Belle Vista were all
pretty much built after World War II and into the 50s and 60s, which is a whole different look because in 1930 or 20, you build a frame vernacular house because that was the cheapest thing you could build because you built a little two-bedroom beach house. Well, in 1960,
you build a masonary little two-bedroom house. Okay, which isn't really consistent with what Passa Grillil was already our historic district was already developed and established in its own look and style I think previous to
World War II and so do we try to rep you know keep it within that as recommendations. Uh well, this will be a good pattern for our next design guide book for the next district that's established and we'll
include the mid-century within that district or right. So I'm I'm just saying we could do that. We could do that now. I mean is is the idea that we just like I said look at what's what homes exist there and say you know you can you can build this
we re it's so it's I mean of course they can build whatever they want in a way but I mean you know from the standpoint of of of recommending certain looks should we be sticking with the bungalow and the craftsman and by the way the frame vernacular some in some place they also called it a folk house in this one
manual which I think is such a better name than frame vernacular. Okay. Um, and I think in his seminal kites they called it a southern vernacular. So, but I'm sure it's essentially the same thing. I think within our passage rule book, we have to acknowledge that those
exist. Maybe they're not the the preference for design recommendations for new construction or renovation or restoration, but we have to acknowledge that they're there. So maybe that's just a separate narrative after this. Well, that's a great idea because I I think when we put this
together and we have an introduction kind of aspect to it, you know, we talk about what is unique about you Pass Girl that that makes it not only historic but unique amongst other beach communities that are 55 years old.
You know what I mean? That that we have that extra 70 years that these other ones don't have. And that's what we should be, you know, promoting. I mean, we could say we're limiting it to 50 years and or 60 years and older, 75 years and older. And then as 15 years
pass, the book could be updated if needed to include some of those houses from the 50s. I don't know why we wouldn't just do that on the front side. I mean, I get that we obviously need to be cognizant of everybody's time, but I feel like we're going to have Bella
Vista that's going to be coming. So, to you all's point, like we've got these other communities that are going to be coming forward. So, if we can do the work now and get it put into the language now, I feel like it would save us in the long run. And then it's not to say that, you know, someone couldn't
come in and draw inspiration if they're building a new home from a from a structure that we would not build today, but maybe they did build build in 1911. They might look at that and say, you know, that architecture really is something. So maybe we can take that and make it applicable to today's guidelines. So, personally, I think it's
good to spell them all out and then have maybe just a photo and then maybe bullet points of what makes it that the primary elements of that, what makes it that structure. And then hopefully that would make it easier down the road for everybody just to say this is what it is
and this is what makes it special and this is why we chose this or whatever the case. But easy. Yeah. And so children's book style. That's right. Well, I think that's I think that there's nothing better than, you know, a picture and and
and I had talked to Brandon and Kristen the other day and, you know, I think we need to, if you all agree to this or that have sections that deal with pictures of homes, historic homes that have been
elevated, you know, what they look like today, historic homes that have been moved, you know, historic homes, uh, uh that have done additions that still are historic and look great so people have a idea of the things they can do without just thinking well we'll knock a house
down and build something new. I think I think the whole concept is we're trying to you know not to sound redundant you know we're trying to guide these people into something that's consistent with what we all know that historic district to be but other people don't necessarily. We have a pretty great
archive even within the last few years of those examples. Correct. But but nobody we do, but you have to put it under someone's face, you know what I mean? You have to have it there so they can see it. Otherwise, they don't even know. And and uh so you in my opinion, the
more the better really. Um but as far as and I think we can maybe if you all kind of agree to this, I mean the the homes I do know we have we have these frame vernaculars or folk house orever you want to call that. We do have some Mediterranean Revival, I think, if
that's the right word we want to use. Uh, I mean, sometimes they call them what? Spanish revival or I don't even know. Oh, Spanish eclectic. I I don't particularly care for that. So, Mediterranean revival, bungalow, should we do we separate bungalow and craftsman? To me, they're almost the
same things, but there might actually be some houses that you could make that difference in. To me, it's you could probably say bungalow/craftsman. I saw in one of our things they had about a colonial revival and I can't think what that necessarily is and if
there's any real examples of that and I think an example of that and maybe it's not the most stark would be the southern house on the 202 passway property. It's you know of course gone now but yes that was what that would have been right.
Okay. So well I guess that's a that's a question brings up another question. Should we if we have pictures of them, should we be included houses that would no longer exist? You know, I think if the board's intents to show that, you know. Yeah. I mean,
no. I mean, it'd be great if we I guess we could, but So, then we have uh Cypress Cabin. I know there's three or four examples of those. I mean, especially those ones just right south of the Dawn, those little tiny ones that are so great. Uh, not that anyone would
ever build one of those today, but it's still great. Uh, there's so what they say called earlier was Fort of Cracker. I don't think we have I don't know, American Four Square. Is that Brandon? Is that ringing any bells to you? No. I mean, I I like you said, I think more
would fall under the National Folk or Yeah. So, you know, now ranch that's I guess some houses are. I don't know. We do have a few ranch. They're a lot more prevalent over in the Donses neighborhood, but we have a couple in
Pasar. Well, it seems to me like like what some people said before, if and when Don Cesar if it becomes a historic district, then it should have its own in my opinion, it should have its own separate Mhm. you know, because it's different. It doesn't have commercial establishments and things of that nature. And so maybe in that kind of a
guide book, you know, we use those kind of houses that we might not necessarily use in a in the past grill. Yeah. You're trying to make everything look consistent. staff staff had a similar conversation with Tara and I said something similar to what was brought up that you know maybe we only have the
more prevalent styles the ones that were picked up in our most recent survey but I believe her opinion I understand where she's coming from um they're still going to build the modern homes there's nothing in our code that regulates that so it sounds like the board might be open to having the heritage section of
the design guide book which is where we you know we recommend these styles these are the styles but if they choose to build a modern home or a style that's less prevalent, we would still have those standards just to would the board be Well, isn't that
isn't that kind of what we have now? We just don't call it that. But isn't that I mean the guidelines we have now they can build what they do build which which I'm not saying we changed it. I'm just saying ex it exists and we haven't really talked about or we haven't done anything about trying to
change those design guidelines. But it's all about the presentation of correct and yeah it all exists already but just the presentation in a nice concise easy to read and understand and maybe encourage format. Mhm. Well, so Brandon, we we I should know the answer to this,
but we don't have a design guide book right now, do we? Not an adopted. So these ones examples that I had, do you those were just prepared or nothing ever happened with them? Is that my understanding? They're they're guide books. I mean, we can still use them and point to them, but they haven't actually been adopted as part of a ordinance.
Amen. That's what I mean. Okay. They've never been done with that. And so when we do this as part of an ordinance that that requires the builders to actually have to look at this stuff, you know, and the current design guidelines we have,
which wouldn't be changed, but they would that that allows them to build what they're building now anyway. And so, uh, I don't know. Well, I think that also though piggybacks to the conversation of if we kind of work on
our language with two and a half stories versus Yeah, that's Yeah, but that's something where they're going to do next year or whatever. You know what I mean? So, or whatever if if we want to go if we're trying to tighten stuff up. But, uh
well, I don't know. I mean, I I I I don't know where we're at. Is is Tara going to or or you or what's the what's the procedure for how we're actually going to put pen to paper and do these do the guide book? She's she's
going to go through and provide these examples. And I I provided the example of the seminal heights, not to necessarily line out all the styles that would be in ours, but to show that the narrative description of the um architectural style, the graphic, and then some photos. That's probably what
we're going to be bringing back. Just more general, we'll have the purpose statement, which I think we talked about, but I was hoping as part of the board's discussion, we could get guidance on do we go with all of the architectural styles that we've seen under this design review and then maybe, like I said, we
could have a certain section for the preferred styles and then we have guidance for the others. or would the board prefer that we only provide the styles that are currently you well in you know in existence prior to 1975. I like your idea of the heritage section
of the design guide book having the original or later structures and then post-war. Right. The the only thing I I don't like about that just thinking out loud is then it calls attention to the fact that they can say, "Oh, here we don't want that." And they just flip the
pages and go someplace else. You know what I mean? Um, I guess what I'm saying, I want people to think they need to build houses like this and not just ignore them. Okay. And so, uh, we can't say that, but we can certainly put it, you know, I I I do
firmly believe that there are homes that have been built on pass a grill that probably could have been built in a different style if there had been a guide book that people had seen. Okay? because I just think people just don't know some some things. Um, not blaming anybody. I'm just saying I think that's
the case. But I don't know. I guess we could do Yeah, I whatever. I mean, I do think there should be a section where we were pretty heavily relying on, you know, whatever pre9 preWorld War II when Pascal really became its own neighborhood when it's
when it was own city, when it was, you know, uh not like the rest of the beaches have become because they was built so much longer before everything else was. And so may maybe we do a do do whether we call it heritage or not but we talk
about those designs that we just basically talked about and then we have you know postwar or something like that where we talk about the mid-century modern things of that nature. uh and the ranches and those kind of things that are more an addition, you know, were
changed after uh the beaches became more accessible to everybody and not just, you know, the pioneers or whatever, you know, and maybe not specifically identify like the characteristics of those mid-century homes, but just talk about the fact that they exist there now
and this is when that happened and why, but then we can roll that over into another neighborhood that was more prevalent. Yes. And so we wouldn't have to even necessarily have to have photographic examples and things of that nature. We could just talk about it in general. Does that make sense to folks?
Me. Okay. Thank you. And then talking about um elevation, which I guess that that's its own separate item and we'll be bringing back our own presentation on that probably next month. But I know we talked about
it a bit today. Um, typically 3 to 4 feet is what the National Park Service recommends. That's the height any building can be elevated where it can be reasonably screened. We talked about landscaping. You can put some shrubs up and you can usually obscure that it's
been it's been elevated. Higher than that is a challenge. Obviously, that's a challenge here because especially along Passer Way, we require elevations of between six and 8 feet depending on which side of the road uh they're on. So, um, I've talked with Lynn about this extensively and I think we can cover it
in more detail in the future, but I think we need to be able to support elevations higher than that of historic homes, especially if we're looking to keep them long-term. Um, there are ways and we can we can bring this back to you and make some recommendations next month
to go higher than that. Um, you know, I think some of the best options are you put the garage doors along the alley if that's an option instead of having them run off the front of the structure. There's other ways to obscure it where, you know, maybe it doesn't meet the specific, you know, rule of thumb
standard, but it would still give an option to get the home to a height where it would survive a 100red-year storm. Um, and there are for our locally designated historic structures, we have a few where they've elevated not the whole distance that they would need to
meet the design flood elevation, but then they've used floodproof materials through the renovation for a couple feet above. So, there's there's ways to get there through a hybrid scenario. It's not going to meet the full FEMA requirement, but that's what we have that flood plane variance in effect for. So, and and that's my question about
what we're talking about here. We are we talking about raising historic homes where we've raised them past a point they no longer look historic as opposed to raising homes to a FEMA
compliant which is a whole another ball of wax. I mean it's like that house we had earlier today talking about it might lose this historic designation. Is is that is that what you're you're you're saying when we talk about three to obviously 3 to four feet
assuming the home was on grade 3 to four feet is not going to be FEMA compliant. It probably would have got you out of this out of Helen. You wouldn't have flooded in that storm. But you're are you worried that if we raise if someone elevates their historic house four feet high then we would no long then we would
say well that's not historic anymore. Is that what you're talking about? No. No. I think 3 to four feet high is is usually appropriate for all but the smallest structures. That's the guidance that the National Park Service gives. If we said six feet for example, right? We said at six feet, are we saying it now
no longer might you might have a historic issue? You follow what I'm saying? As a rule of thumb, that's the guidance they give. But going going back to the question you just asked, we have the only homes obviously in our jurisdiction that are eligible to not be elevated above the
flood plane when they're substantially damaged or substantially improved are those on the historic registry. So those are the ones where we would be discussing the options for partial elevation or partial elevation with flood proofing. Um, but well, I guess my
question is why why if a if someone's got a historic home, why do we care how much they want to elevate it? I mean, I I mean, I do from the standpoint if they elevated 10 ft, then it looks like a different structure, but they're also now FEMA compliant and don't even need
to be historic anymore. Well, there's the practical implication to that, but from more of a, you know, community retention of of historic housing, if everybody were to elevate 10 feet across the board, for example, that could could affect the district. It
would certainly affect Oh, yeah. Any individual listing. From a FEMA standpoint, that would make them compliant. But I think from a historic integrity standpoint, you know, those are the considerations we need to Right. I I I agree with you 100%. But what I'm trying to get is is the nuance of this.
Is there some are we suggesting we there should be some prohibition on a historic home that you can only raise it 3 ft or 4 feet or something like that? No, no, definitely not. I think we I think we want to talk through and I think we'll cover through our presentation next
month options for going higher than that in what are other cases. We've had quite a few elevations of locally designated homes where they've done it in an appropriate way that's preserved their integrity. And we can, you know, going above the rule of thumb, but maybe not going
So, so this is more for someone comes in that says, "I have a historic house. I want to elevate it kind of like how high should I elevate it?" And the city says, "Well, we, you know, normally think four feet or three feet or five feet or at five feet you need to put landscaping up
or whatever." I mean, well, how do we bridge what if I mean, if I had the choice between going up 4 feet or going up 12 feet, I might choose 12 feet just so you have usable storage space under
there, parking space, right? But but but you but you can do that anyway. You just don't become FEMA compliant. How do we give people some design guidelines of how to bridge the elevated structure with the new structure down below. So,
there's cohesiveness. It's not just a house sitting at sitting on top of a a wall. No, no. I I I get that. I I I I get Okay, here's what here's what I'm saying. There's the every historic home
down there, as far as I'm concerned, if they wanted to elevate themselves three or four feet, it wouldn't change the look of the historic home. Okay? Okay. And some of those houses were built, some a lot of the ones built 100 years ago were built that high off the ground and they didn't flood. Okay. And so, so
why do we even need to be involved in that discussion because they can just go ahead and they say, "My house is historic. I so I can lift it two feet. I can lift it three feet. I can lift it four feet. I can lift it five feet. I can lift it six feet. And when I lift it
six feet, I'm now FEMA compliant." Okay? and and so I may get breaks on on my insurance or whatever. And then you say, well, the city might say, well, you you now at six feet, you may not look historic anymore. Okay. So what I mean,
not everyone's going to do that. So that's what I'm saying. Well, then I think they have to understand the repercussion if if there is a foot at which we say you're no longer historic at 7 ft, say um but I don't think then they're
voluntarily giving up their historic designation. At that point, they have to pay back some of the incentives that they got whether through tax incentives or they they typically lose them moving forward. It would they would lose that effective on the following tax year.
That's that's typically how it works. But to the to the point that was brought up, if they choose to go above 4T, which might be the rule of thumb, height, 5, 6, 7T, we would, as you mentioned, provide guidelines for this might be a more appropriate way to do that instead of have the garage doors face the front.
There might be other ways to obscure that elevation. Lyn, did you have any thoughts on that? I do. But I'm also thinking that because historic preservation is so unique and each house is unique, then we
have to look at it also on a case- by case basis, right? There would be some standards that we would have in place, but we would still have to look at it and see what works best for that. um if they want to get a variance to the FEMA
regulations, then they're going to have to stay historic, too. Once it's elevated, we're still going to have to consider it historic and not Well, now it's been so altered that we don't recognize it. We do have one house, you all may remember,
that's a Mediterranean. is on um Passa Grill and it's about somewhere in the 2000 block. You remember that one? It was It had been pink. It had the interesting stucco. Oh,
really? That one was um came to the board in about 2005 and 2006. Again, like is it on the north side of the street like kind of thing? It was a pink house with um it had one kind of stucco
on it and they were ele they were actually building on top of that and the board allowed that and um but what they did was they put a whole garage underneath and then the rest of the house went up. 14th and 15th
on the water. Was it on the water? It was on the water side. It was on the water side 14th and 15th on the Yeah. Oh, this the the the Spanish one that's just two down from Finebergs. Mhm. That she had said that if they caught it because they changed the stuckco or they
did stuckco differently than what they said they were going to do or but like so that house for example, I I don't know what animal it is. Is that considered still a historic house even though client and that's okay because they did a great job to make it look and that that's why I'm saying isn't this
all just a case by case thing do do we you know where someone comes in and I mean if you want to raise if you have a historic house and you want to raise it do they have to come here to get the the certificate of appropriates raise their house right exactly so when they do that if we say if they say yeah we we want to
keep it historic we want to raise it six feet and it'll look like a thumb sticking up and you say, "Well, we don't want we don't want to grant you a certificate of appropriateness because you've gone up too high." So, either, you know, bring it down or make it different. You're still out of the flood level or make it just say screw you to
be historic. I'm going to go make it high enough to be FEMA compliant. So, I don't care what you all say. You know what I mean? So, I think people that that that want to keep a historic house, if they're worried about flooding, they're just going to raise it a few feet
and and not really worry about putting it 12 feet up. And if they do, some do a great job like the house you're talking about. There's one on fifth in the middle of the block that they did a great job. It's a threetory now, but it looks great. And I would still cons and I'm not speaking for the board. I would
still consider that an historic house even though it's FEMA compliant, you know. So, I think it's all a case-byase thing considering they have to come through us essentially. So, uh I guess I'm not really concerned or worried about trying to come up with this a
specific height where something changes. You know, at five feet you're no longer historic or four feet you are. I think it just depends on their design. But it's like how do we discourage them from not tearing down the house? Well, and building new because the regulations are
so it's it's education six feet or 12 feet, right? Well, it's education that pe people like I know some people that have, you know, for lack of a better word, mid-century modern where they just built on slab, you know, they didn't even elevate them at all and all those houses
got flooded and a guy got historically designated. He's fixed this house up and he wants to raise it eventually. You know, when of course you get in line to get your house raised after this storm. Okay. So, he wants to raise it, but he may only raise it two feet or three feet. It still I
think it have to go through us, but it would still look great and and he, you know, he would just hopefully get out of the next 100redyear storm, you know, that doesn't put more than 3 ft of water on on the island. So, I think it's just a matter of of of
people having the information and know they can do it. And that that's part of the process of why we asked these folks, did you before they demolish your house, you know, have you thought about it historically designated or what I was trying to bring up earlier, some of
these homes are considered 100% damage for all interior issues, which as you know, historically we have, we don't care what the interior of a house looks like. They can do whatever they want. They can make it as modern as they want. It's the exterior and the shell that the shell of the
house that makes it historic. Well, some of these people, in my opinion, instead of tearing the house down, somebody else who has a house that's structurally destroyed that wants to have a historic house should just move that house to their house or their location. You You
know what I mean? So, they do, but don't they get still infected by the 50% rule in moving unless they unless they get the historic designation? Yeah, of course they have to be. They have to be a You would take a structurally damaged historic house, demolish it, of course,
and then you could replace it with a not structurally damaged historic house that somebody wants demolish because they've got a 100% damage, but it's all interior. And if they have the if they in their heart they want to have a historic house, they could do that and it would save them a lot of money
because you wouldn't have to have a brand new structure. You just have to pay to basically move and set it up and all that stuff would have to come through us. but or be aware of it. But, you know, I think that's a an angle that people aren't really thinking about
because we haven't had a storm like this where suddenly, you know, 25% of the homes on Pastor Girl got got damage to them. You know, because as as we talked about earlier, we're going to start seeing a flip from having, you know,
four historic designations and one demolition. we're going to have one one historic and four demolitions, you know, and so the the the face is going to change significantly. So that's why I think this guideline book is important, but I think it's also important that these people that want to
demolish their house like like Roger, the house he had on pass girl, like someone drove a freight train through it, so it was structurally damaged, but that other house isn't. And I'm not saying he needs to do that, but pe people could start considering to do
that. And it would, you know, it so every time we have one of these demolitions, I think it's important to us to find out whether or not I mean, I know I know two people I can think of now that that have demolished homes that they're going to wind up demolishing or have been demolished. They haven't built
a new home yet. And it's almost like almost like, hey, would you like how about if you could move a house to that location? Would you do that? And I think they'd probably say yes because it's a lot cheaper than building a whole new house and you preserve a historic house and they like they want to do that kind
of thing. I just don't think we've got out there to tell people that stuff because because it really hasn't come up till this big storm. So anyway, I just So I guess we'll move this on discussion to next month even though we probably
just had it right. Um any any else want to talk about the elevating? I know we're going to talk about some next month too. No, but next month we will be talking about elevating right houses and you know what are some appropriate treatments and and
such. Well, that's good. That I think that's that's good for our education. And I think the the people out there that, you know, we're starting to see people who hadn't done anything for eight or nine months just probably waiting to
see, you know, catch their breath after the storm and then they're like saying, "Well, now I want to demolish my house." And I just think that there's there's other options for some of these folks that they don't have to do that. But anyway,
so any do we have any updates whatsoever? And if not, maybe for next month on on the Mary Pier shuffle board. I know I know kind of where we are there. I'm Mary Pier. I think we're putting out bids or we're getting ready to do that. Do you know if that's the case? Um I believe so. I think we're
also in talks about the community funding aspect of it, but I don't have anything concrete to share. I've been kind of out of town, so I haven't last time I had talked to Camden, they had said they were they because it's city-owned, you know, they have to put out, you know, for bid for
to to repair it. But I know with the new appraisal, we we're the belief that we don't have to demolish the Mary Pier. It's under 50% now. So, we ought to be able to fix that up ultimately. And then the shuffle board, I don't even know
where we're at at that. Uh, no. Anything on that particular, right? No new details. No. Okay. Uh, Airbnb. Yeah, we I mentioned that already earlier too.
The Airbnb. It was just that if if the if we can get a status for next month just to kind of get an idea where we're at. I mean, I don't there's probably stats that have been collated over time about who's been in violation and how
many cases we've done and you know, I've heard some talk on the street that there's starting to be a bit of a problem with some of these places again, but I don't know if that's true. So, I'm just trying to, you know, get a feel for whether that's an issue that I mean,
obviously in the last few months, Pastor Girl was in such bad shape, no one probably hardly wants to come down there. But now that we have a new spring and summer, you know, we're getting more folks. Um, I think that's it. Anybody else got something else? What we talked about?
So, I guess seeing the marquee lit up at the beach theater and Barbie said Barbie on there as they drove by. Right. Sold out. Did it really? So, tell me Yeah, tell me about that. I was out of town, I guess. So, when did they do that? Uh, yesterday was their first show, right? And it sold out and I think it's showing
again today. Yeah. Yeah. It's great. Has Have you all been in it? Seen it? I mean, not the movie, but I want Have anybody been in it since they've redone it? I mean, it's open for seating and all that kind of stuff. I know. I bought tickets for the grand opening. I didn't realize they were opening before the grand opening. Otherwise, I would have been called the soft open standing on
the driveway. Well, that's good. I'm glad to hear that. And they're going to show a documentary. Really? What do we know? On the Beach Theater. you know, its history and its place, I guess, on the streetscape
and all of that kind of stuff. All right. Anything else? Nothing.