Welcome to the September 2024 meeting of the Community Planning and Preservation Commission for the City of St. Petersburg. This commission reviews proposed changes to the comprehensive plan, land use and zoning as well as historic preservation related proposals and makes recommendations to the city council. Our agenda today includes presentations. Staff, the applicant and any registered opponent each have approximately 10 minutes for their presentation. After the presentations, each member of the public who wishes to address the commission will have three minutes to speak. When called on to speak, please step up to the podium, state your name and address. We ask that you make your remarks brief and not repetitive of prior testimony. All questions are to be directed to me as chair. I will in turn redirect the questions to the appropriate person for response. At the conclusion of these steps, the commission will enter into executive session. Commissioners may ask questions at any time during the process upon being recognized by the chair and now please We ask that all cell phones be silenced And I'll ask for a roll call please Want to make her here referee Gardner here Marbe here Maltry here Nelson here Partner? Year. Marbe? Year? Mulchrie? Year. Nelson? Year. Corasco? Michaels? Year. Magnello? And we have a quorum. Thank you. And now if you'll all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the platter of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. If there are any members of the public in the audience today, anybody who wishes to speak, will you please stand so that you can be sworn in? All right, if you can all raise your right hand. Can you swear or affirm that the evidence you're going to give today and the testimony you're going to give today is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And I also just want to make sure everybody has filled out a green card at the front of the room. Okay. Next up is approval of the minutes from last month. Move approval. Thank you. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Are there is there any other discussion or comments? OK. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? OK. Minutes are approved. Next up, we have public comments. Is there anybody wishing to speak on an agenda item? and the public comments are approved. Next up we have public comments. Is there anybody wishing to speak on an agenda item on anything that is not on the agenda today? Okay. With that we'll go ahead and move into our formal agenda. And our first item I'll ask Iris please to read that item into the record. And this is a city file number 23-903-003, Marillac Local Historic District. The request is a designation of the Marillac Local Historic District to the St. Petersburg Register of Historic Places. And it is a quasi-judicial item. There are multiple owners and applicants. And the staff contact in this case is Derek Kilborn. Thank you. Commissioner Gardner and myself both have property location conflicts with this item. And so we need to recuse ourselves. I additionally have a conflict so I'll be recusing myself. Okay. And normally I would be passing the gavel to Commissioner Michaels to chair the meeting. Correct. As our Vice Chair Commissioner Jeffries is not here for this item, Mr. Michaels would be serving as an acting chair, but as you can see, we would, that would leave us after conflicts and absences with only three voting members. City Code and the requirements of this board say that a quorum to vote on any item is five voting members So with that being said we must defer this meet this public hearing So city file 23-903 003 the mere lake local historic district application will be deferred until the October meeting that is October 8th 2024 at 2pm in this room. We invite you to remain and watch the rest of our program but if you are only here for this item you may leave at this time no more action will be taken on that item today. Thank you very much. All of these submissions that have been received to this point will be transferred to the next meeting agenda and will remain on the website available. If anything additional comes in they will be added to the record. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Michaels. Thank you. For your service. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that we will move on to our second agenda item. Iris will you please read that into the record. This is city file number 24-902-003-4 and AR 2024-01. The COA 24-902-003-4 is a review of a certificate of appropriateness application for the alterations at Westminster Presbyterian Church, a landmark individually listed in the St. Peter's for Register of Historic Places. For request for a city file AR2024-01 is a review of an application for the adaptive reuse of the Westminster Presbyterian Church. A landmark individually listed in the St. Petersburg Register of Historic Places to a multi-family dwelling. The owner is 126, 11th Ave Acquisitions, LLC. The agent is Don Mastry and that address again is 126, 11th Ave, Northeast. of the staff. Thank you very much. All right. Ms. Perkins. Good afternoon. Kelly Perkins is sort of preservationist with the City of St. Petersburg. We are here today for a project that includes a certificate of appropriateness application and an adaptive reuse application for the Westminster Presbyterian Church. We received 24 public comments that were provided by the applicant and they were sent to you yesterday. All right, so I will cover the COA aspect of this application and Derek will cover the adaptive reuse section. So the property is a local historic landmark. It was designated in 2020. It features a 1926 sanctuary building. It was the first church constructed in the North Shore neighborhood. It was, the sanctuary was intended to be the first of many phases at that time, but the land bust and the Depression delayed development until 1941, but there were later additions to the property as it expanded its surfaces to the community over time. So you can see on the left, the 1926 Gothic revival sanctuary and on the right is the 1950ss what I call the use center building. So here's a historic photograph this was provided by the applicant. So in those first bill it was brick but at some point it was stuck it over. I know for sure by the 1950s. Alright and so here's sort of an overview showing sort of the development pattern of the building. It was, you can see the sanctuary in blue. In 1940s, it gathered enough money to construct their first edition in 1941. And when it was Bill, it was Bill's, a single story that matched the architecture of the building, was how the newspapers reported it. In 1950, they constructed a youth center to address this growing national crisis of juvenile delinquency. They wanted to construct an area where teenagers and kids could go after school, primarily for young men. And then in 1963, there was a further addition, which was designed by Archie Parrish. So this is the only publicly visible elevation from the 1941 edition. As you can see, it has the same kind of stucco exterior cladding and those decorative buttresses, which are parts of the character defining feature of the property. It looks like at some point in the mid-century they converted some window openings in the doors. You can see the small kind of eyebrow covering above those. This is the 1950s youth center building. You can see a photo of it as recently constructed in the newspaper when it was just one story. Again, it was built to have similar detailing. No, those decorative buttresses, the stucco exterior cladding. But it was definitely built in a sort of 1950s Mason-Revernacula architecture to kind of replicate sort of minimalism and lack of ornamentation. In 1954 a second story was added and you can see they retain some of those character defining features such as the decorative buttresses on the side elevations. You can even see that the original window openings are still there on the top right photo of that one story entrance and the front facade is as fairly flat with little ornamentation. In 1963 Archie Parish who's a well-known architect in the city helped design this edition that is a photo of him with the pastor at the time working on the expansion of the building. This is a little bit more of a higher style of architecture, even though it was built in the 1960s. They adopted sort of the crenellations and parapets to replicate the details of the Gothic Revivalge porch roof. They added some stained glass. And the windows are interesting in that. They are awning windows, but they had sort of grids applied to make it look kind of like a traditional proportioned window. So it's a five set of awning with grids to create four lights, so a 20 light window. There were some later additions that when this was designated were determined to be non-contributing, including some 1970s sort of utilitarian buildings. they did retain that kind of simple stucco exterior minimal design and then this central canopy was built which has been recommended for removal. So the first request is to reopen the front porch on the front of the 1926 sanctuary building and the installation of garage doors to convert the 1940s and 1960s building into a parking garage. So you can see the existing on the left and the proposed on the right. The proposed changes to the sanctuary building are fairly minimal. The only thing that staff has addressed is the replacement front door should be solid in style, which is pretty standard for a Gothic revival church architecture. And here's sort of the rear elevation, at least for the 1941 section of the building, they are retaining those decorative buttresses, which staff has identified as character to finding features of the building. For the 1950s center, they're proposing more alterations of fenestrations with the installation of casement windows, installation of ornamentation and decorative banding, plaster and accent tile, altering the roof line, removal of the buttresses, and addition of two covered entryways. So you can see the existing elevations on the left and the proposed on the right. Stuff found that this proposed change will significantly alter the appearance of the building, removing a lot of the character-defining features and kind of changing the building from representing that 1950s and Mason-Revernacula era with a lot of sort of mid-century elements. And then for the 1963 Archie Parish, there's also proposed changes to the roof line and the windows similar to the 1950s building. So staff found that kind of takes away the integrity of the buildings, identifying which portions of the buildings were built at certain times. And again, removing those character defining features. And some of the architecture that helps tie these additions to the 1926 sanctuary building. And then there's also some site work proposing fencing removal of those canopies, turning that 1970s mechanical building into a pool cabana and an installation of swimming pool. So here's some things highlighting some of the site work. Staff has concerns about the fencing. Generally as we kind of discuss a lot in fencing, is that 1920 St. Petersburg didn't really have front fencing. It wasn't traditional. And particularly for churches, you don't really have front fencing in churches. There are always open to the community. And so this proposal of the front perimeter fencing along the front will kind of remove that openness to the community. Staff finds that any new fencing on the front will kind of remove that openness to the community. Staff finds that any new fencing should be located behind the front facade of any of the buildings. And here's sort of the proposed design, staff finds that their proposed aluminum is overly decorative and that any proposed fencing should really be simple as a way to kind of not obscure or be its own architectural feature. Also, as discussed, the swimming pool, our design guidelines say the swimming pool should be located behind the rear wall of the line of the building. While that's not possible in this case, and the applicant did push the pool further back, staff still finds that it's such a modern amenity of a pool next to a 1920 sanctuary building is not the appropriate location for that type of amenity. So when reviewing the findings staff found that it didn't meet most of the guidelines for granting the certificates of appropriateness or guidelines for alterations. So we are recommending denial of the certificate of appropriateness. But we did provide a long list of conditions in case the commission wants to approve this. A lot of the conditions really focus on retention of the character defining features of the buildings, retaining the elements that really identify each section of the building to its time period, retaining those buttresses, retaining the existing roof lines and the minimal ornamentation. We, like I mentioned, conditions that the door should replicate sort of the Gothic revival style architecture, which is generally a solid wood door. Again, 1950s buildings should replicate that mid-century era, which is generally simple and solid doors as well. Conditions about retaining the finistration openings. Standard conditions about replacement windows will be set into recess into the wall plane, the match existing reveal. Again, any exterior grids or mountains will be contoured in three-dimensional. I mentioned a little bit about the covered entryways. It would be more appropriate if they were necessary to be the smaller traditional eyebrow designs that you tend to find in 1950s commercial architecture. And then that no fencing will be located in front of the facades of the building that it should be, you know, alongside starting behind the front walls. That proposed garage details should be provided. They should be minimally and simply designed. I mean, it is on the rear, but they shouldn't be highly contemporary. A condition that the swimming pool should not be constructed, and then all other conditions that we generally have in all of our COAs. So that is the extent of my presentation. Derek is here to address the adaptive reuse. Thank you, Kelly. 30 seconds. Derek Kilborn, manager of Planning, Historic Preservation. I do have the easy part of the presentation, I think. What we just wanted to show you on this slide was under the Code Provisions, there is an Adaptive Reuse section that encourages the Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings. And so it is under this provision in the code that they are requesting to convert this retired church building into multi-family units. And you can just see that right here and we've articulated that in the presentation as well. But multi-family is an appropriate conversion. So just showing you the existing floor plan, we can come back to these later. The proposed floor plan, markings are articulated in the report and we are recommending approval for the adaptive reuse portion. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have a presentation by the applicant? Good afternoon. Welcome. My name is Don Mastery. My address is 200 Central Avenue. I have been sworn in and I represent the applicant which is seeking a COA to cause the existing church in school to be converted into a single family home and to town homes. The application responds to the general criteria for granting COAs and the additional guidelines for alterations. While exterior alterations are proposed, they have been thoughtfully designed to update the funcly and aesthetics of the historic building without changing the architectural style, distinguishing historic qualities or character. Additionally, the work includes restoring a number of features to their original condition, including stained glass windows and the front porch of the church and there's no demolition of any buildings all the existing buildings will remain. The proposed conversion of the property is completely consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. It also is also a significantly less intense use than the permitted use today and will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. The improvements proposed have all been designed to match the style, design, arrangement, texture, materials of the historic structure as closely as possible. Converting the sanctuary into a single family home is permitted by right by the property zoning and converting the school into two town homes is permitted through the adapted reuse of historic building overlay. The property has been vacant for 10 years, over 10 years after the former church in school failed and attempts by both the current and former owners to find a replacement church has failed. The Nile of the COA will prevent the conversion from occurring, leaving the property vacant, which is a deprivation of reasonable beneficial use and the proposed work also includes the removal of a number of nonhistoric features, including the mechanical room, chillers, covered canopies, windows and doors which currently detract from the building. The application is a result of the applicant working with Hona, the neighborhood association, as well as about 30 nearby neighbors. The staff is recommended it or stated it could approve subject to 13 conditions. The applicant agrees to fully satisfy nine of the 13 conditions. The applicant agrees to partially comply with conditions for one in four and does not agree to conditions eight and ten that we don't think they should be required. Now I'm going to turn this over to our preservation architect Steve Lang who will go into more detail with you. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Lang. I live at 526, 15th Avenue, North East St. Petersburg. I'm a licensed architect, a real term forensic architect. I've practiced locally in all types of architecture for 48 years, including a substantial body of historic preservation as a five time president of North Shore Neighborhood Association, currently named Hona. I was chairman along with support from the city of St. Petersburg and designated one of the largest nationally registered historic residential districts in Florida, consisting of 1,875 structures in the North Shore neighborhood. It is now a national registered district for work that I and others did, including help with the city. I want a lot of local preservation awards, so my credentials are those. So having said that, North Shore and Hona have met for years in the West Minister of Church in school. I was hired by Billard Development Corporation who was here today and will answer questions if you would like them to step forward and do so after I've finished. I was hired on March 7th, 2022, approximately two and a half years ago that we've been working on this project. I was hired to produce an extensive property condition study, a comprehensive photographic observation report along with limited field forensic demolitions and investigations to verify construction materials and all phases of the five major building expansions. What we discovered is provided in Murray Port which I hope you've had an opportunity to review. What we learned is that between the Church and the School, there are five separate architects and contractors. Likewise, the Church and each of the four school additions were built with different exterior wall systems, materials, as well as different roof shapes and materials. The massing between the Church and the School differ greatly. We have read the staff report data September 3, 2024 by Derek Kibble and manager and will focus on the 13 COA staff comments for CPPC approval and staff approval. Of those we agree with nine at the outset. These are two, three, five, six, seven, nine, 11, 12, and 13. The last four are one, four, eight, and 10. We wish to discuss further. Item number one. As to the Crenelated Wall Pattern, and minimal roof lines over the school additions, we have provided large single Crenelated Parapet Wall Caps facing 11th Avenue North and 1st Street, with the exception of the wall located in the Archie-Paris wall, which is a small section facing 11th Avenue North. A single large, crinly to parakeet wall cap can be added to this wall to match the others that we have indicated on our drawings. As for the original school brought to us, they have been retained and we are not removing any of them. As for the decorative plaster accent tile and banding, the project architect concluded, and he's here today if you want to ask questions of Milan, that these minimal additions rendered a building which would be more constructive, construction worthy and marketable. Adaptive reuses suggest the minimal treatments in order to derive successful viable long-term projects thus encouraging developers such as Bel Air towards historical building restorations or reuse. Minimal compromise benefits all. As such we are willing to remove the decorative tiles leaving the proposed decorative stack of banding is indicated so the tiles will come off. That's where the proposed registration openings on the front and side of the school matching the existing more modern a term coined by the city and their staff report, more modern because all the original windows are gone. They were replaced with awning windows which are not compliant. So matching the existing more modern windows, awning windows and grills as described by staff, this is not prudent. All of these 50s and 60 type awning windows are more recent replacement windows that are not structural by today's standards, energy efficient or nor weather tight, all those sorts of things. The original windows have been removed long ago and replaced with these 80 to 90 year old awning windows. I can separate my own paperwork. The original alley phasing windows have been removed long ago and replaced with block and stuck-of-fo windows. Treatments and replaced with awning windows. We intend to return all of these openings to their functional window openings. You heard earlier that what staff said that the Archie Parish windows had grills added to them to make them look like casement windows. Well, we're actually putting those kind of windows back into the church. I mean, Archie Parish did it, so we're the women. We are willing to remove the cross or tea pattern currently shown on the proposed window elevations and change to the 20 plus or minus grills that the city wants. So the teas will come out, the grills will come in and will match with Archie Parrish and that addition did. As for the single window shown to be removed on the proposed north elevation of the first floor of the two-story addition, we will add back the removed window, thus matching the rest of the proposed north-facing wall windows and making this wall symmetrical again. So the wonder window will take it out, we're going to put it back in by moving the interior stair back and creating room to put the window in. Item number seven, covered entryways. Are necessary to provide protection from the elements for homeowners in front door and the front door. The proposed project architect will provide horizontal, concrete, cantilevered eyebrows as to the two entryways to match those existing concrete cantilevered eyebrows, which are currently exist on the alley side of the building. There are two of them there alley side of the building. There are two of them there. We'll match those. The covered entryways currently shown on the proposed plans in common support will be removed. Number eight, staff has approved the Adapter Reuse from the existing zoning of the Churches School to Single Family Residential. As such, Front Yard fences are allowed in N.T.3. Mind you, was it churches now home? As such, the front yard fences are allowed in NT3 for single-family residential uses, so good to height and location restrictions, which we comply with. Some of the enclosed yards are needed for residential uses, for play areas for children, family dogs, and defining one property from another. Item number 10, staff has approved the adaptive reuse from existing zoning of church and school to single-family residential. As such, swimming pools are allowed in NT3 for single-family residential uses to height in location restrictions which we comply. Our design also complies with the pool code for enclosing pools. Mind you, we push the pool back, we've kept it flat and a pool code requires a wall around it. We've screened it from the property to the east so you cannot see it from the street. So it's not a visual element that will disparage the church. In closing, we comply with nine of the 13 staff comments at the outset. We have modified our design to comply with one in four. We maintain our design for eight and ten. I have one more sentence. Go ahead. The project has received strong support from Kona, Hona and 30 adjacent neighbors who are the most affected by this application. Everyone wants this project to proceed into the city. Thank you very much and we look forward proceed into CC. Thank you very much and we look forward to your support. Thank you very much. All right next we have public comment. I have two cards. I'll call your name and you can come up to the podium. Mr. Nick Bell please. Hello my name is Nick Bell. I'm president of the Historical Northeast Neighbor Association, Hona. As you've heard, this church has been sitting idle for quite some time. And we have worked closely with Belair, with neighbors. We've had neighbor association meetings. We've had general meetings. We've met with the developer privately and with the city with them and we strongly support what they're wanting to do with this property. It's that idle for way too long. It's a blight in the neighborhood right now. It needs to get going. And we think that the recommendations that Belar has made regarding the city's points of view are valid and that they should be allowed to proceed. So the quicker we can get this going after years of this property sitting there, hopefully not deteriorating but you know it's not being kept up at this point. The landscaping was terrible. Our neighbors are anxious to get this going so we strongly urge the commission to approve this project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up we have Pat O'Donnell. Step up. Okay, okay. Okay. Well I will record that you are well. Are you four or against if you'll just step up to the podium. State your name and address and just say if you're four or against because it wasn't marked down on your card. I'm paddled down. I live at $129, 11th Avenue Northeast right across the street. And I'm very much for getting it going. OK. Thank you very much. But I'm also concerned about parking for the residents there. And I want to make sure that that's maintained, because that's the only place we have to park. Okay? Right on 11th Avenue. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay I have a few more cards. Next up is James Chilton and then after James will be Susan Daltua. Hi, my name is James Shelton. And I was to say that I'm strongly in favor of all of the changes that the company wants to make. It's going to look very attractive. I think the original buildings were built very unattractively. And I think this was a long way towards improving some past mistakes. I really also would really like the idea about the fencing in the front. I thought that was very attractive and of course I would be looking at it every day of my life for the next 10 or 15 years. And I also thought the pool was a very good idea. It won't be seen by anybody and and someone who's gonna spend that kind of money for that that expensive a building, which it's going to be, is they're going to want to have a pool. And I just don't see any reason why it can't be approved. So I strongly urge all of you to approve this, because it will greatly enhance the neighborhood and be an attractive addition. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Susan Daltina, two of them. Okay, thank you. I am Susan Daltina and I currently live at one two three fifth avenue but why I'm here is my husband and I are building a house at one one five eleventh avenue and North and we have been looking at that property of the church and its outbuildings ever since we came into the neighborhood. And we've been hoping and hoping and hoping that somebody would move forward with it. And we like all the changes that the company has come up with. We think they're brilliant. And sometimes on these old buildings, you can't just keep it just as it was, if it wasn't as pretty as it could be. And I think they've tried to make it as pretty as it could be. And I also think the pool is a great idea for anybody who wants to build the house and the church building and its outbuildings, I think, side building, are going to be kind of the grand dom of the neighborhood now. It's going to be beautiful as designed and it's going to be something that everybody is going to love to look at. And they'll learn a little bit about the history of the neighborhood code because I'll say, oh, that looks like a church and we can explain. That was a church and all about what went on. And there's also another church over in the Trips neighborhood. I don't know if you're familiar with it that was redone. And that's a great plus to that neighborhood. So thank you. We hope you approve it all. Thank you very much. And I have one more speaker. Mr. Robert Sandin. All right. I'm Susan's husband. We are currently building a Spanish Mediterranean revival house at 115, Leventa Avenue North. We had no problems getting it through. We love the old fashioned designs. That's why we'll love the Old Northeast. The reason I'm here is to support everything everybody has said positively about the project. My only concern is which is not really relevant, but we've been to other places, My concern is, which is not really relevant, but we've been to other places, specifically Ann Arbor, Michigan, which has older neighborhoods like this. My sister-in-law lives in a hundred dear old house, 1100 square feet. And the rule that has morphed in that community is if you're going to add on to one of these old houses, you have to add on a starkly modern addition. When I found that I couldn't understand why they did that there, and the answer there was they don't want people looking at those old houses, which were 1100 12 or square feet, and seeing a 24 hundred square foot house there thinking it was done that way originally. Why they did that I have no idea I think it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of because the house next door to my station across the street added on and it's a total abortion. So I'm so reason I came here is as hope that that didn't wasn't going on in St. Petersburg and I'm so glad we moved to St. Pete four years ago Thank you very much and keep up the good work. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Okay Next we move into cross examination city. Do you have any cross? No, I don't. Thank you. Applicant? No? Okay. And rebuttal closing arguments from the city? Hi, yes. I have a couple I just wanted to read historic preservation in the way that this profession and discipline has developed in the States is about really based on the federal standards or the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation and a lot of them focus on retention of character defining features of the features that make the building because you want to tell the story of the building's history and so that you understand how it was developed and what it should be. So changes shouldn't be done just to make something more aesthetically pleasing. They should be. So changes shouldn't be done just to make something more aesthetically pleasing. They should be done because they're based in the historic architecture of the site or have documented evidence, which is part of the reason why staff has recommended against some of the alterations, particularly to the 1950s and 1963 editions, because they should reflect the time period in which they were built. As our criteria for guidelines for alterations, say each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings without sufficient documentary evidence shall not be undertaken. I appreciate that in their proposal, they said that they're amenable to many of the community. I appreciate that in our proposal, they said they are amenable to many of the conditions. I am not sure I fully understand exactly what every single one is, but I really do appreciate that they are willing to compromise with us on this. I don't know if Derek wants to address the question about parking. If you are planning on that. I can do that. Yeah. I'm sure quick there was a public comment about parking. So in the analysis, we could see that the project is required to provide six parking spaces. They are providing eight within the central portion of the building. So those are in close spaces within the perimeter of the private property and does not require any utilization of the surrounding property and does not require any utilization of the surrounding public right of way. And then I think Ms. Berkins did an excellent job providing you some of the background and the principles that go into the staff analysis relating the balance of the project. Adaptive reuse is something that we talk often about. It's something that we meet frequently on with property owners, encouraging them to think about how to repurpose historic buildings rather than demolish and replace them. So in general, we think this is an excellent attempt to do that. Adaptively repurpose this existing building. And in our analysis, there were some key things that we highlighted from a design perspective, but that those design elements don't misrepresent our larger support for the project through the adaptive reuse proposal. That was very long-winded answer. I'm sorry, thank you. Thank you very much. Applicant, do you have any closing remarks? Thank you. To me, it makes sense to approve this guys to tall. So approve this COA, which provides three additional homes when there's such a shortage in St. Pete of housing while restoring and preserving the existing buildings. The purpose of the COA process is to preserve historic buildings. This applicant proposes to restore and preserve the buildings which have been vacant for more than 10 years. The buildings are in poor condition and continue to deteriorate more each day. With respect to the sanctuary which will become a single home. The historic view and architectural appearances from 11th Avenue, 1st Street, and from east will be maintained. The original church size, height, and massing will be maintained. The original church size height and massing will be maintained. The exterior finished materials of painted stucco and hollow clay tile walls and the original sanctuary would stain glass windows will be retained. The roof and masonry ingables will be retained. The main north facing entry steers will be retained. The two existing smaller sets of nonhistoric east west covered front entry porch steps and stairs and single entry door and masonry infill are to be removed and returned to their original architectural condition. The existing non-existent front porch, double doors and masonry infill are to be removed and returned to their original architectural condition and the existing historic front porch of the structure shall remain and receive a new roof with respect to the school building a covered entry patio in keeping with the architecture will be added at each of their front doors to provide protection from the elements and all existing doors and windows which are non-historic and are not architecturally compatible will be replaced. The general criteria for granting a COA are satisfied because the proposed work does not change the building's architectural style, distinguishing historic qualities or character. The work includes restoring a number of features to their original condition including stained glass windows and the front porch of the sanctuary. The conversion from a vacant church in school into three homes is completely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and less intense than the permitted use of the church in school. The project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood and the historic district and it's a significant improvement to the existing conditions. The denial of the COA will deny the owner of a reasonable beneficial use of the property. And conversion by three homes, as you've heard from Derek, is permitted by code. The additional guidelines for alterations are also satisfied because there's no defining characteristics of the building, its site or environment are being changed. No changes are proposed through the distinguishing historic qualities or character of the buildings. The alterations to distinctive architectural features none are proposed. No changes to create a false sense of historic development or proposed. This application includes restoring stained glass windows, filled in openings, and the front porch of the church. It also includes the removal of a number of non-historic features, including the mechanical room, chillers, covered canopies, windows and doors which currently detract from the building. This application does not involve changes to any distinctive features, finishes, building mass, building size, building materials, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. The application includes the repair or restoration of a number of deteriorated features including the roof, eaves, facet and stucco. In replacement of the deteriorated features will match the old and design and texture. This as you've heard today this application has the support of the neighborhood association nearby neighbors. The only support it doesn't have is from staff. And that's really down to two items. Item offense and a pool. And I would suggest to you that once this, these are treated as residences due to the overlay that these are residential uses. They're not a church. And having a fence or a pool in the Old Northeast neighborhood is very common throughout the neighborhood. And I would ask you to approve this. And I think we really faced with either restoration and preservation versus more deterioration. And we're lucky to have a developer that's willing to take this under and take the risk and do it. Steve, it's all yours. You got 16. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Point of clarification, in my report, I state that the same jury held us a seating capacity of 400 people as such they built the parking lot to the east. This project will remove that parking lot and close all the cars in a garage and relieve parking on the street for the residents. Also none of the additions have ever received Secretary of Interior treatment because it was only approved in 2020. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much for those presentations and thank you very much to the public who came out in support of the project as well. We will move into executive session. Who would like to start? I think I have one question. Who would like to start? I think I have one question. Would you mind repeating the numbers again? Whoever wrote with the staff conditions, you know, one through 12, there were number, could, would you mind doing those again please. Sorry. This is, this is face standing. Can you second here? What's the private room? We agree with two, three, five, six, seven, nine, 11, 12, 13, one and four we've had discussion on but in eight and ten we want to retain the fence in the pool. Okay thank you very much. Okay any other comments or questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Michaels. It's well first of all I agree with the proposed adaptive reuse as residential as has been pointed out. We have a dire housing crisis in the city, especially for affordable housing, but this would be a step that would help to resolve that. I appreciate the community's interest here and the developer's interest in improving the property and making it a better asset for our neighborhood and for our community. We do have the staff's report and we do have a compromise that has been proposed. The staff report originally stated that only one of four relevant general criteria were met and only one of six guidelines for alterations were met. I suppose that it's going to be difficult to, given the compromise that has been proposed here, does that materially change? This is a question for staff. Does that materially change the analysis that you have made of the extent to which the application meets the required criteria. Well, I'm still not sure exactly what is being proposed for conditions one and four. They mentioned something about leaving the banding. So I still think that it should still replicate the minimal ornamentation that is existence today and that is reflected in the 1950 photograph of that building. Regarding for, I'm not sure, I think there is some discussion about the Finitration openings. I just do my bringing back the presentation. Thank you. So they mentioned in their comments that they were retaining the butters. I didn't see that in these plans, but if they are retaining the decorative buttresses, that would be great, but I think if the banding is this decorative banding, I'm still not sure how that's going to be flush with the buttresses that are on the sides and how that's going to work. So that's something I saw a little bit of concern with, and I'm still not sure why the roof, if they're retaining the roof line or not, just keeping it simple as it is. I think for the windows, one of the big issues was this, the front facade from a window perspective, I'm not sure if those are the original window openings, they don't really reflect the type of window openings that you could see in the side elevations, that you could see in the 1950 photograph. If they were to change these window openings, I would recommend that they be approved to, again, match the mid-century era design of windows. It can be a casement window, but you could apply a grid that has that horizontality that looks like awning windows. That's generally what I've seen. Done when you replace awning windows on historic mid-century buildings, you can create a fixed window or a casement window and apply a grid that replicates an awning look. An awning window, if it was 80 years old, would be the timeframe that this portion of the building was built so it would be original to that building. But yeah, if there is a window, I think they mentioned that they were gonna propose putting windows here and that this blank area Because you're going to shift the staircase back Yeah, sorry. I was pointing to that one for the commission and it's a little hard for this to show up over here. Yeah The bottom left bay Yeah, if excuse me if you could maybe step up to the podium Yeah. Yeah. There's an interior stair with the proposed question. Excuse me. If you could maybe step up to the podium and speak into the microphone so that, yeah, why don't you come over here, Mr. Lane? I'm trying to understand exactly what the conditions are to know whether or not I agree it may be. We are as well. Okay. So there's some things regarding the swimming pool. The last church, well, or do you wanna address the windows now, Steve? Let me just address that one, that lower left hand window. There's an interior stair that was put up right against the exterior wall for support. But we can push that back, provide our own internal support for it, clear the wall to put in the window and it'll look like the others. Okay. I think if you were to create that same balance on the front facade of all the two windows on each bay, but then have them be approved with that again, what is a mid-century, a proper mid-century era designed window, whether they want to do a hung sash to replicate an oning or do a casement withne's, that would be my recommendation. Then, so then maybe, but I still have issues with the decorative banding, I think being applied, because I don't know how that's gonna work with the buttresses and how, again, it's adding ornamentation. I may add to the window issue in Milan, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but many of those windows that you see there are sleeping rooms and they have to have exit egress windows. And awning windows will not provide us the opening. I'm not saying to replace them with awning. I'm saying to replace them with either fixed or casement. It's up to you guys. And then you have the grids applied that make them look like an awning window. We've agreed to remove the cross and put grids and so we can match that pattern. That's what we were saying that we were in compliance or in agreement. Okay, great. Sorry. Okay. So then I think for this when you're talking about retaining this roof line, the buttresses and then doing proposed windows that replicate the grids. Can I see where you're pointing? I'm sorry. The central, the central, the- RT Parage? Yes. Well you see the the larger parapet on the bottom on the right, the single creonulation. Well we were suggesting is taking that larger creonulation and putting it down on the Arty Parach so they would both have a creonulation but as you can see the the correlations on the school additions don't match what was on the church. Exactly. In fact, all these faces took liberties with the buttresses and the correlations and the windows and morphed and evolved because there were five different additions. So what we're trying to do is something similar. Each one of those faces changed a little bit. And so what we're suggesting is we're raising the parapet wall cap because those correlations are hard to flash and they're leak sources for water penetration. So we wanted to come back in and get as much of a waterproof parapet wall cap as possible. I mean, my condition of approval is to retain this character in the future. Regarding the fencing. This fencing has been something that this commission has certainly discussed regarding its appropriateness. Well, yes, fencing has allowed per NT this is a historic landmark. And we have to go by the certificate of appropriateness in our design guidelines. We're fencing. Front fencing is not traditional, particularly the church buildings. If they were, I have no issues if the building is a building. If they were, I have no issues with the side yard fencing. So if the fencing was here and down, here and down, and even if they had a fence across, we could maybe discuss that. I would recommend that a fence across be a simple aluminum style fencing that's very minimal transparent and highly visible, I mean not highly visible, the opposite of highly visible, so that it kind of disappears into the property. Satisfying that again the design of the fencing is not something that this commission has typically approved for front fencing for houses and I can't think of any or would it be appropriate for this property or really general historic church properties. Part of the adaptive reuse is that you have to do the changes that are necessary to make the building work in its new use, but it's still supposed to retain that historic character. It should still look like a historic church building with the later additions. Seth finds that this proposed design as is, also find the mixture of the concrete with the aluminum wall, also a bit distracting if this commission wanted to do front fencing. I've been doing, again, low four foot simple aluminum style fencing, very little in design, but I still find that in general, the front fencing, very little in design, but I still find that, in general, the front fencing is not appropriate. I may add to that, we have not put fencing in front of the church, where I think which is the main cruts of the statement. We put them in front of the not more non-discript school church building, and that, if you notice, the pool has a wall enclosure around it, bike code, but it also affords children and dogs in our area refuge, whereas the other does not have it, unless we do what we're doing here. And there's two units there. So at this point, I'd have to look to Bellair whether they wanted to simplify the design to a more simpler fence, having a fence, but having a simpler design, I'd have them respond to that. I can't speak to that, they can. OK. And then to the last issue of the swimming pool, we're abided by our design guidelines. It says should be located in the rear. The last thing we've had a church building, which is also designed by Archie Parish, that was converted into a single family They were able to put the pool behind the church. So it was appropriate This commission has approved pools in the side yard, but those were houses. I still find it a bit An appropriate for a 1920 sanctuary building, but If you're going between the fence or the pool, I find the the pool would be more Hidden by the wall, whereas I think the fence or the pool, I find the pool would be more hidden by the wall, whereas I think the fence would have a more significant impact. And I hope I addressed some of the questions that were asked. Thank you. Thank you. I'm here for more. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Wait, did you want to comment on something that not yet? I mean, that, too. Okay. Did you want to comment on something that not yet? I'll leave that to her. Okay. You need a question, sir. Okay. Why don't actually why don't you just go back, take your seat, and we'll see if some other questions come up from the commissioners. Okay. Commissioner Michaels, did you have any other questions or comments? No. Want to hear from my colleagues here. Okay. Commissioner Gardner. You know, being an historic preservation, seeing a building sit vacant for 10 years, and the efforts that have been put in, bringing in a team, the developer, clearly an expert in historic preservation, the architect here. I'm torn because they want to meet so many of the criteria, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, with making modifications to one in four. I think they're trying to make all the necessary efforts to comply. I'm torn because I visit up north a lot, I'm from Ohio, and we see a lot of churches fall to demolition, to that state of demolition. And this building has been sitting for 10 years. I just think the effort has been put in, and I think that we should really strongly look at maybe some modifications to the neighbors that came here and said that staring at the fence, you said it would be okay. The neighbors have made an effort to come here and say that the wall surrounding the pool made sense, correct? So it's nice to see the neighborhood come in support of this project. So I think there could be some discussion on the fence and the pool possibly, because I think they're meeting the criteria of so many of the 13. I am torn on this. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Maltrey? I guess I did have a clarification question. So with adaptive reuse, it's residential, but we are still evaluating it as a historic place. Even those residential. Mr. Kilbos. Yes, you have two parts to this. So you have the certificate of appropriateness that is looking at the proposed physical changes to the exterior of the building and property. And then you have the use which is the adaptive reuse conversion from a church use to multi-family units. So in terms of the conversion to multi-family units that is permitted under the adaptive reuse section it does require this public hearing review so that when you have a use change like that you can consider any external impacts from the proposed use. In this case three residential units is going to have minimal impact on the residential neighborhood around it, which is what supported our recommendation to approve the adaptive reuse portion of the request. But are we still evaluating the reuse as a historic property? Yes, absolutely. Regardless of use, the building is still a listed local landmark. And so the exterior modifications require that COA review. And its status as a local landmark is what is allowing the adaptive reuse application. If it was not individually designated, then the adaptive reuse section of code wouldn't be available. Okay. Commissioner Marbe, do you have any comments or questions? I'm very much in favor of the adaptive reuse. I think it's great. I've seen the church sit there for a long time too. So it's also exciting to just hear the neighbors come out that are going to be looking directly at it and also they are excited for that as well. I think that staff did a really really good job of outlining some modifications that will hopefully address keeping the historic elements of it. I think especially the church, it's really nice to see that the church is going to remain with its character. One of the questions I guess I would have is if modifications were made to the school, is there any kind of landmark or anything that would talk about the history of it that's outside of landmark or anything that would talk about the history of it that's outside of the building? So that even if the changes propose they don't reflect the mid-century elements of it, maybe there is something that's still talking about the 1950s addition to the church so that it could still be honored in a way, but that the new residents of this adaptive reuse project would also be able to enjoy it. So that would be my first question, I think. I don't know. Derek, is there a landmark outside that says? Yeah. Is there already a placard or a sign, a historic marker of some kind? No, generally historic markers are placards. In the case you're talking about, we're often used when the building's been demolished and you don't have it anymore. In this case, we actually have the building and it's a physical reminder of what was, so this is why as a local historic landmark, it is your duty as a commission to make sure that any changes don't alter the integrity of the building and retain those character defining features. That's what this entire process is about. Generally, staff, we always recommend you retain the building, you retain its features rather than put a plaque up to describe. Though I do think a plaque to describe as history is certainly very interesting. You can even, as a website, when they're marketing the units, you can always, you can always do a lot of marketing to help tell the history of a building. Did the applicant want to address that question about historical marker? Developer. Marker there or plaque if it's appropriate. Okay. Not a problem. If you want to speak please go ahead and come forward to the podium and I want to make sure you've been sworn in. Have you been sworn in? I have not. Okay. I'm read, read, go to, oh, I was sworn in at the beginning. Oh yeah, that's, yeah, that's what I was asking. Okay, just state your name and address please. Go to address is 665478th Avenue North, Penales Park, Florida. I just wanted to first start by saying thank you to all the neighbors in Tihona, I wanted to admit some awesome people throughout this process. It's a great, great community, especially in neighborhood. So that's been eye opening for me to step foot in the neighborhood and see it. I will agree as a developer, if you guys want to placard we will remove the Westminster Church sign on the corner. I think that'd be a good place to put something right there. It's all I want to say. But thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right. Other questions, comments? Yes, please. I think that's a really good idea. I think that the old Northeast retains its charm because it is so walkable and I think having a placard for a sign, it is an adaptive reuse would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. I think that the one comment about the pool, I personally do not think that that is an issue. I'm sure that the sale price for these units is going to be quite high in the expectation for having a pool in Florida is there. Especially with the neighbors coming out and support, I personally do not have an issue with the pool item. That's where I stand on that. Okay. Yeah. Any other comments from the commission? Yes. One other question. I believe staff mentioned some confusion with the buttresses. Yeah. Is there any more discussion? Maybe the architect or the developer be able to discuss? Yeah, is the architect of record here? OK, yeah. If you could please come forward. I too will have some questions for you. So. Where it is. OK. Name and address please. Milan, Yvonnevich, 755, 28th Avenue North. The buttresses are all staying in place. At the top, instead of continuing up, because they all stop with a little metal cap on them, we're just gonna bring out the face of the parapet, flush with them to create a nice playing going across. The banding, the intermediate banding actually wraps around the buttresses. If you were to zoom in on the PDF of the elevations, and if you zoomed in enough, you can see the dotted lines of what was there versus what's happening on that. So all the buttresses stay on the front of the school building. We're adding buttresses to match the west side. And the windows in the front, we're matching the bays to match the existing ones on the first street side. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other Commissioner comments or questions? Just ask for clarification here again regarding the pool. I understand there has been a conflict about this but it's not just a matter of having the pool. It's also the location. Is that correct? That the staff are asking that if we have a pool, that it may be behind the church? Realistically, when you're adding a modern amenity to especially to a building that historically served a different use than a house, I mean, our requirements for pools, even for houses, are that they go behind the rear wall. You can't go behind the rear wall in this property. It's pretty much where they propose it or there is no pool. I don't know that there's really any other solution. Like I said, they've proposed to use that kind of solid masonry wall that would hide the pool. So if the commission finds that that is in a sufficient way to hide a visible minimaity, then that can be a conclusion you come to. Thank you. Okay. I do have several comments and questions. Just first comment I noticed that the applicant and owner met with Hona and the neighborhood back in the spring of 2023. Have the plans changed much since that time? Have, if the applicant or the project architect, architect of record owner, somebody, if, okay, I just want to know and be assured that the plans that was presented to Hona and the neighborhood nearly a year and a half ago are not significantly different than what we are seeing today. We've met with them several times and when we first met with them it was different and that some of the features of the Gothic style church were being brought to the school. And we had a discussion and said, we don't really like trying to make it all look like one structure. And we liked the idea of the two separate structures based on the periods with which they were built. To their credit, they came back, totally revised it, very close to what you're seeing here. Some modifications were made over time with the buttresses and the banding and the window style, which has been an issue I know working with the city, but to their credit, when we first saw it, I thought, you don't need to make it all look like a Gothic structure because they weren't. They said, fine, we'll come back and we do it and make it more in line with the the period that it was constructed and so we we we totally endorse that and thought they did a great job for that. And was the pool in the plans originally? I don't remember seeing the pool but we very much support that you know living in the old northeast. She said people have pools and with the price point they're going to ask I think it's a very reasonable thing they will want somebody will want a pool so I we highly recommend that you allow that. Okay regarding the pool is that pool uniquely for the unit owner who buys the sanctuary town home. Yes. Yes so it's okay that's what it is. That's what it appeared. Okay. Okay. I too really don't have an issue with the pool. I think it's set back. It's not overly sized. It seems to be the right size. It is screened by a wall. The applicant doesn't have a rear yard to place it in. So I'm okay with I'm okay with the pool so I do anything Right no slides no diving boards couldn't get insurance anyway if they did so Okay Question about the this is for the architect of record project architect. I, you know, the most important facade is the front facade of that sanctuary building. And it looks like originally the railing at the porch were, it was a classic concrete precast balustrade. What is being proposed for the railing on that front porch after you open it back up? The original precast. Concrete balustrade. It was precast, no out bridge. Okay, to as best replicate, and I noticed you're going to put that on the front and on the sides where there used to be doors, right? The railing went around all three sides at a front porch. Okay, okay, and it was all, and maybe it was just renovated. Okay. The porch is being restored in 1926. All right, so precast concrete, balustrade, like originally. OK. Glad to hear it. I have a comment about the fencing developer owner. Do you have buyers yet for the three units? OK. yet for the three units. Okay, so what if the owners who buy the town homes don't want fences? What if they don't have pets? What if they don't have small children running around? Could the fencing not be installed now and maybe installed at a future date after the units are purchased? the city staff has, you know, seems to approve of and then potentially, you know, once the units are sold, you could always come back or they could come back individually. And then, you know, once the units are sold, you could always once the units are sold, you could always come back or they could come back individually and apply for a certificate of appropriateness. Maybe not, it could also be approved at the staff level to install fences in the front yard if they want. So I'm just unsure why the fencing is being installed now. I understand along the side and certainly around the pool. I have no problem with that fencing, but I'm just wondering why the fencing has to be installed now in the front. There are some of the Christian Yupas, some of the 6654, 78th Avenue North, and I have been sworn in. So, we've met with a couple of potential purchasers. Nobody's under contract, nobody's agreed to at this point, but that is an issue that has come up, and rather than putting the onus on a future homeowner to go through the COA process, we wanna make sure we handle all of these things up front now, and then if the fencing isn't an issue later, and someone wants to take it out, that conversation can happen, but that's a lot easier than addressing it now. And the preliminary feedback that we've received as far is that that would be preferred just for somebody to have some kind of barrier in front of their home or to serenity home just to make it feel a little more secure. But that's where those conversations have gone thus far. Okay. Because I do, well first of all regarding the design of the fencing, I do tend to agree with the city staff that the design could be simplified a little bit. It's a little bit ornamental. I believe it's a little bit too ornate. And personally, I'd like to see something a little less ornamental if you're amenable to that. Absolutely. Okay. Personally, I'd also like to see it moved a little bit back off of the front property line. Are you amenable to, I don't know how the rest of the commissioners feel, but just personally, I'd like to see that fencing moved back. I'm okay with the fencing but did you have conversation with your potential buyers about the placement of that front fencing? No we haven't. The assumption was that it would be as far out as possible. Now if possible changes, possible changes. But okay Commissioner Michaels do you have a comment? Again clarification I thought it was said earlier that there would be no fencing in front of the church is that correct or right? Right yeah I'm just talking about the two more non-descript buildings yeah the 1950-1964. Right thank you. Maybe we could pull up the fencing. There we go. Okay. So the yellow line. So again, personally, I have no problem with the orange fencing, although it does protrude a little bit beyond the front face of the building unit A. And I think what City staff would like to see done is that yellow fence just shifted down so that it is aligned with the front facade of the building. That correct. And then on the other side, from the corner of unit A to the left over, and then it would die into the orange fence. Are you okay with that? That's all very reasonable. I'm okay with that. That's great. That's great. In that case, I approve of the fencing if you're amenable to that. Okay. A few more things. What's the intention, the intent for the new stucco? Because the existing stucco is, you know, it's really kind of feathered. And so any place where you're putting a new stucco, what is the intent for the finish? And yeah. I'm sorry. Here's a better vocabulary than I do. OK. Well, well, we were, because the existing stucco is so rough, it doesn't match for one side or another. OK. We were proposing to do a smooth coat all the way around. A nice crisp, smooth, smooth simple no frills. So you're going to restucco the existing stucco? Well that is going to stay. Waiting and matching. The sanctuary building. But other spots there's still a mix. You got exposed block in some spots you have. It's just the only way to cover it up is a good nice little skin coat around everything. Okay. City staff are you okay with that? No I'm assuming I'm bringing back the presentation. I'm sorry. I think you can definitely see the change in all but even throughout the entire building there is this kind of textured stucco. I think that that that texture needs to remain. I think it matches the sanctuary building, which also is the texture even the 1940s building. Well, the biggest change I can see is in the 1970s, on the top right, you can see it's maybe not the best craftsmanship of the texture, but I do think retaining that depth in that texture is really important. And I know that it's a challenge because you want to get the thickness, the minimum thickness, and so Mr. Lang, do you want to address that? When I did my PCS report, I noticed that from the church to the four editions, the stucco pattern is different on each phase due to the artistic nature of application by each individual stucco craftsman. And when you consider all the windows that have been taken out, all the punk's openings, the faux windows that were no pattern at all, you have, I hate to use the word, a hodgepodge, but you have a myriad of different stucco patterns all over this building. While some of them are rough, I agree. They have a rougher texture, they're not all matching. So that's the condition we find ourselves in. You have a stucco, no? Please step up to the podium. So that's the condition we find ourselves in. Please step up to the podium. Yeah, a picture on the upper right, shows a stone, like a painted stone look to it. Oh, can we zoom into that? Yeah, I. And then the wall to the left. Right, yeah. Yeah. It is like a. So that's even different than the wall to the left right yeah, yeah, it is like a So that's even different than the rest of the first street side of the building. Is that piece going to be removed though demolished? No, no, that's staying that everything's staying but we're gonna try to match the stuck-oh Whatever's the prevalent one Well, I'm not sure that that's the best solution though because There's there's a reason why each one of those additions look different. And I think you said it. The artisan, the stucco-subcontractor was different. And I think that's very telling. And that's maybe something that we want to retain. So to inform the passerby or to inform everyone that these were not constructed at the same time, I think if you go back and skim code everything so it looks the same, I don't think that's the right solution. I think maybe the best solution is really to try to match what's adjacent for each phase. Yeah. So well come, sure come come up to the podium. Currently building a house as I said, a Spanish revival. And we initially wanted to have the roughs that go, and our builder told us, forget about it, because that is basically a lost star as far as doing that. And it's, it's, it's, I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you. So yeah, I, yeah, I think that it's, no, you know what? The public comment section is really over. So this is, yeah. OK, so again, I think what I stated about the stucco, I think that's really what is maybe the best possible solution if the fellow, fellow commissioners maybe. Yes, please. In just doing some historic texture restoration to some of the buildings at the Vanot, I do believe there are craftsmen that are, they might cost a little more, obviously. They come from up north and it is a dying art. It's a dying trade, but I'm three generations, and we find the right craftsmen to perform that style of texture. It takes a little time and effort, but you've clearly done so much to get to where you are today. I think that I agree to keep that historical texture is so agreeable to not only the buildings, but the era. And it like like like chair was saying, it tells a story. So I would also agree with keeping the elements that historic texture. Choosing maybe, as you said, there's Hodgepodge, multiple different variations from different generations of craftsmen that held their tools differently, right? Striking it differently. And I just think maybe finding a compromise with historic preservation, I think, that that would be something I would agree with. Okay, and the final thing I want to address is the false embellishment, I'll call it. And the applicant has agreed to remove the tile medallions, which I do not think were appropriate. I'm concerned that the crenellated parapet is being eliminated. I'm concerned about the horizontal banding and I'm concerned that the buttresses are being lowered. I'm not as concerned about the new windows. I know that there's a reason for that especially because of the the functionality of the interior design, but I do believe that the crenellated parapet the buttresses are character defining elements and there really needs to be a way to Try to replicate those It mentions that you are raising the parapet. Is there a reason for raising the parapet because of flashing or OK, a project architect, architect of record, please explain why you are raising the parapets? Well, with the cringelated top and the new roofing coming up and wrapping up the back of the parapet and wrapping over the top for the new cap flashing, that's a difficult situation where we actually left the top of the existing parapet where it is. On the sides that it's raised, it's raised 11 inches on top of that, but still it allows for the proper flashing and roofing coming up the backside, which right now it's been cocked 20 times, it's in bad shape, it's all cracked. Are the roof trusses sloped? What kind of slope do you have on those low slope roofs? It's an eighth inch slope from way back when. And what are you going to rip off all of the existing plywood? I was going to do tapered insulation. Yeah, the plywood, the plywood should remain in good condition, but in tapered insulation to achieve the slope we need today. Quarter inch per foot. Okay, so that means you're going to, you've got to increase the parapet no matter what. Otherwise, you'll be up over the existing parapet with the tapered insulation on one side at least. Can you not replicate the Crenilations on the new parapet? I Understand that the it has to be raised I do I think but can you as for I mean it could be duplicated That what's there right now just needs to be covered up for preventative And then we can do new and proper on top. But maybe there are all three different. Everything's three different. But but it's that those are very. It's it's a very identifiable element and and the new design just flatten that all out. There's no interest other than that One dip in the middle and you did mention that you'd put that other dip in the other middle but I Yeah, I but I just I just feel like those the that is a It's an important element and and again lowering the buttresses proportionally The buttresses remain identical. We're actually adding Okay, it's just in the front is from the top of the existence of buttresses to the top of the pair Okay, okay, and you have said that you're gonna read all the existing buttresses are going to remain so okay I know we keep you know, we're all We keep asking for more and I want to just say I really commend the owner and the developer and the architect and the team. Really want to commend you on taking on this very challenging project and kind of nitpicking a little bit, but I think ultimately it'll be a much more positive project that will win my approval if we can just make these few little additional changes. So yeah. And so the parapet, the crenellations, you think you can... They are looking. OK. I know. I know. But I'm in. Put them back in. OK. OK. The appearance looks like and send a bang everybody in. OK. Go from there. OK. Okay. Go from there. Okay. There. Do the commissioners have any more comments or questions? I know this is it's going to be maybe difficult to summarize all of these changes, but we can I could at least maybe first ask for a motion for the adaptive reuse. We could maybe take care of that and then we could move on to the certificate of appropriateness and see if we can somehow summarize everything that's been said. So. Chair, we can do that if you'd like to do that first. Let's do that. OK. I'm going to ask for a motion for the adaptive reuse item. Will somebody please make a motion for that? I'll move approval of the adaptive reuse as recommended by staff. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay, roll call please. Wanna maker? Yes. Gardener? Yes. to make her? Yes. Gardener? Yes. Marvay? Yes. Mulchery? Yes. Nelson? Yes. Michael's? Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Before I call for a motion for this next, for the certificate of appropriateness, I do want to hear again from the owner, the applicant, the project architect that you are amenable to all of these conditions that we have identified and that you understand that they are mandatory and that when the city staff comes by for the final historic preservation inspection that all of these conditions will have been met. Okay. So if we can outline what those conditions are, and we will. And we will. But to answer your question directly based on the conversation we've had, yes. Okay. Iris, can you put the conditions list back on and chair if I may? Yes please. It seems that all of the conditions is stated by the applicant were acceptable except for one, four, eight, and ten. And I believe that they were all addressed in the comments and questions from the board and they were all addressed. And it seems to be at least in my reading and staff, Derek, you can pine on that. But it seems that an agreement has been made to move the fence back, which the criteria already calls for that in the approval, so that would not need an amendment if everyone's still in agreement with that. Retaining the windows and as the visual matching, not functional matching occurred, and that seemed to be acceptable. And then the first condition was alteration shall be not made to move character defining features, creanolations, minimal roof lines, and buttresses should be retained decorative elements that were not historically documented, such as decorative plaques. Plaster, accent, tile, and banning should not be added based on the discussions. Those changes seem to have been addressed also by the architect. So that would be in compliance with the conditions, the only condition as it exists right now would be condition 10 this women pool should not be constructed as the modern amenity not associated with the church so if this body would like to allow the pool that condition would need to come out. Yeah I was gonna confirm the fencing that I was talking about regarding condition eight was what we kind of were showing on the laser and the owner agreed to that. Yes, condition 10 would be the one taken out. I think condition four, we agreed to that the new windows visually should match but can operate as case man or fixed or I'm still not positive about one in terms of what they want to retain versus my condition of trying to retain those features. I understand that the parapet will need to be increased to do the proper flashing that's necessary, but my understanding is at least commissioner want to make her you want to retain those character defining features. I know they mentioned leaving the banding, so those are just some of the details that I'm still not sure about. So personally I would like to see the crenellations replicated where they exist now. So that and that is one of your conditions in item number one. I also would like the banding removed. Again, it's just my opinion, but it's one of the items in your condition. So I just, the added embellishment I think is unnecessary, especially if the crenellations are retained. Yes, so that was the intention of, yeah, first. Yeah, condition. And then I don't know if you need to add in something about retaining the textured stucco I forgot to include that I will in my conditions as I think that's a I think that's a character defining feature And and I think we heard from the applicants, but especially the architect that they intend to Match the adjacent surfaces. Yeah, I believe that's what we heard What about the marker do we want to add that? The marker. Mr. Reich, marker. Yeah, so this would be condition number. Well, 14 maybe. Just to clarify, I would be 13 because they would all shift up if you took 10 hours. To make it easier, you could make a motion to replace condition 10 regarding this women pool with a new condition 10 requiring a marker. I like that. Will somebody include that please in their motion? Well, please. Yes, we'll include that. the yes we'll include that if you let me repeat it over time it would be a motion to amend the conditions of approval specifically condition ten to replace the condition eliminating the swimming pool with a condition requiring the placement of a marker. All right. I move that the. I'm sorry. I'm going to say I just want to say one more thing. Sorry. Again, applicant, owner, architect, the conditions are mandatory. This meeting has been recorded. What you have said today goes, what we have said today, what we are approving goes. So, well, I won't say congratulations yet, but okay, now I'll call for the motion. All right, so I'll move approval of the certificate of appropriateness with conditions as included in the staff report except for condition number 10 being replaced with a condition that requires a historic marker at the site of the church. We would like to make a second. I second. Okay. Commissioner Gardner. And any more discussion? Roll call. Want to make her? Yes. Gardener? Yes. Marbe? Yes. Multree? Yes. Nelson? Yes. And Michaels? Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Okay, and now I will say congratulations. And thank you to the public and everybody who came out in support of the project. Okay. Does anybody would anybody like to take a five-minute break? Yep okay we are adjourned for the say ten minutes. the and and and and and I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. Oh the the I'm Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R the . you you you to . . . . I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ . . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . . . . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. Bye! you you I'm ready for the third agenda item. Iris will you please read the third agenda item into the record. Yes, this is. City file number 24-902-0073. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness for an after the fact application for a front yard fence at 710-31street north, a contributing property in the local historic district, the owner is Kristen Doyle, and the staff planner in this case is Cindy Koanick. Thank you very much. Ms. Koanick. So good afternoon. Cindy Koanick historic preservationist for the city of St. Pete. This project is an after-the-fact COA review for 710 31st Street North. Two public comments were received for this project. One was included in the meeting packet and one that was forwarded to the commission and applicant since it was received after the meeting packet was posted. 710-31st Street North is located in the Northwest Kenwood local historic district. There are two structures on site, a single family residence at the front and a detached garage at the rear. Property is listed as contributing to both the local and national register historic districts. A craftsman style bungalow was constructed in 1926, along with a one-story garage. An addition to the dining room was constructed in 1938. And the south or left side bump out near the rear of the house appeared to function as a secondary entrance since the property to the south was previously a vacant lot, which appeared to function as green space for this property until that lot was split in early 20. So the request is for the installation of a four foot tall pre finished aluminum fence with matching gates at each walkway at the front of the property. This work has already taken place. The fence appears to be the same as the neighboring front yard fence to the south which seems to have been installed at the same time. The applicant is requesting to retain the existing fence but simply relocated onto the property because currently it is actually in the public right away. The fence is a simplified version of a typical metal fence that would have been available on the market around the time this house was constructed. However, front yard fences were not typical for Kenwood area historically. The simplification of the fence style helps to tell the story of the modern versus the historic fences. This fence would be staff-approvable once relocated at or inside the property lines, but for the height requested. Typically historic front yard fences were three feet or less and made of metal or wood if they were present. Taller front fences were more typical of larger or state type properties. While the proposed fence is not quite as low as a historic front yard fence, it is the correct material and does not obscure views of the house. The fence has a high degree of transparency. I actually calculated it earlier today. It's a little over 80 percent transparent. The style of the metal fence has a higher transparency than a typical wood or vinyl picket fence and the fence is easily reversible. The proposed change is not enough to remove the contributing status of the structure. A few of the plans, so this is the existing fence as it's currently located in the right away approximately about one feet from the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to relocate the fence onto the property, including a modification to the side panels so that the entire front and sides of the fence are honored within the property. While the survey does not include an exact measurement from the sidewalk, the property line, it does list the measurement from the back of the curb to the property line, which is about 15.84 feet to 15.87 feet, staffed at rough calculations, so you're probably looking at somewhere along the three feet between the sidewalk and the property line. Not exact. The character of the property and the property line. Not exact. The character of the property and its relationship to the street will be altered by enclosing the front yard. However, the front yard fence installations are not unusual in the local historic district surrounding this. This chart included in the staff report shows previous CPPC reviews, including approvals for a scalloped wood or vinyl with matte finish fence, with a high point of four foot and a low point of three foot. It does not appear that a metal front yard fence has previously been reviewed in this district. And summary, the staff evaluation yields that many of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the granting of a certificate of appropriateness and most of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the granting of a certificate of appropriateness. And most of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the guidelines for alteration. Staff recommends approval with conditions for the after the fact review of a front yard fence with conditions listed, including the standard conditions of approval, along with the requirement that the fence be moved onto the property, which the applicant has already agreeing to. One error in condition number four that I've highlighted above. This was originally going to be heard in August and I forgot to change the date here. So the condition number four should be modified to say September 10th, 2026. That's pretty much all I have. Thank you for your time. And the applicant is here. Thank you very much. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to say? I have a prepared statement regarding the fence. So good afternoon. My name is Kristen Doyle and I am the property owner at 710 31st Street North in historic Kenwood. Although front fences were less difficult when my house was constructed, they did exist in Kenwood. Although front fences were less typical when my house was constructed, they did exist in Kenwood before the designation of the historic district. However, I do understand that they were often constructed of wood instead at three feet or less. According to the state-peat design guidelines for historic properties and the staff findings regarding the appropriateness of my fence, this pattern and materials such as metal or rot iron were in fact used. Additionally, the design guidelines, so far as I could read, did not specifically reject the material that I'm using. So I chose the transparent black decorative aluminum to honor the historic significance of this district. As I believe that both the material and the color choice represent the metal fencing that was available at the time. This specific fencing provides a uniform and cohesive match to my next door neighbor's fence in order to be both aesthetically pleasing and maintain visual transparency. It is my intention to showcase the house and not distract or obscure the view of this beautiful craftsman architecture. So I want to address not getting the COA prior to the fence. So I feel like that's an important part. So I am deeply apologetic that I did not obtain a COA prior to installing the fence. I was given false information from a fencing company, Von Fencing, that does not operate anymore. And I was informed that since the fence was four foot or under, I only needed to comply with the city code section 16 and did not need a COA. Whereas I have a privacy fence in the back that since it's, you know, an obstruct six-foot privacy fence, obviously we had a COA done, and that was done through my contractor and not through the separate fence company. So I also gave them a copy of my property survey, and it is also my mistake that I did not recheck the lines to make sure that they had installed it within my current property lines, which is why I would like to keep the forefoot and I'll talk about that next, my rationale for the forefoot, but I think it's really important that I do move. If you allow me to keep the four foot that I am allowed to move it back to exist within my current property, which I believe is approximately 19.26 feet from the front porch. So regarding the functionality of the fence, I believe this fence to be an overall asset to the house in my lifestyle in particular, given that I have two dogs, specifically a mostly blind, wandering 11-year-old rescue Yorkie and a 120-pound newfoundland poodle. This fence in the front allows them access to the front yard while maintaining the safety and protection of both my pets and neighbors. With one of the questions that she presented in the staff reporting was how does that, how is that important given that they could have access to the back and with respect to the older dog I like to have her more contained where I can see her at all times and there's less for her to get in and she doesn't have access to the crawl space because it is an older house. So having her be right there where I can see her and that she's I mean she's 11 which is quick. So is is important to me. The height and use of aluminum aluminum as a material allows me piece of mine, so the aluminum compared to the wood, it's sturdier, honestly, with 120 with two dogs. So it allows me piece of mine given that my doodle is very large, but also without detracting from the beauty and the architecture of the house. As someone else said from a previous, the people that came before me, I wanted to blend in with this black aluminum, not particularly decorative, in the house showcases. And you can see when you see the picture, it's almost like you don't really see the fence as much. I want the emphasis to be on the house. So it is for these reasons that I am petitioning the community planning and preservation commission to approve the staff recommendation for conditional certificate of appropriateness and allow me to modify the existing fence so that it is within the 19.26 feet of the front deck of my covered porch to exist within my current property lines. And that is all I have. Thank you to the members of the commission. Thank you very much. Do you have anything for me? Not yet, but maybe maybe later. I don't have any cards on this item. Is there anybody wishing to speak on this item? No? Okay, then we'll move into cross examination. Staff, any cross? Appliction. Okay, and applicant, do you have any cross examination? Yes. Okay, and then closing arguments. Staff. Appliction. Okay, and applicant, is there anything you want to say in closing? Okay. All right. With that, we'll move into executive session. Any comments or questions from the commission? One question. Yes, Mr. Nelson. I understand where you're coming from with this. And this question is actually more directed towards city staff. I was reviewing the report as a whole, you know, the 28 pages. And the page, the complaint, I was kind of confused with that because it addresses someone's misuse of a code enforcement, but I didn't see any, like the original complaint. So I wasn't really sure. Like on page 26, it says like subject, and I don't see who signs that, and then there's a come, then there's a page talking about how someone is, potentially a serial complainer. I wasn't sure what was going on there. This is simply what we received. In the envelope was attached on that next page. OK. That's why the envelope was included. Because there was no signature on the first page, the second page was also included in that was mailed to us. It's simply public comment that we received. Got it. That was my only question. I wasn's simply public comment that we received. Got it. That was my only question. I wasn't really sure where that came from. Other, excuse me, other comments? I think the owner has made a good presentation here and has answered my questions. And I support the staff recommendation. I agree. I drove by the home and I agree that the existing fence is very transparent. I like the choice of the black. It really is, it almost camouflages itself and the transparency really allows your home to shine. And you have a beautiful home. So, and I appreciate you wanting to keep your dog safe and allowing them out in the front yard too. So, I too, in support of the applications, subject to the conditions of the staff report. What is the status? I noticed that the adjacent home, the fence of the adjacent home owner is also seems to be out of compliance. Is in terms of location. What's the status there? I believe there is a code case. Okay. Here is a code case, and you will probably be seeing a COA for that at some point in the future, or potentially staff review depending on the results. And it looks like these homeowners relied on professionals who steered them the wrong way. Unfortunately, they wanted to do the right thing and you relied on professionals who I think I mentioned it but it was bon-fencing. I tried to multiple times to contact them regarding when I got the code enforcement just so that they didn't need any information that I could provide. You guys partially, I believe they were mostly working in Allendale. I think that the guidelines were different. Yes. Yeah. OK. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? Well, we do have that systems issue here with respect to notification or awareness of owners of historic properties, particularly when they're first acquiring them. And several months ago, I had made several recommendations on what might be done to help minimize that. So perhaps the staff could come back with a presentation on that at the next meeting. We're planning to do that as soon as we mail those out. the presentation on that at the next meeting. We're planning to do that as soon as we mail those out. We're gonna give you a detailed discussion once you did put in the updates here today. If you revisit the fence, review standards, and see if the commission wanted to make any changes based on your decision today. All right, thank you. We'll talk about that at the end of the hearing. Commissioner Nelson? Yeah. Miss Doyle I have a question for you and it's just more useful for us as a committee member so do you feel like the issue when the fence was being installed was just a fencing company was not responsive to you? Just so that way we kind of know what the, how the process once that we can help make it easier in the future too. So I went and looked at all of my closing documents in my house and I think that there's, not even a miscommunication but like very little communication so for new homeowners, as you were saying, you saying, I definitely think in kind of what there could be a packet just so people are on the same page like prior to when they are you know purchasing a house like maybe after they go under contract. I think that this particular fencing company didn't know, but I've talked to the land skapers, like the land skapers that did some of the front foliage, in my yard recently, they had no idea either. And they're used to working in old Northeast, Crescent Lake, Old South East. And so there's just not, and it makes it difficult because you want so badly to be in compliance, right? So I think the issue is not just this particular fencing company, is that getting at what you're asking, but all of the companies, but not just fencing, also landscaping, any not just fencing, also landscaping, any hard-scaping, any decking that somebody might do. And as you were talking with the previous person, this is Florida, people are really interested in utilizing their outdoor space. And that also helps with property value and just makes living in this neighborhood is one of the most wonderful experiences I have. We have so much fun here. It just kind of like helps that. So it's everybody I think. But having it be in, so I guess these changes were implemented in 2019, but having it be be more readily accessible. And it is on the onus is on the homeowner at the end of the day to do our due diligence. So there is no excuse, but if I were in that pending process for buying a house I could or under contract, I could completely be reviewing all of that stuff you know while you're having your inspections done because it's like in that time that you're having those inspections done that you're like I want to do this and I want to change that and you're just getting so excited but it's really it would be a good idea to like temper that excitement with just some hard data so that's something we've we've talked about and you know since yeah it's something we've been talking about and it's something that you know I've wondered I do not live in a historic district but you know where is that communication gap and obviously during that time is a really crucial time you know when you go under contract to the sale of your house and I think that it is really useful information to know so just was curious how that process went and what your feedback was. Well, I have some friends on the historic Hamilton Wood neighborhood association and it might be something that they want to look at at some of their meetings, just like in working with the city, just a packet for people and even for people that have lived there a long time. The changes, if they lived here for 20 years and then all of a sudden there's these new changes, they won't necessarily, you know, they may not have known prior to. And then all of a sudden they want to put like, for what are those things called on your roof for power? What? Well, like when you, oh, solar panels, I'm sorry. So like all of a sudden you want to put a solar panel and that may not be acceptable You know, so just knowing that going in. Thank you. Thank you very much other comments questions Well actually no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry you you can't Okay, I'm gonna you you can't. Okay, I'm going to call for a motion. We'll move approval of the staff recommendation to approve the COA for 71031streetnorth with conditions. I second. If I may, do we need to fix the date? Oh, yes. Yeah, let's subject to the subject to the conference and revision of the date on item number four. Four. Okay. Yes. Yes, subject to revision of the date on item number 40 September 10th, 2026. I second. Thank you very much. Any more discussion? Roll call. Want to make her? Yes. Gardner? Yes. Marbeg? Yes. Multree? Yes. Nelson? Yes. Gardener? Yes. Marbeque? Yes. Multree? Yes. Nelson? Yes. Michaels? Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Okay. Thank you very much. I would like her as my neighbor. All right. Our final agenda item. Iris, will you please read that into the record? Yes. And I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Do you mind if we just note for the record, the deferral of city file number 24-902-00077? 2101 Burlington Avenue, North. Yes, that was to be the next agenda item today and that has been deferred in November 12th 2024 Thank you very much. So this is actually the fifth agenda item Okay, all right. Thank you, Arbors. Yes and that city file number 24-902-000085 and 24-902-0086. The COA item 24-902-0085 is a review of a certificate of appropriateness application for the demolition of a detached accessory building at 2758 Burlington Avenue North a contributing property located I'm sorry in a local historic district then there is COA number 24-902 0086 this is a review of a certificate of appropriateness application for the construction of a two-story accessory building with a accessory dwelling unit at 2758 Burlington Avenue, North, a contributing property in the local historic district. The agent in this case is Mike Ketteringham with cast construction and the staff planner is Cindy Kohanik. Thank you very much. Okay Ms Kohannock. All right good afternoon again Cindy Kohannock historic preservation with the city of St. Pete. This is a dual COA review for 2758 Burlington Avenue North. Three public comments were received for this project after the meeting packet were supposed to online. one of which was supplied by the applicant. Comments were forwarded to the commission and the applicants. 2758 Burlington, Ab North is located in the southwest central Kenwood local historic district. There are two structures on site including a single family residence at the front and a single-story detached two-car garage at the rear. Both are listed as contributing in the local district. The first CUA request is for the demolition of the detached one-story frame accessory building. The second CUA request is for the construction of a two-story accessory building with an accessory dwelling unit and site work. The current detached accessory building at the rear of the property was built at the same time as the main house. Permits were pulled for both structures in December 1925, excuse me. The existing garage height and footprint appears similar to other accessory structures in this alley section in the 1951 sandborne map shown here. The pyramid roof is a little less typical for accessory structures of this time, and in this area, however, there are actually two similar examples on this section of the alley. These images, so the current condition of the accessory building, the garage is a minimal traditional with craftsmen details. The African is provided a report from a licensed architect containing an assessment of the current accessory building. The assessment sites issues being the lack of existing structural elements, the removal of historic details and materials, and that the size of the structure prevents any adaptive reuse. The recommendation in the report is to demolish the accessory building as it is beyond reasonable means of adaptive reuse. The architect has also provided a detailed drawing comparing the existing accessory structure foundation to that of a new foundation, which is provided in the report. As shown in the detailed images here, provided by the applicant, the siding corner boards trim, windows, and doors have all been replaced with modern materials. Many that do not replicate historic details while specific cost estimates for rehabilitation, relocation, or demolition and reconstruction of the building are not provided. The report does state that lifting the current structure would be cost prohibitive and would likely result in the failure of the building. Any alternative plans to demolition if pursued were not specifically addressed in the submitted application materials. The second application proposes the construction of a two-story accessory building with an accessory dwelling unit. Sited similar to the existing structure, the proposed building has a larger footprint than the existing structure and is proposed at 28 by 24 feet or 672 square foot footprint. The existing accessory structures in the Southwest Central Kenwood local district are mostly detached single story structures. The map further highlights that the accessory buildings located in the alley adjacent to the subject property are one story. In location the closest two story accessory buildings are 2721 Burlington, Avenue North and 2750 second Avenue North, both of which have enclosed garage portions that are smaller than what is proposed here for this structure. There are 24 total two-story accessory buildings in the district, most of which are contributing, but a few are later in fill, of the existing two-story structures, the majority are located behind one-story main structures. Here's just a sampling of designs of the existing two-story accessory buildings in the district. The heightened scale of the proposed structure is similar to that of other two-story contributing structures in the district. There are nine other accessory structures in this district that have a larger base footprint than the 672 proposed for the structure but some of them have incorporated either current or former open space on the first level. The ridge height of the house is approximately 16 feet tall and the proposed accessory structure is 21 foot 10 inches tall. The proposed project should not be visible behind the existing house, but will be visible from the alley and 28th street north due to its proximity to the corner. The proposed accessory structure is not secondary to the single story main house, but the floor to ceiling heights have been limited to eight feet for each floor of the ADU. So here are the proposed elevations for the ADU with an exterior stair and a 48 square foot covered landing. Separate single garage doors are proposed in the details for the most part are taken from the main house. The proposed one over one windows match what appears to have been an original configuration on the main and accessory buildings. It should be noted that the main house has replacement as well as the existing garage, both have replacement windows. The smaller windows on the north and east elevation of the proposed accessory building appear to have horizontally oriented sash, larger windows with a square or vertically oriented sash should be provided with a square or vertically oriented sash should be provided on these elevations. Additional fenestration could also be added to these elevations. It's not clear from the drawing if pre-mold windows are going to be used, but they should not be used. If there are paired windows, they should be separate window units with a larger mall in the center. It's unclear as to how the foundation will be treated in the accessory building the plans appear to show siding running to the ground Typically that's an issue with fiber cement So staff would suggest that the bottom row of siding be removed and it be treated kind of like this the foundation on the main house So like a finished stucco. The eaves are proposed to be closed with vinyl softet, with the exception of the front porch overhang. The house appears to have closed eaves, at least in part, but this is probably not an original condition. The existing garage has an open eave with fascia board and the eaves on the new accessory structure should mimic that condition. Siding exposure is proposed at 6.25 inches. The relief band between the first and the second floor is proposed at 8 inches. But there might need to be a little bit further differentiation, whether it be with color or size or additional trim to make that band pop. For the proposed accessory building demolition, staff evaluation yields that less than half of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the granting of a certificate of appropriateness, and half of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the demolition guidelines. Thus, the recommendation is from staff is for denial of the proposed demolition of the existing detached accessory building. Moving back to the new construction for the new construction COA staff evaluation yields that some of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the granting of a certificate of appropriateness and most of the new construction guidelines were either met or partially met. Staff recommends approval with conditions for the proposed construction of a two-story accessory building with an ADU with the conditions listed here including the standard conditions of approval along with some fenestration modifications and articulated foundation. Eaves to match the existing accessory building and with material details final door selections and other site work to be provided to staff for our review. I do wanna note that there is one comment before I wrap up here that one of the public comments appears to have been an issue with the PDF opening that was posted to the website. So staff has provided hard copies to both the applicant as well as the commission here. Ultimately, the public comment supports approval of the application. And that wraps up my presentation. Okay, thank you very much. Does the applicant have a presentation to make? Okay. Good afternoon. Alex Smith, Boone Architectural Restoration. I'm one of the other registered agents for this property. I have been sworn in. My address is 2624 Burlington Avenue North. The owner and the contractor brought me in early on in this process, actually, to help with the certificate of appropriateness. So I'm actually not the registered architect for the design, but it is important to note that I have been involved kind of with the whole application process with them to help them walk them through the process and actually go beyond of just helping out with the application. The contractor is even willing to let me red line their drawings and kind of give them some assistance with what is appropriate for this local historic district. And I think that's very, you know, worth mentioning because I think it means an extra level of kind of character with a contractor or with a developer when they're coming into these local historic districts. We see their construction in the neighborhood and it's always great when they reach out proactively with kind of concerned parties. And so I've been brought on to help with that process and kind of talk about that. So I like to always show this slide to kind of give you a little context of where this project is located. You can see it's located in the Southwest Central historic Kenwood, a local historic district that was just established in 2021. I think it's always worth mentioning to what you see here in historic Kenwood that, you know, these are the newest local historic districts in the city, some of which, and they represent more than 75% of all of the protected property within the city. So I think it's worth kind of bringing that up that we've done a large effort in the neighborhood and it's worth showing that just in the last seven years, we have a majority of the properties that are protected within the city, even unfortunately, we have less than 1 the properties that are protected within the city, even unfortunately, we have less than 1% of the city protected. So I think that's worth showing the kind of context here. And I, you know, that speaks to the process to become one. And so you'll see these small pockets within historic Kenwood, but know that we treat the neighborhood and the community and even the design as a neighborhood wide process and we try to look at that but we know we have to look specifically at these local historic districts because that's kind of the borders as well. The existing garage though it may look like it's in good condition from the exterior. This is one of those cases where permits were pulled literally months before the local historic district was established, where all of the historic elements of the home were completely stripped away from the home. You can't see in the pictures very clearly, but the siding on the exterior is textured with the fake wood graining, the trim and the casing around the windows doesn't feature the typical details. The doors have been replaced with steel doors and embossed steel doors. And the windows have been replaced with, between glass montons in a prairie style that I've never seen in a historic building. And so it's kind of missing all of those kind of character defining elements of a historic building. And then on top of that, the structural condition is I would say typical of a garage in these historic neighborhoods. They are lacking any type of reinforcing in the concrete. This case, you know, the footing around these garages kind of exist in a way that sometimes they're better than others. This one is kind of in the middle ground where it does, yes, have a CMU base, but it's completely hollow. You can see from the previous picture, you know, the spray foam that was kind of sprayed into the void, and then the typical garage coating was added to the floor to try to dress up the failing foundation that's underneath it. So, you know, it doesn't have, and as well as the grade over 100 years has elevated to a point where the CMU meets the base of the wall is going to be an issue with water infiltration. I also want to talk about kind of the size of the garage when addressing this. You know, it's important to remember that these garages were built. This one may be minimal traditional. A lot of them are framed vernacular where they're kind of built on site out of leftover building materials. And they're designed for cars from the 1920s, which as you know are much smaller than modern day cars. This garage is a typical 20 foot depth on the outside, and so fitting a compact car in there is difficult at times, especially with the single cars. And it kind of is below that threshold of to really fit comfortably a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit. And the owner's desire is to, you know, he lives in the front house, has established residents he here in Florida, but you know, his mother also lives here. She is aging. He's looking to put his mother as long as well as his sister, who is the caretaker of his mother, in the garage apartment behind the property. And so that's why they're also trying to fit. And if you looked at the floor plan, it's a very tight floor plan to be able to fit two bedrooms below what I would usually even design, but they wanted that establishment. So that's the demo portion of it. When we moved on to talking about the new construction, in the design guidelines that the city wrote, ironically in 2017, prior to any of these established local historic districts within historic Kenwood, there's actually no section in there about accessory dwelling units, which are, you know, historically precedentally available in these neighborhoods and also a hot topic right now because of housing and density and all of that. And so as a part of the process, I went around and studied this specific local historic district in Kenwood and instead of just reading the report, I walked every single alley and took photos of every single one and so there were even some minor discrepancies on the number of historic garage apartments located in the area. And I also wanted to establish what the standard kind of square footage of these areas were because on a previous commission, I watched the video actually I was at this commission. mission when y'all were presenting to proposing a 600 square foot garage apartment behind a property located in the northwest Kenwood and I wanted to know if that was really an appropriate size for this so as part of that process I studied every single one of it and so you can kind of see some of the stats and that was part of the application. Ironically the average ADU within this district is 837 square feet, which is actually over what the city allows by zoning. And so, but I think it's worth pointing out what the average was. There were actually many that were higher than that number. And then we also looked at kind of the base material, some of the initial meetings with the city. With Cindy, we were talking about what the base material would be, whether it should be siding all the way down, whether it should be CMU on the bottom half or some other material. And there was really no conclusive evidence in this district that there was any differentiation. It was kind of a split between the two. And so we felt that it was still appropriate to do siding all the way down. And then we were also looking at the roof orientation, as well as having an extra kind of overhanging section that was covered as opposed to just having an open deck as the entry. Here's some of the photos. Some of the kind of design elements that you would see, and these are all within the local historic district in this specific district. And so you can see that overhanging element was actually on a majority of them and they were mostly all enclosed. There were a few that were open with just entry spaces and so we were taking pictures of that. I think it's also important when you don't have design guidelines for accessory dwelling units they're they're actually very different than typical two-story historic structures where there is a lot of symmetry with the windows and the design whereas accessory dwelling units you actually hadn't hardly ever see windows on the first floor because they are a garage space and so I think adding the windows in this project helps to at least add some character to that first level even though it does remove some of that symmetry but there really is a lack of symmetry in accessory buildings when it as opposed to kind of comparing it to maybe a prairie or a four square us two-story building. And then some of the specific design elements of the home which there weren't a lot left because the same kind of process was was affected onto the home. We are going to be replicating one of the sunburst gable vents there and then that's just the door design. So as I as I mentioned also this client was very amenable to me redlining their drawings which was nice of them I would say for them to come with a design and and let me mark it up And so we went through a couple of different iterations kind of adding the detail because you can see the top right was the initial design And we made a lot of changes And then submitted them and then we've also made additional changes after Cindy had some additional comments And then we are are left with this design that we have, and we just kind of showed the relationship as well as it is to the front. And then it is worth mentioning, you should have received a letter showing support. We have a signature from every adjacent neighbor on the alley to this property in support of it. We've have support from the neighborhood association. And we think this could really improve the alley to this property in support of it. We've have support from the neighborhood association. And we think this could really improve the alley for this area, but also just help with the housing that we need in the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. That was a very thorough report. And I think it gave us all some additional education that we hadn't had before. So very much appreciated. We've got a couple cards. First speaker is Robert Lieberman. I could have afternoon. And my name is Robert Lieberman. I live at 2758 Burlington Avenue north with my husband. And what we're aiming to do is we moved down here to take care of my aging mother and sister and we need a place to park. We can't get a car in those parking spots and similar to the prior person speaking, we did not even know we were in such a historical portion of the city that would require all of this. And we're more than happy to comply. This would be our fourth historic home that we've owned and have redone. So I just wanted to say that and respect whatever comments you have. Questions? Okay, so are you saying that you are willing to comply with the conditions? No, no, no. As presented, as is two story. Okay. Then I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. As we, whatever comment, commentary, or recommendations you may have, on how this thing may should look more and more than open to, to hear your suggestions. All right. All right. Okay. Thank right. Okay. Thank you very much. And Alex Smith. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's okay. Okay. All right. Cross examination by city staff. Okay. Cross examination by the applicant. Okay. And how about closing arguments, anything you want to say in closing? City waves. Okay. Closing statement. Maybe you could, maybe you could specifically address the conditions because they, yeah, each one of the conditions because there were quite a few of them. So, yeah, so addressing the conditions, you know, the, not forefoot casing, fore inch tracing and trim, there is a detail within the drawings that I provided to the contractor in the details that detail the casing on the last page of their architectural drawings, addressing the windows and doors. So item number two there. Number one, we can work through the window kind of orientation and sizing. You know, I will say I think the first round that we submitted with the application showed some square dimensioned windows because typically in these historic homes, the dimension of the width of the window is actually repetitive throughout the entire structure. And so when you get into areas like bathrooms and kitchens, they actually don't reduce the width of the window. They actually reduce the height. And so visually, you may appear that the sashes are more horizontally oriented, but realistically, the window size is a square. And then that creates a sash dimension that is horizontal. If you're looking at it just in the sash, but you can walk around the neighborhood and see that that's actually historically appropriate. And so I think that might need some clarification, but I think the owner has already told us too. We're willing to fit those details. There actually is nothing, no mention of horizontally when did or vertically oriented windows in the design guidelines. I did a double check before coming here today, but I'm very aware of what the windows are in the neighborhood. But the bottom row of sighting, I think they're compliant with that makes sense. The rafter tail details. Well, wait a minute. Number three in your presentation, you mentioned that you thought that it was appropriate to keep the sighting all the way down to the ground. Oh. And staff is recommending to remove the bottom layer of sighting. So I was referring to having sighting on the bottom fissot, bottom story, as opposed to, like, below the middle banding, as opposed to having CMU all the way up to the intermediate band at the second floor level. So it sounds like you are okay with number three. Yeah. Yeah, number three is understandable. It's also good for water and stuff. Yes, yes, definitely. And so this is, I will be honest, this has been an interesting collaboration between me as a consultant and them as a contractor and builder and a homeowner. And so there's definitely this, it's maybe not as clear sometimes. And but all of the conditions the owner is willing to meet to get approval. OK. willing to meet to get approval. Okay. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Yeah. Yeah. While we're waiting, anybody have any comments or questions specifically? I do have one comment for the property owner, but take your time to read though, Tim. It's important that you understand the condition. So if you want to read for a minute, I can ask my question in a couple of seconds. After you read. Commissioner Michaels. I have some questions for staff here, having a lot of difficulty with this case. On the one hand, you're recommending denial of the request for demolition. And on the other hand, you're recommending approval of the ADU. And to me, this is kind of counterintuitive here. Yeah, this may have happened before on other projects at a very, like, I look directly at our guidelines and comparing everything directly to our guidelines. That's how either of these projects fall. So using them separately, and yes, I know one ultimately means the other, an approval of one ultimately means the other essentially will come down. I base each project on its merits and how it basically ends up comparing to the guidelines that we are tasked with upholding. Chair, if I may. Yes, please. So Commissioner Michaels, you might remember it used to be we had completely separate hearings for a demolition COA and a new construction COA. We would do one one month and we would do one the next month. That was changed in the interest of not delaying what is already a lengthy process for applicants so they were held together. But Ms. Cohanik is right. For the staff evaluation, they do have to be evaluated as separate items and that's why the demolition one is placed first. And I would ask that the commission votes on the demolition application first because if that is not approved, there really is no reason to go on to the second vote for the new construction. Again, staff is bound by criteria for each of the separate requests. So in looking at them separately, staff could not make a recommendation for the demolition. However, they could make a recommendation with the conditions for new construction because those are different criteria under the code. Again, with anything, the commission, that's only a staff recommendation. The commission can make findings based on the criteria and their own opinion. And it's not you're not bound by approving one or denying the other. Right, that helps. So then we go to the criteria and staff are finding that only two of the five general criteria are met for demolition, and only two of the four relevant additional criteria are met, which is a, and that's a pretty heavy recommendation to not approve the demolition here. Now, my approach to the criteria, and tell me if this is correct or not, is that it's not just a matter of counting the number of criteria that are met or not, is that it's not just a matter of counting the number of criteria that are met or not, but giving weight to certain criteria over other criteria. And I, well, first of all, is that a correct approach? Yes, Commissioner Michaels, though I would recommend in findings that we, the commission, if they are voting for any application, not just a demolition COA, that there's a finding of consistency with at least one of the criteria. Well, all right, again, thank you for that clarification. To me, as I look through the criteria here, the one major one has to do with the number one additional criteria for demolition. The purpose and intent of these additional requirements is to determine that no other feasible alternative to demolition of the local landmark or contributing property can be found. And on that one, the staff did find that the application was partially consistent. And then we had another one number two, which says that the applicant cannot receive a reasonable return on a commercial or income-producing property and that there is no reasonable beneficial use of the property. On that one, the staff found things being inconsistent there. So maybe to help me here, I mean the applicant at the owner has already presented considerable information to show that this garage is in bad condition. So I'm kind of I'm accepting that. What about that second point there, no reasonable beneficial use of the property, no other beneficial reasonable use? We're using it as storage. I can't get a car in there. And that's about all we're using it for. OK. All right. Thank you. I believe Commissioner Nelson had a question. Just a comment. And I don't think, I think, at the stage that we're at, it's not going to make a difference, but just a comment, and I don't think, I think, at the stage that we're at, it's not gonna make a difference, but just a comment for thought. I'm in reviewing the plans for the first floor, and the second floor, the first floor, obviously, finally, fit a car, store some stuff in a restroom. And then the second floor is where the two bedrooms are, kitchen, you know, usable for your mother and your sister. I totally understand being able to take care of an aging family member. I think a lot of people can understand that need. And I think it's a great use for an ADU. My concern is just as someone who's dealt with this in my personal family. I'm going to own my mother in the house. Okay. As you say, the stairs is just the usage of your mother being able to go upstairs because unfortunately, you know, first single level is the best. So I was just my only concern, the thing that I noted. So that's all. They're going in the house. We're going to go upstairs. OK. Well, that's very nice. Thank you. Other comments? I'll just make a comment. I think it's important to note that eight foot ceiling heights on the first floor, well, I'm talking about the new addition, the new ADU, that eight-foot ceiling heights on the first floor, and especially the living unit on the second floor is not ideal, but the architect has proposed to keep them low to reduce the overall massing of the ADU. So appreciate that. And again, shown on the drawings and the architect mentioned, I know you're not the architect of record, but the architect consultant mentioned the historic details, the fan light on the gable ends. And I think there is going to be two of them on each gable end. Those are really, really important as well as that eight inch relief band. I think that's going to be a very nice element. So, again, those are being approved and let's make sure that they are in place when the historic, if this is approved, when the historic preservation final inspection occurs that these elements are in place. So yeah, I mean, I, the, you know, sometimes these, the need for accessory dwelling units in these old historic neighborhoods, the need for parking a reasonably sized car or two cars, you know, is conflicting with the, you know, the demolition, you know, not wanting to demolish these existing single-story garages, I think one need really outweighs the other. And so I support both of these applications. Yes, Commissioner Multree. I support the project as well, but I do have a clarification question. So if we're reviewing these separately, Yes, Commissioner Mulchery. I support the project as well, but I do it a clarification question. So if we're reviewing these separately, if we were, the demolition conditions number two says that a COA for new construction should be approved by the community planning and preservation commission. What does that mean? So that means before the demolition could actually be conducted and permits issued for that, a condition would be that you will have approved some COA for new construction. And that prevents the loss of a historic resource without a plan in place to replace it. Yeah, that same kind of requirement is for any demolition in the, especially in the downtown district, so you don't have just an empty lot sitting for a long time. So yeah, but that's, that's a good question. Other comments? Yes. However, you know, we're separating them. Yes. It's hard to not understand that there is a COA to construct the two-story. You know, without like creating this demolition, right? If the commission would prefer that condition can be amended that subject to the approval no clarify that no permit shall be issued unless a COA for new construction is approved. I like that. That's what we're talking about. Yeah. Mission accomplished. So yeah, if we're talking about. So yeah, if we're ready, then we can I'll accept a motion for the first application, the demolition. Somebody would like to make that motion. Sure. I motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the demolition of the detached accessory building at 2758 Burlington Avenue North. And that be subject to the staff conditions as amended. Subject to the staff conditions as amended. Thank you. Is there a second? A second. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Roll call please. Yes. Want to make her? Yes. Gartner? Yes. Marbe? Yes. Multree? Yes. Nelson? Yes. Michaels? Yes. And that motion passed as unanimously. I just want to be clear for the record that that condition and that approval doesn't require you to approve the next one. It just states that in order to physically demolish the house under permits, they have to have an approval of some new construction, whether it's this approval or a future approval. Okay. If we're ready, we can move ahead with a motion for the next certificate. Madam Chair, if I may. Yes, please. I believe the consulting architect noticed an error on item number two, as should be four inches, not four feet, less into cell, use FT instead of the little parentheses. Okay. Yeah. Okay, so item number 10 should be amended to say provide a traditional four inch casing. Number two, yes. Yeah. In lieu of a four foot casing. Yes, we're not looking for that. Okay. And one other note about number one, the fenestration is actually, it's a zoning requirement for the N.T. area, which we typically just kind of roll into our conditional approvals, but if that's not something we're feeling strongly about. Well, I think the the owner applicant is amenable to each of the conditions and working with city staff to to come up with a approved solution. So I think I don't think it'd mean a major change. It's just kind of elongating maybe or just making minor tweaks to make those sassures. Okay. So can I ask for a motion for this next certificate of appropriateness? I'll move approval with conditions. The certificate of appropriateness application for the construction of a two-story accessory building with an accessory dwelling unit at 2758 Burlington Avenue, North with conditions as corrected period. Okay. I second. Great. Any more discussion? Okay. Roll call. Want to make her? Yes. Gardener. Yes. Marbeg. Yes. Mulchery. Yes. Nelson. Yes. Michael's. Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And thank you for taking care of your home and your neighborhood and welcome. Okay, we've got updates announcements. I'm going to come pass these out to you. We wanted to talk to you about updating the fence standards based on the application today and the thank you. And can Derek, can I make a comment about that based on the cases we had today? Yes. Where you start? I just want to remind the commission, we're going to go over some of the information for historic districts, but to answer some of the questions that came up during that particular item. Oftentimes we see issues with fences in particular because fences are not required to have a permit under city code. And that's a city wide requirement. If you're building a wall, you will need a permit. But fencing doesn't, and so that compliance check review where it would be marked for COA review doesn't happen because they're not coming in for a permit. Also in this case, even if this was not a certificate of appropriateness case or a COA, it would still be a violation because of the placement in the right of way. And that's also something we see a lot is misplacement, mishite. And I think some of it is some that people don't understand that they need to get a see away. But I think a lot of it is just fence companies knowing that there is not a permit requirement. And basically just do what they want to do. We see it at code enforcement board, unfortunately, with fences and with other projects very often. So I just wanted to put that in there that a lot of times the violation isn't historic, it's a zoning violation generally. So with that, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All this is a rough draft of Frontyard F fences as it's been previously approved by this commission. The format of it will probably be changed for marketing so we can align with what they want to see. But I think the biggest thing that we kind of left open was what's highlighted in red. The amount of transparency required I have gone out and measured four different fences, two different wood fences and a vinyl and a metal again it depending on the design it could vary from there but the wood fences ended up at 47% transparency and 45.5% transparency hence the 40% that I highlighted here, but we can go lower if you so wish. I mean higher transparency. Or higher, sorry, yes. Right? 40% will be the floor. That'd be the floor, yes. Minimum. Yes, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. And what we saw today, you said, was 80%. Is about 84%. I didn't want to get. And who would be required to calculate that transparency? Are we going to make the applicant? Or are you going to do that? Yeah, I think that would ultimately come down to staff. Yeah. Yeah. yeah. OK. I like that we're going to create a floor for transparency. I think that's really important. How did you calculate? What happens if it sits six inches up from the finished grade? Do you count all of that as open or are you only looking at the fence panel? I'll be honest I looked only at the fence panel. Okay. Because potentially that is especially if you've got a horizontal. And if there's horizontal, the ad more. Yeah. If it's horizontal you could get potentially that is especially if you've got a horizontal. And if there's horizontal, it's like, yeah. If it's horizontal, you could get complicated. Could get complicated, yes. And we have standards currently in place that have been in place for a while for gates on docs. And that has a transparency requirement, used most often or on coffee pot, so there is already a formula for calculating that. So if we aren't already using that, I would recommend we use that for consistency. Okay, that's a good idea. And is the gate going to be, let's, will the gate be subject to the same transparency requirement as the fence. That would be up to the commission. Because I could see some in some cases where that might be different. Yeah, different gate. Yeah, right. So what are you asking us today? I guess ultimately is do you want to do you want us to use this transparency requirement or does it need to be added? Does it do we want a different floor? What's a white vinyl fence? The white vinyl fence that I measured which actually had fairly narrow pickets that just happened to be what was in the store, was surprisingly enough, 70.7. It had the very narrow, like it mimicked an old historic wood fence with a very narrow picket, which was surprising because I think some of the ones that are actually in the district might be more of like a 50% ratio. And certainly side yard is completely different. We're just talking about front yard here. Circuli front yard, yes. So what would our transparency have been for our applicant today? Oh, she would have been fine. Yeah, visually, you know, like on your 40% 6080, was she 80? She was about 84%. 84% like calculated. Yeah, okay. That is not counting the horizontal in there. And I think zoning doesn't necessarily count the actual posts. Okay. Okay. Okay. Generally the bottom, if I'm remembered correctly, and I would have to check, but I believe the bottom opening is not calculated because there's fluctuations in grade, right? It would again make it too grow and do account for. So I believe it's the structured part of the fence brand gate. It's okay. Any comments? How does 40% feel? Is that too low? Should it be 45? Should it be 50? Does that be too difficult to? What made you pick 40? Simply because the two wood fences that look like standard wood picket fences calculated out at 47% and 45.5. So I cut undercut the lowest a number at 45 because I figured do we want to go, if you want to go right at 45 that's fine. I think for the most part visually they look at but look about their 50%, but when I did the math, it was two and a half inches between open space, between three inch pickets that calculated out to the 45.5%. And like in your professional experience with fences, because I don't deal professionally with fences, 40% feels like a good floor. Is that kind of why it was suggested after, you know, what you saw? Okay. I guess not too strict. I mean, well, my initial thought was to go 50%, but with the math calculating on these wood fences, the two wood fences that I measured. Right. Yeah, 50. Well, I certainly wouldn't want to go below 45, given what you have identified in terms of wood fences, but do you think more than 40% I? I almost think it's kind of a rain you well You don't want it well no, there probably needs to be a I Would recommend if staffs research is shown that the typical is between 45 and 47 that we stick at 40 That's a round number and that should statistically account for errors and fluctuation of materials. That's right. Yeah. And fluctuation and construction and installation. So yeah, I think I'm OK with 40. I think that's a good number. OK. What else? That's good guidance. I guess the next item is with the decision today. Do we want to potentially open this up and address front yard height in the districts? You know what? One of the reasons I'm okay with the four foot height today was because it was 84% transparent. I think if it was 40% transparent, a four foot height may not have been visually acceptable to me. So I don't know if we... I think there would be an ability commissioners for right now it's an automatic fences more than three feet in height come to the commission but there could be a way that fences that are more than three feet in height but greater a percentage of transparency could remain a staff level approval. Right. Yeah. No higher than four. That a higher threshold than I you could do that but that's a possibility to go ahead and adjust the approval levels for that. Yeah. I'd like to keep as much with staff approval as possible and if we can do that by adjusting this in your opinion, what would be a good transparency percentage for a four-foot fence? So the one other option is to limit it by material, which the metal fences are going to have a lot more transparency in those traditional styles. I mean, there's probably an outlier out there that may not meet that. However, I think you have that potential to say, well, if it's an aluminum four foot fence with this much transparency or traditional, yes, then you could go that way. It's just what does the commission not want to review? Because that felt like, I mean, I could have staff reviewed that that would have been one less case in front of you Oh, so I'm never spoken from this side. This is very odd but I also want to bring up just a question Regarding if we do the forefoot if it's aluminum or high transparency Would that be just solely fencing that doesn't include any like masonry columns or anything. I just want to throw that out there because we had that proposal today as well. So, um, because generally talking about the calculation of transparency, generally doesn't include the post or the support so that wouldn't include a masonry column or would you want to keep masonry columns coming to the commission? Um, I think we all, we already allow the masonry columns to extend at least an additional six inches above right they can be 36 inches maybe or Yes, I mean we've only had a few and they've all come to this commission and there is a lot of discussion about them So that's why I don't you know, right? We've not handled it at the staff level so you feel that you know those kind of columns are kind of a character defining aspect of offense, which to me would mean coming to the commission for something like that kind of keeping trying to keep criteria consistent. I mean realistically most of the ones we've had proposed were in like Granada Terrace or a local historic landmark and it would come here anyway, but I just wanted to throw that out there and not try to make it more complicated, but just let staff is here. No, but I think about that though. I think we can add that to the CPPC review column is basically anything with a larger masonry column automatically reverts to the commission. So that can be something we can just add to the chart on the CPPC review side, if you guys would prefer to see that. I was not thinking of that in this transparency. It did not even occur to me to think about the large masonry columns. It may be that the applicant upon seeing that may decide to eliminate the masonry columns that they had proposed, just do a aluminum transparent four foot tall fence just so that they can get through easier approval. But I mean, yeah. And that may do exactly that commissioner. Yeah that would encourage folks to choose the staff approval levels. Right. Do you think that it would be useful when this is shown to an applicant? I know I personally do really well with if not not, then graphs of, you know, kind of having a graph on here that says if it's a metal fence, you know, this is what happens then, you know, you can, I know that that sounds like a really intricate kind of thing to make, but I think it'll also illustrate it a bit easier for everyone to understand. And then if it's, you know, like you said, like a character defining characteristic, immediately to see PPC, you know, stuff like that. I mean, we could think about maybe including photos to kind of show like here's a photo of a fence. I can think of one that this commission approved that had columns and and transparent and say do, you know, we can we I think we can provide photo examples. I don't know how detailed we want to get on this in terms of graphics, but I do find photos going to be pretty more helpful. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We'll coordinate that with the marketing team and putting the final document together. What was important to us was reacting to the pattern that we're seeing with approvals that are coming from the commission and chairwantamaker like you said, you know, when there are opportunities for us to pull things down to a staff level review, that is respectful of the process and where we are. We want to do that. It's, you know, eight weeks from application deadline to public hearing. It's 24 hours for a staff turn round. So we would much rather do a staff review if it's agreeable and four foot high aluminum fences with high transparency are regularly approved through this commission. So you know we've taken an incremental approach to it but there is consistency in the decisions that are coming out of the public hearings and so we think this might be in the decisions that are coming out of the public hearings. And so we think this might be in the appropriate time to take a four foot aluminum fence, move it to the staff level review column so that they don't have to keep coming to this commission. If somebody wants to propose a four foot vinyl fence, that would come to this commission. Or if somebody wants to propose something more than four feet, they can come to this commission, or if somebody wants to propose something more than four feet, they can come to this commission, or if it's a solid wall that has no transparency it would come to this commission. But we think that, given the application you had earlier today, again, the decision to approve, this was a good time to schedule this discussion to maybe update this document and how we approach these applications. Can I disaffect upcoming application? Well, as you heard earlier, there are a number of code violations throughout the Kenwood neighborhood that oftentimes are not historic preservation related. There are violations of the zoning code, but because of the work that we do, they're being identified in the field. I'm just wondering if this could help alleviate some of those. Yes, absolutely. Having to come to this commission. Yes. Right, and in turn, open up more challenging projects. You get, you know. It's a qualified yes. It's a qualified yes because we are one small part. They could have a four foot aluminum fence that's violating two or three zoning code standards that we can't fix through our process. They would still need variances anyway, so we can fix a small part. I have one more question. So when it says traditional designs only and this is because you never know what someone's gonna come up with, does that include color? Because I didn't see anything in here about color necessarily, is that something that we want to address or does that kind of fall under traditional design? We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. We know what. parts of our code, obviously, if someone came in and was asking for suggestions, we could point to design guidelines and offer us suggestions with that. But, no, at this point in time, we do not regulate paint colors. Or just like metal colors. You know, you can have a black metal fence, you could potentially have a white metal fence. Like, I wasn't sure if that was something. Yeah, we've discussed it. It comes up in discussion sometimes. It's been part of conditions of approval for fencing that what otherwise not be allowed and then having a COA. Some of the conditions for example for street side yards, a budding, another's front yard. It would generally require four foot fence or lower and they're coming in asking for a six foot fence, then conditions may be put on that for it not to be a shiny material, to be a more matte material, to limit the visual appearance on the street skate, things like that. But generally, I'd say coverings are and colors are regulated as part of a condition of approval when you're getting something that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. Got it. Okay. I was just curious. Oh good question. Because the black fence today made a big difference if that would have been bright white. It really would have any other color. Yeah. Okay. I was just curious. Something. Yeah. Is there anything else? I guess how would we feel about four foot wood fence at 50 percent transparency or do we want to limit the transparency? So that's another option. Are we, because the original question was do we just go with a transparency number or is it a material that we kick back to staff being aluminum? I mean, what is a traditional material just throwing that out there if we want to stick with a transparency number whether it be wood or aluminum or we just want to say a 40% transparent wood fence that's four feet tall Does that get approved at staff level? Mm-hmm. All right. Mm. So if it came before us, why wouldn't we approve it though? You have to be right. Good question. I mean, right. Why? Why? Oh. Mm. I just believe staff can handle that. I think Kelly. Because I saw you guys have made them be three feet in the path. Yeah, we have that's the reason. I know that yeah, you're right. We have that. No, that was that 40% So I would yeah, I'm guessing that of a 45% transparent wood fence that was proposed to be four feet, we asked them to lower it to three, because it, yeah. And if something was more transparent, we might have been okay with it. And for context for some of our newer commissioners, because I know the bulk of the explanations from this was before the three commissioners to my immediate left came onto the board. City code requirements for a front yard fence are four feet. But historically, in according to design guidelines in historic districts, traditionally, a front yard fence, if it existed, was three feet. So that's where the recommendation for the historic districts and the three feet is tied to. But it is different than what is allowed otherwise by code. And there has been confusion with that in the past. Now, as Chair said, this commission has required fences to come down to three in certain districts in the past. But the prevalence of materials, what we see when we have the after the fact is generally people coming in at four. Those sometimes, and I do believe one of the ones that had to come down to three was not at a four. It was at a five. So. Well, I think let's, if it's a four foot So. Well, I think, I think let's, if it's a four foot wood fence, let's take a look at it. Let's put that CPPC. So do you want a transparency limit or you just want to call it aluminum fence? Because if I think for the most part, the aluminum fences are the ones that are going to be the most transparent. I would recommend, if I may, that we do a try a transparency threshold and see if that puts more to staff. And if we need to look at it again and make further adjustments that we go there, but I would recommend if it is over three feet, but has a greater transparency than 70% that it would be a staff review. So if it's four feet or less, or over three feet, excuse me. Over three feet and four feet or less and greater than 70% transparency city staff can review that. And again, that may catch everything. It may catch it right. It potentially may need to go to materials and have another consideration of that or finishing then we can do that at any time. And it may encourage an applicant to change the fence that they're proposing just to may I say just a potentially 75% that vinyl fence that I calculated comes out at 70.7. So do you want that in staff's purview? Are you happy with that vinyl fence? We are keeping all vinyl fences as a commission. Are we changing? Yeah, I think that. Yeah, vinyl fences are on that side. Okay, that's fine. Yeah, okay. Okay. So traditional well, basically, bow is down to in wood or aluminum. say? And yeah, these are still incremental steps. We're trying to get more and more items and staff approval. So yeah, if you keep seeing things, you know, keep bringing these kinds of things to us so that we can help ease approvals on in some of these historic districts. That'd be great. Okay. Thank you. Okay, any other updates or announcements? That was it. We appreciate you working through that. Okay. That's going to help us and we'll report back to the neighborhoods that are most affected too. I think they're gonna be very happy with your discussion today. So I guess we want to learn as soon as possible if there's going to be a quorum next month. For the deferred mere lake item, yes, I want to thank everyone for getting back to Iris and being very communicative. It was a developing situation all the way up till about 7 p.m. last night on whether we would have enough. But we do anticipate having enough, barring babies and flights and other things going on of having, but please confirm as soon as you can with Iris whether you will be attending next month's meeting. Also, hopefully we will have a new alternate member appointed prior to that meeting. We will train that person and hopefully they won't get scared off the first time going out at Merlick. But yes, so thank you and please continue to keep in touch with Iris. We appreciate everyone coming today and every month. OK, thank you, everyone. And we are adjourned. You're next month. Thank you all for your help. Yes.