Historic and Architectural Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

Okay.

And

we are ready to start when you are chair. Ms. Derryberry? Here. Mr. Steckerede? Here. Mr. Watkins?

Here.

Mr. Bartanian?

Present.

And Mr. Barrick?

Here.

All right. Thank you. I'll go ahead and move to the approval of the minutes. Before you, you have the minutes of 02/13/2025. Are there any revisions, corrections or additions? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve or

I so move.

Second. Do we

have a second? Second. John seconds. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right.

Sharon, who was that second?

John Steckerede. All right. General audience participation, do we have any of that cards today?

There's no one signed up to speak.

Alright. Thank you very much. Alright. We'll move to new business. First order of business is the discussion of the 2025 Legacy Award. And if Harry, Klinghammer could come forward, hear what he has to say. He has to come way from the back. Get your exercise, Harry. Hope you get used to this. Good morning.

Good morning. For the record, Harry Klinkhamer, historical resources manager for the city of Venice. So for this year's Legacy Award Program, we received one nomination. That nomination was sent to all of you. And I believe we received only one response.

And that was to consider reopening the award application timeline to see if we can receive more applications for the award. So I believe today, staff is looking for direction from the board on whether to if they want to nominate the one nomination, pardon me, or if they want to open up the process again to seek more nominations for the award. Okay.

Okay, if I could speak on that. Okay. First of all, in the new description of how we are going to conduct this program, I did not see any wordage referring to the fact that someone could receive the award more than once. In the past, that was not the practice. Secondly, the one nomination that came in from the Venice Area Historic Society, they have received the award back in 2006, okay?

If we were to start giving out the same award again, etcetera, I went back and looked at the application, it should probably be for their most recent work that they've done since receiving the award last time. And that was not how the application was written, which is why I just didn't really think it should be recognized at this point. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay. Now when we had originally discussed revamping the awards system, I know one of the things that I brought up that since this is now a combined board, architectural review being part of it, we perhaps should start recognizing the historic architects and designers of the past that have brought so much to the history of Venice via their architecture. And I would like to bring that point back up again that I think that's one of the ways we should be proceeding.

Alright.

Any thoughts on that? On Gene's comment? Does anyone have a comment on that?

Well, with that in mind then, I think we would

I'll take your I'm sorry.

How do you turn it up?

Just right there. You have to push.

You've got the green on. You're good.

Okay. With that in mind, I would recommend that we postpone this particular one that was put in and open it up again to see what would show up possibly by the next meeting for other possible applications. Yeah,

seems like then

rewrite the specifics of what we are looking for.

Okay. As part of the revision, one of the things is we have now thrown it to the public to make nominations. Does that preclude the board from making a nomination? And if we were to do so, do we need to just go and fill out the form? Or should it be done through discussion and nomination here at a board meeting?

Think you would look for a resume if we want to open up for the board then you would present a resume at the next meeting of this person so we have a chance to look at it and understand it. I think to do it all in one meeting It would be a lot. It would be a lot.

Harry, what do you I think about would think that as an individual, anyone on this board could do a nomination as an individual, not as a member of this board, but could nominate someone as an individual, not necessarily as a board member of this board.

Yeah, just as a citizen. I mean, we have the same rights that everyone else does.

I mean, is it feasible, Harry, for the historical resources department to come up with nominations to consider year to year since you, your department is on the front lines of historical preservation from a public standpoint and may have a better feel on the street about, you know, persons or organizations or projects now that would be worth considering and then that way the background information would be with staff to justify the nomination.

I mean that's possible, but in those sorts of instances more than likely any work that's being done is going be work that's going to have to go through this board.

Yeah, I understand.

So what I'm saying is, so that there's already the material out there. So if somebody wanted to look back over the past year and see what projects were this board approved, you know, they can go ahead and do that and see if there's something worthy for recognition from past projects that this board has approved.

Well, mean, for me, I like how historical resources department envisioned this award as an individual. I think it has more credence coming from the city, coming from the board as an individual, an individual's contributions to the city on the basis of historic preservation. I like that much better than where we're at now personally. But I think, yes, we could still come up with individual nominations as well as part of that. What is the timeline to get this all done within the year?

Well, so the timeline as originally set would be that nominations would be sought from December through March. And then March and April, staff would review all the applications to make sure they were complete. And then they would go before the board for a vote and selection with presentation of the legacy award during preservation month in May.

We're up against the deadline.

We're against it already. I think just in general, it's much more valuable to have an award that you weren't the only applicant in general. So I think if board members have some nominees that they have in mind, I think we could bring to the next board meeting or have those now. But I would say to the next our next meeting and try to get this done in May. And also reach out to the public and say, hey, we've opened this up a little.

I I just feel like it's the value of it and the exposure to historic preservation is better to ask again if you don't have enough.

We can definitely remarket that the program is open again and seeking nominations. You know, we work with the city's public information office so we can get the word out that we're, again, that we're seeking nominations. And then, yes, I would encourage perhaps the board to look at projects we've reviewed or you have all reviewed over the past year. And also, too, for the category about people who have had significant impact on Venice's history. If this board wishes, historical resources could probably put together a list of names of historical figures that have not been recognized that could be considered, pardon me, and present that to this Board as well.

Okay. I think that would be valuable. I think that goes back many years and you have that information that we may not have access to or maybe do, but maybe you could organize it for us.

Yeah. I can put together a little snippet of some individuals who have had an impact either on preserving Venice history in the past or had an impact on Venice history that have not been already given the legacy award. And then that can also give the Board a chance to perhaps vet some of those individuals to see if they'd be interested in any of those as well.

Okay. Great. I do well. I think when would we be able to do that by?

I can have that for you for the next meeting.

Okay. Great. So then if we have a nomination before the next meeting, we could send that to you or

Yeah. The nomination is actually on our website and it's set up so that when someone fills it out and submits, it automatically comes to me. So I'll be seeing any awards that come in or nominations I should say.

Alright. Well, we'll proceed with this at our next meeting and hopefully we'll have some more names or other categories maybe or people who fit those categories. All right. Thank you, Harry. Do have anything else for us?

Not regarding the Legacy Award, no. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

I have a question here. When is that so the process, when was the public notice started for

Once this this was finalized by this board, the request for nominations went out right after that. I want to say it was possibly early January. I I would I would check to see let me see.

Is that like a public notice in the in the paper and such?

Yeah. There was a press release. We had it on on social media.

Okay. I was just curious to see how how far back the notice had been placed.

Yes. So I'm looking here for the one nomination we did receive came in actually soon after notice went out. And this one came in on January 17.

Thank you.

So just to follow-up, Harry, if you were to re advertise or resubmit for the public's input, about how long would that take to come back to the meeting with a reasonable amount of time for them to respond?

Well, I think we need to look at a calendar and see when we need to set a date so that there's time for nominations to come in and time to get it onto a board meeting. Right.

Can see that being at least a month and a half.

So yes, we may not necessarily make the May deadline for presentation this year.

I mean we try but

But yeah, I mean we tried, this was our first year with the new revamped guidelines and program. So hopefully next year, for next year's program, Once people see a bit more that we've had this awards program, when they see if there's a nominee this year or a winner this year, that it will help with spreading the word about the program and perhaps we'll see some more nominations coming in next year.

Next year. Okay. Well, for this year, it seems where we are now in the calendar, maybe by mid June. If we don't, we're getting into summer and people

and break

we might be on.

Yes. Think we can set it so that for one of the June meetings that we should hopefully have a new slate of nominees for the awards program.

Great. Okay. Sounds great. All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move to item number two, which is a request for funds, purchase of the local designation plaque for the Venice Beach Pavilion. And since Harry is here, he can continue. As you all know, we did approve or we did recommend, this board recommended that the Venice Beach Pavilion be put on the historic local historic register. And then that I believe went to City Council for approval.

Yes, that was approved at City Council, not at this past meeting, but the meeting prior. Prior.

So now is this Board we are requesting the funds?

Actually, the city has what's called the centennial fund, which are monies that were left over from the nineteen eighty eight city centennial, not to be confused with the twenty twenty six city centennial that's coming up next year. But the way it is written, the stipulations are that city council can approve expenditures from the principal, but this board can approve expenditures from the interest. So this is not this is staff actually seeking approval from this board to spend up to $600 for producing a local registered plaque for the Venice Beach Pavilion.

Okay. And just out of curiosity, have you done any research on how much the plaque might cost for $600

because things Well, go

the the last

Is that a reasonable amount?

The last one we did which was for the mobile home park clubhouse, that one was $595 Now I'm hoping that tariffs haven't shot that way up, but I'm going to assume that we can get it for about the same price.

Okay. And does the city have a resource for that or do they that they go to or that we could confine?

Yes, yes. We I have a vendor that I work with that has done all the local register plaques for us. Alright.

So I guess we'll bring it to the board. Any discussion on that? It seems like an approval of of the plaque is very much needed. And we made the we made the decision to do that. City Council has followed through and agrees. So I think it would be really nice to have a plaque. If they end up costing $800 I think we should do that too. Mean I don't know.

If it comes back higher, then I will come back to this Board to request the additional funds. Can we approve a

higher amount if we need?

The last plaque we did, like I said, was $595 So I'm hoping that that price has not changed.

Okay. Is there any like the interest amount, is there any threat to depleting those funds? Or is there a lot available?

I think there's approximately in terms of the interest, I think there's a couple of thousand dollars in there.

Well, why don't we give a range?

Think That's

what I was thinking.

Like, I mean, I don't want to keep going back and forth and delaying No.

It doesn't need it. We don't need a meeting to do this. I mean, if it's a plaque this big for $500, I think that pavilion deserves a decent sized plaque considering the size and importance of the structure. So I would recommend that we approve up to $850 so we don't have to come back. That will definitely I mean, since we're not threatening the fund.

Right. Yeah. No. That'll definitely somewhere Somewhere

between $608.50.

Yeah. That'll Do definitely

the negotiation.

Yeah. That should definitely cover it. We have a standard size and template that we are using for all the local register plaques. The manufacturer that we work with already has that, so I just need to plug in the information to them and say here's the next plaque and here's the name, date of construction and date that it was listed. And they can go ahead and knock it out for us.

On this particular plaque, is there a material that is typically used? Just knowing this is in salt spray.

Yeah. So

this is different than other places in

the Yeah. Well, for all the plaques so far that we've used, they've all been cast in bronze. Okay.

That's better than cast aluminum.

Did you say bronze plaque?

Bronze. Yeah. Okay.

Have we got a a specific location for where that plaque is gonna go?

It will be somewhere on the pavilion. That will be a discussion probably to have with public works once we have the plaque because they'll be doing the installation. Obviously, we'll want to have it somewhere visible so that people see it. So I think once we have the plaque in hand, then I can meet with them there and we can look for a prominent location.

Somewhere along the walkway or somewhere where people actually see

it. Exactly.

So okay.

Good question. You know, that rotunda area under the Mhmm. Under the span of the roof would be nice, especially I think there's that blank wall Yeah. That's adjacent where the bathrooms are. Mhmm. Would be Okay. Right center there would be super nice.

Yeah. That would be great. Okay. So I guess we request a motion to do this or just

Yeah. I will need a motion.

Okay. I'll entertain a motion for the approval of a plaque for the Venice Pavilion.

I'll make that motion.

Okay. Second. Could

you elaborate, Gene,

Okay. The was the range of the price tag?

I said from $600 to $850

Okay. I move that we approve between 600 and 850 for the local designation plaque for the Venice Beach Pavilion. Alright.

I'll second it.

Greg seconds it. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? None. Okay. You have a plaque. Thank you. Great. All right. Thank you. Next kind of order of business here. We're reviewing Section seven, proposed revisions. John Barrick has done a great job looking at this, and we appreciate his efforts. So if we could all kind of go switch to that, and Ms. Trembley is going to go over that with us. She's got her big book.

I will. Yes. So good morning. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, senior planner for the city of Venice. Welcome to the board, mister Watkins. We're glad to have you. Thank you. Okay. So we're looking at these changes that were proposed by mister Barrick. So I'll give you plenty of time to talk about it too, but we just wanted to be up here to answer some questions of staff and to kind of give feedback on some of these changes. Would you like to start?

As a board, mean we've spent a few rounds on this already. And then as I mentioned in the notation, we met with had the joint meeting with planning commission. They provided their verbal feedback back in September, I believe,

of

twenty Then I took my absence from the board, and so it set dormant. Now trying to bring it back. The city council approved allowing us to bring forward changes, I guess, whatever that legislative term is. But so I think we're good to go to propose revisions.

And I think that I think I missed one of the meetings where we had the joint meeting. I think I was out of town. So but I've certainly reviewed this. This is what we've talked about in the past. There's plenty of discussion there. But,

Yeah.

There's one slight alteration. This new document has the add of existing structures within the historical district would be exempt if they're not in HAERB or a contributing structure. So this would go to look to exempt those both in the historic district and the because repeatedly, we're getting commercial billings now needing to comply and having to go for a variance for roofs and miscellaneous so this would hopefully resolve that from happening forward. Right.

And that's the g item g I think it

is. Right.

The last. I hadn't seen that either until this packet.

So let's go through these from the first through the end.

Okay.

So the first can I use the document camera, please? So the first are these three changes, ten, eleven, 12. So the first is kind of a restatement of what the HAPB already does, so if you want to add that it wouldn't be harmful but I don't think it would change anything about what you do. Number 11 is already stated up here in number one, you're already responsible for local register nominations so 11 wouldn't need to be added. And then 12 I believe comes straight from the CLG guidelines and that's about consulting with another expert so that would be a great thing if you guys want to do that.

So let's just discuss each at a time because if we're going to bring back the actual code language to propose to you we need to be clear on what the board actually agrees with out of this list of changes. So what do you all think about ten, eleven and twelve?

If I could just preference, ten and eleven were added to clearly state that this board is responsible for those reviews where that would be changing the responsibility from the historic resource manager to the board and that's why those were added just as a clarification.

Okay, well so I would not recommend doing that by adding number 10 as an effective way but number 11 really is already stated here. If you read number one, identify and nominate eligible properties to the National Register of Historic Places, notify appropriate local officials and owners of record of eligibility to the National Register, Board shall also act as a complement to the Florida National Register Review Board review and comment. So, think we're covered there. You guys are already in charge of that. But 12 is a new addition that you might want from those CLG guidelines.

12 just comes straight out of the guidelines. I don't think we need 11 either if it's clear.

So 12, as I recall, the Planning Commission bucked it a bit, because they were worried about increased cost, occurring that if for some reason we couldn't make a decision and a consultant had to be hired, it's going to drive up costs is from memory what I recall the discussion.

Okay, so I didn't hear that.

So I would assume maybe changing the legislation to or changing the wording so that it's at no cost that if we can get help from the state

Okay.

Anywhere else that would not add cost to the city. Okay. I just I think the

That wasn't the intent to add cost. It was just if we didn't have resources. It's unlikely that this board wouldn't have most of the resources, if not all, to handle this. But if we don't we need another style.

Historic preservation is a wide birth of of of Right. Information. And if we ever, for whatever reason, someone's doing a construction site and prehistoric stuff came up, you know,

then we're gonna need Then it's out of our realm. Right.

It comes before us as, you know, being a designated historical site of some type.

So you're suggesting that we just add language to say they're at no cost or no cost?

Yeah. I'm working that if you're able to find it at no additional cost, you could consult anyone that's, you know, in this list.

Nicole, is that something that you could do without us deciding how to word that now?

Right. Of course. So that's why I want to be extra clear about all the changes you all do want because then we would bring back a strike through underlying version like we normally do and we amend the code. So then you would be able to see exactly what's gonna change and how it would be written.

So that's eleven and twelve.

Okay. So then the next would be

7.7.

Yeah, so the specific review authority of the historic resources manager, you all know this one is a proposal to revoke the responsibilities of the historic resources manager to review local register properties. I would be cautious about that and say, you know, think about the applicant's experience as a local register homeowner rather than thinking about, you know, each individual board member's experience because I'm sure a lot of you individually would be qualified to help a person, a homeowner, through the process of local register alterations and things like that but it's really valuable to be able to have that one on one experience with an expert or historical resources manager and go through that process. If you all want to see it and and make your own recommendations and comments, that could be helpful as well. But to just completely remove that very important face to face layer of the process, I I would caution you about that. Just think about the experience of working in someone's office as an expert versus coming here sitting at this seat and presenting, that's it's a big difference for an applicant.

I think you know if I may interject this, I don't think the process would change. I think someone's gonna wanna get their home historically designated existing as is, and they'll still go to Harry. Harry will still help them with the paperwork and whatnot, and then they come before the board where we would make the decision yay or nay on the rightfulness so to speak of the nomination.

So this is not about nominations. This is about when they're making changes, when they want to alter or build an addition or something like that. So you all already have the ability to say yes or no to a local register nomination. You guys have been doing that recently.

I mean right now if a mid century modern house anywhere within the city limits would go to Harry and he would see that review all the way through and approve it. Alterations, additions, anything, any physical changes to it or just the nomination itself and we would be on the back end of that as we would never see it.

Well, so the most recent one was the beach pavilion. You guys saw that, you approved that you wanted it to be nominated so then it went to council and they approved it and now it is in the register. So that is already how that part of the process works. When somebody wants to come for an alteration, they need more hands on help about where do I find the right materials, you know, what's appropriate for this era, this style, and that's not really something you can get at a public hearing with a board.

Well, I mean, so Harry the Harry might be the harbor, the first mid century that was built on harbor. That all went through Harry and we never saw it until it came to the point at which the client or the nominee would get refunded their fees for permitting for that project. That's the only thing we had to do with it.

Okay. So it's the nomination process that you want to make sure that you are always the decision makers for the nomination of a property to be in the local register?

Well, as they eventually came forth, the agent for the project, which was the contractor, they still had to present the project just for the tax refund of the improvements. So in lieu of that, we would see it the step before and review and the the proposed additions before they were ever done, not after the fact.

Could we not do this in coordination with the historic recents manager and so that we do see it?

That's yeah. So that's what I'm using to add on.

Our expertise and our ability to understand the community and the specifics about, you know, the historic relevance of that structure

Mhmm.

Could be still carried by Harry. But we did we aren't just completely out of the loop.

Right. So if there was gonna be a COA for a local register structure, they could see the board after they've gone through that whole process. If you wanna add that extra layer for them and they would go through a hearing with you guys like other CAC properties do, that would maybe be it's a little bit extra burden on the applicant, but that might be for them to work through.

It's a little burden on the applicant, a little extra, but we're not talking about hundreds of properties. Not talking about, you know, we are talking about in the future, maybe more, obviously more, but not to overwhelm this board or our resources or staff. So I think that's a reasonable way to look at it. And then we don't feel like we're just completely out of the loop. We are we would use the standards that that we, you know, for other, you know, non VHP properties.

Right.

If, for example, the pavilion needs renovations, which it does now, as we speak, we would have to do something. We would like to see that.

Sure.

We would like to see what happens and what's proposed.

But currently, we don't have the authority

to I recognize do that. And that's what I'm saying. That's what we would like to have in place with the historic

resources. Think adding that step. And they're already in the local register, so they are expecting a little bit of burden as far as reviews.

They're not gonna be shocked

Right.

But with a few properties.

I just think it gets dangerous to have a city representative make decisions and approve things and have the applicant go forth with those changes. And then we see it sometime down the road with a yay or nay on a vote whether to approve those. I think it's very dangerous. And this is highly abnormal. No other historic board has this process. It's extremely abnormal.

That's where I don't I don't really know.

I mean, could we

do that?

See a way of doing it at the same time or as part of the Board decision? I

mean, yes, we can look through the certificate of appropriateness process and find out where we can add a layer of board review.

I think that's what we're looking for. I think adding the layer of board review before it's approved would be great. And I don't think it would harm the applicant. We meet often enough that it isn't really a burden to the applicant.

Right. Yeah. I I think that that would be a a better compromise for this.

I I still think just as we review anything within the district, it should be the same process for historical nomination, whether it's standalone with nothing done to it and it's just the structure itself or whatever the nomination is. And then if they're planning to modify it and improve it under historical guidelines, we should review those first and not

Up above this is Section eight, you struck that whole section, right? That was done when you go to 77, you go up above that, you have eliminated that whole section. The Part A or Part B specific review authority or just Yes.

That authority

Okay. That's

listed there would go to our

You're eliminating what Harry does and it comes to our board.

That's correct.

Alright. That's kind of making a major change.

It's what we do for any There's

lot of stuff on us that Harry could could do some of the work and have it all ready for us.

Well, I mean, Harry's not really doing work. I mean, so if you're changing historical resources, hopefully, you're as a homeowner, you're gonna hire someone to help you and make those decisions. And they're gonna realize that it's gotta come before this board. And hopefully, they're knowledgeable, and they're gonna come up with an application that's gonna be in line with the historic context of our legislative text. Then they're going to come before the board and we're going to review it and hopefully everything's fine. We approve it, yes. And if things that we don't see, the choices that were made, we would provide comment to those just like So we do for any other

it's process

that Harry should be involved in this process.

Well, Harry's responsibility as a front end of everything that regarding any CAC, you know, he's going to talk to that homeowner first always because he's got to and take the application.

Right.

I mean, he's always the face of the

So, Harry,

primarily Harry would be the contact person to start this. For the application? Yes. For the application. But to help the people with application and so on so they don't come in cold to us.

Yeah, mean it's always been this board standpoint that we encourage anyone considering a project to come in with a preliminary proposal and get comment from the Board before they get too far down the road. That's always been our stand and what we've always suggested happen so that they don't get penalized for making decisions that they may have to change after the fact.

We've talked about this before with when it was ARB, where we discussed the idea of having a pre design review by this board. And this would be an appropriate way to do that if it was an application was garnered by Mr. Klinghammer and it looked like it was a valuable property. Then before they go through a lot of effort and expense with their design professional, then they could come to the board and say, this is what we want to do. We just want to x.

And I think it would be a value to both the resident and the community to to have the expertise of this board in addition to mister Klinghammer to give feedback on it before they do that. And I think that's what John is saying that we're missing that. Missing the opportunity process. Be in the process and whether it's BHP style or not. So I feel like it's

But, you know I

don't know how you

At the point at which not adding extra burden on the homeowner, they don't have to do that. They could just go hire whomever Right. And come before this with the board. And I have no problem with that. I think that that's their right to do so.

Right. They don't have to do that.

If they

chose to do that, that this board would be available.

Well, would be likely to get a better project if you don't have them come in with no help.

Right.

And I again And we do have that pre application thing available in the code for a CAC and no one's used it yet. So

It's too bad.

Well, it's it's good to have it in there. I don't know if people are gonna take us up on that.

And again, I guess I'm suggesting that Harry is not out of the loop on any of this. If a homeowner feels comfortable working with him and get his opinion on things, great. I have no issue with that. But they as far as the process goes, he would the authority to approve that would be removed off him and the city and be reverted back to the board, which is I think safer for all.

I don't know.

I'm kinda with the way that Harry would guide the people through this. They would come to Harry, he would guide them through this and help them with the process rather than just walking in front of us and having to go through the process of delivering this to our board without Harry being involved in it. That's my biggest concern.

Do agree that I do

think Roger has got something to say here.

The one on one is a better connection to the city. And as long as we get a review, I think that would be be fair to the owner. And I don't think it's onerous to them. I don't think it's one more review, but it certainly gives us keeps us in the loop And gives some professional community minded feedback, historically minded feedback, which we they need. I think we have expertise on the board that, I mean, from a historic standpoint, not as much as Harry, but we certainly understand this community better, having done this for twenty years.

So I think that it's a value to do that. So I would like to see it somehow rewritten to include both. A two part process, whatever makes the most sense.

I just again, it's gonna put an extra burden on someone. And I think it's we only have how many, Harry? 12? 13. 13? So we don't have a lot. So I don't wanna put I don't think adding any extra steps is going to help anything potentially. I want to make it as easy as possible for people to want to get their personal property locally designated. And if they're considering a renovation and want to get that kick back on property taxes, I think that's the most important key here.

And that's the way it is now.

Right. Right now it is.

That's the way it is now. So Yep.

Well, no, it's not because I mean if it's if it's in the district, yes. But if it's outside the district, no. Everything goes to Harry. Only in the district is what we review. Nothing else.

Mr. Clark.

Yeah, for the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director. I don't think it's owners at all. Like you said, they choose to be on the record, that's fine. They gotta understand they're gonna have to go through some extra hoops. That's not a problem.

However, I want whether it's the property owner coming directly to Harry to discuss things or whether they hire a contractor to to propose the renovations or design it or whatever, I'm not gonna bring anything to this board until Harry has a chance to evaluate what has been done because we don't take anything to a board unless staff has been able to evaluate it. Because I don't wanna waste the board's time. We we see a lot of projects through planning commission and it goes through months and months of review. So whether an owner is gonna come and speak with Harry one 01, get advice, and then bring it before you, which I think is a good idea to let you be in on that first initial step to say whether you like these renovations or not. Or if it's a contractor that they hire that's going to come before you with them, I still want them to go to Harry first for him to provide an evaluation of these improvements for you as a board.

So, because I don't want to bring you something that just is completely wrong.

So is that the normal process now anyhow?

It's the normal process for Planning Commission, but I'm not sure about this board because Harry had complete control. You guys will now be the ultimate approvers, but I still don't want to bring anything to you that is just not substantially correct. So, whether it's a contractor, maybe he never worked in this community, maybe he doesn't understand Right. The want Harry to be able to at least evaluate what's gonna come before you. So if there's some things obviously wrong, he can tell the contractor, hey, this probably isn't gonna fly.

You might wanna revise this. Then by the time we get to you, it's in good shape and then you evaluate the and then you are the approving body. It won't be Harry anymore. Will be you, the board will be the approving body. I think we

could correct this in this section up here where reads, you know, specific review authority. All you can do to is that he would be responsible for Root and just take the word approved out. And then he handles it.

Reviewing. And take approving.

And I do want to just bring up, obviously you are a board that sits in a quasi usual setting when you're making these approvals. So to Roger's point, approval is more appropriate for you all for this board as opposed to from at least from what I'm kind of picking up on, it's you would be almost at the first meeting through the approval process. That should be handled more by staff. And they should bring you to that they should bring you that ready for approval because that is your function as a body. It's to give a yes or no vote on that.

It's not to be a collaborative body to proceed forward throughout the steps because that's not what this board's function is for. I agree, if we're going to change approval process, that's one thing. But I think the initial steps and you should see the end product So for

are you saying, Daniel, that they, the staff, would need to bring something that is approvable? And that's if it's not, we aren't going

to see it. And that's that's more of I think that's you're more as a especially as an advisory board situation. That is a that is a better use of both staff's time, the applicant's time and your time is is not to be essentially be at the first meeting and kind of go through that, but to be at the end. Okay. Roger, that's at least what I was kind of picking on about the We

want to bring the best project forward to So like Dan said, it's not to waste your time, the applicant's time, and staff's time. So we'll evaluate it. Whoever brings it forward will get it to you. You'll evaluate it. You may be able to prove it. You may continue it because there's certain things that you think need to be changed. That's up to you. But at least we can bring you the closest to compliance that we feel is appropriate.

Doesn't this like in your other ones you have to apply for a variance if you want something different, right? Would that apply in this also if Arie said okay, but then he could recommend it, it doesn't fit, so we would have to, you know, the staff would then come back to us and say it's going to require.

It could be the applicant could choose to request a variance in a certain situation. And it would be better that we know that prior to coming to you and then all of a sudden, well I think you need a variance. Well then we've got to go back and advertise and do a lot of stuff. For us to be able to see it, it makes a lot of sense.

So, just a little clarification. A variance really wouldn't be required because they're coming for local nomination. Our current code, unless it's within the historic district, which we have set standards, already meets the National Register Code as reviewed by the state. We're talking about if, you know, a home outside of our districts wants to get a local nomination and wants to do alterations and additions or anything, we would review that based on the Department of Interior standards and then no variance is required because it's according to those standards.

There are no variances in state possible?

Well, mean, like, a variance is when you're when you're proposing something outside of a standard and you have a hardship essentially. So this that would not come into play in this circumstance at all because the Department of Interior Standards has a very set guidelines that we would review and approve.

So all materials and so on have to be out as of age?

I'm sorry?

Any materials that are done when you're approving this, they would all have to be consistent.

Yes. So, you know, hypothetically, it's a Levoord Heigl house but somewhere else, you know, built of that style. And they're wanting to renovate that and modernize it. So anything that they're proposing as far as changing it, you know, we would this board would review an application coming before us and say whether or not we would think that that's an appropriate replacement of a historic material. Does it meet the design intent of the original structure?

As a completely hypothetical, And we would approve those changes and then they would be on their way to start the historic renovation process.

That's correct. Mr. Barrick is correct that you can only get a variance to the VHP standards. You can't get a variance to the Secretary of Interior standards, just to the VHP. So if it wasn't in the VHP style, then you couldn't get

a variance to that.

But speaking of the Secretary of Interior Standards, the COA criteria, if you read them, a lot would have to change for the Board to be the review on that because you're evaluating economic aspects, you're using the Secretary of Interior guidelines, and we know the Planning Commission has been clear that they're not going to approve that for this board. So, you would kind of lose the ability to review to those if you're making the board do it. So, keep in mind what those criteria are. And also, let's be clear that nomination already comes to you all. It's in the code. So, what we're talking about now are just alterations and additions.

Okay.

So nominations are clearly in your purview. I can show it on the document camera, but you guys probably can find it. So once a nomination is accepted as complete and accurate, city staff shall schedule a public hearing for consideration within ninety days at a regular meeting of the HAPB. You'll consider the criteria, determine suitability and then send that on to city council. So that part, you're already covered for nominations. But when it comes to alterations and additions, keep in mind there's a lot of criteria that Harry uses that the board is not able to use. So adding the board as a layer, as complement is a great compromise here, but, you know, keep in mind that he's got the ability to use those tools.

Right. But so would we. I mean, that essentially is just a little booklet. It's not overly complex. 70 pages, John.

I know you're gonna hear that from mister Snyder. 70 pages.

But it's, you know, it's Yeah. It handles a lot. I mean, it's every architectural style building, know, it it handles a lot in that document. And it's not, in my opinion, highly restrictive. I think in some cases, we're more restrictive than what they allow. So

think you're on a good path. Just want to make sure that staff gets to evaluate it prior to coming to

I think the main way to resolve it is to look at B and leave it as it is, except where you're reviewing it, and that's what Daniel's referring to. Except it says it says, any appeal by the HRM decision shall be heard by the HAPB. Rather, somewhere in there just say final approval or approval of recommendations for approval will be completed by the HAPB.

I wouldn't worry about wordsmithing it today. We'll do that part Something and get back to

to that effect so that we can have the review that we're asking for in a tandem with Mr. Klinghammer. And I think then we'll get the most expertise we have in the city process and that both applicants and the board can be happy with. So I

We can

that's

can really work with that.

Reasonable, you could do that that way.

Okay.

And then 7.7, I think this expansion, what John's put in here, and John, you may want to comment on this, but, that seems reasonable to me because there is a lot of areas, structures, sites that don't that are, you know, John Nolan that it's it's kind of left out. It's very generic in the in the first part of that. That's, There's engineering. One of the engineering that comes to mind is the pavilion It won a national plywood association award for the use of plywood. It's one of the historic parts about it, so I think that's a great addition, to that 7.7. I don't know what anyone else thinks.

Yeah. What do you all think about adding that instead of replacing the part about John Nolan and the VHP? Because that does kind of speak specifically to Venice context, but then it also broadens it to, like you said, all types of other things.

All types of things.

Am I after the study was done, I mean, that clearly proved that the contributing structures of the Knolling area are very small as far as our historical context of historic preservation So I think where it says the wording consists primarily, that's not accurate. And I just wanna change that based on the survey that was done because it's not. And as we continue to move forward in history and time, that becomes less and less will become less and less relevant.

Relevant.

So as I think of casting a wider approach from the city and how the text is worded as historic preservation as a whole in time is important.

Okay. I I think adding this to that would make sense to me, and don't see why we wouldn't do that. And you're like, as time goes on, the Midsummer's and all the stuff, Sarasota School projects that we have, were just so significant that they'll become more significant. And then

I mean, even consider the post World War two developments that are everywhere across I the mean, are now historic just as important as our null and area contributing structures as far as history goes. They were extremely valuable and important examples of history of that time, and we should look at them that way.

Okay. Okay. So we'll

work on that one.

That one and then 7.8.

Yeah. So for this one, I'm not sure, mister Begg, maybe you had an outdated version of the code. But I think HNI here kind of already do what you were proposing. If you wouldn't mind reading it and tell me what you think.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Are we on So,

and I there about structures that are not constructed in the VHP but are in the register and then I is structures that are not in the VHP but are in a significant style. And those would both be exempt from a CAC. Now, of course, if it's on the register, it goes through its own process, but if it's just in a significant style that's not VHP, but it's not on the register, then it's exempt from VHP regulations. And I think we've kind of already been through this, and we were already settled on this one, but I'm not sure if there was something that isn't captured that you were wanting, mister Barrack.

Okay. So the the roofs, the commercial buildings that aren't VHPs style at all, would this exempt them and we shouldn't see those because they're they have a building that's not in VHPs style, but we're having to get variances for those roof. Why could they not staff direct them? We have you covered because your building is not in BHP style. Can go with what you want.

Since we last had this discussion and took the change through all the way to City Council, you haven't seen any of those.

Okay.

It's working, think. No, it's working. But if you think there's anything missing, please let us know. Just

reason I threw that in is quite recently we saw those two roofs in the

Which ones?

The newest district that we've become Mhmm. That we now review. One was the cancer treatment building and the other was across the street the giant complex of older residents condo buildings.

Right.

And we had to review both of those roofs and get variances to them.

Two. Okay.

So in theory, if this worked, we would have never saw that because they wouldn't have had to had to do that. Because they're they weren't proposing giant modifications They to weren't rehaving the whole complex where they would need to fall under VHP guidelines. They were just replacing roofs.

Right. They were doing a different material for their roof, right?

Correct.

Okay. Okay. Maybe that's we can look at.

Material change that's not a material change. So not an aesthetic

change. Maybe we just will

make the And then if you had any questions about the scope, if it became you felt like it was questionable then that could become for the board for decision.

Right, if we weren't sure about the style or something like that. Yeah, okay so we'll make sure that we're keeping that exception in mind when we're reviewing. But I think it should work assuming it's applied properly.

Yeah, mean it's the interpretation of you know if something's not built to VHP style that should be the first thing that's said to someone coming in that well this building really isn't and what you're is

And something like the the cancer center, I think, might have been a question because that one's kind of it's stucco and it's got the portico share, but it's not really VHP. It just has like a few of the elements. So maybe that's one where we could have gotten some advice ahead of time.

We had those in the eighties. They they

just Yeah.

Fit anything. No. So Alright. Anything else? Other comments on this? Nicole, are you feeling comfortable and with what we've can come back to us with a strike through? And I think we've made some progress here.

Yes, think so. I think we'll be ready to bring that to you soon.

Okay. Thank you, John, for all those efforts. I'll tell you, it's not easy to get to.

We didn't really did we discuss 78?

Okay. Which one? 78?

So that's assuming that this board would take responsibility of those reviews. So this would criteria that we use National Registered Standards for reviewing things in the future.

Okay. So, this says nomination proposals. Do you mean a local register nomination?

I mean

So, you guys already do that. So, I don't think we need to add more about that. But also, in mind, so this is the Secretary of Interior Standards. And regardless of any of our opinions on whether you all should be able to use those, the planning commission has been pretty clear that they're not gonna be recommending that. I

we are a historic board. We're a historic preservation board. We should that's the main document across country for historic preservation boards. We should be using that.

Okay. I can't do anything about that but I hear I don't know. You all can propose it to Planning Commission and see what happens.

So, I mean, so if they change and the authority comes back to us to review those properties and theoretically a mid century modern that's within the city limits wants to make changes and get take take part in the tax exemption. Currently, our guidelines don't handle that. So what are we to use other than the Department of Interior Standards as guidance for making those decisions?

Harry handles it. If they're in the register, Harry has the authority to use the Secretary of Interior guidelines. He has all the processes, the criteria, everything that he would handle. So, as we discussed, he would handle that and then come to you all for an approval if we make these changes.

Again, I think that that needs to move to the board. I mean, if he's given the right to use it, this board should have the right to use it as well because we are the historic preservation board. We make the decision.

Okay, does the Board want to propose this? I mean the whole Board?

And to Nicole's point, ultimately if the Board wants to propose it, you can. But keep in mind, it's going to go through review by both the Planning Commission and then ultimate approval the City Council. So to Nicole's point, if

If they don't want to use it.

If they don't want to use it, that's their prerogative. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I'm not saying don't do it, I am saying be aware of, you know, if the Planning Commission has stated their preference, that could come I don't know if they're going to change their mind.

Okay. Well, we cannot get planning commission to change their mind, then this is a battle we definitely need to take to the city council because that's critical to our operation.

We get Harry, would you mind talking, please? So I don't know if you need to reintroduce yourself or if that's already handled. So you work with a lot of historic organizations, deal with the state on historic preservation. Typically, this is normal procedure for historic boards across state, what we're proposing to change, correct?

So in terms of, say for example, the non VHP local register listings that are looking for doing changes, looking for a COA, as Roger pointed out, and I think you kind of mentioned, I mean it would be the staff's role to kind of I like to say that I walk them to the altar and you guys decide to marry them or not. You know, I'll be making sure that what you see is a completed proposal on that staff's role. And ultimately, it would be this Board that would be making the approval for those changes. Now, in regards to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, yes, that is something that I use when I am looking at non VHP local register properties that are looking for changes, and 640 West Venice is one example. And that's also a good example to bring up because in that instance, it falls under Chapter 66 of the city code, the tax exemption, it's not under land development regulations.

And in Chapter 66, it does state when this board is reviewing, you know, for the tax exemptions, that they must use the Secretary of the Interior standards. So it is codified in that particular instance that this board is supposed to use that because it's part of a federally created program and the Secretary of Interior Standards were actually initially created for the federal historic tax credit program, and has since been expanded to basically any program that comes down from the Federal level, they are going be looking at Secretary of Interior Standards, whether it's the 50, the FEMA 50% rule, it's historic tax credits, it's the ad valorem tax exemption process, it's codified that way that boards should be using those standards and those instances. So in that case, the board still can use the Secretary of Territory standards if they're looking to review the tax exemptions. Now as far as, you know, just non VHV projects, I mean, the board is going need something. And whether or not that Secretary of Interior Standards or it's a new set of design guidelines for non VHV properties, that is another option that is available.

I know there are communities out there that have created design guidelines for various architectural styles, so there is that route as well. But, yeah, I mean for most programs that come down from the federal level, they're going to be looking for Secretary of Interior Standards.

And we have access to that through Chapter 66.

Yes, so for the tax exemption application, this Board would need to review the application through the Secretary of the Interior Standards. If the improvements that the property owner is looking to do, those improvements have to meet those standards for this board to approve the tax exemption or approve recommendation of the tax exemption to City Council.

Okay. So in the scenario that we just talked about most of the morning, if it comes to you and then you do your staff review, you're gonna ascertain before it comes here that that in fact meets the requirement if they're asked for a tax exemption that that would be the Department of Interior Standards, then we would use that, as this board would use that, those guidelines to, or those regulations to evaluate what you present to us.

Correct, yes. So I would be working Am I

right with that? I don't know.

Yeah, I would be working with the applicant again to make sure that their application, you know, all the I's are dotted, T's are crossed, that, you know, if there are questions that this Board might have to inform the applicant that there may be some questions that you may need to be prepared to answer. Obviously also too, something more obvious in terms of changes that they would need to do or corrections to their proposal is definitely something at a staff level that can kind of guide them to. And again, it's to make sure that the application that you all see and review has been refined through staff.

Okay. I would make a broad assumption that if someone who wants to be nominated on the local register, we have 13 or 12, and they want to do significant changes or changes, that they would be interested, very highly interested in a tax exemption, which is one of the reasons that we're explaining to them about doing, about being on the local register is one of the values of that. So it seems to me like that's a logical transition of the way it would go, and you could very clearly help them with the Department of Interior Standards during that process so they don't come with something that doesn't work with that. I hope. So

I mean, it's surprising though. I think the knowledge base of that being available is very limited in the city. And that, I mean, driving around, you see older buildings getting, you know, going probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in renovation and not getting a tax exemption.

I know. It's it's one of the things that the board as a historic board, as part of our community outreach needs to be proposing or promoting that this is out here, just don't miss it if that's what you're looking to do.

So I can report that I have two potential nominations that may be coming in. And in both instances, it's because the owners are looking to do major renovations and they're looking for the tax exemption.

Okay. I mean, I think it makes sense. That's what they're going to do. So, alright. Well, thank you, Harry.

Alright. In light of that, I I think we're headed the right direction. I think it sounds to me like we have the Department of Interior Standards under that scenario, which is probably the most likely in my opinion, but, may not be. But at least we can use that document and have guidelines to go by. So without disrupting planning commission, I'm not saying disrupting, but I'm just saying they've already communicated that they don't wanna do that.

So I don't see a reason to change that for now. Any other discussion on this? John, thanks again for doing this. This is a lot to

Can we just be clear about what we're directing staff to come up with language to look at to change?

Sure. Mean I think do you know what we

We're pretty clear I think.

Okay. Just want

to Thank you. Yeah, we've gone through each We'll see

it again. So if it comes back and it's not what you were expecting, tell us at that time, too.

Okay. Great. All right, Board, thank you for the discussion. Is there any other items before the Board today?

So since both Harry and Nicole are here, we're going to at the last Board, I was going to represent the Board in a public setting

Oh, yes.

To discuss local register. And the group is about five or six different representatives that will be there from the community as well as Harry and myself representing the board. So as pointers, they have about a five minute opening, from each member and I've been suggested that discuss the applicability of the board and the process, how we make decisions, and then the goals of the board were suggested that be the talking points. If anyone has any other suggestions, or changes or modification to those three points,

please look. You had John, about involving a contractor at some point or two.

There will be a contractor.

Have real nuts and bolts. You know, this is what it involves. And and that little discussion with a design or construction professional really helps people to feel like this is real. I'm gonna do this. Or this is this is whatever. Ask the hard questions that they those are the ones I have. And how much is this gonna cost me and what am I getting into? What is how big is my contingency?

Yeah. I mean, historic preservation always has a bad rap because you hear the horisters. You rarely hear the successes.

A successful renovation contractor, restoration contractor has the ability to instill confidence and know that diesel comes out. And it's well worth it at the end.

Yeah. And I think that will be very important for them to communicate.

I'm sorry. I'm hitting that clicking noise on the broadcast. Did

I click?

Yeah. Any projects are hard

to You know,

and especially renovation projects, you always run-in the unexpected Yeah. Things you just just didn't discern starting the project. And that's just normal with everyday construction and to not be fearful of that. Okay.

We've got several groups coming just to give you guys kind of their rundown. We've got Venice Area Historical Society. They're going to sorry.

So we're going to have Venice Heritage.

Oh, Venice Heritage. Sorry.

And then John representing this board and Nicole and Brittany will be there for planning and zoning. I'll be there for historical resources. We're also going to have the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation there. And we will also have Joy Builders who recently did the work at 640 West Venice that was approved for the tax exemption. So that was our first one. So they're gonna be there. They can talk about that experience.

Great.

So and it's going to be May 8 from 05:30 to 07:30, and it'll be here at the Venice Public Library.

That's right. 05:30.

And and we are just finalizing the promotional material for it.

Postcards should be mailed today actually. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. And we'll be getting out press releases this week as well.

Right. It'll be on social media, the city's social media, right? Yeah. So hopefully we'll have a good turnout. We plan to just have a little bit of presentation at the beginning so everybody knows who we are and then let them come and ask ask those real questions about their properties.

That's what they want to know. Great. That's going to be a good forum and people will

be interested.

Alright. Thank you very much. The last item that I have, we have on our agenda for this year is to review our color palette. Actively working on that with Sherwin Williams to try to come up with something. Colors are changing as we speak throughout the city. We wanna be updated. We're way behind on on our color palette. And although we haven't had many applications recently, it's just we just need to be ahead of that.

So

propose to bring that to either the next meeting or the following, depending on what you can do, at least to get started with our discussion. I it will go well. So we just we need to make progress in that area. All right. Anything else? If not?

Chair Veevi? Yes. If I may. So, we do have, next month, preservation month coming up. And the city clerk's office has asked when we would like to have that proclamation. So I'm wondering if about your availability or if you would like to designate someone else from the board to receive the proclamation at a city council meeting, the dates we are looking at that would be available would be May 13 or May 27. And these are usually at the beginning of city council meetings, so this would be shortly after nine a. M.

Okay. I'm pretty sure that I could do both of those dates, but I can verify and get with you.

Yeah. If you could confirm with me, I'd And appreciate then I can let the city clerk's office know, and then they can get it on the city council agenda.

Okay.

Thank you.

I will do that. Alright.

Could we go back just for a second on the pavilion? Do we have I'm playing catch up, I know. A timeline for the restorations?

Timeline for restorations?

The pavilion?

Yeah. I don't know that it's

I believe public works is has a capital improvement request for doing work on the pavilion. I think it's scheduled for the next year or two. But, yeah, I think that's where it's at right now.

My one concern is that included in that restoration might be we have seen teenagers climb all over that thing many times. And if there's something in there to discourage that either sign or criminal penalty or something like that, probably should be part of the restoration process because it causes damage and it's a huge liability. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I don't really know what their schedule is to discuss it,

but Yeah, mean that'll be something once public works is ready to move forward now that it's on the local register, it's going to have to be going through the review process, what they want to do. So it will be coming before this Okay.

Well, you, Greg. All right. Well, if there's nothing else, Board adjourned. Thank you, guys.