WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=rwPX98d3oHg

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:24.720
which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. So, this is the meeting of the Historic Preservation Board for Friday, June 12th, 2026.

2
00:00:24.720 --> 00:00:42.480
Um, can I get a roll call from Madame Clerk, please? >> Member Hurley, >> present. >> Member Zeleleski, >> present. >> Chair Lowry, >> present. >> We don't have a quorum at the current time, but we should by 1:30. >> Yes, it's my understanding that uh,

3
00:00:42.480 --> 00:00:58.879
member Dashil should show up at 1:30 and so we can do a few things before that time frame. And for the audience out there, for us to do what are called action items, we have to have a quorum, which means in this case, we have to have four people out of the five available, and one is definitely not

4
00:00:58.879 --> 00:01:17.280
going to be here. So when the fourth comes, we can take those action items up. Uh so in the interim, we're going to move a few things around before we approve the agenda. Um, so

5
00:01:17.280 --> 00:01:33.200
can we can we do the approval of minutes now? We can't do any of that. That's that's not >> We can do public comment. >> You're almost going to turn this thing upside down. >> Yes, I know, right? So I'm going to go we'll start then with discussion items. Uh

6
00:01:33.200 --> 00:01:49.439
and so uh Brandon as well if if we want to add some discussion items, can we do that now even though we haven't approved the agenda? >> I don't see why not if you're not taking action or making recommendations.

7
00:01:49.439 --> 00:02:05.040
>> Okay. So, what what I like to add to the discussion items is just a short uh discussion about the next historic board meeting which is on June 9th, excuse me, July 9th. Uh,

8
00:02:05.040 --> 00:02:21.840
and if we can add to the discussion items, Brandon, you had given me some information yesterday day about a proposal to change the quorum to on certain action on certain items that we we probably don't need to have quorums on

9
00:02:21.840 --> 00:02:38.560
and and then we also so I would add those as discussion items 5 C and 5D. So, one on next month's meeting and the other on uh procedural change and some of the

10
00:02:38.560 --> 00:02:55.280
voting where we may not need a quorum. Okay. So, let's just talk about those for a moment. Well, is is somebody here on on 5A for the design review? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's go ahead and get started with that. So 5 A is design review case

11
00:02:55.280 --> 00:03:12.360
number 26103 for the home at 1807 Passag Way. >> Is that yours, Mr. Barry? >> Yes. I have a short presentation. We also have the owner and their agent present. We can pull up the PowerPoint, please.

12
00:03:20.080 --> 00:03:36.480
get >> and my just said we have a new commissioner today or not commissioner excuse me a new member Miss Zeleleski am I saying that right or >> you are >> okayi >> and I just encourage her to ask any questions if she doesn't understand some

13
00:03:36.480 --> 00:03:53.200
of what we're going on uh this is something we typically do monthly these little discussion items so go ahead Mr. While we're waiting on the PowerPoint, I also wanted to thank former vice chair Hawkinsmith for her time on the board. She started with this board in March of

14
00:03:53.200 --> 00:04:08.400
2020. Um she served for the last six years now. Um did a did a great job and her work with the the museum is very much appreciated. So, thank you for her time on the board. >> Yes, I agree. Thanks for saying that. I only just found out that she had

15
00:04:08.400 --> 00:04:27.320
resigned just about an hour ago. So, uh, yeah, she did an excellent job and we're sorry to see her go and I'm sure you'll do a fine job. >> Thank you, Bill. >> Okay, >> so it looked like the Let me check on the PowerPoint.

16
00:05:00.880 --> 00:05:23.759
Looks like we're having some issues with the presentation. Do you happen to have does the applicant have any renderings printed out that you might want to show to the board or was it all digital? >> Okay. We ask it is it possible to pull up the

17
00:05:23.759 --> 00:05:40.960
packet? I can show some of the slides from the packet if we're able to get that up on the screen. >> And what page is that going to be on? You know off hand? I know it's way at the end. I don't know offhand. It It is toward the end of the packet. >> There we go.

18
00:05:40.960 --> 00:05:57.039
>> Oh, it's up. It's up now. Okay. >> So, this is a design review for a new single family home uh proposed to be constructed at 1807 Pastor Way. It's case number 26103. Rios Architecture and J Zack Gange KH

19
00:05:57.039 --> 00:06:14.400
Build for Victor Tonus and Wendy Hopwood are the agents and applicants. This is a design review for a new house large structure located at 1807 Passeril Way. So you can see here the proposed site plan. It is a twostory structure um

20
00:06:14.400 --> 00:06:31.199
relatively close to the same footprint on the ground level as the upper story with the front balcony, walkout deck and porch uh located along Pass Way. It does connect with the 19th Avenue straight end. To the north of here on the east side is commercial development. This is

21
00:06:31.199 --> 00:06:51.319
a residentially zoned property and is being developed as such. You can see here some axonometric views of the home. It is a two-story structure. You see the front and rear elevations. This is of course a waterfront home

22
00:06:51.600 --> 00:07:08.560
and some side elevations. The top of the screen is looking from the street and the bottom of the screen is toward the neighboring property to the south. Can I ask you a question there? Just on on the southern exposure there, the first floor, we see some shading. I

23
00:07:08.560 --> 00:07:23.759
assume that's because there's a recessed area there. >> It is recessed. Yes. >> Right. >> And that can be seen more clearly on this slide. Um you can see the enclosed upper level on the left side. That is the first living floor, second floor of

24
00:07:23.759 --> 00:07:40.639
the structure. Um that includes the living space and then there is ground floor non-habitable space. There will be a threecar garage that is oriented toward the street end. Um and then a covered um deck area on the south side. >> So So that whole basically that whole

25
00:07:40.639 --> 00:07:56.960
ground floor right side is just covered and open. >> Correct. Viewed from Pastor Gril Way. It is it does it's enclosed um but it does become open on the on the south side. >> Right. >> So staff had a few comments. Um none of

26
00:07:56.960 --> 00:08:13.199
them pertain to the design. We did feel that the home overall exemplified the intent of the overlay. The applicants done a very good job at fitting in with surrounding development, making the home uh compliant with the flood plan regulations, but also maintaining the scale and the design elements of the area. We had a few comments that we

27
00:08:13.199 --> 00:08:30.319
shared with under the zoning cover. Um the applicant has acknowledged these. Uh the first was just that the width of the driveway slightly exceeds the allowable width. They will need to break up the driveway on that north side. There is some additional landscaping that's required along the northern frontage yard of 19th Avenue. There is one

28
00:08:30.319 --> 00:08:46.080
understory. So like a a sea grape or a buttonwood that would be required for each 20 ft of home frontage. The frontage fence on the west side. So the primary passer frontage is permitted. It's not required due to the plan

29
00:08:46.080 --> 00:09:02.560
showing intent to plan an opaque hedge. I just wanted to note that we do have fence material standards in passil. It must be wood, shell, or concrete if they are to proposing to install it within that frontage. Due to the amount of impervious material on the site, the size of the building,

30
00:09:02.560 --> 00:09:19.760
and the walkways in the north side, the land available for backyard amenities in the future like a pool will be limited. Um, if they have any intent to later add a pool or other significant accessory features, we do ask that they just bring that up now so we prevent any kind of issues in the future. We have noted that

31
00:09:19.760 --> 00:09:36.160
the frontage sidewalk will need to be removed or replaced with a hex stamp sidewalk. We do now have a hex paver supplier for that sidewalk if they would like to replace it with hex paver and um that is a requirement to meet the resolution 202304 frontage requirement.

32
00:09:36.160 --> 00:09:51.279
We also ask that they address how they will meet the coastal a construction requirements. That's more on the building construction side, but they are proposing concrete paster walls. the coastal azone, the area where we expect wave action of one and a half to three

33
00:09:51.279 --> 00:10:08.399
feet during a 100-year storm, does cut through the middle of this property. So, um, we just wanted to make sure that they're aware of that requirement and that the building has been constructed to accommodate for that. This subject residence is proposed replacement of a former single family

34
00:10:08.399 --> 00:10:25.600
resident that sustained substantial damage in the 2024 hurricanes and has since been demolished in conjunction with the design review. The applicant is requesting an administrative variance to the southern sideyard setback of 7 ft to accommodate a home with a setback of 6'1 in. So the home is proposed in the

35
00:10:25.600 --> 00:10:42.399
drawings that you've seen on the screen to be set just under a foot less in setback on the south side than what is required by the land development code. We expect this case to be decided by the end of July. Those cases are decided administratively. They do not go on to the board of adjustment unless they are

36
00:10:42.399 --> 00:10:59.760
appealed. If you have any other comments um that you feel would help with ensuring the compatibility of the structure within the district, you're welcome to make them. This is a single family use. There are no other former mass limitations other than those that are required under the design regulations. And as I

37
00:10:59.760 --> 00:11:16.079
mentioned, we do have the agent and the owner of the property present. >> Okay. Um couple questions, Brandon, before we speak to them. When we talk about the sidewalk and the pavers, are they responsible for the for the cost of that

38
00:11:16.079 --> 00:11:32.399
>> for the initial installation? Yes. The city of course maintains after the installation. >> Okay. So it all right. Okay. And all right. Anybody have any questions of Brandon before we speak to these folks? >> I don't. >> Okay. Whoever wants to come forward,

39
00:11:32.399 --> 00:11:49.279
just step forward and state your name and address for the record, please. I'm uh Victor Tonis, the owner 1807 pass the girl way. >> Okay. >> And I just want to take a minute to, you know, first thank you for your for the time today and special thanks to Brandon

40
00:11:49.279 --> 00:12:06.079
Barry for all the prompt and professional guidance he's given me throughout this process. It's technical, it's complex, and I wasn't familiar with any of it. So, um, thank you very much for that. Um, just wanted to say that, you know, Wendy and I had spent many

41
00:12:06.079 --> 00:12:21.040
months um, really seeking out the the best possible builder, uh, architect and design team since the, uh, demolishing of our home. And uh you know we we really feel confident now that we found

42
00:12:21.040 --> 00:12:36.079
the right one and we've come up with a beautiful home design that we feel will not only be respectful but complimentary to um you know the the character of Pasigril and uh also very importantly um

43
00:12:36.079 --> 00:12:54.320
resilient and hardened for uh flood and and hurricane uh um you know protection, >> right? uh we want to meet or exceed you know those requirements as well. Um you know basically we we are asking for a a

44
00:12:54.320 --> 00:13:10.399
minor administrative uh variance to just to accommodate the the originally designed width of the home. Uh it's going to be 11 in is what we need basically. And um you know, this will allow us to

45
00:13:10.399 --> 00:13:27.600
have the the home totally intact as it's designed without having really any um interference or detriment to the community or the public or anything of that nature. But uh once again, we appreciate your consideration and uh

46
00:13:27.600 --> 00:13:44.800
we're happy to move forward and we'll >> Let me ask you a couple questions. Did Did you own the home that was demolished? Yes. So, you've been you've been living on Fast Girl for a while, correct? Right. Okay, good. Um, >> we've been renting down here ever since as well. >> Well, I would commend you on your design

47
00:13:44.800 --> 00:14:01.519
and your feel for the neighborhood and, you know, I think it's I must just speak for myself, I think it's a beautiful addition. Anytime there's something under three stories, I get very excited about it because, you know, mostly everyone's got to build max max, you know.

48
00:14:01.519 --> 00:14:17.839
Uh you do understand that >> the administrative variance for the 11 in is nothing we have control over. >> Uh other than I will say I I think it's obviously pretty dimminimous and com and and when you combine it with

49
00:14:17.839 --> 00:14:34.560
>> the design you've done >> and the way you're going to build that it's a you know it's a very nice design. I love the stone. And I love the whole thing about it. Do you understand all the things the staff had pointed out like the driveway? >> Yes. >> That you can amend. I guess you have

50
00:14:34.560 --> 00:14:50.079
meeting in in that at some point or something >> that's already been addressed. We haven't been able to get it back over to you, but it's already addressed in the plans >> and and then knowing where you live, I would imagine probably bigger vegetation on the north side you'll be doing

51
00:14:50.079 --> 00:15:06.320
anyway. So want to look at the >> Yeah. because you say you you can't beat a RAS, okay? That they grow fast and they grow tall, okay? But do whatever you want. But right, um >> the sidewalks and so a number of years

52
00:15:06.320 --> 00:15:22.079
ago when we were looking at Pastor, you know, historically they have those pavers uh that you still see down further south, >> right? those started to be replaced with poured cement with the hex block design

53
00:15:22.079 --> 00:15:38.320
on it which you know doesn't look I would say doesn't look near as good the city so people used to save those blocks so they could potentially use it and I would guarantee you half the people in Pastor have a stack of them in their backyard right so

54
00:15:38.320 --> 00:15:54.800
but the city now has a uh a company that makes them >> okay >> and I would just recommend it would be up to you. But in my opinion, those hex blocks look so much better. And they have multicolored ones, too. I don't know. We don't really have a position on

55
00:15:54.800 --> 00:16:10.480
whether you can use the multicolored ones there or not. Do do we? I mean, historically, they were usually a red and white ones, you know. >> Okay. Yep. >> So, my suggestion would be that would if you can do that, that would be a way to go. It might be more expensive than the

56
00:16:10.480 --> 00:16:25.759
port sidewalk. I don't know. But if we can encourage people to start using those, that that'll help a lot, I think. >> And we would find out how the >> I'm sure you can get Franic and tell you about it. But there's a purveyor that the city has just gotten involved in. In fact, they replaced

57
00:16:25.759 --> 00:16:41.600
>> uh pretty good shot of sidewalk down um on Kent just across from the park there. >> Yes. >> I don't know if you noticed. It looks great. I mean, it really looks good. So, if you have a chance to look down and there's a little design in that, too. A little >> Yeah. If we can enhance that, we

58
00:16:41.600 --> 00:16:58.480
certainly will be interested in looking at that, sir. >> Okay. Uh I do Sean, do you have any questions or you have any questions of this? Okay. Um I Well, excellent. >> And uh we have the design's beautiful

59
00:16:58.480 --> 00:17:15.760
and I think we all agree on that and just >> any questions you might have for us about anything? >> I really don't at this time. I really appreciate your feedback. Well, I I really appreciate you. Brandon does a great job. I appreciate you working with him and I really appreciate your kind of

60
00:17:15.760 --> 00:17:31.919
commitment to this historic district there that keeps it looking like it should, we think, you know. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Very good. Thanks. >> Do you need to speak to us for any reason? I >> You don't have to. Okay. Just saying. All right. >> Okay. And so, just so you know, Carol,

61
00:17:31.919 --> 00:17:48.240
this is just an information only scenario. So, we appreciate your involvement. Thank you so much. Okay. So, if we go back to on discussion items, it says followup items. Is that what do we have for that? >> Chair, if you don't mind, with theformational

62
00:17:48.240 --> 00:18:03.280
items, those are also they're they're just on the agenda if the board would like to discuss. These are both resubmitts. We do have the owners for 104 if you'd like to see them. If not, we could just let them know. They are on the call. I just wanted to potentially >> No, let's go ahead. Let's go ahead and

63
00:18:03.280 --> 00:18:19.280
go with those. So, which one do you want to take first? There's somebody here for that A or B. >> I don't believe we have anybody present for A. So if we could look at B first. Okay. >> So that's 6A in excuse me 6B in theformational item design review resubmitt

64
00:18:19.280 --> 00:18:41.600
10004 pass girl way. >> Let me get down to that. So, this is a resubmitt and I believe we also have revised renderings that were sent over by the architect. I can attempt to get

65
00:18:41.600 --> 00:19:11.600
those pulled up. >> Could Could you do that because I >> don't know if I've seen them. I'm familiar with the first submitt from a number of months ago. Okay. So these uh this shows the revised front

66
00:19:11.600 --> 00:19:26.559
rendering. This did come to the board I believe late last year for review. We have worked with our design reviewer on a few of the elements uh particularly the horizontal wooden louvers on the ground level. when it had originally been submitted, it was a more

67
00:19:26.559 --> 00:19:42.480
transparent ground level. Um, they have added the wood louvers that are visible here, and I believe there are a few other slides. It's a little hard to make out on the screen here, but they have added that horizontal screening down to the ground level to meet the minimum uh transparency requirement that we have in

68
00:19:42.480 --> 00:19:58.080
our land development code. They have also slightly modified the roof line, I believe, and we do have the owner's present to comment on any additional changes that have been made. Our design reviewer felt that with the changes that they have met the requirements of the land development code and this item I

69
00:19:58.080 --> 00:20:14.400
believe is currently in permitting uh and we did agree to bring this back for the board to take a look once that it had been submitted. So, I'll just show these are the uh this is the view from the side from the south side.

70
00:20:14.400 --> 00:20:33.360
Uh looking from the alleyway toward the garage and then the the north view. So, that's it for the elevations. I'll go back to the rendering. We do have the owners present on the call. Did you have anything you would like to add?

71
00:20:33.360 --> 00:20:54.960
like to unmute. >> Hi, this is Laura Davis. Thank you very much for having us. >> I believe our architect and our builder are also here present. Um Nate Meyers and John are here as well. Um but thank you so much for having us and and uh

72
00:20:54.960 --> 00:21:09.600
we're very excited to rebuild and pastor grow. We owned the house prior to this and uh we're uh we miss coming down and we're just very excited to to to rebuild and hope we're hoping that um the new uh

73
00:21:09.600 --> 00:21:26.240
design uh meets uh the expectations and the requirements. >> Okay. Can you and maybe your architect can explain but you know I'm going back in memory of something from whatever six or seven months ago. So, what

74
00:21:26.240 --> 00:21:42.720
specifically has been modified? Is there do you want to answer that or do you want your architect to I mean to speak on that? >> I think Nate would would probably do a better job than me at addressing that. So, since he is there, I think it would

75
00:21:42.720 --> 00:21:58.960
be great to have him speak. >> Great. Thank you. If you just >> Thank you. >> Yeah. State your name for the record, please. >> Hello. Uh Nate Meyer. >> Okay. Mr. Meyer, can you tell us what's been modified? Well, I think the main thing was adding the the louver system

76
00:21:58.960 --> 00:22:13.840
on the ground level. I think the comments were that it was too open and uh transparent. So, we're adding that system to kind of like screen. There's an outdoor living space beyond that. Um and then, you know, to the right is a

77
00:22:13.840 --> 00:22:31.440
solid um storage room. So you can see there's just like a little opening with a gate in the low wall um that's like centered on the house and then as you walk up there would be a gate in that louvered system to let you into like the outdoor living space. So kind of

78
00:22:31.440 --> 00:22:47.200
separates the more front open front yard. Um, and >> so and and and I this picture that I'm looking at now, I mean, I don't know it it makes it look like

79
00:22:47.200 --> 00:23:03.360
I mean is the is the roof line really that much higher on the right hand side than the leftand side or is that just because it's it's >> designed uh with it like an angle to it? >> Well, it's both. It the roof line takes on the the angle of the site. Um and

80
00:23:03.360 --> 00:23:19.360
then so on the right side it is three stories. The left side is two. Um and the which is a there's a living room on that left side. And then so that we brought the roof up. Um so it doesn't it's not exactly like twotory and versus

81
00:23:19.360 --> 00:23:34.400
a threetory volume. So it's more it's more like two and a half to three. So that I think maybe the angle um makes it look like it's a lot taller. But >> no, I I guess my Yeah, there you go. See, see what I'm saying is if you go back that one just a minute ago,

82
00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:50.880
Brandon, and it it looks like if you were to stand on the third floor looking towards out towards a pastoral way >> Mhm. >> that there would be a slope to your left, you know, like it's on an angle, which it's not. It's obviously a flat

83
00:23:50.880 --> 00:24:06.400
roof and it's and it's a flat floor there. Oh, if you're on the third floor kind of looking out to the water, >> it makes it look like as we look at this picture, the left side is lower than the right side. >> Yeah. >> But it's not >> it

84
00:24:06.400 --> 00:24:21.679
>> in reality >> the floor unless I'm >> I don't see. >> Is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing? You know, >> it it's it's a question about where is it? Where is the perception? If you're looking down and up at if you're

85
00:24:21.679 --> 00:24:36.799
standing on ground level and looking up at it, is this the just the the view based on elevation or does that actually have a higher top roof on the top patio? It looks like it >> it looks like it slants, but it doesn't really.

86
00:24:36.799 --> 00:24:53.039
>> It may just be an optical illusion. >> The perspective of where we're looking at the drawing is, isn't it? >> I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're saying to be honest. >> Okay. See the right hand side of the of the roof? Mhm. >> That's clearly in the picture looks higher than the left hand side of the roof.

87
00:24:53.039 --> 00:25:08.799
>> Mhm. >> Is it actually that way or is it a flat? >> Yeah, it's Yeah, it's higher. >> It is higher. Okay. So, where is that angle incorporated? Is it just in the roof the angle occurs? I mean, it looks like >> it's the roof and the and the balcony.

88
00:25:08.799 --> 00:25:25.440
So, the the bal the actually it starts at the low wall. >> Mhm. And then that gets offset back to the balcony at level two. And then that steps up to the level three balcony. And then the roof of level three are all at that same angle. >> Okay. The perception is though if you were to drop a marble, it would roll off

89
00:25:25.440 --> 00:25:41.600
the side of the floor. But that's not >> Oh, I see what Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's not caned. >> Yes. Okay. That's what I'm saying. So it's just each floor level is flat. >> Mhm. >> And now go back to the other picture, Brandon, if you would. >> I see. >> That's the east elevation.

90
00:25:41.600 --> 00:26:00.320
What's that, Sean? >> I think that's the east elevation. It is. Yes. >> That's the elevation we want, right? >> It's east front. You know, it's like the that's past a grill frontage. >> Okay. So, and just so I'm clear on on this and the way this elevation is on

91
00:26:00.320 --> 00:26:16.000
the left hand side as we look at it, there's a second floor and there's a roof on top of that second floor. >> Right. What's that shaded area behind there that seems to go as high as the other part of the roof? >> Um, well, way back in the distance,

92
00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:34.000
that's the uh there's an office back there. >> Okay. So, let's see. Can we get the west elevation then? >> Really isn't one. >> So, this shows from the alley. Um, if you're looking on the side, I believe this does this show it best.

93
00:26:34.000 --> 00:26:50.400
>> I I would say both. Maybe actually the the south. Okay. >> Because then it's Yeah. So those windows in the middle, that's um those are facing the courtyard. So when you're looking at that east elevation from the street,

94
00:26:50.400 --> 00:27:07.360
you're seeing that kind of thin mass on the far left, you're seeing the face of that way in the back. That makes sense. So those two like vertical pieces are are just are set back off the property line 5T. And then that kind of

95
00:27:07.360 --> 00:27:28.559
big middle segment of wall is pushed back even further. So it makes the plan's like a C-shape. All right. I'm still not quite So I'm looking at this. This is the south visual and that section in the front,

96
00:27:28.559 --> 00:27:46.559
not you just behind or just west of the porches in the front. >> Mhm. We've got a two-story structure, right? >> And the first structure has a little bit of a receding first floor. Again, a little shaded area down there. A little outdoor seated area. Okay.

97
00:27:46.559 --> 00:28:02.480
>> So, from that structure, if you were to continue to go west, is there anything behind that? Is the threetory structure behind that? >> Yeah. So the three

98
00:28:02.480 --> 00:28:20.240
>> you kind of pass through a courtyard and then you get back to that to that threetory structure there. The >> which is >> which is a little bit higher than >> it is >> the front threetory. >> I see now I see the rooftop there. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Can you can I see the can you show me

99
00:28:20.240 --> 00:28:37.760
that other elevation? The the No, the western one. Okay. So, and from the back it's almost a mirror in that on the left hand side it's only two stories except

100
00:28:37.760 --> 00:28:53.919
for the front it's three stories. So, it's kind of been reversed from the back to front and the three. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> And even there on the right side that's a carport and then you can kind of see through the courtyard. >> Yep. >> To the outdoor living and then that screen system is

101
00:28:53.919 --> 00:29:10.240
>> okay. Is beyond that. And and because these are so small, and you may know, Nate, but Brandon, the the height issue is no issue. That's all under 28 feet, it >> it does meet the height limit. Um that

102
00:29:10.240 --> 00:29:26.799
was a comment I made on my initial pass. I haven't gone back and looked at it, but he's he's aware of the limitation to height. So, we'll make sure that it complies. >> Okay. That was another change that was made too was lowering all the basically lowering that uppermost roof, the main

103
00:29:26.799 --> 00:29:43.919
upper roof and then level three. >> Okay. >> Was all dropped down. >> That was a bit of a a modification. Okay. >> Part of part of plan review comments. Yeah. So it was like since I guess that happened in plan these last plan review comments and then the screen was kind of

104
00:29:43.919 --> 00:29:59.919
worked on after that. I mean we because we don't get those plan review things as it goes on. So last time we would have looked at this would have been >> you know like I said seven months ago or whatever. So >> all right anybody have any question for Mr. Myers about this situation?

105
00:29:59.919 --> 00:30:17.200
>> I have one question. You um said this is a carport. So is there not a garage door on this? >> Um not on that little right side. No the left the left side there's a twocar garage. >> That's what I thought. Okay. All right. Thanks, Mr. Myers. You're

106
00:30:17.200 --> 00:30:38.880
>> welcome. Thank you. >> Anything else that the honor would like to add or anything? We appreciate what we've just heard and you know, this is just forformational purposes. >> Um, are you speaking to me? >> Yes. I'm just saying if you have

107
00:30:38.880 --> 00:30:54.960
anything else to add, you can. If not, you know, we can just go on. >> Um, no. Well, we just thank you for your time and um for your consideration on this. Um, my husband's also here, but I don't know if he has any words he wanted to say, but probably not.

108
00:30:54.960 --> 00:31:10.880
>> But we just uh Yeah, we just appreciate your time. I can I' I'd love to just chime in and say, you know, we've lived in um Pastor Girl since 2010. So, we're we're we you know, last couple years have been tough after the storm for a

109
00:31:10.880 --> 00:31:26.320
lot of people, us, you know, understandably, too. And uh we're just excited to get back there. Um it's a lovely place and it's where we've, you know, we always love being. So, you know, we miss it and we appreciate you guys reviewing all of our uh plans and

110
00:31:26.320 --> 00:31:42.480
we're excited with our builder uh John and with our our uh designer, our architect Nate. You know, they they're they're just wonderful people and we know we're going to make something beautiful down there. Um uh to be part of the community again. Thank you guys. >> Well, certainly. And you know, I know

111
00:31:42.480 --> 00:31:58.720
this property well. I used to be your next door neighbor. Well, before you bought it, I lived in the condos right next door. So >> Oh, yeah. That's cool. So the little real estate office is no more, right? You know, so >> you you you know you know you you were talking about the design on the front of

112
00:31:58.720 --> 00:32:16.399
the patios, you know, how it looks in that picture like they're caned. It's not caned, but whenever you walk by it, you'll see that the angles are going to we we designed that so it looks like that original little front roof of our

113
00:32:16.399 --> 00:32:32.880
old cottage. I don't know if you remember, but how it kicked up and um uh was angled with the property. So, that was the one design feature that Nate was able to incorporate that followed the original kind of the layout of the um

114
00:32:32.880 --> 00:32:49.360
original little cottage on that property. So, that was something cool I thought Nate was able to do. And um you know, so it follows the line of the property just like the the old original cottage did. Right. Um, so that was pretty cool. Anyway, >> well, you know, this is, please take

115
00:32:49.360 --> 00:33:04.640
this in the the humor it's intended, but when I lived there, you know, 20ome years ago next door and the people that live there, they referred to it as the hot dog stand. So, uh, so the hot dog stand no longer exists. >> Yeah. Yeah.

116
00:33:04.640 --> 00:33:18.720
>> Thank you so much for your time, too. >> Thank you guys. Thank you all. >> All right. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So now we have well Danielle is here so we can go back to having a roll

117
00:33:18.720 --> 00:33:33.840
call. Madame clerk if we can. >> I think that's probably the procedure. >> Sure. Member Hurley >> present. >> Member Zeleleski >> present. >> Member Dashiel >> here. >> Chair Lowry >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Okay.

118
00:33:33.840 --> 00:33:53.360
So let's go back now to approval of the agenda. We've already done a few things, but does any anybody have anything they'd like to add to the agenda that we has not already been added?

119
00:33:53.360 --> 00:34:10.159
>> Okay, seeing nothing, I would then make a motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll second that motion. >> Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Zeleleski, >> approved. >> Member Dashill, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Yes.

120
00:34:10.159 --> 00:34:27.440
>> Okay. Uh now this is the portion of the meeting that's called audience comments. I always have to say this although which is an opportunity if there is anyone in the audience that wants to come forward and speak essentially about any issue they want to talk about I would suggest

121
00:34:27.440 --> 00:34:42.480
that if it's something that's on this calendar they can speak at the time that we get to the calendar. So just have to ask that for the record. there's anybody out there, any audience member that wishes to speak about something not on the agenda.

122
00:34:42.480 --> 00:34:58.640
Okay, seeing no hands, we'll go forward. Next is approval of the of the minutes from April 2nd, 2026. Has any members had an opportunity to read those minutes? I've read a

123
00:34:58.640 --> 00:35:14.640
>> I've read those uh minutes and have u gone through everything and I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting taking place on April 2nd, 2026. >> I'll second that motion. >> Madame clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes.

124
00:35:14.640 --> 00:35:28.880
>> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. That moves us to action items four. First thing is election of officers for 2026 to 2027

125
00:35:28.880 --> 00:35:46.960
in which we are required to elect a chair and a vice chair for a one-year term. Uh as it says the board may opt to maintain current appointments. As we know currently I am the chair and Tia Hawkins Smith was the vice chair who has

126
00:35:46.960 --> 00:36:04.640
resigned her position. So, uh, with that being said, is there anybody, how do you want to do this? As far as anybody want to do the chair, do you want me to continue? Um, I'm happy to continue. I would just say that, um, we've been making some slow progress

127
00:36:04.640 --> 00:36:20.480
with some things and I think we're still trying to get some things done through the city. Uh so unless someone else wants to put their name in for chair, >> I'd make a motion to appoint uh Bill

128
00:36:20.480 --> 00:36:36.320
Lowry back as chairman. >> And I would second that. >> Okay. Would Madame clerk, roll call, please? >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashel? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Now for vice chair. Anybody want to volunteer that thinks they would like

129
00:36:36.320 --> 00:36:51.920
to do that before we start picking people >> or does anyone have nominations? >> Or does anybody have a nomination? Excuse me. Yes. >> Well, I'll make a nomination. I would suggest Well, I think we just talk about you know, Sean, you've been on the here for a long time, but you're kind of the

130
00:36:51.920 --> 00:37:06.800
silent assassin, so I >> Well, I did vice chair for for many years and stepped out to let you and Tia kind of step into the position, right? I'd be willing to do it again unless member Dashel had any interest in >> Danielle. Do you have any interest in doing it or would you

131
00:37:06.800 --> 00:37:25.119
>> I think I think that um the best bet would be for you to go ahead and take on that that role as vice chair. >> Okay. >> Handle that responsibility. >> I think I can do that. Yes. >> All right then. I would make a motion to nominate Sean Hurling as vice chair. >> I'll second that nomination.

132
00:37:25.119 --> 00:37:41.040
>> Uh roll call, please. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashio? >> Yes. Yes. Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Now we are at 4B, local historic

133
00:37:41.040 --> 00:37:57.680
designation case number 26056 for the Warf Restaurant at 20001 Passer Girl Way. Ze does have a presentation. Gil Gil, do

134
00:37:57.680 --> 00:38:35.280
you see is Lynn here? Okay. All right. I'll present this item. We could pull up the PowerPoint. So, this is a local historic designation request for 2001 Pascal Way, currently known as the Wararf Restaurant. This is a commercial property, case number

135
00:38:35.280 --> 00:38:50.480
26056. The applicant owner is James Miller. They're requesting local historic designation for this property which is located within the Pasil National Register Historic District. You can see here on the zoning map, this is actually not within the Pasil

136
00:38:50.480 --> 00:39:06.480
overlay. It's part of the two block area on the east side of Pastor Way. That is outside of the overlay. So, it's not subject to the typical design requirements for new development and additions, but it is within what we of course know as Pass Grillil and is one

137
00:39:06.480 --> 00:39:22.880
of its main commercial areas. The other being, of course, 8th Avenue. Here is an aerial of the property. Um, I'm sure the owner can go into more detail about this than I can, but my understanding is they do have some degree of ownership over the water. Um,

138
00:39:22.880 --> 00:39:38.640
of course, the building is is located over water, and you can see that there on the parcel map. This is from the Penelis County Property Appraisers Office. Few years ago they did go through a renovation which involved a restoration and an extension of some of the docks at the back of the property

139
00:39:38.640 --> 00:39:53.920
but the building has been relatively unaltered in that time at least from the outside. 2001 Passil had its beginning in 1928 when it was originally constructed within the township of Pasigrail. It was known as Bell's Fish House after Harry

140
00:39:53.920 --> 00:40:10.240
Bell a local fishing guide who was proprietor. Though the property does not have a Florida master site file at this time, the owner requests for local historic designation. We do feel that based on its history within the passer fishing industry that this property meets the criteria for local designation

141
00:40:10.240 --> 00:40:27.440
and it was a contributing property in the category of local history. This is a very good example of a structure that is contributing based on its basis and community character and its development history. An interesting sidebar is that the first Harry H bell there were three in all met Clarence Birdeye in Birdsy

142
00:40:27.440 --> 00:40:42.800
rather in 192's >> eye I was thinking it might have been Bird's eye in 1927 who pioneered a process for freezing food. Mr. Bird's eye urged Mr. Bell to build a freezer for which he designed for his business. The Bells then went on to establish a

143
00:40:42.800 --> 00:41:05.440
frozen seafood business that continued to be used after moving the business from Faster Grill to St. Petersburg in 1960. Here are some photographs um showing the structure. Another showing an aerial from 1940. An article from the St. Petersburg Times

144
00:41:05.440 --> 00:41:24.400
in 1956 about the Fraser plant. Here's some photos of the building from the 1970s. Another here's some current photographs of the

145
00:41:24.400 --> 00:41:40.960
structure looking from Pastor Way. Another from the south looking north and another looking out from the docks toward the back of the building. Staff supports the application to designate this property which is located

146
00:41:40.960 --> 00:41:56.640
within the Pasigril National Register Historic District as a historic property. We find that it meets the significance area based on the broad cultural history of the Pastor Gril commercial fishing component of Pastor Grillil in the city of St. Pete Beach. As this board knows, um the city has

147
00:41:56.640 --> 00:42:12.880
been looking at restoration options options for Mary Pier, which of course includes a enclosed structure overwater. That is something that we've faced some challenges with in our restoration and it's not something that at least based on the current um guidance that we've received we are eligible for a

148
00:42:12.880 --> 00:42:29.359
substantial damage variance for. Now this property actually falls even though it's overwater it's within an AE flood zone rather than the velocity zone which is where the Mary Pier is located and I believe that might be the basis for our challenge. I bring this up because I just want the owner to know that if in

149
00:42:29.359 --> 00:42:43.839
the future they are looking for some kind of a substantial improvement variance, that is something we're going to have to look into to see whether they are eligible as those property owners who own historic properties that are located on land, they don't have to worry about these issues that um that we

150
00:42:43.839 --> 00:42:59.359
face with structures over water. So, I just wanted to bring that up. But we do certainly feel that the building is eligible for local registry listing on the basis of it being um part of the broad cultural history of Pastor Gril. So with that um we recommend approval of

151
00:42:59.359 --> 00:43:16.400
the designation for the warf restaurant at 2001 Pastor Way. This is case number 26056. Right. So let me ask a question on that last part you brought up and and just kind of put it in other terms more layman terms. So the historic

152
00:43:16.400 --> 00:43:33.200
designation if it gets approved doesn't give them any kind of a leg up on doing substantial improvements. I mean it could but it might not. We don't we that's not the purpose what we're doing here today. >> It's it's possible and they are not currently seeking a substantial. I just

153
00:43:33.200 --> 00:43:49.599
wanted to let them know that that's typically a benefit that comes with the designation. >> Right. And I and I'm glad you brought that up and I I just want to make sure that it's clear to anyone that's listening, but also uh the representative here and stuff that that that would be a separate issue if they decide to do some side of a substantial

154
00:43:49.599 --> 00:44:06.319
improvement having this historic designation doesn't necessarily change things. Uh however, if if that building maybe well, let me ask you this. If that building was damaged in a future storm, could they rebuild it as is? you know, get around

155
00:44:06.319 --> 00:44:22.160
the FEMA requirements because it's historic des it's historically designated. >> Well, with it being can with it being a commercial structure, they of course have different options. In a residential structure, they may be able to flood proof and otherwise. Um, so there are options, but based on any kind of

156
00:44:22.160 --> 00:44:37.280
waiver, substantial improvement includes both improvement and damage. So, that is something we would need to look into in the future. >> I understand. Like when we talk about the Mary Pier and the problems with the Mary Pier, it's it's damage. It was not a historic

157
00:44:37.280 --> 00:44:53.200
structure and so they had to abide by the the FEMA substantial damage kind of we weren't able to avoid that as we could if it was a a home over land that was historically designated.

158
00:44:53.200 --> 00:45:09.119
>> Correct. >> I just point that out so we kind of have a broader idea of what's what's going on. I don't know if there's there was a p an agent here earlier but may stepped out >> and um chair I if I may um I know we understand we went out of order um for this meeting uh but since these are

159
00:45:09.119 --> 00:45:25.920
public hearings uh it would be appropriate for us to swear in anybody who >> Oh okay >> wishes to testify I know we normally do that at the beginning but we want today >> forgot about that and but nobody's here to be >> swear I just >> No no I appreciate that I totally forgot about that and I assume forformational

160
00:45:25.920 --> 00:45:42.640
items that's not as important as do you want me to swear in who people have already spoken >> um forformational items is not as important unless uh staff needs specifically sworn testimony um as to your particular point but um these action items are public hearings yes and

161
00:45:42.640 --> 00:45:58.640
the >> okay well I I'm looking out in the audience I know that uh I noticed the manager was here earlier but I don't see him now so I thought he was here when I start talking so he's not going to be able to speak >> okay well in that case then um I would suggest uh before we move on to the next

162
00:45:58.640 --> 00:46:14.880
item, we can do a general swearing in of everybody who wishes to testify if that's okay with you. >> There's people here for that to do that. >> Yeah, >> I assume there's Okay, you >> all right. Anybody have any comments uh on the board about what's going on here or any questions?

163
00:46:14.880 --> 00:46:29.839
>> No, I'm good. >> I I would point out just in some of those pictures how the warf looks all kind of rusty and stuff and that's by intent. I mean, that's some of that's new, but been designed to make it look like it has always kind of been and be

164
00:46:29.839 --> 00:46:49.680
old. So, uh, so that's not for for lack of upkeep. That's for, uh, aesthetic value, I'm going to say. >> All right. Anybody have anything? >> I'm good. I would I would like to make a motion to

165
00:46:49.680 --> 00:47:06.319
approve the local historic designation case number 26056 for the wararf at 2001 passer way. >> I'll second that. >> Madam clerk, roll call. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes.

166
00:47:06.319 --> 00:47:22.319
>> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Um, and just bear with me on this for for a moment when we were talking earlier about and I know we approved the agenda and I don't know if this is an issue or not, but there was an item for

167
00:47:22.319 --> 00:47:38.560
discussion that I just wanted to bring up in reference especially with a with a new member here uh about plaques. Can I add that to a discussion item just later just to talk about historical um

168
00:47:38.560 --> 00:47:53.599
>> if you wanted to make a motion to amend the agenda. >> Okay. Thank you. I I'll make I'd like to make a motion to amend the agenda to add as a discussion item um the creation of historical plaques. >> If staff could also ask that we move

169
00:47:53.599 --> 00:48:13.520
items 4 C and 4 D to the end of action items. I believe both both the owners are not present yet. So I just want to make sure that we have someone available to speak to those. >> Did we have a second? >> Okay. You said four for four B and C. Is

170
00:48:13.520 --> 00:48:28.960
that what you said? >> 4 C and D. If we could take those after G, please. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, back on my motion. Can I get a second from anybody? >> I'll second that. >> Can I get a Madam Clerk, get a roll call on the agenda amendment? >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. Yes. >> Member Hurley.

171
00:48:28.960 --> 00:48:47.280
>> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski. >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> And so I guess we'll add that as I think discussion item E. Is that where we're at? Maybe. >> Okay. So then let's go to 4 E, a certificate for appropriateness for

172
00:48:47.280 --> 00:49:04.960
the demolition uh case number 26054 of the residence at 1401 Pass Girl way. And then if we could go ahead and swear in. >> And if we could, Madam Clerk, can we get you to Thank you. Uh, can we get everybody sworn in that might testify?

173
00:49:04.960 --> 00:49:20.400
>> Anyone who will be testifying to the board today needs to be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information or testimony you are about to give is truthful? Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you all.

174
00:49:20.400 --> 00:49:50.640
All right. So, we're back to that demolition at uh 1401 Pasco White. If you pull the PowerPoint back up, please. This is a demolition request case number 26054 for 1401 Pastor Way, applicant

175
00:49:50.640 --> 00:50:06.800
owner of Robert and Laura Stark. They are present on the Zoom call. They are requesting a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the single family two-story structure. It is contri cons considered a contributing structure in the Pasil Historic District. The applicant is seeking to demolish a

176
00:50:06.800 --> 00:50:23.200
framed two-story single family residence. The property is heavily vegetated in the front, but appears to retain its asbesto shingles, chimney, and louvered vents in the front-facing gable beneath the ridges. The Florida Master Side file also lists shingle siding, and original casement windows with roof knee braces as standout

177
00:50:23.200 --> 00:50:38.480
features. I will point out this is one of the few unaltered homes that I am aware of in Pastor Grail. Um, it is a very much an original structure, which is interesting to see, especially given its age. The city did estimate the

178
00:50:38.480 --> 00:50:56.079
residents to have sustained 100% damage from the 2024 storms. We do have some photos. It did indicate a total loss. The building official was out a few weeks ago and had actually um posted the structure as an unsafe structure and we have issued a demolition or rather we've

179
00:50:56.079 --> 00:51:11.680
approved demolition permit uh given the numerous continuations that needed to occur for this case. Uh the applicant stated that the rear of the residence is collapsing which we did confirm through photos and we did find this to be beyond the reasonable limit for restoration of

180
00:51:11.680 --> 00:51:27.599
the contributing residence. You can see the property here uh the existing survey showing the residents. This is a historic photo. It's undated, but it is from the 1938 property card. We believe it was probably taken in the

181
00:51:27.599 --> 00:51:45.839
late 30s, early 40s. Here's some current staff photos. Um, you can see notably on the right side the collapse of the rear of the structure. We do have criteria for review of demolition permits. Of course, one of the criteria we look at is whether it's

182
00:51:45.839 --> 00:52:01.119
reasonable to restore the residence. We did find in this case it it is not um reasonable to restore the residence. We do recommend approval without stay. The residents clearly sustain severe damage. It's unreasonable to require that the applicant remediate that damage. It's

183
00:52:01.119 --> 00:52:18.240
currently the subject of in substantial damage amnesty period. As I mentioned, we have issued or approved at least the permit for the demolition. Delaying removal would be inconsistent with the intent of that amnesty. Um I did also want to point out as a single family home based on the survey that we have on

184
00:52:18.240 --> 00:52:33.920
file, we don't see any significant challenges with redevelopment on this property. the applicant would be subject to the zoning code, but there are no rights that they need to retain in the redevelopment that would be applicable to a multifamily structure or another structure that was built much closer to

185
00:52:33.920 --> 00:52:49.760
the property line. So, we don't see any significant challenges other than the typical zoning and building requirements that would come along with redevelopment. So, based on that, we do ask for a motion to approve this case for demolition without a stay on demolition. And as I mentioned, we do have the

186
00:52:49.760 --> 00:53:05.200
owners present on the Zoom call for questions. Hello there, Bob and Laura. Uh, do you have any comments or anything you'd like to tell us be at this stage? >> No. Obviously, if it was a structure we,

187
00:53:05.200 --> 00:53:20.880
you know, could tech, we would have we, this is our fourth property that we um have owned in a historic area. Uh, we appreciate the, you know, the the character of the historic area. So, if we could have saved any of it, we would have, but it's it's a total loss.

188
00:53:20.880 --> 00:53:36.319
>> Okay. All right. Um, I will make a motion to grant the certificate of appropriateness for case number 26054 for the residents of 1401 Pastoral Way.

189
00:53:36.319 --> 00:53:52.000
And along with that, I would ask there be no stay on demolition. >> I'll second that. >> Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. Yes. Motion carries.

190
00:53:52.000 --> 00:54:09.760
>> All right. Good luck y'all. >> We'll see you again. All right. Bye-bye. Thank you for showing up. >> Okay. So, now we move on to uh 4 F, which is certificate for appropriateness for demolition case number 26073

191
00:54:09.760 --> 00:54:26.720
for the home at 10418th Avenue. Yes, we have the agent Waterstone City Homes Incorporated for Phillips Michael Veto Living Trust. The address is 10418th Avenue. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the

192
00:54:26.720 --> 00:54:42.079
two family residence. There is also a detached garage on the property. They are both considered contributing structures to the Pastoral Historic District. The applicant is seeking to demolish a woodframe residence and detach garage that were constructed in 1926. According

193
00:54:42.079 --> 00:54:56.960
to the property's Florida master site file, it the front structure, the residence is a two family residence. There is a front unit as well as a back unit. Looking at the structure from the street, it has been modestly altered with an enclosed screen porch that is

194
00:54:56.960 --> 00:55:12.960
very common in pass and asbesto shingle siding. The structure was re-roofed with asphalt shingles subsequent to the last survey in 2015. There were also minor sophet repairs that had been completed. It is an example of the craftsman architectural style. It contains barge

195
00:55:12.960 --> 00:55:28.800
board under the eaves, front-facing gables and louvered vents as those are features that are typical of the style especially in pass. The mains the maintenance of tuskcen style columns and the now enclosed porch is rare. I actually am not aware of another property that has such a feature. Um

196
00:55:28.800 --> 00:55:45.760
columns are common under the craftsman style, but tuskcen style is is a little uncommon um at least in past grill. >> Okay, I want to see an example of that. I don't know exactly what that is. I'll show you in just a moment here. >> Um, this home did have a property card photo that was available from 1936. You

197
00:55:45.760 --> 00:56:02.480
can see that on the right. >> You can see here just and and very very light tuskin detailing on those columns at the um front when I get to them. I'll see if I >> those blue columns we're looking at. That's >> that that's the side. Um it's I don't know if I have a zoomed in photo of the

198
00:56:02.480 --> 00:56:16.400
front. I'll see if I if I have one. But the bottom right photo is looking toward the garage at the back of the property. Um the front structure is over a crawl space. And here are some applicant photos of

199
00:56:16.400 --> 00:56:35.839
the interior of the residence. Fortunately, I don't think I have any zoomed in photos. Um this is subject to the typical contributing structure requirements for demolition. um it would be limited to a stay of 30 days. It could not be denied

200
00:56:35.839 --> 00:56:51.119
as a contributing structure and we do go through the criteria for demolition permits. With respect to the demolition, there cannot be a stay of longer than 30 days imposed on this request. Um, we did ask for, as we ask for all of these

201
00:56:51.119 --> 00:57:07.119
redevelopments on standard platted lots, that the applicant testify that they understand any future development will that that provides for more than one dwelling unit. We'll require the living square footage of the residence to be limited to the existing living square footage, which is just over 1,200 square

202
00:57:07.119 --> 00:57:23.599
feet per records. with modern interior requirements like mechanical closets and interior circulation for dwelling units above the ground floor if they're not providing access from the exterior over a half level. This may represent a significant limitation on redevelopment if they are seeking to retain the two

203
00:57:23.599 --> 00:57:40.319
dwelling units that are licensed to the property. Um in reviewing the photos, we did also not receive significant evidence that the home is in need of demolition and incapable of restoration. was indicated in the application, but the agent or the owners, if they are present, um may want to speak to that

204
00:57:40.319 --> 00:57:55.280
briefly just in terms of the um the possible stay that could be imposed by the board. >> Okay. >> So, following testimony, we do ask for a motion to approve this case either with or without a stay on demolition. >> All right. Does the applicant want to

205
00:57:55.280 --> 00:58:10.720
come forward, please? Please just state your name for the record >> and whether you were sworn. >> Okay. I was I was sworn in. Dennis Johnson, 4021 West Barcelona Street, Tampa, Florida.

206
00:58:10.720 --> 00:58:28.079
>> Michael Carrier, 4216 Fairway Run, Tampa, Florida. >> I'm with Waterstone. >> Okay. >> Um I actually own the property immediately adjacent to the West, which was we came through y'all several years ago. >> Recall that >> and we designed a new house, which we're actually have just started construction.

207
00:58:28.079 --> 00:58:42.960
Um, this house, the original owners had uh there was substantial damage to the detach detached structure in the rear. It had about 20 inches of water. It's been totally destroyed. It's uninhabitable. There's been nobody in there since the hurricanes. It'll have to be demolished. The existing

208
00:58:42.960 --> 00:58:59.920
structure, um although water did go underneath the structure and it did some peer damage and some damage to the wood floor trusses underneath the home. Um, I believe they did the that thing on the side is an you can see that's a that's an alteration to the original house

209
00:58:59.920 --> 00:59:16.160
because they turned it into a duplex. Um, so we are not requesting to keep the duplex zoning. We uh are in the process of a design that's very similar site plan to next door. It's not a large home. We're designing about a 3,000t

210
00:59:16.160 --> 00:59:32.400
home, twotory only. We're lucky here because our elevation is a little bit higher. We're about five feet above sea level here. So, we only have to go up five to six feet. So, we're going to do the standard twotory. Um, and we'll have a pool on the side. And we're going to We haven't quite finished the elevation.

211
00:59:32.400 --> 00:59:48.079
We have I don't know if Can you show those things we emailed you, Brandon, or not? >> Well, I was looking for that, but you don't own this property right now. >> We have it under contract. Okay. >> Yeah. The uh owners attempted to they went through the process of seeing how much was to fix it up and they went through the economic and it became

212
00:59:48.079 --> 01:00:03.680
unfeasible. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm I'm familiar with the home and I know it was for sale. >> So, they just they that's so they decided to sell it and then it made sense for us to do it since we're doing next story. We wanted to control the look of the street and control, you know, sight lines and views and sun so we can kind of control that with the

213
01:00:03.680 --> 01:00:18.960
pools. Everybody gets sun in their pool instead of, you know, >> shadowing everything. So, that gives us a lot of flexibility. >> Um, we're going to keep it, you know, a narrowest site plan. You don't have >> Can you pull >> Let's see if I can get it pulled up here. >> We emailed to you, but you could pull

214
01:00:18.960 --> 01:00:34.640
Yeah, if you want to pull up 10618. >> Well, while he's looking for that, let me just ask a couple questions. So, I mean, >> you you've answered the question about not wanting to retain it as a duplex, so that's not an issue anymore, obviously. Right. Right. >> Because you're if you you're talking

215
01:00:34.640 --> 01:00:50.400
about doing single family resident, which is fine. You know that that's I mean, you could rebuild the duplex, but you'd be very limited, right? Okay. >> Well, we have a we have a client that's interested. So, >> Okay. And so, and then also the the the garage. I'm just going to say some things as you probably know, but just make sure they're clear. Okay. So, you

216
01:00:50.400 --> 01:01:06.480
know, the garage could be rebuilt because it's nonhabitable anyway. So, I mean, I I've been on the property. I know how messed up that thing is and that that the garages, you know, has to go. Uh the house itself, I don't believe

217
01:01:06.480 --> 01:01:22.720
did get flooded. >> It did. It just touched underneath. Right. It's one of those houses built in the 20s where they actually built them high enough because if you look on Pass at about three and a half feet, you didn't they didn't get the hurricane flood and that >> it's about 31 32 inches up and we had

218
01:01:22.720 --> 01:01:37.359
about >> even down even even south of 8 where you know there's a lot of old houses. Some of those the old the hundred-y old ones didn't flood most of them. >> Now it was close to floating away though >> picking it up off because you know back then there's no you just have peers no

219
01:01:37.359 --> 01:01:52.559
>> foundation. Uh they seem to know something back then I guess that we forgot about. Um so and so the owner I know you're I mean the it could be rebuilt. It could be things like that but you don't find that's something you want to do which is >> well you know you're in that middle

220
01:01:52.559 --> 01:02:08.480
ground even if you re renovated that the flood the flood insurance we couldn't afford it. It would be$25 to $30,000 a year for flood insurance for a 1200 foot house. I mean that's just >> right >> that's economically unfeasible. And when you build a new house, we just got our flood quote on the house next door for

221
01:02:08.480 --> 01:02:25.520
full replacement value next door was uh 11 $1,12 a year for flood insurance because we're building at you know 11 116. >> Yeah. So it's just that's the problem. We're not building massive houses though, which is we're trying to keep them in the scale and >> well and so it only even though it's not

222
01:02:25.520 --> 01:02:41.440
necessarily relevant to this demolition approval or not, but what you've talked about in the house you're talking about building it wouldn't have your standard or not standard but typical 9 foot or 10 foot first floor. >> Well, it it's there. You'll see it. It does. >> Oh, I haven't seen it. That's what we're saying. We have

223
01:02:41.440 --> 01:02:57.760
>> it should be on the screen if you can. Okay. >> It does have a Do you have that rendering? Can you pull that the color rendering? It kind of >> This is actually not the actual >> That's actually the site. We've changed the but the alleyway that is the bottom um it would be the alleyway entrance. So there's a twocar and then a kind of an offset garage. >> Yeah. >> Like a golf cart. But the front

224
01:02:57.760 --> 01:03:14.480
elevation is a finished floor on the porch is about five to five and a half up. >> Right. I'm saying you went up you went up the minimum but you you're in good shape because the the grade's higher. So you don't So I'm saying you don't have to have a 9 or 10 foot empty space. >> Correct. Right. Yeah. Right.

225
01:03:14.480 --> 01:03:29.839
>> This is like my house. I have the same thing. When you said first floor, I was thinking of our first floor as the living area. >> Ground floor, maybe. >> And we do have 10 foot ceilings in the ground floor. >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's beautiful. >> You're right. It will not be sitting up real high in the air. >> And you plan to put the garage in the back off the alley. >> Yeah, we And it's a nice alley. We're

226
01:03:29.839 --> 01:03:45.440
going to rebuild the alley. We're going to, you know, we're going to strip it, shell it. Um since now we have two in a row. And >> well, you know, just so you know, we're working with the city here on some of this stuff, but where one of the proposals that's coming up is to try to require people if you're on an alley to use the alley.

227
01:03:45.440 --> 01:04:02.160
>> Yeah. Okay, which would hopefully that will happen. I mean, you always get variances under the circumstances, but that would also >> we'd like to improve it. What are they >> would have the city improve some of these alleys? >> Yeah, we would work with you on those, too, because we the gentleman in the corner that we've got three in a row that are and then the guy behind us,

228
01:04:02.160 --> 01:04:18.640
we've talked to him. So, we've basically got, you know, all four or five people from the corner alley that are in >> When you say you this would I know I know the the empty lot that you're getting ready to build on. And then then there's the one that next the one that it's kind of a two-story bungalow. It has a back. It's kind of aqua color.

229
01:04:18.640 --> 01:04:34.160
It's on the side alley. >> Stephen Smith's. >> It would be it's where >> is it across the alley you're saying? Or >> No, right. Side. It'll be It' just be west of the one that we're getting ready to start. >> Oh, that the Airbnb one. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right. >> So, it is a good it could be a good alley. you know, we don't really have

230
01:04:34.160 --> 01:04:51.280
many trees issues and uh yeah, it it's definitely could could be improved and we're willing to work with the city on improving that or >> and that big banyan is going to go, I assume, in the back. >> Yes. >> Hate to see that bad shape. >> It has to go. >> Yes. >> We we didn't quite get enough to bring

231
01:04:51.280 --> 01:05:06.480
in all of our, you know, on the first we brought the whole elevations and everything. We got approval all the way through the but we aren't quite there on this one. Yeah. We're we're trying to change some architectural features on the outside and do it a little more California coastal. We're not going to

232
01:05:06.480 --> 01:05:22.720
do Hardy on the second house. We don't want them to look completely different. Change the roofs up a little bit. The site plan is going to be the similar pretty much with a pool on the side, a narrow house, the garages on the alley, but the extra architecture features we're going to change up. That's why we didn't want to come through the whole review process yet. We're not quite

233
01:05:22.720 --> 01:05:39.520
there yet. >> No, I understand that. And this is just, you know, for information. >> You want to spend any more money if uh >> No, I get it. All right. Okay. Anything else on the demolition aspect of it? If there's any questions, you need it answered, Brandon. >> No, I think that covers it. So,

234
01:05:39.520 --> 01:05:56.720
>> well, all right. I hate to see it go. It's It's one of my favorite houses down there, but I >> Glad to give it to you if you like it. >> Uh, well, you know, we talked about moving houses before, and the city's not too keen on that. >> A couple houses, and it's a it's a tour, >> but um Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion then

235
01:05:56.720 --> 01:06:12.240
that we grant certificate of appropriateness for demolition case number 26073 for the residents at 1041 18th Avenue. >> I'll second that motion. >> And I guess I should talk about whether we want to do a stay.

236
01:06:12.240 --> 01:06:27.920
>> Pardon me. Yeah. So, I I I guess for my motion, you know, we never make you give you guys a 30-day I mean, we never enforce that typically because normally everyone's already made up their mind and and you know,

237
01:06:27.920 --> 01:06:44.160
>> can I add one comment that may add? >> Absolutely. Please. >> I was six years a commissioner on the Hillsburg County Historic Board. So, I don't think there's anything you can tell me. We wrote all the code for the architectural review commission. And I know all the so yeah I don't think 30 days is going to change u my my

238
01:06:44.160 --> 01:06:59.839
knowledge on this. >> Well exactly that's so so it's kind of like doesn't really mean anything. So on my motion I'll make that without without a stay. >> I'll second that motion. >> Madam clerk roll call please. >> Member Dashio. >> Yes. >> Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry.

239
01:06:59.839 --> 01:07:18.319
>> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you John. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Do I guess we go back now to >> Are we on 4C? >> We are. We have one more certificate of

240
01:07:18.319 --> 01:07:33.760
appropriateness for the Warren Webster building. If I could >> Oh, that's G. >> On to that. >> Oh, I don't have G. >> G. >> Not on your print. It it the one that was posted online. I have G because I'm accessing that one. I don't know if maybe your printed agenda.

241
01:07:33.760 --> 01:07:50.160
>> It might be. I I did add it over the weekend, so it might have been might not be on your packet, but I do have a presentation for it. >> Okay. >> This pulled up. >> Oh, is is this on Warren Webster? >> Yes. >> Yes, I did read that one. Okay. But it's just on on our our laptops here.

242
01:07:50.160 --> 01:08:05.440
>> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Let's go. Go ahead, Randle. We'll go with that one. >> So, this is of course for Warren Webster. Um, we are seeking to replace an existing entry door at the eastern frontage as well as on the side

243
01:08:05.440 --> 01:08:23.440
and the two French doors at the back of the building. Um, which of course is a locally designated historic resource and contributing structure to the Pasil Historic District. This is case number 26109. So, it's on the Hurley Park property in the southeast corner budding Passirl Way

244
01:08:23.440 --> 01:08:40.400
and 15th Avenue. Doors proposed for replacement are found in the building. It most recently underwent significant renovation in the mid2010s when the city designated it as a local historic resource. At the time, we also obtained a substantial improvement variance for the building.

245
01:08:40.400 --> 01:08:56.319
We're seeking to replace the existing front door with a horizontally separated halflight over solid panel door and the rear French door with simulated mutton pattern French doors. They will both be impact rating, which is the main reason for this undertaking. The front door exists. is presently boarded up. The

246
01:08:56.319 --> 01:09:11.679
rear French doors remain in place and the northern door is also present. So you can see the front door viewed from Pass Way on the left side and then the side entry door on facing toward the north on the right side of the screen.

247
01:09:11.679 --> 01:09:28.000
The door is going to be very similar in style. It's going to be a relatively simple metal frame door with a solid ground panel or solid lower panel rather and a upper window panel. Um, it will have a thin style and upper rail like

248
01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:45.679
the current door. Uh, you can see here the rear French doors. I believe the photo is a little bit warped. They look a little bit um taller and stouter than than they are. Uh, you can see the doors that they're being replaced with on the right. These

249
01:09:45.679 --> 01:10:01.440
are a slightly different design change. Uh both the style and the rails are going to be a little bit narrower than what we currently have on the property. With commercial buildings and community buildings, there is more of an emphasis put on doors and windows that are

250
01:10:01.440 --> 01:10:18.719
visible from the ve the back of the structure. Certainly for this as it is a community resource, we typically don't put much emphasis on rear changes on residential buildings that are not visible from the street. But in this case, we do want the doors to retain, of

251
01:10:18.719 --> 01:10:34.239
course, be be impact rated, but also retain some of their historic integrity. We did speak with the contractor. Um, they are able to replicate the 1 in mutton pattern. Of course, they will not be mullons. They won't be separated

252
01:10:34.239 --> 01:10:50.800
window panels because this will be an impact rated window um on the door, but they are able to replicate the approximately 1 in wide um mutton pattern on the window. We have a preference for the center, the beveled panel. The one on the right we feel is a

253
01:10:50.800 --> 01:11:05.679
little bit too ornate. The one on the left we feel is a little bit too um standard for for this type of design in this this era of French door. So, we do recommend approval of the front and side replacement doors as submitted. Uh, the contractor has

254
01:11:05.679 --> 01:11:22.960
confirmed earlier today that the 3x5 pattern on the rear French doors can be replaced and maintained at a similar width. We prefer the centered beveled mountain to replace the existing mullion pattern which obviously cannot be easily replicated in an impact rated door. And I'll just show the photo one more time.

255
01:11:22.960 --> 01:11:40.280
We prefer the center option. So, we ask for a motion to approve this case for the front and side entry door replacements as submitted and approval of the French door replacement with 3x5 pattern and 1-in beveled mutton. Happy to take any questions.

256
01:11:40.880 --> 01:11:57.360
>> Anybody have any questions? >> I do not. >> What's the timeline for getting these installed if this is approved? >> Oh, in the next week or two. We're looking to move for Yeah. No. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Wow. A week.

257
01:11:57.360 --> 01:12:14.159
>> That's moving along. >> I I believe they're looking to take Canadian entry. >> This is one of those Oh, we need to ask for this, right? Okay. Uh All right. Anybody else have any questions? >> No. I'd make a motion to approve case number 26109 for the front and side

258
01:12:14.159 --> 01:12:31.040
entry door replacements as submitted and request modification of the rear French doors to provide a 5x3 light pattern with an exterior applied mutton of similar width as existing doors. >> I'll second that motion. Madam clerk,

259
01:12:31.040 --> 01:12:46.080
>> memberurley, >> yes. >> Member Zeleleski, >> yes. Member Dashill, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Okay. So, that was G. So, now we're going to

260
01:12:46.080 --> 01:13:09.760
C. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Which is a certificate of appropriateness, case number 26055, uh the structure 1706 Pass Girl way. So, the owner had been on the call and I don't believe they joined back in, but

261
01:13:09.760 --> 01:13:25.280
we can go through the presentation. I did send them a copy of the staff report, so they should be aware of this information. This is certificate of appropriateness 26055 for 1706 Passil Way. Plet Bosella is

262
01:13:25.280 --> 01:13:42.400
both the applicant and the owner. They're requesting a certificate of appropriateness to install mini split condensers, which I will point out have already been installed. Uh to replace in window units along the northern frontage of the apartment building and replace two over two light windows with two light single hung windows. Those will be

263
01:13:42.400 --> 01:13:58.320
on the front of the structure facing past railway as well as in the interior of the courtyard as you can see in the top right of the photo. Uh, this is a locally designated historic structure. It was designated back in 2019, designation number 62.

264
01:13:58.320 --> 01:14:16.080
So, here's the property. It is currently in use as an apartment house property, single family courtyard apartment. Um, I've already covered the changes. Um, they are looking to replace two over two wood sash windows in the front of the structure, interior to the courtyard with two light single hung windows. They

265
01:14:16.080 --> 01:14:33.120
are proposing vinyl. Um they are requesting pro uh sorry post installation permission to maintain many split condensing units. Those are located on the north side um as well as the courtyard interior. You can see one in this photo. I have photos of the outside of the structure in just a

266
01:14:33.120 --> 01:14:48.719
moment. >> I'm sorry to interrupt just so we don't do this. So that picture there that is the mini split that's already been installed that they're asking for post installation >> and that there are some that have been installed on the north side of the structure. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that's that's the new one right there. Okay, go ahead.

267
01:14:48.719 --> 01:15:04.080
>> That is that is what is proposed. >> Um that was authorized through issued building permits over the uh preceding months for interior work. However, building permits have not been issued for the mini splits or the window replacement. We have allowed the

268
01:15:04.080 --> 01:15:20.960
applicant to move forward with interior renovation which is non-substantial and uh they are seeking to install the windows um which has not been done and then receive permission to maintain the mini splits that have been installed. So you can see this is viewing from um 18th

269
01:15:20.960 --> 01:15:39.760
to the north. Um you can see the uh the mini split units that have already been installed in the side of the building. And then you can see photos of the windows that are proposed to be replaced. Those are the wood sash windows showing the replacement window location and then along the 18th Avenue frontage

270
01:15:39.760 --> 01:15:57.679
the mini splits. So staff does not have any concern with the mini split condensers in the proposed location. We do ask that there be two conditions of approval and ask that the applicant to comment and unfortunately they are not present on the potential for a third condition. Um,

271
01:15:57.679 --> 01:16:12.880
we do ask the lines be set in a cover that is painted the same color as a dwelling and the disconnect shall also be painted to match the building if doing so would meet all safety code and manufacturer requirements. I'll go back to the photo. You can see that they're not the color of the building. We would

272
01:16:12.880 --> 01:16:29.199
like them to be painted white or put in a uh run that would be matching the color of the building just to provide some screening. They have agreed to install landscaping adjacent to the mini split units along that side of the structure. We want to make sure that that will provide proper air flow for

273
01:16:29.199 --> 01:16:45.920
the units. We don't want them to install landscaping that could cause any issue in terms of air flow. Um but if they can meet that and if they can put up a hedge or shrubs that would help to screen those units. I believe they have been elevated to 4 feet. Um and again their replacement of in window units which the

274
01:16:45.920 --> 01:17:01.840
general guidance I've received on in window units is that it's generally appropriate to allow those to be replaced with mini splits as long as they're properly obscured. Um, we also ask that the lines be set to run vertically from the equipment without the 90deree jog that currently exists

275
01:17:01.840 --> 01:17:18.239
without the applicant present. If the board is willing to take action, I would recommend that that condition be left off because that would require that um potentially significant interior changes that I'm not I'm not aware if those can be made based on the existing layout of

276
01:17:18.239 --> 01:17:34.480
service within the building. We're also asking that the applicant pace place false mutton um mutton rather horizontal with the window to mirror the existing design. So the simulated horizontal light design of the structure that would be placed on the exterior of

277
01:17:34.480 --> 01:17:50.000
the window to match the existing pattern. We were going to ask that they seek wood sash windows if viable. Um, with this being a development from the early 20th century, it's usually appropriate for them to remain wood sash instead of going to vinyl, which is what's being

278
01:17:50.000 --> 01:18:06.640
proposed, or even aluminum, um, which would be another option that's more um, easil easily obtained, but without the applicant present, um, I would like them to be able to comment on that. So, we I would ask that the board continue this case. um if if you find that requiring a

279
01:18:06.640 --> 01:18:24.320
wood sash be be a requirement because I would like the owner to be able to comment on the ability to obtain wood sash windows. There might be a limitation that I'm not aware of um being the basis for why they proposed vinyl. So with that, um, we ask for a motion to

280
01:18:24.320 --> 01:18:39.840
approve this case. And if you were to approve the case without the applicant present, that would be condition one and two for the mini split installation. And um the uh the simulated light condition for the

281
01:18:39.840 --> 01:18:56.400
windows, but not the vinyl to wood sash window requirement or the change in the the lines to be run vertically for the mini splits. So, those two would be left out, >> right? >> And >> I'm sorry, Brandon. I I know you already said this, but can we just confirm for

282
01:18:56.400 --> 01:19:11.360
the record again that the applicant received notice of this hearing and that they were present and are not present at this time? >> Correct. They they had been on the call earlier, but they are not currently present. >> Thank you. >> And you said that we could request a

283
01:19:11.360 --> 01:19:28.239
continuence of this and let all these things be addressed at one time versus doing it twice. You you can I have spoken to the applicant about the conditions that I would be comfortable with the board moving forward. If you were to require wood sash windows or a

284
01:19:28.239 --> 01:19:42.880
vertical run for the line, I would ask that they'd be present to comment on that. >> Okay. Well, you know, everyone can speak. You know, the way I look I I look at this, your first two conditions that are part of would be part of the motion

285
01:19:42.880 --> 01:20:00.320
if we did not continue it. uh you know, totally agree with that and and and if that was it, I would suggest we just go ahead and make a more a motion or I would make a motion to approve. But I think that the wood sash

286
01:20:00.320 --> 01:20:18.080
is is an important thing, but I also think the 90° jog is even more important considering it's already been installed. There's no hardship in continuing this to find out their actual answers for it. Uh, and I don't I guess we can't do this

287
01:20:18.080 --> 01:20:34.480
peace meal and and grant it for one and you know, one and two and then have them come back on the other part. Uh, I just think visually to look at it and and I think I know what you're saying that this you would suggest that

288
01:20:34.480 --> 01:20:50.960
the line would basically go straight down as opposed to have a 90° turn. Right. >> Correct. But we don't know what's on the other side of that wall. So we don't know if that's something they can do or not. Correct. >> Right. So it it could be they can't do anything and therefore no harm, no foul.

289
01:20:50.960 --> 01:21:08.320
>> I I think it would look a lot better if they didn't have the 90 degree degree turn if that's viable. And I really think the wood sash if it's if it's something they can it can be done, why not do it? It is it's a historic structure. It's been historically designated. I think that they should uh

290
01:21:08.320 --> 01:21:25.120
you know be required to do that. That's my opinion. I don't know if how you all feel about it. Um, and I'm sorry that she's Miss Bosell isn't here because she could probably answer those things right now. Um, now is this a situation though where we can,

291
01:21:25.120 --> 01:21:41.120
you know, sometimes we grant things with the uh idea that staff is going to confirm they followed up on something and not have to come back and bring the applicant back and they can the staff can just tell us they did it or they didn't do that or whatever. Is is that a

292
01:21:41.120 --> 01:21:56.800
situation we can do here? You think? >> I I think so. I think especially for the 90° turn in the line, we would want some kind of idea of how far we should the the the wood sash windows. She can probably pretty easily justify if she cannot install them. If it's just a

293
01:21:56.800 --> 01:22:13.199
difficulty in finding the products, but it's available, we can we can require that. But for the line, what degree of alteration would the board feel is appropriate to be able to to have that work? Because I will point out that they will need to set it and paint

294
01:22:13.199 --> 01:22:29.280
it. And we will also have landscaping. So you will be able to see the top of the units, but you will not likely be able to see the lines. We we would still like them to to run. >> Well, and they could they could actually say that on the other side of the wall they can't they can't bring it into the

295
01:22:29.280 --> 01:22:44.320
house at that point that they have to the 90 degrees. Right. >> Correct. And and would you would you accept a statement from the contractor to that? >> Well, I mean I I think I would. I mean I I I I don't like the look of the 90 degree. I know it's going to be obscured ultimately and it could be that there's

296
01:22:44.320 --> 01:23:00.960
no other way they can do it and so why are we delaying it for that? So, you know, I I would think it would make sense if we can put it to motion, but if we can if I was to propose a motion to grant this with the condition that those

297
01:23:00.960 --> 01:23:16.800
recommendations be followed up with staff and that we would rely on staff's uh determination. Okay. So, I have no illegal discuss that at all and how many on the board have a feeling about how we might do that

298
01:23:16.800 --> 01:23:36.239
>> or or would you rather just have them all come back and and and do it all over again? Not all over, but you know, >> off hand, the windows may be a challenge just because getting wood windows is a is uphill battle >> in the world of windows. Uh, as far as

299
01:23:36.239 --> 01:23:52.639
the conduits and how that the the lines are altered from the mini splits, it's if they have a a white or building colored coing over them, not going to you're not really going to notice them, >> right?

300
01:23:52.639 --> 01:24:06.159
>> All right. Well, I I will make a motion that we that we grant a certificate of appropriateness uh case number 26055 for 1706 pass away with the two

301
01:24:06.159 --> 01:24:22.960
conditions as outlined by staff with the uh recommendations to be followed up by staff and we would accept their

302
01:24:22.960 --> 01:24:39.120
um determination on that. Does that make sense though I said that? >> Because I I guess I'm wonder what happens if you say they can they can move the 90 degree line but they don't want to

303
01:24:39.120 --> 01:24:56.000
then if we already granted them because we've granted the certificate of appropriateness. I mean you know what I mean? >> I would think in that case depending on what happens with the windows we could potentially allow the window work to proceed. They will have a separate permit for the windows separate from the mini splits. The mini splits are current

304
01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:11.440
because they were installed without a permit. That is a pending code case. So, >> okay. So, we have we have options to control it is what I'm saying. >> Correct. But if if they were to just say they don't want to do it, we would bring them back. >> Okay. So, madam clerk, is that motion clear enough?

305
01:25:11.440 --> 01:25:27.679
staff would bring it back if what >> if if the if the recommendations did not satisfy >> their >> approval. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Can I get a second from anyone?

306
01:25:27.679 --> 01:25:45.199
>> I'll second it. >> Okay, madam clerk. Uh, roll call, please. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. Motion carries. Okay. So, now we're at

307
01:25:45.199 --> 01:26:04.639
action item >> 4 >> D >> D, certificate of appropriateness for demolition case number 26051 for the residents at 1063rd Avenue. >> This is applicant owner Irene Leensky,

308
01:26:04.639 --> 01:26:22.480
1063rd Avenue. This is a three family rather residence u that is considered a contributing structure to the Pasil Historic District. They're seeking to demolish the masonry singlestory residence containing three dwelling units according to the property appraiser and city licensing records.

309
01:26:22.480 --> 01:26:37.760
The residence is a relatively unadorned masonry residence that staff finds to be primarily contributing on its basis of its scale, compatibility with other structures built during the construction time frame, and limited frontage improvements since initial construction, which appear to have only involved an

310
01:26:37.760 --> 01:26:54.600
enclosure of the porch, as I mentioned in a previous case. It's very common in Pasil. The residence is designed to appear as a single family dwelling from the front and contains side entrances reached by walkways set tight to the building. see some photographs of the site here.

311
01:26:54.800 --> 01:27:12.080
Here's some photos of the interior of the structure from the applicant as well as some staff photos. This is a contributing structure. Um it would be limited to a stay of up to 30 days

312
01:27:12.080 --> 01:27:29.920
and the typical criteria are on the screen for demolition permits. with this one. Uh the stay could not be longer than 30 days. I did speak to the owner just shortly before the meeting. She is present. Um just to understand that any future development on this

313
01:27:29.920 --> 01:27:45.199
property that seeks more than one dwelling unit would be limited to the existing living square footage of the residence which is just under 2,000 square feet. There are interior requirements that of course were not required at the time that the home was built. Um, so we want to make sure that they understand that there would be a

314
01:27:45.199 --> 01:28:00.960
limitation for a two or three family home to be reconstructed on the property. Once they acknowledge that, we do ask that this case be approved without a stay on demolition and the owner is present. >> Miss Leinsky, you want to come forward, please?

315
01:28:00.960 --> 01:28:16.080
>> And Madame Clerk, I do believe she needs to be sworn. I >> was going to say she could come on to the microphone, but Madame Clerk needs to swear you in, which is standard procedure. You were just not here when she did that. >> Hi. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the information or testimony you

316
01:28:16.080 --> 01:28:33.040
are about to give is truthful? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Please state your name for the record. >> Irene Elizabeth. >> Okay. So, did you understand what Mr. Barry was talking about? >> I didn't understand what all the 30day stuff. >> No. Okay. I'll explain that. What? What? Because your house is contributing an

317
01:28:33.040 --> 01:28:48.960
old house. If we wanted to if we we can't deny you a demolition. Okay. But we can make it make you wait 30 days to do that because it's a contributing structure. We really never do that. But it's just something

318
01:28:48.960 --> 01:29:06.880
we can do. The idea would be we could then work on you for 30 days to say please don't demolish it. It's a historic structure. Okay. But yes, we've seen the photographs. So >> a life. >> Yes. So the bigger issue that we need to hear from you about is what Mr. Barry

319
01:29:06.880 --> 01:29:22.800
said was, you know, it's a it's it's as it is, it's a three unitit building, right? Once you demolish it, if you want to make it a three unitit building, you

320
01:29:22.800 --> 01:29:39.679
can't increase the square footage that it already exists. All right. Now, if you just want to demolish it and build a single family residence there, you're not controlled by anything. Do you understand that or do you want more

321
01:29:39.679 --> 01:29:56.080
clarification about that or have you talked about that or already? >> Well, no. Uh, well, I was just trying to get to the demolition. I didn't realize that there were contingencies. Um, if I wanted to, let's say, not build a three, but I

322
01:29:56.080 --> 01:30:11.199
wanted to build a two. I mean, I'm aging. I don't I don't have family. I even thought I could downsize and build a home there for myself. Maybe with um a second unit for a caretaker, right?

323
01:30:11.199 --> 01:30:27.600
>> So, what happens if you go to a two? Am I still limited to the square footage and I can't go up? >> You you can definitely build up and we are only looking at the living square footage. So, if you were to have a garage at the ground level, the stair access to the upper stories, none of

324
01:30:27.600 --> 01:30:44.000
that. None of that counts toward that limitation, but your existing living square footage, if you want more than one unit, so if you wanted a separate detached unit or attached duplex, you would be limited to what we estimate to be just under two 2,000 square feet.

325
01:30:44.000 --> 01:31:01.679
>> So my house and that unit would have to all be under 2,000. >> Correct. >> That's a bummer. >> Okay. >> Well, the idea is the way it is set up now is I think when this ordinance was enacted that they were

326
01:31:01.679 --> 01:31:16.719
concerned that these multifamily small units that were fairly typical on Pass a Grill that people would knock them down and then build a multifamily unit that was much bigger than it was originally.

327
01:31:16.719 --> 01:31:33.600
Therefore increasing the sky size and scale of everything down there on Pass Grill. They're trying to keep it a little bit maintained. Pardon me. And that's what the rules are now. And so like for example to answer your question to some degree if you let's say let's say it's 2,000 square

328
01:31:33.600 --> 01:31:49.199
feet of living footage you living the square footage. Okay. If you wanted to go to a single family it wouldn't be limited at all other than whatever the you know the limitations are of building a house. All right.

329
01:31:49.199 --> 01:32:05.360
>> I got two McMansions on either side. >> Exactly. >> Okay. So you know how big they can be built. >> Right. Now, if you wanted to make two units, you'd still be limited to the 2,000 square feet, but you could divide that up in some fashion. Okay?

330
01:32:05.360 --> 01:32:20.400
>> All right. >> And of course, if you wanted to, if you're talking about having a caretaker or somebody maybe in the future, you could also build a single family residence and just have an area that's defined for somebody to live in. You know what I It wouldn't it I'm just

331
01:32:20.400 --> 01:32:37.360
saying those are all things you could do however you want to do it. But we just want to make sure we that you know that when you when you demolish it, okay, as it is, you're if you want to make it more than one unit, you're limited in the rebuild to that square footage.

332
01:32:37.360 --> 01:32:53.199
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And if you're okay with that, that's fine. >> I have to be. >> Well, we have to make sure that you know that that's what the rules are. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And so this is just to make you understand that that's that you're agreeing you that you understand that's what the rules are,

333
01:32:53.199 --> 01:33:08.560
>> right? Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add about the demolition or anything that you think we need to know? >> Okay. I assume you you would request not to have a 30 day stay because you'd like to

334
01:33:08.560 --> 01:33:25.840
>> Yeah. AAA demolition has been waiting. >> Well, I noticed there's a sign already out front. So >> Oh, is there in the picture? There's a sign. >> Oh, well, we've been the girls have been calling me and calling me. >> They always want to advertise. So, that's okay. >> Actually, the scam calls, the scammed emails. I got another one again.

335
01:33:25.840 --> 01:33:42.159
>> Uh, yes, we are starting to be aware that some of that stuff is going on. Uh, once things get on the public record, some of bad actors get involved sometime, right? So, um, okay, with that, just to move things along, I

336
01:33:42.159 --> 01:33:59.040
will make a motion. Do you, Mr. Bear, you think we've satisfied the requirement? Okay, >> yes. >> Um, I make a motion that we grant uh the certificate of appropriates for demolition uh case number 26051 for the residents 1063rd Avenue without a 30-day

337
01:33:59.040 --> 01:34:13.199
stay. >> I'll second that motion. >> Madame Clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Memberurley? >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you very much. Thank you.

338
01:34:13.199 --> 01:34:29.280
>> Thank you, >> chair. I I did want to mention that the owner of the prior case is now present. >> Yes, >> I spoke with the city attorney and we can ask whether she is comfortable with

339
01:34:29.280 --> 01:34:45.920
us reopening to discuss those two details if the board is amendable to that. >> Sure. >> Should they take action before we ask her or >> No. Um, if we can Has she been swant to make a motion to reopen it? >> Uh, no. So, right now I just want her to

340
01:34:45.920 --> 01:35:01.440
consent on the record um to have that reconsidered. Uh, if she can be sworn first, I don't know that she's been sworn yet. Um, and then after that, a motion to reopen would be appropriate. >> Hlette, can you hear us? >> I can.

341
01:35:01.440 --> 01:35:17.760
>> We're going to swear you in for your case. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation you are about to give to the board is truthful? >> I do.

342
01:35:17.760 --> 01:35:33.760
>> Thank you. >> So, right before you joined the call, we had reviewed your case. The board took action. They had conditionally approved it based on a few items. Action has

343
01:35:33.760 --> 01:35:49.920
already been taken. So, we will need to reopen the case. Do we have your consent to reopen the case? >> I guess so. I didn't realize that it had been closed. But yes, you do. >> But we we just had already voted on it.

344
01:35:49.920 --> 01:36:06.639
So, that's just a procedural thing. Since we're going to talk about it again, we need to reopen it. So, you you vote. Let us do that. >> You have my permission. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So with with the case, the board had recommended approval with three

345
01:36:06.639 --> 01:36:22.400
conditions and then asked us to engage you to get more information on the remaining two. So for the mini split units, they had asked that there be some kind of a chase or other obstruction for

346
01:36:22.400 --> 01:36:37.600
the wires that run from the unit into the wall. It's currently black. We would like that to either be painted or set within something that matches the color of the building. Do you have any concern with that? Is that something you believe you could achieve?

347
01:36:37.600 --> 01:36:54.480
>> Your wish is my command on that one. >> We had also, you and I had spoken about putting some kind of a hedge or other type of shrub in front of the units. You are still willing to do that. Is that correct? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. The third item that they had

348
01:36:54.480 --> 01:37:11.119
asked to engage you on had been the wires itself as they run into the building. They currently jog at a 90° angle to be located just under the window. Do you happen to know why that was done? Is it possible to scale back

349
01:37:11.119 --> 01:37:27.119
the exterior wiring so that it can run directly down from the units and then go into the wall or is there some kind of obstruction that requires it to jog at that 90° angle? >> You know, I can't believe that somebody

350
01:37:27.119 --> 01:37:43.520
wouldn't have drawn a straight line if it were practically applicable. So, I would have to check into that one. There may very well be a 90° angle reasoning, but I have no knowledge right now as to why that would be. >> Okay.

351
01:37:43.520 --> 01:38:00.560
>> For the windows, we had asked that horizontal mutton be applied on the to to match the current look of the windows. That's usually something that your contractor would engage with the business they purchased the window from.

352
01:38:00.560 --> 01:38:16.719
So they would just maintain on the outside a thin horizontal strip to match the current four light pattern. Do you have any issue with that as a requirement? Uh I'm not really sure. And you're talking about the one strip and I I'd

353
01:38:16.719 --> 01:38:33.040
have to review. I know Brandon knows that I had sent him different pictures that the exact replica of those windows is no longer available and so it would be as close as it could be to like in kind. And the only thing I would say is if you needed one strip, maybe it could

354
01:38:33.040 --> 01:38:48.880
be painted on or it could be an extra strip of wood that goes on the window to mock that appearance. >> That that would typically >> certainly we will get it as close as possible. >> Thank you. It would typically be a wood

355
01:38:48.880 --> 01:39:04.639
strip that's often applied at the factory. Um your contractor would just request that when they're purchasing the windows. I believe you said you you have you're you're purchasing the windows from a super center, correct? You have a store that you picked them out.

356
01:39:04.639 --> 01:39:20.800
>> Uh that that was the original plan. >> Okay. The other question we had and I know you've been engaged on the windows. The windows that you had proposed are vinyl. Um the windows currently are wood sash and wood sash is usually more

357
01:39:20.800 --> 01:39:38.920
appropriate for historic structures. Have you looked into any kind of a wood sash window? Is it Did you face any kind of challenge acquiring those? >> Yes, I would have to dig into the city's pockets for it because wood windows are prohibitively expensive.

358
01:39:39.920 --> 01:39:55.600
They all have to be custommade at that point. >> Understood. >> Okay. Does anybody with Thank you, ma'am. Does anybody >> You're welcome. And if you're finished with me before we you finish with me, go ahead. But I just had one more comment

359
01:39:55.600 --> 01:40:10.719
to make at some point. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, just I think I caught the tail end of somebody else's conversation and I I mentioned it briefly to Brandon in an email, but I didn't elaborate on it. I got a very extensive fishing scam prior

360
01:40:10.719 --> 01:40:27.679
to this meeting that was requesting $5,200 be given to them uh before the meeting took place today. And it had every one of your names on it. >> Yes. I I'm not Thank you for telling us about that. I do we are aware

361
01:40:27.679 --> 01:40:44.080
>> I was kind the other day on a on a demolition permit about Excuse me. No, on the historic designation of the warf that they got fished that there was all this money that was still owed the city before we could have the hearing. So,

362
01:40:44.080 --> 01:40:59.119
>> oh, you should have heard me here. I can't believe it. I have to send $5,200 before they'll proceed and proceed. And they used it's probably somebody in Africa that got trained in English. They used all these esquires and and please

363
01:40:59.119 --> 01:41:15.040
if you kind and thank you so much for your consideration, but with all your names, the city logo and everything. >> Yep. No, I the one that I've seen the one I talked about had all had staff member names on it, not our So they've included our names now, but there's some

364
01:41:15.040 --> 01:41:30.880
bad actors out there for sure. I'm glad you didn't fall. >> No, I am. I am, too. What clued me in was they wanted the money wired within 12 hours to a bank account in Minnesota. And I really don't think you people bank

365
01:41:30.880 --> 01:41:46.480
in Minnesota. >> Make wire transfers. You know, it's probably a scam, right? So, uh, >> so you gave us some information. >> Just wanted to let you know. >> We Thank you. You gave us some information that we hadn't heard, you know, before. So, let us just discuss it for a moment. And I don't think we have

366
01:41:46.480 --> 01:42:03.199
any more questions for you, but >> Okay. And I will send Brandon the screenshots of their actual I didn't want to forward the email because I don't like to open them up because that spreads it, but I'll send him screenshots of what I got. How's that? >> I I'm I'm sure he'd love to get it. >> Thank you.

367
01:42:03.199 --> 01:42:19.119
>> He can have a He can have a good Friday left. TGIF, everybody. >> Okay. Well, hold on a second. Let's We're going to have to make a discussion. We might have you might want to say something else. So, based upon >> Okay, I'm here. Okay. Based on what um she stated, how do you all feel about

368
01:42:19.119 --> 01:42:35.360
those conditions that we were kind of waiting to hear about? Anybody have any comments on those? I think we're just really talking about uh I mean, she's agreed to do the painting and the and the landscaping

369
01:42:35.360 --> 01:42:52.000
coverage. So, now we're just talking about getting more information or just being okay with the 90° jog and whether she can use vinyl instead of wood uh on the window. >> I I will make a comment only in that,

370
01:42:52.000 --> 01:43:06.880
you know, I think we have to be very sensitive to pricing that our our community is really facing right now. And as much as we don't want vinyl windows to be replaced there, if we can make them look as historically accurate as possible, um I think we have to be

371
01:43:06.880 --> 01:43:23.119
mindful to people. >> Well, I would agree. I think that's a reasonable way to look at it. Um anybody else any feelings on that particular item? >> I would agree with that as well. >> And then about uh the 90° jog, do you want to get more information about that?

372
01:43:23.119 --> 01:43:39.760
I think what she said was obviously a pretty obvious comment that she would hope to think that if they could have done it without the 90° turn they would have which of course I think we all thought that when we first looked at it. Um you know I I would say with the

373
01:43:39.760 --> 01:43:56.480
agreement to have it painted uh and with landscaping put in front of it that that really pretty much solves that problem. So >> I I would add also just tighten them up because there's a lot of extra there and if you can do it real tight like I when you look at the photo like they can go

374
01:43:56.480 --> 01:44:13.440
right tight underneath that window >> um with the trim with the coverage where it I mean it's all like kind of snaked. It's not a real tight 90° >> um on the photo that we have. Um and that's what actually to me makes it look messy. So if if it can be tighter and

375
01:44:13.440 --> 01:44:31.520
like if they can come along the trim of the window underneath, you know, I I if they can't go straight, >> maybe hide it in some way, >> right? >> Did you understand that comment, Miss Pella, and do you have any comment on that? >> Uh I'm going to have a contractor take a

376
01:44:31.520 --> 01:44:47.520
look at it. >> Okay. >> And there will be a written copy of these notes for me to review, correct? so I can explain it to them. >> I I will follow up with you after the meeting >> with all the details. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay.

377
01:44:47.520 --> 01:45:02.560
>> All right. Well, with that, anybody have a motion? >> I would first move to reconsider. Um, >> so that would be the preliminary motion and then if that passes, >> okay, first of then I'll let's do a motion to reconsider the previous vote

378
01:45:02.560 --> 01:45:19.280
we had for the certificate of appropriateness. uh of case number 26055 for 1706 Passenger roll away. >> Uh I'll second that motion. >> Madam clerk, roll call, please.

379
01:45:19.280 --> 01:45:35.119
>> Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Member Zeleleski? >> Yes. >> Member Dashel? >> Yes. >> Lowry? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Okay. So now I would like to make a motion for to grant the certificate of appropriateness on case number 26055

380
01:45:35.119 --> 01:45:53.199
for the home at 1706 Pastor Girl way. um with the two conditions that staff recommended and with the asurances that Miss Pella said she would follow up on. We we we

381
01:45:53.199 --> 01:46:10.000
will not require wooden sash and she's going to have her contractor look at the uh the the 90° angle on the conduit. Does that make sense or is that too

382
01:46:10.000 --> 01:46:24.719
involved? >> Okay, >> if we're ready, I'll second it. >> All right. Uh, Madam Clerk, roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Member Dashill? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes.

383
01:46:24.719 --> 01:46:41.280
>> Motion carries. >> That's my phone. >> Yeah, you got it. You okay? Brandon's going to follow up with with >> Okay. What's your dog's name? >> This is Baby. And Baby is really

384
01:46:41.280 --> 01:46:59.119
vocalizing for you today. >> Thank you, ma'am. Have a nice afternoon. >> OH, TELL YEAH. Tell tell all my friends in this city at at the desk and all the baby is still very much alive, but she had to go in the car too much today and she's not happy about that.

385
01:46:59.119 --> 01:47:13.679
>> She looks like she's hungry. >> I think she's sending you kisses. >> All right. Thank you for the kisses, baby. >> Thank you. >> All right. Byebye. Okay. So, >> everyone done with me? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Have a great weekend. TGIF.

386
01:47:13.679 --> 01:47:28.960
>> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Oh, by the way, it's hotter in Minnesota than in Florida, so I amazingly have you beat this week. >> Interesting. It's pretty hot down here, but I believe you. >> I know. Bye. Bye.

387
01:47:28.960 --> 01:47:45.600
>> Bye. Okay, so now we done we've covered all the action items, right? >> Yes. regret that. Okay. So now going to the discussion items five, we already did the design review.

388
01:47:45.600 --> 01:48:00.880
So 5B was followup items. Is that something specifically you had, Brandon? >> It's just a standing item that we have for anything that we might need to follow up. >> Okay. So, so one of the things I know we talked about, we wanted to discuss or I wanted you to explain to the rest of the

389
01:48:00.880 --> 01:48:18.000
board uh was about a proposal that staff might have about changing the rules on some of the quorums on such some of things. >> Yeah. So, this is the only board in the city that requires four members present to take action. There is one type of

390
01:48:18.000 --> 01:48:33.280
request that does require the city commission to have a supermajority, but this is the only board. It's not part of the city's ordinance. It's actually part of the rules that were adopted when this board was the aesthetic and historic review board back in the early 2000s.

391
01:48:33.280 --> 01:48:50.159
We are proposing to take a resolution to city commission at the next meeting, which will be before your next meeting to reduce that down to three for everything but substantial improvement variances. So any kind of substantial damage or improvement variance that this

392
01:48:50.159 --> 01:49:05.360
board would typically see would remain at four members. It would be a four member quorum and a four member to approve. Um so they would still have the option to move that forward with the full board or they could have action taken with four for all other actions.

393
01:49:05.360 --> 01:49:21.440
That would be local designation, the certificate of appropriateness cases we saw today, both demolition and four improvements. Those would be able to proceed with a three- member vote. That is what we're proposing. >> Okay. So, >> and now everybody I'm sure everybody understands that and you know we we've

394
01:49:21.440 --> 01:49:37.360
had some recent issues because of some uh members not being available for a variety of reasons that we couldn't do even though we had three people we couldn't vote on some of these action items. So, I I think we all agree we'd love to see that go forward. So, I just want to make sure you all aware that's

395
01:49:37.360 --> 01:49:54.800
in the works. Okay. Um talking about meetings and quorums and stuff. So you think that would apply that might if it goes through that would happen by the next meeting. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Because the next meeting is for July 9th and I I kind of have a conflict

396
01:49:54.800 --> 01:50:11.679
right now and so I I want to make sure and of course Holl's not here. I wanted to make sure that we're going to have four people but I guess we can if if it goes through we can technically have three. So I guess my question to the board members here is anybody planning on not being here on July 9th?

397
01:50:11.679 --> 01:50:26.560
>> No. >> No. Okay. So, we should be able to even if I don't if if I'm not here, we can go forward. So, Sean, you'll have to be in charge if you can handle that. >> I get to handle the gavl again. >> Okay. Um the other thing

398
01:50:26.560 --> 01:50:42.960
I don't know if I what else did I add? I was talking about I want to talk about plaques and this is kind of for the new member as well because you know one of the things that we are you know asked to do or be involved with one of the few powers we actually have

399
01:50:42.960 --> 01:50:59.520
is the creation and installation of plaques although they're historic plaques there are other ways to go around to go by around that not around it but other ways to achieve that but being said I would I would and we talked about this the other day I would like people to start thinking about

400
01:50:59.520 --> 01:51:14.719
some air some things that might require historic plaques. It's my belief I feel that the more we get out there, the more we can make people aware that there's historical stuff going on and it's always good advertising. For example, I was thinking the Beach Theater that that should have a plaque in front of it in

401
01:51:14.719 --> 01:51:32.239
my opinion. Okay. Uh I think the Wararf now with all the information we have about Harry Bell and there's there's a lot more detail, you know. I mean, for example, just one little tidbit, there's a little separate structure there at the uh at the restaurant on the

402
01:51:32.239 --> 01:51:48.159
left hand side before you walk inside. And I've been told that that structure was actually on a dock >> like on 11th or 12th first had his little fishing >> store, I guess, back like in the early

403
01:51:48.159 --> 01:52:03.199
20s and they moved that up to that location. So, there's a lot of really interesting history about that location and I think that would be something uh that would be viable for a plaque. Um,

404
01:52:03.199 --> 01:52:20.480
so I'm not trying to get an answer now. I'm just saying I think we should if we can all start thinking there might be some other things you all could suggest and if there's a you know things you know I I was involved in putting a plaque there at Mary Pier spent some time and putting

405
01:52:20.480 --> 01:52:37.280
that together. Uh, you know, we we would want to have something written out that we could look at. Um, but I think the beach theater for sure and then the warf are two things I can think of right off the bat that we might want to go forward with that kind of stuff. So, I would ask maybe for the next meeting or the meeting after that we just do an update

406
01:52:37.280 --> 01:52:53.440
and say talk about whether there's some other areas we think could require plaques, right? And it doesn't have to be in pass the grill, you know, I mean, by any means. And you know there's a lot of his not designated historic areas

407
01:52:53.440 --> 01:53:08.800
specifically but that would start discussion about areas that maybe should be and you know you know I mean I sometimes think about the area where GG's is right there on the corner of 46.

408
01:53:08.800 --> 01:53:25.840
I think that building's been there for a long time. In fact, I think it was like a a strip club at one time, believe it or not, like in the 50s or 60s called the Gang Plank or something like that. I've heard somebody supposedly say, I'm

409
01:53:25.840 --> 01:53:41.760
serious. So, there's probably some historical aspect of those that building there that I don't know if we want to have a a plaque that talks about, you know, St. Pete Beach, First Drip Club, but uh you know, there is some of those

410
01:53:41.760 --> 01:53:57.440
buildings are pretty old. That's what I'm saying. And uh so I encourage our new member to look at, you know, think about that stuff as well. Okay. Anybody have anything else? Was there anything else that I that we wanted to discuss or I wanted to discuss? Madame clerk, I think that was

411
01:53:57.440 --> 01:54:21.239
it. Oh. Uh I think that's it. All right. Anything Anybody else have anything they want to add? >> I'm good. >> All right. Ajourn. Thank y'all. >> By the by the way, the house on 14th