Historic and Architectural Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

I'll call the historic architectural preservation board to order for 08/28/2025. And mister Barrick is due to be here any moment. So just note that when he comes in, I believe. So for now, let's just do a roll call attendance.

Chair Bibi? Here. Ms. Trammell? Present. Ms. Derryberry? Here. Mister Watkins?

Here. And

then mister Stuckey and mister Green are to be absent and are asking for the absence to be excused. And here comes mister Barrick.

And Mr. Barrick, good morning.

Here, good morning.

All right, thank you very much. We'll go ahead to approval of the minutes.

Actually, I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Chair, since we will need a motion for the two chair members to excuse their absences just since they requested it. So we just need a motion to vote on that.

All right. Would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we excuse two chairmen.

Right. John Steckerede and Steve Green. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead to approval of the minutes. Before you have the minutes of the May 2225 and July 10 regular meetings. If there's any additions or corrections, if there are not, Chair Ord have a motion.

I move to approve. Second.

Ruth Ann seconds. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Are there any audience participation today?

No, there is not.

All right. Thank you. Okay, we'll move into new business. We have Mr. Lewis announce we have P L A R 25 Dash 193256 Nokomis Avenue South. It's a proposed new three storey building, mixed use building in the Venetian theme, an architectural control district. Staff member, Brittany Smith is our planner today. Mr. Lewis.

Before I just we do need to announce that the public the quasi usual hearing is open and just read the advertised memorandum on advertisement.

This is to certify the public hearing and this petition was appropriate advertised on 09/06/2025, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. All right. I'm going go ahead and open the public hearing. And if there's any speaker cards, be signed up. Other than that, we'll hear from Ms. Smith.

Yes.

So at this time I will ask is if anybody on the board has a conflict of interest with hearing this application?

No. No.

All right, please let the record reflect that the Board has indicated that there is no conflicts of interest. And I will ask now whether or not anyone on this Board has received any ex parte communication regarding this application?

No. No. Okay. Please let

the record reflect that the board has indicated that there has been no ex parte communication on this matter.

All right, Ms. Smith.

Good morning everyone. Britney Smith for the record I have signed a speaker's card and I'm a planner with the City of Venice. So I'm just going get you orientated to the project here. Project is located at 256 South Nokomis Avenue. They're requesting a CAC for the construction of a new three story mixed use building, which is predominantly residential with two nonresidential units towards the Ground floor.

The owner applicant is B Design LLC and the parcel is roughly 0.37 acres. It is zoned South Trail 1 and it is in the Venetian theme ACD. So I have an aerial map here on the screen. If you look to the south of the property you have the cultural campus and the library. If you look to the west you have an entry or right of way into one of the pocket parks, that's recreation and right adjacent next to that the properties are Downtown Edge.

To the East you have the Farley Funeral Home parking lot, that's also ST1 and to the North you have ST1 which is an accountant's office. Right now the existing building that is there which there are pictures of in the staff report show that there is a currently vacant one story professional office or commercial building that is existing on the site. So they're here before you today to make sure that they're meeting all of the correct criteria to move forward with their application. If you notice at the bottom of the staff report it'll go over everything that you need to be looking at as a board today when you're considering your feedback and comments. This includes comparing it to other examples, reminding you that this is new construction of course.

You're gonna look at the building massing. We have it listed as looking at the building massing residential since the predominant use of this building would be residential units and there are a little bit higher requirements for residential architectural review. You'll be looking at the facade materials, the facade colors, the roof, the residential window and doors and the building features. So we do have all the plan sets in front of you, the applicant has worked with staff and tried to make sure that all of these elements that you'll be looking at are clearly identified on the plan set. So we ask that you take this time to consider that the the materials the applicant has submitted and we believe that there is sufficient information on the record for you guys to review this today and make a determine on the subject petition.

Okay, thank you. At this time, ask Board members if they have any questions for staff. I do have one question to start with. I would like to know if this project as presented to us has been reviewed by staff to go before Planning Commission.

So we're here today first before you so that you can look at the architectural and then the architectural would be correct when we go to Planning Commission and then that has to be then read into the development order. So we are here for you first to make sure that those architectural are what we're looking for.

Okay. With regard to height and the distances, the dimensions that we're looking at, have those been reviewed by staff?

Those have been reviewed as part of the planning commission process. So I do have an application in for planning commission and they have been through several rounds of review with TRC. So those have been considered.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments for Brittany with regard to this Yes.

So the Downtown Edge, if you can clarify for me as far as what's the maximum height for Downtown Edge?

So this is outside of Downtown Edge. This property is zoned in South Trail 1.

And the max height from a zoning standpoint is what?

Don't know that information off the top of my head.

That's fine.

Any other questions from Ms. Smith? All right, thank you very much. Thanks. Okay. At this time we'd like the applicant to present their project.

Good morning.

If you could come here to the left. If you could introduce yourself for the record.

Okay.

My name is Pekka Soldazi, I'm owner of represent B Design and I'm general contractor architect and we're building, removing basically like existing building. Right now it's an old building over here and we want to build a new three story shares owning like units, apartments and offices on down. So basically, the question was height of building going to be 35 feet, which is like a much like a city requirements. And building absolutely match also architecture way like city requirements. So if you have any questions, questions, I'm ready to answer.

This is Amanda. Just to help us see what we're talking about here, can we go back to the presentation? On our screens? We may have questions regarding that. Okay, thank you.

I think it would be good to go first to the elevations. I think we've seen the photographs. Think I may be wrong, but the most board members are familiar with the property. So I don't think that's I think they're just the front elevations.

No.

Maybe.

Yeah, there.

There you go. Help the gentleman with his monitor. Okay. So in our package we have the floor plans. We have all levels and roof plan.

And we're reviewing this for architectural compliance and been a historic precedent in our guidelines, as you know. So now we're Sheet A four is what we're looking at. So this is the exterior, the south side. The front elevation would be facing Nokomis. Is that correct?

Yes, correct.

That's where the top is facing Nokomis Avenue. And then the south side is facing the library. The board members wanted to I'm sure you've looked at this a little bit or a lot. Just wanted to if you could explain how the building works aesthetically and anything about it that we might need to know. I know you just kind of briefly went over it, but

Yes, aesthetically we will like choose like Venetian style columns. Like basically three facades, like three tower. We like didn't want to go like a traditional like roof tile roof. So we preferred like towers, it's going to be parapet of Venetian style parapet on top of the roof. So that was the concept of this architectural, how we designed it.

So basically design we choose it's like Venetian style, like Italian Venetian style and like city Venetian style like columns and like moldings on top of this around building, around windows, arches, all these architectural elements we matching to Roman and Venetian style like ornaments. That's all the concept of how choose design this building.

Okay, thank you. Can we see the other two elevations? Yes. I don't know if you can do that.

Thank you.

This is like another side of north side and west side of building which is already back in alley. Basically, it's repeating like four towers. And the bottom one is kind of color wise, how we choose colors based on the variation. Gaudience was variation color, Gaudience. And three d.

Also if you

So the top that you're showing right now, the very top image is facing the library. Correct?

I'm I'm sorry? The top image of

the sheet that we have now is facing the library.

Top sheet?

No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Fact where you were. This rendering? Yes. The top rendering is facing the library. Yes. And the bottom rendering is facing Nokomis Avenue.

Yes. Yes.

I'm just trying to get oriented. Yes. You.

This one, this is facing the library right here. And bottom one facing Nakomes. This is like Nakomes Avenue.

You can see the library beyond.

There's a library right here. This is library standing on this point. Library right here exactly across street.

Could you go to the next slide, please? Yes. Those details, we looked at that. We've had a chance to look at this. Just so everyone's clear, those windows are all rectangular and with an arched detail on top. The window is, the window is not arched,

correct? No, this is molding.

That's what it looked like in the rendering. It's pretty clear from this and the same with the doors.

Right, it's molding goes on top and between window and the molding is taco, color wise. It's not window. It's gonna be like just molding in wall. Right. And the detail on the top is a section through the parapet? Parapet columns, yes. Parapet all around and especially on towers. This is tower detail on it. It's going to be like basically form molding. It's lightweight molding with stucco on top of it.

So that's seven, am I correct, it's approximately seven feet of molding?

Seven feet above, this is part of not living space. Our living space requirement is 35 feet and we have additional seven feet to not living space. Basically it's like design wise. So roof, for example, we are putting, we want to cover our AC units to not look bad so it's on top of the roof. So it's gonna looks, it's covered basically. It's gonna be covered with these moldings. And it's like design wise, we prefer to go parapets than traditional roof. That was the main goal of it.

I think those moldings are substantially larger than anything else that we have in the city. I think proportionally they're very large. I just I'm just

But it's not all it's not full seven foot or molding. It's molding top of the molding. It's like piece by piece.

Well, molding on top of a molding, it's seven feet of foam. Was there any I'm just going to ask a direct question. Was there any thought of doing any kind of barrel tile or mansard roof on this project?

We have very like space wise we don't have much. We need parking. We don't have space to put any AC units on bottom of the floor. That was another reason. We are it's like small lot. So we're trying to save as much as we want.

I understand that. The roof these are rooftop units proposed? Goes

on top So of the

the towers, the four towers are on the perimeter and there's room inside to do units. I'm asking that because this very vertical building, it's a very tall building. In fact, it's taller than any building on Nokomis Avenue except for possibly the bank, which is a three story building. And it sits amongst many many one story and two story buildings. I'm very familiar with the zoning code.

Right.

But I'm I'm talking about the context of this building. And the choice to use a parapet rather than a sloped mansard roof makes it look taller. It doesn't change the functionality of the number of units or the floor to floor height for your tenants. Just that I'm asking if you considered that.

I'm sorry, but if you're to do four twelve slope roof, it's going to be same height. It's going to go seven feet high. Three story plus roof, that's where we are to hit. So it's like height wise, it's going to be same if I got to do regular roof for 12 roof.

It would be the height, it might be similar. But it would be back about 10 feet from the estuary edge. It would be back, so it wouldn't feel as tall. My reaction to this is that it may meet the zoning code, but it is very vertical for the historic Venice Presley. And that's part of the context of where it's located, but it's also the way it was designed.

So I'm not downplaying your design. I'm just saying another way could make it look less tall in a very low neighborhood. And still accomplish what the owner is trying to accomplish with the number of units, his ROI, all that. We're not here to discuss ROI. We're to discuss aesthetics and that's a question I have for you. Is there any other board member that would have any other questions?

So just so talking about the molding details that Mark was mentioning before. So the one foot six parapet wall per plan, I'm assuming I don't have we don't have sections cut through it. So it's harder, you'll have to explain it. That molding is top of wall on the lower portions not the towers, of wall. It doesn't extend like the top of wall is at elevation, you're not extending that past and we're not seeing it just propped up there flopping in the wind, No.

It's basically flush. Okay. And then so that rather large banding if it top of wall you say you're concealing the AC units I believe that's what you said.

Yes, it's on top of So the

if it's at top of wall then you're not, it's just a, it's treatment at top of wall to make the building more visually appealing to the street but it's not necessarily hiding anything if it's flush with, more or less flush with the top of wall. Gonna go No, I'm not interpreting correctly.

If you're gonna go roof plan.

So on that 49 feet where you have parapet typical molding detail, that parapet is parapet molding number two.

We are on roof plan right now. Page eight.

Yeah and that's fine. We can discuss it here. I believe that's the appropriate place.

Yeah. That's eight.

I'm just we're just trying to understand better the intent.

Are the units, the rooftop units intended to be on the parapet low slope roof or in the tower?

Inside roof like inside.

The inside, the lower roof.

No, it's going to be top of the roof. No, no,

on top of the roof, but not there's five towers.

Five towers.

Not within the towers.

None on top.

But in the lower portion. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So with the height of this building, there's no possible way to see those? No. No possible way to see those.

Because the unit by itself like three feet, it's no way you're gonna see from anywhere. Mean AC unit like three feet tall, there's no way you're going to see like from any place from any street. Right.

My comment would be then if that's the case, then you don't need to go have the five towers go seven feet up in the air higher to make it look taller. Now that's an aesthetic question. But for this board, we look at Venice historic precedence which is the historic precedence of other structures in this community. And I would say that Tower

by itself.

Is another way to do it.

I'm sure tower by itself is not really seven feet on top of this roof. If you're gonna see this elevation marks.

It says six foot eleven and seven eighths

above the roof. Above

the top of roof, six foot eleven and seven eighths of an inch. That's seven feet.

Yes.

Where is I'm not trying to be contentious here at all. I'm just trying to I'm trying to express the the verticality of this building on this very small street is there there may be other ways and maybe you considered it and you decided against it. If

we Yeah, sure. I understand the point. But if we gonna get like a tile roof, it it's going to be same height. Same height and it's not going to it will be like 10 feet from edge of

building. That's my point. You're correct. Would know that it would go back. On So a street front, a passerby pedestrian on the sidewalk looks up and sees 42 feet of building on a street that doesn't have anything over 30.

So I'm just saying that as that would go back, if you were to do that, it would change the perception. You would see the lowest part of the roof, not the tallest. So it it would be a way to accomplish that. One of the things I have aesthetic an issue with with our regard to massing on this building is that the the use of the very tall, building tall arch at the at the at the towers. The very slender columns that support that.

Proportionally that that is very thin on both of the large arches. I think they're 16 inches in this case. Yes. Is that right? Yeah. They're very thin. It just looks proportionally different than any building that I know of in the historic precedent of this community. So I think there's opportunity to widen that up.

Also to piggyback on Mark's comment about massing, I mean our regulation normally wants to see an offset in the plane of massing and as I interpret the drawings it's just a vertical flush facade completely without any offset. And normally we want to see 10 inches offset or

more. I

think our regulation having a minimal depth of at least 16 inches. And can you explain where the, how you're meeting that requirement?

Basically, balconies move inside like arches come come front.

Yeah I know but this is more interpretive. When I see a facade, when it's one vertical plane I want, I think the regulation is speaking to that we want to see offset and not one vertical plane in a facade.

It's fairly evident because the neighboring property, existing neighboring property to the west of this site does that massing change where there's several, in fact it's not even symmetrical. It allows the building to have much more character that way.

In-depth and shadow. This I think you're probably familiar with the neighboring property.

It's overpowering for the area.

So our breaking point was like balconies. That's what we, like that's what it moves back. So that's when you see building it's not, yes, basically it's when these moldings are going to come up, they are not little bit where it's going to break buildings size. That was the point balcony goes inside. And what our railings are right now, part goes inside.

So that was our breaking design These three towers also moving forward.

Like the only break in plane that we see in this entire building is where you're setting back the entrance on, that's a break in plane. That's setting back mass. Otherwise it's a vertical plane all the way around for the most part from what you see from the street.

This part goes in. Yeah, you

said where the car park is on that 1st Floor.

Plus top of this balcony on top that goes inside too.

I mean that help soften that street edge on the corner a bit. But we want to, normally you would want to see in the vertical face those setbacks as you know I interpret the mass.

Yeah I would agree. I would agree it needs. If

we're going to move forward, code not allowing me to do this for driveway. That was another issue we can move outside of whatever we have right now. So that's why we're trying to do these arches. And as I say, because of driveways, right now, we don't have space with car drive code not allowing me to. If we're to go inside, then I don't have enough parking garage space.

So that's why it's kind of looks flat but I'm trying to do this molding design from facades because of so like the driveway not allowing me to move forward or right back. Because if I got to do that, I don't have enough space for garages. If I got to move forward, don't have space. There are no enough driveway. So that was like that's why it's

Yeah. And I guess what I'm suggesting or saying that doesn't necessarily have to be on the Ground Floor. Like as you go up and you have your unit plans, if you were to offset The unit the plan. Unit plan 16 inches into the unit and then keep everything else flush on the ground level, then you have the offset that would help them on the massing.

You may have to change your units to

Square foot.

Yes, because otherwise you've got a box and we really don't want a box. I mean these are pretty generous units size wise. So if you

were to lose a bit and I don't think you're necessarily massively hurting. I'm Arthur, so I'm

the owner. Becca can you go back

to the

rendering, three d rendering? Right there.

That's what we had. Good morning. Morning.

Sir, could you please state your name and for the record?

Arthur Sawall, S A W A L L. So we tried to achieve as much of a look as we could plus meet our ROI requirements. So one of the things we did is and that's why I think when you look at the rendering, think it looks better than the two d drawing because you can see the depth perception that we're able to achieve by pulling in the balconies and you see the variety of going back and forth. Because at the same time you want to do well there's several things you want to really achieve. You want to achieve the look and the feel obviously of the Venetian style.

Then you want to achieve the requirements, the ordinance requirements for parking. Sure. Then you need to achieve something that a condo owner would want to purchase and live there. That's kind of nice. You don't want to build a building and have it sit there vacant, benefits no one.

And then I thought we tried we achieved that if you look at the rendering here, the three d rendering, the in and out because I looked at the building, in fact I toured the building just to the west, there was a unit for sale there and we toured it. And if you see here, there's really a lot of variety here back and forth. You don't see it in the two d sketch, but you see it in the three d.

I agree with you on the Ground Floor that those offsets help. But when as you go upward on the second, the two residential floors above that offset doesn't happen. It's all vertical face.

Other than the front entry at the stair, that's the only place, the balconies.

You're only providing any change in volume at the corners where you have the balconies. Otherwise it's just a flush facade.

What you're saying is the building on the comb is the way it's structurally and with the ins and the outs, that's okay. It's the it's the south side of the building facing Milan and the library that's bothersome. Did I capture your thoughts?

I mean, is in that main facade facing south and opposite would be true facing north or northeast. Yes, both of those are going to have that same issue. Okay. Because you'll be able to see that, you know, within the city as you look at it on the library side and also the opposite from different from the pedestrian standpoint.

So in other words what you would like to see for example, go back to that, just stay there Becca. So what you would like to see and I'll say where that middle window is or the two middle windows is, is you'd like to see another parapet element potentially starting on the 2nd Floor protruding out, not in because I can't afford to give up any more square footage on the inside of the units and make them saleable. You

have a corner site. All corner sites architecturally should be treated as a corner, not put it turn their back on one side, which in this case is the library. So yes, what you're saying is you need to do some treat something to this side of the building and a massing change would help even if you lost square footage. And I I don't I don't know the numbers but both this It would be appropriate to treat both sides. Not identically but pay attention to the corner.

Right now this building focuses on Nokomis and it turns its back on, in my opinion, on the Milan side. So I think from a massing standpoint, you could greatly improve this. I also think the vertical, the verticality of this design, it pushes your eye up in a neighborhood that's too It may it may meet the code. But aesthetically, Venice historic precedent wise, it does not.

Okay. So the height is bothersome. Okay. So if we bring the parapids down instead of what are they now back at six and a half feet above the line? Yes. So if we bring them down, let's say three feet, we still can cover up the AC units potentially.

Yes.

If we bring them down three feet and then if we add on Milan on the south and the north side an element protruding say 12 inches but above the parking. I don't know, are we able to do that per code offset wise? If city allows alternative design, sure. Yes, because then we're not really taking ground space, we're just doing airspace, I call it.

We can add this element like on 2nd or third floor and move forward if city going to allow us like alternative design, means like a driveway, we're going to kind

of pass like let's say one feet. Into the driveway.

Into the from 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor. Then we can break down this design from our library side and from any side.

And the north side as well.

That's not something the board can say. I mean it's more of a planning issue. But I will say that if you have to lose square footage to make the building meet a CAC requirement, you might have to do that. Okay. I I I feel like you you want this building to It's gonna be here for a hundred years. It really needs to look great. And I know that's what you want. That's what we'll sell. That's what people want. So it's really a matter of adjusting the massing of this building.

Consider using barrel tile to lower it. Even if that puts the peak back farther. But it's more appropriate for this particular location.

Can we talk about the windows a bit on the elevations on the long facades? There's typically on historic windows on long facades you have some, you have alignment. You don't. The windows are floor to floor offsetting and it isn't necessarily following what we have on historic buildings downtown which you're part of. So which windows are offsetting?

Well I mean maybe it's me but like you change, you're changing window types and then on the north side elevation those windows aren't aligning from the 2nd Floor to the 3rd Floor, they're offset. Which

North side. Go to the North side. No, that's the West side.

North, north side. Right. See that on the 2nd Floor to the 3rd Floor? They're out of alignment? Yes. Right.

Because, okay. Yes, the units are different. Right. We're limited to seven units per code. So on top we made completely different units on the 3rd Floor than we did on the 2nd Floor. On the 2nd Floor we have four units and on the 3rd Floor we have three units with one very large unit.

There's oftentimes situations where because of the exterior elevations to align something that it doesn't exactly match or center in a room. That's okay. So you might have to do some of that. I think that's what John's point is. The other thing is the arch detail on the top of every window makes it kind of monotonous.

Think uniqueness is good mixing the windows. Think some of your windows are pretty wide for our ratio. We tend to have thinner windows or or banks of two mold together that are narrower. So it's a

few things windows that could improve. So you're seeing the windows, for example, on the North Side, you prefer to see two windows mold together instead of one larger window?

I'm just saying that that would be an option. Our guidelines and historic structures typically were narrower, maybe one over two. Ratio.

The ratio of

the ratio portion of the of the So they're typically they're a little narrower window. So if you want to do a wider window sometimes they mold two together. And then they're narrower but

still give you the same width. Yes, I understand.

So that you could, yes.

A vertical proportion of at least two to one height to width. So you have your windows are much wider if you were to use two units and then case them together so that that casing where it's mold together becomes a design element and the two windows itself match the two to one ratio overall I think it would improve your project greatly. Okay.

This particular elevation, mister Swall, you can see what I originally commented on the verticality, this vertical nature of this. If you look even with the paint scheme, which I don't mind the paint scheme, but you can see that thin tall column on the arch on the two towers. It's very thin. It it it just it just stretches the building, the eye up because it's so narrow. It's only 16 inches wide.

So there may be an opportunity to adjust that. There would be an opportunity to make it either break at floors instead of being all one height, 42 feet in the air. I mean you could break it. You have story bands here. These are just design elements, you know, it's it's a choice. It's it's all aesthetics.

And we we can brace this with same molding gonna go on top of it. It's it's gonna be bright.

Yes. Mean, it's simple to do. I think those are those are all things that keep it from looking as tall in an area that doesn't do that. So I think that's you really have to look at the context here. And I would consider a scheme with barrel tile roof on it. Pardon? I would consider a scheme with barrel tile roof on the towers. There's many many examples of that in the city. Okay. Where it meets meets the sky, it's not just parapet.

Okay. I'm just trying to help. Understand. Any other comments to the applicant applicant today?

No? The railing

detail

from a precedent standpoint, it's pretty intricate. Normally we had more simplified railings from a historic standpoint. That something that Okay.

So our railing is too detailed?

Well, from a historic precedent standpoint

I was going say I like that comment.

First one you liked.

Fairly elaborate. Think simplifying it

match. If

you look at the examples that we provided in 7.10.7, those are all very simple railings.

I think Simple adjustment, yes.

This is nice railing, exactly when you start it before we put it inside.

No, we will gladly simplify it, believe me. I just saved a couple of bucks, that's the way I look at it.

I think again with the on the towers and that the height of the parapet, that molding is I agree is just

way too large. We can easily lower the towers much simpler because it reduces our construction cost obviously.

I'm more talking about the depth of that molding. It's massive. It's seven feet. It's taller than I am.

I'm still, I, Becca, I don't think I'm following.

All right. Well,

any other comments? I think my board is

4.6. That's from

I'm not sure what we're talking about today is the optics of the building and I agree with you that the corners are higher than they need to be which is probably one

of the

major reasons it looms so large. If the other comment that was made in regards to the width of the supports underneath the arches is appears a bit thin for being structurally, know, have structural integrity. If those were widened just a little bit that would make optically the building less tall and if you reduce the corner roof systems as you suggested three feet, it would make a huge difference in the first look at how massive the building appears. Those are two little fixes. And on the library side, if something was done in the center, even if it was mostly just an optical trim thing with paint that would break up that long plane I

think we would need an actual plane change from a massing standpoint. I know what you're saying, but we wouldn't allow paint change to do the same visual thing. Are there any other comments today? I think with what we have talked about and gone over, I think it's appropriate to continue this without a vote and have you bring back an alternative.

Okay.

I think rather than vote. I think the question is, do you have enough information to know what we have concerns about?

You're suggesting us to change roof and basically break the

Right, break the planes. Yes. North, south side, yeah.

Suggesting that you return to this board at a later date with modification of the drawings and the renderings if you choose to, to change the massing of the building to make it look not as tall. Consider using a tile roof on those corner towers and modify the elements that we've been discussing that proportionally are just not historic than as precedent. Would you be willing to do that?

We changed to

Absolutely.

The answer is like height kind of still same 42 feet. Yes, you don't see from exactly like

if we

don't do tower, we change to tile roof, it's going to be different like it's going to go a little bit back around 10 foot back, but that's all.

Well, but the question instead of doing the tile roof, what if we lowered a parapet by three feet and inset it a little bit, let's say three, four feet.

We can't propose how to design it. We can only propose what what we see. And so I mean I I would I would If I were in your shoes, would look at both. Okay. But I'm not in your shoes and I can't Okay. Tell you

I understand.

You have to look around the city. Look at the guidelines very closely and look at other structures similar in that neighborhood. And I think you will

find Especially downtown.

Yes. I think it will help you a lot.

Find examples of really long linear buildings I

I want to do something different. So that's what we do, we did choose tower tile, that's all. But all of them is tile roof, everything is tile roof right

now. We

understand that. But we try to do something a little bit different so that's all.

I appreciate different as an architect.

But it's we can change, we can do tile roof, it depends on the tile roof. But yeah, can go back to, it's not a big change for plants. We're going to break, we can break also a little bit inside. If it's one feet, I think it's one feet, it's enough to break this wall, especially library size. But is that, question is is that enough library site because of I can't break North Side.

That's we can do something, some elements, north side. We can add the building element and breaks it because of anyway north side is neighbor building.

Yeah. As I commented before, the corner is more important architecturally than any other. And both of those are treated in a good manner with regard to massing than the others are less. They're all important. But I would place emphasis on the two corner streets. Alright.

Mr. Chair, to advise you, if we were going to continue, we're going need a motion and vote to continue. But also we're going to need to a date certain so that a per the code and so that it doesn't have to be re advertised.

Okay. Thank you. All right. I think that's the way that looks like it's going to continue this to a date certain. I wonder if our next meeting, we're the midst of comes Ms. Smith. We're in the midst of modifying our schedule to be every two weeks. So or once a month. If you wouldn't mind, in order to do a date certain, we need to speak to the city. So Ms. Smith, do you mind if we just thank you.

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Hi. So I just want to come back up and get a few points of clarification for myself and for the applicant for what is actually required when they come back. So both myself and Roger took some notes but just in summary can we go over and talk about the points of what you want to see when we're coming back? Is that okay?

Yes.

Okay. So I understand that for building massing, you are asking to see changes to the south side of the building and the north side of the building. Is that correct? Were you satisfied with the portion that was facing Nokomis?

No. So South it's side and the three the east side.

South side and the east side?

Correct. The two corner facing

The two corner facing. I heard north side come in a few times, but Yes, that's it did. Okay.

That's not.

South and east and you're looking at a reduction in the size of the parapet as one of the components that we're looking at to make it visually less?

Yes, the moldings, the double moldings, size of those towers and also possibility of investigating the use of a barrel tile roof on the towers if they so choose.

And

then windows, the windows be modified to meet our guidelines for proportion and alignment if possible where easy to do.

Okay and then for the balconies we were looking for a simplification and design.

Simplification of A suggestion.

A suggestion.

It was a suggestion to simplify the railings. Another suggestion was to either break the large arches at stories or something to widen the columns from the large arches to be proportionate with BHP. They're very thin.

Okay. And you're looking at that to make it look less to diminish the vertical nature?

Yes. To diminish the vertical nature of the building. Okay.

Am I missing anything on that list?

Not that I can think of right now.

Okay. I think that's good for me. And John, just to answer your question, the height limit for ST1 was 35 feet. They are allowed to have some additional footage there for architectural. I think it's up to 20%.

Lastly, in order to do a date certain, could can you guess at a date that possibly set this motion for? That they would be able to logically come back to?

Yes. So our next meeting is coming up pretty quickly. It's the second Thursday in October which is?

Yes, your next meetings would be October 9 and November 13.

Did you say ninth? October 9, is that good? Okay.

October 9.

Thank you.

Wait a second. We are past the advertising deadline for that, So we would have to go to the November meeting.

So November 13?

And when would advertising have to be completed?

Hold please. The October is when the advertising would need to be completed for the November meeting.

What, the what of October?

Last week in October. Last week.

It does have to be advertised?

Correct.

Even for a continue, continuance? Okay. All right.

Comes Roger. One

other item with the windows not using that same repeated trim over and over across the project. This is another detail that was mentioned.

For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director. Dan, I just want to confirm, if we're going to continue this, do we have to re advertise or not? I'm thinking we do not. We're going to continue to leave the public hearing open or?

Well, if we're continuing, we're giving it a date certain that we don't have to re advertise because we've done our advertising and we're putting on the record at a public hearing we are when and where we're going to actually rehear it. So that's usually the benefit of not having of doing that is that we don't have to re advertise it.

And it's not an ordinance, so we don't have to worry about it, it's a development order.

No.

Okay. So I would say that we can make October 9 since we do not have to advertise it, but that certainly is up to the applicant if he believes he can provide indicated revisions by then.

Okay. The applicant has indicated that they can do the October 9 meeting as long as that's enough time. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, so we will not advertise October 9. All right. Will Chair will entertain a motion to continue Before

you do, I just need for the record that we don't have any public comment.

Sorry. Yes, I ran by that. We do have one public comment from a Miss Katie Flynn, 444 Darling Street Venice.

Yes, did receive the rate

and the advertisement

but we don't have person public comment at

Okay. This That was a written correspondence but we don't have anything anyone in the audience. Okay. We'll go ahead and entertain a motion to continue this. PLAR 20Five-one93 to an October 9 meeting. Anyone want to make a motion?

Move to continue this part of the meeting until October 9.

I'll second that.

Roll call vote.

Mr. Watkins. Watkins? Verify. Ms. Trammell?

Yes.

Mr. Barrack?

Yes.

Ms. Derryberry? Yes. And Chair Beebe?

Yes. Okay. We'll see you back here on October 9. Thank you. Thank you very much.

All right. We will continue. Next. The next item of business is the proposed renovation and addition of existing residents and carriage house in the historic Venice Architectural Control District, PLAR 20 Five-two 65 at 500 Netsaw Street. And this is for Michael German, owner and agent is Sam Hardy, AIA, BB Design Studio.

Mr. Lewis, if you could. Before we go

to that, Chair, do have to read the memorandum on advertisement and open the public hearing.

I'll get this right someday. All right. This is to certify the public hearing as a petition was appropriate advertised on 09/06/2025, as required by the City Of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of application is on file at the Planning and Zone office. All right.

Now we'll open the public hearing. Any speaker cards for this? Anyone?

I do have the speaker cards.

All right Mr. Lewis.

Yes. Want to ask again if anybody on this board has a conflict of interest with hearing this application. And if they do, please announce it on the record.

No, no.

I have a conflict of interest other than only in that my son-in owns the firm that I represent.

Yes.

I would not be able to vote. My hope is that I can still chair the meeting.

You cannot partake in the Voting. In this hearing since you are, so you're going to to turn the chair over to the Vice Chair just because you do abstain from it. Okay. But again, just to clarify the record, the nature of the conflict that your son owns the company owns BB Design Studio,

correct? Correct.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. We'll follow-up with that within fifteen days, we'll have you fill out the Form 8B to make that part of the minutes.

Okay. Even though I can be fair and impartial? It is a black and white law

because it's a special interest that inures to a relative pursuant to floor statute. You have to abstain from you have to abstain from this hearing. It's not a it's not it has no personal bearing on you or your ability to or your personal ability to hear the case, but by law you have to abstain from from being part of this.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. Alright then ahead and miss Trammell can take over.

Okay. Thank you. Oh

sorry I'm not in a For the rest of the board, do you have any other conflicts of interest?

No. Okay.

No. Please let the record reflect that the rest of the other members of the board have advised that they have no conflicts of interest. Does anybody on this board have any have received any ex parte communication in regards to this matter?

No. No. Okay. And please let

the record reflect that the Board has indicated that there's been no ex parte communication for this application.

Thank you. Okay, let's go on to the staff report.

Okay, good morning. For the record Nicole Tremblay, City of Venice Senior Planner. We are looking at a property at 500 Nassau Street South. So this is for a certificate of architectural compliance to remove a non original port addition and porch and to add a new connecting structure to Nolen Era home. You all have seen this one recently for a local register nomination, so they're coming to you now for the CAC to do repairs and changes to the home.

So this is in the Venetian theme architectural control district. You can see the location here at the corner of Sorrento and Nassau. It is surrounded by residential here, some institutional, believe that's Saint Mark's Church and then park over here. So this is a 1927 single family home. As I mentioned it's not currently in the local register but you all have given your approval.

City council has had one hearing and they're expected to approve that on second reading in October. So their proposal for the CAC is to remove as I mentioned two non original features, one on the front facade and then a connecting porch between the main house and the guest house. And then after that removal they'd like to add a new structure linking the second stories of the main house and the guest house and then do some additional repairs on the exterior stucco, the roof, privacy walls, and the exterior doors and windows. So here are some photographs of the home today. You can see the connecting structure.

It's kind of a rear view and then here are some historic photos that you've seen recently. Harry gave a great presentation for the local register nomination showing these same photos but just so you can see them again. And then there are several aspects of the Venice historic precedent that will come into play with this restoration addition. So I've given you a lot of detail in the staff report about exactly what those code sections are. So there's massing as we've talked about at least two different massing forms should be present on a structure with a lot greater than 50 feet in width with which this has.

Minimum of 90% of the wall area should be stucco without an applied pattern. They will be doing roof repairs so the required materials come into play, the clay, terracotta and concrete roof tiles or composite. Required roofing colors, they'd be meeting those and the required roof material profile, meet those as well. Glazing on windows should be clear or lightly tinted neutral gray and then you all know the ratios that are required and the types of windows that are required. And then they are also changing out doors.

So the residential door types state that the entry door shall correlate with the historical precedent however they should also be coordinated with the building. Garages, the main requirements about garages have to do with location so they'd be meeting those location standards, lots of greater than 50 feet maybe side loading if it faces away from the main pedestrian entry and rear garages are encouraged. Garage door openings not to exceed 16 feet in width and eight feet in height. And then there are railings to look at, so we talked about those at the last hearing those could be welded wrought iron, flat carved or turned material, sufficient detail to complement the building and the surroundings and if they're wrought iron they'd need to be powder coated. There are recesses and projections to look at with this home and decorative features, there are several listed.

And then finally lighting, they are proposing new lighting fixtures, so decorative fixtures are required, they should be designed to coordinate with the building and the landscape architecture, they would be building mounted so they should be compatible with the facade. Dark metal or wrought iron could be elaborate with brackets, chains or filigree and these will not be used to illuminate the landscaping so they don't need to be screened or recessed for that. So each of these has been deemed compliant but of course up to the Board's discretion on how they feel that each of these elements fit the VHP. But we do believe you have enough information based on the elevation provided and all the materials they've submitted to be able to make your decision. I can pull up the elevations for you but I know the applicant also has a presentation and they've got some possibly some extra photos or renderings I'm not sure that have not yet been seen that were not provided us to us in advance but they brought them today.

So just I'll give you a brief glance and then I'll let them do their presentation. So you can see the colors that they've chosen, warm peach for the body and French roast for the doors and trim. So those would be compliant and you can see the detail of the railing. Those would be powder coated as I mentioned as required. So some new roofing, some new windows, the stucco would it's already stucco so they're just repairing that.

Here's the west elevation with a new custom entry door. This is the new area in between the two buildings whereas before it was just kind of an open walkway. And then here's the southern elevation facing other homes, that's not a street facing one, and then the east elevation as well. So new door on the 2nd Floor as well, some new roofing and new windows. And with that I'll take any questions you have or we can turn it over to the applicant.

So just to clarify that the garage

was

not original to the original construction back in '27?

I'm not sure but from my understanding from their materials it was. There was connection was not original and then there was part of the main house that was not original. But possibly the applicant could give you a better answer on that.

Okay.

They do have details in here if you want to see them about the lighting. So, oh well here's a historic photo, you can see the garage in it.

Oh okay, sorry.

Yeah. And then they've got details here for the lighting fixtures and the roof tiles. I'd like

to ask Mr. Klinkhammer a question, would you come down?

Thank you.

Good morning. Harry Klinkamer, Historical Resources Manager for the City of Venice.

Okay. I saw that there was some mention of the local historic register in the application and I was wondering modifications they're asking to make would have any impact on their eligibility for the local register?

No. Currently technically it's not on the local register which is why it's going for the CAC instead of the COA. The certificate of appropriateness would require it to be reviewed to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. I did take a look at the application, prior to submittal and met with the owners to talk about the work they were looking to do. And to my estimation, it did meet the Secretary of Interior's requirement. And to add to answer a question previously, that is not the original garage.

Yes, I should clarify that. Okay,

so that would eliminate it because it's not the original garage?

No, is.

No, what I'm getting what I was saying is the garage is not original. It was built, I believe, in around 1980 or just prior to that. So in terms of, again, the Secretary of Interior Standards, we're looking at the connection that they're looking to do between the two buildings. The one building is not historic. So there's less concern about the look and alterations of that building. With the local register. We were looking focusing primarily on the residential building.

Okay. Very good. I just wanted to make sure we had that clear and on the record. Thank you.

So the timing issue the difference in certificate type is that the city council hasn't voted to approve the second reading?

Correct. Yes. It's technically technically, legally, it is not on the local register until it's approved at the second hearing for the nomination. So that should be taking place at the next City Council meeting. But as of today, right now, it is not on the local register.

Any other questions from the Board? Okay. Who do we have presenting their petition? Do we have someone to present their petition?

Hello, my name is Sam Hardy with BB Design Studio Architects And I am presenting on behalf of the owner, Michael Jarman. Staff did a fantastic job of presenting the project, but I will hit a few highlights. This house was one of those original 1920s houses that gives Venice such a unique character and it's an excellent example of one of those houses. It's passed through the hands of many owners and the current owner Michael German when he purchased the property. It had been the front facade that you see here in this image if we can show the screen here.

Yes in this historic photo. The front facade that you see here is essentially non existent. There was a one bedroom apartment that had been added on to the front of the building. I don't believe it's been demolished yet, so it's still there. The one bedroom that's on the Ground Floor and under the stairs had been retrofitted into another apartment with a kitchen under the stairs.

The main house was used by a third tenant and then there was a fourth tenant above the garage. So needless to stay, a lot of people living and nobody maintaining it. And it had fallen in a state of severe disrepair. And that is one of the goals of the owner is to bring this house back and to really preserve it. And a part of our approach in preserving it is also make it make it livable for him.

You know, it he needs to be able to live in this house comfortably and that's really the best way to preserve this house is have somebody have somebody living in it comfortably, loving it, taking care of it, maintaining it. And like staff mentioned, the original carriage house, there was an original carriage house built with position. It at one point in time was either demolished and rebuilt or the 2nd Floor of that was demolished and rebuilt. The apartment that sits over the garage which is where we're taking the most liberties as far as design goes is that 2nd Floor that's been heavily 's been completely removed and rebuilt probably somewhere in the 80s. And it's the only actual wood frame portion on the property, everything else is masonry.

And as you can imagine it's rotting and falling apart and needs some severe rework. And also the connector that was added at some point in time, we're not really sure when that was added to connect the primary house with the garage. That's also where we're taking some liberties. So some interesting things about this house. As you can see from original photo, we have a, right there on the screen, you can see that highlighted portion.

That is a little section of what looks to be a privacy privacy wall wall or or fence and it really is just the starting portion with the gate and then it kind of stops. After doing some research and Harry has also done a fair amount of research. It does appear that this particular house was is a variation on a plan out of a plan book. So interestingly we have some sketches of what the original model looked like and where this basically the model of this house appears in other this locations. And in other locations you can see that little section of wall and fence did continue to a privacy wall.

And that was a desire of this owners to have a little bit of a privacy wall to create a, that connects from the front part of the house where it does in this picture around to where the garage is. Very similar to this picture here. So we are, as a part of this renovation we're also proposing a portion of a privacy wall. And if you notice some inconsistencies between this rendering here and the elevations, it's when we submitted a while ago, we were We asked the city when the time for submission was and we were given a date and it was the next day when we So we rushed to put this package together. And there has been some variations since then which I have with me that I can propose.

But these two d elevations are are the most current proposed simplified arches on the connector to tone down the Yes. Yes I agree. And this house while it does have especially with the roof lines unique characteristics such as the chimney on the fireplace has a split chimney and interior there's a balcony that walks over the fireplace and in between the flue. Just kind of simple yet sort of dramatic details. These two which do not exist right now they were infilled at some point in time probably when that front apartment.

But those two very characteristic windows at the front facade that faces the fountain and that acute corner. Reestablishing those windows as closely as we can recreate them, lack of a better term recreate them as well as that balconette detail on the front. As far as the original doors, the original front door and there's an original side door as well that we're looking to preserve not replace. There is another door that we will be creating custom to look like the two original doors. And as you can imagine, it's a lot cheaper to rip those out and replace them with new impact aluminum, whatever they might be doors.

But restoring these doors and getting a custom wood you know door made. This owner is willing to go do what it takes to kind of do things right here. The windows he is proposing, again from everything that we can tell from the original photos and Venice historic precedence is that this house most likely had steel windows and they were most likely French casement windows. And so the windows that we are proposing to replace them with will be steel French casement windows. And they are going to meet their 18 inch double leaf French casement windows pretty much throughout the house.

And that's what we'll be replacing them with. And as far as any original unique characteristics such as the relief over these doors, we will be maintaining all of that as much as much as we can. And as far as the privacy wall goes, I do have some, I tried to keep the additional information to a minimum. Because I know that's not preferable but if you have the And I will submit this for the record to be part of the submission package as well. But you know I still I still do things on paper.

So I apologize. But this to go along with the character of this house and you can see from the three d rendering that was submitted that was an early pass. Certain details have been toned down a lot to match the character of this house which a decorative yet very restrained. And so for this privacy wall, the railing detail, the gates, all of those details have, we're trying to treat it the same way. Decorative yet restrained to match the kind of the intent of this original relating to that privacy wall.

So I'll open it up to questions.

Okay, Board members, it's your turn to question. Anything? No.

No, looks good. John? Sorry. So the the window sills existing to new will match all the way around?

Mhmm. Yes.

The vents on the north side above the two

large

windows into the living area, that is or isn't remaining?

Oh, it's to remain. It does not appear on our elevations, I apologize. But the, if you could put the original photo that we have. That is existing to remain, that vent.

Okay, that's critical.

Yes.

Sorry, the not, and not our package but your revised drawings? Can you show the elevations please? So do the owners have a dog or some reason you're not following the historic precedent of having the railing extend from the gate to the taller site wall columns.

Oh you mean this?

Because that's low historically from the evidence that we have and that would be kind of an additive feature. The justification for not following precedent would be?

The justification just by having a curve there was just to sort of soften that jump from almost an eight foot tall wing wall that's there now down to the three foot solid section of wall. Obviously the railing will have three feet of open railing above. But that was the only reason for that is to just soften that transition a little bit.

Because Okay. In the book drawing that wall slips down as you have it here and then continues on probably about three foot high onwards more southwest and then connects to what was in the book drawing the garage in the back as it's two story in reality. It's a little different.

It's a little bit There is a Sorry not to

Yeah, that's fine. I just didn't know if might a dog or some reason that they needed the taller height.

Oh, on on this side, on this facade?

Yeah. With the garden wall.

Right.

You know, it

So the reason we stepped it, you can see in this, in the the plan, it it did keep it at the larger height and then it does, it appears to give it some sort of a step or a slope. It's a little tricky to see it in there as it gets down to a lower elevation. The reason we did it on this space, you see it from the, on the site plan is that this first 12 feet of wall are within the front yard setback. We are required to have, so we can't keep it at 7.4 all the way property line. We get into that front yard setback, we're required to step it down.

So that's why we're stepping it down on this elevation versus out on the edge.

Okay. But I'm more talking about the height that you maintain the height of the gate wall consistently all the way around where you're adding the railing as infill between your landscape wall columns essentially as that turns and goes west, southwest. It's just a little bit different approach to what the book drawing was intended. And not that the book drawing is historic. Yes.

But it's just a little bit different. They have a dog or something that would jump over a three foot wall that makes Yeah.

Yeah. I think that's I think it's more from a privacy open access standpoint. I think the owner does desire to have that portion of railing above the solid wall. I understand what you're saying. But just from a privacy standpoint, what's interesting about this house and in our earlier discussions is that what you see from Sorrento is really the back of his, that's the back of his house so to speak.

That's his back door which enters his kitchen and he exits his garage. He still has to leave his garage and go into his house through that new breezeway connector we're creating bringing in his groceries. And that is his that's where he lives which is arguably the most visible portion of his house is along along Sorrento. So I think that was a desire of his was to create a little bit of separation just from that portion that he really will be living in. It's desire to create a little bit of that court yard space.

I agree the three foot solid just along would visually do that. I think the additional three feet of railing just helps support that.

Yeah, I mean for my it's neither here nor there because it's not original to the house. It's just that at this point we're following historical present. Usually some of the more historic homes that we have, those walls were kept down as kind of a softening as you approach the residence And kind of an enclosed space but open.

Right.

You know, it's the only difference. But it's neither here nor there. I don't see any reason not to do it. My only other question, on the garage which isn't original, cypress brackets to either side of the balcony that are added there. Purpose, how far are those extending out? There's not a dimension on the north elevation.

The balcony, it's really the balconette I would say, only about a three foot extension. So it's a very shallow balcony. Serves a few purposes. Obviously it adds decoration onto this front facade that faces the street. It also covers and gives a little protection to the garage doors.

It's also his, what will be his, opens to a bathroom so it does provide a level of privacy in those windows without you know giving too much away. And those brackets the I think

my specific comment or question is Juliet balcony is fine. It's those two lower brackets that have tile on them that come into the Juliet. That's not a typical detail that we see in historic homes around town.

Yeah. So Just a little eyebrow Yeah. Basically is how it's acting. It's about a two foot eyebrow. I

think from my point of view it would be more accurate to eliminate those and just have the Juliet as the star of the show on that facade.

Okay.

It's a consideration.

Mhmm.

Yeah. This is all new so it's design and not something that we're trying to store here. I understand.

I agree with you. Those eyebrows are they're purely decorative.

A sloppy detail coming into Yeah. Actually a balcony. How do you get that to marry correctly? Mhmm. This is from a construction standpoint not fun. Right. I'm super happy to see this. Good. Just elated that this is going to be I mean it's such a centerpiece on that and the Venetian theme.

It is.

I mean the opposite side to which Harry had mentioned with some investigation was actually the landscape, you know, stayed in the opposite house that's on the corner. So to see this one be restored to the level of the opposite house I think is going to be great for the neighborhood. Really happy to see it.

Any other questions from the board? No. No. Let's move on then. Do we have any audience participation?

No, do not.

We do not. Do we have any additional staff comments? Yes, we do.

Okay. So I just want to clarify that if you are to make a motion to approve, you would be replacing the north elevation and the wall detail from what's in your packet. And then if if you want to require that the brackets be removed, that would be part of your motion. And if you want to require anything about the vent being placed back on the elevations that could be part of your motion as well. And if you did want the brackets to be removed or any changes you could make it part of your motion to allow staff to approve that since it's a simple change rather than continuing and having them come back but that's up to you.

Yeah it's just a subtractive element so I think in the motion we could just say it's not going to be included in the project.

Right and we would just confirm that when they apply for permits and things, yes.

Do we have any rebuttal by the agency? No. Okay. Thank you. In that case I will close the public hearing and I will await action from the Board.

So at this point we need a motion.

Okay. Someone needs to make a motion.

If anybody wants help from me to craft a motion.

So I'll trail through this as best I can. So mission to approve PLA R25-two 65 at 500 Nassau Street as provided or presented and submitted with the following revisions to the to that submittal that the elevations provided by that were presented that don't match our packet are followed. That's and I expect on the elevations that were shown, the eyebrow brackets on the garage are eliminated different from what was proposed. Is that it?

And

then that staff can approve changes?

Yes. I think they have that authority anyway.

It's better just to put it in the motion just so that it's So we don't have to there's not a question about having to come back here.

Okay. We need staff's authority to approve the submitted changes after the fact?

Yes. Was going to ask you, yes, was going Nicole is that clear enough for you?

Okay. I just want to ask since I'm not an architect by eyebrow brackets you mean the ones just under the tile right, not the ones under the balcony those can stay? Just those Okay, two on each just want to make sure so that we know what we're approving.

Thank you.

Does that conclude your motion?

Yes it does.

Second. Any further discussion on this motion?

And just to acknowledge with the thumbs up, staff is clear. Okay, has acknowledged they have clear instructions so they are good as well.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Seeing none. We need to do the vote. Is this a voice vote

or a

group vote?

It will be a roll call vote. Ms. Okay. Derryberry? Yes. Mr. Barrack?

Yes.

Ms. Trammell?

Yes.

Mr. Watkins?

Yes.

Thank you. Motion

approved. Thank you very much.

And at this time we can, Chair Bibi can resume his function as Chair.

Time.

Over to board discussion. Any other discussion that we have today? Other than Actually Chair, you do have one more item.

We have

one more item.

Your 2026 schedule will need to be approved by motion.

Mr. Clark is here. I think he can suggest how we move forward with the schedule.

Well, I just wanted to indicate that your next meeting is October 9 and we will now, now that we've cleared September, we will be starting to have one meeting a month. We'll be on the second Thursday of each month. So that will be your

new

schedule for the coming year.

Okay. Starting on October 9.

Well, after October 9. It will start October 9. That will be next meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else for the Board today that you can Nothing from staff.

Chair, we'll just need the motion on the 2020 schedule.

Okay. Alright, we'll go ahead and entertain a motion for the new 2026 schedule of meetings.

I'll make a motion that we approve the new schedule, a meeting on the Thursday of each month beginning.

October 9. Starting

October 9.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Chair, who was the second on that? I didn't hear.

I'll second it. Watkins?

Okay. All right.

And those were favor?

All in favor. Okay. Any other items today to discuss? All right. If not, meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, Gene.