City Commission - workshop

I forget your name. I'm so sorry.

Kayla.

Kayla. A-A-Y-L-A? Yes. Thank you. Yeah.

I'll introduce myself again.

Okay, so for any of the folks at home that might be watching or listening on YouTube, we are going to get this workshop kicked off. This is just a workshop of the HRPB to discuss some items, and we have several of our board members here, so let's get started. We've got a brief PowerPoint here just to kind of go over some discussion topics that some of the board members sent us. But if there are other areas that you all want to address, feel free to bring them up to us and we will have a question slide at the end. So, quick overview of what we're going to go over. Staff updates, introducing you all to Kayla. Quick overview of zoning districts. Laura, I think you had requested that one. The unadopted survey from 2015 to 2020. A quick overview of what it means to be contributing versus non-contributing. The Secretary of the Interior Standards, which is what our design guidelines are based on. And then some questions we have about a few of these items. Oh, I did cut hurricane resilient materials because I wasn't able to get to making that slide yet. But everything else we can have a discussion about. And if you have any other questions, let us know. So this is Kayla. If you'd like to introduce yourself and tell everyone a little bit about yourself.

Sure, yeah. Is this on? Okay. Yeah, my name is Kayla McElriff. I recently just moved here from Idaho. I'm not from there originally. I'm from Georgia. But for the last three years, I was working at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. And I was doing Section 106 reviews. So that's federal projects and reviewing those for compliance for the state of Idaho. So that's what I've been doing. I'm happy to be here. And I'll be the new Historic Preservation Planner working with Ann and Yeah, that's pretty much it. I'm happy to answer questions if you have them.

So you'll be seeing her at all of our board meetings and hopefully get to know her very quickly. So quick overview of zoning districts. These are all of our zoning districts in the city. And then we did pass out a copy of the official zoning map. This is from 2025. So there might be a few minor changes that have been made since then. But it's largely up to date to the extent that we have a paper copy right now and when we get a new one made it can be distributed to you all. Did anyone have any particular questions about any zoning districts or we can kind of go over the areas of the city where you see particular zoning districts or what they mean? Just wanted to provide you all with that background because I know we reference a lot of the zoning districts in our presentations and staff reports but This gives a little bit of context, hopefully, at least where they are in the city.

Thank you, Anne. So which are the ones that houses and people go into?

So do you mean like residential? So those are any of the ones that are traditionally on zoning maps, sort of this, I don't know quite what to call it, light beiges color. That's all single family residential. And then we also have any of the multifamily is more of the bright yellow color going into brown. So usually yellowish, beigeish brown will be purely residential zoning districts.

But the low density, medium density, the brown is medium density, right?

Yes, brown is medium density, medium. Goldish yellow is low density. So that's MF20. So that's 20 dwelling units an acre. And then the light beige is single family residential. And then it would be kind of hard to tell between this map, between the goldish and the yellow, but the yellow is a single family, two family.

I think mixed use, is that, are residences in mixed use?

Mixed use will traditionally have a mix of uses. So you can have purely residential uses in a mixed use district. You can also have a mix of office, commercial, retail. It depends on the particular mixed use district and what is and isn't allowed. But traditionally, those are intended to have a little bit more of an expanded use case. So it doesn't disallow residential development. You can do purely residential development in a mixed use district, but they are intended to have a little bit more broad of a mix of potential uses.

So cases that come before us, is there a prevalent zone or area where more cases come than other cases?

I would say most of what you're seeing is going to be in single family residential, single family, two family, occasional multifamily. And then really the only time that you're seeing any of the mixed use or higher density would be when we're looking at projects in the main downtown core area or some of the areas that touch federal highway in historic districts. I saw if I had to, I had to estimate, I'd say 80% at least of your applications are probably either SFR, which is that light beige color or SFTF, which is the yellowish color.

What was the other one? SFR is a single family residential. And what's the other, what was the other one?

Uh, SFTF 14. So that's essentially a two family. Um, those are the, really the main difference between those two areas you have, um, Hello. You have in SFR district, you have seven dwelling units an acre. So those are your typical. Oh, this is exciting.

I'm so sorry, everybody. Whatever.

You were busy pulling together your materials.

Well, you didn't need to tell us that. You didn't need to tell us that. You wouldn't mind going there to see him, would you? Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.

So SFR districts are the ones where you can't have an accessory dwelling unit or two units on your lot. SFTF 14, you can usually have an accessory dwelling unit or two units. Broadly, that's kind of what breaks the two of them.

I'm a bit confused about how with the Osborne people last year, there seemed to be like the changing of the designation I think it came here. Were you here then?

The one where we moved some of the zoning districts. So that was more tied to future land use, right? When we changed it to medium density? Scott was here. Yeah, that's a little different because this is zoning as opposed to future land use. Do you want to explain that?

Microphones or not? I think you're talking about sunset. I think that was a rezone. Yeah, that's That was a big to do. And ultimately went to single family residential square. I just decided to resolve them. That's what the residents wanted. I can't remember.

That was a rezoning? What was it? It was technically it was an initial zoning and did not have a city zoning platform.

Right, but didn't have any designation at all. Right. And they wanted to do that because they want to sort of protect from overdevelopment, was my recollection. Not quite sure. Why they want to have a single family.

They wanted low intensity.

Low density, yeah. Okay. That's all I have on that for now. Thank you.

Okay.

So moving on, I think we also had some questions about our unadopted survey that we sometimes reference as far as our applications. So we did have a survey update of all of our designated historic districts prepared between 2015 and 2020 by a company called Environmental Services Inc. They're run by Terracon, which is a larger firm. The general goal of that was because I think we've alluded to before, all of our districts were established in the very late 1990s to very early 2000s. And at the time that they were established and the lists of contributing and non-contributing structures were set in stone, more or less, they were only considering things that were 50 years old or older in around the year 2000. So the cutoff date for most of those districts initial surveys and initial district formations would have been around 1950. Now, the goal with this later survey, I would say this is kind of a broad problem with historic district formation in general and why you are intended to keep resurveying and updating your district is That formation just purely by basis of, you know, having occurred in the year 2000 as opposed to the year 2010 missed a lot of resources that were built in the 60s and were still significant to the district but are ultimately currently non-contributing. So depending on the district, and I think some of you have requested the specific survey documents from us. I can send them to anyone that would like them. They largely tried to target between 1970 and 1973 as a cutoff date, which would have been 50 years at the time, plus or minus a five-year buffer for some of the districts. And largely it was just intended to capture the tail end of the World War II building boom that we had in most of our historic districts that, like I said, weren't initially considered when the ordinances were created. Now the commission has not adopted that survey, so they are not in effect. We do use them for reference. They're very helpful. They largely were well done with a few puzzling omissions on the surveyors part, but for the most part, they did a very good job of capturing a lot of resources that should become contributing. And as of right now, really the only way, unless the commission were to adopt that survey is for property owners to voluntarily redesignate themselves as contributing. So we do have a mechanism for that. It does not require HRPB or city commission approval like most designations do. Property owners can voluntarily say, hey, survey says that I should be contributing. I'd like to take advantage of that. And the main reason that people do that is because there are more restrictions on contributing structures, but there are also more allowances given to contributing structures. So you kind of get a little bit more regulation for a little bit more incentive. So contributing structures, are those that when the district is formed and surveyed were found to be 50 years old or older and have some level of architectural significance. So essentially typifying a form or type of architecture or development pattern within the city And largely the reason we form historic districts as opposed to individual landmarks, like you see more in, say, Palm Beach, they tend to do individual landmarks. We do districts because we don't have a lot of high style forms of architecture, but what we do have is neighborhoods that have a really unique and well-preserved character. that shows the historical development pattern over time and a variety of different architectural types. So those are what are considered to be contributing. Non-contributing structures are generally those that are at the time of survey, not 50 years old or older, and or if they are 50 years old or older, are found to not have significance in architecture. So say someone had a frame vernacular house, and in the 80s they decided to stucco over it and add a bunch of additions onto it and change the roof and a lot of other things. And if you looked at it today, you would have absolutely no idea what it originally would have looked like. That would be something that usually would be surveyed to be non-contributing because it no longer has the architectural significance that would have exemplified the form that it was originally built in. Sometimes those changes can develop significance over time. But in large part, that's generally the division between the two.

That's one that typically would not be ever able to be contributing again, because there's too many changes. Even if it ages 50 plus years.

Largely, yes. I have seen circumstances where a building that had a lot of unsympathetic renovations over time That was then designated as non-contributing originally. The property owner invested a lot of time and resources into it to bring it back to its original appearance. And it was re-designated as contributing. That's really the only time that that would happen. But largely, yes, if something's non-contributing, it's because it really, you're not bringing it back to what it was. And there's no integrity of materials or form or architecture that can really be fixed.

This might've been discussed before, but can you, do you have an idea about how many of the single family residences at least are contributing in town, what percentage?

I need to run those numbers. So they are actually included in those designation reports. I didn't get a chance to add them up today. But if I... More than 50%? It has to be more than 50%. So when you form a district, you do need at least 50% of the structures to be contributing.

Two questions. When you speak of a neighborhood, is that when... What you're talking about is like Eden and College Park? Or are they smaller than that? Are there neighborhoods within those...

So the historic districts are actually, in large part, what I think most people would consider to be neighborhoods, with a couple of them maybe encompassing more than one of our particular neighborhood associations. So our historic districts are Southeast Lucerne, Northeast Lucerne, Old Lucerne, Old Town, South Palm Park, and College Park. People think that like Parrot Cove is a historic district. There is no historic district called Parrot Cove, but there's a large area of Parrot Cove within a historic district.

So, yes, exactly.

That's probably the best way to explain it. So neighborhood associations versus historic districts overlap, have a lot of overlap, but are not the same thing.

Oh, no, you can ask now. So the second question is, is there a database for all this information as far as each contributing unit? Let's say that is on the website for a house. Let's say that my house is designated for contributing. You'd have all that on that particular house.

Yes. So we have a GIS map database that any structure in the city, you can look up and see if it's in a designated historic district, whether or not it's contributing or non-contributing. Always encourage people to double check with us before they make any large life altering decisions based on that data, just because there's occasional errors. And the true and ultimate deciding factor is the original ordinances for when the districts were formed. Those have lists of structures that are considered to be contributing to And those are the, you know, final say-so as far as, you know, when they wrote that ordinance, that's what they intended to be contributing. So we have that data publicly available on our GIS maps. We also have that data publicly available on our documentation.

You said that the property owner can collect it and contribute it?

Only if their property in that 2020 survey was found to be eligible to become contributing.

In the 2015 survey.

So the survey started in 2015 and ended in 2020.

Is there like, there's like a survey date where this is the date that the survey is based on?

Yes. So that was largely done around 2018 and 2019. Okay. And so that's why they did 1973 as a date for some of the districts, just to get a little bit extra wiggle room on that.

I got a question. Yeah. So based on that, how many people would join and want to?

Want to join a historic district?

How many people want to join? Be a member of the district. That's the tribute, yes.

So like I said, that's in the survey reports. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I can send them to you.

I wish I had.

I can send them to you via email.

Please.

Yeah. Yeah, we'll send, you know, I think we'll send all of the survey reports to all of you and the original ordinances just so you all have them as record. They're thick, but they're interesting reading and you'll get quite a bit of data about what is found in each of the districts. So short answer, the reason someone would elect to become contributing is charitably because they know that their house is something special and they'd like to see it preserved for the future, even if they're not there. less charitably because they get something out of it. So you are eligible for the ad valorem tax exemption program, which you all should be a little bit familiar with. I think we've seen some applications using that recently. You can also have waivers from the zoning code. Contributing structures are not required to follow or update themselves to the entirety of the current Florida building code. Ultimately, that is the building official's decision, but there are usually some exemptions as far as what you do and don't have to do for contributing structures. You don't get that for non-contributing. And you also, if you are in a national register district, so some of our districts are national register listed, some of them are not, you would be eligible if you're a contributing structure in one of those districts for federal grants. if it's income producing. So that's not usually something that, um, small scale individual homeowners can take advantage of. Um, but larger projects like the Gulf stream, um, can take advantage of, and you don't get any of that if you're not contributing. So that's kind of the trade-off, but at the same time, um, contributing structures do have a higher level of review. There are, um, I think the short answer is you can't demolish a contributing structure. The only way really we'd, well, you all would hear any application to demolish a contributing structure or non-contributing, you hear all demolitions, but really the only way that a contributing structure should be demolished is if it is structurally unsound. say the building official condemns it obviously that's a life safety issue um but it's usually something where you're essentially blocked from elective demolition um we had one i think it was was it last year um where the building inspector didn't even want to go up the stairs it was so unsafe was that the one with the tree that was yeah that one was very sad um that It was a shame to lose that one, but yeah, that is a situation where it's a safety issue. And that's good because the tree was supposed to stay. That was important on that one. So for non-contributing structures, we're only reviewing things that can be seen from the right of way. So.

You're on the list for the new contributing structure, which was never approved.

Mm-hmm.

Are they allowed to petition to be contributing?

Yes. So if you have a non-contributing structure that is on that list, this specific language, which is from, and I'm sorry, I didn't add the code citation on that one, but it is in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. the property owner can request staff, and you're allowed to do this at a staff level, to change to become a contributing structure if you are surveyed in that 2015, if you're on the list, yes. Doesn't work in the opposite direction. You can't ask to become non-contributing. The only way for a contributing structure to become non-contributing would be if we resurveyed the entire district. And essentially reopened the entire district to the survey process again and adopted it.

So if you're on the list contributing in the survey that has not been approved, you cannot say I don't want to be.

No, you. If you are on the list that has not been adopted and you're currently non contributing, you can either stay the way you are and be fine with it. or you can elect to become contributing.

If you're on the list that is not approved to be contributing and you don't want to be contributing, can you go in that direction? The survey that was not approved, so I'm not technically contributing. And I don't want to be, I'm not saying this is true.

It's not my, no, I'm just saying that.

Yeah.

Then you stay the same. If you, if you don't voluntarily elect to become contributing the same, unless the survey gets approved, unless the survey gets approved. Yes.

So can you unstick yourself before

So, no, you can't. I think that's essentially what I was saying as far as it doesn't work in the opposite direction. So some background. If it were to be adopted, yes. Historic preservation, there's a background on this. Historic preservation similar to zoning is considered a police power. So the city and you as the HRPB can electively choose to designate districts. It's a little different under Florida law in the last couple of years. So what I'm saying is historically accurate. Elizabeth, please don't murder me if this is no longer entirely true. The city is essentially allowed to form districts without a property owner saying, yes, I want to be in a historic district. A certain percentage of property owners within a district typically have to sign off on doing it, but there are people that can find themselves in a historic district that was established by vote of the neighborhood and established by the HRPB, even if, say, they didn't want to be a contributing structure because it is entirely based on the age and architectural significance.

Can you go back to that word? To be a historic district. At least 50% of the homes have to be contributed.

Yes, and at least 50% of the property owners have to be in favor of designation.

Can you go back to that word police power? I was starting to space a little bit and then I heard police power.

So, zoning also is a police power. It's essentially something that is at least in Florida because the state has elected to essentially give municipalities the ability to regulate their own zoning and similarly regulate historic districts. It's considered something that is in the good of the community to be able to establish zoning districts and in the good of the community to be able to establish historic districts. So Essentially, we have regulatory power to say that this is a historic district. These historic districts are required to follow these rules per the historic preservation ordinance, per the design guidelines. So, in short, it is, you know, binding. It's not something that, you know, you can opt out of. You can't opt out of being in a historic district.

So, when would a property owner contest their reservation?

During the formation of a historic district. So... So a re-survey opens up the for lack of a better term, reopens the historic district. It does not get rid of it. So a property owner, in the instance of a re-survey of a district, could essentially come forward and say, hi, I see that I'm still considered contributing. However, I see that you have all of these criteria, which is why my property was established as contributing, but X, Y, and Z has happened over time, and I don't think that this currently qualifies. And whether or not that argument is valid This is a hypothetical situation, so it's hard to say, but say that there had been alterations made. At that point, maybe, yes, you know, it could be considered as part of a district re-survey and, you know, the surveyor, whoever it was, would say, yeah, maybe this doesn't merit still being contributing.

Who determines that? Like, whether, like, there have been too many additions to a house or too many changes or whatever? Who? Is there a key person or is there like a criteria?

So in this particular instance, we hired Environmental Services Inc. to do it. So our trained architectural historians, people with a background in it that do this as their job, essentially, you know.

But ultimately it would be us approving the survey.

But not each individual person.

Ultimately, it would be the commission approving the survey, I guess, is the net of it, but with recommendation from you.

Is this the time where we ask, or are you going to do it later? Why has this not been approved? I mean, why did they spend all of that money? And you're sort of using it for guidelines. And then it just sort of gets, what happened?

I wasn't here, so I don't know.

none of us were here. I thought maybe you, I know Scott wasn't here.

I want to repeat the same question in different words. We have these two designations, the contributing, the not contributing, and the ordinance says that we can regulate the two in certain ways. And we have this third pseudo category of contributing on 2015, but not officially adopted, that we're now holding them to the standard of contributing structures. Even if we do a lot.

We take it into consideration. We give you the information. Ultimately, so I think what part of the issue is, and I think it's kind of unique to the way that we've kind of structured the program at the moment, I would say a lot of other historic preservation programs that I'm aware of, and I'm trying to do some more research on this and maybe Kayla can speak to it because maybe she has different experience, but largely don't differentiate between non-contributing and contributing quite to the level that we do. I go back a lot to when I was in West Palm Beach because that's my main experience before this, but I'll say that largely we differentiated a lot less between the two. We reviewed everything on non-contributing structures the same. The only difference was you couldn't put low-E windows on contributing structures and really the demolition controls.

I think it's the particular nature of the cottages that makes this town really special. So, yeah, I mean, these are, you know, I mean, there's no place like Lake, in terms of, I mean, maybe, you know, Key West or something like that, perhaps, would be, you know, another analogous kind of place I would think about, but, you know, you wouldn't find these colleges in Idaho, I wouldn't imagine, correct?

Correct.

Right. So, I mean, I think that's part of what is, you know, what, what, The emphasis is here, like everybody gets, you know, I mean, people get really, really worked up if something that's, you know, historic cottage might get torn down, you know, it's like.

Well, I could see why you wouldn't want to do that, but why would you put that same lens on a non-contributing? You're saying we, you're saying in West Palm Beach, they kind of look at everything the same.

And I want to know if that's the way the ordinance is written or the way that we're kind of interpreting it.

We do have a slide specifically on that. I don't know if we want to go ahead and do it.

You sound like we're being more lenient and flexible than other places. Is that what you're saying? I would say yes.

At least. But however, like Boca Raton, Delray, like Boca Raton, they don't allow secrets. older, whether new construction or not. They don't do it. They stick to one level of historical rules. So they don't set precedents, of course. They don't want a new style to become inundated with the old style. Now, West Palm Beach is more flexible. Lake Worth should be more flexible because you brought up a good point. Back there when I was a kid, when I lived here, they had on those there, we called them, they used to call them beach homes at the time because people had their homes out west and came up here on the weekend. But those homes had no, oops. My father had, my father had a privilege of carrying some of them down. My father had the privilege of carrying some of them down. And as a little boy, we helped out. But, uh, impressive. We have set like two sets of rules. It almost becomes, uh, I would say concerning for us. How are we going to enforce the rules like this is the way it's going to be. And of course we came to go on case by case basically. So What we have done so far, I think we have let it be. Of course, we have sets and presses that we have to live with. There's no going back. Like we had talked about doors. What we should focus on is mainly openings, alternate structures, and we must adapt to the environment of today. Ma'am, Now, I've been finishing, adapting to the environment of the state. You have to look at the new material. I've had the privilege to do some travel and look at old historical. Some of it in the country, some of it out. And everywhere I went, in conservative historical bags, whether it's Louisiana, Indiana, Everywhere I went, they maintained a certain one. Cohesive type throughout their district. We can no longer have this here. You're okay over here. You're not okay over there. You can't have that cohesiveness. Now, if I go back to the historical book and look at some of the homes in College Park, they'll be in that particular time You'll see some homes have same-style roof built the same at that particular time, but now people come here to College Park, South Palm Lake, whatever, they can't have the same-style roof. The reason they have the same-style roof is, like I said before, these vehicles, you meet them back in College Park, but you're trying to adapt to their environment. And here's a roofer right here. He'll tell you what's wrong with the roofer, how you can put it on. It's in the history book. I mean, we have to adapt. We have to adapt. And this board has the ability. I'm going to tell you something.

I wonder if we could save the roof discussion for later when we're only going to focus just on roofing.

The power of this board. The power of this board. don't realize is you have to decide whether to give the approach not staff not that it's you the board has more power than they realize where hey folks not right there so i'm sorry no i have not found in the case that we don't that we

I don't know if that's right or not.

I think there's a little bit of context there that, and I think this is important to bring up as well. There's a lot, a lot of applications you guys don't see. You guys don't see, I would say 95% of what comes through this program because we do most of it in administrative level. And I can tell you, we absolutely do treat those structures differently because we get window replacements on them and other alterations all the time. And if it's on the back, we don't even look at it. So it may not... Yeah. This may be the part that, for example, your house, anything you can't see from the street, we're not looking at. Because I know particularly talked about your house. I know it's not contributing and So I think you guys get a very small slice of what we're doing. You get the things that ultimately can't be worked out at a staff level or aren't being approved at a staff level. And I can tell you at a staff level, they are treated very differently.

And why are you doing that? Like, for instance, I mean, if it's not a... Because of the matrix, yeah. So why is our matrix or treatment different than West Palm Beaches?

In the interest of flexibility? It was set up differently in the interest of flexibility. Maybe not even necessarily the way the ordinance was written, but over time, essentially the the tenor and the way that the program has approached historic preservation, because yes, as much as, you know, I think there is a great deal of consistency across the profession and the way that people approach things, you know, areas like how to treat contributing versus non-contributing structures, there's not necessarily always going to be nearly as much like binding guidance, I would say about how you have to treat non-contributing structures. If we ask the state about how to treat non-contributing structures, they'll be far more cagey with an answer, I think, than they would be for a contributing structure.

That I can't say.

So this might be one of those, if we want flexibility, we should push this.

But I think it is something where maybe we need to keep you all updated on the kind of things that we are reviewing at a staff level. And I think that maybe we're going to get into some of that going ahead because we are dealing with an incredibly high volume of stuff that we're dealing with at a staff level. you know, and maybe for better or for worse, there are some things that we probably don't need to be looking at, similar to windows on, you know, the elevations of a non-contributing structure. We don't look at those to, you know, give people more opportunities to put in, you know, energy-efficient windows or the style of windows that they want or, you know, plenty of other reasons.

But windows are not visible from the street. no approval, so they wouldn't even be submitting a CLA.

So the complicating factor on that one is a lot of the time they'll have some windows that are visible from the street, so we'll be writing a CLA for those portions, and then the rest of it we'll say we're not looking at this. That's... Yeah. Are the windows treated?

Is that a deal breaker? I mean, is it a deal breaker? I mean, long as they're not changing... Why should I admit it? Why should I admit it? You want people to secure their homes. You want to have impact windows. You want them to have the best protection from the environment.

And I think this gets into that hurricane resiliency question, which is, if you were in a historic district that wasn't in Florida, in an area that was prone to hurricanes, you wouldn't be replacing your windows at all. So we allow people to replace windows. That's pretty big. I think a lot of places maybe wouldn't allow that. But in the interest of being aware that we are in a particularly environmentally sensitive area, that's why we do allow people to replace their windows with impact. And we allow them to use vinyl, which is also something that I know... A lot of programs would not look kindly on. Um, and that's why we allow people to use low E for energy efficiency. Um, like I said, West Palm beach, you can't put low E on windows that can be seen from the street. So I don't know enough about Key West's program. I will say I have, uh, yeah. Um, I had a great time there, actually. I went like a year and a half ago, and I really have been looking for time to go again.

Were you looking at houses when you were there? I don't have that kind of money. No, just like evaluating. Historical properties.

Yeah, looking to buy something, absolutely not. Everywhere I go, I'm doing that. That's my curse. That I'm unable to stop looking.

I'm going to look. We've got corporate remember what the rest of them, you see, they have a little larger rack in windows and then based on their operation. I don't know what's the way I'm looking at things. They choose, people choose, they select what they want, and they're more flexible down there. That's a huge issue. I mean, I mean, I when I go to the back side, Now, you see some nice face there.

And I will defer from speaking to that because I haven't read their design guidelines recently. I have looked at them before and I think they actually have a pretty decent program down there. But I'm not going to speak to how they regulate things because purely I've been there on vacation. I can look into it for you.

I do know. Oh, okay. Yes. So I'm going to be happy to talk to him.

Should we maybe stick with the contributing and non-contributing so that you can do your...

I was going to say, like, do you have a sense how many more slides you have? Like, how much, like, otherwise we'll just keep talking.

We've got, like, 10 or 15, but we're going to run through, I think, pretty quickly.

All right.

We should, we should.

So yeah, I think the point I was trying to make as far as how we regulate contributing and non-contributing differently is not to say that we're doing something wrong necessarily. I just think that because we differentiate between them, it makes for some weird edge cases, like Ken was saying, where especially for things that you guys are seeing, it seems like, okay, well, why are we looking at a non-contributing structure? And it's because we do still review non-contributing structures to a certain level. So getting into what the ordinance actually says about levels of preservation, and this is just an excerpt, but I think it kind of covers essentially the difference between the two. we're looking to afford the most protection to historic landmarks, which we only have like three of in the city, and contributing buildings. So that's why we review all elevations. We don't want people doing inappropriate additions, things like that. But For non-contributing structures, the reason that we review them still is because, A, they might become contributing at some point if they become 50 years old or older, and we're looking for them to at least retain their architectural integrity to the degree that hopefully they do. But more importantly, we're actually looking at the effect on the district as a whole. Similar to the concept a little bit, I... I'm going to phrase it differently. None of the decisions you make are precedent setting. None of the decisions you make are precedent setting. Because you should be making them on a case-by-case basis based on the architectural style of a particular house, the history of a particular house, and the available data on that. So just because you approved a metal roof on a house that maybe at one point originally had a metal roof doesn't mean that you have to then blanket approve metal roofs across the entire historic district. I think that's the distinction where each of these, each house is meant to be a record of its own history, a record of its own history as a property, its own architectural materials. And that still goes for non-contributing structures because we are still trying to keep that level of some semblance of architectural form with them. That's why there are still some alterations to non-contributing structures that are inappropriate. And ultimately, is it visible from the street is probably the biggest takeaway from how we regulate the two differently.

I think the precedent versus case by case where we trip up on that is if the cases are very similar, It makes it, because I hear this all the time in my neighborhood, you let so-and-so do this. Sometimes they don't know the history, but I think we need to be real clear. I mean, for instance, if we're going to say, well, okay, front doors are supposed to look this certain way, but if you can't really tell it's a front door, you can't really see it's a front door from the street, we sort of have set a precedent. that we've okayed that a few times.

Yes, but I think...

So I think it would be, would it be fair for us to say, and the next time that comes up, all other things being very similar, we're going to say no. You know what I mean? So in a sense, there's some kind of precedent that's occurring.

If the conditions between two houses for what you're approving are the same, then yes, obviously you should be consistent with your decision making. I think there's a difference between consistency in decision making and precedent setting in decision making. I think that's kind of the dividing line there. Yes, you should be consistent with your decisions. You should not arbitrarily be making decisions on one particular application that you wouldn't make on another that Okay. By in large part is the same. But.

But if you have, if you have, if you have inundation, which is accumulation of it, then how can you, how can you deny that you already have accumulation of

Because I think the difference between that is, like I said, you're looking at each individual house's history. and what you know about that house rather than another house three doors down the street that has a different property history, has a different material history. And that's why it may seem like we're kind of hammering the standards a little bit here, but that's why we want to follow the standards when we're making decisions because that's what provides us with the consistency That then says, okay, you as a board, we as staff are making the same decisions and it's not arbitrary.

I want to get through your slides. Okay, so

New construction, which we'll get into in a little bit, is also an area where I think probably the guidelines for non-contributing structures come in as well because you're creating a whole new structure. And what we're reviewing those for is largely for setbacks, height, mass, bulk, orientation, and compatibility. And I think this is where our design guidelines are very consistent, again, with other ones. I think that we probably need more education on what that means for property owners, for architects. When you're designing a new construction building, what does it mean to have compatible mass, bulk, orientation, height, massing? And to a certain extent, architectural features. The architectural style question, I know that there's been a lot of discussion about the contemporary architectural styles. I can tell you what my feelings are about it, but that's ultimately not important, what our design guidelines say. is essentially that if you are able to design something in a consistent architectural style and can make the argument that you are fitting in that architectural style then it's appropriate and that's intended um we'll get into this in a little bit with the secretary of the interior standards um the the standards are kind of attempting to balance um both for additions and for new constructions um think of a new construction infill almost like um an addition, you know, if you're adding onto a contributing building, you still want it to be compatible with the overall property. If you're adding a new construction to an overall district, you still want it to be compatible with the overall district. But you also want it to be differentiated. So you don't want something that looks exactly like a historic building, same as you wouldn't want the new addition to look exactly like a piece of the historic building, because that would create a false sense of history. So I think that's why the design guidelines allow for more flexibility in design styles, but we do want something, you know, that has a coherent, uh, architectural identity. Um, so when you're reviewing for new construction, and like I said, I have a couple of suggestions as far as where we could go with new construction. I think this is much more long-term broad thinking, um, because spoiler, um, it's things that would cost a lot of money, um, to the program and, um, Certainly know that, you know, that's longer term thinking, but there are ways that we can also create pictorial representations of this or make standards that more clearly define how you approach having appropriate massing and orientation and things like that. So that largely covers it. New construction. We want it to be compatible with the district as a whole. Shouldn't be copying architectural styles in the district. It can. But if they are, it needs to look like it's new.

So you're saying somebody, or are you saying somebody could put a very rectangular glass modern building, assuming massing and all this other stuff. Does that Is that compatible in historic district of 50s or 100-year-old buildings?

Depends on what the rectangular glass building looked like. I think just on base level, if an applicant came in with that, I would probably tell them to pump brakes a little bit. And that would more be largely based on those standards. So the way that the ordinance is written, We want compatibility in fenestration patterns and rhythms of solids to voids and a large glass box is not going to have a compatible rhythm of solids to voids because it's entirely voids. If it's a very boxy structure and everything around it has much more angular roof lines or things like that, well then, yes, well, maybe that's not the best choice. But if there is a consistency in design with a contemporary architectural style that is say boxy and glass, but is pulling in elements that you say, okay, well, you know, the line of that building is lining up with the one next to it in an appropriate way. It essentially is harmonizing with the district and it's not like over massing or overwhelming the other ones around it. Well, maybe there is a case to be made for that.

That's your decision. Do you get a lot of pushback on that? Because again, that's probably not what we're seeing.

I would say ultimately it's the board's decision because applications come before you. I'll say people come in with designs and our goal is largely to get them in a form that is appropriate and is recommendable as staff because we write staff reports based on those standards. So I'm not going to tell someone to bring something in that largely does not meet those standards. We'll usually try to work with them. And you're pretty successful with that.

You don't get a lot of...

I'd say make success. I would say we, I, you know, we have a lot of people that are lovely and say, understood. I want this to be easy. Um, you know, and we're happy to make those changes. And then we sometimes have people that come in and say, no, this is my design. This is what I want. I think it's compatible and I'm going to do it. I'm going to, I'm going to ask the board. And so, 50-50 it goes in cycles. Sometimes we get applications that have changed and evolved a lot over time and sometimes we get applications that for whatever reason have not changed much. I will say usually when you see a new construction come before you is a little bit of a peek behind the curtain. It's probably been at least two or three meetings beforehand where we've talked about it and addressed things and I've told them, I think you need to move this window or change this or adjust this. I think you need to drop the height. I think you need to make it less massive. Without speaking to specific applications, I can't tell you exactly how much success I have, give or take, on any of those. But a lot of the time, the products that you're seeing have already gone through some levels of clean up for some of those items as much as possible.

I will say that Anne has done a really good job with this. It has been a while. Usually she works through those applications and then you all see a product that she has, you know, worked with the applicant on. There is also a process where applicants can bring in conceptual design to you all directly to basically do that same process, but in a public space.

setting and we haven't had one of those in a very long time i got a question i don't think anyone's asked in a long time yeah you go through all that especially so you just recommend it but you're not giving them means and methods

I mean, I can recommend in certain ways.

I, I mean, I don't need the message. All right.

How are you going to get there?

How are you going to get there? And if something goes wrong, if something goes wrong.

Yeah.

I did. And all of a sudden something goes up, it goes wrong. God forbid it happens. And the liability goes where? Say it.

I didn't say anything. Would it be appropriate to say that you tell the applicants these are the best practices of all the guidelines and this is your best? Is that right?

The lawyer, is that right? A lot of cities stepped away.

What did Michelle say?

To the city. She said to the city. To the city. Yeah.

The city is not directing means and methods.

There you go. So it's only a recommendation.

Anything I say is a recommendation. And I usually couch it. I'm not an architect. I just review plans.

Would you say that you try to direct the applicant to this is the best practice and this is probably what's going to get you what the board would like to be approved? Yeah, I would say that. I've done no problem with that. I try. Then you're throwing us under the bus.

Sometimes you all surprise me. And I usually tell people that as well. I say, this is how I could see this going, but it ultimately, you know, I can't see the future. I don't see, I can't see the future. Maybe the board sees something differently. I, you know.

Which is good.

But at the same time, I do think it's valuable to give people at least specific feedback about things that they can change as far as their applications. Because if I'm just sitting there and saying, well, you know, I don't like this design. It doesn't quite meet our requirements for massing. People get very annoyed if you can't tell them exactly why or how to fix that. Yeah.

is to me, masking is almost more important than architectural style. I have no idea how a 5,000-square-foot house that fits in or what term do we use? It's compatible. It's compatible with a block full of 1,600-square-foot. 1,800-square-foot glass box that doesn't stand. Yeah, it looks a little wonky, but it's not standing out.

Yeah, I've got a slide about new construction.

I know we're going to get there. Maybe we should do our questions first.

Yeah, you're welcome. Slides first, then they'll either answer our questions or elicit more questions.

So far, I don't have any complaints about how we're structuring this, but if you all do, then let me know.

Keep rolling.

Go ahead. How long are we going to go? If we don't get to everything, we're going to have to... Oh, no, we're going to get to everything.

If we stop asking questions, I'll go faster.

Yeah, I guess that depends on what time you guys want to go home. I could. I don't think anyone would enjoy that. I wouldn't enjoy that. I'd like to go home. So anyway, you all have a copy of the approval matrix. You can see how things are different for contributing and non-contributing structures as far as what we are and aren't reviewing and whether or not it can be seen from the street.

This is the approval matrix. Last week with the door, we decided that a door wasn't visible from the street. Is that setting a precedent that certain doors are not visible from the street and now they don't need to go for a COA?

Or is that... Well, that's always been the case for non-contributing structures, that if it can't be seen from the street, it doesn't need a COA.

Is that a contributing structure?

That was non-contributing.

If that was contributing... That was non-contributing and we were asking them. So, non-contributing...

So, yeah. Yeah. About midway down the page, if you squint, this would be doors, exterior, visible from street, and then doors, exterior, not visible from the street.

So it was that, how do you interpret visible from the street, but then was there vestibule or portico or wrought iron gate or whatever it was. That was, okay, that's one.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I think if we had another one like that, I'd probably kick it to you guys again, because I don't think I would want to be the one to make the determination of whether or not it's visible.

But then be mad at us. Not at your staff. We've talked. We agree.

We just give recommendations. We take it to the board. And if you decide, yay or nay, then that's on the board.

So I'm just running through this and I'll talk later about a couple of changes I think we can make to the matrix. Okay, this is going to be Kayla's portion, actually. So I know that you all have had some interest in learning about the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, which is what the design guidelines are based on. They are also referenced in the ordinance as something that you should be using to be making your decisions about what is and isn't an appropriate alteration. We may start including those in your staff reports and presentations as necessary because I think it is good background as to why the design guidelines are asking for what they are. So with that, Take it away.

Okay. Well, I think we can go through these pretty quickly just because, you know, they're widely available online. They have physical copies. You can order if you want one. You can go to the website. It's the National Park Service. If you just Google, like, National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior Standards, they have booklets that you can order from them. Okay. But a little bit of background into the standards. So in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act was passed. You might be familiar with it because it's why you're a board, why you're a historic preservation commission, and why you have the power that you do. And with that law, they also passed the Secretary of the Interior's standards. They really didn't get going until 1977 and they weren't really part of the federal code until 1990. But since then they've been part of the act and they recently edited them in 2017. So they're kind of trying to stay up to date with what's going on in the historic preservation world. Generally, it sets out four different approaches depending on your historic preservation scenario. So you could have preservation. That's really when you have a historic building and you want to keep it the way it is. You want to preserve it. And so there are methods set out specifically for that scenario. And then there's rehabilitation when you want to make changes to a historic building and How you do that is through very specific guidelines, very similar for preservation. And those two are really the most relevant for residential historic districts like we have here in Lake Worth Beach. And then restoration is a little bit more intensive. So if you have a historic building that maybe has some integrity issues, so it's had additions, the windows have been replaced, it's maybe not in the best shape, you want to restore it to its original construction or to a specific period of its construction. Those are usually really big, exciting projects. And probably the most familiar phrase, I think, to the public, restoring a historic building. And then there's reconstruction. So when most of a historic building is gone, you can choose to reconstruct it with new materials to make it look similar to how it did if it was still there. So these are, as Anne said, the basis for the guidelines. So I'm going to kind of go through the, there's 10 major points that you're looking at when you're talking about the standards across all four of the approaches. And I'm going to go through those and you might see some similarities between how we talk about things in the guidelines. And maybe you see maybe a couple of different things or you have questions about things. So I'll go through those. So the first one is a property will be used as it was historically used or be given a new use that requires minimal change to the materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Can you send us the presentation after the meeting?

Oh, yeah.

I'll worry about that. Get her to send me the pictures.

She always takes pictures. I think she just likes doing that for her records just in case.

Yeah. So we see new uses in buildings all of the time for commercial and becomes residential. It's pretty broad, but you can apply, but maybe there are some uses that aren't necessarily appropriate. You wouldn't want to turn like a residential house into like an industrial Amazon warehouse. It doesn't make any sense. It would be crazy. Um, so, uh, Number two is the historic character of the property. The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. Very general. But then it says the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. So just sort of basic. We're trying to preserve as many of the original features as we can. And each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of history, such as adding other features or elements of other historic properties, are not really recommended, which Anne was kind of talking about earlier, that false sense of history. Number four, changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. And that's just kind of, I think that's just addressing once properties age in 50 years or older, older, then they should also be retained and preserved. Okay, number five.

Is that 50 years nationally, just the...

So it's not technically a rule, but yes, it's part of the guidelines about historic preservation.

Denver does some crazy stuff. Denver does some crazy stuff. They have some historic districts that are actually based on... Don't take this as an idea that I think could be applied everywhere, but I do think it's really interesting. They have particular districts that... essentially were built at a certain period of time, but are also significant for their association with some later alterations in, say, the 80s. So they're actually less than 50 years old, and they have specific guidelines for how they treat those. Like I said, I think they have one of the most interesting programs.

It's like a bunch of Mark Adams that had distal walls put in them. But they all had them at the same time?

More like a bunch of like earlier period housing that had like perma stone added onto it and different windows put in and things like that. And they're actually looking to retain some of those later changes as opposed to bringing them back to their original period of significance. That's just an example, but yes, I'd say 99.99% of instances would be 50 years old or older. And sorry to interrupt. I just find that super interesting, and when I heard about that I was like, oh my god, who even, like, came, that's very visionary, but also, wow.

Yeah, so keep going on the standards here. Um, so it also says that distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques are examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Um, So if there's a particular kind of stonework or something like that on a building, that's very important to maintain. And then number six.

But stucco texture.

Yeah, it could be stucco texture. Those character-defining features that really great craftsmanship. So deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement, it has to match the old feature wherever possible. So we see that all the time here. Window replacements, roof replacements, it's pretty standard. So seven chemical and physical treatments will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. The best example of this is People sometimes want a sandblast brick on historic buildings to clean it. It's really not recommended because it damages the brick and it creates maintenance problems over time. So preservationists usually recommend gentler cleaning methods. Good old fashioned soap and water sometimes is the most appropriate method. And they're doing some really cool things with lasers these days.

So one example for you all. This is a visual on that. About a year ago, there's a building on Lake that has a particular decorative brick work on the front. Kind of.

Okay. Is it the one that's when you first turn up, when you first cross Dixie on the right?

Kitty Corner from the Gulf Stream.

Okay, never mind.

So two kind of mid-century or early, maybe almost art deco-esque condo buildings. They had some distinctive frick work that someone wasn't aware should have not been painted. That's why we don't allow people... um yeah regardless as an example um someone painted the brick without a permit um you are not allowed to do that um so we did have to have you don't need a permit to paint unless it's an unpainted surface like brick so we had to have um a long discussion with them about okay you shouldn't have painted that how do we get this off without ruining the brick and they ended up actually doing a good job. So we do have a local example of where that worked and they did not sandblast it, thank God.

Elizabeth, are we allowed to go look at that property?

Yes.

Can you send us the address? Yeah.

Okay, so our last slide on the main standards here. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved. We don't deal too much with that here in Lake Worth, but it's more relevant for more rural areas. Number nine, new additions, exterior alterations, and related new construction will not destroy historic materials, feature spatial relationships, and the new work will be differentiated from the old and compatible. So we've talked a lot about that, and that's supported by our design guidelines as well. And then the last one, new additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a manner that if removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic property will be unimpaired. Removing an addition in the future, we want to make sure we attach .

What was that?

Oh, sure. Yeah. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a manner that, if removed in the future, will be unimpaired. Sorry, the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired.

Is that common that people want to uncondition?

No, I don't think so. I haven't seen it. I don't know. Maybe Anna has.

I think it's intended to be forward-looking. I had to keep the brick underneath it in case I won't be allowed to do it, but it was still there. She couldn't remove the That's a great example. Perfect. Yeah.

Okay, so that's it for the main standards. And like I said, you can find this information online and it gets even more granular and specific as you dig into it. And it's specific for materials as well. So they also released in 2021, they being the US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, they released the supplemental to this, which is specifically for flood adaptation. And so this is specifically for historic properties that are within flood plains. And the goal is basically to balance historic preservation with flood requirements. So it really is just emphasizing that the alterations that are made are as consistent as you can be with the standards. So that might include recommending temporary flood prevention measures. It might recommend flood proofing or preventative measures as well. So it's really just trying to get ahead of some of the issues that we might see, but it doesn't really prohibit anything in particular, and it also doesn't supersede state or federal law. Yeah, or state or local law.

Can we comment on that? Can we comment on also? No, you know, you know, the rules, what they read, what they wrote, they're not the same. They're not rules. They're guidelines. They're not rules. But he says right on the front page guidelines. They're guidelines. And who makes the rules? They are the rules.

They're the interior.

No. Who's in charge of governing the guidelines?

So...

This is the question. Oh, I thought you were done.

I'm sorry.

What agency has the ability to adapt along those guidelines? Isn't that a good question? Are you asking who has- That creates, thank you. What agency has the ability to adapt along these Secretariat standards?

You mean adapt or enforce?

No, they're only guidelines. Keep that in the back.

Yeah, I understand. Yeah.

So what agency, agency, commission, you, or what fixer has the ability to enforce or adapt those guidelines?

So local historic preservation commissions base their design guidelines typically on the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

There's only guidelines, but the board here has the ability to adapt the guidelines. You've got to read it.

The city commission has adopted historic preservation regulations through ordinance and It is the job of historic preservation staff and this advisory board and the commission to enforce those regulations unless and until they are changed. And then you enforce those as they're adopted.

So it's our job. Yes.

Yes, it's our job. to do to recommend what we can do and what you need. We don't want to change the whole concept. The reason we are here, the reason we are here, the cottage you're talking about, those were the primary concern of the city to protect those there beach homes and the old homes that were here. But as this thing grew and grew and grew, and of course, We must adapt to the environment. We must adapt to the citizens and their needs. So, you know, we just can't, of course, you can't have this. That's the only guideline. They're not hardcore.

I think guidelines may be a little bit of a misleading term here, especially given that they are, again, adopted as part of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is enforceable. Yes, they are guidelines because they are not prescriptive. They are guidelines in the sense that we are not going to tell you how exactly you have to follow them, but they are still something that you have to follow in a historic district.

Yes, you have to have rules and regulations. I'm 100% with the rules. But you think about it, we've got to also adapt to it. You can't just say, you know, you can't just say,

Well, that's why they come to the board and then we can comment on them. Yeah, we can adapt. Well, it's not that simple. Do you want them to say these are just guidelines and we don't have to follow them if we want to change?

I think what I think, the board should come up with a scenario that most of these cases don't have to come to us unless they're changing openings, unless they're new construction, but for as far as roof and adapting to the environment and windows, I think they should have the ability to say, look here, yes, you can have that same style roof. Yes, you can have that. And they do. No, not in most cases. No. You just said 95% of these cases don't even come to us. A lady that came out of College Park, She should have had that roof on her building. She should have had that.

Well, we voted not to.

Well, we'll see. That was not the right vote. Her roof can leave you. The wiggy take her roof off and if she hasn't seen the style. Yeah, but Ed, that's what we voted for.

So if you don't like the vote... I mean, that's sort of what our job is here. You get to vote one way, and we all have to vote our countries.

But if we give staff the ability to go ahead and say, okay, based on the environment, based on the change of material, yes, they can have it. Any home in Lake Worth can have that.

When we get to Ruth, maybe we'll just so and I will remind you all that we are also a certified local government and we are still required to follow certain standards as part of that process, which involves the secretary and the interior standards. So we can't deviate too much from that. Without getting in hot water from the state. I think Bob may have been the only one on the board, but he knows that we went through a very careful, delicate balance as far as allowing low E on windows, as opposed to just clear windows. So just being mindful of the fact that, you know, There's a reason that this is all based on the Secretary of the Interior standards and it's tied to our status as a certified local government as well. Not just because it's best practice, but because there is actually a, you know, you have the carrot and you have the stick. There's a stick behind that in that the state will yank our certified local government status if we deviate too much from how we should and shouldn't be applying.

That's definitely a problem for me.

Well, I mean, your existence as a board is kind of predicated on you being a certified local government. So, I mean, yes, you could be an advisory board, but it would look very different if we weren't a certified local government.

We're done with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Here we are at roofs.

Yeah.

And I am actually really excited to see what I think our material samples that we might have had brought in.

Yeah.

Unless you were just carrying that around for fun. Take it away, Ken.

Okay. So I got a crimped metal roof. a 5D trim panel, and you actually get, when you do this, color match fasteners, which is more of a big deal if it's not white. And I had mentioned to you that I see these are sometimes appropriate on historic houses.

Generally, we go with standing seam rather than 5V crimp precisely because of the fasteners. I think they give a less ideal visual profile. And I'm sorry, I don't have a more reason to answer than that. I have been, since you said it, trying to find...

But on historic properties, aren't these sometimes appropriate?

Generally, no. Generally, we want standing seam.

It's on the unsuccessful replacement.

You've always turned down standing seam on historic.

Well, yes. So metal is something that has very limited use case. There were some frame houses in the city that may have had a metal roof, metal shingles. Those are a little different than the 5E crimp. I will come back to you with a better answer on the 5V crimp besides just we don't allow it. I know that's not a great answer. I just didn't have the time to come up with a full reasoned explanation for that.

Yeah.

So those are the stone-coated steel shingles, and I'm actually really excited because I've never seen one of these in person.

Right.

So these are, of course, an applicator from Leigh Group. You must have been eavesdropping because we were literally just talking about this in the office today. What's the heat in it?

Well, that's why we ask for white or light gray.

A bunch of layers.

Would you say that white or light gray shingle materials reflect light better? Because that is something that the design guidelines ask us to request of people, but that is more of a sustainability concern than really a historic one.

I would agree, yes, but if you hate the bottom one.

Like the bottom one?

This is a stone coated steel shingle that replicates a barrel pile. And this one doesn't have as big of a profile as they normally do. I'll tell you what, from the ground on a roof, you cannot build.

That is a good example of .

I don't really know why.

So when you are looking for a great style of placement, traditionally barrel tiles for goats size in Cuba, but they are, and then they have that sort of very profile shape. How did they make that? Yes, yes, it's true. Perfect. So the concern is we want the, and you can kind of see it up there on the design by the interlocking between the bottom piece and the top piece. That's very important. Those are nice.

Yeah, I know. This literally, my boss and I have been back here for 20 years. You're kidding. I'm not kidding.

like relative prices?

No. No. No.

Nor do we take pricing into account unless we are hearing an economic hardship application, just as a reminder.

The issue with requiring the clay tiles is the clay tiles are very delicate. They break a lot and they don't really even they don't even really You're really relying a lot on the underlayment to do your water proofing at that point.

But you should theoretically be able to replace individual tiles then, correct?

That's what I've always... Well, yeah, but... You look at a clay tile and...

I'm not kidding.

You know what I mean? You go up there to change the dryer or to clean the dryer vent and the tile is crooked.

And we're okay with concrete as material as well. It's just, it's really the profile that's the bigger issue. We don't want the S tile. We want the true barrel.

Remember when we came through here? I mean, tiles came off. But there's something with it.

Oh, sure.

And it's like a missile.

And it comes loose.

And I'll tell you, you know, Yes. I've had to build. I had to build. Andrew. Michael. And I go to these places. And your heart is breaking. The first thing. It was a breach. Everything. I think. If you can protect your. Everything. you have in windows, you have that 90% of your dealing.

And that's where concrete tiles came about with a low slope of a roof and you have imploring the 50s post-war era, and the 2-in-12 and 3-in-12 roofs, you need that weight to do your waterproofing. So you don't have wind hurt and rain going up, and you don't have the weight peeling the shape of what's gone. So it's both for wind protection and for the water protection. Now that it's gone, it's better.

The shape of what's gone. The metal doesn't look much better.

A lot of the job of a concrete tile roof is to weigh that. Right. And some kind of trust can't carry the weight.

So why are we looking at these?

Well, first of all, because I think it's important reference for you all just to see what some of the materials No, I like the stone-coated shingle. I didn't ask Ken to bring the specific one that I poo-pooed. Really, the main issue with that, again, when we're looking at roof replacement, everything that we're doing is not based on economics. It's largely based on visual appearance. All of this is visual appearance based. All of this is based on the Secretary of Interior standards. We want the closest possible visual match. The closest possible visual match to a clay tile roof is a clay tile roof that is a true barrel tile. Short of that, an S tile, but S tiles are not the same visual match. largely because of essentially the connection between the tiles is not the same as, like I said, the, you know, the U-shape underneath and the, I'm not saying this very eloquently. Locking. Yes, the interlocking between the two. Largely, we're just looking at visual appearance. My objection to that is mostly based on the profile. Yes.

And they have other ones that are inward or that see the profile.

And if someone ever comes in with one that you would like in a historic district, you can bring them to us and I'm always open to alternative materials. The conversation we were having earlier about roofing materials, we were talking about... I'm learning all kinds of new things about Idaho that I didn't know before. Apparently you need fireproof roof materials in Idaho because of what they're dealing with. And they have a lot of wood or had a lot of wood shingles. So alternative materials, usually not an issue. A lot of the guidelines have been relaxed as far as, you know, I think 15, 20 years ago, someone probably would have told you, don't replace your siding with hardy plank. I still don't like hardy plank, but we let people do it because it is a close visual match. Everything that we're trying to do is a close visual match.

All these are shingles, right? Wow. That is a shingle.

When you have up here, because I just asked you this question, when you have up here, the asphalt shingles are unsuccessful replacement. You just told me today that they could use them for a... That is for non-contributing structures.

That is the very tiny writing labeled number six on your COA matrix. And you all approved that in...

So these are just contributing structures.

Yes. Well, contributing and non-contributing with the exception of that one in July of 2024, you all made the determination that a stone-coated metal shingle or asphalt shingle is an appropriate replacement for a flat white concrete tile only on non-contributing resources.

My problem with that is the concrete tile is a thin... It's going to be hard to find the material. I'm doing a job in the leisure world right now, which is as far as I can see is concrete tiles. They're slowly being replaced by metal. They have to be white.

That's important information to get for requiring something that...

I'm not saying it's impossible.

Yeah, I will say it's not impossible. I'm not disputing your experience and I hear the same thing from people, but it's not impossible to get the product. It's just harder.

It's harder to get the product and find them to work.

And I will say compared to two to three years ago, it's night and day. I mean, two to three years ago, I was having people even on new construction that was proposing to use flat white concrete tile say, oh my God, I can't find any sort of white concrete tile that's going to be delivered within the next year and a half. Not hearing nearly as much of that, that, you know, we've had a lot of supply chain issues the last five or so years. But I think some of this is related to, too. I'll say, just as my uninformed background, I see the permits come in. We're not hearing at least as much of that. We're not hearing nearly as much of people saying that they cannot possibly find this material or it will be a year and a half lead time to get it. not disputing that it's harder to find, but it is possible to find.

I also think that there's a budget on new construction might be less of an issue than with a regroup.

Yeah.

Not that it's not an issue, but

And what I have to come back to is unless we're taking into consideration an economic hardship application, economics is specifically not something that we can take into account as far as whether or not something's an appropriate replacement material. We try to leave that out because it, I don't know how to quite word this. I think that's probably the best way to say it. In the interest of fairness, there is no way to reasonably evaluate what is and is not economically appropriate, nor should we be getting into the business of doing that, and therefore preservation largely leaves it out of it.

The only one I remember is the woman that was here on behalf of her father said if you have him do the roof that you want, that Steph wants him to do, then he will be able to stay in his home. And I think that we made an accommodation for that.

And that may have been an economic hardship application. Yes. And that's why we have that mechanism. It just...

I don't know if she did the economic hardship. I think we had said that she hadn't done the economic hardship, but we didn't recognize it.

I think that... So I'm having a hard time with that one because I don't think I was here for that. I think that was before I got here. But...

How do you feel we've been approaching this? You got an issue with how we've been?

Well, we haven't had an issue. Which is kind of also the reason why it's it supports buying the right contractor or for full enough site, and that's actually so popular. Could they make it on site out of lead?

No, it is absolutely a... That goes back 200 years. It is absolutely a historic roofing material. It is less... It's more that it's a historic roofing material that, yes, we have examples of in Lake Worth, but not at all.

But not on that material here. And the reason we're saving seed is because they didn't have any wood. They had to cover up the passenger somehow.

Mm-hmm.

No, because our standards for replacement are based on visual compatibility and the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Well, that's the thing about it is It can always show flexibility to the interior standard. Give the boy the right to have flexibility in that manner.

They don't.

Yes, it does. I mean, if you want me to email it to you, I will email it to you.

Well, we just read you the Secretary of State standards. They do not give us the flexibility. They are very based on visual compatibility.

The word goes, it's hard to navigate. It's hard to navigate, but you can get there, all right, based on the board. Not on staff, based on the board. You want me to say that?

And you can bring it up, and then we vote on it.

Yeah.

But you're not going to, I don't think you're going to any of us to say, we're going to switch to allowing standing seat, standing seat when the applicant requested.

Well, are we? Yeah.

So you're trying to fight the losing battle.

But now I got a question on standing seat on the new construction. Why? Because if we're talking about visual compatibility, it's not allowed on any of the historic properties. And over 50% of the properties are historic. And why are we allowing them under construction? At the very least, I want to see the short seat boxes. So we actually already have that.

something that we've been applying to new construction projects where we do have standing seams, we do require them to be an inch or shorter. The reasoning for that, and I would personally prefer not to see them on new construction just because I do think it muddies the waters a little bit, but it gets back to that question of if something is an appropriate architectural style and someone is choosing to install a roof that is appropriate to that architectural style, they should be allowed to do that. So if someone is doing an interpretation of an architectural style that traditionally may have a standing seam, usually that would be something that has, you know, a horizontal siding. You would see a lot and then a an interpretation of a wood frame vernacular as new construction then it would be appropriate then it's something that is appropriate and that's why we don't have a blanket prohibition against it on new construction because new construction is intended to fit in more broadly within specific architectural styles as opposed to replicating the exact house that you see within a historic district great

What difference does it make whether on a new roof or old? Tell me. You're going to see the roof either way. What difference does it make? If it's more healthier? More safer?

Because you're supposed to be reviewing based on what is the most historically appropriate for historic structure, which is tied to what the original material is or a close visual approximation of it.

This town was formed on metal roofs.

And if a house has a metal roof and we have property file documentation of that, they are allowed to replace it with a metal roof. We don't object to that. We've had some of those.

Now this brings me back to If we allow a new construction, why can a non-contributing structure not do it?

If the non-contributing structure was originally constructed with it, we would. But we do still, again, want to try and keep that architectural integrity, even with non-contributing structures, where we're not mixing architectural styles because that creates a hodgepodge in the district as well.

I agree.

That's the roofs. Most of these houses got impact windows. We didn't have impact windows back then. We were allowed to put impact windows in.

But they don't look any different.

But that's exactly it. We work very hard to make sure that they get as close as possible in visual appearance when they replace their windows.

100 feet away from across the street, it's very difficult to tell it. more than the point that's and then the point that is actually the point that's what we're doing they didn't have the impact correct but this is historic preservation not we're not but now we have which is not on your list right now we have the impact that's what you've actually hit on it that's preservation um that is a different uh treatment approach um why do we have the impact it's got two different names why tell me why you have an effect there's a part of games

Why do you have the same? How come you can't? How come you can't have the same style roof? Because of hurricanes. Is hurricanes the best?

But that's not an analogous question. An analogous question would be, why do you allow people to replace their roofs? We do allow people to replace their roofs.

So, yes, a standing seam would be the most hardened roof, but... Your stone coated steel pile is going to be about 95% as hard. Hang on to that stone. Hang on to that stone. Is it metal?

Yeah, metal. Can't imagine. It is. It's metal. Is stainless steel roof metal? Yes, but this is...

But that doesn't look like... You're missing the point.

I know. It doesn't look like a sheet. It doesn't look like this. It don't look like this.

So you're getting the hurricane hardness... that you want, but keeping the visual character of that animal.

And that's why two years ago we started allowing them for non-contributing structures.

So contributing structures, you have that too?

No, non-contributing. Contributing structures ideally should be replacing like for like with their original material.

So you tend to go out there and get a barrel tile from 1936 to 1940. Barrel tile.

Yes, I do tell them to go out and get a barrel tile.

Barrel tiles are much more easily.

No, those are even not the easiest to get, but yeah.

They're much more widespread use to find the materials and the craftsmen than a concrete tile.

Are you saying that on a contributing structure, you can't have a metal roof that looks like tile? Correct.

You cannot.

Correct. I didn't know that.

Because for contributing structures, we want as much integrity and material as possible as well.

This is where the board comes in, my friend. This is where the board comes into play. We'll take a look in. I'm going to use that word case by case.

We will do it case by case then, Ed. You're going to win on that one.

Yes. It's insane not to have

You were asking for an across the board.

Yes, I was.

And we're just going to have to do a case by case. You live with that?

My last material that I wanted to talk about was our self-adhering underlayment.

Oh, okay. You don't care what that looks like.

I do. Okay. Traditionally, you would roll out felt paper, then you would put nails, you'd have these little tin caps. This is basically a big sticker. And the magic of this is it's self-healing with the modified bitumen that's in it. You lose every single shingle or piece of metal or tile on your roof. There are different types of the different top materials. And you're still watermarking. Well, it's required now.

And you would use that for a flat roof as well or a close approximation of it, yeah.

Then I have a better flat roof. It's also a big sticker. Now there are other ways to do it that are still used.

When was the first one starting to be required on all roofs?

So it was required maybe about five to 10 years ago, now on your wind mitigation report, which all the insurance companies require, the wind storm insurance company can get an extra credit. And that's why, and the Florida building code has made it so onerous to use, to not use it. If you use felt paper, you actually have to go over the joints, of this material. So you might as well use that anyway.

So you might as well use it anyway. Exactly.

And you save it. It's a better material to save.

So we'll get into that with some of the COA approval matrix updates. So this is just... Yeah? Feel free to send emails with questions as well.

How do we...

You can leave whatever you want.

Any more slides we have? Oh, a fourth partner.

But I'm hoping that the slides will cover most of what you want to discuss. And you don't have any curveballs for me because that's terrifying. And I hopefully incorporated all of them into here. So this was one of your email questions was about new construction. So I think we've covered this pretty well as far as what we do and don't require as far as new construction. It's intended to be compatible with surrounding structures in the district as a whole, if not in architectural style, certainly in massing and orientation. My question, and this is what I was getting at with maybe long-term goals, I think it would be helpful for people if we had infill guidelines. Go on. very specific, detailed design guidelines just for infill new construction.

Best practices for new construction in Lakewood Beach Restorative Engineering.

So we do have an educational guidelines handbook that is available online. This shows some of the successful and unsuccessful project planning But it's, I'll say light on information. It's four pages at the end of a document that also covers sustainability and some other considerations in historic districts. I think this could be expanded on. I think this is a longer term goal because this isn't something that we're going to be able to put in place tomorrow. But is that something the board would like to see? Would you be looking largely for information about massing architectural styles? Do it. pictorial representations.

We know that the two properties on Lakeside Drive, and Amassing, I'm still uncomfortable with that.

Yeah.

But we approved them. Well, we approved one law before I was on board and another while I was in a whole driving side of a bike.

And I, so what I will get into on that that I think is probably the hardest thing to balance with massing is what you are allowed under the zoning code and what you should reasonably be doing as far as massing. You do.

We can have a guideline on something like, you know, your house can't be more than 100 or you should not be building more than 140% of the square footage of any of the other houses on the block.

And that is something that other places do. Or when I was in West Palm Beach, actually, they have specific zoning. So I think you all probably are at least semi-familiar that we have block coverage and FAR and other requirements across Lake Worth Beach. Those are only in historic districts in West Palm Beach. Otherwise, you can build setback to setback.

To me, if we're trying to get impervious pavement in our driveways, our houses can be.

Our...

Our pervious whatever is not that bonerous for the size lots that we have.

Agreed. Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I would say that this is probably one of the biggest areas of pushback when we are having pre-application meetings and I'm telling people they need to change something.

And don't forget, if you have an impervious driveway, you've got to go and vacuum it.

um well are we also saying are we also saying there too like these are the fronts are we saying it's okay like on some of those lots that are really long and narrow yeah they're really deep that you can have a 5 000 foot i mean 5 000 square foot property as long as it's long and narrow and deep.

Well, so the zoning code right now is what dictates how much square footage you can have. And like I was saying, in West Palm Beach, those are actually contextually based. So each particular historic district has particular standards based on a A massing study of each building in the district that was contributing and a rough estimation of how much square footage those had. That was how it was determined how much new construction can have. We don't necessarily have that. Ours are citywide zoning district based. And so we can bring. We could, but again, this is more long-term vision. This is not going to happen tonight. As much as I wish it could, this would be a heavy lift, would require other people to sign off on them. It is not just me making that decision, but this is me telling you that that is something that exists. And if that's something you'd like us to explore, we can discuss it.

When you pull it out, it's really close. You can draw off the house.

They have a 50-foot setback off Lakeside.

The other half, the house we approved, it has a 50-foot setback.

It was 50-foot, and then they had the garage, which was turned perpendicular to the house. It made it very nice. In the downtown area. That will be a really big cap over the next days. The whole, the entire . So, . Is there a particular project you're concerned about?

There, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there,

That was really cool. You know what? I don't think there's any way to have a historically compatible parking garage.

I think the way that that parking garage is designed is as close to a historically compatible parking garage that you're ever going to get.

Well, yeah, that might be true. It was. When you come up First Avenue, it's still going to be huge, which we should try to guard against it. I know we have a big building coming with the museum.

It's related. That ship has sailed.

But with residential new construction, more specifically, and I guess any other downtown applications that we're seeing, we can always push people in a direction. The board can always push people in a direction. Just know that, you know... Because it's an... getting into something that we don't consider, it's economics.

They're going to want to maximize the development. On Lakeside Drive, they're going to want to put the 10,000 square foot house with the pool and the four car garage so they can sell it for all the money. But they got to remember that, and I hate to make the comparison, that's why you bought the house in Lakewood Beach. That's why you bought the house in the HOA because everyone's lawn is cut.

And I'm not going to say that I would be opposed if the board decides to go in the direction that, okay, all of these have to be one story. Just know that... was talking about square footage is there a in planning or architecture is there a formula based on the size of the facade that might more accurately represent uh so yeah there's some there's some examples i've got one here kind of down on the left um it's called a building height plane or bulk plane essentially sorry about that um More or less what this is allowing is the further back something is set, the higher you can... Sorry, everyone. I don't know what that was. So the more mass you set further back, the closer you can build. So there are... This is an example. I can provide you a lot more examples as far as ways that you can configure. You can get very granular with this. Limits people's flexibility somewhat, but you can get very granular as far as, okay, well, then you need to push the bulk of your massing further back. You need to essentially keep most of your square footage on the first floor. There are examples where you can give credits for essentially being a one-story structure, and then you can cover more of the ground floor if you don't use your second floor square footage. There are techniques. I'd have to do far more research than I have. I just poke around in other people's zoning codes when I'm bored because I'm a sick human being. And those are some examples that I know of. So, yes, there are ways to do that. It just, the question is, how do you formulate that in a way that doesn't make people feel like they're being more restricted than they'd like to be?

An unpopular opinion is going to be that, don't forget, it's historically, it could potentially be historically appropriate. I live on a block that's all one-story houses and is owned by a single family, except for the house that's across from me that's a two-story apartment building. And across the street from that is a four-story ALM.

No particular example that we know that you're talking about.

The parking? I've never had a problem. I've lived on that street. It was a lot better before the city put the bump out. Because that took up four parking spots.

See, I think the other thing that's a really big issue is I don't know what they're being told by their realtors. But I think we have a really poor communication. Or it's the same thing where, well, so-and-so has it down the street, so I can do that. It's like people are purchasing these thinking they could do one thing. And I don't blame them for being really upset if they paid a ridiculous amount of money to do something that they thought they could do to find out that they So I think somehow we need to communicate that better. Before people buy something, they have to sign something.

So that's hard to enforce. What I do, for example, coming out to speak, I think in College Park is one of the directions with this. I think given time and opportunity, we need to be doing more outreach. I have for a long time wanted to get in touch and do presentations for local realtors about what does it mean to be in a historic district what are our historic districts when you're selling property is it in a historic district please check first um because yeah i think it really has got i mean because everybody buys a house with a realtor and what i'll say is i also get far less realtor inquiries of that nature here than i had experienced previously like do you think they know or they just are making assumptions that are in

don't know so how that would be me making an assumption i guess so you just got a question i want to make sure he's awake he'd like to go home though do we ever how often or do we ever get zoning um zoning letters what are they called zoning confirmation letters zoning confirmation letters for residential properties we got a lot ever happened okay and when they're in historic district

technically allowed but also you're but it's all subject to approval by the hrpb that's something like that it requires that we put as much information that's more or less the standard language we use actually is yes you you know this is what your development potential on the site is and you are in a historic district is that after they've bought it well that depends when they come in and ask for it i mean i know what they have to know well a commercial shirt

i mean i i wish there was some way we could make that do some kind of required thing that somebody signs off and says i know this is what this is i will say it's unfortunate our realtors um are not here right now we have two realtors on the board but um i think it's a matter of outreach i think outreach helps a lot there are a lot of realtors that really

probably do a pretty good job.

I mean, I will say Bob does a great job of that. Bob definitely tells people when they're in a historic district, but I think he obviously it's a little bit of a special case.

He's a bit of a dork.

That's why he's not here.

That might make him a better at what he does at home.

You know, you made a comment about single-story homes. I wouldn't try to dictate about what Oh, everybody in this in this store condition. You got to have to be a single story home. What I what I was mostly concentrate on, you want to have homes that similar massive, massive, massive sense of gender, right?

I'll come up with you said long range.

Yeah, very long range. Yeah, this would require quite a few workshops discussions.

This is just now still contemporary homes in the district. So how are you going to deal with that?

Well, we allow people to do contemporary as long as it meets a particular architectural style and can show how it typifies an architectural style. Yeah, no log cabins with parapet roofs. I was going to say maybe if someone designed a really good one, but that actually, I can't possibly imagine how someone would design a good one of those. So I'm going to put a blanket statement on that one.

I was actually on my little note here, although I didn't send an email, to let you know about whatever this contemporary, you know, modern contemporary... amorphous kind of style is because I think we're making it up as we go along.

I didn't want to say that. I think the matching is just important, if not more though, because a contemporary house that's a similar square footage and depending on how much fill had to be brought in from the street to the other house on the block, he's going to stick out less than one that's three times square footage. It's going to stick out less.

I think the rule should be the nastiest part of the issue also partners, the actual design of the house is compatible with the other house. And some of these I think we've approved my opinion, don't are not compatible with the style of the dollar style in the neighborhood, because the big monoliths and big, you know, there's nothing kanji about it, you know, right, they stick out like a sore thumb.

That's when you drive down the block. That's the only house you're gonna see. But They're warping all the other houses.

Maybe you could send in full guidance.

Compared to that, you're going to have to have a bit of both. There'll be a little bit of massing, but you don't want to over-mass it. And if that home is set back up front, then the two-story, the center floor should stop behind it.

18 inch 18 feet behind yeah yeah and there are programs that regulate that my issue is that something doesn't fit into an architectural style so we just call it contemporary modern because because it doesn't fit into any of the other styles it's like okay well this is contemporary modern well what does that mean you know it means it just doesn't you know it's not an actual style i think that you know you know this has been my bugaboo all along is you know i don't love it either but um No, but when we have justified those before, people have essentially justified how it fits into what would be, you know, yes, contemporary architecture, I will fully say, is more of an amorphous concept than some of the older styles in this period. Has a lot of says it's not supposed to be a little bit of this a little bit of that supposed to be like, you know, like barring from different side.

Yes, that is what the design guidelines that those are particularly common themes and for tenants. Yes. It's hard. Okay.

You? Me? Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, you're shaking your legs. Oh, Elizabeth's leaving. Let's talk about the things she doesn't want to hear.

One of the issues, too, is when I'm looking at this one, because we don't like this one because it's on an elevated mount. I had to size the garage. Let's say the garage was fixed. It's still an issue because with the flood stuff, everything's going to be out of the house.

Yeah, everything.

New stuff. I've seen a lot of, when we were down, I was down in, whatchamacallit, on the West Coast, and some of the houses were on sills.

So we'll actually get into that, as far as like a requirement, at least that I think we can put in now and might be helpful for some of that.

Speaking of requirements on new construction, I think maybe especially, was it last week, was there new construction? Last month? They asked about the new construction. which particular property yeah yeah that was a week ago you gotta have i mean you're gonna have to have a minimum of a 75 foot of frontage to have a two-parter oh that's perpendicular because there's no historical context of having a two-parter right unless there was a horse

I'm not going to get into how some of the tone of our pre-application meetings on that one went. I'm sure they went very... So moving on, just in the interest of...

Okay. Yeah. Any new construction comes to the board.

Okay, so a couple of things. Like I said, I think we could do some updates to our COA matrix. There's a couple things that I think maybe we don't need to be reviewing at staff level just because they don't have an impact on the structure and are removable. And a lot of them actually, as of last July, require only a zoning or this July only require a zoning permit. It would streamline the process. So I would like to explore removing sheds, getting COA approval entirely. Yeah. How would you guys feel? Do you care if a shed is visible from the right-of-way? Like, truly... It would still have to meet setbacks. So something with two front yards would be reviewed for setbacks. So for a COA, you would largely... You wouldn't see a CLA for a shed.

Alright, let's finish this.

So right now, if someone had a small backyard shed that they wanted to demolish and it wasn't in bad structural shape, they would have to come to you.

I thought you meant putting one up.

I am also referring to that. If you think we should be reviewing when someone puts one up. I can't think of an instance where I would think of a shed that would be so horrendous it would detract from the architectural character of the house itself? Okay.

So... Well... The definition of a shed is something that would not have, for instance, running water? Correct. Wouldn't have any facilities.

I guess I need to differentiate here between a shed and an accessory structure.

In my mind, there are two types of sheds. There's one that's built where they can stick and frame construction and one that you can buy at Home Depot. Right. And pretty much it's kind of like a non-permanent structure.

Right. Home Depot sheds, do you think we need to do a scale?

Yeah, permanent versus not permanent. You can think about that. I don't think that's easily doable. I think that should definitely be something to consider.

Okay. Since part of the July 1st legislation is that you don't have the foundation. if it does not and it's something under a certain size and value, then it only requires zoning. Should we just go wait for the state to pre-enforce? No, they already have.

The state already did. They're a couple months behind on that one. So, if it doesn't, maybe the direction is if it doesn't require a building permit, it doesn't require a COA?

You gotta buy the shed. You gotta buy the shed without doors, and then buy the doors later for next steps.

Actually, no, they have specifically addressed that.

You can't e-mail it. You're right.

Because they knew people would try that. Let's see, a couple other things. Repaving hardscape. If someone's got pavement in their yard, again, all of this is still reviewed for zoning. But material-wise, is that something that should require a COA?

In their front yard?

Right now, if it's visible from the street, yes, it does require a COA.

I would say if they're doing changed materials, driveway and putting in a new concrete doesn't require COA but new materials should okay I think that's a fair dividing so they want to put it in the front yard um and I want to look at it yeah what if it's the same type of material in a different color well we're not allowed to regulate color are we

Largely no, except we do for roofs.

Except for roofs.

And really only concrete tile roofs.

I love that house on two behind two days.

It's like that bright purple.

So the reason that I put it up here is because, again, largely I don't think it has an impact on the historic structure. Ultimately, in five years, someone rips up those papers and puts new ones in. The historic structure is still there.

But do you need a permit for these?

Yes, or a zoning permit.

A zoning?

Yes.

Okay. Do you guys have any stamped property?

We have concrete very early.

Yeah.

I think the city does more than property owners do.

We have lots of historic stamped concrete. I don't know.

Will there be setbacks? Did we ask you about this?

Yeah, pools that meet setbacks, should it require a COA? Any pool that meets setbacks would be behind the structure. Right. Can't be in the front yard. Anything that's going to be in a front yard is going to be coming to you anyway from the zoning perspective. Which street is that? Right?

Okay.

Yes, Palmway does have dual frontage. The block between Palmway and Lakeside and then the block between Lakeside and Gulfview are the ones that are dual frontage. And we do have specific standards for pool locations on those. And I am sorry I'm blanking on that right now.

I'm not agreeing with that. They don't need to see a way.

Okay, we will explore cutting that one.

We will explore that.

And then, yeah, we are looking to clarify applications, requirements, level of review, and confine it into one document. One thing, flat roofs. If it's not extending over a parapet. Wow. Like, if they were to bring the flashing over the parapet. That's why we review flat roofs is trying to avoid that. If, say, we were to write it that if you were to try to do that, you would need a COA. But any other flat roofs don't need one?

I think the light and zero should be fired the same way.

Entirely across the board? Okay. I mean, that makes it really easy.

I don't think so. I also don't think that we should, that I think someone will prove me wrong.

Yeah, that's one I'd have to think about, but it would save a lot of time.

I'm sure someone will prove me wrong, but I mean, the one house that has a contractor, I said, I keep on your bags. Shingle roof or shingle roof?

I guess my only hesitation with that is people often claim that it's a like-for-like replacement when it's not.

It's investigated.

Yes, but... flat roofs are kind of the thing where I think, okay, the, the absolute worst case scenario for something that could happen here.

Are you going to tell me there's a horrible, there's different types of libraries or libraries that are inverted bowl shapes and there are five groups that are like a one and 12 pitch that you can see now. That had no parapet.

All right.

Flat roofs. You can't see the flat.

Flat roofs that are not visible from the street, either on contributing or non-contributing structures.

Roofs are less than a one in both ways.

That's a thought. Just clarifying some things that are not listed at all that should require board review. So like enclosing a carport or enclosing a front porch. Usually both, actually, because it's a pretty major change to a facade. Yeah. So that, I should be clear, that is adding that to the COA matrix is something that you guys should be seeing. Not that you should not be seeing that. Yeah.

What was that? You're not doing that for $175,000.

Well, they'd still need a COA and they'd still need to come to the board then if it's in the COA matrix. So that $7,500 requirement does not exempt you from needing a COA. It exempts you from needing a building permit, but not a COA. I thought we agreed earlier that anything that that the requirements of the january 1st legislation would not need the coa i meant more in july 1st yeah i i meant more in the sense of like things that require a zoning permit but alterations like windows doors things like that we are still reviewing um well then we

So you come up with a new thing. The zoning permit. The zoning.

So we've already done that. We actually have put that into place in the last month and a half.

That is another beautiful word for permit.

It's the wrong site.

Requiring zoning.

No, it's to ensure that they comply with the zoning ordinance. Because we still have regulations. We have impervious area regulations. We regulate the number of accessory structures that you can have, how big the accessory structures can be, where they need to be located, how tall they can be.

all of those so that's already in place so i really don't like to see that thing right i mean well i mean i know we need the money and that's where you get money it's actually not for money it's to regulate things yeah and we talked about the demolitions of sheds if somebody has a little shed um are you okay if they tear it down without coming to the board

If it's a non-permanent shed without a foundation? What if it's... Did they get it out of the Sears catalog in 1948?

Well, yeah, that's kind of what I'm driving at as an edge case. 40 square feet, say.

Shed is this. They got to come to the board.

I can come up with something. Is it something that you're okay with me exploring as a, we bring it back to you. Yeah. Okay. Um, because I think that would be a square footage percentage type thing. Um, but I think there's a way to do that.

Okay.

That's yeah. Because right now they can't right now they'd actually have to put the board with that application. And I think that's, Oh, absurd. And then finally, this is something that I saw at a recent conference that Nashville is doing. They're actually requiring people to include site grading in their streetscape. And I thought that was brilliant.

Yeah.

So can we make that an application requirement for new construction?

Yes.

Absolutely.

And then we will start requiring that immediately.