Historic and Architectural Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

When you

Directors of of of October 9 meeting of the Historic Architectural and Preservation Board. We have a call to order and roll call attendance.

Chair Bebe?

Here.

Ms. Trammell? Present. Mr. Stuckey?

Here.

Mr. Watkins? Here. Mr. Green?

Here.

Mr. Barrack? Here. And Ms. Derryberry will be absent.

Is excused. All right. At this time we'll look at the approval of the minutes of the September 25 meeting.

Chair, just for the record, we don't have anybody for general audience participation.

We do not. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We'll go ahead and look at these minutes. Have those before you with any modifications or changes. If not, we'll entertain a motion to approve.

I'll move to approve.

So that's Ms. Trammell approves and Mr. Green seconds. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right, the minutes are approved. All right. We'll move to the public hearing. We're continuing from 09/25/2025, a proposed new three storey mixed use building in the Venetian theme.

Architectural Control District, it's PLAR00193 at 256 Nokomis Avenue South. Brittany Smith is our planner. And Belkas, as hell it does, is the design professional for this. This is a quasi judicial hearing. And I'm going to go ahead and read the advertisement.

This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 09/06/2025, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. So at this time, we will continue the public hearing. And are there any speaker cards filled out?

Yes I have them completed.

Okay, great. Mr. Lewis.

Yes, thank you chair. Since the last meeting has anyone had any on this board had any ex parte communication regarding this application?

No. Okay.

Let the record reflect that the board has indicated that there's been no ex parte communication since this was continued at the

last year. And I would

also ask is there any new conflicts of interest or any conflicts of interest that have arisen since the last hearing? No. Please let the record reflect that there's been indicate that the board has indicated that there's no conflicts of interest.

Okay, thank you. All right, we'll have a staff report now. Ms. Smith can let us know where we are.

Good morning, Britney Smith for the record planner with the City of Venice. We're here today to talk about the continuance of 256 Nokomis Avenue. I don't have anything for an updated staff report. Just wanted to briefly go over the general ideas and comments that you all had at the last meeting that the applicant has taken into consideration and then provided their new elevations and a list of changes they've made. So on the screen here in front of you, you'll see that we put together a summary of what you guys said.

One being the massing needs to be addressed for the south and east sides of the building. Two, the increased width in the arch columns in order to reduce emphasis on the height and bring more into line with the surrounding community aesthetic three, in order to reduce the relative perception of height, it is suggested to reduce the height of the parapet wall as discussed in the meeting, integrating that barrel tile roofing and discussion of the mansard roof. Modifications needed to meet the code requirements specifically on the north sides considering the window alignment and then also the plane changes, simplification of the railings and a reduction of redundancy in arch elements over the windows. So this is a summary of what you all said at the last meeting and what the applicant was provided. And again, they have submitted updated architectural and then a list of the changes that they made.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. Smith regarding the staff report?

The color changes, you guys have the official book or do these changes correspond to colors that are within that are pre approved?

They are very similar to the colors that are pre approved. It is important to note that staff got this middle of this right before the deadline for the agenda. So we did not have a lot of time to do an extensive review.

Okay. I would like to just make a comment just for the Board's edification. When we redid the land development code, we talked about a preapplication process, which is in there, where applicants can come before this Board as a pre application to get input. And essentially that's kind of what happened last time. So I just wanted to let you know that applicants can have that option.

And I think in the future, would be good for the staff to promote that because I think that will help many things, especially with new projects. But that's just a general comment. All right. Any other comments for Ms. Smith? Questions? All right. At this time we'll have applicant come and present his changes. Good morning.

Changed everything, whatever we discussed last time. We changed roof. We removed, first of all, removed this parapet for molding parapet and the change to tile roof. It's not tile, it's like a similar style metal roofing. And we adjust the windows.

We adjust south side of building, break middle section and like fix windows from north side. This was like kind of chaotic. We sacrificed inside the interior, interior like planning and made exterior looks better. So I think that's all changes we discussed and we follow that instruction.

I just we've got the drawings in front of us. I don't know if we can pull those up maybe one at a time. I'm not sure. We have them on iPads, but it might be helpful at this time to look at those rather than just a general list of changes. Okay.

Well,

I get your name if I get your name wrong,

I'm sorry.

Belka. Go by Belka.

Belka is

a friend. Belka, okay. Maybe you could walk through the drawings with us just to point out, I don't

know. Yes,

I think they're all all the drawings are there. You might have to turn that other mic on. Sorry. While they're pulling that up, just a question for Mr. Steckerede.

Were you and anyone else who wasn't here during that last meeting, have you had a chance to review both the original package, what was proposed and the new?

I did.

Okay. Great.

I just want to make sure because just got to make sure we understand what we're looking at for the changes.

Changes, we just removed the parapet, like it was 42 feet high. That's why it was correct, you correct us to make roof a little bit different. So we changed this to tile roof, it's more matching around buildings. So and we break south elevation if you see from library side.

Spacing the library, correct?

Yes, that's where we break that wall, that's what we discussed last time. So in plus north side, we adjust all these windows. We change railing as we discussed last time, like you guys didn't like it or it was correction too. So we've made very similar railing in other buildings. Basically that's all what we discussed last time. Okay.

All right. I guess at this point, we'll have the members of the Board, Board members question the applicant. And let's just go through some of the things that we talked about. Thank you for making the changes and coming back here. Thank you for doing that so quickly.

It was, I think, a week. So it was difficult to get that turned around. If we could put those back up, Amanda. I think one of the first question that we had concern about it is, was the massing of the building. And that is something that really changes the character of the building.

So at this point, I'm looking at your floor plan. The floor plan the exterior walls of the floor plan still show there is a recess in the south wall, which we talked about. We didn't tell you how to do it. We just suggested that that might be helpful. So something might be helpful on the south wall facing the library. So there is a little I believe it's a one foot six recess in that wall. Correct. Other than that, I don't think you made any extra changes.

Well, roof?

Well, in the wall. Most of them are vertically. So one of the things that our code requires is that on buildings with lots that are more than 50 feet wide, which this is, it's 100 feet wide. That at least you shall have at least two different massing forms.

So which one we did in south side and front is more breakdown too. West is balcony, I assume balcony breaks or balcony all like balcony is breaking this building from west side, south side and only north side is like because of we have a neighbor over there.

A neighboring building, correct.

A neighboring building, yes.

The requirement is to do two different offsetting planes, at least two different of a minimum of 10 inches in the facade. It sounds like Mr. Clark has a comment. Me, Mr. Chair? Yes.

Would it help if we made copies of the document that we showed you previously that has the things itemized? We can make copies and give that to you. So you have that?

Yes. I don't have Okay.

She's going to make copies and bring that in and give it to you.

Oh, thank you. Thank you. Was kind of a it was a general list of things that we talked about. About. But just following up on the massing, my question about this building is it's large box in most parts.

I mean it is the exterior wall does not move in and out on the north or the west. And on the south side, it's a small indentation. If we could move to the rendered elevation, I don't know if you can do that. Okay. Just if you please go to the south elevation.

There we are. Okay. So if I'm reading this drawing as an architect looking at it, I'm seeing that I can't see shadow lines because you didn't have shadow, which is fine. I can understand that. If I look at the floor plan, there's a 16 inches recess on the second and third level only.

Yes. That's where we follow on code looking, let's say 16 by 10, that's what it's required. But

what I'm seeing is the plane of the wall with the windows in it, three windows on the top floor, let's say, recesses back 16 inches, but the darker gray color continues. It appears in this drawing like a tower. Well we break that Like

a facade That's why we break this with molding, it's not tower. Basically all all flooring like is break with molding on middle sections. All floor is breaking with molding, it's not considered like tower. I

guess what I'm saying is the difference between the wall plane with the windows and with the lighter gray and the difference between the one with the peaked roof above it is not the planes are the same. You essentially have a paint line, a change in color on the same plane. Does that make sense? Does the Board understand what I'm talking about here? Absolutely.

Plane of the wall in plan does not change except for the one little indentation. But in the rendered elevation, it appears that those moldings would come off. There would be some depth and some character to the building And it's not gonna be that way. It's a paint line between the two. It changes from one color to the other in the same plane.

So when you look at this rendered elevation without shadows, you understand that it's still flat. Except for the two recesses, I'm with you on that. But I don't know how you're gonna achieve this look, what appears to be a kind of a breaking up of the facade by just one little recess. There's no trim. There's no off setting planes.

I don't know how to express this anymore, but the rendering that we're looking at appears to have some character moving in and out by changes of color. There are some reductions with the balconies, I understand that, on both ends. And now there's a recess in the middle, But there's really no change in that plane.

Mark, do we need a new floor plan drawn? No. Does that No,

floor plan is drawn and it is shown recessed on the 2nd And 3rd Floor.

Well, can change color inside, it's going to be different. If you want to break with color, we can do that. Like intersection of south elevation, we can break with color and it's going to show different because there is not too much because I can't make big changes inside elevations. Did this 16 inch breakdown for south elevation, south wall. So interior and plus garage is not letting me to break this building.

Plus you know like we have to follow code or drive like building code and the driveway not letting me to or push front building or push back.

Or push back.

That's why I'm stuck in that square building, like garage is getting too small. So if I'm to break down building and make it small shrink a little bit, we like to, but there are no space for parking.

Right.

So all driveway. So that's why, that's what I'm trying to follow rules.

I feel for you.

And plus we can break this, yeah probably with paint, different paint inside of the south elevation, it's going to give you different look on middle section. But like to break more than that, I can't.

Okay, just, I'm just, if I our section 7.10.2 building massing gives examples of commercial buildings, residential buildings, mixed use buildings that in fact break that plane. It's right in our guidelines. And what it does is it gives architectural character. This is a downtown, it's in a theme district, but it's in a downtown district. And what we're looking for is character over a number of units.

And I believe, if I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, you don't have much room on this site to move the exterior wall in and out to give it the architectural character that we're by massing that we're asking for because I'm going to just guess the number of units required doesn't allow you to pull that back. You could offset the plane. You could set back the the top floor, for example, make it look less high and still come up with a three story building. So I'm struggling with the box and meeting our guidelines with the massing of this building. I think what you've than what you had before.

I think the Board's input was valuable. That's just my opinion. I don't know if anyone else has a thought on this, but reading the floor plans and reading these elevations, I think we're still very flat. We do not achieve a massing that's equivalent to the Venice historic precedent. And and I have I have I wanna ask staff has pulled up a street view.

If we could do that of the neighboring neighboring property, the property directly to the west of this, the neighbor to this future building. I think that might be helpful to see what I'm talking about. Cause sometimes it's difficult for the public to understand the difference between paint and shadow and shade and rendered elevations and a real building. So this is the property directly to the west. The alleyway, the driveway is here on the right.

And you can see, and I'm just trying to make explanation of what I'm talking about. The exterior wall of this moves in and out in a massing it's called the massing of the building. And I know you know this. And you must be handicapped by something that's that's the number of units that are trying to squeeze on this lot, I believe. I don't wanna put words in your mouth.

But that allows character to enter the building from the street, and that's what we're trying to find. This is offset by 10 feet, not 16 inches. There's balconies, there's But yet, if you looked at the roof of this, it's a large rectangle, rectangle, but it was was adjusted for that. It also happens on the backside of the building, not to that extent. There's another project similar.

This is right next door. So this building that we have before us is pretty much flat across the front. It has elements and now has roof tile. But another one that's a block away, this is about on the other side of the community center. This is again street view, was just looking at the street. These are both two story projects. So they're lower. And I have no problem with the three stories. That's part of the land development code. This owner has every right to do that and should do that the best they can.

This is another one that has, again, a block away, but the way you enter this building, the way this facade, these are only like, I don't know, but about 10 inch offsets. But the character of the building is shown. Both of these were approved by this less than ten years ago. So I'm just trying to give you examples of how much movement we're looking for. And I don't know if that can be achieved, but in my mind from a massing standpoint you improved this greatly but from a massing standpoint it's very similar.

I don't know if anybody else have any comments on what I'm talking about here but I

mean I would even add the counterpart more commercially built is the library right across the street from you. I mean that's a square building just like yours but that manages to offset enough to provide the setbacks and shadow lines that traditional VHP architecture successfully provided. I mean that's a square building just like more or less yours and they were able to manipulate that enough to meet our guidelines as well.

I think massing is still an issue with this project. Is there any other elements that we want to talk about? There was a list I think, that Mr. Clark provided us. That was the first one.

Increase the width of the columns to reduce the emphasis on the height and bring more in line with the surrounding community aesthetic. Again, think this is a three story building. This has been reviewed to some level with the staff, and it does meet the current land development code for height, including what you did with the peaked roof, which I think is much better than what you had. It shortens the building even though it isn't any shorter. I think it's the same height. But it gives it where it meets the sky. It's more in line with the Venice historic precedent. And you did widen the columns to one foot six, I believe.

We did, yes.

Yeah. Which I think is more from a from a proportional standpoint of other VHP VHP buildings in the area, which is absolutely critical that you look at because this is a community that holds together very well and because those details matter, every single one of them.

So me.

I'm sorry.

So an easy one is east elevation there, the centered public entry. So you have that plane flush but you recess the entry back. So that's an easy option is just pull that wall out of plane a reasonable amount so that it creates an offset in the wall plane at the entry. That's one really easy one that you could capture.

Very large help to this project. The window alignments that you did on this revision much improved that facade, I believe, in my mind. Things line up. Even though you may have to make some concessions inside the units, the building makes sense from the exterior, which that is there you go. You also varied, instead of putting arches on every window, you varied it, which gives it unique character and interest.

So those are I thought that was really well presented. The railings, I think the railings are just more typical of the VHP in this area. I liked your railings, personally. I liked the design. But it didn't it isn't consistent with other structures.

And we're not trying we want variation in this board of this style. A lot of uniqueness is probably the most important thing. But within a framework of elements that work together. Reduction and redundancy of the arch elements over the windows and you did that. So I think in general, you did a lot of things that were much better for this. Any other comments comments from the Board?

A couple of new comments. We have a 10% secondary material requirement where you change materials. Do you have any other secondary materials on the primary facades, which would be east and south?

It's only stuck with form molding. That's two materials we

can use. Is there a potential that maybe at the column bases you change from

stone We can

change to stone. And put

stone there. I think that

You mean veneer stone or veneer stone or any stone.

Yeah, in our guideline that provides some examples of what to of And what to also the solid waste enclosure. You have four foot stuccoed post as the on the corners there. And it looks like you're picking up the height of that and then applying foam bands at the top where it sits taller at rear than it does the four front? Yes. Am I reading that right?

Yes. For molding, we will be talking about the top, 3rd Floor.

So how does that work? The vinyl fence is going to go high on the back and then you're going to put foam molding on vinyl. Okay.

Which elevation I'm sorry?

It's at the very back of your cement. It's the solid waste enclosure. The very last page. Right there. Oh,

this one is a yes. It's like a trash enclosure. It's a vinyl fence. That's correct. And stack columns. Correct. Yes.

Right, I understand the front, I understand the gates, but the rear elevation where you're adding foam molding.

Yeah, on top.

I don't understand how that's going to work.

On the fascia, we're going to put top molding.

On vinyl top of fence?

Yeah, that's

what It's I don't four columns going around, vinyl fence is going to be low. Four columns, it's going to, got a roof going to be on four columns, I'm sorry, columns, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I think it's long project. So it's four columns, these columns going up, that stack of columns is going to hold roof and vinyl fence, going to be basically it's going to be open space between roof and fence.

So this is a roof structure.

Roof structure, yes sir. It's saying, it's flat roof but it's with molding.

That may be a

See like if you see detail over there it shows right here it's roof. If you can see my plans, this is a roof right here. It's open space. The roof, why we did roof because of if somebody see from balcony, they don't wanna see like trash cans.

Okay, so from a solid waste standpoint, this is not our purview, but from those cans all have to be rolled out.

Rolled out.

So this is not like a dumpster.

Because of its commercial building too, they have to keep trash over there too, commercial offices. So that we need to close top of the roof because when you come out from balcony, all neighbor going to come out from balcony, they don't want to see trash. That's why we closed this on top of the, that's why we did roof.

Don't know. I find there's a lot of expense going into this enclosure. There's a roof, there's six columns that are supporting It seems to me like

It's four columns. Four columns because of six is shows vinyl fence needs own column. But six, four major columns

Oh, okay.

So four columns

Four structural columns holding up a roof and then infill with vinyl fence panels. Did you even, did you consider just the exterior of this building is all stucco. Could you do just a block stucco? Yes, sure. I might it's I feel like

We can.

You might be spending more money to do this than something more durable in just block and stucco. I don't know. That's just a suggestion.

Actually it was my original plans.

Oh, was it?

Yeah, it was. But Okay.

Yeah. This is not consistent with the building. Our requirements are the dumpster enclosure and exterior accessories. Right.

All in the Yes.

Know. Very closely matched. Yes.

I'm glad that you're gonna change it.

Okay. Alright. Well that

Because we didn't want to like whine our fence from

Right. Right.

Mark, Yes. With the changes that you're talking about, obviously, we've got several changes. But I agree with what Mark had come up. I was trying to look at the building, I missed the last meeting, looking at the building, just couldn't figure it just this is a very visible site, three of the four walls. You see them very much from the street. And with the changes and so on, I'm wondering if we need to see this again.

I think as we continue this once, I think we've done a good job on giving the applicant feedback. I think at this point if there's no other questions

the for the system is still amassing. Yes,

for me it is.

And that's the most actively the most important part of the building at this point.

It is. Yes. It is. So I think John, are there any other comments for the applicant for our presenter here? Because if not, we'll move into a time of board review.

Again, hate to beat a dead horse, but that service area, that's a roof. So if it's going to be a roof, it needs to follow our roof guidelines. So, know, if you're gonna have a flat roof and you're gonna

have a

parapet, you know, right now, what I'm envisioning is a Sure. It's a slightly sloped roof.

No. We're gonna change back to this is gonna be same as same roof as metal tile. So it's gonna match because of previously we had like molding on buildings, Right now we changed this to tile roofing, So from main I think we're going to add this tile roof on top of this enclosure, trash enclosure. So it's going to look it's going to mix. It's with your It's be to mix with towers.

This time Mr. Clark, I think has a comment or two. I want to

just mention that the solid waste area is going to be reviewed through site development plan. As far as having a roof on a dumpster area or a trash enclosure, that may not fly with our solid waste folks to be able to service it. So as you are aware, there's always risks in where you go first, whether you go to Planning Commission or whether you go to HAPB and the risk are the owners, the applicants because there could be changes at either location, either board that impacts the other board's comments or reviews. So the the solid waste area is going to be reviewed through the site development plan. It could change.

So we'll have to deal with that at that point. And if there are changes that impact your approvals, then they will have to come back to you to discuss those changes. Okay.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Clark. I think that particular area as I mentioned earlier And that's why is not really our

we changed, I just remember, that's why we changed to vinyl. That's Taco Bell's we wrote this for another department and that's why we did this vinyl fence because I think stagger was not right for another board, I believe so. That's why I want to do vinyl fence on the enclosure, But I'll change it if for us, so I will change to stock one. We're going to change this roof to metal roofing to match our towers in main building. But I

don't know if they're

to let me I'll try to for aesthetically yes, it's better to change it. But we'll see, I think we're going to be fine with them too. Maybe one side opens gate going to be, maybe that will going to stay vinyl, but like color wise it's gonna be matched to building. But rest of them it can be like stucco.

I think your fence, proposed fence material that's the infill. Yes. You know that matches. I mean there are elements of that enclosure that are all through the roof. If you're going to roof it, it needs to follow the roof guidelines. If it's it doesn't the columns need to be

should be consistent. Architecturally between closure and we may see this. We require

screening, you're doing that, the other elements need to still follow the guidelines. Is in our purview and it isn't. The elements that you use to construct it need to be consistent with our requirements. Okay.

All right. Is there any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it coming back so quickly, in fact. Okay. At this time, is there any other audience participation on this particular case?

No, we do not have anyone signed up.

No one signed up. Okay. All right. I'm to move to additional staff comments. But in the meantime, I just would like to query the Board. At this point, we have identified several items where the applicant has responded in the way that they thought best. We still have a few things. Massing is the biggest one. I don't know what could be done to change the massing. That would be up to the applicant.

That's a design change. We aren't talking about adding emollient. I just don't think or adding trim to the exterior would change that. So I just I think what we're going to do is just boat and see what we do. But right now, let's just listen to Brittney, if she has any further comments. Anything else on this?

So some of the things that I heard that you would like the applicant to change was on the south and potentially the east side offsetting the wall plane. John, you gave the idea of offsetting the wall plane at the entry door as low hanging fruit for addressing some of the massing issues. I got two, the 10% needs to be a different material. The applicant suggested that they would change out with some stone. And then three, addressing the trash enclosure to making sure it's consistent with the architecture of the building which I believe that the applicant understood as well.

So those are the three items that I have that still need to be addressed by the applicant in order to meet what you've requested.

Those were three suggestions. On the massing, I don't know if one item is adequate to Just do for in terms of other VHP structures in the area, I don't believe it meets the massing requirements. So I don't know that we can generalize that. It could be that there's other things that could be done. I'm sure there is. There's always room for design. But in general, that's correct, you what have.

And I think perhaps with the number of changes that are in front of us today that we would consider a continuance so that it could come back before you.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yes. The massing is 71021B. B. It's the specific guideline.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Any further discussion on this by the Board?

Mark, we don't get structures like this that come along very often.

That's correct.

And this is a centerpiece of Venice with the library, the art center, it's a very visible location. And to make these possible changes and everything else to this building, personally I want to see what it looks like for the final rather than saying, well we got to do this, we got to do this. I would like to see the drawings of what it is going to look like with the changes or with the things that before I would want to approve it. It's just personal. But it's just that's a special piece of property in the building in city.

I agree. And the first proposal that we had the applicant had a very, it wasn't a requirement, but it was very detailed rendering, photorealistic rendering. Well done. It did show in my mind some of the areas that we're talking about, especially with the massing. Because there were stucco bands that came down that look from a two d elevation as a column. But in fact, they're three quarters of an inch thick stucco. Sir, could you please come

if you're going speak, please

come to the microphone. Please.

Would like to give him.

We didn't know what the changes that's

why reason why we can provide this today, three d elevation. I completely understand. I've been in your shoes. Having a week to do an entire revision to create different massing is a very difficult thing to do. So I think, although much of this was successful, the comments for the Board, I think, helped greatly.

Point is we probably want to have revised renderings to whatever you wanted to accomplish to change the massing that are at the same level as what you first brought in. That way that this board could vote on that. I will say that there's a significant amount of changes I think that need to make to make the massing similar to those structures adjacent to this. It's not just going to be two inches here and three inches there, in my mind. So this is to meet that section, 10 to point B, you need to offset this plane, which probably, likely, the only way I can think of it is to reduce some units or the size of some units.

I don't know how else you could accomplish it, but that's your call. Certainly up to you and the owner. This Board is looking for a project that creates unique character that follows the guideline, much less concerned at all with the number of units that accomplished. So in that way, we're just looking for the best looking building that we can. You're looking for the best project you can.

So whatever you bring back to this board would need to meet that understand what we're saying?

Yes, do.

I know you do.

Yes, I

really appreciate what you're doing. This is a major change to that particular part of the city and it's a tremendous improvement. It's just as Mark said, we don't and I said, we don't get these to come along and we got to just make sure it's right. We don't have anything that we've missed and so on. That's our responsibility. Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean the work this submittal is far better than Far better. Far better than the first half. I think it's just a little bit more tweaking if too far owner.

We understand. Thank

you. Thank All

right. At this time, we'll close the public hearing. And I'm going to suggest that we go ahead and continue this to a date certain again. We might need some information from the applicant about when that's possible. I feel like this process has worked.

The pre design concept that I mentioned before would have been helpful on this project and would be on future projects. If an owner wants to do that, it's not up to the city. So but if they want to do that, they could save themselves some time and effort. But I would like to suggest that we continue this. But Ms. Brittney has an idea.

Sorry, the next meeting is November 13, that date would work for the applicant. And he confirmed, yes, that would work for him.

Okay. That's the next meeting. Need a motion. But before we do that, just wanted comments from the Board. Is this the direction you feel like we should continue this?

Or vote?

I mean

Rather than vote at this point, I feel like the applicant does want to comply and just may need some more time to do

that. Sure.

If, Becca if you could please.

Question is, is that a reasonable amount of time?

That's my concern because this is not easy. It's a big building. There's a lot to do. He's got constraints on the site. He can't move back forward.

Yes sir, I can make it.

There's a significant amount. But because we could go to the following meeting to get more detailed rendering.

November 13 I have time. It's more You're okay

with that?

Yes. I can make it. I can do it.

He's confident.

Yes, I am.

All right, thank you. Thank you. All right then, if that's the case, I would entertain a motion to continue.

And just to clarify for the

record, this would be a motion to continue this hearing to the November 13 happy meeting at 9AM here in the chambers, correct?

Yes. Someone want to do a motion?

I propose the motion that we continue public hearing PLA R2500193 to resume on November 13. Is that good enough?

At 9AM in the council chambers.

At 9AM in the council chambers.

I guess the items with regard to the solid waste enclosure are going to be captured by Changing the notes that staff has taken. I don't think that needs to be part of it. All right. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Gene Trammell seconds. Let's do a roll call vote please.

Mr. Watkins? Yes. Ms. Trammell? Yes. Mr. Barrack?

Yes.

Mr. Stuckey? Yes. Mr. Green? Yes. And Chair Baby?

Yes. All right. It is continued. So we will hopefully see something that we can finally get a CAC for. We'll see.

Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and move now to a proposed second story, addition to the existing garage in the historic Venice Architectural Control District, P L A R 20 Five-eighty 6 at 625 West Venice Avenue. This is a quasi judicial hearing, and, this is has been properly advertised. This is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on 09/20/2025, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code.

Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. All right. We'll open the public hearing. Are there any speaker cards to speak on this?

Yes, we have them completed.

All right. All right. Well, at this point, Mr. Lewis.

Yes. Has anybody on this Board received or heard any ex parte communication regarding this application? No. Okay. Please let the record reflect that the board is everyone on the board has indicated that there's been no ex parte communication. Does anyone on this board have a conflict of interest with hearing application that needs

to be put on the record?

No. Please let the record reflect that all board members have indicated that there is no conflicts of interest with hearing this application.

Thank Thank you. All right, we'll have a staff report by Ms. Nicole.

Good morning. For the record Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City of Venice. This is 625 West Venice Avenue, so you can see it's on Venice Ave between Park Boulevard and Armada Road. It's an existing home, existing garage, and their request is to add a second story to their garage. So this property is a 1926 single family home.

It's not in the local register, but it's in the historic district, it's Nolan era, and it's in the VHP style generally. So their garage however was not built in the twenties. According to the property appraisers records it was built in 1976, but it was designed to look consistent with the home. So their proposal is to continue that same look to add a second floor, to add an exterior staircase to access that 2nd Floor and it would be stucco with exterior lighting, railings, doors and windows to match the existing and then they proposed a new eyebrow roof designed to fit within the VHP regulations. So there are several different elements of the code that come into play here.

First I'll show you some photographs and I'll show you their proposal and then I'll go over the code sections that are relevant. So here's just several different angles of the property. You can see the garages through here, it was tough that day because there were cars parked in front, but you'll see a better picture shortly. So and then here you can kind of see there's also another spiral staircase on the backside that is very similar to what they're proposing for the garage addition, so it complements the house in that way. Got a couple historic photographs of course before the garage was built in the twenty's and then this one was taken in the eighty's, unfortunately we didn't have an angle that shows that garage but it would have been there at that time.

Okay and briefly I'll show you their proposal, although I know they're going go over it in more detail, but you can see they've provided the colors that spiral staircase with aluminum railings, pretty simple design on those and then exterior sconces, doors that match the door on the 1st Floor of the garage. And then let me show you the renderings quickly. So this view is what you can see looking through that archway down the driveway and so then it would be added to the side of the property, to the east side of the garage. This staircase and the balcony and everything. So here are the code sections that come into play.

Primary materials, so stucco without an applied pattern, that's what they proposed. Permitted roof materials, so you can see they have this barrel tile right now, they're proposing a flat roof but this is the barrel eyebrow that they've proposed. Glazing of the windows appears compliant from the materials they provided. The windows, you all know about the ratios required, the window types that are required, so they've provided what we believe are consistent with the code. And then residential door types and garages are generally kind of open to interpretation.

The code just speaks to being complementary and correlate with historical precedent. So that would be something sort of open ended for you all to decide. And then railings, we've talked about the railings, they're fairly simple aluminum design that will be on the balcony and then the staircase kind of matches that same design. Recesses and projections mentions arches, exterior stairways, and then decorative features of course this is an accessory structure, a garage, so it wouldn't be as heavily scrutinized perhaps as the main structure, but decorative features can still come into play. And then decorative lighting of course historic style fixtures are required.

They can be elaborate, they should be dark metal or wrought iron which these are. And the historic resources manager did review the petition and had a few comments for the applicant that you know it's possible to potentially reverse this if necessary which is an aspect considered with historic preservation and adding new additions to a building. That there should be a differentiation between the original garage and the addition. Removing a parapet might help minimize a sense of scale and the addition should complement but not copy the original structure. So there's really only one decision criteria for you all and that's whether it incorporates the design characteristics, but as I mentioned there are many code sections for you to evaluate and determine if you do feel that it meets that.

Do you have any questions for me before we bring the applicant up?

Questions for Ms. Trembley.

I'd like to ask Mr. Klinkhammer to come forward. I've got one or two historical questions.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. For the record, Harry Klinkhammer, Historical Resources Manager for the City of Venice.

Good morning Harry. Okay, my first question is the usual one. Will this addition create any difficulties if they wish to place this structure on the local historic register later?

So first of all, with the garage, with the date of the garage, it could be that if they were to apply, it would be just for the home and not for the garage. Added to as well the garage with its location and setback, it is not that visible from the street. So I think the look of the garage is going to be less imperative. And then finally too, if the garage meets the VHP precedent design style, then it should then still be able to meet standard regarding the successor dwelling.

Okay, did you have any other points on the structure you wanted to bring to our attention?

No, my comments already presented by Nicole in her report.

I have one comment, not comment but question for you. Mr. Klinghammer, in your comments for the structure, you had mentioned that it needs needs to be distinguishable between the 1978 version and the new. I don't know, is that necessary?

Well, just comes from the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines.

Right.

So that any new construction that it's distinguishable that it is a newer construction as opposed to the original structure that was there. It doesn't look like it always looked that way with the addition on there.

I think he's referencing the 1926 original home and Correct.

Okay. And this isn't so

But it should maintain a difference so that it doesn't appear that it is the original 1926 structure in this renovation. I guess

I understand that from the original structure but from itself No. From the Ground Floor existing, it's not historic.

Yeah. No. With the garage It

would probably look better if it just looked the same.

Right. With the garage which with the date, actually probably if they did go to the local register probably it would be just for the home and not for the garage because of the date. I think with the garage it's going to be you just want to keep it the way it looks. But overall that you wanted to complement but not mimic the home.

Okay. And the existing one story garage does that now? Yes. So just saying that that differentiation exists now. So if it continued in the structure, that's all I was trying to figure out whether we needed to look for different stucco style or not, and I didn't think so. Okay. That's I'm pretty clear unless anybody else has something. Alright.

Thank you. This visit is the for this house.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Harry. All right. And at this time, we'll have is there any audience participation on this particular seeing none.

I do not have audience participation. Do you want to hear from the applicant?

I do. I want to hear from the applicant. So that's next. Good morning.

Morning. Can you hear me now? There we go. I'm Chris Alexakis with CSA Construction. I'll be the contractor taking over this project.

I was the same one that did the other revisions to the house last year and clients called me out and they said they wanted to put the second story. So we tried to come out with a design that will complement the house. Honestly, I started the process, didn't realize the garage was built in the 1970s because I mean they did a pretty good job, I mean even the construction, the way they did the roof trusses, everything imitated the house 100%. So I decided to kind of follow that and put an addition on top of it. As you can see from the drawings, I know there was a note in there about can we take this structure down later and still maintain the existing garage and the answer is yes.

So what I will be doing is kind of creating a standalone structure on top of the garage and the only thing that will be tying them together is stucco. So we haven't designed the structural way of doing it yet, but just did a concept design. But I've spoken to my engineers and it can be done. Just columns spanning across with some micro land beams tying everything together from left to right above the garage. And like I said, the only thing that will be attaching it would be stucco and lath.

But yes, we maintain the same railing that we did before that was approved, the same lighting, we're going to build the same door, just to kind of keep it all simple. And I think we have achieved that unless anybody has any questions for me on any of the finishes or looks.

I think Chris has done an excellent job with this and it's very consistent with the house. This is the type of application we like to see because you paid attention to continuing custom doors. This is a very unique house, great house. Examples within the city. And I know the owners really want to maintain that.

So, I will say that I, you know, there's I even appreciate the fact that you took the time to put the eyebrow back in that was on the lower. I mean you didn't have to do that, but it does continue that that material into the garage, which is which is great. It's purely decorative, it has no function but it really adds a lot to it. Yeah, you'll be able

to stick that's the only thing you'll be able to see from the street. So I'm like, let's add it because it's it's gonna matter.

And you might be able to see it over the Yeah. You know, the little arch as you drive through. So very nice little apartment studio. Any other comments, board members here?

So the eyebrow, it's not doing anything. It's decorative. So originally eyebrow was the start, the beginning of the slope of the flat roof. So it had a function and a point and then it was anchored where they raised the masonry up higher to cap that. Can we move that eyebrow up in the same location and have it extend all the way across?

I can

do So it has a function and will be more doing something for the building as well.

Even right now it's actually not quite doing that because it's sitting up high and then it

Yes, but historically they would cap on flat roofs with tile across essentially that's what they're trying to do here visually in the original structure.

I can bring it up.

Yes. So if you bring that up and carry it all the way across, think that might help and that might allow you the opportunity to increase the windows and height a bit, get some more light in, just keep the two to one ratio.

Yes, wasn't sure about the height because I mean the existing house, the windows, they're all over the place so I just kind of kept the basic window because it's got some really long windows, it's got some short windows. So I kind of copied like the bedroom windows in the existing house and went with that.

You'll have higher ceiling so getting some more light in would probably help.

That's a good idea.

I have one very, very, very minor comment I think and it could be just graphic. But the decorative light fixture next to the door, it feels like it's a little close. And since it's in plan that close and in elevation, I don't know, maybe it was intentional, Feels like it needs a little space from the door and that's purely aesthetic thing, but it's gonna look great. So I just think that would would help. There's only a couple light fixtures.

Yes, it might have been an issue with the three d drawing.

It could easily be, but anyway, looks great.

Just to clarify, the proposed front elevation on the last sheet or not the last sheet, right after your elevations, you show a line drawing behind the original residence. I'm assuming that height is wrong as shown and that's not constructed because it looks really tall in that perspective.

I don't know if it's the drawing is on here.

It's probably exaggerated.

Because I mean it's almost as at the in elevation or in perspective, it's set way back. So it should be far lower and it shows the line of the parapet roof almost even with the ridge of the original house. I just want to make sure we're that scale is probably wrong. Before.

The proposed front elevation on the page. Yes, that might. That's exaggerated. Yes.

This one is clear.

This one. The other one is the line drawing.

That might Dimension incorrect. Yeah, that's a rough drawing we did of what could possibly be seen. So we took a straight shot from the street in the middle of the building. Right. And that's Yes. Yes, is probably way You're 20 feet

to

the From the top of perspective that would be far lower than you wouldn't see it from the street at that mass.

Yes, that's going to come down a couple of feet down easily.

All right. Any other comments by Board members for Chris? You very much Thank for the you. Right. Any additional staff comments? Ms. Trembley.

Okay. So I heard three changes that you all would like to see. Moving the eyebrow roof up all the way and taking it all the way across, possibly changing the window size? No. No? Okay.

No. Was just an option.

Okay. And then moving the light fixture farther away from the door.

Again, just a suggestion. Okay.

Those are things that

We don't have rules on that.

I would feel comfortable looking at administratively and maybe if we absolutely had to run it by the Chairman rather than a continuance, but Okay. Just want to make Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and any further discussion. This is, I think it's going be a great addition and very, very much in keeping with the rest of the House. And that's what we want. Very good. We'll go ahead at this time accept the motion. Anyone have a motion?

So motion to approve PLA R25000086 as presented with the following revision that the proposed tile eyebrow be raised to the parapet roofline and extend across the front elevation.

I'll second that motion.

All right. I And

question.

Stuckey?

Yes.

And Chair I Beebe?

Yes. All right, you received the CAC. Good luck with your project. All right. Mr. Clark.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director. Just wanted to indicate that that was a really good discussion today and a good discussion from the last meeting too. I want to mention that and I think Nicole and Brittany each mentioned the fact that we are trying to encourage the pre apps.

We've always had the ability even back with ARB for them to come forward to the Board and speak with you and continued that on in the HAPB. So we do encourage that. I think it would help a lot if they would have sort of a concept come before you, get your thoughts and then go back and finish their design might speed things up a bit when they get before you and help them more meet the VHP requirements. So we're encouraging that. The other thing I wanted to mention is that based on some discussions with the Chairman, you know, when you have things like this, it took you it took a long time to get your guidelines developed and you guys painstakingly went through developing these guidelines and I think they're working well.

But when we have things like this, if you see things that may need clarification or whether you think that would be helpful for us to get in the code that would help the applicants and help you apply the standards, then certainly I think that would be a discussion that we can bring back to you after a case like this or if you would just you know think about those things and then at the end of the meeting, maybe the next meeting or even today, you know bring up some things that you might want us to address in the guidelines and clarify. Obviously we can't make anything more prohibitive or burdensome based on state legislation but we certainly can clarify and tweak our code in certain aspects that may help the applicants and help you as well. So just wanted to bring that forward to you all. Other than that, your next meeting is November 13. We're on that one meeting schedule now a month and I think that will work out well.

Yes, seems good. Thank you, Roger.

Roger, it's difficult to sometimes stay here and to have this to have to come back again. But once again as I said, this is an important piece of property. And these are landmark things that we make that will go ahead for years. So that's why I feel that we get a little sticky at times but it's still very important.

Absolutely. Agree a 100%. I think that I think you're taking the cautionary steps here and I think that I know it's hard for you to continue a project on because you understand what that means sometimes to the applicant but I think it's extremely important for you to be comfortable, in the decision that you make. So I have no problem with that.

The other thing today I'm not going to ask you for an update of all the properties we've done before. So you got the time off.

I think is to follow-up on John's comment, any project that's going to have a different zoning classification potentially than residential that will come before us, a larger project such as the first application. I think those are the ones that the owner is investing a ton of money and to design to make it happen. A preliminary review would be very helpful

for them. Yes, I think I agree. I think we're encouraging that and sometimes they don't feel that they need to take us up on that, but we certainly do encourage that for them to come before you before they get really deep into it.

There may be a reason, Roger, to do it with the new land development code. We have revised the we've incorporated them more codifiable. They're codified. They're a little more detailed. They're the same, but based on the same, but with the consultant.

So now we're using them and this is where, you know, if if the applicant studies them well, they'll see what we're asking for. If if they come in and they don't quite have that, then it's it would be better to have just a pre app to save them a lot of time and money. And and we were happy to do that. We would it's easier on us to do that than it is to continue meetings make lists and things like that. So I really appreciate your office and staff prepping as much as you can help the applicants to go that direction.

And we've never really done a lot of that over the years, But we kind of do it anyway because we continue to be It sort of happens. Essentially it happens anyway. The other factor in this is that when we ask questions about staff, when we go between our Board and Planning Commission. And we do have that bounce if but we do assume that the major and you clarified that, that the major components of what we're looking at have been reviewed to a level that if we say it looks too tall proportionally, it doesn't have anything to do with land development code, that we are looking at something that meets that will meet or I don't know gross on a gross area. Right.

Little things like the dumpster enclosures I knew that was going to come up and I knew that that wasn't something that we could talk about. But we can talk about how it looks. Right. So there's potential depending on what the applicant does, whether they want to come to this board first and then go to Planning Commission or do it the other way around.

Yes. It has always been a question and we actually tried to address that at one point several that years we were going to require planning commission first and then come to you. That didn't work. So we're still in the situation where we just let them know, it's up to you wherever you want to go first and if the other board makes a change that impacts your decision on the other board, you're going have to go back. This one could very well happen in this case.

We do have the site development plan in for this building at this point, but I think you discovered something today that our solid waste folks may not have that there's a roof on this enclosure. And immediately I thought, how are we lifting a dumpster out there? Well, it doesn't look like they have a dumpster and it may be just they're going to pull out the containers and then they'll That's service it in the

the thing they can do.

It's the only way they'd be able to do it. But we're going to double back with our solid waste folks and make sure that they're good with that. So we'll see where that goes and Planning Commission, we will indicate your comments to them in our staff report, let them know

I think it would be helpful.

What happened there and they'll consider that as well, but the architectural are in your purview. Right.

And in this case with with a comment regarding massing, massing is a is a building wide. It's massing of the building. It's the ins and outs of the building. It's where the building hits the ground in most many. So if we change massing or we request that we change, require it, then it fundamentally changes what Planning Commission look at.

So in that way, on that particular aspect, they don't care about brackets and doors, but massing is the one thing that does affect whatever they decide. I think we're headed in the right direction. So we just keep on improving. I appreciate your comment about this Board looking at cases that we have, real cases, real projects, real applicants that affect this idea of doing a predesigned thing that might affect what they do. And I appreciate the ability to do that. All right, anything else today? Mr. Clark?

Us? Does it say there we have to elect the President?

Chair. It's your annual election for Chair and Vice Why

didn't I notice? I didn't notice that. It was

tucked That in the would

be the same for the board as well.

It's tucked in the bottom there. Okay. Election of a chair and a vice chair. Okay. Well,

I would like to nominate Mark. To continue on as President. He's done a great job, been here a long time, has a lot of experience.

Not a president.

That's all I can say about you. There a second John?

John wants to do this. He's been the guy in to do this.

I like to be the rebel. Does it require a second?

Yes, have you to second and have our formal vote. I'll second.

Seeing no other nomination in the chair, I move that we close that nomination.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Oppose?

You're right. You can oppose. How

about Vice Chair? I guess we're to do that

as well. We have current Gene, you okay with it?

I'm fine.

Okay. All right. I'll make the nomination that Gene stay on as Vice Chair.

I'll second.

All right. All in favor.

With that second, Mr. Yes.

Mr. Watkins, yes. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? We move. Okay.

Any other discussions or staff comments today? If not, we're adjourned. Thank you, guys. Good meeting.

Thanks. You did

a great job. Thank you.