Historic and Architectural Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

All right, thank you. All right, we'll call to order the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the Historic, Architectural and Preservation Board. And we have a roll call attendance.

Yes, one moment. Chair Beebe here.

Ms. Trammell? Present. Ms. Moore?

Present.

Mr. Watkins?

Present.

Mr. Green?

Here.

Mr. Barrick? Here. And Mr. Stuckety? Here.

Wow. Full board today. All right. I have before you the minutes of the Thursday, May 14th meeting, our last meeting. Are there any comments or revisions on that? I do have one. On the on the minutes of Thursday May 14th. Regarding first application for 17 Nassau Street for the alternative for the fence height exceeding 6 feet. I like the record to reflect a change in the language And that is Mr. Hardy clarified that the application did not request a fence height of six foot eight inches as indicated by staff, but rather a height of six foot as shown on the application site plan drawing. Does anyone have any comments on adding that? That was an early clarification during the presentation and it was clear that it was just inaccurately stated. Mr. Hardy clarified that. And down below on these minutes, it also says Planner Smith stated the application material would need to be amended to reflect the six-foot fencing, which I believe we could strike if that's the case. So does anyone have any comments on that?

I agree with the change.

Okay. All right. Do you need a motion? Okay. I have language. If someone wants to read it, or can I make the motion? All right, I move that we add the sentence after the second paragraph to state Mr. Hardy clarified that the application did not request a fence height of six foot eight as indicated by staff, but rather a height of six foot as shown on the application site plan drawings. And further that we strike the requirement for application materials to be amended for the 6 foot fencing.

I'll second that motion.

Jean seconds it. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. We'll make that change. Thank you. Any other modifications to those minutes anyone has? All right. With those modifications, we'll move ahead. Now, is there any general audience participation this morning?

We have to make a motion to approve all the minutes.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. You're right. Thank you, John.

I'll make that motion.

And John will make that motion.

I'll second the motion.

Jean seconds it. All in favor to approve the minutes as written? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. All right, now we'll move on to general audience participation. Has anyone signed up for a speaker card today?

No, we don't have anyone for general.

Okay. Then we'll go ahead and move to a presentation of findings from the Edgewood and Seaboard Historic Resources Survey. Holly Baker, Chronicle Heritage.

Good morning for the record, historical resources manager for the city of Venice and I have with me today Holly Baker from Chronicle Heritage. Chronicle Heritage is the firm that we contracted with to do the Edgewood and Seaboard survey with the grant that we received from the state of Florida. SO HOLLY'S HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE PRESENTATION ON THE FINDINGS FROM THE TEAM, FROM DOING THE SURVEY OF THE SURVEY IN EDGEWOOD, SEABORD AND EDGEWOOD AREA, WHERE THIS GRANT AND PROJECT STANDS RIGHT NOW. WHAT HOLLY HAS HERE IS THE DRAFT THAT WE BELIEVE IS ABOUT 99% COMPLETE. WE'RE REALLY JUST WAITING FOR THE APPROVAL FROM THE STATE FOR THE REPORT. and then the submittal of the Florida Master Site files for each of the listed properties, and then we will be able to close out this grant and have this project completed. So that's just kind of the context and background, and I will turn it on over to Holly.

Thank you. I'm speaking to the microphone.

Hello, I'm Holly Baker. I am an architectural historian with Chronicle Heritage. I have a master's degree in public history from the University of Central Florida, and I'm a multi-generational Floridian with a particular interest in Florida history, so it was an honor to work on this project. Before I begin, I would like to thank the city council, city staff, Harry Klinkhammer, and John Watson, the curator and collections manager at the Venice Museum and Archives, for their assistance and support during this project. All of the images in this presentation, other than the fieldwork photos and maps made by our GIS team, came from the Venice Museum and Archives. So today I'll be discussing the City of Venice Historic Structure Survey, Phase 2, Edgewood and Seaboard. And this project was funded through a matching grant from the Florida Division of Historical Resources in order to identify, document, and evaluate historic resources in these two Venice neighborhoods. So why conduct, oh, let me go forward. There you go. Why conduct a historic structure survey anyway? They are the foundation of preservation planning. You can't protect or interpret resources if you don't know what you have. And surveys help communities identify and document historic resources, create a permanent record of the resources, and provide information that can guide future preservation efforts. The survey expands our understanding of Edgewood and Seaboard and gives the City of Venice valuable information for planning, education, and future preservation initiatives. The survey area included the Edgewood and Seaboard neighborhoods located east of the Intracoastal Waterway. Even though these areas develop with different functions, they are connected through the history of Venice. Edgewood was planned as a residential neighborhood, while Seaboard developed primarily as an industrial area centered around the railroad and local businesses. The survey area also overlaps two National Register historic districts. The entire Edgewood Historic District is in the project area, and much of the survey area is also part of the larger John Nolan Plan of Venice Historic District. And it's within the yellow line there on the map. The one of the goals of the survey was not only only to document the resources, but also to evaluate their contribution to the historic districts and identify opportunities for future preservation efforts. So many Florida cities grew organically and Venice was intentionally planned from the beginning. To understand Edgewood and Seaboard, it's important to understand how Venice was founded. The early development of Venice was influenced by several individuals and organizations. Chicago businesswoman Bertha Palmer invested heavily in the land and infrastructure in the region, helping to lay the groundwork for future growth. In the 1920s, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers acquired thousands of acres and envisioned a master plan community on the Gulf Coast. To bring that vision to life, they hired nationally recognized planner John Nolan, whose design shaped much of the Venice we know today. The Edgewood and Seaboard neighborhoods developed as part of this larger vision and reflect the city's growth from the Florida land boom through the post-war period. So John Nolan was one of the most influential city planners in the early 20th century, and he was hired in 1925 to create a master plan for Venice. His vision was based on principles of the City Beautiful movement that emphasized attractive public spaces, thoughtful planning, and a high quality of life. Nolan designed Venice with as a walkable community with residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, industrial development, parks, schools, and civic spaces all carefully integrated into a unified plan. He also incorporated landscape boulevards and neighborhood parks so that residents would have access to green spaces throughout the city. Many of the features that make Venice distinctive today include its street layout, neighborhood organization, and the Mediterranean-inspired architecture can be traced back to Nolan's original plan. So a century later, you know, much of this plan is still recognizable in the landscape. And the resources documented during our survey helped to tell the story of how that vision developed over time. So this survey really shows the relationship that Edgewood and Seaboard had with each other. They developed together and depended on each other. And they were both platted as part of John Nolan's plan in 1926. They represent two sides of the same story. Edgewood was a residential neighborhood while Seaboard served as the industrial center tied to the nearby railroad. The Venice Company was created by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers to develop and market Venice. Promotional materials like this pamphlet that you see on the slide helped sell the vision of a master plan community on Florida's Gulf Coast and attracted many of the residents and investors who contributed to the city's early development. On the pamphlet it says of Edgewood, here a man of modest means can buy a home site within a five minute walk of the business section of the city. While John Nolan created the plan for Venice, the Venice company helped turn that vision into reality. So Edgewood and Seaboard show how John Nolan's plan created a community where people could live, work, and access services within a connected and walkable environment. The neighborhoods tell the story of how John Nolan's vision evolved from a 1920s planned community into the Venice we know today. So this project combined archival research with field work in the Edgewood and Seaboard neighborhoods. I reviewed historic maps, preservation surveys, Florida Master Site file records, property appraiser information, local historical resources before conducting the field work. And then during field work, which took place in January, I photographed and documented resources, evaluated their architectural characteristics, and collected information for the Florida Master Site file. I also had the opportunity to meet and speak with residents and business owners throughout the survey area. Many people were eager to share their stories about their homes, their businesses, and their neighborhoods, and their knowledge helped provide valuable context for understanding the history of these communities. One of the most rewarding parts of this project was seeing the pride residents have in Edgewood and Seaboard and their interest in preserving the history of their neighborhoods. So this slide has the numbers. We identified 184 historic resources, including 143 that had never previously been recorded. This expanded our understanding of the built environment in these neighborhoods. The survey also updated information on previously recorded resources, documented demolished buildings, and evaluated the resources within the two existing National Register historic districts. The survey revealed the diversity of architectural styles in Edgewood and Seaboard. We documented far more than Mediterranean Revival architecture. The architecture tells the story of changing taste and the growth that took place in Venice from the 1920s through the post-war period. While Mediterranean revival architecture is an important part of Venice's identity, the neighborhoods we surveyed also have bungalows, Tudor revival, minimal traditional, ranch, mid-century modern, mission style, and industrial and commercial buildings. And this variety helps tell a more complete story of Venice's development. So this slide shows the development periods of when the buildings were built. The survey shows that Edgewood's most significant growth happened after World War II, not just during the original 1920s development period. While some buildings date to the Florida land boom of the 1920s and others to the Great Depression era, the largest concentration of resources were constructed during World War II and the post-war period. This pattern shows that continued growth of Venice took place beyond its initial planning and development in the 1920s. Much of the historic character of Edgewood and Seaboard is tied to mid-20th century development, including the expansion of residential neighborhoods and commercial businesses. Understanding when these resources were built helps us evaluate whether the existing historic district boundaries and periods of significance reflect the full story of the neighborhoods. One of the most notable resources we documented during the survey is the Edgewood Cottage at 721 Myrtle Avenue. It's on the local register of historic resources, and it's also a contributing structure to the Edgewood Historic District. It's closely associated with the early development of Edgewood. It was built in 1930 and represents the character of the neighborhood during its early years. Resources like the Edgewood Cottage illustrate the architectural character that make up the Edgewood neighborhood and that make it unique. I'm sure y'all recognize the Venice Train Depot. It's another significant resource that we documented as part of this project. Constructed in 1927, the depot was the gateway to Venice during the city's early years and played an important role in the community's growth and development. The depot was much more than just a train station. It brought visitors, residents, goods, and supplies to the community and helped connect Venice to the rest of Florida and the nation. During World War II, the depot also supported military activities in the area, and in later years, it was associated with the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus. Venice Depot is on the local register of historic resources and was added to the national register in 1989. Its period of significance is currently 1927 through 1928. It's also a contributing resource to the John Nolan Plan of Venice Historic District. Based on our research, we recommend extending the depot's national register period of significance through 1971 when passenger rail service ended. It's currently significant under the areas of architecture and social history. We recommend adding transportation as an area of significance to better reflect its role in Venice's history as a gateway. The depot wasn't just important because of its architecture. It was important because it connected Venice to the outside world. During the survey, we also documented and evaluated Union Missionary Baptist Church at 404 Warfield Avenue. Before the current church was built in 1955, there was a Baptist church in the same spot that served the black community as early as 1934. By the early 1950s, Union Missionary Baptist Church was meeting in one of the old barracks buildings in the Blackburn Quarters, which was the center of Venice's African-American community for decades. The earlier church building was destroyed in a fire in 1953, and then the congregation built its current church, which was dedicated in 1955. The current church served as a religious, social, and community center for Venice's African American community during segregation. And it provided a place for fellowship, community gatherings, and social support. The church is also the last surviving physical reminder of the historic black community that once existed in this part of Venice. Union Missionary Baptist Church is on the local register of historic resources. We recommend Union Missionary Baptist Church as individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the areas of ethnic heritage, black, social history, and religion. The church tells an important story that might otherwise be overlooked if we focused only on architectural design. So now that we've completed the survey, what's next? Based on the results of the survey, we identified several opportunities for future preservation efforts in Venice. First, we recommend expanding and updating the Edgewood Historic District by extending its period of significance beyond 1928 and expanding its existing boundaries to better reflect the neighborhood's development, particularly during the post-war period. Its original boundaries in the 1989 nomination only includes bits of Groveland Avenue and Myrtle and just a couple of blocks really. But we found some significant buildings throughout the Edgewood neighborhood that we thought deserved to be included. and can't really be with the current period of significance. So we also recommend updating the John Nolan Plan of Venice Historic District. Its current period of significance ends in 1960. Based on the results of this survey, we believe the district significance should be extended beyond that date to better capture the continued growth and evolution during the mid to late 20th century. Additional survey and evaluation would be needed to determine the most appropriate end date. Finally, we encourage additional survey work focused on resources constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Many of these buildings are now reaching the age where they can be evaluated for historic significance and may contribute to a more complete understanding of Venice's history. Much of the historic character of these neighborhoods dates from the post-World War II period, and that story is not fully reflected in the existing historic district documentation, especially in the Edgewood Historic District that focuses on the 1920s development. So looking forward and building on the survey, our survey represents an important step in documenting and understanding the historic resources of Edgewood and Seaboard. Beyond creating an inventory of buildings, this project provides a foundation for future preservation planning, public education, heritage tourism, and potential national register or local preservation initiatives. The survey also shows the value of continued historic resource documentation as Venice grows and changes. By identifying and evaluating these resources today, the city is better positioned to make informed decisions about preservation in the future. This project helps ensure that the stories of these neighborhoods remain part of Venice's history for future generations. Finally, the survey is not the end of the process. It's a roadmap for future preservation efforts in Venice. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to share these results of the project, and I'd be happy to answer any questions or hear any comments. Thank you. Thank you, Holly.

That was very professionally done. Thank you so much. Thanks for the thoroughness of it, and it must have been interesting talking to residents.

Yeah, it really was. You know, we took pictures from the right-of-way. We weren't allowed to go into the yards, and obviously people would see us taking pictures. It was me and my colleague, Josh, who's actually an archaeologist, but he was helping take pictures because there were so many. And sometimes people would come out and they would say, you know, what are you doing? And I would hand them a flyer and explain, give them my card. And they would start telling me, well, this, there are fishermen in his family used to live in this house. And, you know, my family lived in this house or I grew up in this house. Um, it was really nice and just to hear the pride that they had in their houses and just in Venice and just, and also Edgewood people were particularly proud of Edgewood. And I think they felt like that it's often forgotten or not appreciated. And so I was glad to be able to bring some attention to Edgewood.

Great. Thank you very much.

And Mr. Chair, we're going to need a motion to accept the findings of the survey. Okay.

All right. Chair will entertain a motion.

Actually, I have a few questions. Sure. Now that we had to look into it a bit more. So with the inventory not eligible for the state historic are not evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Office. By your work, you'll submit what wasn't evaluated and it will be included on the master site file now.

Oh, yeah, I've actually already I did the forms. Yeah, they what we do is we fill out individual forms for each of the properties, all even though even the demolished ones because they were in the system already. So we need to let them know that they've been demolished so they can update that. And then that will be in there. So these buildings will be, people can look them up and find the information about each individual one that we documented.

Okay, great. That's spearheading into my next question. Those structures that were demolished, how is the year and the architectural style noted within the report specifically? I think it's helpful to understand, you know, when something of historical significance is demolished, you know, that that inventory is just even almost more important than what's still remaining in a lot of cases so we don't make the same error.

Oh, I agree. Yeah, I actually, it broke my heart when I would come across, you could look at the Google Maps and you can go back to before it was demolished and you could see this beautiful house And then a year later, you see an empty lot. And then a year later, you see a big like McMansion there instead. And it would make me so sad because I would think, why did you tear that down other than it just being a small house? Because everybody seems to want a big house now. There wasn't anything wrong with them. So I do note what I do know what the building was, what the architectural style of the building that existed was, what year it was built, what it looked like, what kind of windows it had, everything I can. Because in the Florida Master Site file form, we try to document the buildings as if you can't see it. So we tell you exactly what it looked like. And then we'll have to note. we have to click on the demolished thing uh you know the the part of the of the of the uh form that we have to select it's a drop down it says demolished and it's very sad when we have to do that but uh there were seven that we found that were demolished um that we had on our list to um look at and they weren't there so we took a picture of the spot even though it's nothing nothing's there or now it's something else We take a picture to show, like, it's not here anymore, you know? Yeah, so that was one of the saddest parts of the whole survey.

Okay, great. Thank you.

I have one question to follow up on that one. In the survey information that's captured through this study, is there any indication of the current condition of each of the structures? Yes. That's part of your, I mean, from what you could see from the street? I mean, I know you can't go in and really do an in-depth, but.

Yes, there's a spot on the form that you write its condition, excellent, good, fair, or bad, you know. Okay. So I'd say most of them were good. I don't recall seeing a fair, one that was just in terrible condition. They all seem to be in pretty good condition. I mean, I don't know, this particular survey, I didn't see like excellent, you know? Excellent's usually, you know, just like a spectacular, like the governor's mansion, you know, that's one that we're, you know, something like that, a building like that, or the call house at the Grove or whatever. But yes, we do, and you can tell, you know, you obviously can't see the interior, but you can, we also use the property appraiser website to see, you know, if there have been any updates to the roof or windows or any kind of updates that have been done recently. And the property appraiser website will also kind of give an indication of the condition of the house as well.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. Any other questions?

Yeah, one more with the your recommendations to expand the edge would boundary to basically where Nolan's original plan was with the information contained in your report of that were submitted to the National Register for historic places. would that be enough information on the only the national level for them to justify expanding that.

Yeah, I don't know the words on the our survey itself wouldn't be enough it's just because in in the survey we recommend it somebody else maybe us to be cool, we'll have to do to make another have another project to be like We, there's another process involved with updating National Register boundaries. It's just another report basically where we say this is, and it's just a deep dive into why the boundaries should be expanded. I've worked on other projects like that. um camden south carolina um they have a historic district and we did one that was the the report was basically let's let's expand the boundaries um so it would just be something like that but it would be different than this this is just us recommending that step to happen yeah okay thank you you're welcome all right thank you very much any other discussion all right chair will entertain a motion to accept this report

Also move to accept the report.

Yes.

Helen seconds. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, it passed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for all the effort.

Thank you so much.

It was a lot of work, I'm sure.

It was, but it was an honor, and I really enjoyed it, and it's nice to be back in Venice again.

Yeah, it's a great place to be.

Thanks.

All right, Harry, do you have anything else for us today from historic preservation or?

20 to 30 people in attendance less than what we had the first year we did it but I think a lot of that had to do with timing we had scheduling conflicts that pushed the event into June rather than in May when there are more people in town but nevertheless I think the people who were there appreciated it, got a lot of good information. We handed out a lot of business cards and pamphlets and resources and we hope that we might find some people more interested in wanting to get onto the local register. There was definitely a lot of interest we had Mr. Klaus from 640 West Venice talked about his process with the Agilworm tax exemption program and that did spark a lot of interest from the audience. So we might perhaps see some folks who have an older home thinking of doing some improvements, maybe now considering the local register before they start their work.

Okay.

Also, too, continuing on about grants, if the governor approves the budget for next year, then it looks like we should have funding for our next small matching grant survey, which is going to be Gulf Shores and Golden Beach. AND THE STATE ALSO ABOUT THREE MONTHS BEHIND THEY JUST OPENED UP FOR APPLICATIONS FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF SURVEYS. IF YOU RECALL WE DISCUSSED AND THIS BOARD WAS INTERESTED IN RESURVEYING VINITIA PARK SO STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON THAT GRANT APPLICATION. IT IS DUE IN BY I THINK MID-JULY AND THAT WOULD BE THEN FOR FY28.

Okay, great. Any other, the board have any comments from staff or Ms. Tremblay?

Well, are we skipping board discussion, Chairman? Because I think some members might have wanted to discuss some things.

Oh, yes, you did remind me. Okay. We didn't skip yet, just trying to.

Okay. Go ahead. I have some stuff after for staff discussion.

Stuff after? Yeah. Okay, all right. Is there any discussion the Board has today? I have a couple of thoughts. From time to time, we do look at our ordinance, our guidelines. We recently had a few years ago the LDR change, which our section changed, as you know. We had many modifications. Our code is now more codified than it was before. It was kinder and gentler, I think, before, but now it's a little more strict. So we've had a couple of... applications that brought to mind some issues that we may want to reflect on. One of the ones that I would like to talk about, I think Mr. Steckety may want to talk about this as well, is 7.10.4, facade colors. As you know, one of the goals of this board is to revise our color palette for the future. It's outdated at best right now and I think we could make it a lot more user friendly for the public by getting it online somehow and getting it updated because people are still confused about what's a color that's acceptable for VHP. But with regard to facade colors, we had a recent application, wanted to use a single color for a structure. And the way our code was written by our consultant, I think it needs some work, in my opinion. Under facade colors, if you just look at 710.4, It says color is an important aspect of defining the architectural style. The placement and combination of colors on a building may highlight architectural features including building offsets, columns, doors, decorative elements. The BHP color scheme does not have a complex color scheme and often uses only two paint colors. That's how it starts. That's a general description. And then directly after that talks about the colors. Colors may be include and pastels light earth tones with allowance for darker vibrant colors to be used as decorative trim or accents. Excuse me. All building colors shall be in accordance with the approved color palette and used as a basis for the petition approval. and the project completion review by staff. Negligible color variation is expected as the finished project due to differences in print colors and actual implementation during construction. That's very understandable. Many applicants come in and they want to do a color. They change it tone on tone, slightly different. When it gets in the field in the sun, it makes a difference. That I thought was very good, but this is where it gets a little dodgy right here for me. Then color coverage. So we've just told everyone that we have typically noncomplicated color schemes that are two colors, a body and a trim, typically. And then we say color coverage up to 75% of wall surfaces must be one approved color 20% must be a secondary corresponding approved color and 5% must be a corresponding approved accent color. A design, and then to follow that up, a design alternative may be considered for the percentage of the approved color coverage. The reason why this is sensitive to me is because I brought this up during the time when we were adjusting colors because I felt As an architect, I have used color to accentuate different parts of the building. Most people don't really see the color variation because a lot of it's tone on tone, some of it's very subtle, but it does make a difference on how the building is perceived. The forethought building is an example of one that we tried to do some things with to animate the building. There's actually six colors on that building. Most people would think it's two. But that's just the way you perceive it. So staff is kind of looking at this and has to look at it exactly as the code reads. I think that we've kind of missed some things there. I think it should be up to the applicant to either do a single facade color which historically, if you look at the BHP, take every building that's significant, that built in 1926 to 1930, they're one color and they have accent trim, their body and trim. They're very uncomplicated, just as it stated in the first part, so they're not mandating 75%, 20%, this is a real onerous thing to do. And it's color, so it's very eye of the beholder, it's very subjective. So I'm gonna suggest that we take that third color coverage and either delete the whole thing or that we have two categories. A single façade color, and I write it like this, single façade colors. A single body color for both residential and commercial structures are typical in all BHP districts with a second color for trim and accents. That's a single façade color. And the second category, multiple façade colors. And then use basically the language that we have for multiple. and then accept, start that with if multiple colors are used. Let's see, it would be the applicants. We don't have to approve it. It'd be on the applicant. If they wanted to use multiple colors, then up to 75% of wall colors must be one approved color. You carry the language that we have. A design alternative may be considered an add for the variations in the percentage of each approved color. I don't think specific percentages make sense for a building that we can't document. It's just too many rules. Give an architect or a design professional the artistic license to actually make this building what he or she wants it to happen. We have final say to approve the color. We also accept and encourage other colors because colors change every six months. In Sherwin-Williams or Benjamin Moore's world, every five minutes. It's whatever is marketable and what people want. We don't want our general public to struggle with selecting a color. We also don't want a color that does not fit in this community with architectural style. So that's a long discussion, but that's what I've been thinking because of a couple of recent applications. And I'd like to know if the board has any thoughts on this.

I agree with you completely because of each particular house as an architectural style and to try and mandate a percentage of colors across the board for all architectural styles is not a good idea. You might suggest percentages as one alternative, but to dictate it, I think, it limits. We have a house across the street that's about to be painted, and it just needs some subtle hue changes on different architectural features of the house to make it really stand out and pop. But they couldn't do it if they had to follow this the way it's written now. So I agree with the rewrite. It's been beneficial to the homeowners and inviting, which is an important part.

I think this also puts a big burden on our staff to figure out what's 20%, what's 50%. If we start calculating areas of the facade, it's a lot of burden. and for what it doesn't it's just not it's too many regulations i don't think we need that myself and i think it's hard for them so that's another reason to consider eliminating that any other thoughts on this does anyone have an opinion when we wrote some of this

We got into the terminology in the earlier part of that where we label everything earth tones. Everything that was built after we put in, everything was in browns around here because everybody assumed that earth tones had to be brown. Could we possibly just eliminate that word and leave it a little more open? Or do you think as an architect or so on, you need that? And as far as, you know, I think I agree with what you've written there. Sometimes, and we've been through this for years now, we tighten it up and then we kind of loosen it up. We get too loose sometimes, which has happened in the past. but I think we definitely need to loosen this a little bit and either add to it that you have commercial or residential somehow too. If you think that you need more control over commercial rather than residential, because we're not gonna see a lot of new residential in the historic district, because it just isn't there anymore.

I would agree. We have had over in the past, we've said that as times changed, earth tones with a broad brush and people did use, they just wanted to be safe. They didn't want to have to repaint their building. They didn't want to come to our board. So we really need to have colors that are fair. In the 1920s, and we've seen black and white photographs, the one that we just approved, everything that we can see on site, is that building was dark red. Very unusual, but that was what it was. Many buildings were white, just white, you know, white, no trim, just white. So historically, and then things change over time. So I agree with you that We're gonna have to do a better job with our book of approved colors so that we don't confuse both applicants, staff, and this board about what's a good color. It's gonna take some work, but just the arrangement of colors on the facade is really what I was thinking about. We have a lot of work to do with regard to the actual colors. I just think the arrangement of color on the facade on the buildings should be less regulated than a percentage.

So I mean, I played the devil. I don't know. That's OK. That's a discussion. The so I think the reason the consultants put this in here and it probably came from precedent with them doing a lot of this work would be that And I would say that the majority of work that's done under these guidelines isn't done by a design professional. So if it's not done by a design professional, they're not going to care about color and they're just going to say, what color do you want it? And that's not. And you're going to get just a field of single colored painted buildings everywhere. And I don't think that that is positive necessarily for the community at large. I think color variation, when it's thought about, can definitely help an individual project and then across a community. add to the interest as well I would say that I would agree that historically you know paint was new you know it was in development so it did not have this wide variety of colors that we do today which if it's a I would say if we added an amendment for historic structures, if they wanted to go to the original, whatever documented evidence that we can find what that color was, I agree with that. I don't necessarily think that it's beneficial for the community at large to just not have some, and whether or not these percentages can be, need to be adjusted, Agree with that just because I think there's somewhat were arbitrarily decided and we were under so much strain to get this thing approved because the timeline was tight that we didn't really have the time. to really break it down and think of the realities of what was being proposed at the time. So I think the rethink on this and many are needed.

Yeah, this is just one of them, but this is one where we've had applicants come and have a hard time making it work. I do think there's value in having an applicant be able to do a single color, depending on how big this house is, it's a residential situation, most of us have one color on our houses. So with trim and accents in addition to that, but the body color being one color. But then also have the ability or the language in the code to allow some use of color multiple colors on a building. I think there's historic precedence for that. There's recent historic precedence of that. You know, 50 years ago, right after World War II, people did things. That's historic now. So, you know, we do have, I think allowing both would be a benefit to us.

As a way forward from this conversation, would it be a good idea possibly to go ahead and eliminate the percentages in the language and then have a color palette that was very simple, maybe six to eight pastel colors that would be recommended or approved and six or eight light earth tone colors that would be acceptable and approved until we can get the full color palette online.

We do have it. We have a color palette.

Yeah, I think. Well, we'd say they'd update it. Yeah, it needs to be.

You know, and Mark, we're in the process now of working once again.

How do I get my hands on that color palette today?

Staff has it.

As a homeowner, you have to.

Well, when they come in to get the permit and so on, they have to. It's all part of the permitting process, isn't it?

Yes, they'll come to City Hall and we we do have a printout, but the printout is not very true to the real colors. So we prefer to show them the actual binder, which has the swatches from Sherwin Williams. It's ideal if they can come and look at it in person.

Greg asked me that question earlier on. A neighbor of his wants to paint his house. And how does he find the colors? And unfortunately, the best thing we have right now is to come to City Hall. So we need to do better than that. I think we do need to adjust this in some way. I think we could eliminate the color coverage section at this point. I don't think it's really benefiting us the way it's written. Or we could allow for a single facade color and or and or multiple colors. To come before the board which they do now. No just give us allow options.

This more right. We're talking about. Less are more recent time I'm back in the 90's it was a free-for-all kind of, and the colors were a lot more vivid, I think, that were approvable. So what's right, what's wrong? I mean, I know that there are academically right and wrong ones, or taste, or personal preferences. I would be for taking another look at things, giving, like you're saying, less of the coverage percentages for particular colors. I think that's something that really deserves to be talked about. But I do want to throw in that I was working with a customer who just was boggled by the colors that they would be allowed to paint their front door. So I trotted right over to City Hall, went right up to the permits desk, told them what I wanted, roughly where it was, got a variety of colors handed to me right there and then. I didn't say, I'm this or I'm that or I'm doing this for someone. Staff was very helpful and gave me what they had. And they would have taken copies of things had I wanted to. I just have to really give kudos to the people who are working on that and have people wandering that don't really even know what they want.

And I agree with that. That's very typical.

Chair, I just want to check with the attorney. Would it be more appropriate for us to have this become a formal agenda item at the next meeting for sake of notice?

That was actually going to be my point. This is not typically really, this shouldn't really be any sort of movement forward on a board discussion without proper notice, especially considering, I understand it's maybe readjusting, maybe eliminating, but devil's in the details with SB 180. And to move forward on something like this, especially with that would require a text amendment, it would need to be a actual discussion point for notice. But Amanda beat me to it.

Well, I and and that's why I think unfortunately we we only meet once a month. So, you know, this was a light meeting. I just really wanted to get a discussion here because I think it is something that we we need to resolve along with our color palette. This is two things how we disperse it on the building or allow that to happen and then what actual colors. So thank you for your input. We don't really need to vote on anything because we're not ready to do that. and I agree with you will put it on the as an agenda item on the next. The next meeting and then hopefully we might even have ability to have a first discussion with the color consultant to discuss not only how it's applied to the building but what color palettes would be fair and desirable by the board for historic our district so well thank you guys for the discussion appreciate that. Is there any other thing to come before the board today. Anything questions for staff. All right. Hearing none, we'll adjourn.

Wait, wait, wait. I have some things to say.

I about got you.

Sorry. Okay, well, so what we were talking about before, from staff perspective, we just needed to get an idea of where everyone was at so that we can then put an item on the agenda with some proposed text. Because, of course, we can't just change it verbally here, but just wanted to know what you were thinking so that we can propose something for your next meeting. and I think from what I'm hearing what I would propose for you all to discuss is that we do remove the color coverage section and perhaps add a statement to that intent that you read chairman after it says often uses only two paint colors we could possibly add a second statement about the other option for having multiple colors and you all can kind of workshop how you want that worded when we have it on the agenda

That sounds accurate to me.

Okay, good. Let's see. Well, Local Register Forum, Harry already talked about that. It went very well. Mr. Barrick was there. But I also want to mention Kara Morgan from Venice Main Street and Aaron DeFazio from Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation did an excellent job presenting on the economic benefits and kind of showing the larger picture of how a town can thrive with more preservation. So I thought that was really interesting at the forum. Pretty cool. then I've got something to show you as a question for the board really so as you know in our code it states that when something is to be redone when a facade a street facing facade is redone then the whole facade needs to be brought up to BHP standards however we also have an exemption for homes that are not already in the BHP style so that can be tricky to navigate sometimes and we did have someone request that they wanted to redo this home, which I would say is not in the VHP style, but it's not a particular like standout example from my understanding of a different style. So I just wanted to get everyone's advice and Would you like to see them bring this up to VHP when they redo it, or would you like them to move forward and redo it as they see fit? It is in the historic Venice district, so it's not in the theme, and that's why we have to ask and be sure whether you'd want them to come before the board, do VHP, or remodel and not be subject to all the standards.

Well, we have had in the past, more than several examples of buildings was constructed in the 70s, which really don't meet any style, any identifiable style. It was really difficult. And the thought of trying to force an architectural style on that with whatever modifications there just would make the building an atrocity. And we chose not to do that. Right. That has been very consistent with the board over 20 years. But not trying, I'm talking about one that has no BHP precedent whatsoever. And it happens to be in the district, but it just doesn't make sense to try to put barrel tile on a shake shingle roof. It just doesn't make any sense. And we have tried to avoid creating a problem for the district and those values and those properties with beautiful examples next door. And then we go and try to, so we've been very consistent with that, I think, over time. But then, I don't know what anyone else thinks about that, but I don't see the value in trying to do that. Are you struggling with, Do we adhere to the regulations or is there any exemption here?

Basically, because we've had a couple in the past that the code says you have to bring it up to VHP and we've brought them and the board has said we don't want to do this to this home. It depends on.

It's a justification call because if they're going to totally renovate this building and change significant aspects

of the architecture of that existing building then yes it needs to be brought up to vhp if they're just replacing tile on eggs right then that that's a different discussion no i believe they're planning to do a full renovation and so that's why we needed to know should they go that direction or should they try to keep the style they have i mean right now i i'm sure they have barrel tile just because they're in the historic district because otherwise it doesn't really suit the rest of the home

I mean, it's a, it depends on a large part on the scope. Okay.

Didn't we kind of have a, like a 50% rule or something like that? And the cost of, you know, for renovation, if it was more than.

Yeah, we kind of did.

Yeah.

Just because we were trying to establish how much of a renovation they were going to do.

I mean, if you take that particular example, if they're going to change out windows, they're changing window openings for compliance with the VHP, which, you know, it's a lot of money and a lot of work to do that.

Okay. We, we do, I mean, we have recently done a pre-application meeting for those where they're not going for a CAC that we could get an opinion to get, hopefully help them, as a board, help them to make a decision if we, if, if what we would require to make it work exceeds their possible budget or desire to put that much into that house, then they wouldn't have gone to a lot of effort. Um, and we don't need, you know, definitive finish renderings or anything for that, for that pre application meeting. I just think it might help an applicant with that. But in general, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear As they say, it's just not going to work. It doesn't make sense.

We had that mid-century building that I was totally against that conversion, but in hindsight, when I drove by it, I still hate that they changed the architectural style significantly. But overall, that project works. As bad as I did want that to happen, it works for the owner.

It works for the owner, yeah.

OK. OK. Well, we'll discuss with them more. They just happened to call yesterday. And I thought, well, since we really don't have a good answer for this, maybe we can just get a little bit of board feedback before we speak to them again.

Mark.

OK. Thank you. Ms. Moore.

That already has new windows, paint, it's already, I mean I drive around in that area all the time and it's already been done.

Okay, when we spoke to the person on the phone, they said, no, it's in terrible shape. Everything needs redone.

Interior now, I mean, you know, it was dilapidated. It was awful before.

Maybe that was a misunderstanding then. I thought she said it was still in this condition.

I kind of pulled over and looked at it because it was such a difference from what it was, you know, a month ago. Yeah.

Okay.

All right. Well, then we'll look more into it. But it's good to kind of get this feedback anyway because I think that was the Harbor Drive house that you were speaking about? Maybe 429 Harbor?

No, I think it was further south and east.

Okay. Well, I know there's been maybe two then recently where the board has been kind of unsure about whether we should be doing BHP on it or not. So I just want to keep having that conversation.

The applicant really wanted that style.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, pitch roof just kind of doesn't work with tile, you know, on any level, including the code. But.

All right. And then my last thing is that your next meeting we will be having on July 11th. And so far you have one preap for a mixed use building at 127 East Tampa Avenue. So you'll be seeing some preliminary ideas for that and giving them some feedback.

Okay.

All right. That's it.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Harry, do you have anything else for today? All right. All right. If there's no other business, we are adjourned.