Please all rise for the pledge of of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Uh, madame clerk, can I get a roll
call, please? Member Hurley, present. Member Dashiel here. Member Hawin Smith here. Chair Hurley or Lowry, sorry. Here. We have a quorum. Okay. Uh, first on Hello everyone. Welcome to the May 1st,
2025 Historic Preservation Board meeting. The first thing on our agenda here is the approval of the agenda. Has everybody had an opportunity to look at that? And does anybody have anything to add to that? Um, we are going to add as a standing
item between approval of agenda and audience comments the swearing in of anyone who's going to make testimony or public comments. Okay. So that'll be for today it'll be 1B I guess or okay or 2 A. I don't know what somewhere in the Anybody have anything else they'd like
to get on for discussion on this meeting? I'd love to have an update on the status of our post office. Okay, we'll call that 5D, post office update. All right, anybody
else? Chair of staff could add an item on House Bill 1535. Yep. Okay, we'll make that 5e. I would like to add 5F that will be uh a short discussion on the shuffleboard clubhouse and 5G which would be again a
fairly short discussion on Mary Pier just kind of updates on those and then um let's make 5H I just want to talk briefly about the design guide book that
we just spoke about a few times. And and then the other thing I would add and I'm going to say it right now so we don't have to add it is there is a street party next Saturday on pass a grill in the evening and there's going to be a little booth set up there that
will just have some historic information and stuff u if anybody wants to see that. So, okay. So, let's get back to the approval of the agenda. Anybody have a motion on that? Make a motion to approve the agenda.
I'll second that. Madame Clerk, roll call, please. Member Hurley? Yes. Member Dashiel? Yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith? Yes. Chair Lowry? Yes. Motion carries. Okay. At this time, we're going to ask anyone who intends to speak today to pe
please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk. Thank you. Anyone who will be speaking into the speaking to the board or making a presentation needs to be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you are about to give or present to
the board is truthful? Yes. So sworn. Okay. So, uh, next we have a motion or is anyone Well, we've already we've already approved the agenda, excuse me. Next we have audience comments. Now, this is
your opportunity to speak for three minutes about any issue you would like to uh for those three minutes that affect potentially what we're doing here. If you want to speak specifically about an item that's on the agenda for today, you and wait and speak when that
item comes up on the agenda, which would make more sense. Um, does anybody have anything they'd like to any audience comments at this stage? Okay, seeing none, we'll go on to uh number three, approval of minutes. Has anybody had an opportunity to read
the minutes from April 3rd, 2025 meeting? Okay, I have. And in that regard, I will make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second it. Madam clerk, roll call, please. Member Dashiel? Yes. Member Hurley? Yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith? Yes. Chair
Larry? Yes. Motion carries. Okay, moving on. Four action items. Action item 4A is the local historic designation case number 255049 for the residents at 10612th
Avenue. Lynn. Good afternoon and thank you. Um Lynn Rosetti, uh contract planner with the city of St. Pete Beach. I'm going to be going over the historic designation report for 10612th
Avenue. So this is um this little single family house. It's a one-story frame vernacular that was constructed in 1940. It's a contributing structure to the National Register Historic District in Pasa Grillil. The um building has a
gable roof, one over one and six over six double hung vinyl sash windows and a front porch. There's a garage in the rear. The property appears very well cared for through the ages as a um and it is a preWorld War II cottage that's
significant in the areas of architecture and community planning and development. Um you know how I like to have human interest stories with the cases where possible. That little boy there who's about five years old or so
is is Bradley Fletcher, the owner of the property today. I believe he's here to talk about the to talk about the building as well. Staff is recommending approval of the local historic designation of this wellpreserved
residential cottage located at 106 12th Avenue because its use is it reflects the broad cultural, economic and social history of Passril neighborhood and St. Pete Beach and it is reflective of Pastor Grillils and St. Pete Beach's
community planning and development efforts. If you've got any questions, I'll be glad to try to try and answer them for you. Otherwise, perhaps the applicant would like to come up and speak. Thank you. Thank you, M. Anybody have questions for Miss Rosetti? Okay. Would the applicant like to speak?
Mr. Fletcher here. Okay. I was hoping he had his sailor's hat on, so I don't recognize him anywhere. Uh, we don't need comment from him. Anybody have any discussion that on this issue? Seems like the staff did a pretty good
report here. Uh, I will make a motion to approve for local historic designation case number 255049 the residence at 106 9th Avenue, excuse me, 106 12th Avenue. Then I'll second. Madam clerk, roll
call, please. Member Hurley, yes. Member Dashio, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, yes. Chair Lari, yes. Motion carries. Okay, going on to 4B, local historic designation number
24068 for the home at 52177th Avenue. Miss Rosetti, thank you very much. This property is a single family mid-century cottage style residential
property located within the North Beach area of the city. And um they are requesting a local landmark designation for the property that is typical of properties located within this district uh the North Beach residential area.
Sorry. Let me get through this quickly. Okay. The this property at 52177th Avenue is one of those I don't know I look at them as kind of iconic beach type houses. It's a little cottage, not a lot
of square footage, but it's been very well preserved and um it's very it's very cute. It caught my eye when I was last year when I was riding around deciding on what properties I would photograph to send to the state along
with my grant application for that the north of each area, which we're waiting on a decision. That decision is going to come around the first part of July if we're going to get that grant. But in any case, I did go ahead and put together a Florida master site file form
on the property and um it's it's just very cute. I don't know if in the photos those are some previous photos. So staff finds that this residential structure is a
well-maintained single family residential structure and it's a kind of an old Florida cottage type character. the name of this house on it and it's uh it's on
the mailbox that's out in front and that is Coconut Cottage. So, um that's how it's known as the Coconut Cottage and um I say it caught my attention when I was doing the survey and that was one of the ones that I sent in with other photographs of the
character of this district. Staff finds staff is supporting this application to locally designate 52177th Avenue as a historic building. Staff finds the building is significant in the following areas. It exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic or
social history of the city, the county, the state, or the United States. And it is reflective of North Beach and St. Pete Beach community planning and development efforts. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. And um I think the owners, the property
owners had indicated that they would be here today. So maybe they're here and would like to speak. Thank you. Yeah. And before that happens, I'd just like to say I meant to mention on the last uh designation we did too that that had a really well done narrative that was included with the report as does this
one. So, you know, we're not just burning through these things. Staff has done a pretty a very good job of putting all this together and, you know, making it pretty easy for us. Thank you. Uh, and so is there anybody here that wants to speak on this designation? Okay. Does anybody have any
questions for Miss Rosetti? I do not. All right. I had a motion to approve case number 24068 for designation of the residence at 52177th Avenue as a local historic resource. I'll second that. Madam clerk,
roll call, please. Member Hurley, yes. Member Dashiel, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, yes. Chair Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Next, we're on to 4C, which is a certificate uh of appropriateness for demolition. This is number
255046 for the residents at 10004 Pasal Way. Hi. How you doing? You identify yourself for the record, please? I'm Laura Davis. I'm the owner of 104 Pasal Way. Okay.
We do have if the applicant would like to speak now, we do have a presentation. Yeah. Let let that's fine. You want you want to speak now or you want to do a presentation first. Why don't you let him do a presentation and then you can Okay. My husband put this together. Okay. Well, let let you need to do you're going to do a presentation. We
could pull up the current PowerPoint and then we'll switch over to the applicants. I just have it. The city does a lot of this for you. So, go ahead, Brandon. Can we get the PowerPoint pulled up, please? We go. Okay. Applicant and owner are Lauren and Dean Davis. They are
present. 104 Pastor Railways property address and they're requesting a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the contributing single family structure. Here's some photographs of the site. This was one of the original structures on the original
um designation of the Pastoral Historic District in 1989. You can see a photo from that survey on the left side of the screen. Another taken from Google Maps on the right. This was originally the first Federal Savings and Loan building. It was built in the late 1940s and later
converted into a residence. Just under 500 square ft based on our records. Um, obviously a very small building for for Pascal Way. Uh, you can see here some other photos in the
mid2010s. Uh, here are some poststorm photos of the site. Um, we also received some photos from the applicant as well. Obviously, very extensive damage to the structure. The city did determine that it was damaged to 100% of its depreciated value. On the basis of this, uh the city
has the ability to impose a 30-day stay to discuss preservation incentives for contributing structures. Uh staff does not find that to be appropriate in this case. Uh we do support the request to demolish the building without a stay. It has clearly sustained extensive damage.
The lot could support a redeveloped single family residence. It actually has a mixeduse zoning. It's a residential office retail, so there are other options, but detached single family is one of them. the lot does meet the appropriate size to redevelop a single family home if desired. So, we do
request a motion to approve this case 255046 for demolition without a stay. And we have a presentation for item 4C. If we could bring that up for the applicant. I think they're mostly the same pictures that you had, so we don't necessarily
need to go through them all again. Okay. Did you have anything to add for the board? No, I we're we're very sad to have lost our cottage, but we're excited to rebuild. We're going to be rebuilding a single family home. Okay. Yeah. So, Okay. Excellent. you know, and are you the folks that originally bought this like 10 years ago or something? Yeah,
like like Yeah. 12 years ago. Yeah. So, you're the ones that converted it kind of to the way it was now. We did. We added that back room. We Yes. We put the blue siding up. We Yeah. We love being there every weekend. But, no, I just want to tell you that it's was great that what you did and I'm, you know, I
think we all were so sad that the hurricane really demolished your place, you know, as far as that goes. And I'm happy to hear you're going to rebuild and that your lot is big enough to kind of do what you want to do. Yeah, we're going to put something nice on there. Yeah. The only thing I would ask you and I know you're been in stuff when you
start putting your plans together, you know, check with the resources at the city and that kind of stuff if if you want because, you know, we have some certain designs. I know you like the way your house looked and that's great, but you know, the staff is able to help in some fashion if there's some questions you have or, you know, certain designs
you're interested in. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, okay. Anything else you'd like to add? Um, no, that's it. Okay. Uh, I will make a motion then to grant the Actually, I just have a Yes, sure. I'm
I'm sorry. Pardon. So, um, with demolition, I know the AAA sign's been up obviously for a number of months. I drive by there every day. Yes. I'm sad because you did a beautiful job. Um, but I've seen them the sign up for months. Um, and it looks like there's still it's
still kind of wide open for people to be able to access your property. Um, so is there a way that you could maybe close off that front section? Um, as soon as we get this approval, we're going to immediately demo it purposes just
because going by, you know, my thought is always it's hazardous, you know, to people, children. I agree. That kind of thing. And it's unfortunately been that way. So, yeah, we're actually using a different company, not AAA, to do the demo. Um, and we've already got I've
already paid him. So, as soon as we get the approval from you guys, he's going to send his people out there. So, it's going to be a short time, but I can try to do something in the meantime. Yeah, just for neighborly purposes and then even just for me driving by. It's a sad thing to see and I'm again very sorry
for your loss. Thank you. I know. It was so sad. It really was. But we're going to put something cute there. So, I'm excited for that. You got to look at the positive. That's right. So, part of the demolition process and approval is fencing, correct? Yes. So, it'll have to
have at least a temporary barrier around it for protection. Correct. As well. And then how long does that need to stay up? Typically through the demo. Um, they usually have the option to remove after the demolition's completed. Okay. So, so
the person who's demoing it needs to put a fence around it during the demo process. Yes. Okay. Prior to and during Okay. I'm sure they probably know that. I'm surprised TripleA didn't Well, I guess they couldn't have put a a fence previous or prior to
um having this approval. Yeah, that's Yeah. Okay. All right. I make a motion for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of 104 pass away, which is case number 255046. And I would make the motion that
we do not have a 30-day stay. I'll approve that. Second, Madam Clerk, roll call, please. Member Dashiel, yes. Member Hurley, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, yes. Sher Lowry, yes. Motion carries. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you. Will I get like an email? I don't know how they'll we'll send out a notice that you've been approved. Yes. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Thank you. You too. Brandon, I have a follow-up question. I didn't want it to interfere with any decision on that, but
um is that parcel accepted from the Pasal Historic District or is that included? That it is included. It is included. Okay. And that RR2 zoning that is ROR. It's residential office retail,
so it could be mixed use. Correct. All right. Moving on. 4 D is a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of 10412th Avenue, case number 2547. Brandon, you have a presentation for that? Just a brief presentation. And
we have Zack Osborne with Green Street Homes present as well. If we could pull up the PowerPoint. I'm actually Dave. David, I'm sorry. Is Is Zach present? No, I'm sorry. It's okay. that came uh David and Miam Garcowitz are present um
as as owners. Uh this is a certificate of appropriateness. It is also for demolition of the contributing primary residence in the guest house at one of 412th Avenue. Here are some photographs of the site. The board has seen this recently um as a lot split discussion.
This also went to the city commission that is approved. So this is the request for the demolition of the two buildings on the property. This was part of the boundary increase in 2003 of the historic district. It also remained both structures remained on the uh survey in
2015 when the city reserveyed its historic resources. There we go. Some photos from the mid uh 2010s and early uh 2020. I can see here the poststorm um
condition as I mentioned before um this has already gone through for the lot split request. The applicant is creating two lots uh each meets the minimum zoning requirements for the district. They would each be capable of supporting one house. Uh neither would be able to support a guest suite. So the two units
that are currently on the property would be reallocated um west and east on the on the platted lots that were approved. Uh this is a contributing resource. So the board can impose a stay of up to 30 days. Staff is not um requesting that
for this for this case. Um it is clear that these structures have sustained substantial damage. We find it unreasonable to request that they be restored. Um as as I mentioned before, they have already gone through the lots split request. One thing I did want to make the applicant, the owner um aware
of is that there is currently an option for um new residences to be developed to the underlying zoning district standards. That is pending removal in the pass overlay district amendments. They would each be able to support a single family home. However, they would
not be able to develop without that design review uh building to the overlays. That is pending removal if those amendments are adopted. would not change the development rights for the properties. They would be able to support a single family home on each proposed lot. Um but it would affect the
the design review requirement. So with that said, um we do recommend a motion to approve case 255047 for the demolition of the contributing structures on the property without a stay on demolition. Just a question I have for you, Brandon.
I know you said two structures, but they're both on the same lot, right? That correct? Yes. And and I know you just said it, but I I missed that part. Are they going to be able to rebuild on that one lot, two structures, or do they have to just go to a single family residence? It would need to be a single family on each. We still do allow for
the detached structures, a detached garage if they choose to have one, but it could not contain a living unit in it. It would only be the single primary structure on each. And have you had that conversation with this gentleman? Sometimes we just have to get this on the record so you understand what he's saying that you know if you knock the
one house you build one in one okay and what he said about the potential change to the underlying zone. Did you understand all of that? Yeah. And the goal is still to build one and one if there's some accommodations that need to be when you when you build if you build
under the Pascal overlay or under underlying zone there's a little bit different things not much but have you looked into that or do you understand? Yeah and we we'll work with it and we're working with an architect and developer. Our main thing is we just want to we love pass we just want to get back out
there. So yeah. All right. Excellent. Um and and I just feel like I have to ask these questions. I know you you've been you know you have an option to get it historically designated and and and fix it up potentially but that may not be worth it to do that but you've looked
through that and you're satisfied with your decision to knock it down. Okay. I just want to make sure you get out of stuff. All right. Anybody else have any questions or anything you like to say sir? Please appreciate you guys supporting so we can get back to Pas. Yeah. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve case number
255047 for the demolition of 1041 12th Avenue. I'll second that. Without a stay. Without a stay. Okay. And just for the record to add to that motion, it's case number 255047. So we've had a first and a
second without a stay. Uh Madame Clerk, roll call, please. Member Hurley. Yes. Member Dashiel. Yes. Vice Chair Hawkins Smith. Yes. Chair Lowry. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Now we're at 4E, which is certificate of appropriateness for the
demolition of 10720th Avenue, which is case number 25506. Mr. Barry, do you have this? Yes, I do. You pull the PowerPoint up. So uh this is request for the demolition of the single family residence which is
a contributing structure at 10720th Avenue. The applicant Arc Stroyki is here for Patrick Dufour. Here's some photographs of the site. This was also picked up in the city's boundary increase of the historic district back in 2003. It remained a
contributing resource in the 2015 reervey. You can see on the right the condition of the home in 2011 on the left in 2015 and in 2022. It did have that well currently does have that interesting um exposed
brick. So here are some post hurricane photos of the structure. This is a contributing resource. 30-day stay can be imposed. Uh staff does support the request to demolish the building without the stay. We have had what are now fairly extensive conversations with the
applicant regarding the redevelopment. They will be returning to the board in the next month or two to discuss a design review. My understanding is they are seeking a variance to redevelop particularly to the rear setback if not possibly also the front setback uh depending on the outcome of the design
review. The existing structure on the site is non-conforming to setbacks particularly in the rear of the site. I just wanted and the applicant is now aware of this. We we have talked with them at length but I just wanted the applicant to acknowledge that in the redevelopment the expectation would be
that they redevelop to the building type which is the house medium structure. Uh the historic preservation board can make a recommendation on that design review but it ultimately does need to go to the board of adjustment uh for approval for that additional encroachment that they're seeking toward the setbacks. Um
so I just wanted the applicant to be aware of that. I believe they are aware of that at this point in time. So, with that being said, um we do recommend that this case 25506 be approved uh without a stay on demolition. Okay. Mr. Barry, just so I
can clarify a little bit on what you just said about the board of adjustment there. So, they you've seen a design for the new residence in which they'd have to go through the board of adjustment. Correct. That will be following the design review with the historic preservation board. The historic preservation board does have the ability
to not give variances but approve lesser setbacks for contributing structures but when they're redeveloped they have to comply with the building types and they'll be encroaching into those building type setbacks. Okay. So, and uh is the gentleman here for that?
Yeah, please if you'll come forward and state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Mike Sigvic. I'm the director of construction. Mark was a little ill today so I'm here. Okay. So, here we got a little bit of a potential dilemma here. So, you Brandon need an
acknowledgement from the owner that he understands that if he knocks this house down, he might not be able to build what he would like to build today. Correct. And we've spoken with the agent at length and I believe you understand that as well. And you're satisfied this is enough to follow that to do that.
Sometimes we the owner has also signed an authorization for the agent to represent. So, perfect. I missed that. All right. Very good. So, we all on the same page as far as that goes. All right. Anything else you'd like to tell us about this? No. No. We're We're ready to go. He's ready to go as long as you guys give us your blessing. Are you going to build a new brick structure?
I'm I'm joking, right? It's one of the few though that's still out there, I think. Yeah. Uh it's unique. Actually, we're saving some of the brick. So, okay. Uh, anybody have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve case number
255056 for 10720th Avenue without a stay of demolition. I'll second. Madam clerk, roll call, please. Member Dashiel, yes. Member Hurley, yes. Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, yes. Chair
Larry, yes. Motion carries. Right. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Have a great day. You too. Okay. Now we go on to 4F which is certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of 100 Passover way case number 2551. Do you have that Mr. Barry as
well? I do. So this one is also tied in with the design review which follows in item 5A. We do have the applicant and their agent present. This is a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of two of the three residential structures on the
property of 100 Pasil Way. Uh both of those structures are deemed contributing resources to the Pasil Historic District and one of the structures is actually two separate structures connected by a breezeway. There is a non-contributing structure at the northwest side of the
property that is proposed to be um kept. It will remain Let's see. So, here are some photographs of the site. Uh, this is showing the location of the site. Um, the two buildings that are being pointed to or the ones that are proposed for
demolition. As mentioned before, the structure at the northwest corner will be preserved. Here's some photos of the site. Um, it was picked up in the boundary increase. Uh the city did not originally survey this area for the 1989
historic district, but it was picked up in the 2003 boundary increase and it remained a contributing property in the 2015 reervey. This of course was the original barracks. Um they're fairly unadorned utilitarian structures, but they obviously have um significant
historic value uh to to the development in pass in the 1940s. Uh here is the structures in 2022 and uh you can see the um extensive damage to the structures post hurricane. These are contributing
structures. Um a state could be placed on each for up to 30 days to discuss preservation incentives. Um as mentioned this is proposed for design review. the applicant uh is seeking to redevelop uh the contributing structures on the site.
They will be completely demolished and and redeveloped um as proposed for the design review on the subsequent item. Um staff does support the request to demolish the buildings without a stay. We do seek historic preservation board input on the following item regarding the proposed redevelopment of
the property through the accompanying design review. um an acknowledgement from the applicant. Um they have made application for the design review as well as variances. Those will move on to the board of adjustment in uh at the
next meeting. Uh there is a current code requirement that only allows a onetoone replacement of developed space that that is one of the variances that has been requested. Um there is also limitation based on the eight parking spaces that is proposed on the site. This will be
considered a courtyard apartment redevelopment. There would be a limitation of each unit to one bedroom due to those parking requirements or again a need for an expanded variance. Uh the applicant has applied for accompanying variances as just mentioned that would allow for the structure to be
redeveloped as proposed in the design review that will be heard by the board of adjustment in May. In absence of these variances, the applicant may only currently redevelop the existing eight units with the same developed square footage or redevelop a larger structure or structures with the number of units
permitted by the underlying zoning district, which appears to be two. Um, the reason for that is, and we don't see this very frequently before this board because we have so few multif family structures that are proposed for redevelopment and and retained as multifamily. The option that's available
through the overlay is that the buildings can be redeveloped with the same number of units, the eight units that are currently on the property. However, they are limited to the same developed square footage. There are proposed amendments that would allow for the same living square footage and the
non-habitable level. So, that would allow for that ground floor level that's proposed in the design review. But the applicant is proposing additional habitable square footage uh which we can talk about more in the design review. I believe the applicant is aware of all this. they have made the correct variance application that they need to
make and that will move forward after this design review. I did just want to make that apparent to the board. So, that being said, um I know the applicant is present. They do have a presentation. Um if adequate testimony is provided, we we do ask that a motion be made to approve this case for the
demolition of the contributing structures at the property without a stay on demolition. Okay. If we can, can you go back to that last screen that had the the staff recommendations? I just have a question about that on the the second bullet point there where it says limitations of each unit to one bedroom due the parking
provided on site and that's just something that we haven't really seen before. So so basically every bedroom to have supposed to have a parking spot. Is that how it works? So with multifamily developments the city requires one parking space per bedroom. This would be considered a multifamily redevelopment
and they're proposing eight spaces. So as currently applied for they would be limited to one bedroom. If they were to seek additional bedrooms beyond that, they would need to apply for subsequent variances. Okay. Well, in the design review, do they have all these all onebedroom
under the three stories? That's my question. The applicants indicating yes. So, yes. Okay. All right. And um Okay. I guess that's the only that's the only question I had on that for right now. Oh, and the other thing is just
so we do this with the heart cart in front of the horse. So I think there's something in the literature or the the staff findings you talked about that what they want is conditional on getting something done through the board next month.
And correct, if we de if we grant the demolition, then if they don't get what they want, they they understand that that if it's been demolished, obviously that you have to go forward with with where it is, right? Unless Yes, sir. That is correct. Unless you're waiting
to demolish it after you go through the board, which then you can make another decision at that point, right? Yes, sir. That is correct. All right. Okay. Or we could do a an approval with a 30-day That's fine. I'm just I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. I thought we all were, but I just wanted it on the record as far as that
goes. Right. Okay. Go ahead. Say your name, please. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brian Angst, 625 Court Street, McFarland Ferguson, on behalf of the applicant, Barracks by the Sea LLC. I'm also joined by our architect, Istavine Pertinich of the Behar Pertinich uh architecture. U this
presentation is really geared towards agenda item 5A. Um, so as it relates to agenda it the agenda item 4F uh or 4E uh which we're currently on regarding the certificate of appropriateness, the applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation. And so my only request
would be for you to to grant that uh and make a motion to approve that. I'm happy to discuss the design review presentation, but I would prefer to do that uh in order and let the staff make their design review presentation prior to our design review presentation. Uh so as it relates to the certificate of
appropriateness, we're in support uh without a stay. We understand the uh the risks and uh potential risks of that regarding the uh the variances that have yet to be granted by uh the board of adjustment. Uh but we feel prepared and uh hopefully we'll have staff support
for those variances as well. I'm sorry, I just lost my uh spot in here by trying to zoom into something. Was there an agency appointment signed by the property owner or is the property owner here? Yes, the agent authorization was
provided to the city with the variance application. Okay. Sorry, I was trying to get there and I didn't see it. Um, the variance application might not be in your packet, but it was signed as part of the variance application. Okay. Okay. So, let me see this because I I
know what what you want to do. I want to get get a a vote on the demolition first and I appreciate that. But let me just ask about this. So, um I noticed that maybe things have changed, Mr. Barry, and maybe you can you can tell me. There was no at the time of this preparation, there was no
damage assess assessment done to those buildings. That still the case or is that changed since the preparation? I I can verify that. I I I don't believe one was has been performed unless it's been in the last week. I Let me check here. No, one has not been. Okay. And and so
the only reason I bring that up and this is just an abundance of of you know caution. So obviously you because these are are they historically designated right now or they're just they're capable of being they're capable. Correct.
And one thing just as an aside I always heard these weren't barracks but these are officers quarters. You ever hear that? and the barracks were some other area that they've added on to the church. But anyway, that's not that's not here there. So, you're you've already gone through the thought process
of trying to rehab this as as a historic site. I mean, you follow what I'm saying? Oh, I understand that situation where later you maybe decided after you demolish it, you wish you hadn't do that. I mean, you do have an opportunity to get it historically designated and
rehab it from the storm likely if that's what but and you've had that consideration. Do not want to do that. Is that that that is correct, sir? Okay. I think there are some potential substantial damage FEMA issues as well. There easily could be, but but you can get around those if it's historic. You
can get a FEMA variance. Understood. Okay. So, I just want to make sure that that you are knowingly giving up on that opportunity to do that is what I'm saying. Okay. Um, I have a question regarding the damage assessment. I I do feel like one should be done before a
demolition should be approved just so we have it on record of what happened there and when. Also, has anyone approached the owner or considered the possibility if this is not substantially damaged? that's certainly in better condition than our shuffleboard court cottage of
maybe relocating one of these buildings to the shuffleboard site and reusing it there since we can't rebuild that building or some other appropriate location. We haven't looked into that, but we certainly can talk to the applicant about that. And there, you know, could
maybe be some incentive or encouragement for doing such. Another question I have, and I think you answered for me, Mr. Barry, but this still on the demolition aspect. I know that in reading the reports
uh there's a talk of one of the structures remaining and being rehabbed and I until Mr. Barry said it was that I guess would be the south western one I couldn't figure it out on the new plans where that building
still existed or unless you're just going to make a garage out of it. Mr. Chair, if we could pull up the applicants um PowerPoint. I've got actually an aerial demonstrating the structures and which ones were damaged and which one was not. It's the slide number two will show you the aerial. Uh
so it's the uh where it says lot three that building is remaining. It is non-contributing right. Uh and so if you go to slide number three the next slide please. Uh you will see these are the three buildings that were damaged and that are being dem or proposed to be
demolished. Um and then that is the building that is remaining and it is a three-story building that was built much later and is not considered contributing to the pastoral district. Okay. So in the literature or in the in the application you had you said there was a
existing structure that was remaining and being rehabbed and by that you meant the non-contributing house. That is correct. Okay. So none of the historic potentially historic buildings are being rehabbed. Right. None of those buildings are actually historically designated as you know Mr. Sure. So when you use
historic in the language based upon the non-historic house that isn't that kind of a misnomer there? I suppose I I I apologize if that wasn't clear. Um but that is very clear this picture of what's hap what's being proposed. I understand it now. I was just saying when I was reading through it I kept
thinking like what is the one what's the historic structure they're not knocking down? It's not contributing. Yeah it's a non-contributing structure sir. Okay. But but that one and again just to clarify at this at this point on the remaining three story one you're that you're putting like out outdoor staircases on it or something like that
I guess. Okay I got you now. All right. Thanks sir. All right. Does anybody have any more questions about the demolition? I so it says two of the three residential structures but on that slide that was just up it looks like three but are they joined? Yeah the building to
the south is one structure. It's it is one structure. Or is it two structures joined by a breezeway or No, I believe it's No, it's two by a breezeway. Yeah. So then we do we need to amend that to demolishing three structures or it would be safer to make it clarified. That's
fine. Just if you could clarify, please. Yeah. Okay. Possibly just amend to say the three contributing structures that would that would cover it. Okay. So, what would staff recommend in this situation since it's the demolition
is sort of contingent to the approval of what's going to be going there, should we approve with a 30-day stay or should we say no and let's revisit the whole package next month or what what do you recommend? Well, it does only give them the authorization to move forward with
the demolition. I'm not sure what their timing is for the removal of the buildings on the site, but it will take far longer than 30 days to work through the site plan and the the variances and the other aspects involved with redevelopment. So, um there there is extensive damage. If the board would
like us to have an assessment of the structures to determine that whether they are substantially damaged, um you might want to consider deferring until that time. I can speak with the building official about having that done in, you know, within the next week or so if
possible. May has 31 days. So we are we safe with a 30-day or do we does that push us to 31 for that would the variance hearing is on the 28th. So 30 days from now would be past the variance hearing. They would
know what their options are at that time. Okay. So but then it would have time to revisit with us on the first Thursday in June. that that would not be that would not give that's not within the 30 days. Oh, let me let me ask about that
scenario. I mean, first off, we all know we can't stop a demolition. All we can do is do 30 or 90 days, right? And so, and that's why I had the conversation trying to make sure we all understood that, you know, there's no
going back. obviously wants us demolished. Uh I mean I guess we can do the 30-day stay, but does it add any does it give us any advantage in any fashion? I mean, if they already understand that they want to knock it down, what what difference does it make
substantially damage? It could have had no damage in the hurricane, they could still knock knock it down. No, I think if the applicant understands the limitations that would be placed in redevelopment without any variances, I I don't see a benefit to that. But Right. Okay. That's that's why I brought that
up because I I know you the only thing I'm concerned about is making sure that you know we haven't created some sort of uh expectation on the owner or the applicant that they can
get these variances because we've agreed to not they can do the demolition. So this is really the son of the aspect of they want to demolish it because they want to demolish it regardless of the damage regardless of what they're going to rebuild. Is that correct? Yes, sir. We're well aware of the the risks and
benefits and um that this is entirely separate from the variance process. Okay. Can we um make a conditional approver to request for consideration for feasibility of relocation of one of the structures and time for damage
assessment? If I could ask if the applicant would entertain that, a discussion with the city regarding a relocation of at least one of the structures. So, we have a TRC coming up on May 7th for the variance application. And variance applications can be
conditioned. Um, already in my mind, I have several conditions uh that I'm going to propose to the staff uh to hopefully get a recommendation of support for the variances. Uh so, if that's one that you'd like us to consider as a condition for the variances, I'm happy to and you've kind of given the staff that direction that
we could discuss that at the May 7th TRC. I don't know if we can make it a condition as an advisory board or if we can just make it a recommendation for consideration. Sure. Yeah, we can we certainly will consider it with the staff and especially if the city has some kind of incentive like you
mentioned. Um and or and a place for it. Uh why not? Uh that would that would be great if uh if that were something that could be a public private partnership in that regard. Um certainly we would definitely be happy to talk about that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we're just at the
point now whether we think there should be there's any advantage to doing a 30-day stay or not. Uh, and you there's no real reason to do I mean, well, given that it wouldn't coincide with the next historic preservation board meeting in terms of
bringing the item back possibly after the board of adjustment, unless there were to be a special meeting, I wouldn't see a direct incentive of that. I I do absolutely support the the request to talk about this next week at TRC regarding preservation of at least one building. Yeah, because I I think 90
days would be an excessive request for a stay. Well, we can't do that because it's not historically designated. And and secondarily, it's their choice. Even if they get the permit, they could always decide they don't want to at some point depending on what's going on. So, okay.
Um then considering we have no other choice really on demolitions, I would make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of 100 Pascal Way demolition case number 2551 without a 30-day stay.
I second that. Adam, roll call, please. Member Dashiel. Yes. Member Hurley. Yes. Member Hawkinsmith. Yes. Chair Larry. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. And now we move on, I guess,
to the more meat of the issue here, which is in discussion items 5A, which is design review for uh 100 Pascal Way, which is case number 2550. That's Thank you, chair. If we could pull the staff
PowerPoint. So, I've kept this presentation pretty brief. I know that the the applicant and agent do have a more extensive presentation. Uh same applicants and owners for this request. This is a request to reconstruct three of the four buildings on the 8-unit
property as three three-story structures each containing two units with the development classified as the courtyard apartment building type. So you can see on the left side of the screen the existing layout. on the right side. The proposed the footprint of the structures um is is very similar
to what's there today. The major change being the massing of the developments. Uh it's going from those fairly utilitarian one-story structures up to two living levels over ground floor primarily parking um for the for the various
units. Uh you can see here a side view as well from the south and from the north. I'm sorry. Could you go back to the the the very first one? The one before that one. Okay. So, just so I'm clear. I don't know about this. This is the is there is there parking under any
of these new buildings? There is parking beneath the existing building to remain, I believe. And there will be parking under the new southwestern structure as well as the four uh spots in between on the alley side. Okay. So So this what
this is what I'm I'm missing. Okay. So we have we have four on the four by the on the courtyard on the alley. Right. Yep. And then we have two under the building that's going to remain the house. And then where are the other ones? Uh the southwest side there. Do
you see that driveway confusion there? Okay. So, so five of the apartments, their first floor will be for storage only, or is that like an open going to be an open porch or something like that? Uh, they do have
porches. I believe it's primarily storage. The the architect might be able to comment on and we can get to that. I just wanted to make I just wanted that question as you're going to that. It it is not parking accessible from the street. So, and from this view, it looks like the south units and the north units
are not connected, but from the front elevation, it looks like they're all connected. They do have those connections and I'll show that. Do we have a linear restriction on or not yet? Not yet. No.
Okay. Tik Tok. So, you make sure you get that done before that goes in ink, right? Um, I think scale-wise it looks a lot like those um detached homes on the 600 block of Passway. The fact that they're all attached
um is a big difference, but I like I think the design is pretty. Okay. So, I'm sorry to interrupt on that, too. So, go ahead, Brandon. Oh, no worries. Uh you can see here the renderings. These were included in the packet as well. Uh they will have the
the three stories, a ground level um non-habitable space, the two habitable levels, and then the uh the roof deck that is proposed. See this from the alleyway side. You can see those parking spaces underneath the
building. So there are two design requirements that apply to this development. I think this might have been the first time that we've discussed 20.07 on the right side of the screen. Our design review consultant uh has looked at the design. Uh she did make one recommendation regarding the rooftop
deck railing. However, uh she did find that it did meet the city's design review criteria. The additional criteria that applies in this case was the one that was brought up during the demolition. When you have a property like this that has an existing non-conforming density, the pass overlay
does provide those additional permissions to redevelop with the same amount of density units. However, the current limitation is on the existing developed square footage of the structure needs to be maintained and we've had trouble with that as staff talking with applicants in the past
about redevelop with multif family structures because that does include in in the definition of developed square footage. It includes parking. It includes storage underneath the buildings which is you know a frequent amenity that that property owners want to have when they redevelop. That is
something that's changing with the overlay um adoption. If if it is adopted as proposed, that ground floor space that needs to be provided in these structures would not count against that living space square footage. But in this particular project, there would be a
limitation on a lot of the upper floor uh the third floor development due to that living space um limitation remaining in the code in the overlay amendments. So in addition to the design review criteria, there is this requirement that any new construction cannot exceed the
existing developed square footage and must match the existing form and mass. And that was something that was brought up just briefly in the agenda report. Uh that is something that would need to be addressed by the applicant through the variance criteria. Some of the criteria for the hardship variance do relate back
to this uh just general compatibility of structure uh criteria in the in the scale and mass provision. the board can make comments that assist to ensure compatibility of the structure within the district. Um, and I did want to say uh to the applicant's credit, many of the other multifamily structures
in the vicinity of this one in Pastor, those that we have up on I believe 6th Avenue uh Point Passil to the south of here, this structure as redeveloped will be similar or lesser in mass, height, density, and floor area to those other
established multif family uses. Staff's concern goes back to the criterion 20.07 in that the structures are supposed to be redeveloped as preserving their own developed square footage, their own form and mass in this redevelopment. And this is something that the applicant seeking
variance to, but it is something we consider in these design reviews. Um, again, it's compliant generally with multifamily structures in pass and those in those uh development standards. It's just about preserving its own form and mass in the redevelopment. But as
mentioned before, the city's design reviewer did find it to be a high quality development. She did find that it met the design criteria for the overlay. I mentioned this before, but just to reiterate, after review, this item moves on to the board of adjustment for the variance requests. Those are requests to the setbacks. Uh they are
requesting setback encroachment on the west side, the alleyway side, for the uh for the building at the southwest side. Uh they are also seeking setback encroachments to the south and the east frontages of the buildings to allow for the porches and some of the building
overhangs. And then as I mentioned before the variance to section 20.07b to allow for currently the garage and storage floor um additional square footage assuming that the overlay amendments are accepted as proposed. Uh that would be allowed by right. However,
the additional habitable square uh floor square square footage floor area addition would remain um an item that they would need to get a variance to. So, that's all I have for this one. I know that the applicant does have a presentation the architects available as well. Let me let me hold on just just
for a second, sir, if I can just so your understanding um Mr. Barry is this this is a courtyard apartment type building. Does that mean that this would be used as apartments or can this be then condos? So that's just based that's the building
type name. We don't differentiate between apartment style and condo style ownership. So it could be one or the other. Okay. And um we've done this kind of thing before. I know it wasn't really mentioned in here, but um I know this is a design
review, but we're able to make recommendations to the board of adjustments as well. Right. you have a comment you'd like to pass along. Yeah. Okay. And then the last thing is I know uh there's a number of people here today that that I don't know if this is what
they're waiting to speak on or not, but I would ask I suppose but I I'll defer to you Mr. Angst whether you okay is whether you want those people should wait till they hear your proposal
or whatever and then they can comment if they want or whether they should comment now. uh I'd like to present. Okay. So, for those folks out there who want to talk, uh let's if there are some out there, let's wait till that happens. Okay. So, uh please go forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh once again, Brian Ens, 625 Court Street, uh on behalf of the applicant barracks by the CLC. I do have a hard copy of the PowerPoint um that I'd like to pass out just for you all to have. And of course, the city already has this as it's in the computer.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, sir. [Applause] Okay. So, if we could please uh just go back to the beginning of the applicant PowerPoint and can I control it with
this or Okay, very good. Okay. So, uh, as you know, this is, uh, the site that was previously discussed, 100 Pass Grill, uh, consisting of the three structures that, uh, were damaged by the hurricane, uh, and one remaining
structure. Should be noted that they currently have eight units of density, two units per structure. So, the two units that are in what you can see there is building three, that building that's remaining, nothing's really changing about that. Um, so
the six units that are being proposed to be replaced are the from those buildings that were damaged by the hurricane. And this is the image that I showed you previously to illustrate that. So what we're talking about in terms of the redevelopment is replacing six existing
units. So what is the purpose of the variances? And again, I know this board uh isn't here to approve the variances, but we certainly want your feedback and we want you to understand exactly what's being proposed. So as Mr. Barry said the city code currently considers
unoccupiable space below the developable flood elevation against the floor area ratio. So that means that when you are considering your intensity of your site in terms of the square footage, the city is going to take storage space and
garage space that is not allowed to be occupied under FEMA of course and count it against the square footage. you know that is in the process of potentially being changed. So that variance wouldn't even exist if we had the code that's being proposed. So essentially what
we're asking for is because that F is inclusive of the de is is inclusive of the of the unoccupiable space which you're all well aware we have to have under FEMA because we have to elevate above the developable flood elevation.
It is limiting the potential size of these six units to 500 square feet each. So what we're proposing is a thousand square feet each which would equate to about 2,700 extra square feet. Uh so that is the variance and again that
variance is probably going to go away in terms of the city code but under the current city code that is why we have to request the variance. So, what we're proposing is essentially six one-bedroom dwelling units at 1,000 square ft uh
per I need to interrupt just so it's like so I can use the word clarification all the time. Yes, sir. So, the way I understand it is so these structures as they sit now are basically 500 square feet. Is that right?
Good afternoon Petronets. The structures each building is 1,000 square feet. Each unit is 500 square feet. Correct. Okay. We're maintaining that footprint. Right. But are you But of the six you're going to have, they're going to be a,000
square feet, right? Five. Yes. Each one 500 square feet stacked on top of each other. Yes. To to equate to one unit instead of 500. But what you said before, I mean, it seems to me if they pass this new law, you'll be allowed to
do the garage and then 500 ft above it. Right. Now, you you can't even get that, right? That's that's correct. It's we have proposed changing the language and the amendments to allow for the garage and storage area to not be counted against that developed square footage. So that
means and if that's where the ver the law is going to change that means you could build a twostory building. Correct. The the first and second the ground and first story of this project would be allowed. And so to build a three-story building you're adding
another 500 square ft that you wouldn't normally get. And even what they even when they changed the law if they happened you still would have to get a variance for the third floor to add the other 500 square feet. Correct. It's not proposed to allow for additional square footage and I I believe it's it's 2700
square f feet. It's just slightly under 500 per unit, but Okay. So, so just so if they change the law, you still have to get a variance for 500 square feet. Yes. Okay. So, it doesn't and I think the way you explained it, it sounded
like once the law was changed, you could just do this. Understood. Right. So we're we're basically increasing this by three times, but one of them is going to be pro it's common sense allowed to be storage since you can't live in it
anyway. And then you could build a 500 square foot on top of that, but to build a third story, that's doubling the size and you'd have to get a variance for that. Right. Is that my understanding? That's correct. If the law was to change, correct? If if the law changes
as proposed if the ordinance the square footage just doesn't count against the F of the unoccup. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. Okay. Uh and I did also want to point out that the height of this building to the rail um on the
top uh is 26 feet above developable flood elevation as proposed. So above the developable flood elevation, it would be 26 feet to that to that rail. And of course, we we agree with the staff recommendation to make that railing consistent with the railings on
the lower levels. Sorry, I'm going backwards. Any elevators up on top or are there elevators? Yeah, there is an elevator to the project. I can not Yes. Uh I can I think when we get to the third floor you can see you
can see the housing for the the roof top elevations pardon me and and I can explain the when when Mr. Ang is done I can explain the architectural ele if you would like. You want to do that later or now? Okay. Go ahead. Will one of these floor plans help you?
Uh let's see what you got there. Will that help? Yeah. Basically, the way the project works in your is you can use this aerial also. That's an aerial. Oh, there you go. I
forgot about those guys. We're so fancy here at the historic. I know. This is good. We can go to overhead, please. Please. Um, essentially these are the units. So, you were asking about connection.
They do connect in the back. There's a a walk a terrace or a a walkway along the back. Uh, it consists of the six, you can see the six units uh that we're proposing to replace. She has an elevator. Yes. And that's what I was saying. And the elevator is in this
front portion right along past the grill that does not go all the way up. It only goes to this connecting level. So that's how you This is the access to the six units on this level. It does. The elevator doesn't go to the rooftop. No. And the rooftop is for just the residents, right?
If we could switch back to the PowerPoint, please. Uh so again, as Mr. Barry stated this is the existing footprint and the proposed footprint is very similar to the existing footprint in terms of setbacks and uh the scale of the existing footprint. Uh this is the
courtyard. Uh you can see there Mr. Chair how that works. Um there is a rooftop sund deck proposed for residents only. This is of course not a public building that's not going to be open to the public. There's no bar. There's no restaurant. There's nothing like that.
So in terms of the conditions of approval for the board of adjustment, you know, those would include uh no amplified music on the roof, no service of, you know, no sales of alcohol, no restaurant, no nothing like that to
ensure that it's purely a sund deck uh for the residents. Uh and and to ensure that uh that it is compatible with the residential nature of the community. Uh and so the the variances allow for the redevelopment of the property uh with the existing density but increased uh
square footage as has been discussed. Uh and we believe that it has been designed uh with the scale and bulk of similar projects within the Pasigril district. As Mr. Barry has pointed out uh it is less intense uh than some of the other projects uh that are within the district
that are multif family uh and the staff uh supports the uh design and found the design to be consistent uh with the design criteria uh with those minor discussions regarding the rail um the railing. Uh so Mr. Petronich is happy to
answer any questions that you have. Of course, he designed the building, so he's here to answer anything that you'd like to like to ask. And Mr. M. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time? Is there any question? Thank you. I have a question for you, Mr. Barry. I I was confused. I know a couple people
have said something about uh things on 6th Avenue that are or what are we talking about? The condos. Condos. Yes. Just just the multifamily development. The multif family density generally in Pastor Gril. this development is in keeping with or lower than some of the
others that I've looked at initially. And I I'll do a more thorough, you know, look back at that. And sorry, what I was referring to the 600 block of Pas Way. So, you remember what Harry's house is on uh south?
Yes. Souththeast corner. We were discussing light towers and beaches and No, I don't know. Way right now. Yeah. And then there's the yellow house across from Harry's. And then like three individual threestory homes. They're single family homes, but they look like
town houses. Yeah. The multi the pink I think is one of pink and blue and green and yellow pink and Yeah. Um right. But those are three individual residences on three separate lots.
Correct. That aren't connected. If so, I don't I don't understand how that is less intense. I meant to say I'm I'm sorry. Fifth Fifth Avenue in Gulf Way. I believe I said pass. I apologize. So, you're talking about the big condos that were built like in the late point towers
in the mid70s. Okay. But let me just ask you this again. Keep using the word clarification, but those were built prior to any of the codes that we have today. Correct. The code has since been changed. Right. They didn't need variances to to build those buildings.
Not to my knowledge. And uh Okay. So, so in the last 50 or 60 years, obviously things have changed. And so, is it I guess I pose the question is that is it the fair to is it fair to use that as a comparable when you couldn't build it today anyway? No.
No. Just in terms of keeping with the character of the existing Pass Grillil NE neighborhood and some of the other developments in the vicinity. I just wanted to say they're not exceeding what the existing developed density is. We do have more of a more of a reservation for those type
of uses in Pastor Grill than we do elsewhere in the city where these type of replacement one for one is is not permitted. So, right. But and and and I I wasn't involved when they passed this law on the one for one. Mhm. But, and
this may be a question I would I would have for the architect in this case, is how does the scale of this fit in with the neighborhood? Um, one of the things in the application it says
that the design fits in well, but the size and the scale because one thing, and I've seen this, I've kind of asked this before when I look at other proposals, is we tend to not ever get a three-dimensional like look of what the structure looks like next to the
houses that surround it and the blocks that surround it, you know? And so and and I think it's important when we talk about size and scale. Obviously Pascal is very very small. The lots are very very small. And historically, which is what we're here for, I suppose, you had
to build fairly small houses because that's how people did it because that's why Pascal was built with these small lots or why it was defined that way. And so in this particular case, you're taking a pre-existed area that had small structures on it and now adding a very
large structure on it. And so I guess my question is uh how does that how does this current building fit into the scale of the neighborhood? And I don't know if you that's my that's one of my questions at
this point. Uh, it's not a rhetorical question. It's one that you can answer if you want to. Air conditioners. Well, no, it does not state to the single level. That's correct. No. Well, I mean there's Okay.
So, I guess what I'm saying is there there are twotory buildings obviously and there's even threetory buildings right in the neighborhood, but considering that this is all on on a small lot, I mean, do do you agree with me?
The scale is does it seems out of scale to the rest of the neighborhood? And and that isn't necessarily a requirement that it has to. It's just I'm just asking this from a historic point of view and looking at you know what we're looking at right we looked at pastor grill in general as a
as a whole and then also uh with the request of a client that you know we basically try to replace these buildings um and the fact that we had to lift them. Uh so that right away changes some of the scale which is why instead of
taking the big block and just bringing it up we did the stepping as required. We broke the buildings down further as required. Um and the request which is coming before you with for variance is can we make this a you know instead of 500
uh take each up to a thousand so that takes a three story. So, we did everything we could to minimize the scale of a three-story building by the stepping, by the variance of the the floor heights, uh, and other requirements, you know, so that they
they don't look like a Cape Hatteris or something like that with, you know, a big buildings up on skinny legs to create the um appearance of a uh a level and an entrance at the ground level.
Um, and as far as heightwise, you know, I think as Mr. Rang said, uh, we're well below the, uh, required height or the maximum height permissible. Uh, and I think in general for a building of this scale, uh, we do believe it's compatible
with that. There's other taller buildings here. This, the other building, the fourth building is a three-story building that's on site currently. Um, and then there's the the larger structures downstairs. No, it's not like the tiny houses that are on the
site right now. Uh that's that's right. I and I understand that. I mean, and I I I mean, over beer, I would love to debate it with you. No, I understand. No, I guess what but I'm saying when I read in the application that it it's
it's redeveloped in the conformity of in the character of the site in the neighborhood uh that it captures the character of the site. And you know when you say capture the character of the site, you know the character of the site are are three
duplexes. And so now we have three apartment buildings that where you want a variance to increase them in size much that much more than is allowed. And so I'm saying when when I understand I guess why you would say we
want more square footage. Who doesn't? But how is that how is that? Well, there's still three duplexes. I'm sorry to interrupt. There's still three duplexes. They're just taller because what number one we have to break we have to bring them above flood but but you're also adding 500 square f feet you're
doubling the size of that's the request yes right and that's I think that's the question we have is if we do the if if if this is okay in this case how what is the reason we have codes you know if anybody can just come in and say we want to build this I mean
I guess let me phrase it this way what is your hardship right and that's something we're looking forward to discussing with the with the board of adjustment. Okay. Well, I think it would be something that you'd look forward to talk to us about because we can make a recommendation to the board of adjustment and you've come here on a
design review and it seems to me that we should have the courtesy of of hearing what that is, right? And I mean, keep in mind also this design review is occurring before we even have a chance to talk to the staff at a TRC. So, I I to be honest, Mr. Chair, I'm not
prepared to make a variance presentation today and I apologize. I I was under the impression that we wouldn't have to do that. So that's no offense to you. I just item. So yeah, I'm sorry. And we'll be happy to come back and have another discussion with you if you'd like, but we we'd like to stay on that May 28th um I gota agenda. So I don't know if you
want to schedule a special historic preservation board meeting in midmay and we can come back and give you the variance presentation. I I'd be willing to do that if that's what you'd like us to do. And that's very generous of you and and I apologize. I I understand what you're saying and and I'm not trying to put you on the spot on that. I'm just I'm just saying that
that if we're supposed to look at this as a design review to make a uh uh to talk to the board of adjustment about or make a recommendation out, then we'd kind of like to know what that information is. Now, of course, it could be a situation where we go to that
meeting ourselves. I don't know. Um, you know, I'm interested in in hearing that because as part of the historic board, you know, we just want to know, you know, and and I'm sure I don't even I don't need to speak to any for anybody, but some people from the neighborhoods
are going to talk and uh, you know, this is an opportunity, I suppose, to let those folks know why it is that you need these variances and things of that nature, but they can come to the they can come to another meeting for that matter. So, if you're not prepared to
talk about it right now, I'm fine with that and that's okay. And I did have a question for um city attorney. Um this isn't a public hearing in terms of quasi judicial hearing or a legislative hearing. It's a it's an advisory hearing, right? Great. Yeah, there's no decision being made. Okay. And I just
didn't know if if there were was public comment for that for that type of a hearing. um fine to have that, but I would expect that that would be at an advertised public hearing after we had the TRC and after we had a staff report and after we had conditions of approval. Um but I I didn't know if that was
something that was common or uncommon here, but the public's free to comment on each. Okay. And that's fine. I'm happy to do that. Thank you. So I I would make a recommendation for you for um part of your presentation is to reference specifically those properties
in the 600 block of Pascal Way. They're on 42 foot wide lots. They are 3286 square feet living area, 5210 square ft total area. Those are huge properties with practically zero green
space. I think this is a much smaller scale than those three homes together side by side on 42 by 100 foot lots where this is 127 by 90. If you were to break that in threes, they'd be about the same size square footage lot area.
And this is a much smaller impact square footage wise than those are. Appreciate that. Thank you. Just might be helpful to reference those specifically and anything else you can find out there. So, and do you know, since you comment on that, do you know whether those three
homes had variances at all? I I don't believe they did. No. Yeah. Um, I had a comment, maybe I misread something. The lawyer made a comment that the structures were going to be built out at 26 ft above uh design
elevation. Uh, your plans are showing 32. There's a uh the 8ft datam, the 32 foot from the 8ft datam if we build above flood. So that's a 32 foot. Uh but as you can see um designed flood
elevation 6 ft above that. So basically I think the ground is at two and the design floods at 13 plus. So that's why it had to come up that high. Okay. And with the rooftop, so it looks like every
that's a completely open rooftop, so everyone can walk. The space the notion is to that each, you know, the one above your unit is your rooftop, but it doesn't look like there's a definitive line or wall at this point. No, you'd have your own
little private gate. And the electrical on the top, what is that for? I see it looks like there's an electrical mechanical mechanical. That would be a the the AC unit. to keep that condenser unit instead of being in this the condenser unit. Correct. And there's an elevator. And where is that house? The elevator
doesn't go upstairs. The basically No, it only goes to the primary entry level of the of the buildings. Yeah. On that and this one picture I'm looking at and it's not up on the board, but I guess it's on Passer Girl way. That kind of entrance area uh or the area between the
two buildings is that's the stairway to the roof, I suppose. That's one of two stairways to the roof. Correct. There's another one on the on the on First Street as well for those those units. Okay. It's essentially between the center building of the three. I got you. Okay. I was wondering how. Okay. So, that's how the elevator
stops at the top floor, the third floor, and then you would have to walk up the stairs to the rooftop to your rooftop. Correct. Okay. Anybody on the board have any other questions at this point? Um, one question. Is this property
currently have a certificate or an occupancy license for short-term rentals? I I don't believe so. And I don't believe that's the intent. These are long-term proposed for long-term residences. Yeah, we'd be happy to make that a condition of no short-term
rentals. No short-term rentals on for the variance. I don't I don't know that that matters one way or the other. It was just a question and to make sure that you know if that was if that was in fact in effect make sure it's clear as to whether or not that would convey. I'm checking here and that
is it is it's it permitted the typical pass to grillil rentals which is occupancy of less than 30 days three times per year but the rest of the year it does need to remain residential one month or longer stays. Okay. question I have also I thought of
this before is are these designed as one bedroom or two bedrooms? One bedroom basically living area first floor first level 500 foot living area then a 500 foot a little less on the second floor. Yeah, approximately on the
second floor. Okay. And that 500 square foot includes the exterior walls. So living area is actually less. Um and Mr. Barry, you mentioned earlier that there's some potential setbacks and
here's a and and I know that's for the board of adjustment, but are any of those setbacks into the alley at all? And the reason I asked that is, you know, we've had and you all may know this, a pretty contentious uh history in the last year or so of
garbage pickup that has been denied in the alley after years of being in the alley. And there's people that want to have that happen again. And I know that's kind of a tight term there. We had a part there was someone there before that parked an RV that in that area that could keep a garbage truck
from going through. Are any of those setbacks going to affect the alley? Not directly in terms of accessibility there. There are no setbacks into the alley or up to the property line. The unit one and two, the redeveloped southwestern building will be set.
They're proposing it to be set 5 feet from the western alleyway property line. uh the building itself would typically be limited to a greater setback than that, but they do still have the option, as we've seen with other developments, to place a garage at that location. So,
it's just the fact that the building is the height and the developed square footage at the setback that's being proposed, not that they can't have a building there. Right. Okay. So, it does it wouldn't affect egress to a garbage truck, put it simple, right? Correct. Gotcha. All right.
Okay. Okay. Anybody on the board have any more questions of these gentlemen? Right. Okay. Um I guess since we're at that time now, I guess this is the time for uh uh public comments if there is anyone that wants to speak about u this
issue. Does anybody want to talk about this? I hear someone coming forward. Please. Okay. Well, state your name and uh for the record, please. My name is Jay Anderson. I live well I
sort of live at 202 Pasigola. I will um I I look at this project and and seeing the elevations and especially the setbacks that they want to get a variance for in the on the east side and the west side for porches is going to
push this building right up to the sidewalk. And it already seems like it's busting. It just seems to just fit everything in there that you can that they can to achieve maximum, you know, value in terms of
what they can sell things for. But the variances that they ask that like they say it's historic, but there's no really rooftop historic buildings that have open rooftops. Uh for in Pasco, most of everything is a hip roof or a gable
roof. Uh this essentially will be a flat roof. Um there's a lot of what looks to me very condensed building everywhere. You see along the facade, no open spaces to
uh see through the buildings uh because of stairways that connect the buildings. I would just think that there's a lot there that maybe is too much in ter some of the elements
of do look historic. They've done probably good jobs on trying to create an historic look to it, but it seems to be and I would I've seen too many houses get pushed right up to the sidewalk and they look like a big face right there and there's nothing no room
for anything greenery or anything else in front of the house. So I would I'm certainly opposed to the uh variance for front yard sideyard setbacks or front this case the south side and the east side of
these buildings and um square footage is something that you all have to deal with on how much they want to enlarge it. Of course, I'm speaking from point and we've all seen these little cute little army buried for
years. You'd love to tell stories about them to people come in. They were moved from the dawn down here because they were had a use up there and they've been there for years and it's just is part of that past grow, but now we're going to replace it with something that's going
to be huge in in terms of what was there. Um the look is going to change as we know it and pass it well because there's a lot of demolition permits going and all those buildings are going to have to go up. I would just hope that they would architecturally try to fit in
what has been there before. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um that that's first I just want to bring this up, Mr. Barry. I on on the landscaping aspect. We don't really see much about that. And and I'm
looking the proposed setbacks is is what 10 ft from the sidewalk. Is that accurate? Or 10 10 ft 5 and 1/2 in or something like that on the east side for the building phase. Um that that is the encroachment. The the encroachment that's being requested is specifically
for a few of the porches and and above um the balconies above. Okay. So, so the cuz then I'm looking at at the at the artist like rendering. So 10 ft from
the sidewalk is like the where the building begins. Is that right? Correct. But then there's some balconies that kind of overhang that that are that are closer than the 10 ft, but they're up in the air. Right. Correct. the variance request for for the east side at least
is specifically to the southern and the northern porch and balconies above those do encroach into that 10 ft. Okay. And so, and and again, I know this is just an artist rendering, so I'm not, you know, holding anybody to this, but I
notice in the in the artist renderings, there's no trees. There's just hedges and along pass well along the both First and Pass Way. And then on the proposed site conditions, that's an
architectural drawing, not a an artist rendering. It looks like they've got trees along that area. And I guess my question to you, Mr. Barry, is there a requirement that there is an actual requirement that there has to be, you know, trees of size in that
area? Right. Correct. They they'll need at least, I believe, six or seven trees on the east side. So, I just want to make clear that the art artist rendering that we have isn't really accurate as to what ultimately would look like. There would be some trees in that 10-ft area. Does that Yes. I think there are palm
trees on the rendering on well on the um on the site plan. Yeah. Yeah. There I agree. That's what I'm saying, but they aren't in the artist rendering. Okay. All right. Anybody else like to come forward and speak? Please state your name. Amy Lowry, 1021 19th Avenue. Um, I
just want to say I think we're at a crossroads here. I think we're going to be confronted with a lot of redevelopment that's going to be intense or those of us that have lived on the beach for a number of years would feel is intense compared to what we already
have. Um, I know when I was on this board years ago, uh, always there was a discussion is if you have an empty piece of property, why are you requiring variances? Does anybody ever anymore come to the city and see what's allowed
and design within the allowances of what the city, you know, allows? It seems every time I'm here to speak about something, it's because an architect has already presented a plan that is not within the scope of what the city allows. And then they continually ask
for variances. And I understand a variance on a home that already exists, but I don't understand the variance when you have an empty lot to deal with. You should be designing within the confines of what the city allows to that. And I
think we're going to see this over and over in the next um couple years as people redesign. And I think we need to keep people building to code. Well, I mean, if you could allow it here, then you have to allow it to the next guy, right? I understand what you're saying.
And I'm I mean, I have the same feelings and the same thought, and this is like this is getting really close to us when we're out on the sidewalk, right? We're walking our dogs or walking with our friends and everything's just kind of right up next to us. But I look at this and where the 10-ft front yard setback is, and that's allowable now by code,
correct? That's a big white wall. So, no, I understand. They can I thought the design was very white wall at the 10 foot set back and leave it like that with a door right flat on the front of it and a window right on floor with no relief no porches no no I understand but
they're still requiring a variance right are they not they don't have to they don't have to put stairs on the front or corables or porches right they can just do a white box 10 ft back from the okay but also we don't need to allow the extra square footage we don't need to you So, I mean, this is a lot. This
is like an in and without sounding horrible about it, it's almost like an attempt to monetize the property rather than to preserve or try to connect in the neighborhood with something compatible to the neighbors. Um, that fits in better as far as um size and
scale in my opinion. The the other tall buildings, as uh Bill pointed out, were all built before we changed that and that was changed back in the 80s, I believe. So, we haven't allowed I mean, I see where I I hope you understand what I'm saying. It's not going to be just
this property. It's going to be the next property and the next property and next property. And again, I'll just repeat. I don't understand why they just don't come in and see what the code is without the variances and design to it. I mean, you can still get a a relief
by building 12 feet back. You know, you Well, anyway, said my piece. Thank you. I understand what you're saying. I get it. Anybody else like to speak? Yes. Please state your name.
Bob Douglas, 201811, pastor away. My only question is u and I'm sorry that I'm not very prepared on this but from what I heard is that each one of these units are is going to have the double the square footage that exists at the at
the present time and there's no variance required for that there is there is yes so in essence we're doubling the square footage that's there right now well essentially we're tripling it because well I I mean I understand for Jerry,
the if the FEMA is doing what they have to do to us, it's the government and we can't do anything about that. The request would be to would be to double the living space. Double the living space would the variance would be to to allow it to be doubled. Well, that's a rather
large variance, I would think. Just I heard that I was kind of stunned. So, okay. Thank you for clearing that up, but that seems a little excessive. Anybody else have anything they like to say add?
Okay. Um well this is again this is for discussion forformational purposes. Uh I suppose we could make a recommendation at this stage to the board of adjustment if we want but I I don't believe you
should do that. I was going to say I was going to say I don't think we should especially since there you have a presentation you want to make to the board of adjustment that we didn't really hear. So I I'm going to say I don't think we need we should do that at this time. So with that being said I don't think there's anything else to add
on on this issue. We've discussed it and we can just go on to the next one. Is that correct? So, as as mentioned before, if there's any comments that the board has to help better conceptualize or contextualize
this project within within the district, you're welcome to make those comments. Um, that is something that's within your review purview, but Well, uh, I don't Does anybody want to make a comment? I I don't understand why we're even entertaining allowing people
to start doubling the size of their secondary or their multifamilies. That was part of the reason for trying to hold those back when they get redeveloped general. Yes. And uh you know I also have to
suggest that I also don't I I don't see where there's any hardship here. they have an option probably to redo them if and if not then there is a code that goes by what everyone else is supposed to do and uh it's not as
if you know they're they need a one foot set back for their generator or something like that. I mean this is a doubling in size which has a visual and size and scale effect on the rest of the neighborhood. Now I I do
know and I don't you know they could build you know six tower leaning tower of pises that just go straight up in the you know air that I guess would be three stories of of 250 square feet each one and that would be horribly ugly to do
and that would never happen. Uh but it just you know seems to me it's it's just the hardship is they they they can't make enough money doing it any other way. And uh you know again there there's a presentation for variance and stuff.
That's just my comment at this stage. And you know so so in terms of looking at compatibility of new construction within the Pastor Overlay district is the concern from the board the the additional square footage of living space. Is that is that the concern of
the board? Well, and I think requesting variances on a blank slate. I mean, you know, there's all sorts of issues on precedents and things of that nature and you know, we we're demolishing so many homes and this everything is going to go forward and
it's like if if every homeowner believes that they can double their size by adding a variance, you know, why even have codes? Well, it's like a wave. Once that wave starts, where does it stop? It doesn't. But I but I recognize that that is a issue and a decision by the board of
adjustments and we all understand that. That's just I think if the comments of the historical board what we've we've had to say. Okay. Okay. Then I guess we Is that all we need at this stage on that? There's nothing else from the board. Okay. So,
discussion item five. I'm sorry. Thank you. So, I apologize for not saying goodbye. Appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, discussion item 5B, which is a design review on 103 24th Avenue, which is case number
2539. You pull up the staff PowerPoint, please. This is another design review. 255039. We do have the applicant who is the architect present meer. Property address is 1042 24th Avenue. The property owner is requesting construction of a new single family
residence. This will be about built to the house large standards of the Pasil Overlay district. You can see the site plan here. Um it is currently a one uh single family structure. So the density
provisions that we just discussed with the previous case do not apply. This is a standard house large redevelopment. There is currently at the northwest side of the property, I believe, a freestanding structure that is proposed for removal. And you can see here the front
elevation of the structure and some isometric views of the structure. Uh, city's design consultant had a few limited comments. I have already spoken to the architect about this and they have uh for a few of these comments um I believe looked at the
design. Uh the first regards the Wayne Scott on the lower level. Uh her request is that it be eliminated or reduced to less than 2 feet in height. Uh she felt that it did draw attention to the non-habitable level which is something that we try to avoid with new development. Uh the second is that the
front facade stairs should be shielded or reoriented. This is a comment that's been made with other uh front staircase designs in the past. She did ask that less visual emphasis be placed on those stairs. Third is that the frontage landscaping requires additional foliage and layering of material to meet minimum
code requirements. I have spoken to the applicant about this. I do know that they do handle landscaping separately through the building permit stage. So that was made and they they do understand this comment. And the fourth is that the garage door color should be changed to be less stark compared with the rest of the lower level. Uh staff
has no zoning comments on the development except for the landscaping that was noted by the design reviewer. It appears to be appropriately scaled for the vicinity does otherwise meet zoning requirements for new construction. So I don't see any complications for this when it is submitted for building permitting. Uh we
do request testimony from the applicant regarding the intent to underground or otherwise modify the utility line. There is one that appears to extend to the center of the property and it would intersect the building. So if they could just provide a comment on that. That is all I had. The applicant is
present. Hey, did you have any comments? I came to answer any questions. Oh, no. I think the only thing is if is uh the acknowledgement that you mentioned about the utility alliance. So that that basically
requires you to be or the owners you have their their what's the certificate? He is the applicant for the project. Yes. To be able to say they understand that. Yeah. We just don't What was the question? I'm sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Look like from from the street view there was a utility line running to the
house. Is that correct? Can you go back to the slide of the facade so we can see that? I'm trying to imagine like a power line. I thought it was running along the alley. It It might not now be along the alley. I just taken a quick look. So
that's not alley or not. I shouldn't say the alley, right? There's no alley. It's almost like a I think there's a utility easement. There's there's power running in between the the two houses like along the back fence. And there's some uh Oh.
Oh, right on the back of the house. Yeah, that's where I know power. There was power coming through the site that got rerouted uh underground. Yeah, I was on that earlier. I know nothing about this. This is this is just that I I just wanted to make sure there would be no
conflict with utilities. I I assume that is something that you've looked into. So, it was just a general comment while we're in this area. Okay. And that's just a matter now. It's on the record. We're good. Okay. As far as far as that goes. Okay. Right. You can stay up here, sit down if you want. Did you state your
name on the record? I think uh Nave Meyer. Okay. Okay. So, on this Brandon, have we already done a demo permit on this house? I'm not sure we have. I I don't believe so, though. We have not. Okay. Thank
you. I didn't think so. This is just Okay. Um, and what is the is is there I I I know this is there's no interior plans that are being shown to us, right? Or is there I've missed those? I guess my question it looks like a two-story house
essentially. Is there is there a third story in in within the structure? Do you know? Not that I No, there's not. Yeah. Okay. All right. It's two. Second floor has vated ceilings. Yeah, there's a vated ceiling. There is a floor plan in
there, but I may have just missed it. And if so, that's that's fine. Yeah, I mean, I think I think it's a beautiful design as far as that goes. And it clearly is a scale that's more appropriate. I think I I know you could have built it bigger. That's what I'm
saying, right? Thanks. Yeah, it could have been bigger. It's It's a 2,000 square ft, right? Air conditioned. And is this this requiring any variances? No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Anybody have any questions or any comments on this? I have a question. So,
I know that there's a secondary garage structure and I believe that's also contributing um per the 2015 the historic site survey. So, hypothetically, and I would agree this is a beautiful design, hypothetically, if the homeowner wanted
to maintain that that structure, that secondary garage structure, would they be able to and then still be able obviously would have to tweak a little bit the backyard area, but would they be able to to keep that secondary structure
as long as it's been legally recognized by the city as a as a freestanding residence? That would be allowed. Now again, the same living square footage limitations would apply in that case because it would come down to the uh the living square footage of the the main
residence, but that would be an option. Yeah. Yeah. I know we and we're talking about that what was like once a detached garage, correct? And so right now you're saying at this plan they're planning on removing that.
Yeah, that would be here on this side of the pool. Yeah. And as and this is I think we've had some discussions maybe before but not not very often. If that's a cont Okay, the house itself is a contributing structure as well as the detached
building. Okay. Yes. My understanding goes detached building's probably got a setback issues because it was built before. It's right on the corners. Correct. Right. And so can somebody independently historically designate a secondary
building and then knock down the original building and build a new house and still keep an historic, you know, small part of it. So in terms of keeping the building, not not based on the historic aspects of it, the overlay does allow for that. Now I I've spoken with I
believe the owner, possibly a prior applicant. when you redevelop the primary structure on the site, if the remaining structure is not compliant, they would need to get a variance to be able to keep it or they would need to relocate or move it in. Now, for the historic aspect of it, and I might need
to defer to Lynn here, but typically I believe accessory structures remain contributing in the context of the primary structure unless they've develop obtained some kind of historic integrity of their own right. Um, yeah. Well, like we have a historic
dock, but the house that's on the adjacent site is not historic. Correct. Okay. Some things that precedent for that. And the only reason I mentioned this is is they're kind of my neighbors and had a discussion with me just oneonone before and I didn't know some things
about it. But but uh what we've talked about, you've had that they've had that conversation with the cities. I we we have we have discussed it. Yes. Okay. I just want to Yeah. that I I know at one point they were interested in trying to keep that, but maybe they're not now. So, I just didn't know how that was kind
of playing out, but for future use, it's interesting to know, right? Okay. Anyone else? All right. I guess we just that's our discussion on that. Okay. So, 5C is historic historic
plaques providing an update on historic plaques. Yes. So I think Kristen had a brief. Okay. So Kristen Coleman, senior planner. Um I do have some great news that we have found somebody actually within the state of Florida that can do
our historic plaques for us. Um that is through the International Bronze Company. Um I had sent a copy actually from 34 3401 Casablanca Avenue. a picture of their historic plaque. Um, and I reached out to them which they
have created this sample. Um, so it would be a seven by five inch uh oval single line border. Um, they could mimic what we currently have. Um, the cost would be $230 and it would be the responsibility of the property
owner. Um, as far as that center logo here on the upper right hand side is actually what was at 3401 Casablanca. So, we had the um the sun the sun with the sunset with the dolphin.
Um, they provided me two different options. I did go into the vaults, I guess you could say, of the old city logos and found the one in the direct center. Um, and I can reach out to them to see if they could remove the St. Pete Beach on the interior center of the logo
uh to kind of mimic um what we've previously used in the past. So, I kind of looking at you as far as do we want to kind of go with our current logo or stay true to what we had before. Okay. Okay. So, the upper right there is the
one that's existing on a home. Correct. Now, that is correct. Yep. And the center logo is the one that says 1957 on the bottom. Well, both do that. That's the one that is currently That one is one that we found kind of in
our old logo vaults through our communication. Being that the the dolphins jumping in different directions. I did notice that. And I could see if they could kind of mirror that image. Jumping north in one and south in the other one, I guess. Unless that's the sun rising. Depends on what side of the street the house is on.
Yeah. Right. And so so the thought process would be what that we're talking about now is we can go we can stick with the one that it already exists or we could go for some of these other options. Is that kind correct? Like we could try to do our current logo but I didn't know I
wanted to you know get your your feel. What's the current logo? So the current logo as you see on the bottom left that as you see on all of our shirts that is the most uptoate logo the setting or rising sun. Mhm. Now, officially, we suppose that's supposed to be a setting
sun since we're the sunset capital, I would assume. So, yes, sure on that. Sunsets. And the one in the upper left, that's just a one that was found from a different time frame. Is that right? It's kind of without the dolphin and without the secondary St. Pete Beach
lettering. All right. The sunray sun rays look pretty weak in that one. Okay. Well, do do you want a recommendation? talk about that and what what we'd want to do. I I would like to hear your input on it. Um, you know, I've talked to our
communications uh Mark Portugal. I definitely want to get the board's input on that. I'm just way excited that I found somebody that responded. It's great and that's why I'm being goofy about it. Did Did And is there Do you have a print out? Is it was this in our
pack? It wasn't. No, this this we were going to bring. Can I get a copy of that? Sure. Before I leave today, absolutely. Um, I don't know. Does anybody have any feeling about doing something new or should we just be going with I think there's more than one historic landmark out there. You found that one, but there's other houses. Yeah. And so,
should we even bother to talk about changing it or just trying to keep it the way it is? Yeah, I think keeping it the way that it Yeah, I think we all would agree on that. And the the one that they did the mockup to get rid of the St. Pete Beach,
Florida twice. Yeah, it's a double. And I can even see if they can flip the dolphin around too if Well, no, like there. Yes, we want the dolphin jumping to the south. I think that make a difference. Okay. Um, excellent. Okay. So, I just wanted to also go into a
little bit more um as as far as the process goes. If we decided this is the route we wanted to go, I wanted to let you know that staff would create the application for the plaques and serve as the main point of contact throughout the application process.
So we would be the one that main contact um a staff would ensure the application is complete, verify the structure is eligible, confirm details are correct such as the designation number and the year built, then forward it to the company to place the order and also proof the order when it comes back in.
Um once the order has been placed, the company will take the credit card information over the phone directly from the individuals. That way they can be in complete control of the money. we don't have to invoice it out. Um, and the plaque would be shipped to city hall where staff could coordinate pickup.
Okay. I think that's a excellent well thoughtout process. I don't see any reason that we want to change. Anybody have any feeling about that? No. Okay. And uh, is there any It's $230. And does that include shipping and everything? That includes shipping to here. There is a onetime fee once we decide on the logo
of I think it's a $60 uh charge for the artwork, but we would incorporate that into our budget for that. And can I get a copy of this piece of paper, too? Of course. You get a chance. Okay. Um, and so we I don't even I don't know if we
know the the details. Maybe you do. Of of the houses that we have historically designated, do you have any idea how many ever got plaques in the past? We do have information on that. Um I can tell you which is a kind of cool number since we started after the hurricanes. We have
done 40 as of today that are new. But I do have information on our list our spreadsheet of who received plaques or who did not. But staff could also kind of Right. And so we have reach out potentially 40 new customers since the the storm. Right. Exactly. Other people
I know other people have been designated without plaques. Is do you think you have that stat somewhere that shows which houses have gotten plaques though? I do. Is it possible for you to create a sheet of designated homes that have not gotten the plaques and I can actually go out
and verify? Add another column to our um to our list, right, that says the number and the address and when it was designated and the year that it was and whether or not it has plaque. I do have that. Okay. Yeah. And then we can also go back and verify over time since that
was created as we're down there pretty consistently. And I guess I should have looked a minute ago. Can you go back to the last screen there? So on the plaque do do we
have will it be the upper right one and what's the up the the the lower right one? So that is just the mockup that they had. Okay. And so each one will be different as far as the number on it. Like this case is number 49
and the the circa 1922. Correct. Each would be personalized. Okay. Perfect. And and then the only because I know in a lot of things we do here, we'll see staff or whatever the documents might say, oh this house was built in 1938. And it's like, oh no, I got a photo
graph from this is 1932. How are we going to come up with that? Is that just something the staff can work out with the owners? That's why I would like the application to come to staff so we can verify. Okay. Really good. All right. Thank you so much. That's great. No problem. Maybe we can attach these to our minutes so they can be part of our
minutes reviewed for next time and then everybody will get a copy of it. That's fine. Would that be okay? Can we do that? That's fine. If you'd rather I can do that. Sure. And a big thank you to you guys for gosh 40 That's great. That's incredible. And you guys have put in so much work and it's appreciated.
Thank you tremendously. All right. Thank you. Okay. Next, we're going to 5D, a standing item, which is on city historic resource damage updates. Yes, Sher. So, you added on the
discussions with the Mary Pier and the shuffleboard court building, so I won't discuss those. I will say that for the Warren Webster and the Suntan Arts Center, there is an agenda item on the May 13th agenda for approval. Uh there
will be repairs to both of those structures. The art facilities team has worked very hard to make sure that all exterior improvements are one for one or as close as possible. The Warren Webster will be getting a similar roof. Um but it will be significantly stronger. It
will have wind resistance up to 140 mph. Uh the Suntan will be getting a new flat roof and HVAC. We'll be putting back the 5% boards. Uh there is a need to replace the carpet, plumbing and walls within the gallery. Uh we may also need to replace the window trim if the wood is
soft, but we will be going like for like with stronger material and u water resistant rather than carpet rather than carpet. Like did somebody say carpet? Do do you know? So that's on the agenda for what? For the commission to approve the
repairs. Yes. on the Is there any time frame associated with that or do you have any idea of the time frame? Only reason I say that is I know the city's got so much stuff they have to do. So is this something that because it's on the commission meeting might be done sooner as opposed to you know years from now if
you even know. I I believe it's sooner rather than later. I don't have exact timing for it but I I can get that. That's fine. No. Okay. All right. Good. So then we have uh fivee fees for historic resource applications. Sure. I just wanted to mention to the board um
we are one of the items we're addressing right now is looking at fees and a lot of those are citywide fees particularly for development impact. Um but staff has started to look at some of our fees for application processing. Uh we have several out there right now and several of them haven't been updated in quite
some time. Um, I know that talking to the board previously, we we do like that the local historic designation application be free or of minimal cost just to to provide that as a as an incentive to to apply. Um, but we will be looking at our certificate of
appropriateness applications and and the fees we charge for that. Currently, it's $50 and um, in some cases that doesn't cover the staff time and and involvement. So we'll be taking a look at those. So when we say update that means raise.
Okay. Okay. We'll be evaluating staff time to complete those or implement raising zero from zero to something else. Okay. So then we had 5F which was the post office update. Any idea what's happening with our post office? I I don't know but I I'll get that
information. Okay. Then we have 5e. is this will be a little bit the house uh new uh I guess enactment of 1535. Yes. I wanted to add this as an item. This is something that was brought up at our last planning board meeting and may
not have any kind of impact on this board, but I I just wanted to address it with you because of the overlay and the CRDA changes. Uh this has since become Senate Bill 180 and this is a very similar law that was put in to one that
was put in place after Hurricane Ian in 20122. Uh it's effectively an extension of that law and it says that any municipality or county that's within a radius of the storm impact site, 100 miles in this case, um is limited from imposing a
moratorum and relevant to some of the ordinances that the city currently has out there. um anything that would propose a more restrictive or burdensome amendment to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations. So, we currently have a few different ordinances that are that are out that
have not yet been adopted. And if this law is um signed by the governor, it would be retroactive to I believe the impact of hurricane Helen. So, it does go back retroactive to September of last year. Um I had discussed this with our
consultant Tara Salmiieri for the overlay and the CRDA. Uh she did not seem to have any significant concerns about any of the language within either of those two amendments. There are some great permissions in those amendments that um would would provide property owners more
development rights and um she did not have concerns about any of the other amendments. I will be talking this over with the city's uh legal team. We'll be going through the ordinances, not only the overlay and the CRDA, but some of the others that we have out there to make sure that we are in compliance with
this law if it does take effect. But I just wanted to let the board know that this is out there. It does seem to have sailed through um the House and the Senate. So there's there's a fairly good chance this gets approved. Okay. So let's let's go on the assumption it gets approved. Okay. And so at at the moment,
we kind of think that the proposed changes that we've talked about and stuff may not be affected by this law. Our consultant didn't seem to have any significant concerns about what we're proposing. And I know you're going to have a discussion about that with with uh legal and stuff, but I guess my
question is, is that going to delay us getting this to the commission? No. Okay. So all that time frame should be all right. All right. And if if I assume if legal thinks there might be some areas, we'll just kept you'll bring that
up at the next meeting or whenever it's correct. So we the end of this month we're proposing first reading for both the overlay and the CRDA. So we would not know well we would be bringing amendments to you in in the June meeting unless there's an emergency. If there's something we need to address, we might
ask for a special meeting but Okay. Excellent. Good. Any questions on that at all? Okay. So now 5F and G I'll talk at the same time. That's the clubhouse and the Mary Pier. And I just wanted to give,
you know, there's still a lot of uncertainty about certain certain things. But on the clubhouse, I think as a board, uh, we need to be open-minded as as to let me go back a number of
months ago. We we agreed to demolish the clubhouse based on the information we had and that of course that hasn't been happened and demolition doesn't have to occur with you know we we uh did a certificate of
appropriateness for that. Since that time and looking at some of these structures, it appear it appears it's possible that the clubhouse could be repaired without being demolished. That's still kind of in
a decision making aspect right now. So, it's being looked at and the reason why that was done is I think and upon thinking about it afterwards with this with the city and the and and a lot of citizens especially came to the
commission meeting last week uh where they wanted the clubhouse to remain. And it kind of dawned on me at that point that if we demolish it, it can no longer be historic and it has to be ruled by FEMA rules at that time. I we could build a new thing, but it it would still
be uh have to be significantly different. It would be an entirely new building, but it would still be a commercial use, right? Not a residential route use. So, it wouldn't have to be elevated. Is that correct? That's correct. But if we rep if there's enough I believe this the case if the building's
in enough structurally sound enough or a much or much of it is we might be able to repair it as it was by getting a FEMA variance because it's already been historically designated and so that is in the process of being looked at and we can talk about that at a later date if
we need to but but certainly it might be cheaper and certainly more historic if we could just remake it the way it was. So, would we have to formally repeal that demolition application or I don't believe so. That slide. It just gives the city the ability to proceed. It
doesn't obligate us to do that. So, and last time I was by there and it's been a few weeks because I've been out. But, um, is there a fence around there now? There is. There is. Okay. I mean, one of those plastic orange Yeah, that's it's better than the caution tape that was
out there. So, okay. And of course we would have to do we'd have to do a FEMA variance that would come in front of the board. So if it progresses that way that would be the how we would deal with it again if if it can be worked that that way. And as and as far as the Mary Pier
is concerned, uh there is the city has agreed to get that building reappraised and we're looking to see whether we can get it under the 50% damage rule because um since the initial condemnation,
um people have been in there and it looks to be fairly structurally sound and there's the hope and maybe the belief that it's not substantially damaged. that that might be a way to go about it without having to demolish that as well. So, this is just more for kind of what's happening at the moment and
people are working on that. Chair Lowry, yes, I do have some comment cards on this item. Oh, you do? Excellent. If you're open to public comment now. Yeah, go ahead. Whoever wants to come up and talk about that. I didn't know it was on the agenda, so that was good. Bill
Brown. Hi, I'm Bill Brown. I've been a resident of St. Pete Beach since 1998 and a member of the Shuffleboard Club for 18 years.
For 70 years, the Shuffleboard Club was residing in the building we're talking about, and we certainly like to see it restored. Our club is made up of 40 to
50 members every year and is composed of people that come from various states, Canada, and locals. Uh we maintained the building. We actually have repaired some of
the things that are necessary like the doors were repaired and painted. The floors inside we painted. Uh there's an outside cabinet that is associated with the building is part of the building
that is used for the general public and we maintain the equipment in there for the use of those people. That's on a year round basis. Our club is in
existence or is operational on the months of January, February, and March and April. We we play the game three times a
week in the mornings of Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. When we're not there, we maintain the equipment on a year- round basis for the people who are visiting our
area. And somebody, a local, will be looking at the house once a week and maintaining and policing the area. So, it's really a love affair for us. We really like to
have this thing restored. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Hopefully, we can do that. That's what we're moving towards. Okay. Excellent. Anybody else have any comments on this? I have John. Yeah, I think it's everyone here. I have June John RDE.
Good afternoon. My name is indeed John RDE. Um I'm delighted to hear that you all are thinking of restoring the building instead of just demolishing it. Um, I I also loved your idea, um, board member Hawkinsmith about perhaps if it
can't be saved to relocate another building that may have less damage to its place. Um, but I am here to to really get that building saved. Um, the nice thing was I have not been with the the passive real shuffleboard club as long as some of my colleagues have, but
when I got there, it was right when there was a grant that was getting done to restore that building right to the where they were doing the the plate glass windows even. And I was amazed that it's like, wow, they're really doing this that they're not cutting corners. This is done beautifully.
Watching that construction and seeing after what happened after the storm, I was very impressed. Even though that the right side or what I guess I would call that the northwest corner of the building had a little wash out on the foundation and the building settled a little bit but the structure the roof
was still there. When I was looking in further in I noticed that some of the old the bracing I I don't know what you would call it but the posts were still there. So the construction work that was done on that was done beautifully.
Um, and I I think as a matter if it becomes an issue where we can get that restored and have to lift it, I this was news to me. I heard for the first time here that we might not even have to lift it, which would be okay. But if we did, I think that building would be there for
another hundred years because it's up out of the flood plane. It would be like many of the old Florida structures I grew up with. Um that you just had that wash out in the crawl space and after the storm you go in, mop up the floors and you're good to go. Um I'm hoping
that we can bring that building back around. We have all of the equipment that's in there. The public right now does not have access to that. We've had to to take that public access away because the building is cordoned off. But we would love nothing more than to have people that come by there. And and
I see that when we're out there playing, they'll come by. Well, what can can we do this? Could we play? And it's like, sure, come back. Or when we're done, you can go into this closet there. There's sticks there. There's discs. Bring them out. You know, have a good time. That's part of the character and charm that
keeps Pass Grill in St. Pete Beach green. I encourage you to keep that building going. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Alan Stal. discussion. I've been an owner in Patrick Grill
for over 50 years. Uh I would like to see that building restored. We have many historic plaques that were all over the place and they're all in storage. They're ready to go back on once the building gets put put back.
Uh there's so little of old Passig Grill left that we should try anything we can do to keep some of the historic aspects of Pasigril both the the pier and and the
Sheffle board court. I just want to make sure that the board knows that we uh path residents, some of us anyhow uh wish to
maintain some of the old uh history of Pathril. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Diane Halverson. She just coming back. Here she is. There she
is. Hi, my name is Diane Halerson and my apologies for um my tardiness. Um last time I talked about my cardiologist, today it's my endocrinologist calling. Um, I very much appreciate the
opportunities uh that uh Pastor Girl Shuffle has given us as elderly um citizens to congregate, socialize and provide some activity and enjoyment for
each other and for the community. I am impressed at how many times we go uh to play as individuals rather than as the with the the group and find uh adults,
children uh of all ages um playing wanting to know more about the game, wanting to know about things that happen in the community. We are totally overwhelmed by people driving up the
one-way street the wrong way who who are very busy um watching what's going on on the shuffle boards. It's a wonderful opportunity for those of us who have um limited availability of uh physical
activities that um meet some of the standards of aging and uh uh enjoying others company. It's an important activity for at least 32 of us on any given Tuesday, Thursday or
Saturday morning and uh again throughout the rest of the week on individual basis for both those of us who belong to the club and for the rest of the community. Uh it is a wonderful opportunity that you've given us to be there. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, John. Gustiffson. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Hello. My name is John Gustiffson. I am the current president of the Pastor
Grillil Shuffle Club of St. Pete Beach. Uh it's it's been uh mentioned before uh when our grandkids come and my daughters come, they want to come and play shuffleboard with grandma and grandpa.
There aren't many activities that you can do that with nine and 10 year olds. I'll be honest with you. Um well, well, they've grown. That's my wife.
Uh I have only been a resident for 13 years, but and I've only been uh a member of the shuffleboard club for I think this is the fourth year. I got to ask her to make sure.
Um, it's a on wonderful social activity. Uh, there are a couple of things that that I would request. uh maybe even before uh you determine whether you want to
damage it or not or or not damage it, excuse me, tear it down, uh I urge you to go out and actually look at the building because the north wall and the south wall where the bathrooms are and the roof seem to be intact. Now,
Brandon, no, I'm sorry. Whoever it was at the meeting last week said that cost approximately $178,000 to rebuild it. That's $350 a feat uh a square foot. That's amazing. I don't understand it.
This is not a an elaborate building. It's 2x4s and some wood uh uh siding on the outside and a little bit of wood on the inside. I I I don't know where that that number came from, but it surprises
me greatly. Uh, a couple other things that uh uh before I I thank you is could we possibly get Parks and Direct to come out and uh take care of the benches that we have out there. Another one broke
today and we've got a couple of them that are put together with duct tape and zip ties. And also, it'd be nice if we got the lighting back. Uh, a light mast is there. Uh, the lights are a skew. Uh, we
don't have power. And the lights on the north side of the shuffleboard courts, the mast's completely gone. It's been gone for a few years, but people do play in the evening as well. So anyhow, thank you very much for your time and I hope
you consider uh rebuilding or refurbishing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh last card I have Bonnie Gustafen. That's okay. Son of Gustaf.
Hi, I'm Bonnie Besten. I live with him. I sleep with the president. Um, so we're on the record, ma'am. It's okay. I still do. So anyway, um, to be front page name, when we, um, moved
here, it was just wonderful to see this facility. I looked at the price of Don Cesar. I thought, can't afford that, but I can be in this wonderful little pink building and be a mini Don Caesar. So, I just want to say as a retired physical
education for 38 and a half years, I always look at a facility that can support the community based on your health and your wellness. People can't go play pickle ball for the most part if you're older or basketball, but
everybody can come the same level on the shuffleboard court and participate. You know, we have the women's league that comes. We help them establish their outings. We have so many people in the community. We've done everything such as
going to Allen, our shuffle board and purchasing wax. So, the courts got so sandlasted during this and we had looked in last year into um park and wreck into restoring the courts themselves. I don't know where
the process is with that. Mandy, whomever um was going to look into that, but you know, we take our money and we wax the courts and we make them functional. We'll do that again next year because it's so important to be there, but we do support the
community and so many gatherings and we're we know people in the neighborhood. You know, we're always advocating. You know, there's always things like, I'd love to see more rules put on the building, but it's a basic structure that we're all saying we can,
and I don't know what the liability of it is, but we can work together with the city and help get it back to its condition. There is a lot of good parts to that building yet. It doesn't have lighting in it. We had one refrigerator
and the rest were the bathrooms and the cabinets inside. So, it's very, very simple, very glorified garage. He can't park his street rods in it, but it's a very glorified garage that we would love to see in its
original state. We've been supported by different tournaments and stuff from people in the community, funding for trophies and different things. We've just had a lot of community interest, and I really would like to see that
continue. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Is it possible to get a temporary power pole out there at least for lighting? Can Duke Energy do a temporary power pole and get some lighting up for the courts? Well, I was going to say, I mean, we're not parks
and wreck, but if Brandon, if you can, you know, express the concerns that these folks had about the benches and the lights, that would be great. I mean because there's no reason that can't be fixed regardless of the building, you know, in the short term. And for everyone that spoke, I I I
very appreciative. It's great to hear what you have to say. And that's kind of the spirit of Pastor Girl. And I think we all agree with you up here. And I think initially when the demolition permit came through, it was right after the storm and everything was so crazy and you could see the building looked
like a truck got driven through it, you know, and so I think now that just kind of like the Mary Pier now that time has kind of passed and things have settled down, you can really put a eyeball on it. That's why I think we're in this situation now where we think we're hoping that we can because it is
historic, we can we can replace it. And uh I think that's where we're headed at the moment. Who knows how long that will take, but we're trying to get that done. There's a whole depending on what the city wants to do. There's a potentially community involvement to get it done. I mean, not
to do to swing hammers, but maybe at the financial aspect of it. You know, there's insurance on it. You know, we're we're kind of working all through that right now. And uh I I I thank you all for showing up and especially at the meeting last week with the commissioners. Many of you all are
there, but I think it became really apparent that it's a you know beloved treasure that really needs to be kept. And I think I don't know if that's so much the issue is is just the timing of getting it back up and and sooner the better I think we all think. So bear
with us. All right. And thank you all for coming in. Is there going to be information about the club at the Saturday 10th? Yes. I thought I I was going to bring I was going to bring it up. That's why I wanted the plaque information too that I could have that for uh for people if they want to talk about that. But um yeah, I think that
would be like I just did here a bit of an update on the Mary Pier and the clubhouse and kind of where we're looking at it. Just so citizens don't know, it's not on a back burner. It's, you know, something the city is looking into and we're actively trying to get stuff done.
So doing our best, I guess. All right. Okay. Um, the last thing I think I have on here is 5H for the design guide book. We've kind of talked about that before, but I just wanted to mention that again. And maybe it doesn't have to be on the, you know, a discussion for the board,
but I assume at some point we're going to have to all once it's been put together, look at that. And just wondering where that's at. And like I said before, I'd I'd love to uh be involving like the narrative, not so
much the the nuts and bolts of the design, but oh, and and along along those lines, I' i've seen a couple prior ones we've had or they may not one was called they may not have been called design guide books, but they were basically that's what they were that
included uh photographs and things of that nature. And how does the city go about that? they have someone that does does the photographs themselves and puts these guide books together because you know there's whole sections
I think would be important like you know homes that have been relocated historic homes historic homes that have been added on to you know things of that nature giving to give give examples just not of houses that we like the design of in a
way but also examples that already exist. So just throwing that out, you know. So sure. Uh Tara Salmeer, our consultant is handling the design guide book. We talked with her maybe three or four weeks ago. So I believe that's currently underway. She's done quite a bit of this
work before and I think originally our view was to keep it more narrow just to the type of structures we tend to see in Pasigrail. she had recommended expanding it a bit just when we see more modern designs, we at least have consistency in the type of recommendations we're making, which we agreed with. That's
what she's moving on. Um, as for additions, I think what her focus is going to be is I mean, and subject to board approval, she's looking at um, you know, different different types of structures that all fall within a
certain architectural design pattern. So you would have those, you know, variants of the Well, it's just it just strikes me that and and and I know we're all ultimately going to get there and I guess I would ask whether and I'd ask legal too if if this if there's any
issue in me having conversations with Tara, you know, uh not necessarily as a representative as a historic board, but just trying to get an idea of certain things. Um because it's it strikes me that the best thing about design guide book if
it's included is that the architects have to look essentially have to look at that before they start doing their plans. At least they're made aware of it. And and it seems to me that the more we can have a narrative that talks about
the historic nature of Pass a Grill, the better that would be in in planting a seed in their heads when they're starting to make designs. And so, you know, uh I I think I I don't know if I said this in the meeting last time or or maybe just mentioned to you.
I told you about that uh Pass Girl brochure I saw. Yes. Did I say that at the meeting? call it from it was like the early 30s that talked about the neighborhood of Pastor Grillil and it had examples of the homes and stuff and the language in
it is just it's it's the same language 100 years later about the feeling of Pastor Grill and I'd love to have that in the design guide book as an intro and then say that was what was said back in 1930 and that's basically the same feelings we have about our neighborhoods
now and uh anyway so I think the copyright probably expired on Uh yeah, if there was one, right? Um and I don't have it on my notes from last month, so I don't think Okay. Well, I'll I'll I'll I'll share some of that uh
with people. I mean, not the brochure, the pastoral brochure. No, can I can all bear with me for a second? I just wanted to do this because I think this is really good. Um, I also have been perusing other historic municipalities throughout our state and
just looking to see if they have design guide books, etc. Um, and I did find one for actually down in Key West. So, I'll send that just for a reference of, you know, just the way they have the language and things spelled out and things that they look for. Yeah. I I
guess I'm wondering I hate to have Tara just doing this independently without any input as it's being developed. Is there anything that that's that stands in the way of having communication with her that you can think of? Not not that I can think of. I can see if she can be available for the next meeting. We can
get Well, does it have to be in a meeting is what I'm saying. I don't I don't know. No, no, if she could share a draft and then we could make some comments back. Absolutely. But so I just want to read this. This is this and again this was a brochure many pages but it's really great and it didn't have a
date on it but they had a photograph which included the the then governor and he was governor from 1929 to 1933. So it was somewhere in that time frame. Okay. And this is called there was a section called a community of homelike homes and
it's this really this so this is almost 100 years ago. I love this. Although Pasigril Beach because that's what it was then. Although Pastor Girl Beach has some residences that may be characterized as pretentious, most of its homes are distinguished by simple homelike qualities. They are the kind of
homes that are built to be enjoyed, built to be lived in, built not for show, but for comfort and real happiness. Pretty cottages nestled among a natural growth of palm trees. Palm trees brightened by the gorgeous color of oleander and wild flowers. And looking out over the rippling blue waters of the bay or Gulf, what home of
one streams could be more charming? And it says, and this is where I think it's really, while not a large community, Pascal Beach has been chosen for the winter homes of many prominent and wealthy people from all parts of America. It is doubtful if any place of its size in Florida can boast of such a
large number of notable people among its winter residents. Yet, if you see these people enjoying life at Pascal Beach, you would never guess their position in life. for here they come to enjoy life free from all the traals and formalities of metropolitan living in which they
would normally be accustomed. So I just think that's just such a you know it kind of defines experience of pastor grill that I think that would be a great little intro and again mentioning it's a 100 years ago. Yeah. Anyways I wanted to share that. So I as
far as input from Lehov on commenting back to the person working on the guide book I think that each person can review the draft of the guide book um without being in a meeting, but it would certainly be safest to discuss recommendations um
while the entire board is here. So, sure um or to send our individual comments to staff and then staff can sort and disseminate that keep keep track of what you're sending because that should still be discussed out in the open. Um, and I I think it would be better if we could
get her in here for everybody to share their input directly. Um, that seems to that's the most straightforward way and then everybody's on the same page without any kind of appearance of things being done um behind the scenes. Okay.
So, and I understand appreciate what you're saying. If I want to send a email to Tara through you or through staff, I I could do that and not share it with the rest of these folks, but just do it in that fashion. Would that be an appropriate way for me to contact her?
Yes, but I I think it should also be discussed at the next meeting. Um, so you can do that, but then also at the next meeting say this is the feedback I was thinking. Yeah, I got you. So, so I would I would at a meeting
I could share that email. Yes. I'm saying. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Very good. Bells are tolling. Um, anything else? Okay. Thanks everybody. Journed. Oh, yes ma'am. One more thing. So, oh,
in honor in honor of um historic preservation month. Yes. So, we have some goodies from Kasa Doll Pond that Miss Anna decided to, you know, donate to us, but I have it in the back.