To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam clerk, before I take roll call,
does Miss Hawkinsmith is She said she wasn't going to be here today. Is that my memory right on that? >> Hearded you. Kristen, >> let me take a quick look. >> I I just meant, if you know, if she's on her way, we would [clears throat] wait a minute or two, but I thought I recall
her saying something. >> I do not have anything in my note cover page. Okay. Well, we can go forward. I just Okay. Madame Clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Hurley, >> here. >> Member Young, >> here. >> Member Dashel, >> here.
>> Chair Lowry, >> yes. Here. >> We have a quorum. >> Okay. Uh, this is today's meeting for the Historic Preservation Board um at on January 8th, 2026. The first thing on our agenda is approval of the agenda.
And does anybody have anything they would like to add to the agenda? >> I don't have anything to add, but I I wanted to question number six, the next meeting date of February the 6th. I think that's a Friday. Is
the date actually Friday the 6th or is that a mistake? >> Let's see. The fifth would be our normally scheduled Thursday meeting. >> I do feel like it got changed. It's
February 5th. >> It is February 5th. Okay. >> Okay. >> Hi. >> Okay. So, as far as anybody else they want to potentially add for discussion, >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes. staff would like to add a
discussion item for um applicability of CRDA and building heights. >> Okay. And we will call that five B. All right. Um, I would like to add as 5C,
uh, having to do with the 702 Pascal wave variance, um, at the board of adjustment on the 28th. And so I I'll wait till, you know, that time frame if we can add that to discuss. Uh, I have some things I'd like
to raise. So that would be 5T 5C, excuse me. So 702 Pastor Girl way. Anybody have anything else they'd like to add? >> Okay. Anybody have a motion on the
agenda? >> Motion to accept the agenda as changes that we've mentioned. >> I'll second that. Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Young. >> Yes. Member Dashel. >> Yes. Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. Uh, next we have audience comments. Um, this is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to make a comment up to three minutes on anything that they think is important for us or that we should need to know about. I would
point out if you're here for specific things on the agenda that you want to speak about, you can wait until that time to speak. This is just for things that are off agenda. Are there any audience members that would like to speak on anything off agenda?
Okay, seeing none, we'll go forward. Uh, next is approval of minutes and this is for November 6th and December 4th meetings. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the meetings both for November 6th
and December 4th of 2025. >> I'll second that. >> Before we get to that, I'm I'm sorry. And I should have probably there's there's one thing on the agenda. Uh I usually never comment on the minute minutes, but there's one thing I think should perhaps be clarified.
Uh [clears throat] let me find that. This would be on the last meeting uh for on theformational items. We had six B which was the board of adjustment uh case coming up on 702 Pascal way we just mentioned and in reviewing
the number of paragraphs which I think are really really very accurate. I have one concern that I have a problem with. Uh and that is in the first paragraph. The second sentence says
the requested variance is to allow the property at 702 Pasco Way to retain its existing front curb cut following the development. Actually, it's third paragraph, excuse third sentence. Under land development code section 411, properties with alley access are
generally required to use the alley for vehicular access. That sentence is incorrect because under 401 it's a mandatory shall use alleys. So to say it's generally required is is
not accurate and that's actually a very salient point in this whole uh upcoming um ordinance excuse me variance request. So I never haven't done that with you madam clerk before but are we just not noting that and then we can just go
ahead and approve it >> right we can approve it with the change >> I think you would take out the word generally is your your concern. Yes, it should see it should say uh >> properties with alley access shall use the alley for vehicular access.
>> Do we need to do the motions again or can we do roll call? >> Um if you can just clarify, member Dashel, that you approve the amended minutes. >> Sure. Um, I approve the amended minutes uh from the meeting taking place on
December 4th, 2025. And I approve the minutes without any concern from November 6th, 2025. >> I second that. >> Okay. Thank you, [snorts] >> Madam Clerk. Roll call, please. >> Okay. Member Dashel? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Member Young?
>> Yes. >> Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Now move on to subsection four action items. 4A is local historic designation case number 25138 of the residents at 40672nd
Avenue. Mr. Martinez, >> Chair Lowry, if I may, I just would like to put on the record that these are also the same action items that were continued from our December agenda. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, board members. Gil Martinez, senior planner.
Before you today is a request for local historic designation for the property located at 40672nd Avenue. It is case number 25138 and the applicant is Mr. Mad Musban. >> Hello. I'm here on the line as well. >> Okay.
>> Mr. Musban. Hi. >> Hi. Go. >> Um here you see an aerial and the survey of the property. These are some current field photos of the home. Google Earth shots from 2011 and 2019.
These are photos provided by the applicant post storm. Um, this gives you some idea of what the conditions are currently post the storm. So the character defining features of this property, the structure, it's a
modest 1949 minimal traditional cottage with stucco concrete block construction, low pitched gable roof, cent centered entry and simple massing. Its high integrity of design, scale, and setting, retaining original footprint,
roof form, and relationship to the street and surrounding mid-century homes. and its significant example of a postworld War II residential development reflecting St. Pete Beach's transition from seasonal resort to permanent coastal community.
Staff findings. Staff supports this application to be locally designated locally designate 40672nav as a historic building. Staff finds that the building is significant in the following areas. It exemplifies and reflects a broad cultural and political,
economic or social factor of the history and it embodies a distinctive visible characteristic of an architectural style or period. Motion to approve case number 25138 for local historic designation of the single family structure at 40672nd
Avenue. I'm here to take any questions and Mr. Musban is here as well if you'd like to address him. Anybody in the board have a questions for Mr. Martinez? >> I do not. >> I would just say that you've Yes. done a
complete and thorough job as you normally do, Mr. Musupon. Is that Am I pronouncing that almost correctly? >> Almost. Yeah, it's Musupana. >> Musana. Okay. Um, do you have anything you'd like to tell the board? It's not necessary, but you know, um, please feel
free to give us any information you think might be important. Yeah. No, I just I want to appreciate everyone for their time and uh the property given its vicinity to the downtown St. Pete Beach area is really what sparked me to to be interested in
historic maintaining that historic um kind of sense to the home and to the to the area. So, please uh ask away if you have any questions. I I'm happy to address anything. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions for this gentleman? >> I do not. >> Do not. >> Okay. Anybody have a motion?
I'd like to make a motion to approve local historic designation of the residence at 40672nd Avenue, St. P Beach. >> I'll second that. >> And just for the record, that's case number >> 25138. Madam, >> thank you,
>> Madam Clerk. Roll call, please. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Member Young? >> Yes. >> Member Dashel? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Okay. 4B local historic designation case number 255098
for the residents at 3211 East Deasen Avenue. Mr. Barry, good afternoon Brendan Barry planner. This is the first of two requests for this property that are being heard today. The second is a certificate of appropriateness to significantly improve the front
residence on the property as well as convert the rear cassita residence to a garage. The applicant owner is Thomas and Beverly McGucken. Property address of 3211 East to Basin Avenue. And this request is for the local historic designation of the three unit two
building residential structures on the subject property. You can see here an aerial of the property. It's one of a row of five uh duplexes with rear unit that were built back in 1949 as VA worker housing at the
time that the Donses Hotel was functioning as the VA headquarters. Uh this is the fourth in the row uh going east from Granada Street. You can see a survey on the right side of the screen. Here is the master site file photo from
when the structure was placed on or considered a contributing structure during our survey back in 2024 of the Donsesar neighborhood. And you can see here some current photos um limited limited alterations compared
to the 2024 photo. Staff finds that the property is considered ranch in style. Um, it does have that historic that horizontal orientation, the hip roof, the stucco siding to the residence. There are two dwelling units in the front and there is one legal accessory dwelling unit in the
rear of the lot that is referred to as the cassita. The exterior of the building is stuckco. The buildings have hip roofs covered with asphalt shingles. The distinguishing architectural features for the Florida master site file include horizontal scoring and rounded corners. It's particularly
evident on the front of the structure. The residential structure is located within the Donses Place subdivision. It was considered to be contributing structure within the historic neighborhood during the recent survey. Um, as I mentioned before, it was one of the five structures that was built to provide that housing for the VA um VA uh
headquarters at the time it was designated. Staff supports the application to locally designate both of the buildings on this property as historic buildings. We find them significant in the areas of local uh cultural and social history of the Donses
Place neighborhood and St. Pete Beach. We do recommend that both of these structures be approved for local historic designation. I would ask that the applicant advise whether they would like to hold on a vote on this action until the board has reviewed the certificate of appropriateness. Once these structures are designated, there
is a delay in them being able to be removed. And I understand they would like to move forward with the work on the primary dwelling um and they are present. They can advise on that. Do you have any questions for me? >> I don't think so. >> Yeah. Okay. You want to come forward?
>> Please state your name for the record. >> Uh Sam Angelus Jr., applicant representative of the homeowners. Uh yeah, we would like to delay the uh historic designation until we know that you would approve of the proposed
elevation in the next item if possible. >> I don't I don't let me just ask can we do that Brandon? I mean I don't if we can that's fine but I don't know. >> You can go ahead and read the next item and then take the staff report and then you can vote separately on them. >> Okay. Um, but if you have any concerns,
uh, uh, they come up in the second one, it may be relevant to the first. >> No, I understand exactly what you're trying to do. Just it's a matter of procedure. So, do you want to go ahead and present the second part and then we'll consider them both at the same time. Thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. If we could get the PowerPoint. So, the second part of the request is a
certificate of appropriateness. Case number 255099. Same applicant and owner, same address. This is a certificate of appropriateness to elevate the primary two family structure, convert the rear cassita structure to a garage, and make other
associated improvements. Again, a layout of the property. You can see on the right side a markup or a mockup of the layout of the home. The actual living square footage is not increasing. There is a proposal to add front decks as well as a front stair.
There have been a few different options proposed which I will show in a subsequent slide. Um, at the rear of the property would be provided driveway access from the alley um to a parking area underneath and at the rear there would also be access um you can
see the one-story cassita that would be converted to a garage. >> Let me go back on that just so I'm clear as we go along. Mhm. >> So in that picture there, so that rectangular box to the right of the casino would be the is that's the
covered area they they want to put there. >> That I believe is an existing uh structure that would be removed to accommodate the driveways. >> Gotcha. Okay. So So the garage, those two gray rectangles on both sides of the
cassita, those are proposed driveways. >> Those are driveways. Yes. and and so the cassette itself they want to convert into a garage. They don't plan on putting a car in that though, which I don't care, but I'm just saying >> it's not shown in the plan. So there's no there's no drive access from the
alley. Um the applicant can advise if they would provide another. They would be eligible for a third. So >> that's fine. I did it just as we went along. Thank you. >> Uh this is repeat, but the same findings as the prior case uh regarding the integrity of the structure.
So the certificate of appropriateness application proposes keeping the front building two units and converting the cassita into a garage. The property owners are advised that once the cassita is converted to a garage, the third unit will no longer be a legal dwelling due to the single family zoning of the property. The duplex, the two family
would remain a legal non-conforming use following elevation. The changes being proposed involve elevating the existing duplex by 6.8 ft above grade. that brings the home up to the one foot above base elevation requirement under the Florida building code. The applicant
further states that they intend to keep the existing building footprint and rear driveways. As I showed on the previous slide, there would be no additional living space. There would be space used for access to the primary dwelling. Uh that would keep they would keep the existing cassita at the current elevation, convert it from a studio into
a garage. They would keep the front pathways in the historic circular patio. and I have renderings in the following slide to show that they're also seeking to add a front staircase for access and front balconies. They propose use shrubs and greenery to minimize the visual effect of elevation in the front as
recommended in the Secretary of Interior's publication pertaining to the elevation of historic properties located in floodprone areas. They also seek to build rear staircases and balconies to access rear doors. property will function as it did historically without
that one additional unit in the rear and with a cassita being converted into a garage. So, there were a few mockup uh rendering proposals. You can see those on the left side of the screen. Staff is in agreement that the top rendering is the one that best preserves the layout and
function of the structure. Uh the applicant would be able to move forward with any of the three of these, but we would request that the um the top one be considered if it if it is um one that the homeowner is willing to move forward with. It preserves that front center access. Um it includes the minimal um
decks and balconies at the front there and it does a fairly good job at screening the elevation of the ranch home. the others place a little bit more emphasis on that elevation and um the one in the center provides that access primarily from the back. So that does that does change the layout and historic
function of the property somewhat. >> Yeah, that's my question on that middle one. Where how do you get to the front deck? I don't see stairs is what I'm saying. >> The applicant can clarify that. We didn't get a layout plan based on that, but I believe that the access would be solely from the rear. And I'll go back to that. You could see the um the access
from the from the back here. Uh you can see here the cassita that would be converted at the rear of the property. Staff supports a request for the certificate of appropriateness to elevate the existing duplex building by 6.8 ft above grade. That would bring the
home up to 1 ft above the base flood elevation. Could be a little bit challenging with the elevation of ranch style homes. they have such a strong horizontal orientation. But the inclusion of the stucco, the heavy landscaping at the front of the structure, which would be enforced at time of application, um does help to
mask the fact that the building is being elevated. Typically, the secretary of the interior recommends elevations of 3 to 4 feet for horizontally oriented structures. It's a little bit easier with structures like art deco that have that vertical orientation, but in this case they are elevating it to the
minimum elevation that would meet FEMA compliance. Um we would never advise an applicant against that and um they are keeping with the screening um an effective screening of the elevation of the structure. Staff's recommended conditions would be to keep the as
proposed the existing building footprint in the rear driveways as has been proposed. Keep the existing cassita at the current elevation and convert it from a studio to a garage as proposed by the applicant. We would recommend keeping the front pathways and historic circular patio, adding a front staircase
for access and front balconies. That's that top rendering that was shown on the previous slide. That would be compliant with required setbacks. This structure is not within the pasil overlay district. So it is not eligible for those automatic reduced setbacks that are eligible in pasil. There is a
potential based on the layout that a variance may be needed for either the front stairs or the deck. Uh currently the standard is 17 feet to the front balconies and stairs and that would need to be maintained. The building is currently set approximately 25 ft from the front property line. They've shown through the renderings that shrubs and
greenery would be used to minimize the visual effect of elevation in the front. We do feel it's effective and that is something we would evaluate with them at time of permit should this request be approved. And then they would build the rear staircases and balconies to access the rear doors.
So with that being said, um following the request to designate the structure, should that be approved, we would also recommend a motion to approve certificate of appropriateness case number 255099 with the staff recommendations. Happy to take any questions. >> Yeah, I have one for you, Brandon. I
think so. If we historically designate it, uh, they don't have to become FEMA compliant, but they do want to elevate it to be high enough to be FEMA compliant. Right. >> Correct. Yes. >> Now, does that affect their historic
designation in the future? We've kind of talked about that before with other residences and and I don't know how we've kind of washed that out as far as you know uh does it take some act for somebody to say that's now non-historic or that be another owner down the line
or where does that even become an issue if you follow up what I'm saying? So, a the reason why I I asked the applicant to consider a delay to consider both these items together is once they're on the local registry, they cannot ddesate for a year unless they demo the home. They would always be able to come back
in a month or two and ask to demolish the home, but they cannot voluntarily ddesate and keep the structure. So, um the certificate of appropriateness is authorization from the board to move forward with a modification to a locally designated structure. So, they would
retain that. So we're not we're not messing up their historic designation if we if we grant both of these at the same time. >> Correct. You would be preserving it. Yes. >> And I guess I'm wondering just, you know, way on down the line or something years from now, let's say, does if they
want to do other additions to that house or something like that, is there historic designation potentially uh in danger because they've raised it as they made it FEMA compliance. be found, Sam, or is that just better
answered if it ever happens? >> Well, it it wouldn't it wouldn't threaten what's being approved today because you would retain the historic designation with the approval of the certificate of appropriateness. If they were to look to add another story if they were to look to add something that's contextual and not necessarily in
compliance with the requirements, that could be a threat to them. But um in on the opposite hand, if the flood zone were to increase, they would be eligible to substantially improve without necessarily needing to elevate further. So that could be a benefit. >> And folks, just so this discussion is
kind of for your benefit as well. you know, we kind of know the answers to the thing, I I think, but and I'm going to have you step up in a moment, but uh you know, I just want to make sure you understand and I think you do, but that that's just something there that
once you're historic, you could raise your house 2 feet, 3 feet, four feet, 5 feet. You don't have to raise it to make it FEMA compliant. Unless, of course, you want to do that, which there's maybe good reasons to do that. That's why I wanted to make sure that was out in the
open is about how that's happening and obviously you're doing the bare minimum and and so just so long as you're aware of all that stuff. That's the only thing I'm trying to say. Okay. >> Other future ones will come back for a certificate of appropriateness if
they're designated. >> Yep. >> To review those. Any additions in the future will come back to you again before >> Okay. Um does anybody have any questions for Brandon? >> I do not. Do you want does Mr. Angelus, you want to come back up here for a minute, please? Just
>> Can I also have something to show you guys the rear mockup of the cassita? >> Okay, great. >> With the proposed [cough and clears throat] >> I don't know if they've got that set up. >> You can show it on the slide and then leave a copy with the clerk. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, we would propose short driveway to the cassita and these two
narrow driveways, right? >> You know. Okay. >> Keeping in mind the 70% rule for >> perable service >> and and does that Brandon does if if they put a garage door in there, do they have to come back in there for any reasons? They just get permitted through the city. >> That would be part of this.
>> It would be. Okay. Okay. And is that something we look at the garage door to make sure it's like a mid-century modern kind of, you know, design kind of scenario or is that >> street though? It's not visible from the street. >> Okay. That make All right. Good point.
>> I thought that's what our basic rules were visually. >> I was just asking if it was something that they'd have to come back for. So, don't know. I' I'd rather not have to have you come if you don't have to, obviously. So, just ask them. Okay. So, on on the one slide that we had of the three choices there of of how you want
to do the front, I know Mr. Barry had suggested the top one staff thinks is most appropriate. Uh do you have you all made any decisions about that? uh we're open to what staff and what the board thinks >> right
>> is the best. So that's why we've given the three options. >> Okay. Well, from this member of the board, I I totally agree with the staff on that because I think that first one keeps that look even if you I mean I don't know if you all tend to keep this as a duplex or whether you want to put
interior doors in the middle of it. I don't know and I don't care. But what's so cool about these houses where they were designed as duplexes and obviously that first and not obviously but in my opinion that that first example
keeps that you know uh duplex look a lot better than the than the other two. And so I don't know if any board members want to comment that as well. Please do if you do. >> I would agree. I would feel comfortable with that first selection um that falls in line more so with the historic
elements and aspects versus the other two which definitely deviate from that. >> Okay. Anybody have any Let me say Oh, uh I don't think I have any more questions. Anybody anything? the f the first rendering I'm assuming
that you're going to give up the circular planter box where the where the palm trees are. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Just because that's it has to be raised. >> It doesn't it doesn't work. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Also the probably the know it's a very
small thing. One of the coolest things in the house or the house is that >> I forget that's not the right word. The emblem that's in the middle front there, you know. >> Yeah, we do like that. Yeah, that's great. I hope you highlight that in some fashion. I don't mean with, you know, neon lights, but uh paint look good. Yeah, it'll be great
>> or something. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um so, let's see here. >> What goes first? Yeah, I guess what I'd do, I'd make a motion that we approve local historic designation number 255098
for the home at 3211 East of Basin Avenue, as well as approve the certificate of appropriateness for elevation on case number 255099 for the same home, 3211 East Debas Avenue.
>> If we could take a vote on the first one first. Okay, madame clerk, get roll call on the roll call, please. On the first uh >> Did we get a second? >> Get seconded. Yes. >> Excuse the second. Sorry. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Thank you. Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Dashel. >> Yes. >> Member Hurley?
>> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. If we can get roll call for uh case number 2598 >> 99. >> Is the second for >> I'll second. I'll second that. >> Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted the second one. [clears throat] Member
Young, >> yes. >> Um, member Dashel, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. All right, >> chair, if I may, is that with staff recommendations? >> Pardon me. >> Is that with the staff recommendations?
>> Yes. I I apologize. I don't know if that was something we could make a a requirement or not. Yes. Uh, I don't know if we need to amend that motion, but my motion would be including the stack recommendations. That would be the first elevation of the front. >> Yes.
>> And other staff recommendations. If we could just amend it and then take another roll call vote. >> Do we need to second that? >> Yes, please. >> Second roll call, please. >> Do we have to restate with the amended selection or not necessarily?
>> Um, you can. That's the first elevation, right? >> Okay. All right. Here, let me let me go again back to 259. >> I'm doing the elevation one. 255099. I recommend we [clears throat] I make a motion to grant the certificate
of appropriateness for that elevation number 255099 with staff recommendations being the uh first example in their presentation of uh the steps to the
front of the house. Member Dashel, you want to second that one again? >> I'll second that. >> Roll call, please. >> Excuse me. Member Young. >> Yes. >> Member Dashel? >> Yes. >> Member Hurley? >> Yes. >> Chair Lowry? >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. Now we move on to 4D. certificate of appropriateness for the demolition uh at case number 25150 for the residences located at 103 and a
half and 105 and a half first avenue. Mr. Barry, >> thank you. Uh the applicant owner for this case is Sunset Wrecking and Asset Recovery LLC from Maryland Nolan. Property addresses 103 and a half and 105 and a half First Avenue. This
request is specifically a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the two rear accessory dwellings on the subject property. The front dwelling is not being demolished at this uh requested for demolition at this time. So the subject parcel contains a primary
dwelling and two residential outbuildings. The outbuildings were constructed circa 1940s according to the Florida master site file for the rest western dwelling. Uh the primary two family residence proposed to remain on the property was built in 1901. It is one of the oldest structures remaining
in Pasigril being built by Joseph Mary who was instrumental in the early modern history of the neighborhood and whose namesake remains in the 8th Avenue pier. Both out buildings proposed for demolition were destroyed in the 2024 hurricanes and were designated unsafe by the city's building department.
Uh so you can see the two structures facing toward the rear alleyway. Some photos here um during earlier times pretorm. I can see here the staff photos from our visit last month and some additional photos.
Um, as as always with these requests, uh, the board can impose a stay. Um, the board cannot deny these requests, but as both of these structures are individually listed on the local historic registry, a stay of up to 90 days could be imposed to discuss preservation incentives or restoration
incentives with the owner of for these structures. And as always, we review the criteria in the land development code. Staff supports a request to demolish the buildings without a stay pending applicant acknowledgement of the development limitations, which I'll cover in a moment. Uh, the structures
are destroyed. They're not safe to inhabit and they cannot be reasonably restored. The properties are zon the property is zoned for multif family. The structures are on a multif family property, but they contain a greater number of units than would be supported by the underlying zoning. Reconstructing either
dwelling would require compliance with all current zoning requirements, including parking and maximum lot coverage standards. Would also require the units do not exceed their current developed square footage. I believe that's currently about 7,500 square ft. that would significantly limit the
square footage of the development allowed on the property. Additionally, [clears throat] if they are reconstructed after pending amendments to the pastoral Overlay district are adopted, redevelopment will require historic preservation board design review before proceeding onto site plan review rather than allowing the owner to
undertake development to the underlying zoning district standards. With that being said, we're only asking for an acknowledgement. We're not asking for a delay or um a denial on this request. So, following the owner testimony acknowledging the limitations
that were just proposed, um we ask for a motion to approve case number 25140 for demolition of both structures without a stay on demolition. Do you have any questions for me? >> Doesn't appear to be >> Brandon, just to be clear, if they were
to demolish, they could only build back one dwelling unit. Is that what you're saying? They could build back both dwelling units, but they would be limited to the same square footage that are that exists today for the destroyed buildings. Yes. >> Thank you. >> And and that is the information you
want. That's the testimony, the acknowledgement from from you would like at this point. Okay. With the uh applicant come forward, please state your name for the record and address. >> Marilyn Nolan. I'm the owner of 103 105
First Avenue. My current address though is in Gulfport. >> Okay. You heard Mr. Barry said about the limitations on rebuilding those structures and you accept those and acknowledge that that's part of this what we're doing here today. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to say to
to us? >> No. Okay. Thank you, Miss Nolan. >> Thank you. >> I think there's another person that would like to speak. Well, step forward, Greg. >> Perry James Asenheimer, Jr., thank you for hearing me. So, my question is, I'm
Marilyn's friend and her realtor. I'm currently marketing the property as uh it's for sale with the owner having no intention to redevelop this land whatsoever. >> So, in an effort to comply with the request to not, you know, to address the
condemned structures, she got a company involved to do it. Since then, the [clears throat] property's been marketed for a couple of months, and there's been no interest shown in rehabilitating the main structure. So, we've asked the demo company to include demolishing that
structure as well, which is technically the 1901 structure that carries the historic clout, if you will, of these versus the other two shanties that were destroyed. And so I'm wondering we can include the possibility of tearing down that third structure because it's not
helping sell the asset and the owner is in desire to sell it. And how would I then go forward marketing this opportunity? Is it two vacant lots that happen to sit adjacent to each other? Is it a buildable one lot? Is it a single lot with multiple units available on
each lot, each parcel? Or is it four units on the two lots? I have my only answer to people that ask me right now is go see the city and let me know what you find out because I don't know that the answers to those and I'd like to have not a historical designation that's
not going to be embraced prevent me from helping market the the opportunity so the owner can pull their equity out of it. >> All right. Well, let me tell you a few things. What I can add, I might have to ask Mr. Barry for some things, too. First off, to piggyback the demolition
of of the front house. We cannot do that today because they'd have to prepare a staff report and that's procedurally we could not do that today. I I don't know whether it's I I think it's just one lot, isn't it? Right. >> It's got two addresses.
>> Well, that's because the but but the addresses are the halves in the back, aren't they? >> One of No, it's one parcel number, but it's two lots. >> Okay. So, so I'm a little bit confused at that point. So, uh, and I don't want to speak out of turn, but you know, if
you demolish the front, then I I don't know whether that affects your ability to build two or three units there if it's mult if it's zone multifamily. I don't know. I mean, Mr. Barry could perhaps answer. If I may, if I may, Chair Lowry, I I mean, this is the first at staff's hearing that you would like
to demolish that and I sentiment the same sentiment as Chair Lowry, that you would have to come in for the demolition of that, but we would be happy, more than happy to sit down either with you or any of your clients or the owner and look at your options, okay? >> Um rather, you know, so we have a chance
to sit down, you have your questions if we need additional information, but just not in this format that it is. But I would be more than welcome to give you my card and you can and reach out and set up an appointment with staff. >> I'd like to volunteer also that Mr. [clears throat] Lowry has come through the property with me a number of months back. So he's aware of the condition
personally as well as the site visit for the photographs. >> Um >> the uh I lost my train of thought, but >> that's okay. >> Bottom line is I don't want to mislead anybody in what they can or can't do. >> Absolutely. >> And we would like to sell the asset. So whatever we can do to comply and to the
the something that's not been spoken of that I don't want it to be like a an elephant in the room later after the hearing's done is that when the notices went up for condemnation it was understood that after a certain hearing that occurred fines started to be implemented to the tune of $250 a day
and do the math were over $15,000 but with the same city saying you can't do what we asked you to do months ago. And so we want to make sure that those fines aren't acrewing and that there's reasonleness to the conundrum that's that's existed since this storm way laid
this sensitive asset. We've further volunteered that Miss Nolan would be happy to give this property to the beach over 10 blocks north up to the Trudy Perry shuffleboard courts and there's no wires overhead. No cost for the building and it's a straight shot and we've done
these things on Passro before as we know with the um it was a a property on the corner of the seventh and eighth block on Passil Way was moved up to 15. So it's feasible. I don't know who's going to pay for it, but that was the effort was to maintain a historic structure to
not just see another one go to the wrecking machine. And it seems like that's what's coming because it's not economically sound to make the investment in the structure that would the market would then support thereafter. >> So I feel that other step is coming, the demo step
>> and I I appreciate that and I think again procedurally we can only do what's in front of us. Okay? So I mean and I don't mean to sound rude about it. So it's not really a question and answer period with us because we don't necessarily know the answers unless it gets filter. >> I'm sharing thoughts.
>> So staff I appreciate that and I and you're right. I went down there with you. We looked at that house. Uh you know those are all things to be considered. I think the first step which you I think you're getting we're getting ready to accomplish today is you knocking those two condemned buildings
down. Okay. I mean you I'm not saying you wouldn't but you might find a buyer who says I would like that front house to be his it be designated historic remain. It is historic right now is it not? I know it is. >> Nobody on our side has solicited that but may have happened before 2017 when
the owner changed. >> No but but but Brandon it's it's historically designated. >> Yes. It is currently and everything. Right. >> Correct. You are correct. >> Okay. So somebody could come in there if they wanted to. Maybe y'all don't own it. They could they could rehab that house. >> Right. for the last couple of months, nobody
stepped forward. >> I know you're saying that. I'm just saying the options are there. >> If you choose to not do that, that's fine. Then you can demolish it. We can't stop you from demolishing it. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh just that's not something we can we
can rule on today. Again, you have to go through staff. And it sounds like you've got a lot of questions about how you could potentially market that property if the house is knocked down. and and they would be happy to talk to you about that >> just to steer people into compliance. I don't want anybody out there thinking
they can do something that then they say, "Well, we thought we could do this." I'd rather they just know concrete. There's the if the land is empty, this is what you can do up to. >> Well, that's that's what they would be happy to tell you if you have a sit down. >> Yeah, I'll follow up. And as far as as moving the house,
that's a whole, as I can attest to, that's a whole new can of worms. That is potentially a possibility. It would be but would be very time and [clears throat] financially involved because, as you know, having been
through that house, all the floors are gone. It's nothing like the other house we were talking about about moving. So that's going to take a lot more time and effort to come to some potent excuse me potential decision on moving that house
which would be all play into what you all want to do yourself. You know it's not going to be a situation >> I desire here is to divest. So that's what we're looking to do is do the steps to expeditiously divest of the asset and let the next dream come along. >> Okay. Well, I'm just saying, you know, I
mean, if the house isn't demol, you know, I can't sell your I don't I don't know what buyers are going to do or what they want to do out there, but uh other than the fact that you can meet with staff and get some of those other questions asked. Um, you know, today all
we can do is rule or make a decision on your demolition of back back two structures. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Fm. Appreciate it. >> Your mouth's opening. [laughter] Now, I I would like to make a motion. Let me see if I can get this right. I'd
like to move that we um grant a certificate of appropriateness for demolation for number 25140 for 103 and a half and 105 and a half First Avenue. >> And would you want to do that without a
stay? with there was a um with the caveat that >> well we can grant it without a stay and they still have time to get their affairs in order perhaps. So which means that
>> somebody without a stay and they can use their own timeline. >> That's what I was Yeah. No, right. Yeah. That's what I was getting at. The caveat was on I'm sorry the staff report that assuring that the applicant understands
the limitations. Okay. Including that the applicant has acknowledged the limitations on redevelopment. >> Right. But for the purpose of the of this motion today, we don't need to we don't need to include that because I'll have to come back at another date if
they want to demolish it. >> The front structure. >> Yeah, the front structure. Right. And so then at that point, we can make a acknowledgements and things of that nature. So, >> but we she has acknowledged that she understands that once those two buildings are gone that
>> Yes. >> the limitations on any redevelopment. >> Yes. But we don't have to put that in a motion. That's on the record. So, all right. So, if that's on the record, then then that was my motion. >> Okay. Then I'm just to be clarify, I'm going to second five second the motion
to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition case number 25140 for 103 and a half 105 and a half First Avenue with no uh time >> with no stay. >> With no stay. Correct. >> Without a stay on demolition.
>> Yes, madame clerk. Roll call, please. Member Dashel, >> yes. >> Member Hurley, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Chair Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Now, we're going to move on to subsection five, discussion items. 5A
is a design guide book content. [clears throat] This item is really just to solicit board feedback if there's anything else that you would like added to this. I thank um the members who were able to
send over photos of your preferred new build um older renovated and elevated historic structures. There were I I I am going to take a few of the photos on the very last page, page 11, um and and expand on those, give a little bit more
detail for why those were select. >> Let we I got to get to those. I'm >> sure. Yeah. >> Okay. So, page 11 was Well, on my thing, it' be >> 131 out of 13. It's the one that has the nine votes.
>> 128. Page 128. Okay, let me go back on 131. There's a whole bunch of photos. What were you talking about, Brandon? The ones at the end or the ones the body? >> The ones at the very end. It should be the second to last page in your packet. >> That's that's one page 131, I think.
132. It has the 15 photographs. >> So, >> yeah, that was actually that was a Go ahead. I'm finish up what you're going to say. I was just going to say that we did give some additional detail earlier in the introduction on why some of the
structures were selected. There were a few structures that multiple board members selected. So, I included those with a short write up. Some of the ones toward the end um only one member had selected, but I do think that there are a few of these that probably deserve um
you know, a little bit more of a write up than they have instead of just being the photo. So, I was going to include those in the table earlier in the introduction, but with that, I just wanted to get board feedback. Um, this is the last item that we're waiting on the adoption of the amendments to the
overlay in the CRD8th Avenue to adopt. Uh, this is the part that staff and the board have committed to completing and um, barring any changes that we discussed today, I think that our part is done. We have been working with Tara Salmeary. Um, she has been working on the actual substantive design content
for this book. So, we'll likely be putting those together in the next month or two, bringing them back to the board for approval, and then moving on the ordinance to final rating. Okay, first off, I I think very good all
the way around. I, you know, I think most the language is is very well done. And I say most only because I can't point out something I disagree with. But uh I as far as when we get into when we
start using photographs, I guess before that, excuse me, when we talk about the different styles, >> this and for y'all I'm on page 124 of our thing, but this would be
Brandon the part that talks about heritage, architectural styles, and existing promoted construction. when we talk about frame, vernacular, etc. Is it your plan to ultimately put photographs in those sections? >> Yes. Yes. I just wanted to get approval
from the board on the photos and and then I'll move them into the appropriate section. >> Maybe you said that. Okay. Very good. All right. Because I I I totally agree that that's it's better there than and then at the And then as we go down, we have the examples which is of on page
128. You mentioned Danielle, the examples of preferred new construction, renovated and elevated historic buildings and additions. Those would pretty much say the same, right? I mean, that that's that's not something you're proposing to do changes on as far
as photographs or things like that. Is that right? >> No, I think I think the plan is under the heritage construction was to have photos with addresses, but then later on to give a write up on why the board likes these structures. This is all assumed. Um, like I said, there were
multiple homes and and primarily the structures that you see in this section with writeups. They're homes that multiple members sent me photos of. So, I felt that they were appropriate to move forward. >> Okay. Let me ask you and and and everybody please pipe up. So, I'm down
on page 129 now with 133 pages. the address at 10917th, which is which is the board essentially saying that's a new construction that we approve of. And I'm just wondering, I'm throwing this out to the rest of the board. Do we
want to include the house that clearly it doesn't I don't believe it has four stories, but it looks like that that that section on the right, I believe, is just a raised higher ceiling, isn't it? If I remember correctly, you remember offhand? >> I don't remember offhand. So,
I didn't think there was a floor between, you know, those those two sets of windows. So, that was one question. I realize I'm I'm trying to have this guide design guide book kind of especially when we're talking about new additions that we may or may like. I don't know. You all may
like the new four stories that are being built now >> and and we may be talking about that a little bit later on building height, but you know, uh I'm just wondering if that's something that we want to encourage by showing a house that appears to have four stories. Well, I I
I think this is an example of being able to build um 40 feet above grade without it looking like a box with, you know, with just that little um on the right hand side on the very top.
>> Good point. >> That goes up to 40 ft, but it doesn't go all the way over. So, it still retains the style that we're looking for without turning into a modern box. It's a if
somebody is looking to build that high up or needs that extra room. Here's a great example of how you can do that without overwhelming the actual structure. >> I I get that's a good point. I mean, I don't know how other people feel, but okay. I think that >> because I'm sure we're going to have
some folks that want are going to want to get the most bang for their buck and go up as high and as wide as they possibly can. This is just an example of how you could do that and not wind up with just
a box. >> I would agree and I think it shows the dimension versus a box or no character or you know one color. >> It does. is I'm just thinking out loud here is except
for the way our ordinance are set up now, they can still build a box. >> Yeah. >> And so, you know, the purpose of the design guideline, I think, was to encourage people and show them what we want them to do. I'm just, you know,
thinking out loud here. And so, is someone going to look at that and say, "Oh, we can build four stories." Or are they going to look at it and say we can build four stories but only on half the house? You know what I mean? Which is yes, I agree that that is a great example if
you're going to if you have to do four stories, but is it going to stop somebody from just doing a box anyway? You know, I I don't know. And again, we're it's a little bit of a game from the standpoint that you know what what we're hopeful that I think
design guideline does because it's connected to the ordinances is that architects and homeowners will have to look at that first before they start making plans, right? And so instead of getting people that come in who've
already made plans and already paid for it, you know, we're getting to them at an earlier stage because we've included this in the stat ordinance themselves. Okay. And so considering that this is just a
suggestion of what we like or what the historic board likes, you know, I'm just throwing that out there for discussion. I think that any of it I mean we could we can suggest all day long all of these because I think we all agree these are all great examples of what we're looking
for but at the end of the day if they choose to do a gray box they choose to do a gray box. >> Well except for my understanding is the way that we have this worded now is they have to justify
to staff why their new build fits the design guide book. >> Right. They would still come in and they would need to have if they were to not follow the guide book, they would need to have a design designer or architect justify to the board why they
>> which means we essentially put the onus on them of being compatible to what we look at or looking for as opposed to them just deciding on their own and just saying, "Well, here you've got to take this." And I think that's a it's a nuance, but I think it's pretty
significant nuance because they're looking at this early. You know, they're looking at it early and they uh realize that they have to I I guess in a practical matter if they came in and they were to say, "Well, we're we're building this box." All right. Which we
don't really that we don't have any examples of this, but we've got a picture of a of a new addition that's a half a you know, you know, 30 and a half boxes. You know what I mean? And then whether they we've opened up an argument that we do fit the design guidelines. I don't know. I'm just >> I would I mean I see what you're saying
100%. I don't know if there's a way to make the language stronger perhaps in the description. I like how you have in there about avoid an imposing monolithic appearance. I think that's pretty clear. >> Yeah. Yeah. Let me let me let me back out for a second. That last that final
sentence on that description is pretty good. >> Yeah. >> So, okay. Okay. I I would rather show them an example y >> of what we're looking for >> than to not and let them >> try and figure that out on their own,
which they probably won't. >> Well, whoever came up with imposing monolithic appearance that they used the >> good language on that. So, so I I like that. I mean, yeah, that's that's I again, this is all for discussion, but
okay. I think that that's uh I don't I don't I think that's great. And then when we go to the next one underneath there, Brandon, when we talk about renovated, historically elevated. >> Mhm. >> I assume the top one's a renovated one and the bottom one's historically elevated.
>> Well, with the two revival, it was built with the home on the north side, uh 1603 Pastor Way with with the garage. So, that of course is above the flood plane. But I think what the board brought up with one of the earlier cases, someone who has a locally designated
structure doesn't need to elevate 6 feet. They could elevate 3 ft and they could still provide some, you know, maybe 25 year flood protection. So I think that that's an effectively designed structure. Granted, it was designed that way when it was built, but someone can go up three, four feet
without necessarily throwing off the the rhythms of the house. And I I thought that that was a good example of that. Well, it is because remember the guys came in and said the owners, they didn't flood, which was we're all kind of surprised at that, right? But does it I I don't know. Maybe I just need to look
at this. Uh maybe the the wording for the category could be a little bit better. Um what I meant by historically elevated residences was those that were built not directly at grade or right above it. There was some elevation to them when they were built. So that's I just need to clarify that.
>> Okay. All right. Good. >> Mhm. >> I'm just kind of going through this here. >> I think you did an excellent job with the 21104 pass railway. Um >> Yes, me too. Yeah, that's
>> a great example of the kind of stuff, right? Now, the one there and and I don't want to take this out because I love it. That house at 3103 West Maritana, that's technically not in the historic district, but it's a great example of what people can do. So, that's
>> Yeah. [clears throat] Okay. So, you are going to take those remaining what have we said 15 photos and perhaps put them into, you know, as as we go. And I'm not I just want to comment on a couple of
those. >> The one Okay. what I'm gonna call the fourth, the second row, first one on the left, that Craftsman >> bungalow, that's a, you know, one that they raised in the air, which did a great job and it really didn't change
the look of it. >> Well, actually, all those the one >> the one next to it was all is also that's the one there's three houses in a row that are great. One's moved, one's new, and one's raised. And they're all three excellent.
Uh, and the seventh house there, I think I I don't know if you're plan on using all of these or some of, but but that house to me that's one of those I don't know what you'd call that design, but it was kind of those early kind of bunk houses
almost that were on Pass Girl, which you wouldn't think you could raise and it would still look good, but it really they really did a great job on that. We could pull up the overhead so we can follow along. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. That one that with the jeep in
front of it. That that's one that typically you'd think would be would have a hard and that's because their first floor which is not habitable still designed to look like it is habitable from the outside. >> Yeah. I don't know if there's something if that that's always been the distinction on
these ones that have get raised. So, let me ask you this. The the C can we once you pretty much have organized this, can we get hard copies of this stuff from y'all? >> Absolutely. >> Maybe and is that you think that's
possible even by the next meeting? >> We definitely can for the for the intro content once this is all finalized. Um, we're still waiting on the actual design content, but I I be able to have at least the work we've done so far. Y >> and is it possible to note any of these
that have been elevated? >> Yes. >> So that so that someone can see if they are going to elevate their house to seamlessly put it back together. Absolutely. >> So it looks like it was always that way.
>> It's a great idea. >> Yeah. And that's the >> maybe maybe we break up that renovated and historic sign. Oh, we had that before where we just have >> you know historic homes that have been elevated or elevated historic homes or
whatever. Maybe it would be helpful to have the original structure if we have a good enough picture and then the finished product so it you can see that it's a one design not
two different buildings. >> Yes. And having brought a couple of these forward for designation last year I know we have those historic photos from the late 30s. So that's that's a great idea. >> Oh do a comparison. Yeah, that'd be great. That'd be cool. call out. >> What is also interesting is at least
four of these are either listed currently for sale or just sold or pending. So hopefully they >> keep it. Yeah. >> Okay. Do we anything else on that other than Yeah, it' be very helpful to get uh
hard copies for next time. >> We'll do >> think this You've done a good job. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, now we're moving on to the ad discussion 5B.
uh the CRD building heights and Kristen, yeah, you want to give the rest of the board what we're kind of talking about on this. >> Sure. So, for for members that are unaware, um at the December 16th uh city commission meeting, there was an item
for discussion that was brought forth by District 4 commissioner um that he wanted some staff to dive in some history um on the CR CRDA, how it came about, some history with regards to that um as well as building heights and how
that is calculated and how that is um how that is um done by definition and everything. So staff has prepared a presentation that we will present on the 13th, so next Tuesday, uh to the commission, but also as part of that, um
Commissioner Maldonado had asked that we kind of reach out to you as a board just to see, and I know we've touched on this at least for the time that I've been here, building heights, um maybe some challenges that you perceive, just so he
has a basic understanding of from you as a board and from each of you as a consensus um what challenges you may see as part of the CRDA or building height. Um and also I'm just going to add it in while I have you um if you are okay with
the chair presenting a slide or some of your uh comments at next week's meeting. >> No problem. Yeah, personally I think that would be great if chair is available to to speak and make a presentation and I'm confident that he
would adequately relay what our thoughts are. Um, I don't know if anybody else >> Well, I was going to say there there's some what I would like to do today for a little bit is is I kind of have some
questions that I don't know if staff has the answer to or staff can get the answer to, but it would help fill out >> so >> the problems >> if I can like having this brainstorming session um is great to get that. I don't know if everything would be addressed by
next Tuesday, >> but that could be something say we have a brief discussion as well as just kind of getting your bullet points across that maybe we can perhaps have another workshop at a future commission meeting. So when everybody's there and staff has had the time to kind of work through and
then we can all go through it together. But I did want to hear from all of you as far as what are your concerns? What do you see? and then we can kind of get our huddled together and then do maybe a perhaps a joint workshop as well. >> Yes. I think that the what we really
want to do is make sure that we get it right just because you know a lot of things are changing and this is a pretty significant it's a very significant thing for the historic district. And so, so when I've been going looking through all
this stuff, you know, a lot of times you're looking at ordinance that were enacted at a certain time and they were changed from a different ordinance beforehand and they were renumbered and there was amendment made or something like that. And then while that's going on at different points in time, other ordinance that might affect that
ordinance are going on. And so, you know, what I'm trying to do is get a a snapshot of what was going on when the commission reszoned 8th Avenue and created the CRD
EA because, you know, I I have a theory, let's say, that that's based on some degree of speculation. That's why I'm trying to get information that that the staff may have or may be able to get or
can get and uh and and it's based on what I think is common sense and good sense. And so that's what I have and maybe deeper than you all talked about, but so I'm just going to kind of launch into it here. you know, it's like it's my
understanding and if and if you if you can answer it with with uh you know, certitude that's great. If you can't need to look this stuff up, that's fine. But I know the CRD before it was created was zoned ROR. Is that
what everybody believes, right? SLP AG. It was in the overlay. I And I think that's accurate. I don't know. I don't know if it was slashpag or not. I know it was it was in the O RO and the overlay I think was >> yeah if it was under the overlay it would have been slashpag
>> I understand but the overlay was in time prior to the CRD being >> correct >> yes okay >> so a question I have I may I may have thought this wrong the whole time and Brandon I know you know the answer on this in the RO
over overlay can you build a single family residence or does it have to be residential over retail >> it it can be standalone single family. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, and
so it was RO/PAG at least we believe. And have have any changes been made, if you're aware, to the ROP AG zone after the CRD was enacted.
Um the the only change was a use change and I believe it was just to allow for outdoor music as a conditional use. I don't believe it was anything more intensive than that. It was they're minor changes. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to tell you where I'm going with all this. I don't want I'm not I'm not trying to surprise
anybody. I just want you to get get an understanding of of what I think we have to have an answer for if we can. And I could be 100% wrong on this stuff, but I can't find something that says What I'm concerned about is that when the CRD was enacted, there was an intent
to do something and nothing was done, nothing was built under the CRD for at least seven maybe nine years. And then when it was done, my guess is probably the staff was not still around that was there eight or seven or nine years before. And there could have been an interpretation of the CRD that was in
inconsistent with the intent of the CRD. And I'll go into that in a minute. Okay? And so I'm not pointing any fingers or saying anybody's done anything wrong, but there's only been one thing built in that zone. And when it which is the Berkeley Beach Club and when it was
built, everyone said, "Oh my god, how is it that high?" So for example, did that did those plans go through any board or was it just the staff saying we approved these and they were then made? Okay. So was there any
check and balance for example of those because at the time almost everyone to a person that I saw they go like when's it going to stop? We thought it has to be limited to three stories and it wound up essentially being four. And the city I know I know you all you were around for that. You all remembered, oh people
saying they made an error, they forgot about that part. They had to add it later. Then the city would say other people, not y'all, would say, oh no, it was all by the book. Everything was fine. There's no there's no problems with this. Okay. So, and I'm I'm going to tell you why this to me is important.
Because if you look when the CRD was created, which is either I'm not even sure 2010 or 2012, it looks like something happened in 2010, but something Go ahead, Brandon. >> It was adopted in it was a 2010 ordinance. It was adopted in 2011 and it
was significantly modified in 13. So the city readed it. It came into being in 2011. That's when it was created. And do you know if any of those from 2011 or 2013 any of the changes had to do with height?
>> No. No, it's it was 35 ft from the beginning. >> Okay. So, >> but it was 35 ft maximum. >> It was not 35 ft plus BFE, which is what it suddenly changed. >> Well, that's that's where that's we're trying to get at here. Okay. Because if you look at
building heights in all the different zones, they all are the same. Is that it's that it's called uh let me find that. It says under and it says building
height. It's all it's all worded maximum height of structures whether it's under RO or under commercial or any any of those anything that has to do with buildings height is headed as maximum height of structures and then within that it says
the maximum everyone says the same the maximum height for all structures shall be x number of feet and some are the same some are different depending on on the zones. So that's how the city or that's how the ordinance is always dealt with talking about height. And I'm gonna
say that's what question I have. I would believe all of those zones that had it worded as maximum height of structures were in existence prior to the CRD. Okay. So when the CRD was enacted,
suddenly it's different about what it says about height. It's not headed maximum and height of structures. It's building height. That's all it says. And then all it says underneath is height. Nothing to do with structures. It says height shall not exceed 35 ft. So
there's a reason why the people in the the intent behind the C why in my opinion makes sense why they chose to use different verbiage talking about height. And so now let's go to what was what in
2011 what was existing on 8th Avenue or what later bea became the Z CRD. It was all two-story buildings with the exception of the backside of the Keystone which is three stories
and our drone information told us was 30 feet from grade. So there wasn't anything higher than 30 feet from grade back in 2011 when the CRD was being thought about. The only structure within
what became the SRD is that was over that height is the hurricane which is not a historic building considering it was built I think in 92 or something like that. So it's not even not even historic today. So I would suggest that when people when
the intent to create the CRD was how do we maintain 8th Avenue to to look and feel the same for the future because at that time it was ruled by the RO right and and under RO
you couldn't build a building with a covered sidewalk and build it all the way to the street like 8th Avenue. So, you couldn't rebuild 8th Avenue the way it was supposed to be. All right. I guess you could build a single family house, but people wanted to to keep that
look that it was a historic look that maintains that [clears throat] historic 8th Avenue. So we got 8th Avenue in 2011 that is mostly 25 to 28 ft maybe and then there's a 30 foot foot spot there along the alley behind the keystone
ro at that time the maximum height was 30 feet okay and so if we're taking the assumption that you get to add base flood elevation to everything. Then in
2011 when the when it was 30 feet, you were going you were going to add 10 more feet essentially to make it 40T. But the CRD they max 35 ft and if you add the BF that makes it 45T that makes
it five feet higher than it already could be. So why would you say why would the intent be to maintain 8th Avenue to look historic and let's change and create a new zone that makes it even higher than
we what we have today. And I think that's just the M. So I I think we need to find do we have minutes from those hearings? Do we have recordings? Do we have anything that any evidence that indicates that when the CRD was created
that those people the commissioners were saying we want it 35 ft and add 10 ft to it and make it 45 ft? >> Well, the historic board is the one that did the majority of the heavy lifting on all that. I I had the I got the joy of listening
to my uncle who was sitting on the sitting on the board at the time >> and >> and him going over the different ways they were trying to approach it, how they were trying to protect height. And I remember one in particular that that kind of surprised me and that was he's will pick a spot on the street and that's the spot in front of your
building and yours goes up 35 ft. That's it. >> And somebody was arguing because they said well it's ele the floor the area is elevated all the way to the ridge or all the way to Gulf Way. So each building is going to be a slightly different height with the ones closer to the beach being higher.
>> But that would have maintained the general right look of of 8th Avenue. >> Well, it would be it would be a foot. It'd be imperceptible the difference in heights if you were going from from grade, but >> I just really believe that
the adding of the BF. Okay. And let me go back again for a second. There's no nothing that prevents when you create a new zone. You you can uh this open argument you can basically say we can we can as long as commission passes it we can do
whatever we can make the height whatever we want okay so and we we don't have to you know we don't have to worry about someone saying oh you're keeping me from building something I couldn't build before because the way the cities
interpret it like I said RR was 30 feet and then the CRD changed it to 35 five. We're increasing the hype for that area. So, I I I just think >> I'll go I'll go one step further with something you picked up or I'll come back around. >> Go ahead.
>> Um the CRDA is one of very few special zoning areas. Everybody else runs under the ROS and the other the other designations for commercial and etc. It is common practice now for the city
to apply BFE to the ROS and the other designations that are out there that are still part of the zoning books. The only time that construction attempted to or happened on 8th Avenue, it was not
reviewed. staff immediately added BFE to it instead of trying to get the input on why was this district different and not like all the rest. >> Well, that's why I go back to not not throwing any rocks but but what I go back to when the Berkeley was accepted.
Was there any platform for the citizens to come in or review aspect or it just go through because staff said it that's >> we saw a drawing of it here at the at the board at the historic board. But at the time, you know, people made comment it didn't look like it was to scale and
etc. And they said, "Oh, that's just because it's an artist rendition of how it looks and it's it's not really going to look that way." >> But they did bring it by, but they didn't discuss heights and specifics. They just brought by a a artist artist artist black and white artist rendering
of the front of the facade. >> And perhaps there was discussion about elevator shafts or rooftop decks. >> Well, >> that were trying to be accommodated in
anticip rooftop decks were starting to get known or popular about that time. And I don't think there was a rooftop deck before the Berkeley came in besides the hurricane, but that's not really
what we're talking about. >> Well, I think that >> or elevator shafts, too. >> Well, here's here's Okay. And and let's say this says for a minute. If if the intent was 35 foot from grade, you could still build a
threestory structure. So I understand how when FEMA came in on residence when they said you can no longer live on the first floor that therefore you had to go up in the air so people could have two floors essentially
to live on. Okay. But on 8th Avenue where it has to be commercial on the ground floor when they created the CRD you can still build three three stories at 35 ft. So there's really no practical
reason why BFE needed to be added. And what I really believe, like you said, Sean, is that nine years later or whatever, when it was actually someone wanted to build something, it was misinterpreted and they just naturally treated it like every other zone and went to the definition of building
height that says you add the BFE into it. And I think we need the city needs to we need to find out whether that was really the intent because I don't believe anybody has ever believed that. And that is huge for the historic district because we're talking about a
three-story building from grade 35 ft versus 45T which we're the city has we we're in the midst of that now and that's a whole another issue on on 702. So now we're talking about four stories, four and a half stories
which significantly dwarf the whole rest of the area and make it look nonhistoric which is would be in violation of the reasons why the CRV was created. And so I I think what I say makes a lot of
sense. And so you know I and so these are these are some some questions I have. You know, >> there is one other small note. >> Yeah. >> Um, originally residential in Pastor Grow overlay, etc. had a maximum height
and it was written maximum height just like almost everything else is, but the city council or staff came through and changed altered it to 25 ft above BFE.
So, that one was altered and by the time that that was altered, that's probably when things started to change >> because that's the only other zoning districts, the residential zoning districts that were changed to not be 36 ft above BFE. They were turned around
and changed to 20 24 26 feet above BFE for a maximum height of X. >> Right? So, and so one other thing I would say is that if there really was discussion about >> the time the CRD was created where they
were talking about the applicability of of BFE being involved then why wouldn't they just say make it 20 >> it wasn't a thing >> as I say why wouldn't you just make it 25 ft and let them add and make it up to 35 why would you >> and so I I I I really think we've we've
over time we've and lack of structures being involved we have misinterpreted what that means And so I'm asking the city to prove or show that and and not just by
saying, "Oh, well, look at the definition of height. It says add BFE." Well, if if the true intent [clears throat] was to not have that in there, there's no reason why it has to be added in there, as I just said a moment ago, because to me, everything's much more consistent at 35 ft off grade.
that would satisfy essentially the intent of people and take into account that we are building a little bit higher because of flooding and we already have a three-story structure at the back back of the uh Keystone. So, I don't know,
you know, it it's going to take a lot and I've been trying to find this information myself if I can, but I don't know what happened 10 years ago or 12 years ago or 15 years ago. You know, I don't have access to >> it was on the board then. Melinda Pletcher was there. My uncle was there.
I don't think that uh Mr. Anderson was. I think he had uh he had stepped off the board at that point. >> But I just said everyone everyone that I've talked to that has memory going back there like Sean does really doesn't think that the the 35 ft was from was
from grade. And so I don't I don't see why we are in a position where >> we have to take BFE and add it to it if that's what if that wasn't what the intent was. I don't think it was. So
>> I think that that would be the reason I I would think that would be the reason is 35 ft period inclusive of >> whatever you had to do. >> Right. >> Yeah. And and that's why I think it's it's headed differently than the rest of them as well. Uh
also the fact that you can't have a house, you know, that you've got I mean I I don't know how this works, but I think this is correct. If you've got a a house uh that's FEMA compliant and your first floor, your ground level floods, I don't believe you get insurance for that stuff. Right. >> Correct.
>> Right. Okay. If you have a commercial structure which has the first floor, the ground floor is commercial and you flood proof it, you can get insurance for your damages, right? So,
so where's the reason why the commercial has has to add BFE? You know, it's a whole different animal. So, uh, I I, you know, and we're at the precipice now of starting to talk about
building things right there in the heart of the historic district that are twice as high, which already exists. And I can't imagine that, you know, 15 years ago, people were saying, well, let's let's change this so we can make it look the same, but let's make it allow people
to build buildings twice as big when they don't when they didn't have to. So, I don't know if that gives guidance or whether there's answers out there that we need to get to, but you know, um I think we need to resolve it because
it's really we're really at a at a point now where it's it's super important for the maintenance of the historic district to have this straightened out. >> And I think we can have answers to most of these things by next week. Um, I I do just want to summarize what the board's
discussed and I I think the main and this isn't the first time this has been brought up. I know we've talked about this extensively. It sounds like at some point, and this could even be going back further, and I believe it does go back further than 2011 when the CRDA was adopted, but at
some point in time, base flood elevation as an actual height added onto the potential buildable height of a structure was thrown in there potentially without intention, but it has been added in as an additional height that a building can be
constructed to when that was not the original intent. Is that what the board Okay. >> Yes. >> And again, I'd use a key is going back to looking at residential when the residential zoning was changed to be BFE at 24 ft or what that number is above
BFE because that's specific in residential >> and and I also I guess I'm going to say it again just because I think it's so important as a as a matter of common sense. if if they couldn't rebuild under RO because they couldn't build over, you
know, covered walkways and things of that. So, they wanted to make something a zone specific to what already existed. Why would you add five four under the way it's interpreted now? Why would you add five
more feet to height when you when it was at 30 feet at under RO? It just makes no sense, you know. And so >> is there a database of the past meetings from all those years ago? I mean, is there anything >> that far though?
>> We we have minutes. We have written minutes. Um it's not like we have today where we have videos that we can go back and listen to the actual discussion. So it's it's summaries, but we have minutes going back to the 50s. So >> is that something that we would be able to maybe I mean obviously it's a big
>> Well, that's what we're going to try to look for, I think, here. All right. if there's something out there. I don't know. >> We'll have some minutes published with next week's meeting. It's not every single discussion that was held on the CRD8th Avenue, but we could we could always get that information for the board. Certainly for a workshop, we could have that information.
>> Right. So, >> so as part of the city commission meeting um agenda was just recently published. So, you'll see some of what staff has found if you go into that discussion item and the files that we've attached to it. >> Now, where would I find this? Say again. So, if you go to the agenda on the the
city website under the the files for Tuesday's meeting, you can see what staff has added >> as part of that presentation and the background information. >> Absolutely. It was just published this afternoon. Yep. Maybe while we were here or just before. >> I haven't I hadn't seen that. Okay.
>> Yes. the the city clerk has just published. >> The other thing I was going to say, especially if and I and I guess we have to make a motion and vote on this, but as you said a moment ago about whether uh chair could be myself could be present for and maybe speak at this
presentation. Um, I'm available and I think it's that stuff that emailed to you about that, Kristen, whether tomorrow or Monday or the day of the meeting or something if we all want to get together because I don't know. I may have stuff that you show me something I go, "Okay, you're
right." You know, or that that changes the thought process and I I don't know. I'm just I'm just speculating on some things and using common sense. But, uh, so let me I'll read that stuff though today and then maybe we can talk again. But if that's the case, if And do we
need to make a motion to have me available to be at the presentation? Ralph, you think? >> I think if you're going to be there on behalf of the HPB or historic preservation board, there should be a motion. Otherwise, you should speak as a citizen. >> Right. >> But before we even do that is I just
wanted to make sure I hear from, you know, all the board members. Are there other things that >> Yes, please. As far as like our bullet points or talking points, um, besides what we've already discussed and have, you know, written down, is there other anything else that should you want to
have a workshop with the city commission, you know, items that would like to be discussed? One thing to keep in mind too, just from my background and experience in doing this since 1990 in around the 2000s,
uh, many of the barrier islands in Florida, I was representing Bradington Beach and some other cities. Um, there was a movement to take height instead of measuring from the ground elevation of the nearest road to take it from a flood
elevation, the FEMA requirements. And at the time the councils recognized what they were doing was taking the homes and then moving everybody up to base flood elevation. And that happened in the early 2000s in many places.
The thought behind the council deliberations at that time was because we're going to raise the bottom. We don't want people to lose a floor. But they knew that they were going to be towering over their pre-existing neighbors. And it was a tradeoff and it
it was a difficult decision. Um but that was going on at the same time on barrier islands apart from the zoning. Where are we going to start measuring height and for everything in the island? And that's when you go to this definition section
that's in section two of the land or chapter two of the LDRs. Here we have um 2.1 I think it is. You may want to look at how it evolved, what it was prior to 2003, what it became 2003, what it became
in 2015, what it became in 2021. And the definitions were constantly changing that would affect all the zoning categories. >> Yeah. And and I and I I I recognize that or and I fear for that too because >> but but there's a distinction
between because it's a different animal. It's not residential and and I can understand the spirit of FEMA saying we don't want people to drown so we're going to we're going to have to you're going to have to raise your houses and everybody says okay but we don't have that situation in the CRD because it's
commercial on the first floor and so the the reasons why you would uniformally raise the heights under the under the FEMA thing and and knowing you're going to because we all know that we all know there was hardly any three-story houses in passer grill
in the old days and and now there are three stories and we don't kick about it because we know it's FEMA required. That's just that just is okay. We're not arguing that that point doesn't affect but the CRD which is a specially created zone for for one block it's not even a
huge area for one block that is a different animal where those reasons don't apply. And you know, >> but maybe there was no distinction made back then. >> Maybe there wasn't. And and but but but
that doesn't necessarily mean we have to live by that. Just because we because he made that mistake once, let's say if that was a mistake with the Berkeley, it doesn't mean that the city commission can't re-evaluate in that and say, "No, because this is a different animal. This
is not supposed to apply to the to this zone." Okay. which was the which was the initial or the the original intent because I mean the the I think is as not to wave the flag here but voters and citizens you know we're supposed to know
you know if if there's an ordinance that's passed that can't just get get changed without anybody knowing what's going on about it and having some actual reason why we know that it's being changed just because somebody on high says you know add 10 feet to everything.
Well, what what are the reasons for it? Is there is there a practical application or is there not? So, anyway, >> I think I think a benefit would be whenever the meeting is with the commissioner when we have a workshop, I think a lot of times I people will come
in to want to build these commercial structures and they show these mockups of buildings that look like they're the same size or gargantuan. So, I think it would be of benefit to have maybe an aerial map and then each of the structures within the commercial zoning the the height that they actually truly
are because again, >> not to interrupt, we do have that and that was something we should have that those drone >> drone measurements that we had. >> Yes, I've seen it before, but >> you weren't on the board. We did it about two years ago. I think it's a benefit because visually I think there's a lot of games that get played and I
think that that would be a a big benefit especially for members that maybe haven't been around as long >> and that would be for any future design review or document brought forward to this board. The renderings we need to show the actual accurately scaled heights of buildings not
>> we're talking about there where they use the building blocks for >> correct we know what the heights are because of the the drone studies. like they should, >> you know, they have a 45 foot building and they've got a 50 foot building next to it that doesn't really exist, right?
>> But no, I think we should for that presentation and and also Kristen, you know, >> just this could be a bit of a work obviously a work that's going to in progress. It's going to take a while. I mean, maybe we do need to have a workshop with the
commissioners where all this stuff gets brought up. You know, I'm not saying that at this meeting they should make a decision. I think we're we're bringing up stuff that may require, you know, some more thought and more uh >> you know, research. I don't know. >> Right. And it's my understanding it's
really just someformational as you know. >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. There's no decisions being made. >> No decisions being made. Just if staff could provide some background information of how we got to this point, >> right? And then that will give us talking points should we get together in the future and then yes we're all on the
same page. We're not going from board to commission and back in rel and right >> have have the meeting of the minds and and figure out next steps and of course with legal's opinion >> what could be done or not. Well, so so and and why this becomes critical at
this juncture, I'm going to say is because of the proposed building at 702 pasural way. I mean, if this if the city commission decides or at some point that 35 me feet means 35 ft from grade, then
that affects things significantly. And I think we have to have an answer on that as far as hype before we start, you know, accepting permits or breaking grounds or or doing whatever. And so that's why this is so critical at this point. So it may take a while, but uh I
think, you know, that the intent of the public and the citizens and the voters was not what we're doing right now. I could be wrong. Okay. got anything else for on this subject? >> I would say this though. I do have something.
>> Oh, one more thing. Y >> um if you go to the agenda packet, there's quite a lot of information that staff's already gathered. >> Just got pub. Yeah, I'm going to tell you what number it is. Um
it is Oh, let's see. see it. I'm trying to figure out which number it is on the It's um 2 C. So when you go to if you go to the public facing website and you go to two and you go to C and then you can click on the agenda
report, but you can also click on the individual items that have been gathered and you can see those and they're all have subject lines. So there's minutes that go all the way back to 2006 and through 2008 through 2009 10 11 17
8th Avenue. So all and all the flood maps are there. So between now and and Tuesday that might be something you want to look at over the tomorrow and the weekend. >> There's quite a lot of information there. And what was also important I've just thought about this earlier today is
in our potential changes for that we've talked about on the ordinances on 20 and 40 and that we've been working on the last year. And so so looking at my draft copy of CRD of section 40
under section 40.8 building height. The way we have it ordered now, which hasn't been hasn't been accepted is we had changed it to say height shall not exceed 35 ft above grade to clarify that. But but then it says
except as provided for elevated structures in section 404, >> which goes back to the other one, they slipped it back in again. >> Yes. Because I guess my question would be when we say except as provided for
elevated structure, isn't everything elevated structure? >> So I I think we did change that and the reason for that was because there there are two types of structures on 8th Avenue that do need to be elevated. One is lodging facilities. They're not
eligible for the flood proofing permission. One of them is multifamily which inherently has to have commercial the ground floor. We don't allow under zoning and on 8th Avenue um a standalone multif family. So that's more or less >> we don't we can't do standalone.
What what multifamily can we build with the first floor? >> You would need to have commercial or office on the ground floor in order to have multifamily above. The same requirement does not apply to lodging. >> Okay. But maybe maybe I just missed the distinction. So, okay. I understand
you're saying on lodging you'd have to have you >> you still can't have living levels on ground floor. >> No, no, I know I understand that. Okay. But so, are we saying if you have lodging,
you get to have four feet under the way we've kind of talked about this? Why wouldn't it still be 35 ft above ground and you just have two floors of lodging? >> Exactly. That's what it should be. That's what it was designed to be. So, I'm I'm not saying we have to argue that about that right now. I'm just saying depending on what we come up with, we'll
have to relook at that on how we do that because it seems to me we we haven't we haven't if if the belief is it's really supposed to be no higher than 35 ft than grade, then that should be it. Period. There shouldn't be >> a loophole >> loop. Yes, thank you for that word. and
uh and that and also in section 20 when we talked about doing making some changes to the overlay in and I just don't know I I just point this out Brandon just to earmark it essentially okay that on 2017 when we
talk about building height we removed a part that said base flood elevation requirements are outlined in section 98.33 and I'm not sure why that was originally in it and why we took it out. And you don't have to answer that right now if you don't want
to. I'm just saying that might make make a difference. I don't know. >> Um that that is where they're outlined. I think the reason for that is because that's we we have a different definition for base flood elevation in land development code than in 9833, which is more of a technical requirement. They they ultimately mean
the same thing, but base flood means what it means in the land development code. We could talk about adding it back in. I don't think there's any harm to that. >> I'm just saying depending on if there's some consensus that comes out of section 40. >> Mhm.
>> Whether there's an overlap into section 20 that we have to deal with. I mean, not I I I know what I know what the the height are in section 20. And I'm not suggesting that section 20 the the interpretation by staff over over the
years has been wrong or or not didn't follow the intent. I'm only making that potential suggestion on the CRD for the reasons we said before. So um All right. just just to cover the items
that we're going to have on the slide for next week. And Chair Lowry, I know we'll talk before the meeting so we can can clarify all this. But >> yeah, I I'm available. You just just let me know and I'll get down here. Like I said, probably nothing will happen tomorrow if you want to. That's fine. But, you know, on Monday or Tuesday, I
could come at any moment. Assuming someone makes a motion to suggest so I can be involved in the presentation. I'd like to make a motion that Chairman Lowry represent the historic board at the city council meeting coming up uh Tuesday of next week. I don't know the
date. >> Um >> Tuesday next week is >> that would be the 13th. >> 12th. >> It's the 13th. >> 13th. >> Oh no. >> But if I may, can we just visit those talking points so staff can start to create that slide as well just so we
have a consensus from the board please? >> Yes. You understand which I need to shut my mouth and you'll need to open yours about >> including the bullet points that will be going over by is we continuing this motion at this point. >> I would like to have on the record the
concise for the minutes so that they reflect what the board has decided and I think Brandon has compiled something and you can either add to it a degree deny but this what do
you have Brandon? So the main point is at adoption or at some prior point in time the intent in the CRD 8th Avenue was to measure from grade 35 ft from grade that is a standard since it was adopted but the
intent that was lost at some point was that the measurement was supposed to be taken from grade not from base flood elevation. We will mention the as a as a reference to that um the permission for commercial is permitted to be built at grade um and
floodp proofed and when presentations are made this is more of a design review requirement but aerials um need to be or sorry renderings need to have adjacent buildings on 8th Avenue scaled appropriately. they need to actually use the data that the city has in house
rather than using um generic buildings that don't actually reflect heights of buildings on on 8th Avenue. Does that cover the major points? >> I think that covers the major bullet points. >> I would agree. >> Perfect. Thank you.
>> We got them in the minutes. Are we doing more with this motion? >> No, I think you have >> I think that's fine. If you >> that good? >> Yeah. And I'll give the chair a little bit more than the standard three minutes to be able to explain everything because there's quite a bit. >> So, do we need to do any kind of motion
or no? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. And is this a motion that I should not vote on? I assume. I don't know. >> No, you vote on motions. >> Okay. All right. Make your >> uh make a motion that the chairman of the historic preservation board be at
the city council meeting on January 13th to do a presentation including the bullet points that were just identified by Brandon Barry. >> I second that motion. >> Madam court roll call. >> Member Dashel. >> Yes.
>> Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Member Young. >> Yes. >> Lowry. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Okay. All right. Now, five C something I wanted to bring up about 702 Passover way and that
um Okay. So, I know last month you Mr. Barry or the the staff brought in for um information purposes
that the folks at 702 702 Pascal Way want to uh get a variance on not having to use the alley and that that is something that's set for January 28th
in front of the board of adjustments. And so even though we had some discussions I think at the for information uh only [clears throat] I started thinking about that afterwards and I'm going to cite
section seven excuse me article seven which is historic preservation board and that's not the one that's not part of the LDC but it's nevertheless part the ordinances
and within that article 7 section 22-211 is called of the historical preservation board uh article is purpose powers and duties
and I'm just going to read some of this the historic subsection A the historic preservation board will recommend historic district boundaries essential to the maintenance of the unique character of the city. That's just the beginning. Then it goes BC and then D
says the board shall which we all know is mandatory the board shall also have the power and duty to and if you go down through subsection D you'll come to subsection or PN 7
which says so the board shall also have the power and duty to make recommendations to the board of adjustments with respect to variance request applicable to historic resources designated pursuant to the land
development code. So I think we've been operating a little bit incorrectly from the standpoint that that shouldn't be an information item but should be an item on which we actually make recommendation to the board of adjustment
and that that that is a very very significant major thing that's going on in um the historic district. And so other than us just forformational purposes knowing that a variance there's there's
a request for a variance we have the power and duty and the mandatory obligation to it to make a recommendation to the board of adjustments with respect to that variance which we have not been I
won't say allow we are not doing at this point And so I think that we need to we I don't know I don't know how the best way to handle this other to say that the board of adjustment meeting is on January 28th.
>> Well, let me let me uh just jump in a little bit. >> Um I don't think you can make a recommendation today because it's a quasi judicial item. It would have to be noticed. So the applicant has the due process uh procedural due process notice and an opportunity to be heard um before
you make a recommendation. So >> okay, >> you could you couldn't add that as a discussion item to the agenda other than saying you would like it to come back at a noticed meeting to make a recommendation. >> Yes, I I I agree. I I I'm not trying to
come go forth a recommendation today. I'm I'm trying to suggest that the procedures I don't think were followed correctly and just I know we and maybe in the past we haven't been doing that but this is a this is a pretty important thing and so because the way just for
edification I'm thinking I'd like to go to the board of adjustment mean do I have to go as a citizen to to talk to them about you know some of the issues you brought up before I mean my gosh we're on the historic board so I started looking at some of this stuff and it's like here it is we're supposed to be doing this we shall be doing that. So I
think that uh I think we need to I guess maybe I would make a motion that we are that's that variance request is bought brought back to us so we can make an official recommendation to the board
of adjustment. And I don't know how we can do that except for to do it at our next meeting which means that the board of adjustment I would suggest >> I think you can only go as far far as your your board so you could make that
motion pursuant to 2220 22-211 purpose powers and duties D. The board shall have the power and duty to seven make recommendations to the board of adjustments with respect to variance requests applicable to historic
resources designated pursuant to the land development code that it be brought back to you. Okay. Do you all want to talk about that at all? Do you understand what I what's >> Yeah, it was a discussion item in our
minutes. So, it hasn't been >> voted on. It was actually anformational item, >> right? >> Yeah. >> There was I think I wasn't here, but looking at the minutes, it looked like there was anformational on a discussion, but then no actual recommendation or anything.
>> No, no recommendation. Was that it wasn't brought to us to give a recommendation. >> They didn't have a discussion to do that. It was just more like talking about information really. So >> there's a question for Brandon. Go ahead, >> chair. If if I could just point out, so
the the land development code does require that the Historic Preservation Board review variances, but specifically for designated historic properties. That's section 2814. I can put it up on the screen.
All requests for a variance for a designated historic property under this division shall be presented to the historic preservation board which shall upon review submit its objection, recommendation and comment to the board considering the request. Um we we do that for designated historic properties
locally designated historic properties and that is defined earlier in the division. Designated property means any building structure or site which has been designated by the historic preservation board as a historic resource, historic district or local landmark with
agreement and written consent of the property owner. But the ut house would have been identified even though the structure was removed from that lot. You're saying it would still carry that designation. The lot would still carry that designation
and what you just read. >> Well, besides that with it says we shall make recommendation of the board of adjustments with respect to variance requests applicable to historic resources. The historic district is a historic resource by definition. If you look up historical re source, it'll say
district. I know that because we've gone through this before in different things, right? And the structures on the property are definitely contributing structures, but this this is a procedure we follow for local designation and I don't know that
to be a property that we've received written consent from the property owner to designate. Um I the the building the building remaining on the property is certainly a a contributing structure but I just wanted some time for >> well yes but okay >> staff to >> Yeah but okay we're historic
preservation board which is empowered and clearly the most important thing we do is get involved with things in the historic district and this this property is in the historic district >> and so it's a variance for something in the historic district that's a historic
resource. This is exactly what we're supposed to be doing. This is exactly why we're supposed to be here is so we can make recommendations to the board of adjustment about something we know about. Otherwise, we're appearing as what? Citizens to to for the information we
found. I mean, it's clearly that's what that means. And I mean we can we can ask uh you know council to to get involved in that. But if you read this whole chapter as a whole, all the stuff we do, you know, D1 through,
you know, 18, I mean, subsection 17 says per shall, this would be under shall, the board shall also have the power and duty to perform any other reasonable functions or duties relating to historic preservation assigned to it by the city
commission. So even if there was something that wasn't a variance, the city commission could still say, "We want you to get involved and make a recommendation to us." Absolutely. >> This is an actual variance where we are supposed to be able to make recommendations for it. Just because we
haven't done that in the past doesn't mean it's not supposed to be that's not the way this is written because other otherwise you know and this is different thanformational purposes for when we're talking about
design reviews on houses that aren't uh you know historic. And then there's a distinction there because this is a variant. This has to do with a a zone within the historic district which we are there's there's other language that talks about we're supposed to make recommendations as to
zoning within the historic district. So the the idea of creating the historic board is is to I mean the historic district could be two blocks. It just happens to be it's a huge it's a pretty big area of St. Pete Beach, which means there's a lot of properties [clears throat] involved, but doesn't change the fact that we're supposed to
have input about things in the historic district, especially the in this particular case, which there's a a developer out there that wants to build something that will dwarf everything in the historic district.
So, I mean, maybe we need to get have council uh, you know, make a decision about this, but I think that that's pretty clear-cut that that's what is we have the power to do. And again, it's mandatory. It's a shout.
>> Yeah, there appears to be some different words. Historic property, historic resource, historic structure. Um, and there's a little bit of a discrepancy between 28.14 and uh 22-211. So, we'd have to take a
look at this a little bit more closely. >> Yeah, if I may, chair and board. So, I think staff needs some time to take this back for a legal analysis because what you're asking us to do is really
respond on the fly. We haven't had appropriate time to review the legal implications of what you're asking us and um it might have impacts on a current project. So, um, you know, to the chair's point, if the commission has
the authority, which on the surface it sounds like they can send anything back to any commission or board they desire, they have ultimate power and say, then while I have an active project, it seems
it would be more likely that the this board from a process perspective would express their concern to their commissioner. and when the commission hears the project, they can send it back to the historic preservation board for a recommendation. So, I just want to
caution you. I've got some active projects in play and I think we need to respect those timelines for the applicant. At the same time, helping you all um with a process that is is currently um
applicable possibly. And then also the interpretation that you're asking us to look at that does not match what we've been doing. I am not a keep doing what you're doing because that's what we've been doing kind of person if you've [laughter] been been with me for the last 18 months. But
I do want to have give us the time to really thoughtfully look at this and if we're going to change the process that we bring it forward in a public format and express how that's going to happen. So th those are just some key I I just want to keep us legitimately
true to a well communicated process to the public. >> This has been going on for over two years, November of two years ago when we first started bringing this up with the last development that tried to go onto that property. We've been trying to get this straightened out for over two years. This is not the first time most
of your staff has heard this. Not that that's right, but at least there's background to go with. This is not a brand new problem with these current projects. These are this is something we've been working on for over two years to try and nip in the bud. >> Thank you. I would also I think you
already have a process that if you don't if you have concerns about this project or you want to hear it to provide a recommendation, you already have that. It's just the commission needs to give you that power. >> Yeah, I was going to say and just so you understand what I'm trying to do. I'm
not I would be making a motion today to say that we should be able to make a recommendation. Okay, that doesn't mean that that has to happen because you all I'm not trying to catch you right now at this moment and make you agree at this
very moment. Okay, I mean I and I'm saying that pursuant to these things, we have the the right and the duty to do that. is that if the staff and council thinks, "Wait, we can't answer that right away."
Then I fully understand that that could be a situation where there's some time frame that's going to go into this. Okay? But I know there's a current development going on potentially, but that's what makes this relevant at this point. I'm not going to bring it up in
spa, you know, if there's nothing that gets in front of you where you are looking at and you go, "Wait a minute, we got to do something here." you know, so it may cause delays and things of that nature, but but I'm I don't think we should be concerned with the delays
to a private individual if we're if we're not following the rules as we're supposed to follow them. I didn't, you know, I didn't create these ordinances. I'm just reading them and and using my common sense the and ability to speak
English and read it and this is what it says and this is what the definitions say and all these kind of things. So yes, I realize this may cause I'm not I'm not trying to get put you in a position today to say, "Oh yes, I get to do that at the next meeting." Um, and
and and I agree probably the easiest, quickest, best way to deal with it is the way you just said is if the city commission asked us to do that, right? And that may, but I'm not, you know, I don't know how to get there, you know.
>> So, I I would I would just ask that the um board give us the time to review >> Sure. what you've brought the concerns you've brought forward and then we can communicate back what the process will be >> to address your concerns
>> and that's fine but knowing that we have a January 28th date and knowing that we you know because what I don't want to happen because I don't know if the right hand left hand you know I'm just doing what I'm supposed to be doing I think is you know I don't know if the board of
adjustment I guess I can call those people individually and talk to them I mean there's all that kind of stuff you can potentially do, but I think we're supposed to be doing this as a board and not as a citizen, of course. And so, you know, I' I'd hate to
have a hearing on the 28th where the concerns that the board had did not get brought. >> I would definitely advise against calling the individual board of adjustment members. >> Okay. >> Because you might be construed as a go-between for Sunshine Laws and so you shouldn't do that.
>> Well, I haven't. I didn't plan on that. So, so if I could ask this board, if we determine that the process is going to be we're going to bring it back for a recommendation to the board of adjustment from this board, can this board meet again this month in a special meeting?
>> I can't. >> Yes, >> I don't see why not. >> Okay. All right. So, we will go away. We'll be back in touch with you on the next steps. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Do we need to make mention that, you know, because we can't make
these changes right now because of the storms that a lot of people are putting a timeline together that'll put them under the wire before that clock runs out? >> I'm I'm not following you. >> We can't make these changes. We can't we can't do the stuff that we've been working on for two years, mainly because
of storms that have precluded us from being able to move forward because you can't change your property, right? >> Well, you can. You just can't make it more restrictive. I think we've already kind of talked about that. I think we would be talking about util using the existing provisions that were cited the
211, the 281 and the 2814 and then the definitions of historic >> resources, historic district and designated property and looking at that in relation to your powers and duties under 22-21.
So give us time to take a closer look at that. Yes, >> these different sections of the code mix and match different uh definitions and words. You've got historic resources in 211 and then you've got designated properties, historic resources, and
historic structures and historic districts that are part of chapter 28. So, we need to take a close look how the words are being used in each sentence. It's going to take a little bit of analysis. >> Yeah. And then >> close analysis. And I think I'm pretty I think agree on statutory interpretation.
You should be going with what kind of the common sense result would be. You don't you don't come to a a result. >> And I think you heard theformational presentation. So I think what Francis is saying is perhaps have a have another meeting if you're going to want to
reconvene to make a recommendation. We need to give notice to the applicant so they can be here also. >> Um >> I think we have to do that, right? >> Yeah. I I mean my concern is the city So the next city commission meeting obviously is this upcoming Tuesday which
then the following one would be the 27th if I'm not mistaken. >> Yes. >> And so that raises a concern for me is you know if this is something that we ask the city commission to take a a vote on. So, because it's pretty explicit that the at least what you read to me,
>> city attorney, tell me if I'm wrong, but it it seems pretty explicit that the city commission can assign items of interest to the historic preservation board. That I'm not debating clarity unless the city attorney tells me it's not clear. So, if that is clear, my plan
is to walk on an item next Tuesday to get direction from the commission that you have ra we're doing a presentation. and you've raised concerns, you would like to give a recommendation on this project. If that goes through and is passed, then we can schedule on Wednesday a special
meeting before the board of adjustment meeting. So, that's my quick thinking plan right now. >> And that and that is is makes sense. I think Ralph is concerned that if if we have if we do have a meeting, I mean,
Mr. Brooks permit me. If we have if we have a meeting for to give a recommendation that the >> uh the people from 702 have a right to be present for >> and we would invite them. >> Yeah. I'm just saying I don't know what your time f frame concerns are whether
that can get pushed in there or not. That's all I meant. Yeah. Okay. That's great. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Does that address your concern? >> It does on timing. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything else about anything or anybody want to add anything to what we
just talked about? >> I just want to mention one thing. February 5th is a Thursday. >> Yes. But see what happened on on our this >> Yes. >> It says next meeting February 6th. >> Oh, okay. >> Just a typo on this on the agenda. Yeah.
Agenda. >> Just wanted to make sure that was clear. >> Okay. Uh any other matters? All right. >> Thank you all. >> Okay.