Historic and Architectural Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

All right, thank you. We'll go ahead and open call to order the September 10th, 1926, Historic and Architectural Preservation Board meeting. Can we have a roll call attendance?

Yes. Chair Beebe?

Here.

Ms. Trammell? Present. Ms. Moore? Here. Mr. Steckety? Here. Mr. Watkins? Here. Mr. Green? Here. And Mr. Barrick?

Here.

All right, full house today. All right, the first order of business is approval of the minutes. We have before you the minutes of July 9th. Are there any corrections or additions, adjustments to that? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

I move to approve the minutes as presented.

All right, Ms. Trammell approve. Second. And Helen seconds. All in favor. All right, none of those pass. Go ahead and move on to any general audience participation.

No, we do not.

Okay, thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and move on to PLAR 26-00237. It's 521 Harbor Drive South. Our staff member is Nicole Tremblay and owner applicant is Christopher and Mary Gladding. Go ahead and open the public hearing at this time and confirm that speaker cards have been, if anyone who would like to speak has filled out a speaker card. And I believe that we have, this has been properly noticed, certified that the public hearing for this petition was properly advertised on August 22nd, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Department office. All right. Ms. Attorney.

Good morning members. Good morning. First and foremost, does any member here have any conflict of interest? Let the record show that there's none.

I have a conflict of interest with my son-in-law owns the BB Design Studio Architects who will be presenting today.

For this one specifically?

Yes.

okay so you will be receiving a pecuniary or okay right um so you will have to fill out a form and you would have to abstain in a situation where there is a conflict of interest okay um all right um at this point i guess we should change over to miss trammell Well, and then I have a second question. I'm going to ask if anybody has had any expert take communications in regarding this matter. No. And let's just do from left all the way to right so just we can get it on record.

I'm sorry. You said left to right. No.

No.

No.

Yes. No. Sorry.

No.

All right he said that the record show there was no expert in communications and now we can move on.

Well at this time I will recuse myself and this travel can continue.

All right, thank you. Let's move on them to the staff report.

all right thank you for the record nicole tremblay senior planner for the city of venice so we are looking at 521 harbor drive south you can see here the location map this is just north of Sorrento Street, west of Venezia Parkway. So they are requesting a certificate of architectural compliance for an addition, and they're also including a variance request for a front-loaded garage and a design alternative for color coverage in this application. This is in the historic Venice Architectural Control District. So there is an existing home that was built in 1926. It's in the VHP style and so they would like to build a two-story addition. The home is also two stories along with a covered patio and a kitchen extension. They're going to remove an existing structure on the property and add a pool. The pool is in the back though so it's not visible from the street. There are lots of product details and reference photos in the application package for you to see. And there are some comments from the historical resources manager that were also attached to the agenda. So the reason for the variance request here is that section 7106 D1D about garages prohibits a front loading garage on lots wider than 50 feet. This lot is about 120 feet wide, so they would need that variance in order to have this garage. And then the design alternative approval is for color coverage. So they're proposing one color for the house. It's an approved color, but they're only proposing one for this, sorry, not the main house, but the addition. So here's some photographs of the house existing today. I believe this is the structure that's gonna be removed right here, the one with no windows. And then this is the area where they would be building the addition. So you've got several decision criteria because you're looking at not just a CAC but also a variance and a design alternative. For the CAC, your only criterion is that new structures shall incorporate characteristics of VHP. So that would be all the items in 710. for a variance you've got five factors here special conditions and circumstances the degree to which the structure on the site already is vhp the degree which structures in the area are vhp visibility from the street and adjoining properties and the cost of compliance with the regulation compared to the cost of their proposal And then for the design alternative, again that's for pink color, there are six considerations. So whether it's consistent with the purpose and intent, whether it's permitted as a design alternative, which this is, whether the design alternative will have a material negative impact on adjacent uses, similar situations in the area whether it'll be an improved design efficiency and performance and if applicable whether it's necessary to preserve or enhance historic resources so those are the things for you to consider with each of these decisions and the applicant has a lot of detail in their package that they can go over their design choices and what they're asking for but do you have any specific questions for me about the application

Yes, can you, so the structure, can you go back to that photograph? Yeah, the bottom photograph, yeah, to the right there, the existing building, you said that's going away or, so that entire building as it's shown in the image,

should be removed yeah I'll show you the the plans as well I apologize I think it's actually this one with the you can see a window back here yeah it's this smaller one if you're looking on their plans

okay so as it's shown on the plan that building as as it is shown is to remain yes and that's currently being used as an adu for the property i'm not sure how they're using it um they'll have to explain that we didn't have we didn't have a reason to ask necessarily but they can tell you how they've been using it okay thanks

Any other questions for staff?

Am I the only one that is noticing that it says the address 436 Bayshore that's written on the, 436 Bayshore is written on the middle of that structure?

Yes, it is.

Yeah.

It looks like just a typo in their plans. They've got the correct address on the bottom here and all their application documents were correct, but you're right, that's leftover, I guess.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. Thank you. So we're ready for the applicant now.

Good morning. For the record, my name is Sam Hardy. I'm the principal architect at BB Design Studio Architects. And we were approached by the owners of this property, Chris and Mary Gladding. They recently purchased this property and they requested the addition of a two-car garage, is kind of what they were looking for. The existing residence, there's some quality of life things that are also included on the project on the interior, and also cleaning up some of the additions to that ADU. which is the original carriage house. So the original carriage house that's in the southeast corner of the property was converted at some point, we're not really sure when, was converted into an ADU. Garage doors were removed and it heavily modified on the interior. And I'll get into the reasons for the location of the new garage. As far as the, is there any way I can present something?

I'm sorry, say that again.

Chair, the applicant has a presentation that I would need to load onto the computer. Can we have a brief technology recess to do that? Is that permitted? Yes, it's permitted.

You can just do a five minute recess if that's what you need or if she needs longer.

Five minutes would be plenty of time, thank you.

Oh, sorry about that.

Chair, we are ready to resume when you are.

Acting Chair, can you just say on the record what time we are reconvening? And we're reconvening the meeting. Thank you. We're reconvening on 914. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So I wanted to briefly review some of the information for the variance. So specifically, we're asking for a variance for Chapter 87, Section 710.6 , which specifies front-loading garages are prohibited in lots greater than 50 feet in width. There are a number of reasons. I think in the package that we submitted, we actually address each of those decision criteria, specifically why the garage was placed where it was. In short answer, the The original carriage house where it's located now would also require a variance for us to try to modify that existing structure to get it to work as a two-car garage. For one thing, it's too small for modern cars, which we're all aware of. Carriage houses were not built for modern cars. But it's also non-conforming from a setback standpoint. So we would not just require a variance from HAP-B, but also a variance from the zoning codes, from the setback code. So the existing carriage house in that southeast corner was not going to be feasible. It's also too close to the existing house as well. It probably would be touching the existing house, which we kind of wanted to avoid. Locating the garage behind the existing house would also negatively impact the interior layout of the house. A lot of the kitchen and the dining room, a lot of living spaces sort of open up to what they're trying to create is a nice backyard with the pool and putting a garage back there would severely negatively impact the property. So we landed on that kind of northeast corner of the property. In the previous code, just kind of a look back, in the ARB guidelines from 2002, it states that garages may be placed behind the residence where the site permits. Where the site does not permit rear placement, the garage shall either be offset from the plane of the front facade at least 10% or the garage door shall not face the front. In the revised guidelines in 2009, it states that, again, the garage shall be placed behind the residence where the site permits. Where it does not permit, the next preferred choice is side placement, so the garage door's not visible from the front facade. And then again, where you can't do rear or side placement, the garage may be placed in the front, provided that the garage is set back from the plane of the front facade at least 10% of the lot width. The way our current regulations read is there's a number of factors here. The first being that garages located on lots 50 feet in width or less are to be located in the rear back of the structure. Garages located on lots greater than 50 feet, which this one is, and with maybe side loading if the garage door faces away from the pedestrian entry door, but rear garages are encouraged. Side loading garages have to have windows, and front loading garages are prohibited on lots greater than 50 feet in width. And that's the actual regulation that we're asking the variance from. The interesting thing is, When we, so based on our reading, I believe that this version of the code and the previous iterations of the code are really describing three different garages. There's a rear garage, And then there's a garage that's side loading that you would infer is in the front and a garage that's front loading that you would infer is in the front based on the language of the code. And so we just think it's reasonable to assume that when this specific code prohibits front loading garages, it's referring to garages that are at the front of the house. And by nature, a rear garage, as described in the code, These rear garages, as typical in VHP, have garage doors that face the street. I took a little field trip around Venice and I attempted to locate all of the houses in the VHP, in the historic district, that have detached carriage houses similar to this, which was an interesting little fact-finding mission. There's actually only two that I could find. I'm not saying that these are all the houses, and this is just what I could find. 239 Pensacola and 243 Pensacola. Those were the only two properties that were 50 feet or less of lot width with rear garages. The average... There's one on Pedro that I think we'll see is actually 55, but a majority of them, particularly on Nassau Street, those are about 65 feet. Not much bigger, 65 feet in width, but the regulation says 50 feet. But just going through some of these, and I won't go through the exhaustive list, although you're welcome to have the PDF here with the exhaustive list. I think 605 West Venice Avenue, right there on the corner, is actually a perfect example of, it is a semi-detached and actually kind of structurally attached to the primary residence. But it is a detached garage facing the street. And really the goal is not to necessarily hide that carriage house, but really just to make it beautiful. That's kind of the, that's the actually original carriage house there. And we don't have to go through all of these, but specifically near the location, these are all along Nassau Street, And I've mixed in some new photos along with some historic photos. But as we go through these, specifically around where this house is located, 521, this is 333 Sorrento, 328 Sorrento, which is a neighboring property of 521. and this is 521 Harbor, and then all along the street on Harbor and on Venezia Parkway. So that's a little bit of historical backup with the, I guess, the precedent for a detached garage in the rear of the property with a garage door facing the street. So a little justification for that. Obviously, if there are any other design criteria that you'd like for me to expand on, I'm happy to expand on that. As far as the actual design and the presentation of the project. The placement of the garage, if you look at the site plan, do you mind switching to the, that was the end of my digital presentation.

I mostly work on paper.

But one of the driving factors behind the location of the garage really is so that the garage has a light touch in position to the existing house. We wanted it to obviously be recessed, but part of that from the front facade that you can see here is... one of the goals of doing this garage for the homeowner was to have access between the house and the garage, but then also be able to Park in their garage on a rainy day and bringing groceries that was that was also a kind of a nice. You know quality of life issue and so the the connection between the detached garage in the House is the small covered porch their patio that will overlook the pool. but also will create a dry connection between the two structures so that the kitchen, which is that little bump that you see there, you'll be able to go out of the door of the garage and go into the kitchen. And that will just allow, you know, dry entry into the house from the garage. So that slightly pushed the garage forward so we could more intentionally make that connection as subtle as possible. But other than that, the garage does sit a little over 25 feet back from the front of the house. And the other proposed changes, the... Yes, this small addition to the existing carriage house, we are proposing to remove that. That is actually the laundry room for the existing house, and it's a part of the ADU as well, but we're going to relocate the laundry room into the main house, be able to eliminate that non-original addition and Just open up the backyard a little bit for that pool, which again, quality of life for the homeowner. And the other thing that we are proposing, since currently now the existing house, this is actually... one of the historic photos from the house. A couple of the details that we are proposing that you may or may not have noticed. You can see the original garage doors, and there's actually this nice little curved detail at the fin wall at the face of that. We are hoping to sort of reintroduce that on that structure along with adding windows. There were not originally awnings on this house, fabric awnings. We are proposing to reintroduce Those fabric awnings are there now. We're going to replace all those awnings with new awnings in the green color proposed. And the original house, so you can see from these photos, this is not the... oldest or the newest photo but approach was from the sidewalk you know at some point everything was kind of changed from the driveway which right now is on the south side of the property we by moving the garage to the north we really wanted to reorient how you approach the house from the street originally the house was approached from the sidewalk down this center walkway and to the front door. And so, as a result of the project, that's something that we wanted to kind of reintroduce and reinforce. And that's driving Some of the additional elements, such as this small decorative gate on the front with this center walkway coming in off of the sidewalk, that would be along the property line. And right now, there's an existing kind of low retaining wall that sits right along the edge of the sidewalk on the property. And so there's precedent for that specific detail on... a few other houses here along Harbor, specifically, I think 505 Harbor Drive has a similar detail along the sidewalk of the street. And I think one last item, I think I'm supposed to kind of present everything all at once, and maybe I need to present the design alternative for paint as a separate discussion or all in one discussion. I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to do that. But for the design alternative for the paint, I would argue we could go back through these photos and look at these houses. Primarily they're one paint color. I think where the code Possibly doesn't provide maybe enough nuance is it specifically refers to It specifically refers to wall surfaces when it when it discusses percentages of paints and wall surfaces whereas if you can see with a house like this to the house that I pulled up 505 Harbor Drive and Primarily the wall surfaces, the paint colors, one paint color. However, the color that is being brought out is with the decorative elements such as the awnings, the roof, the windows, windows and doors as accent colors. They don't really fall under wall surfaces. It's their architectural elements, not necessarily wall surfaces. And for this house, That's also how we're bringing in accent colors are through these fabric awnings that we're introducing. So, end of my presentations.

Okay. Do we have any questions from the board?

What is your color for the audience? You didn't specifically say what that was. On the photograph, they show a dark color?

I think it was in my digital package. It's a Sunbrella material. I believe it's in the digital package. It's like an olive green.

Is it a canvas or is it a?

It's a canvas. It's a canvas, yes.

Okay. Okay, in a dark green? Yes. Okay.

Any other questions?

Yes. So given this as being a variance of criteria, maybe a pre-application meeting to kind of get our preliminary take on things before we're provided a finished design. Was that considered?

No, it was not considered.

Okay, we offer that as a convenience for things that, You know, someone's proposing which are either early in the design process and they just want to get the board's feel on how things have their initial reaction to a design or something that may not be compliant, you know, get our thoughts before, you know, the effort is put forth to get to, you know, a more complete design. Sure. The distance, I'm sorry, technology has failed me and my iPad is not cooperating currently. So if you could show the site plan please. So the distance from the 2 story addition to the we see that the property line to the east is angled it's a regular regular regular lot. So what's the nearest and furthest distance there from corner to property line.

The nearest distance here. is roughly 12 feet, 10 to 12 feet right around there.

okay and so you would assume the other ones probably about 20 plus or minus on the up to the i would say minus but yeah okay and the use for the second story edition that second floor is is what exactly

Well, it's a bonus room at this point, and that's the intent of the owner. There's not a bathroom. There's not anything up there. It's a bonus hobby room.

Okay. So the location of the access to the east is... is possible if needed it could reconfigure a bit.

I don't follow.

I'm just trying to think of variations potentially. And to clarify, so the only work scope on this project is that you're modifying as far as the existing structure is you're adding two windows on the west to the existing building. You're tearing off the north structure there. That goes away. You're adding a front gate with entry walls. The remaining low wall is existing?

Correct.

Okay. the drive as configured as existing, excluding what you're adding to the new proposed garage, correct?

Yes, there the existing driveway As it sits runs along the South property line so that there's a decent amount of existing driveway. We're removing and turning to yard. At the 80 you what was the original carriage house. is basically a blank wall right now. They got rid of the garage doors, they stuccoed over it, and so you drive up to this big blank wall. If it is an ADU, we're not gonna be using it as a carriage house, so let's put some windows on it and have a walking path, not a car access to that structure. So that's, we're introducing yard here. and attempting to reinforce sort of entry to the house, not from driveway, but from front of house, the way it was kind of originally designed.

Okay. So the existing historic structure, the contributing structure, there's no work in that building other than the awnings being changed? From the front. From the front. Yes. That's correct. You're extending plus or minus some distance to the east, extending the kitchen a bit with a balcony above that on the second floor.

Correct. Okay.

And then the other extension would be a roof extension connecting to. Two story garage addition.

Yes, yes, now there there is an existing this is all kind of in the back of the House. There is an existing. This is a just use this is the photo of the non original that we're moving. And then this is currently the back of the house. So where this kind of screened-in porch is, that is what we're proposing to remove and replace with that kind of more permanent covered area that connects into the garage. So the garage will sit basically right here.

do you have an image showing the north east corner of the property we see that we northeast corner this is from the northeast corner looking northeast sorry i should have been more specific um

I don't believe I have that with me right this second. This is that north facade kind of from that corner looking back towards the house. I don't really have a photo kind of looking down there. I will say right now it's heavily landscaped and not a whole lot to look at there.

Okay. While we're on this image, the existing awnings are scalloped, but you're proposing a more straight edge?

No, I believe we're proposing scalloped. It's a little hard to see, but we are proposing scalloped to match. You can see them there.

Can you go back to the front of the nation, please. So that low wall that you show there is existing. You're cutting into it to for the proposed new drive to the 2 story garage building. And then you're widening that drive out for access to the ground still doors. Is that a standard garage size? Yes. 24 feet wide, plus or minus?

What was that?

Is it a standard garage size for a two-car garage, plus or minus? Yes, yes. What is that width?

I don't know off the top of my head what the width is. I know that the garage doors, that was a question to specify the sizes of the garage doors. They comply with the standards and the happy standards for garage door sizes.

10 foot plus or minus?

Yeah, I believe that's correct.

Okay. If you could show the rendering of that south elevation, please.

The south elevation.

Or do you have that? Or I guess.

That's the south elevation?

Here? Yes. Okay. the existing, you're showing existing gable vents and you're replicating that on the proposed garage, is that both north and south?

Yes. Okay. Right there and right there.

And that you're just will be using tile for that. Okay. And the trim colors, you're saying one paints for the entire body of the house that the trim. There is a is the same.

Yes, yes. The only real trim, so to speak, that sits on the house are around these arches. And those are going to be existing to remain. They're painted white right now. And the proposed color, which is a Sherman Williams nuance, I believe. Yes.

Yes.

So the proposed nuance, which is one of our favorite colors, we use it a lot, but it is an off-white with green undertones. So I think that'll complement the green fabric awnings really well, but it also contrasts against bright white, which is what those trims are painted right now. So it'll be slightly lighter than the existing pink color, which is more of a khaki. But it'll provide nice contrast with the awnings and some of the other details.

The floor plan, could you show me that please? Sure. The width of that covered deck area from the dining is, the kitchen and the dining connect to it is approximately.

Here? Yes. I think that's, it's shallow. It's only about six feet or so. About 6 feet. It's I think between 8 and 10 feet of covered space here.

So there, functionally there's nothing preventing that from moving east and becoming larger?

That porch? Yes. What is keeping it at that size, really, from a constructability standpoint, is I don't want that porch to be visible from the street, is really what I'm trying to do there. And it is a little bit of a... I just lost those papers under the desk, so we'll get them later. It is a little bit of a puzzle piece. Now it looks relatively simple from the rear elevation, but you have two shed roofs with this line here being the existing dining room. So at the lower slope, as that porch pushes out more towards the pool, so does the pitch. which then would interfere with the existing roof line. I really didn't want anything back there, other than when you see the connection between the two structures, it being that small thin wall. That's really all I wanted to see, and nothing kind of poking out above what is the existing dining room.

Understandable. Other than a flat roof would be really your only option.

Yeah, you could do a flat roof, but...

um this when the new windows for the garage it's all stuck over turns for for that no trim anywhere and then your porch structure which will be somewhat visible is is what is are those materials um it'll be wood So all that's built out of wood and painted the same paint color?

It will, I think in the package, we propose to paint it like possibly the trim color. It will be very, very minimally visible from the street. There is a We have proposed to paint it, or not to paint it, but to stain it. And the precedent for that is, I thought I had a picture that I could have showed you, but I'm struggling to locate it in my packet of things. The underside of the existing porch is, which I'm not going to be able to find a photo of it. But the underside of this existing porch here is conventionally framed and like a stained cypress color. And so it would be very nice to have that porch play off of the original front porch which is a mixture of exposed wood frame and these this stucco arch which is that connection between the garage and the house has that stucco arch and then you walk underneath and it's conventionally framed so that's some of the concept we were playing off with that that connection point so um that's a money thing to do stained cypress so um

Existing house has windows sills. They're shown you're not Replicating that you're just having stuck a return at the so That is

Yes, I'd have to remind myself of the packet, but we can include sills. Our intention is to match the existing house, so we can introduce those sills onto the new windows that we're proposing.

Okay. So... As I see it, are there any land constraints that would inhibit pushing the garage further east?

There are architectural and functional constraints that would prevent us pushing it further east, and I don't believe it would fundamentally change the character of the project pushing it east. But there are no land constraints from us pushing it east.

So in theory, if the garage, new two-story garage, were pushed further east, you could still have a physical covered connection to the main house, providing coverage necessary.

Not in the same character as it is now. because the connection is actually off of the, not off of the face of the structure, but it's off of the second story of the structure. So the connection point is on the face of the two story portion of it, if that makes sense. And that's because, again, we're dealing with these single slope roof pitches that are creating that porch. So as it sits higher, that connection becomes a lot more difficult if the face of the garage is down at that much lower elevation. Then you end up with a flat roof connection, which is kind of what I was trying to avoid. So we're creating that connection through the thin wall, which is coming off of the second story.

And your slope on that roof is?

Is that? Three or 412, probably 412.

I don't know off the top of my head.

So you could maintain that and just connect with a wall where the slope would terminate into a wall connection at the house and still meet your goals.

We could jump through some gymnastics to make that happen, but I don't know if it would functionally...

make a large difference and the the front of those garage doors would be 10 feet further back being and i'm just saying of the images in the inventory that you showed that is the consistency with with garages that are historically in the context that you're in they're all to the rear

Yes, they are. For the majority of them, yes. There are a handful of examples where, especially on much wider and shallower lots, and this is a wide lot, it's 120 feet wide, and it is considerably shallower than most of those standard, when we talk about these standard lots, 65 feet wide, but they're, you know, however deep they are, 150 feet deep. And so in that configuration, there's really no other spot for, and what you're trying to avoid is that garage that's sitting up in the front. And this property, and then there's other related properties admittedly most of those are on corner lots and that sort of thing, but where it's a shallower and wider lot, those garages inherently become more visible as a result of just the way the lot lays out. So yes, the garage could technically move back a few feet, but I would argue that inherently it doesn't functionally change the the architectural feeling of that garage it's context though is what we're talking about sure okay does anyone else have any yes questions oh you want to go first sure

I've had my light on for a while. Some of the things I'd like to know about are the setbacks of where the existing carriage house is. It looks like it's closer than the six-foot setback running along that south boundary? Yes. Should I ask you about that, or is something that I'd be better off to ask?

Well, it is a zoning question.

However, the existing carriage house sits...

2.8 feet from the south property line and it sits 4.9 feet here along this corner so it's it's very close to that existing property line and it's it's only about three and a half feet from the existing house right there and then as we go along that turn the corner and where the pool has just a five foot setback that's a an aggregate setback that is figured for how how conforming something is it's does that am i saying the right words it's just a five foot setback yes for for accessory structures such as a pool um five foot setback is acceptable and so we there's not a lot of space back there as you can see um it's a tight backyard and so the goal is to not put in a large pool, but just something that is functional that they can enjoy and pushing it back to that back property line. And there is a fence along the property against their neighbor's house.

So have you been more or less assured that that 5-foot setback, where it should be a 10-foot setback, that that would be okay?

That's a part of the zoning review.

Okay, so we haven't gotten there yet.

No, not from a permitting standpoint, but that possibly would have been included in the staff report.

I want to ask a few things about the retaining wall, and I'm using that expression, maybe it's correct, maybe it isn't. Is it a retaining wall or is it just a decorative feature along the front because now we'll see a big cut in it where for the new driveway will see another cut in it to go on a sidewalk up to the front porch and then we'll see it's the pre existing one will then become part of a curve driveway so we'll have 3 cuts in that retaining wall and I'm just wondering from a. Does it retain anything? Will there be any, you know, runoff or any whatever that would be changed with the changes in that?

So that will have to be incorporated in our light drainage plan when we go in for the building permit. it is retaining about eight inches of dirt. So it's not retaining a whole lot. I think it's about 80% decorative and about 20% functional. But yeah, as it sits right now, it's a very low, low wall. And it is not continuous along Harbor. It does continue along the...

banning house which is to the north of this property and then it takes breaks and then it reappears at other houses so so that's more of a technical um review yes and but yet i'm looking at it as you know the architectural appearance wise and so forth that's why i'm saying you know the two have to cross somewhere sure so we're just not going to worry about that right now from up from a technical aspect right we're just I mean mr. Barak was he gets pretty technical and so I guess you know but is staying maybe more in the architectural I'm going away from the actual architectural into just the more I guess more technical but they have to mesh so that's why I'm asking

Yes, from a lot drainage standpoint, by introducing an additional cut into that wall, one for the sidewalk one for the driveway correct yes yeah all drainage through that property it right now is getting redirected probably over that wall and into the street and that's that's the actual drainage that that lot has to maintain um ideally it would go through a driveway or a lot drainage um and and kind of shed towards the the to the curb to the street That would only be improved by allowing a small grading change there that would allow the lot to kind of shed more towards the street. And again, it's the amount of retainage that we're doing on this wall. It's a minor amount of lot, I guess, how would you say it, grading. Yeah, it's minor lot grading.

I'll ask the staff. I'll ask that in staff review. I think, do you have something on this?

While you're talking about the wall, had you thought of adding some to the top of the wall, for instance, like the courtyards of Venice have and so on, a metal top of the wall and so on, to add a little more decorative to the front of the house that's, you know, The other side of it, I really like adding the awnings that will really change the front of that house, the appearance. And we're whole thing is what it appears, not only where it is, but how it appears. And I understand in this section of Venice and so on, the lots are not big, not the size of the ones on Venice Avenue. And they're still valuable pieces of property. And I understand you want to get everything you can on that piece of property without changing the frontal appearance. And I think you've done an excellent job of that as you look from the street. So maybe adding a little more something to the top of the wall or something would change a little bit visually to the front of the house. Okay.

John, I might add that those low walls were historic and in in many uses um like yeah but like the the large house so you showed several of them but those low walls are actually historic and they mark the boundary a physical visual barrier from the street in the sidewalk to a person's property Modifying an historic element.

John, they didn't have the materials that they know today that they could do it. Years and years ago, we did Courtyards of Venice. It's beautiful. It's very well done. If you want to say historically, no, it doesn't exactly match what was going on in 1926. My only point is times have changed some, a lot.

Any other questions?

Oh, one other question. So the paint color, just to be clear, did you want to go into that more detail? I can. You had mentioned that you would talk about that as a separate, is that a separate hearing item?

No, it's all, they kind of put it all together.

All right.

No, my only comment is, and I address this in my design alternative request narrative, but the way that the current code reads is up to 75% of wall surfaces may be one approved color, 20% must be a secondary corresponding approved color, and 5% must be a corresponding approved accent color. And My comment to that, the reason we're asking for a design alternative is, If we look through the VH, we obviously have an accent color. It's nowhere near 25% our accent color being the sills and the trim around those arches being an accent color. If we were actually to break it down on percentage, it's an incredibly small percentage of all of wall surfaces. And I think wall surfaces being... what dignifies color and accent color, I think is also somewhat limiting because on the typical VHP house, and we can scroll through that very long list of examples, but going through those looking at garages, I was also looking at color. The majority of those are a single color and with accent being awnings and shutters and windows Most of those houses from the 20s had those black steel windows and wood doors, and that is what really gave the contrast of the wall color and the accent. And so by restricting accent color down to wall surfaces, specifically in this case when we're introducing accent color through the awning color, if you also had 25% of the walls were a different color, there would be a lot going on from a color standpoint, which I don't think would be appropriate in this instance.

If you wouldn't mind, can you show the trim color with the paint color proposed?

I mean, that's not a perfect representation.

So to me, the rendering looks as if the trim is being painted the field paint.

There you go. That's in the rendering. And we are maintaining this trim color as a white. Okay.

Because on the elevations, it looks the same. We need to differentiate the intent. So those... All trim will be white. Across the project, yes. You have stuck over turns for the garage doors ocean, yes.

Anyone else. Thank you do we have any audience participation on this today, no, we do not. Thank you. Do we have any additional comments from the staff?

yes i just wanted to kind of answer miss moore's question that we don't issue zoning permits before japb approval so they will still have to go through the permitting process they'll be reviewed by engineering and zoning i'm in the wrong department no it's okay thank you thank you is there any other rebuttal from the applicant no thank you

In that case, I will close the public hearing. And does anyone care to make a motion?

I will.

I'd like to. Oh, okay.

Based on the presentation, the Historic and Architectural Preservation Board moves to approve the application number PLR2600237 with the variance for front loading garage and a design alternative for color coverage.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion on this?

I would suggest that we not approve it as I think the criteria for variance is subjective obviously to some degree the garage can can push further east to be more traditional in context with with the historical homes in the area almost all the images provided by the applicant showed rear garages excluding corner corner lots which um That's the only circumstance where you have two front drives, but those garages were all to the back of the property line, which is ever applicable, whether it's a side property line or rear. I mean, the historical context is they were always in the back. I think There's nothing preventing that garage from moving eastward and maintaining a physical connection to the existing home covered, and it wouldn't change the project. It would just reduce the visibility of the garage doors that will be seen far more in the proposed location than if it moved 10 feet back plus or minus.

It is 25 feet back already. That's serious.

It's set back.

It's not way in the backyard like the old carriage houses.

The 25 foot back is But that's the point like the old carriage houses. That's what we're re-replicating here. Is that this is instead of a carriage house with horses it's a carriage house for cars now and Its size for cars, which is modern times convenience, you know, is acceptable. It just needs to be, you know, from a location standpoint to be consistent with other houses in the area pushed further back.

Doesn't this come under zoning?

zoning will have to look at that and the setbacks and so on yeah and it it the structure unless it were unless that second floor was an adu being used as an adu then it could go further east and north, but it's not. So it could theoretically be moved to the property lines, the angled property line to the east and on the property line or near the property line to the north and pushed further all the way to the east as far as possible.

That's gonna change the visual perspective of the garage though, right? Because it's gonna go back a little behind the house when you keep moving it back.

Yeah, but that physical connection can still be made as far as covered connection to the main house. There's nothing preventing that. It would be a change in the approach to the design, but there's nothing preventing that.

any further discussion I just like to say that I am going to vote in favor of this because to take it forward to the other departments and the other hurdles such as what you gentlemen were just speaking of instead of just saying no stop right where you are I think it needs to get into these other departments for technical review and so forth and I think there's a good chance we'll see it again because there would have to be some changes. In my opinion, there will be some alterations that would come from technical review and so forth. So I would like to see it go forward to those various reviews, and that's why I'm going to vote in favor of it.

Well, I mean, other departments like our historical resources manager, you know, specifically gave criteria that he didn't. I understand. I'm just saying why I'm going to make the vote that I'm making. Yeah.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none. We're ready to move on to the vote.

Okay. Roll call vote. Starting with Mr. Watkins.

Yes.

Vice chair, chairman.

Yes.

Mr. Barrick.

No.

Mr. Stuckety.

Yes.

Miss Moore.

Yes.

Mr. Green.

Yes.

Okay. Passes five to one.

Thank you. And now we move on to the Certificate of Architectural Compliance with Design Alternative.

Mr. Beebe can come back now.

And yes, you can come on back.

Thank you, Jean, for filling in here.

All right.

Carry on with the next order of business. Thank you. All right. The next application we have is PLAR 26-00256. It's 401 Nassau Street. Our staff member is Nicole Tremblay, and our applicant is Jordan Allison and Jessica Tenbush. So we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and reopen it. Are there any speaker cards for this, everyone?

Yes, I have the speaker cards.

You do have the speaker cards, thank you. All right, and our attorney has a question for us.

Does any member have any conflict of interest regarding this particular case? No. No. Let the record show there's no conflict of interest. Does any member have any ex parte communication that they would like to disclose? And let's just go from left to right. No.

no no no let the record show there's none thank you thank you very much all right mr trimbley first staff report please thank you um again for the record nicole trimbley senior planner for the city of venice we're looking at 401 nassau street south at the corner of nassau and turin this is a cac for renovations and in addition to single family home with a design alternative for color coverage. So this one is also in the historic Venice district. The existing home, you've seen it before, it was built in 1983 and it is not in the VHP style at all, but the applicant would like to change the style and bring it into compliance with the VHP. They intend to add a little over 1400 square feet of living space with a new entrance, a front porch and a back lanai. And then, as I mentioned, they're doing a design alternative for color coverage to use one color for the house, and that is Benjamin Moore Simply White, which we would approve based on our color palette, but because of the coverage, they need the design alternative. So you did see this in July at a pre-application meeting. So just to discuss some of the things that you all requested at that time. You talked about the garage location, adding some interest to the entrance along Nassau, which is now the secondary entrance. The primary will be on Turin. um changing the roof line adding ornamentation on the gable roof providing elevations for the application package and including details of the privacy wall that they proposed so the applicant can kind of go into detail about how they've addressed each of these but there was discussion between the board and with staff and the applicant about these items needing to be addressed for their formal application so here are some photographs of the site today this is the existing home from NASA. This is the view from Turin and the addition would be back here in the empty space. And then here's just a view from the corner of NASA on Turin. So again for a CAC you really only have one criteria and that's whether it meets all the standards in 7.10. And then for the design alternative you have your six considerations about purpose and intent, whether it's permitted, whether it has a negative impact, and the surrounding area and design of the proposed alternative. So before we let the applicant get into their design, do you have any specific questions for me?

Does anybody have any questions?

Okay, thank you.

No, I don't see any, so thank you, Nicole. All right, if the applicant could come forward and make a presentation.

Hello, everyone. For the record, I'm Jordan Allison, the owner and applicant. Let's see here. Can I pull up the, there's a document that had like descriptions in the, our design package. So we were proposing an addition like Nicole said on the back turn side about 1400 square feet. This will be my family's primary residence and we're excited to be on that corner. I've heard from you guys from the pre-op meeting. You're eager to see some design on there. Yeah, thank you. So this yellow space is existing. The pink will be the new. This will be adding our living room and primary suite. here are the this will be the turin facing elevation facing the community center so this section here is the existing house and then this section here is the new we did make modifications based on our pre-op meeting with all the pitches so we do fall within the 412 and 612 pitch guidelines we added in a few sconces i believe that was recommended And then we also added the, as far as the window details, made sure we had all those sashes that meet the guidelines. Here's the color that we plan to use. It's like a light cream, the Benjamin Moore Simply White. Our front door, we'll be doing just a wood stain solid door. our sconce detail and then the intent would be is to restock of the existing and new just to a float stucco finish. And then we'll also incorporate the attic vents to have that detail on the turn and then also you can't see it here, but it would be on the what is that the West side this gable and over here. Here is the Nassau facing side, so currently the front of the house. This will now be the side. Currently there's a slight overhang pitch here that highlights the front entry of the house. We're going to remove that and make it more of a clean line to blend in the side. We'll be replacing the windows on the side here that are currently single hung windows to the historical board approved windows. And one item just for budget constraints we tried to we're going to put in an added section here, I believe. Johnny recommended like a parapet wall. So instead of adding a whole new structure we're hoping to just blend this on the side and make it just look cohesive and hopefully all look consistent. And future we plan to put a front privacy wall with the gate the intent would be on the turn facing side that gate would be right in front of the front door and then have that perimeter fence around the whole property on nassau and turin so like nicole said we we addressed the roof pitch based on those guidelines I mentioned about the turn facing side with that elevation. And then we're also requesting a design alternative to do the entire perimeter single color taken into consideration will be doing black windows, would stay in door and then have the clay tile roof. We're also looking at potentially doing a darker soffit to give it some variation in color at the top as well. And if it's helpful as far as having, I know it's not on the house, but we could potentially do some accent details on that privacy wall to help give a variation between the two structures. Do you happen to have, there was a wall layout I included. It's for the privacy wall. I wanted to show them that. So this is the current property showing the addition. This would be Nassau up here. The plan would be to make this a 6 foot privacy wall with a gate and then a 3 to 4 foot wall around the perimeter coming back to the front door and then a 6 foot wall on this side. Potentially using like a wrought iron fence here just for having a yard space. And then this does follow meeting the guidelines for the right-of-way visibility with this being a corner intersection, Turin and Nassau. And one thing to note with our budget, this will probably be a future, so I didn't know if it would be best included with this for approval or if we need to come back down the road. And then could you pull up, there was some rendering I wanted to show. So here's what we're proposing. This will be the turn facing side. I don't know if the landscaping will be that lush, but something close to it. And then here is the back elevation show from the back of the property. And then this one I think really helps show how this now makes the front of the house, the side of the house. So this is turn facing on this side. Oh sorry, Nassau facing. So the front of the house is on the left here and then this is now the side entry. And the plan would be in the future we have that wall here to incorporate around the whole perimeter and we really feel like that would tie in, just make it feel consistent with the front of the yard. And then here's a back elevation as well. That's all I got on my end.

Okay. Terrific. Thank you, Jordan. Any other, any questions for the applicant at this point? I have a few. First, on the west elevation, Jordan, if we go to that, one of the things that's happening here is we're taking a non-VHP house and really working on it a lot to try to bring it into compliance with other VHP properties. And the one element that I see here that, and you mentioned it briefly, but maybe you can elaborate, that The overhang on the front on that West side is I don't know how much it is but if I look in the. If I look in the elevation for the it would be the North elevation I see a pretty substantial overhang almost 3 and a half 4 feet. It is that right here on the national side. Well it would be on the turn street elevation. It's the side it's it's like looking at the overhang which is now the front facing NASA okay, you see you see the overhang. It looks very long okay, it looks very 1970's for you say on the existing House, yes, so we're we and you said did you say you're going to cut it back or we've looked well.

The first step is a right here on the now so facing. This isn't the current condition. There's an additional soffit above the entry that extends out probably 18 to 20 inches. So that's being cut back.

Okay.

We have looked at potentially going around the perimeter of the existing and seeing if we could cut that back in half to give it that consistent.

Yes. That's what I'm referring to because it's kind of a dead giveaway for this was the old part and this is the new. Because I don't know what your overhangs are for the rest of it, but they're somewhere around 12 to 18. It does change that elevation slightly, but if you're re-roofing, it's an opportunity with not a great expense to... kind of eliminate that giveaway that yeah so I don't I don't know if you're we've considered it it's just getting in there and hopefully it's definitely possible if it's just a tail yeah it's cutting back then it's not it's not a very large endeavor if you're re-roofing yeah you are so I think That is one element that would make it consistent in the historic district all the way around the house to be similar.

And like you said, it would match this side, the front elevation on Turin, the left side, and all those elevations to the existing.

Right. Okay. Well, that would be a consideration, I think, that would add value to the success of it. Another question, same elevation would be the Nassau elevation. I noticed in the rendering, there was a light fixture next to the garage door, which I thought was really nice and helped pull those small details around the corner, but yet it's not in the elevation. Was that just an omission? Like if you look at the... Like here? No, there's a light fixture next to the garage. On the left? No, on the right.

Yeah, that's currently there.

But there's none shown in the elevations.

Oh, it may have just been a miss. It may have just been missed.

Just a note, because I do think you're, I believe you're proposing that a light fixture, one light fixture by the garage door does help. It seems like one of them in the rendering is a little large, but I get renderings.

The rendering would be, we're going that direction as far as having two on the Nassau side and three on the Turin side.

Okay, so that light fixture is proposed then?

Yes, yeah.

And yeah, it helps. The small details really help, especially when you're doing as much to this house as you're trying to do. And then the last question on that one is the garage door. color is it just you're just proposing to blend it in so that it's not was the idea yet make it consistent that the House.

unless you see a need to highlight it.

No, no, I actually prefer what you've done because you've sensitively done that. Don't highlight it. But it's existing, non-conforming in this case. So I just wanted to confirm that because I didn't see the garage door. Is that just going to be to repaint the existing one? Correct. Okay.

All right.

And... You explained the future privacy wall. I think that's a really good idea. We never talked about that during our pre-op, but... It addresses the corner which you've done very well, I think as far as pulling this House together, but it would add a lot of character to the corner. I just so I know there's everyone has budget constraints. So we certainly understand that but most definitely want it. It's just timing time and money yet. I don't know that it affects anything else to do it in the future. But I like your concept photo with the small, you know, this goes back, this is a planning commission, this is a zoning thing. It's really, we look at walls if they're proposed architecturally and aesthetically, but the location of it would be based on, you know, the zoning department. But You show in a little wooden round top gate, which is nice. Nice detail. It would be nice to carry that gate, whatever that is, into the three other gates or two other gates that you have so that it's consistent. I don't know... We haven't really done much in the way of approving something for future.

And that's OK. We always come back before you wonder.

Yeah. I just want to give you some feedback on that element because I would encourage you to do that at some point. And then bring it back.

But with our little ones we want to have that yeah I get that yeah.

I didn't really see anything and maybe I just missed it, I'm sorry if I did, about the roof tile information. Typically we have a sample or a spec or something, a sample is usually the best, I think.

We've picked out, it's a,

standard concrete roof tile um terracotta i think it's an eagle roofing brand so i could provide that detail if needed um yes we would need we would need the actual color tile specifications okay of the tile um that's a if there's one element on this house that will Define it, it will be that roof removed from Tiro and the window fenestration. That was the other question I had about.

Mark, was there originally tile on that house?

There's currently tile. It's a concrete.

So the truss structure underneath will support?

Support it, yeah.

Yeah. All right. Yeah.

And we're going very close to that style and color as it is existing and just continuing that new roof on the existing and new.

So you have new windows and doors throughout. We see it in the elevations.

These will all be ES with those sash details. And they'll be black to contrast with the white house, the simply white.

Vinyl.

Aluminum.

Aluminum. They're starting to make vinyl black. Yeah. With mullions as shown. And as far as the trim around the windows out there there's is are is there any or I can't tell.

Right now the plan is to simple returns back to the window guy. That's typically something like to see.

On the historic residences. A lot of times there was not true. OK depends on how much money they have but. often it was just a stucco return so that's and especially on this street that's kind of mixed i guess yeah it's kind of mixed it is so it's but it's in our guidelines it's if you use trim we need a profile of that if you don't you don't have to okay so as it is now no trim and I don't know if you're having sills at the bottom of the windows.

We could do a sill detail. Just a sill detail.

I've seen it on a few homes in the neighborhood. Yeah, I mean, it would be typical to do that. You don't have to do that, but... Can I show this on there, the roof tile?

I don't know if that's... It may be hard to see on my phone. That's the color roof. If that helps, I could try and get like a side profile, but it's a standard concrete roof tile.

Yeah, we would have to. Get the detail? Yeah. Okay. That is a requirement just to, you know, the actual specifications on the windows, doors, roofing materials, light fixtures, a cut sheet is helpful. I mean, these images are great. Yeah. They help give us a lot to work with, but final approval, we would absolutely need that. And on the chimney itself, is that, so you're going to have a second fireplace? Yes. Okay. One of the things that's distinctive about uh the historic district is the actual chimney itself and especially the top of the chimney um it kind of i'm not telling i can't tell from these what that termination cap is i mean there's requirements by code but just curious how that is terminated right now we're considering it's a um a barrel cap

So like this would be, you can see the side profile. Yeah, I saw it a little bit. And then this would be the other side of that, correct.

Okay. Okay. Probably just need to see a detail on that. Or a cut sheet. Is that a manufactured product?

It's a prefab product. Okay. And that just, basically a cap goes right on top and you've got the venting underneath

So we would need a cut sheet or something on that.

Is that a metal product? Is it a what? Sorry. Metal product? A what?

Oh, it's, I believe so, yes.

Is there an option to do any?

And I believe it's powder coated, so you can pick and choose.

Is there? again we're talking contacts here normally your neighbors to the south um you know all of those have a concrete or solid physical cap okay rather than metal so it'd be somewhat of a different like a contrast well this would be know non-compliant compared to your neighbors okay meaning it would stand out um to be to you know if you could find a find a solution that would be a solid material rather than a metal because metal over time turns okay no matter what because florida florida's weather is so you know, oppressive, and the sun is so oppressive.

When you say solid material, like a concrete or?

Yeah, or some material that resembles what's already precedent within the historic context that you're in. would probably be a better choice.

Yeah, I don't know if it's manufactured, there's probably several products out there that can't, obviously it's got to be fireproof, so it's limited, but just that chimney cap. to look at a pre-manufactured historic element. If it's too modern looking, it's really gonna take away from the success of making this a VHP house. So I think you can find something like that. Just from looking at the rendering of Justin, I'm Jordan, I'm sorry. The rendering shows the kind of molded element as a flat top. I guess it's a dining room.

Where is that?

It would be on the turn side in the center of the house with the large windows. You've got kind of a sculpted parapet, which I like. but it's slightly different. It looks like there's a flat in it. Just make sure that in your rendering. The rendering looks great. I know that's Sometimes it's not all worked out exactly, but just make sure they match up. They look good. This one has a rounded top, which is a little unusual, but I really like the element. I think you've done a great job with that.

Now you're saying on the plans themselves you'd like to see a different style?

No, I just think that they slightly look different. I like the rendering possibly better.

Yeah, okay.

I don't know. I'll have to see it. Just see if there's any differences there. Okay. Just be consistent. And then you said you use the barrel tile or the rounded cable vents that were typical in the back end?

Yeah, we'll do those not on the parapet wall, but on the- On the cables?

Correct, yeah.

All right.

That's all I have. Anyone else have any comments on this?

Can you show me the Turin elevation, please?

You want the 3D or is this?

Just the elevation, please.

Turin, the other one.

Yeah, the Turin. Oh, sorry. It was on there. Okay, so the arched window on the existing house, that sill height looks lower than the adjacent new window next to it. And then the overall height of that window seems relatively low and small. for that large wall area. Maybe if that head height of the arch, if the apex of the arch increased in height, either physically moving the window up the elevation or increasing the size, it just, To me, something looks odd about it. Aesthetics would look a little better.

Yeah, I believe our intent was to have it close to the countertop, but it is open-ended that we may, I mean, we could shift it up slightly.

What function is there?

Just the look of inside having a countertop up to that arched window.

In that space, what's the function?

That's the kitchen.

Okay, because we didn't get plans, so we don't know.

Oh, I can kind of see it on the site plan a little bit. I didn't know that either.

And our design team helped line up that arch, because the original window is over here. So we lined it up so it's in line with that.

Yeah, I think the placement's good. Right, it's just comparatively the large four-mold window that you have. on the sculpted wall to the left, visually it just seems something. Should be in line.

Okay.

Not necessarily a line, but right now it's got no relationship to it. Okay. The sill's not the same height and the head of the arch isn't relating to anything that you're proposing to the east.

Okay.

I mean, there may be another way, other ways to solve that. Yeah. But, you know, you could use a square top window, a rectangular square and then do a stucco detail above it with the arch to mimic. Well, that's a good idea. If you, if you're structurally, And I know that's the existing house, so I don't know what's holding you there, but you could carry that line up and make the detail match up with what you're doing. But again, that's a design decision, but I see John's point.

Comparatively, the arch window... to the east of your front door, proportionally, that's working well within that elevation.

And we love the look of that with the size.

Yeah. It's just appropriate. Historically, it's appropriate. Yeah.

We actually had a bigger one, and after looking at it, like the look of that.

Like the smaller one.

Yeah. But yeah, I do agree on the arch. We considered moving it up a few inches. at least getting that top arch closer to the ceiling height.

Yeah, whether that's window or something else.

Yeah, there's lots of solutions there. You can reiterate Mark's point about the overhang.

Yeah, you can see it here. This is the one I mentioned, half of this will be cut down because that's the overhang being used as like a front entry. Okay, so that's already getting... Oh, okay, that's why I didn't understand. That was cut through the door or the old... Yeah, it's like the front entry, so they've extended another 18 to 20 inches. So that'll be cut in half. It just doesn't show that on here.

Okay.

And then match all the existing soffit extensions.

That makes more sense. I just couldn't figure it out from that.

But we have considered cutting the tails down and possibly bringing it all shorter to match the new... So you can see that on here on the east side.

Right, yes, it's consistent everywhere but right there, and that was the old entry which you're getting rid of. Correct. I see.

Yeah, and that way the side blends with that Nassau facing section.

Okay. Obviously any door and windows, the ES information on those, And I don't know if the front door is a custom door. You know, it's like a wood panel door.

It's a Hurricane Impact wood grain finish. Okay. And it'll be solid, solid panel. I believe it has slats every six inches. Yeah. And then we'll just stain that to match probably the French doors.

But that's a cut sheet you could put with the package.

Okay. And what package is that?

Well. We've noted in a number of items that in order for us to prove that we need to have those so I have the window cut sheet included. I'm I'm I'm saying I'm sorry I'm I might have missed it. Okay, so really the only thing would be the door.

And that we were actually hoping for. The decision today I can provide the window detail I have that and then I could probably get the roofing roof detail fairly quickly. And the roof we're using it's probably on 30 to 40% of the homes in the neighborhood and so it's a very common one we picked for that reason.

The eagle roofing. We would need that color.

What was that, I'm sorry?

We would need that color, the Eagle roofing, the concrete roofing, whatever, that's what you said. Okay.

Can you show your site plan, please?

Can you pull up, it was a Word document that had the design, let's see, maybe I'll Application no, that's for the color variance Yeah What were we looking for? Oh, the site plan. Why don't we pull up the fence layout?

Yes, that would be... That'll show you.

And I have, if I have things on my computer, is that things I could share with you? Or how does that, I would need to send that to you? Okay.

I'm sorry, could you zoom in on the center portion of your project, please? The reason I'm asking the turn elevation your roof lines it shows i guess a um where you're interconnecting the roofs it shows a line in the back just trying to figure out from a roof plan standpoint how far that slope's going to come down or if it's just a small cricket you're saying between what you would do yeah how that marries together so they they'll slope down towards each other and then we have a cricket between the two to pitch it out towards the front and the back so the flush wall that's get scalloped the pair yeah the parapet yeah we're that you we're seeing that cricket come back but how far is that cricket in the elevation

It should go all the way front to back from the overhangs. And then all you see, actually if we go, can you go back to the Word document that had the elevation? I believe it shows a cross section. Thank you. You can kind of see it here. Yeah. So that goes down. I'll zoom in for you. So this roof continues down. These go into each other. This is the cricket, so that's the high point. And then towards the back of the house and the front, it pitches down. And then this will drain off this way and out the back.

So the line that you have drawn, what's the physical separation there between what's proposed new and the existing?

What do you mean? Oh, I see.

You're showing a line. That means there's a physical separation, meaning that you're, looks as if you're pulling the addition out some distance away from the existing house. Correct. What is that?

John, I'm looking at the site plan because that plan is, it looks like about 10 feet or more.

You're saying the distance bumping out from existing.

Bumping out from existing. It's substantial. So the cricket would go to that point and then it would go down along the wall. And then the thin wall of the front dining room is farther out.

Maybe this will help. So this is existing.

So it's back, whatever that is.

And the crickets kind of right there.

So a lot of times on that sculpted wall, normally those walls extend past the roof so that when the roof edge terminates, it terminates into the wall.

Okay. I see what you're saying.

From a waterproofing standpoint and from a visual standpoint, that's something.

So extend that out further?

That would better the project likely for you.

Okay. And when you say it's further forward, what do you mean as far as this cricket?

No, the wall itself, the north wall that's sculpted where you have the large window.

Okay.

Normally that wall on a decorative element of the elevation will extend out outward from the plane.

Oh, okay.

And, and then extend out and they'll usually sculpt that down. You're saying like at the bottom. And then your roof edge dives into that wall. So you're not going to see this awkward joint between the wall and your new roof as shown here.

The parapet has a little more.

got you more to stop point and flat space behind it correct okay no that makes sense right um does anyone have any other comments how would you like to say jordan you haven't driven past that property for a decade the name on behalf of the neighborhood and the board thank you for your hard work i appreciate it we're excited to be in the neighborhood

We've been meeting all the neighbors. They've been great.

The light fixtures that you're showing here, those to me are scaled appropriately. Okay. So whatever your cut sheet that you're going to submit, that you find a fixture approximately that size and that you carry it to the west elevation as well.

All right, anyone else? Okay, at this point, is there any other audience participation about this?

No, we do not have any public comment on this.

No? Any questions for staff? I can't think of anything right now. Any other questions for this applicant?

Okay.

Mark, have you noted all the changes?

I have, and I'm going to try to figure something out here. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing then. Thank you very much, Jordan.

Thank you.

Appreciate your thoroughness here. There's a few items that I think we want to do that. Being that we only meet once a month and in an effort to kind of get this moving, having had the pre application meeting I think was really helpful hopefully Jordan. With your project it seems like it was for me. I'd like to suggest that there are a few items that are missing I've got about 5. I'd like to begin. I don't know how to. You put this in the motion or just allow staff to do this.

So what are you looking for in terms of I guess I'm trying to see are these things that are needed for permit review or is this thing that it just can become come before the board again.

I don't believe they need to come before the court. I was going to suggest I was going to suggest that. The applicant has some materials that he would like to get approval today if the board wants to do that. But I was going to suggest maybe that he brings some of the missing items. like the detail of the chimney cap.

Because I know some items that you mentioned, like for example, the overhang that you kind of wanted him to come back and he was willing to come back that could be you know you can prove that is with the alternative that he has the ability to trim that back if that's what you wanted and you can make that a part of the motion. So just depends on how many items you have and how you want to detail it so that way staff knows. You know what it just depends again what you have some things may need to come back before the board if you want to see it, but it has to be enough for staff to know what revisions you're making to it.

And I think I could do that.

And Roger probably has additional.

Right. Some of these are just items that need to come in. The applicant may be able to drop these off and be approved. I would be willing to do that as chair to review them if the board would allow me to do that. We've done it before.

If there's a question that comes back to Mark, you would come in and review it to see if it complied with what we put in the motion.

Mister chair, I could yes, we have a 10 we have about 10 items written down the staff does not feel comfortable with us. Looking at those that they came back in we would much rather have either we'd much rather have the board because there have been comments made by multiple board members. We've got about 10 items that we followed with your discussion. That we would not feel comfortable in reviewing.

Yes, and so if staff is not comfortable reviewing it might be best to do a continuance just for him to bring the additional stuff for. Next month meeting I understand that he was looking very much so too. You know go to the next process but stuff needs to ensure that that they have all available information to be able to process the application and if they're not comfortable that then it might be best to.

Yeah, I was going to suggest that if there were missing information, I could review that with staff, and then if I wasn't comfortable with what they proposed, then we could bring it back. That would be up to the board. I'm just letting you know the staff's position. Yeah, the board would have to agree to that, but just an effort to keep moving. The once-a-month meetings, that's kind of onerous on people. It's All right.

I feel comfortable review those items and put in your hands and and approving it based on your approval. He can get going with the project.

And just for the record, if that's going to happen, I still think the chair does need some guidance from the board. So it's not an untethered just discretion from just the chair. So, you know, if he has to bring something in, it has to be like the board is like, just make sure that, you know, it's not bright pink, the the roof tile color that it is, you know, some palette that the board feels comfortable with. So it's not just the chair proven by itself without any other input.

Okay. All right. I'm going to kind of list some items that I see that need to be provided if that's the desire of the board to allow me to review these. And I'll just go through them one by one.

And you read the secretary puts them into the some into the motion, yes, okay.

So the first one would be. To provide the light fixture on the South side of the door. The garage door which was missing from the rendering. The second one we're going to provide the roof tile specification including color and specifications.

And just for the record, I'm going to ask questions to make sure that we get it on the record. So regarding the provide light fixture, that is the same matching ones that he's already has, but just provided on that side. That's correct. Okay.

It's inconsistent.

A cut sheet is what we need. Yeah, that we need. This is what we're going to install. This is the fixture. It's black. It meets the criteria. But this is the actual one that's going to be installed.

The light fixture requires a cut sheet and the one on the south side of the garage door was missing from the extra elevation. All right, that's the first one. Second one would be the roof tile. It would be a concrete roof tile, specification, and roof color. The third one would be the door specification for the entry door on Nassau Street. The next one would be the addition of windowsill details on all windows. There are no trims. Next item was the barrel cap, chimney cap is pre-manufactured. We need a spec cut sheet on that item, similar to what's shown on the drawings. And the last item would be too. The turn street kitchen window arch top kitchen window. We position it. It's too low.

And for the record regarding that I know.

I want to make sure that. When you when you as a chair if you're going to be reviewing this is not untethered tethered and I think it was mentioned a few inches above. So can we get on record what is the estimate that you guys are looking for just so that way when you're you're reviewing it you're like OK it matches what the board wants to do and because if you say OK and then.

Yeah I hear you. OK we rephrase that. To adjust the height of the kitchen window on the turnstreet elevation. To provide the top of the arch equal to the top of the of the head height of the of the sexy 8 foot 8 is the bearing height to match the dining room window mullion. I think that's pretty clear. I think the applicant. The cross mullion. The cross mullion. I believe that's it.

Okay. The door specification and the windowsill detail is just for you to view it, but it's going to be according to what they submitted here just to view it in the specifications in detail.

Correct.

Correct. Okay. and I'm just gonna defer to Roger probably here, is there anything that you can think of to make it more tighter to ensure that, you know, This is not a yet reviewing it without board.

Yeah, I got you. Well, we have a couple of additional items. I'm not sure where you really fell on the reducing the soffit back. I know it was just over the entrance. I guess it was sticking out.

Yeah, I believe that because of the drawing was cut through an older entry. He was already cutting that off. So I my comment really is I'm not I'm not going to require that you're OK with that.

There was some discussion about the garage door cut sheet.

Yeah, but we determined that that was an existing garage door to be painted and it doesn't have a cut sheet. Okay. I misunderstood what he was proposing.

Okay. The gable vents, do you have any issues with the gable vents? I thought there was some comment about that.

No, we just noted them. They're clearly shown. Okay. I think the applicant understands what.

And then final, John had a cricket issue. We're not familiar with a cricket, but you guys are, so.

Well.

I don't know how you.

I think the cricket issue is something that's a constructability. It could potentially change no matter what we show here. The idea is that it's not visible from the street.

Not visible, you just want to extend that flat wall, kind of?

Right, and obviously he needs to make it waterproof. He would do that that's really not her purview there. We don't want it to look odd. So I think.

So what would they be looking for. It's not an issue. OK. Not an issue. That's not part of it yet. OK.

Other than that to try and quantify this I think is what you're trying to get to. I think I would rely on the expertise of the chairman as far as being an architect and understanding what you know what is being asked for so it's kind of hard to tie it back to the whole board and give quantifiable amounts to that.

I think some of it is it's it's quantifiable you guys understand what you're looking for in regarding the the colors the roof tiles. You know you kind of got a vision of what he showed before you know it has to be in line with what he showed you know do what he showed during the presentation yet, yes, so I just want to make sure that's on record so if he chose something different the board is not the chair is not approving something that would not prove that.

Okay. All right, if we have those items, then at this point I will entertain a motion.

And one more thing one item so for the fence. There was discussion regarding the fence. I know the applicant that that's for future purposes and since staff is here generally they have is it 2 years for these type 2 for them to do and submit a permit or is it less amount.

It's one it's one year approvals good for one year, but the fence would or the wall would come in as a separate permit that we typically would not bring to the board.

okay so so then just wanted to clarify that because i know it was in here but you're not approving the fence if that's just make sure that that's uh kind of a preliminary drawing so we really did not approve that so that's not part of this approval all right anything else all right well entertain a motion then someone motion to approve plar 26-00256

as presented with the following follow-up submittals required. Color and specification of the proposed concrete roof tile cut sheet be provided. A electrical lighting fixture cut sheet be provided. that it resembles the concept that is shown in the elevation. A door cut sheet and spec sheet provided that resembles the concept that was illustrated. A door sill. Window sill. Window, I'm sorry. Yeah, window sill detail be provided. A chimney cap cut sheet be provided.

And the raising of the window.

Yeah, the raising the window.

Oh, and the raising of the window approximately to a head height of eight feet, eight inches, plus or minus.

And adding the lights, not shown on the elevation by the garage.

Yeah, he had, on the rendering, he had elevation, but we just wanted those fixtures to come across from the turn side to the NASA side, more or less. And Mark can use his best judgment and review of that. That's it.

And John, sorry about this, but this application, and I believe it's linked, did ask for a design alternative for the color coverage on the walls to one single color. So we should just add that, I believe, to this, unless someone has an objection.

Okay, yep. That should be added to the motion that you approve the design alternative for the color.

That's part of the motion. It's part of the motion. It's part of the motion written in front of us.

And if not provided, the trim color be provided. Because if they're sills, there would be potentially a trim at that point. Okay.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Second.

Do we have everything? Do we need a second? Yes, we do. Okay, Greg is seconding the motion.

Chair, do you still need him to be specific that you would be reviewing these items versus staff?

Yes, so such review would be done by the chair with all the conditions, just to review the conditions outlined in the motion.

Yes, the board grants the chair's approval to do that. as a motion.

And who was the second on that?

Greg was the second.

I'll second it.

Any discussion further? All right, we'll go to the vote.

Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Baric?

Yes.

Mr. Green?

Yes.

Ms. Trammell?

Yes.

Mr. Watkins? Yes. Mr. Stuckety?

Yes.

And Chair Beebe?

Yes. All right, congratulations. Your project passes. Good luck, Jordan. Thank you for all the efforts coming to the board. I'm sure that the application materials that are missing, be able to do that fairly quickly, and we can move on. The board is happy to see this project get started. So for you and your family, thank you.

Mr. Chair. Yes. I have to excuse myself, but the last portion, I have an appointment I have to leave.

Okay. Thank you very much, Helen. All right. We're going to move on to board discussions getting a little bit late, but we're going to move on to the code changes for color requirements. And in preparation for this meeting. We have Ms. Tremblay is here. She has done a staff strike through and rewrite. And so we wanted to have a quick discussion about that. Obviously we have a need for this as we've granted two variances this meeting about color. So we need to make an adjustment. Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.

sure so just to introduce it um this is the second draft we saw one at your last meeting and then i made edits based on what you discussed i'm wanting to see in this code change so this is round two the main things we added were in the kind of intent statement that VHP often only uses two paint colors, especially for residential, while commercial may use multiple facade colors. And then accent and trim are essential components of the VHP. We removed this first statement in facade colors about including pastels and light earth tones with allowance for darker, vibrant for trim. And then for color coverage, rather than up to 75% must be one approved. You all were leaning towards up to 80% maybe one approved and then 20% must be a secondary color. So I'll leave it up to you all to discuss if you still like where you're going with this or if you want to make more changes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um, I would say I, I spent some time on this in preparation for this meeting and I think, I think it's very clear that we have two very different, um, situations. We have a residential, which we, we quote, can you put that back up, please?

It's Amanda.

Uh, we have a, we have a red, you know, in the very beginning of this in a seven, 10.4 facade colors. We're talking about the wall color only. We're not talking about doors, windows. Mr. Hardy submitted a project today with awnings, colors, brackets, trim, architectural details. There's a lot of things that add color to the building, but traditionally, the residential projects had one color, possibly two with a trim. And then So we I believe we need to make a distinction between residential and commercial and beginning of this does that but it's not specific. So I would say my recommendation to the board would be that we okay the staff change. Under a. And that was to add especially for residential projects while commercial properties may be may use multiple colors, accent and trim are essential components of the BHP. I personally like that definition as written by staff. I'm gonna just carry on a little bit here. The second one, facade colors, striking colors may include pastels, light earth tones, with allowance for darker vibrant colors to be used as decorative accents. She's stricken that and left the rest of it. I think that also makes sense, what we have. Color coverage is where I think we need to differentiate between residential and commercial. I'm gonna suggest that number two under color coverage be color coverage residential, in parentheses, and then have a rewrite on that, which I have written just something for your consideration. on residential because of what's happened already this morning and just looking at where we are i i'm going to suggest we say color cover coverage residential up to 100 of all wall surfaces may be one approved color period trim colors and accent colors such as shutters awnings and trim details if used shall be contrasting and complementary colors in locations approved by the board and consistent with VHP. I tried to come up with language that would be, you know, fit a lot of different things. But that is what I was thinking about 100% of the wall surfaces be one approved color. Obviously from our approved colors. Trim colors, accent colors, such as shutters, awnings, and trim details, if used, shall be contrasting and complementary colors in locations approved by the board, which gives us the ability to adjust something if it's wrong. or it doesn't look right and consistent with BHP. So that covers the context. The second thing that I thought if we did this, then we would have a number three, which would be color coverage, non-residential, not calling it commercial, but non-residential, which it covers anything. Um, and that goes back to what Mr. Cole wrote. Um, where she adjusted it to the 80%, 20%. So I was fine with that myself, with that designation. But it just differentiates. I think we'll have a lot less problems. And that was my thoughts on how to deal with the color by breaking it up. I don't know if anybody has any comments on that.

On your awnings and, you know, those things, do we need to put something in similar to what we had in the first where it says they should be, you know, where do you have it here, not vibrant colors or shiny?

Well, yeah, John, the design alternative in three, which is, will probably come four now, Alternative colors, I think it could stay because colors that are prohibited for design alternatives include, and that would be in colors for anything, high intensity, fluorescent, gilt, high gloss, metallic, a design alternative may also be considered for that. We would just eliminate the last sentence, the design alternative would be considered for the percentage of approved color coverage. I guess we could leave that in there if someone wanted to make, We said up to 80% and up to 20%.

I don't have any problem with adding all those things up to your alternatives. As the project today, it changes the whole front of the house.

Both projects ask for the same alternative because they were both residential and they didn't make sense. Now, if someone wanted to highlight their chimney or take a wing and do something, There's nothing prohibiting them from doing that. It's just not a requirement. So I feel like that was solved on your commercial properties.

Do you want to still leave that 20% in? Wasn't it?

I think, I think, well, that's the question for the board. I think that's the intent was that to allow allow design professionals, owners to use color in non-residential applications to emphasize parts of their building. And I've done it multiple times through my own practice and it is successful. Most people do not see four or five colors on a building if they're tone on tone, which makes a big impact on how the building is viewed It gives it a little three dimensional kick, but they see it as one color. Okay. Just like they see it. So what, but I wanted to do is allow design professionals the opportunity to do that, but not require it.

Okay. All right.

Yeah. We need to allow people to bring forth, especially with color. It's so subjective. what they see as appropriate. This board would give final approval on any project. So if we don't think it's appropriate, we can reject it. But a large building like we have on proposed and been through this board on Nokomis Avenue next to the library is a substantial structure. Non-residential. It needed color variation. Or it was a big block of stuff, you know, it just wasn't appropriate. I still think that's valid.

Okay. Yeah.

I don't know. Any thoughts on this?

First off, we don't know if they're going to build it. Well, we don't.

They may never, but I do think that that's, this is a way by breaking it up, I think we'll be better off. So I'm going to suggest that we do this, if anyone has any objections or want adjustments, what we could do is I think we should ask Ms. Tremblay to rewrite what I just stated and maybe bring it back and get it approved.

I would say, you know, everything has a color component to it elsewhere in the stipulate, in the code. So those are, that color is addressed there in that place. So to bring in materials and trim in this discussion this is only about paint so it kind of confuses it from a reading standpoint secondly i would say that to lump all residential in in one criteria i would like to personally see new residential within the district and within vhp follow the 80 20 And then if it's historic or existing, as in the case where you can't make architectural changes to variance the paint color, then there's those potential exclusions would be a suggestion.

I've looked at I've had time to really look at our historic fabric, and I've looked at a lot of buildings. And this allows us to do up to 100%. It doesn't mean that you can't use color variation. If you take the Dieterle house over there, one color. The only thing that's not one color is the doors, the window, and the shutters. which is a very close, so it gives the character, every significant building that we have has that, KMI. So I think this allows color if they wanna bring it, but the up to really gives it, it's not a requirement.

The way you have it written, I think is a very smart way to write it because it gives every residential property the ability to do what's appropriate for that piece of property and everyone is different and the problem with taking carte blanche with it has to be a certain percent on every single property or forcing them to go through variants of sorts. I think it's an unnecessary burden, because we're going to get to approve the colors anyway, and the percentage of the colors anyway. So you're handcuffing some people that don't need to be handcuffed. And the way you have it written, Mark, I think gives it a wide-open, permissible It's a little more flexible.

The other thing that I considered in doing this is this does not conflict with House Bill 180. This would be less onerous on applicants. So this is moving in that direction, so we don't have that problem. And I didn't want to create that. We know just from this meeting that we've had two applicants ask for this. We approved both of them. So we know we have an issue. And it's just the way it's written. So hopefully this would straighten that out. I'm going to suggest that we go ahead and write it, and then we'll go ahead. On a similar topic, and I'd like to bring it up, we've talked for a long time, probably too long, about getting our approved pallet. which if you've looked at this recently, it is dated. And not only is it dated, but it's limited. It's not organized well. It's a negative, and that goes to John's question. You know, how do you, there's a lot of color in our business here, what we do. So I had one meeting with, initial meeting with Beth Martin, the Sherwin-Williams representative who we used before. We have discussed how we were going to lay it out and how it's going to work. I have a second meeting scheduled for September 24th at my office this month. And the goal is to come away with a very good outline of what we're going to do in that meeting and how we're going to present it to you. I was hoping that any board member who has specific colors that they know work really well, that have long-lasting content, if they could provide an email to staff or to me, whichever, of specific colors that they feel like would work. We'd like to get board input about those and get those now.

Just be careful with sunshine. Just want to say that on the record. You can't be emailing each other regarding matters that's going to come before the board, foreseeably. So if you want to say something to staff, you're more than welcome to, but I just want to put that on the record.

Yeah, that's fine. Staff is fine. Obviously, there's no vote on this. This is not the final draft. It would simply be a gathering of of information uh colors that the board members particularly think are appropriate and then we'll put it together it would not be voted on or done anything with until it's been through this board for approval so um but i i do think if you could

send anything.

Those are, that's the discussion on the 24th, whether those are broken up or not. We're not sure about that yet. I don't know what the board, if they have a feeling on that. color is so subjective it's hard to say but we're going to try our best to come up with something that bring to the board and to review so that is in process so hopefully by excuse me by our next meeting we'll have more to talk about and i just in the meantime if you could email nicole or bring something in it would help us the last item that i that I wanted to bring up today, and I know we're going a little long, but I would like to talk about it, is our garage code, which is basically, what the heck is it? 710.6. Openings, windows, doors, and garages. And it has its own separate section. And just just in looking at there's confusion reading this. For out by applicants and I think that I think there's a we do not have a very good definition of a rear located garage. It was the typical garage in 920 sit night 1926 it was carriages and then it was garage for automobiles they were All almost all I found only maybe one non front facing. They're just located in the rear of the property which would it which is by every code that we've had in every revision been the dominant preference by this board to be in the rear of the property. So trying to figure out how to adjust what we have because I think we made some strides with this but If you look at our general requirements, garages shall minimize their visual impact on the streetscape and public realm subject to the following. And the first one is the most prevalent and the most desirable. Garages to be located on lots of 50 feet in width or less shall be located in the rear or back backslash back of the structure. Subject to driveway spacing requirements of this code. I think there's no definition, so I think a very simple change to that wording should be garages located on lots 50 feet in width or less are to be located in the rear or back of the structure and add can be front loading and are subject to the driveway. So I think it's obvious to this board, if you've been on this as long as a lot of us have, that they're front-loading. You can't maneuver on a 50-foot lot to do anything else. It's impossible to do. And we don't want to create a situation where the applicant doesn't know what to do. And I think that's what happened this morning. They came up with the best solution. But our code doesn't read right. The other thing, the other items in here I think that we've created are good. Garage is located on lots greater than 50 feet in width. Maybe side loading if the garage door faces away from the pedestrian entry door. But rear garages are encouraged. Go back to A, back to rear garages. But a side loading garage is still an option in the front of the structure. if they're greater than 50 feet.

What about the doors that are right on the front, like the one on Harbor Drive that we just approved?

Okay, well, we're getting there. You're coming to that. We're getting there. C, side-loading garage doors must incorporate windows in the front. So we understand side-loading garage doors. We've done this before. We've approved five, eight, ten of them. Over time, there's sometimes no option. So that is a desirable way to do it if that's the only way to do it. So then we come up with D and D is just a prohibition of the loading, front loading garage doors. They're prohibited on lots greater than 50 feet in width. So therefore we get a variance request. It's a difficult thing to eliminate on some projects. I had an idea of putting a rewrite, new front loading garage doors, garages located on the street frontage, forward of the residence are prohibited on lots greater than 50 feet in width. That would be someone building a new garage in front of the residence that's designated as front of the property, street frontage forward of the residence are prohibited. We had an allowance for a property to build a front-loading garage only if it's set back from the front of the house, which, you know, it's difficult to do it any other way sometimes. Depends on what we're talking about here. We have corner lots. We have a corner lot on Nassau, the one we looked at today, that's one of the finest old 1926 houses that we have. It's on the corner of Salerno and Nassau. And it's on the corner, so the garage is the farthest facing garage. It's a well done. It matches the House. It would violate this if we prohibit it. If it burned down or something. I don't know. You couldn't put it back. You couldn't put it back. It's just I don't know. I just feel like we need to address this somehow.

Maybe we need to leave it as a variance. Rather than just simply write something that's in stone that you can't do it, let's write it in requires a variance in your motion. And that way it leaves it up to us how it appears to the rest of the property. No?

Well, that's.

Too general?

I mean, that's what we did before.

Yeah.

That's what we did before. We were trying to not do this, but I think there's always going to be a case.

Oh, yeah. We've had several of them.

I found the first project this morning confusing, our code confusing to do a proper design for people who are spending a lot of effort and money trying to do something. And it was approved, so it's understandable that you have to have a front facing garage. Putting it back on the lot is desirable and better in the historic district. Maybe that is the answer to just strike D altogether or say only allowed with a variance.

When you run into situations like today where the lots aren't very large, it's not like the ones on Venice Avenue and so on where the lots are very large and they have the room on the side and so on that they can get a driveway down the back. to a garage, that's different than when we have these 50-foot lots or 60-foot lots. That's true.

But the fact is that we don't have many 50-foot lots in the city. There aren't very many. There might be less than a dozen in the whole city. I'd have to confirm that. But it isn't many. Most of them are 60, 65. There are very few 50-foot lots. So it's almost... It doesn't even matter. Most of them will be greater than 50 feet. So most of them would be asked to do a side entry.

Or back.

Or back, which are the two probably preferences. Very few will be asked to do this.

Except for corner lots, I don't remember us ever approving any side entry when it was a lot in the middle of a street.

On a corner lot, you have two front yards, so the garage is always going to be facing a front street anyway.

But not the front of the house.

Not the front of the house.

That's the key, where you locate it. Right. But that's, you know, it's a garage. It's for cars that go to the street. I mean, you have to have it. So, I don't know. Um, any thoughts on this? I, I tend to think the big recent strike D uh, I think it's, I think for me too much, you know, when I hear something for the first time, I really can't grasp it.

So writing it up and sending it to the board for us to digest. before a meeting would be helpful because I'm hearing it, but it's just easier for me to comprehend and understand it better when I can read it first and then come up with questions to ask rather than just hearing it on the fly.

And my point of just doing this is there's the two areas that we've kind of zeroed in on that we need to change. and uh they're we don't want to make it more onerous and go against once 180 but we're going to continue to have issues i'm going to suggest we'll go ahead and write something up similar to what nicole's doing for color and then then you can have a chance to try it on you can go around the city saying well that works there it doesn't work there i mean you have a little homework but it allows you to do to, like John said, just contemplate this, because it's a code change. We went through this a lot, but one size usually does not fit all. It's difficult, but I think we do have something to do here. We need to resolve it. We definitely need to define what a front-facing garage, depending on where it's located, because that's confusing.

yes mr clark yeah we just just let staff work on it i think we got some good ideas here good ideas listening to you guys uh today and let us work with something and see if we can see if we can put something together kind of like we did on color and it might take a few meetings but let's just let us get something done on paper like mr barrack indicated it's easier to kind of look at it and yeah think about it so we can do that i just wanted to bring it up so um thank you put your planner hat on and yeah we'll do what we can So we got to put our architect hat on when we do.

Well, you got both. You know, that's the thing. This is a boat fan. It really is. It's what it looks like and how it functions. And the cars have to come from the street. So yeah.

All right. I just learned something. I learned what a cricket is. A cricket?

An item I like to discuss with staffs and staffs present. So our application has check marks of requirements that applicants should provide. Yes. there's been a few applications that have come before us that have not had some of this information and it would be helpful if that could be a requirement if they don't have it then they can't move forward i know we're only one you know doing this once a month so there's always a time pressure but it would make our jobs yeah we kind of kind of made it work today

But you're right. Those are things that would help.

I'm going to hold her back. She's been the planner that's been working with one of the applicants that we had today, and it's been quite a challenge. And we sometimes do the best we can and stress things as much as we can, and they still don't get it. But as far as required items, yes, we should always make sure that those are in the packet. And I think we did stress to this certain applicant that, yes, you need that, and we didn't get it. So we could have said, well, we're not taking it. And we've done that in the past as well. But yeah, we'll be a little more diligent about that. But it was a difficult situation.

Well, I think we came up with a pretty decent solution for this. I can tell you that if there's something that I have any question about what that applicant brings in it will come back for the board. Lone Ranger there but at the same time it was a way at once a month to solve it so anything that appears missing. even if even if we got something late uh you know because sometimes that's hard for applicants and have passed it out during the meeting i think we could be that flexible that that would help if you knew you know there's no roof tile or something i don't know yeah it's also i think uh one thing i've thought about today is that we need to stress a little more context of the neighborhood

to these applicants because for instance the chimney cap today that came up we have no code on chimney caps i know so there's really no requirement compliance but as john was mentioning the context of the neighborhood and looking at the other ones in the area i think we need to stress that a little more to the applicants to to think about that context and what look at your surrounding area and see what's predominant and kind of think about what you're going to do there so so that's something i think we need to stress a little more as well yeah

it's just that i knew there's nothing in the code about it but i also knew there's two chimneys and It does reflect on the whole character of it and this is a historic neighborhood.

So when you look at the House next door and which was it would.

The public hearing on that area is closed so I don't want to have too much.

Well yes, but you know just yeah not too much in the record of guarding right yeah I have another will be what we decided on the first one and it goes to planning okay. All right. Does what we decide going to influence planning?

Well, what we're going to bring back to you is to bring it back to you to make sure you're comfortable with it, but Planning Commission has the ultimate decision. Right. They control what the code says, so they will be the ones reviewing it. But for the most part, I think Planning Commission respects your board for what you're bringing forward that makes sense for what you all have to apply. So in most cases, I don't think they're gonna change much of it. They might change the wording a little bit, or they might see something that we didn't see. So it will go through Planning Commission and City Council. Sure.

Are you talking about the hearings or the code discussion? Because the two hearings were on single family homes, so they won't be going to Planning Commission. I thought you were asking about our first public hearing.

Were you asking about code changes or the hearings we had today? The hearings we had today. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, no. No, they don't go anywhere. You guys are final decision on single-family homes. Single-family homes don't go to Planning Commission.

Yeah, but it might come back before you if the conditions are not met, that one property. And that's why I also don't want to continue to discuss that on the record.

Okay. Okay. Anything else to discuss today? It's been a long meeting.

I just have one thing that I wanted to let you all know, because I'm promoting it everywhere, is the Parks Master Plan. We have, we're working with consultants, so you all are citizens of Venice so we would like to have your input on the parks there's a survey on our website right at the top of the city's website at venicegov.com you can take the survey about our existing parks and what we'd like you would like to see and we're going to be promoting that there's going to be opportunities for public workshops so just wanted to promote that while I have you all here today thank you

And as far as your next meeting, we don't have any CAC applications. I'll bring the two code changes we discussed, color and garages, and I think our historical resources manager might have something to add as well.

Okay. Thank you. Will we have a special hearing just to review the wording of the changes? Or if there's not an app, that's when we'll review it.

We'll just bring it back to the next regular scheduled meeting.

Yes, Mr. Klinghammer.

Yes, Harry Klinghammer, historical resources manager for the city of Venice. I too am trying to promote everywhere. I invite you all to come October 3rd to our archives open house. We'll have the research center open to the public that Saturday from 11 to 3. For those of you like the previous, all of the applicants we had today were able to show a lot of historic home images. ALL OF THAT IS FROM OUR COLLECTION. WE HAVE BLUEPRINTS. WE HAVE STREET FILES. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORY OF MANY OF THE HOMES. AND ADD TO THAT, TOO, WITH THE SURVEYS WE'VE BEEN DOING, WE NOW HAVE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILES FOR MANY OF THE HOMES NOW IN THE CITY. It's an opportunity to see a lot of the records and information that we have on many of the homes in the city, not just the 1926 ones, but others as well. So you can see what historical material people can bring forward with when they are doing applications for work here. And then too, I just wanted to give an update on our grant situation. So the Edgewood and Seaboard grant, the state has finally approved all the documentation that needed to be submitted to them for review. So we're in the process of closing out that project and that grant. We have just received the grant agreement from the state. It's going up the chain to get the mayor, hopefully to get it signed by him at the next city council meeting so that we can get it back to the state. And that's going to be the grant to do the historic resources survey of Gulf Shores and Golden Beach. So once it's got all its necessary signatures, we can go ahead and start putting up for bid to have that work done.

Great. Sounds good. And the beach pavilions construction is starting sometime.

Just curious. I know that they're, I don't know when they're gonna, probably not, obviously not until the new budget year. New budget. Because they have a project in there. But it was cut back, as I think I indicated last time. It's not a total replacement. Yeah. It's gonna be a little less, but. Less, but. Yeah. Okay.

And there's an instance, too, where we have the original blueprints for that building. So they've got, the contractors already have copies of that to work with so they can better understand these original constructions to do the work that they're going to be doing.

Great. Okay, anything else for Mr. Quincammer?

At our next meeting, could you give us an update on all the properties that we've approved that nothing has happened on or that they have gone out of?

I mean, I don't want to hold us any longer because the list could be nothing new.

Most of their approvals have expired, so you're probably going to be seeing them again.

They probably expired.

Guys are giving us work, aren't they?

Yeah, they are. Okay, anything else? right to adjourn if not we're out of here second that long one