Welcome to the December 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 the presentation. After the presentations, each member of the public who wishes to address this 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 turned to silent. And may I please have a roll call. Wanna make her? Here. Jeffrey? Here. Gardiner? Marbe? Here. Maltry? Nelson? Carrasco? Michaels? Here. Drake? Maltry, Nelson, Krasco, Michaels, Drake, here, Magnello, here. And we have a quorum. Thank you very much. And now will everybody stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to flag the United States of America on two different public religious sites. And now those of you who wish to speak today go ahead and remain standing raise your right arm so that you can be sworn in, please. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence will get saying we are the truth of all truth and that's the truth? Thank you, maybe see it. Next on the agenda is typically the approval of the meeting minutes from last month, but being that they were extremely lengthy this month, and we just received them. We're going to go ahead and defer the approval of these meeting minutes until next month, so that everybody can have a chance to adequately review them. Next is there anybody here that wishes to speak on an item that is not on our agenda today? You have three minutes. Okay, seeing none, we'll enter into our normal agenda. Iris, will you please read the first item into the record? Yes. This is agenda item V1, city file, I'm sorry, city file number 24-903-00001. The request is a review of the City initiated application for the designation of Cocina Rock Intrants to the Bear Creek Golf and Country Club section of Pasadena estates to the St. Petersburg Register of Historic Places. The owners are Eileen Carmona, Amy Louise Cole and Brian James Tracy. The addresses, addresses, excuse me, are 535 64th Street South and 6354 Emerson Avenue South. The staff planner is Kelly Perkins. Thank you, Miss Perkins. Good afternoon, Kelly Perkins, a sort of preservationist in the city of St. Pete. We are here today for the local landmark designation of a Kokina Rock Wall entrance. It is located at two addresses at 535-64 Street South and 63-54 Emerson Ave South. This was a city-initiated application. It was initiated by City Council in June earlier this year for the designation of the rock entrance walls. So these walls were built in 1924 by developer. I am handsome Jack Taylor as part of a new development called the Bear Creek Golf and Country Club section of Pasadena estates. So they're kind of bills. This sort of whimsical is a new entrance to this new proposed development. You can see this as a photo from maybe like 1960s long after. And here's sort of a 1926 aerial of the walls as they were built. They were kind of one of the first sort of features built in this area, as you can see, is fairly bare and there is one house that predated it, which is still there across the street. And so they were kind of built as this new feature to kind of impart this new sort of historical whimsical development for this area. So here's a photo of them today. And so these subdivision gates were kind of often used by developers as the new mark of their new development to embody kind of the architectural and style and feelings that developers wanted their new communities to embody. Unfortunately, like most of the Pasadena, so these were other gates that were built by the same developer in Pasadena. These developments failed in the 1920s, lambast, but these gates still remain. Jack Taylor was also responsible for building a few other important structures that are now outside of St. Petersburg, what was the hotel roll yet, which is now Stetson University College of Law, and then also the Bear Creek Country Club, which is built for this section, which is now the Pasadena Yacht Club. So these walls were kind of this new grand entrance for development that really never came to be, but they were really unique in their style and development. In the 1950s, since nothing was developed, that's when I'll get a lot of post-war war two in fill development in this area. So the lots were re-platted to incorporate these walls, which are originally on city property into that private property and new houses were built. So you can see the house that is currently there that was built in the 1950s on each side. They're built in 1954 and 1955. As the walls had these really grand archways that extended over the sidewalk with a lack of maintenance, the city kind of removed those grand portions, but most of the walls still remain intact today. So staff reviewed their criteria for eligibility and felt that they met criteria criteria ACDE and F related to his quality of architecture and for its association, which is also part of our areas of significance for the architecture of the walls, which were developed as sort of a nod to sort of an old world what you would think as a European medieval wall, but it's actually academically not based on how any sort of old walls are built. They were built various artistic interpretation of what you would think an old wall would be built as. It was the create this old world feel that they were going for for this Pasadena estates area. And then for its association with Jack Taylor, who is on the left in that photograph, he's next to Walter Hagen, who is a very famous golfer of the 1920s. Jack Taylor was kind of part of this new young breed of developers that came to St. Petersburg in the early 1920s that were trying to kind of morph the image of the city into something more about wealthy tourists with golfing, more sports and recreation, and less on sort of the health aspects of prior developments. So, staff found that it met six of the seven required factors of integrity, at least only one factor of integrity needs to be met. And here's sort of some photos showing kind of some of the loss of integrity with those archways removed You can kind of see some evidence of where they were originally connected to But in general the overall feeling and impression of the walls remain They're kind of almost in this sort of ruinous state that was kind of the image that they were almost trying to reflect when they were constructed Character defining features are kind of these two almost mirror identical walls constructed on the southeast and southwest sides of 64 streets south. There is a circular placement of rustic stones at the northwest and north of these corners, the create almost like a planter basin type feeling. They use Kokina Stone, which is a local material of the Florida, and was commonly used in St. August kind of the Spanish colonial period of Florida. And then what's interesting is the stones were kind of carved in these sort of very almost naturalistic or curved shapes and then stacked together, creating almost like a puzzle-like fitting. They were unpainted, and the caps of the walls were almost formed into these very sort of natural organic forms which are not really found in any other walls but kind of create this sort of artistic feeling. And in each archway there is a coat of arms with the letter P standing for Pasadena. That was the extent of my presentation. I'm recommending approval to forward this to City Council for this review. I do not know if any of the owners are here today to speak on the item. Do we have the owners here today, present? Okay. Is there well, so we don't really have. There's no no yeah, there's okay Anything you want to say in closing then no no okay Sorry No public comment cards. No, I was gonna. Yeah. I was getting ready to ask is there anybody here that would like to speak on this Agenda item. I don't have any cards No, okay. With that, we will move into executive session. Do any of the commission members have any questions or comments for city staff? Well, I'll just comment that I think this is a wonderful landmarking here. This, these walls are just so rooted in St. Pete history. Walter Hagen was mentioned here. He was like the Tiger Woods of that era in 1920. And he was actually brought in by Jack Taylor to help market the community there. By a house, and you get to play with the most famous golfer in America at that time. So we also have Babe Ruth playing on the golf horse that they had there. Incidentally, this coming year 2025 is the centennial of Babe Ruth playing baseball in St. Petersburg. And there's going to be several big celebrations, one of which will be the Kids and Cubs and Marysgam on February 8th. Babe Ruth's grandson, Tom Stevens, will be there to throw out the first pitch. He doesn't quite qualify to play on the Kids and Cubs there. He's not old enough at 71, but we're looking forward to that occasion. So this has my enthusiastic support here. This is really a great, a great landmarking. Um, Mr. Marbe. Uh, any comments about Walter Hagen? I'll comment on, um, I was just down in Coral Gables and so it's nice to see this connection to St. Pete it's really I think it's a great landmark that definitely has my approval and it's a wonderful feature that ties us to this development era. I also do remember Walter Hagen is the one that hit the golf ball from the Vanoy House to the piece of property, which then became the Vanoy Hotel? So that was. Hit it off of this bucket watch, right? Exactly. Yes. Without breaking the crystal. Without breaking the crystal, right? So I had never seen what Walter Hagen looked like. And it was pleased to see that. I have a couple questions. So do both property owners on each side are in support of this application? So we've received written letter support from one of the owners. There has been in-person discussion with the other owner, and once they understood that it really impacted just the walls, they stated they weren't support, but they've not provided anything in writing. Okay. Is there any need for a, is there a buffer of any kind adjacent to the walls? Yes, I was just established. I was just discussing with the Assistant City Attorney about talking about incorporating a buffer around the walls just so that anything that kind of connects to the walls that comes under COA review. And is there any what happens when the current property owners sell and new property owners take over the property. I mean, we need to certainly make sure that the new property owners are aware, the real estate brokers are aware, it's in the title something, because this is on private property, right? Both of these walls. So how are we going to ensure that there isn't any miscommunication or misunderstanding in the future. The designation will be tied to the property like description, that parcel ID number for both of them and the ordinance it will reflect that but it won't obviously be for the entire property. It will say the block and lot numbers, but then it will reference directly the Cachina structures. And we will, as Kelly just mentioned, we were talking about potentially a two-foot buffer around that because that's similar to what we have. Fences have to be back from the right of way and other that gives the maintenance area is included in that and also would prevent any kind of attachments without a COA. So that will be attached again. We've been in discussions with the property appraiser about how to tag historic properties so they're more readily available. So that's a similar discussion. But yes, the property is going to be referenced in the ordinance with each of those blocks and a description of the buffer area. And does the buffer area also include any landscaping materials or trees that could potentially uproot, have roots that undermine the foundations? I'm just thinking ahead. We don't normally include those in designation, so we would just be altering it and as bill attachments, vegetation is impermanent, even though it could be a tree or something longer, but we usually don't include those as part of the designation. Okay, just thinking, thinking ahead. Okay, well, okay. Any other comments or questions? Okay, roll call please. We need a recommendation. Oh, yes. We don't even have a motion yet. Okay, would somebody like to make a motion? I would like to make a motion. So anxious to think. Based on determination of general consistency with section 16.30.070.2.5 reference D, that the submitted designation we recommend approval of the request to designate the Cokinic Key Rock entrance at Bear Creek Golf and Country Club section of Pasadena State located at 53564 Street South and 6453 Emerson Avenue South is a local historic landmark here by referring the application to City Council for First and second reading and public hearing Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second, thank you. Any other discussion? Roll call please want to make her yes Jeffrey yes Marbeye yes Michaels yes Drake yes Magnello yes, and that motion passes unanimously Yes. Michael's. Yes. Drake. Yes. And Magnello. Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. The second agenda item we have a conflict. Commissioner Jeffery has a, I believe, a location conflict. So. All right. Iris, will you please read the second item into the record? Yes, the City File Number is ZM-19. The request is a private initiated amendment to the official zoning map corridor, residential traditional one, CRT-1 to corridor residential traditional two, CRT-2 for a 0.3 acre site. The owner is no name holdings LLC Tim Butler and the address 1847 first Avenue North and the staff planner is Britton Wilson. Ms. Wilson. Good afternoon Madam Chair fellow commissioners. Yes again Britton Wilson City planner for the record presenting an amendment to the official zoning Atlas for a0.3 acre site located at 1847 first Avenue North, initiated by no name Holdings LLC. This is an area of the subject property, which is located on the north side of first Avenue North, just west of I-275. The site is within the Kenwood neighborhood association and to the north and northwest are single family and multi-family residential uses. To the west and south are medical offices and surface parking lots that support the office uses. This is a future land use map showing the subject site as designated community residential district or CRD, which is within the Grand Central District, which will remain. This site is also located within the in town activity center overlay, which allows for increased development potential. This is a zoning map showing the site as currently zoned corridor residential traditional or CRT1, which is proposed for a amendment to corridor residential traditional to or CRT2 to be consistent with the CRT2 property to the south, and in conformance with the CRD land use category and the end town activity center overlay. So the change in development potential from CRT1 to CRT2 changes little by way of the allowed development potential. As the density and intensity and height stay the same with the workforce housing bonus actually decreasing by two units in the CRT2 zoning. But the CRT2 zoning allows for free standing residential restaurant and a neighborhood scale retail space that is not permitted in the CRT-1 zoning district. And the neighborhood scale retail is only limited to 1,200 square feet. As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments are consistent with many policies of a comprehensive plan and to highlight a couple the proposal furthercies policies as it provides for a compatible and logical land use transition and as in keeping with the character of the established zoning pattern of the area and further than tent of the Intent Activity Center overlay A staff has received one public comment and opposition, the owner of the multifamily building to the north, is opposed to the proposal citing incompatibility. With that staff recommends a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed zoning change to CRT2 because it furthers provisions of the Comprehensive plan as it is consistent with the neighborhood's established land use and zoning pattern and is in conformance with the CRD land use with activity center overlay and that concludes my presentation and staff and the applicant is here to answer any questions you may have. Does the applicant have a presentation? Yes, come on up to the podium and state your name and address please. Hello, Commission John Barquette. I am a co-owner of the property at 1847 for Staffing, New York. Go ahead and speak. Sorry, can you hear me better? Yeah, my apologies. John Barquette and I'm a co-owner of the property. Is it OK if I approach with some imagery? Yeah, that'd be great. Sorry. My apologies. Yeah, we reviewed this. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. I'll go ahead and get the address. was originally built, it was a purpose built daycare that had basically run its course. We purchased the property in order to save India ed which is a private not-for-profit school. They had certain needs at the time and it was a way to basically keep them in St. Pete. This property was initially zoned ROR1 back before the transition into current zoning when it became CRT1 Which does have its limitations? The property sits literally in the shadows of I-275 It sits right next to one of the JDM ULATs underneath I-275 which is Used for parking as well as construction staging for vertical developers. There's basically a immediately adjacent. There is parking to the east under the highway, which is that. So the subject property is to the left that's looking north. You can see the highway to the right. There is parking immediately to the south. That is looking south and in the is the medical office building that I'm sure you're aware of. There is parking to the north that is looking east. And there is parking... There's parking to the west, which is parking for medical office building. I've been here in St. Petersburg for, it'll be 25 years in July. I've been buying buildings and through adaptive reuse building districts, whether it's on on MLK, on 16th Street, on First Avenue, on MLK South. You know, our intent is to do something, you know, useful for the neighborhood on this property that the intent after ROR-1 to CRT- 1 was potentially to spur office development. What were in our conversations in order to connect, what's happened now is we have a bifurcated district. I-275 has created a bifurcated district. I've been working with the city and other initiatives to change that and kind of weave that thread and connect it. You know, our feeling is this is something that's going to, you know, it's a 3,600 square foot building. You know, we're trying to program it and curate it so that this area becomes walkable because right now it's a vacuum. So we're a little bit, I guess, hand strapped with the current zoning, the way that it is and the way that we see it, we feel that the site is very unique in that we are in the in-town West Activity Center and District and we feel that what we're asking for is completely consistent with future land use. Let's, I'm happy to answer any questions. And we did speak with with we reached out to we reached out to Kenwood. It did not get a response. We reached out to the executive director of the Grand Central District. Actually had a meeting. They applauded it and support it and happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Yep, there might be some questions later. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional commentary or closing arguments or anything you'd like to say in closing, Ms. Wilson. Staff waves, thank you. Okay, and owner applicant, any additional comments you'd like to make in closing. Okay. I don't have any cards. Is there anybody that would like to speak on this item? None. Okay. If not, we'll go ahead and move into executive session commissioners. Any comments or questions of staff or the applicant? I have some questions. Yes, some of these are for the applicant. I noticed that your corporation is called no name holdings. Is that actually the name or is that some kind of a legal filler there? It's my partner that I've known for 35 years and my brother-in-law and we couldn't come up with the name fast enough so no name holdings it was. Okay, never seen that before. The letter of opposition talks about commercial retail and restaurants. Do you have a intended purpose for the property? We don't as of yet. You know, we have another property in similar fashion on Fifth Avenue North. That's right now neighborhood cafe, but because that was grandfathered, we were able to do that. But we do not have a, we don't have an end user for the site right now You know what's happened is the school India is basically outgrown the facility and We don't have a particular we don't have an end user. We don't have an L.O.I We don't have but it could be a restaurant. It could be a restaurant Okay, I've got some questions for the staff If maybe if you could put the zoning map up on the wall I'm the policy that I Always look at here is LU 3.6, which talks about the change being compatible with the established character of the surrounding area. And one way to define that is in terms of the zoning of the surrounding area. So if you look at the zoning here of that particular piece of property. It's presently CRT1 and you want to upgrade it, change it to CRT2. You do have the CRT2 across the street, across First Avenue North to the south there. But if you look to the north, you've got neighborhood traditional too and if you look to the east, I guess it would be, you've got the same zoning as it is now, CRT1. We're DC2 to the east, correct? Sorry. We're DC2 to the east. Your CR, oh, I see what you mean. Well, this is an interesting piece of geography here because you've got the highway running down the middle. So, do you look across the highway or not? The G-ados of the highway. And that is a kind of confusing factor in all of this. But I guess my question to staff is, how do you see that fitting in with LU 3.6? And maybe another question is, are there other issues here that should be considered? And actually Ms. Wilson, before you answer that, I'm going to further your question. I'm in support of the rezoning, however, further. If you zoom all the way out on the overall zoning map, the current zoning map, you can go all the way down to 31st Street. And it's a consistent CRT1 on the north side of 1st Avenue North and a very consistent CRT2 on the south side of 1st Avenue North. And likewise, when you go to 1st Avenue South, you've got that same very consistent zoning all the way down to 31st Street. So why, very simply, why make the exception for this one piece of property? Is this going to be a trend that will continue? Or yeah, because there's really that consistency. And so how? These are very excellent questions, Madam Chair. And this particular property is the only CRT-1 zone property that is located within an activity center. OK. So the property to the west would not qualify for up-zoneing to CRT-2 to like the subject property is. So that factor alone being designated as an activity center identifies it as being appropriate for more intense development. Okay. And in addition, I empathize with the adjacent homeowners, but really in my opinion, I think that any new development there or new use is going to increase the property values of the adjacent homeowners. So I'm very familiar with this property, but I did drive by it again today and really took a good look at it. And I do believe that it will increase property values, not the opposite. So I would be in favor of this. So thank you for that answer. That helps. Yep. So you're seeing the activity center designation as kind of trumping the zoning description there. It is a big qualifier. Yes, without that activity center overlay, identifying it as being is appropriate for more intense uses. Yeah, that would restrict the. And this is also in the Grand Central District. No, the Grand Central, well, it is. Sorry, that and the Central Avenue Activity Center is here to the left, Southwest, and it is within the antenna activity center, but the CRD land use is with and the grand central district. All right, that answers my questions. I support the proposal. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I'll jump in. Yeah, I think it's important to note that 275 is there. We see it across the country. It's unfortunate that really not much more of a buffer was created when these highways go through these neighborhoods. So it's unfortunate for the people today that have a house right adjacent to this. So I would love to see, you know, the properties adjacent to 275 eventually become more like this and we concentrate on better suited areas within the city to better define our residential areas. And when you look at it on the map to, I'm kind of out of the now knowing, but I know that eventually there's talks of creating this park environment, this lifestyle that, especially on hot summer days, we use the overpass of 275, et cetera, as that's where our markets are shade etc I think some of them already become dog parks and other areas. Yeah, you bring your dog there I brought my dog there to some of those parts and it's loud So you know I think for keeping this as you know as that as that existing zoning and creating more of a buffer I think is great. So I do approve this and I like the idea Okay, thank you any other comments? Yes certainly. To that point you know we're always looking to do something that fits in with the community to your point about parks. It took me four and a half years to work with the city to get a park adjacent to 375 and parking for the community in between 4th Avenue North and 4th Avenue North and 5th Avenue North on MLK but the intent is like you're saying to kind of do away with the bifurcation. So thank you. Thank you. Well, with that do I have a motion. Yeah, I'll make a motion. Let's see here. Okay. Council recommends amendment to the officials zoning map from corridor residential traditional 1 CRT-1 to corridor residential traditional dash to CRT-2 for the 0.3 acre site consisting of a single parcel located 1847 first Avenue North. Great would somebody like to make a second. Second. Thank you. Any more discussion? Roll call please. Watermaker? Yes. Marvay? Yes. Michael's? Yes. Drake? Yes. And Magnello? Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Our third item on the agenda, we have Commissioner Jeffrey coming back. Iris, will you please read that into the record? Our third item on the agenda, we have Commissioner Jeffrey coming back. Iris will you please read that into the record. That is city file number 24-902-00104. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness for and after the fact application for offense at 3049. Seventh Avenue North, a contributing property and a local historic district. The owners are Lisa Schwitzer and Myron Con. The address is 3049, 7th Avenue North and the staff planner is Cindy Kohanik. Thank you, Ms. Kohanik. Good afternoon, Cindy Kohanik, preservationists with the City of St. Pete. This project is an after the fact, COA review for 3049 7th Ave North. One public comment was received for this project and was included in the meeting packet. The property is located in the Northwest Kenwood local historic district. The property is listed as contributing to both the local and national register districts. The house on site is a tutor revival style that was constructed on site in 1935 along with a two car garage. A certificate of appropriateness was approved for the rear lani and denied for an after-the-fact front yard fence installation by the CPPC in 2021. The front yard fence was reviewed that was reviewed at that time was actually a four-foot tall wood privacy fence. The applicant has since removed half of the pickets and is seeking re-review of the fence with the increased transparency. The COA request for installation of the wood fence in the front yard is actually measured at 47 and a half inches to the top of the pickets. The fence has matching gates installed at the walkway and the right side front and has about 50% transparency or opacity. The fence is heavily landscaped in some areas in these images and of course the storms have may have removed some of those as well as the owner after seeing the staff report. The fence is subject to a cold violation and the code's hearing process has been postponed for this hearing. The existing fence does not appear to be located in the right of way, but compliance with the required zoning visibility triangle for the front left corner will need to be verified. Woodpicket fences were available on the market at the time that this house would have been built Typically their three foot or less and made out of wood or metal if you saw front yard fences Although not very common for Kenwood and our other districts the taller fences are typically more of larger for larger estate properties The material is you know correct and the views of the residents are not really obscured from with this fence. It would be staff approval but for the height and the opacity requested. The course of fence is easily reversible and the changes are not enough to remove the contributing status of the structure. This chart is the chart that you guys have seen in a lot of my staff reports recently. Basically, the character of the property and its relationship to the street will be altered by the enclosing of the front yard. However, front yard fence installations are not completely unusual in the surrounding local historic district. Basically, this just goes over the fact that the chart goes over the fact that some previous approvals included a wood or vinyl with matte finish fence with a high point of four and a scallops down to three as well as the four foot tall metal fence with high transparency that was reviewed and approved in the last few months. Basically we have not approved or reviewed a four foot tall wood front yard fence for this district yet. And summary, the staff evaluation yields that many of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for the granting of the certificate of appropriateness and most of the relevant criteria were met or partially met for alteration guidelines. The recommendation is for an approval with conditions for the act of the fact review of a front yard fence Of course including the conditions listed here which are standard conditions of approval Along with the requirement that the fence comply with all zoning requirements number five at the bottom there is a potential additional condition if the Commission is concerned with the four-foot height that's proposed That is my presentation Staff is here for any questions if you guys have any and I believe the owner is present as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Do the owners have anything that they would like to present? Okay. It comes up to the podium please. Hi. Lisa Schweitzer, 3-0-4-9-7th Avenue North. The only piece of the fence is historically the fence was three feet tall, but I'm going to really busy corner. And I think historically that street was not as busy. And I had a dog that ran out and got killed in that street. And a three foot high fence would not necessarily keep my dog from jumping over it, where a four-foot wood, and I'm also a foster parent, a respite foster parent for kids that are young, and so I feel that on a busy street such as 31st Street, that a four-foot fence is much more appropriate. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I don't have any cards on this item either. If there's anybody that wishes to speak. Okay, seeing none, any other closing arguments or rebuttal or cross examination? Any waves? Okay. Any other closing arguments from the applicant or closing comments? Okay. With that, we'll move into executive session. Any comments or questions from commissioners? I'll start. I was actually hesitant to to approve a four-foot fence because it would be the first one. But after hearing your testimony definitely is, is way is my decision. I'll say I drove by the residents today and the, it is very transparent. It's at least 50% transparent in my opinion and from the street you can easily see over the fence. You can see the home back behind. It must be elevated a little bit. There is a lot of landscaping, but a fence like this does appear to be, it doesn't have any big brick or masonry peers or foundations, and it would be easily removable. But I would am in favor of approving this fence because of it visually, it just does not obscure the home in any way. I do have a question, what is the subject of the code violation? Is it just the triangle at the corner or what do you know why? I believe it stems from back in the 20, in 2021 when it was originally heard. Um, a front yard fence went up without a COA approval. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. But if the portion of the fence is in the visibility triangle and that's not corrected, then that part of the code's case will likely remain and the part regarding the COA would be closed out. So I would encourage them to get with their codes inspector and make sure that they're compliant with the visibility triangle. Right, and I also noticed that that visibility triangle, there is a lot of lush landscaping in that corner too that might need to be removed. So just encourage the homeowner to make sure that you're in compliance with that. So, okay, any other comments or questions? I have a question. So if we approve this, is this setting a new standard of 50% transparency rather than 70% on page 6 of the staff report, it states that at the September CPPC meeting the Commission approved a highly transparent 70 percent aluminum fence that was 4 feet tall for the front yard of the property. As a result, staff was provided the ability to administratively approve four-fences, four-foot fences with high transparency, 70% or more in traditional mental or wood materials. While this fence is four feet tall and made out of wood, at 50% transparency it does not meet the updated guidance for staff review. I don't think it sets a precedent for commission review, commissioner Michaels. That was just this board delegated fences that had the 70% and the four feet to just be reviewed at staff level. But since that didn't meet all of the criteria that the board delegated to staff, it came here for your commission review. But again, everything that comes from commission is reviewed based on the unique situation of the property and regarding the testimony provided by the owner for the the way the law is situated on the busier street at the corner, it would not necessarily require you to make the same decision for a later case, even with a substantially similar fence. Okay, so that standard applies to staff, but the commission has the flexibility to do something a little different. Yes, that's just for your COA matrix where it's a staff level approval or automatic commission or an optional deferral to commission. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Jeffrey. I'd just add in for the record that being someone that used to live on 31st Street and knowing the amount of traffic that's on 31st Street, I think that's the justification here for more obscurity and the for-foot height. Right. Yes. Commissioner Marbe. I would agree with that. I think the wood. It's nice to see the wood there. And then just looking at the other addresses. It does look like the only for-foot one, as you mentioned, that was approved was on 31st Street. So it makes sense. I support it. Okay. Can I ask for a motion then please? Based on the determination of general consistency with chapter 16 of the city code of ordinance I recommend that the community preservation planning commission approve with conditions one through four The certificate of appropriateness for after the fact application for offense at 3049 Seventh Avenue North a contributing property in the local historic district Thank you, and do we have a second? second Thank you and do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Any other comments? Roll call please. Want to make her? Yes. Referee? Yes. Marbe? Yes. Michael's? Yes. Drake? Yes. Magnello? Yes. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to agenda item number four, Iris will you please read that into the record? Yes. Excuse me. That is city file number 24-902-00122. The request is a review of a certificate, excuse me, certificate of appropriateness for replacement of vinyl siding at 628th Street North, a contributing property and the local historic district. The owner is Julia Edel, the address again 628th Street North and a staff planner is Kelly Perkins. Thank you Ms. Perkins. Good afternoon again, Kelly Perkins, this sort of preservation is for the city of St. Pete and we are here for a property at 628 Street North. It is a contributing structure to the Northwest Kenwood local historic district. The subject property was a craftsman style bungalow that was built circa 1927. Similar to many of the other houses in this area. It was originally built elsewhere on currently today would be Fairfield Avenue South, but was moved to its present location in 1933. At some point, the front porch wasn't closed. And 1971, the wood siding was replaced by aluminum siding. And in 17, 1989, a permit was issued to install vinyl siding on the property. So the applicant is requesting to remove the entirety of the current siding and install new vinyl siding, which is K-CAM Provis Series final. I've attached some photographs of the house showing that some of the damage to the siding indicating why they want to replace. They've also provided a cost estimate of the difference between the vinyl siding versus a fiber cement siding replacement. So this is really our first request I could find to propose the installation of vinyl siding on a historic building or even on new construction. Our design guidelines are very clear. The historic building shall be recognized as products of their time and alterations that have no historical basis shall be discouraged. Illuminum vinyl and per perma stone are clearly non-historic materials and violate the standard. In cases where artificial siding is already in place, its removal is not necessary. An owner may retain the material or remove it. If, however, the material is removed, it should be replaced with historically appropriate materials. In the case of houses with vinyl siding, we have had some people come in and propose removal to repair the wood siding underneath. This commission has in the past approved hardy board as a potential replacement if the wood siding underneath was too deteriorated to repair. In the case since the permit for this original proposal was to remove the rotted wood siding, I don't know if the wood siding is currently in place, but I imagine it is in poor condition if it is. So therefore, staff found that this proposal does not meet our criteria for the granting of certificates of appropriateness nor for our guidelines for alterations. So, staff is recommending denial. We have concerns about the precedent approval would set. We do have recommended conditions of approval. It does require changes to the project that instead of the use of vinyl siding, that it would be the replacement. I use the fiber cement siding. This is the standard material that we have allowed in the past and allow for new construction and historic districts. The proposed siding shall Mash the qualities of the wood site if it is an existence underneath, if it's not, it should replicate the exposure recommended in the craftsman section of design guidelines for historic properties. We've also put in the try and restore any kind of distinctive architectural features if they remain underneath the vinyl siding. I know we've seen that in other cases. I'll recommend an in progress inspection with staff so that we can kind of go through and make sure what features will be, need to be exposed or not. And the final three are our final conditions of approval. So this is my presentation. It's based on the staff report was provided. I'm here for any questions. I don't know if the owner is here to speak. Okay, great. Would you like to make a presentation or say a few words? You actually have 10 minutes. You can just come to this podium here and state your name and address please. My name is Julia Edel. I'm at 628th Street North and basically This derived from Damage that my house sustained during the hurricane in 2023 as you can see in the images A lot of the siding has been pulled off and is continuing to fall off with additional hurricanes that have hit I spoke to several contractors to determine how to repair this damage. It was then that the contractors let me know that the existing vinyl siding had been painted. That apparently damages vinyl siding over time and causes it to warp. I was told that just doing simple repairs would not be a good solution because then it would not match the colors and would also have warping to the painted versus the new. So I was told aesthetically this would look really bad and would not be a good solution. I then asked for a quote for the entire vinyl siding to be replaced. It was provided. I then told my contractor that I could afford that and we should reach out to get permitting. He then reached out, found out that this house was in the historical preservation and that vinyl siding would not be allowed. I understand the importance of preservation and continuity in the community, so I requested a quote for the hardyboard material. This quote then came back at double the original proposed price of the vinyl replacement. It was then that I realized I could not afford to replace the hearty board replacement as required. So I have come here to respectfully ask to be able to replace the damage existing vinyl siding within my budget to avoid additional damage as additional hurricanes come our way. And that is that is it. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Is your contractor present by chance? No, but I've got his, his both of his proposals. Yeah, okay, okay. Thank you. I don't have any cards on this item either. So is there any additional cross or a butler closing comments? Ms. Perkins. City waves cross. OK. Any other questions that you might have for city staff or comments? No. OK. Any closing comments? Yeah. I mean, I understand sort of the cost differences, but staff does have concerns about the precedent set that this would allow vinyl sighting to be used on other properties not only in this historic district, but throughout the program and that it has not been utilized in the past and is not compliant with our design guidelines. Thank you. Any closing comments? I would just say that this is a unique situation. This is not being done to improve my home, to make any changes necessarily. This is just being done to repair damage caused. And I would do simple repairs to the vinyl if that was possible. But I'm being told that due to the painting that was done prior to my purchase of this home, that it is not capable to just do small vinyl repairs, unfortunately. OK. Thank you very much. All right. We'll go ahead and move into executive session. Who would like to start with comments or questions? Yes, Commissioner Jeffrey. There was a picture that showed the siding falling off. Is the original wood siding underneath it still? Have we determined that it's not there? Was it removed as possibly indicated? Yeah, I think it's substrate with under there. Did you put that picture back up, please? Yeah, you can't see any wood-siding present because there looks like there's some... Looks like they put the insulation panel up. Because a number of houses that had aluminum or wood-siding, they've been stripped back and repaired, which might be an option if you know that that's in fact that there is wood underneath that. I guess one of the sad things with vinyl siding and aluminum siding became very popular because of the people not wanting to paint. But the fact of the matter is that everyone thought it was a permanent solution when in fact basically it's three times as much to paint it, but or three times as much to side it, but it only lasts about three times longer than a paint job. So I think that we're finding out that these things weren't really appropriate and don't work very well. I certainly support the idea of going with the hearty board, and I know that that's more expensive, but especially with hurricanes and things like that, I think we're gonna have more and more problems with stuff like this over time being difficult to maintain. Thank you. Commissioner McNillo, any comments? You have a architect on the commission? Yeah, I mean, I hear the testimony and I places our ridiculous right now on any construction material. But at the end of the day, this is a house sitting in a historic district. And it should have been made clear when the purchase was made that you know this is aluminum siding or vinyl whatever it was regardless it didn't meet the existing requirements and you know we see a lot of cases come in here with replacement of stuff in kind but the in kind is not meeting the criteria. And so unfortunately, I'm not gonna be able to approve this today, but I hear you and I, it's a hard case to say no to, especially with the inflation that there is today. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll make a few comments. I certainly empathize with the owner. I understand that certainly cost is a big, big issue. I'm a little concerned that the proposals that you receive from your contractor don't appear to be very thorough or complete. I don't know if you've got some additional pages or documentation in the proposals potentially that maybe were not included in our agenda packet, but I would be concerned that possibly the cost even for the replacement vinyl siding might increase once maybe I didn't see even any trim board shown to be added around the windows or the doors. And one of the reasons why that vinyl sighting was really popping off is if you notice there's no trim around the windows, the jams or the head, not much even at the sill and certainly with a hearty board replacement you're going to get probably more trim around those windows and it's going to be secured it's going to be a much better installation than what is present. I'm also wondering if you once you knew that you might have to go to hearty board siding did you get a second or third or fourth proposal from another subcontractor, another contractor for the Hardy Board? Again, your contractor isn't here. I don't know it may be that they just really want to do vinyl siding and they don't want to do Hardy Board and that's why the price was so much higher. So I don't know if this is going to be approved or not, but certainly I would encourage you to reach out to other contractors and get additional proposals for hearty board if that is something that might be your path forward. So. One more thing. Yes, please. So I'm just thinking back to when I bought my house. It's a 1952 bungalow. I wanted to replace my siding. It was cement, but it come to find out it has a spestus in it. And I couldn't afford to replace it. But some of the research that I did, you might want to check through Duke Energy. Because going to the Hardy Board, you will be basically increasing your R value in the installation of your wall, overall which would lower your energy cost. So they might have some credit on that. I know it's same with spray installation in the root attic space. So I'll give you a big credit on that. So you might want to check with Duke to see if there's any programs going on that will help financially. Yeah, and I just want to make a comment that staff has given the owner applicant a way forward by conditioning approval on with items one through seven so that the applicant would not have to come back to this commission to move ahead with replacement of the vinyl siding. So applicant maybe you could come back up to the podium. How does everybody else feel about the I haven't heard from everybody but I but I would not be able to approve this application with the replacement of the vinyl siding. I would, though, approve this application subject to the conditions of the staff report. So how does everybody else feel? Yeah, I feel like it would be good to hear a little bit more information as it stands. It's difficult because I definitely understand the affordability issue, but with those last two storms, I think a lot of us have learned from it. I just put a vinyl fence and a property too, and then after the storm it fell over. So even making an exception would be hard knowing that this might happen again to her. So I would say as it stands that I wouldn't be in favor of approving it. Commissioner Drake? Yeah, I don't have anything more to add to that. That is, I'd be reiterating everything everybody else that on the panel. All right, so, Ms. Edel, Edel, could please come back up to the podium? I think the first question is, are you willing to consider replacing your existing vinyl siding with hearty board? I financially cannot right now and won't be able to for a while. So if this application is denied, then you will not be able to replace the siding. It's going to remain as is. Unfortunately, yes. Okay. Can we also note that Hardy Board is a brand as a brand name. It's you know there's other cementitious siding out there. You know Hardy is like Post-it, right? I mean we all think of Post-its. So Hardy is just a brand. So that if he just got a number or he or she just got a number from hearty, you can go to other manufacturers, but it just needs to be that style of product, a cementitious board. Right. Should this be denied, you might want to go back to city staff. They may be able to offer you some additional guidelines as to Commissioner Magnello just said, some other kind of plank, cementitious product that is more affordable. So you may be able to move ahead possibly. So. Okay, okay. Yeah. I think one of the things that's important here is even though the vinyl might be denied and it sounds like that's the direction it's going in, I think supporting approval with conditions still gives a two-year period of which alternatives can be looked at and maybe another solution that's a better fit could come forward and not require then coming back to this commission. Yeah, that's a really good point. I would also just like to point out that right now I think that they just actually extended the deadline for the Hurricane SBA loans for homeowners and businesses. So that's something you might want to look at to try and recoup or pay for some of this. I don't know where she went. Any other discussion? Maybe we could move ahead with a motion. I'd like to make the motion that the Community Planning and Preservation Commission approved the certificate of appropriateness request for alterations at 628 street north not as presented but with the following one through seven staff conditions conditions of approval. Thank you. Is there a second? A second. Okay any other comments? All right roll call please. Want a maker? Yes. Jeffrey? Yes. Marvay? Yes. Magnilo? Yes. Michaels? Yes. Great. Yes. Not motion passage unanimously. Okay, thank you very much. All right, agenda item number five. Iris, please go ahead and read that into. And that is city file number 24-902-00123. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness for an after the fact application for offense at 810 28th Street North, a contributing property in the local historic district. The owners are Irina Soto-Mendoza and Fernando Mendoza that address again 810 28th Street North and the staff planner is Cindy Cohannock. Thank you. All right, Ms. Cohannick. Good afternoon Cindy Cohannick preservation is with the city of St. Pete. This project is after the fact COA review for 810 28th Street North. Two public comments were received and included in the meeting packet. The property is a contributing property in the Northwest Kenwood local historic district. The minimal traditional house was constructed on site around 1940 along with the garage. The COA requests for the installation of a front yard fence. This work has already taken place. The front fence is about 5.83 feet tall. The fence has a matching gate at the walkway and is essentially a vinyl privacy fence with vertically oriented pickets and it is not located in the right away. There's a small retaining wall. The survey actually indicates that it's about .7 feet in height at the front of this house that continues in front of all the rest of the houses on this block. The fence is installed on top of the grade behind that retaining wall. Plantings were installed in front of the fence for buffering and additional plantings are planned. This fence is subject of a code violation and the code searing process has been postponed for this hearing. The fence along the front of the property has a decorative open panel or picket in the top quarter of the fence. The fence along the sides of the front of the property is a solid privacy fence with vertically oriented pickets. Fences not staff-approval due to the material and the height. Vinyl fences would not have been readily available on the market around the time this house was constructed. And then typically historic front yard fences were three foot or less and metal or wood, if present. Front yard fences were not typical for the Kenwood area historically. However, front yard fences have been approved by the CPBC for installation elsewhere in the Kenwood local historic districts. Due to the height, the fence does obscure views of the residents. The fence is primarily opaque or non-transparent but is easily reversible. The proposed work is not enough to remove the contributing status of the structure, but does block the view of the house and alters the street scape. This is the Asville Plan for the Fence 28th Street North, is considered a city collector street and thus a major street per zoning. Zoning would permit a six foot tall decorative fence or wall that is landscape for the subject property but of course additional COA review is required because it's in a local district. The applicant has noted that they're in their application that there is a significant amount of activity both pedestrian and vehicular on the street. Character of the property and its relation to ship to the street has been altered by the enclosing of the front yard, the front yard fence installations while not unheard of for this surrounding district. The highest that has been approved is four foot tall in the front yard. An increased transparency or reduced opacity and a reduction in height would soften the effect of the fence on this property. In summary staff evaluation yields the effect of the fence on this property. In summary staff evaluation yields that most of the relevant criteria were not met or partially met for the granting of the COA and only about half of the relevant guidelines for alterations were met or partially met. Ultimately the recommendation is for denial of the after the fact review of a front yard privacy fence based on the determination of general inconsistency with chapter 16 city code of the ordinance. Staff has also provided an alternative motion for approval with conditions in the staff report that considers a smaller or shorter fence with more opacity or I'm sorry more transparency. That concludes my presentation and staff is here for any questions and I believe the owner is present. Okay. Are the owners here and would you like to say a few words? Thank you. Do you have some visuals? Yes. So maybe you wanna, maybe it's a PDF, I think. It's a PowerPoint. It's a PowerPoint. I think it's a power it's a PowerPoint. Oh, okay. I'm a little bit nervous. Sorry. Okay, you have 10 minutes. Take your time. Thank you. Good afternoon members of the community planning and preservation commission. I really want to thank you for the opportunity to present my case regarding my front yard fence at my home, located at 810-28th Street North. I want to begin by expressing my respect for and alignment with the commission's mission to preserve the historic integrity of our neighborhood. I deeply value our shared commitment to maintaining the character and charm of this community. It was the value of preserving history and the opportunity to live in a historic home that inspired me to become part of this neighborhood. Today my objective is to demonstrate that my fence is not just the practical addition for safety and security but a thoughtful compromise that balances the preservation of historic character with the realities of modern living. My property is uniquely situated on 28th Street North, a major road that experiences significant vehicle traffic daily, creating challenges, distinct from the from other properties and historic district. In figure one, you'll see the zoning boundaries for the Northwest Kenwood local historic district and the National Register historic district. I kind of highlighted and figured too that there are so when I spoke with Cynthia she told me that the difference between homes that are in the national registry are homes that don't really need to go through the COA process at homes that are considered part of the local. Does it have a pointer? I'm not. Does it have a pointer? Okay. So, local historic from what I understood, Cynthia, I don't know if you want to help me with this, but this is considered part of the local historic around the Seminole Park, this big rectangle here and this small triangle here. From those homes, from the homes that are located in the local historic district, there are about 39 homes that directly face major street with four lanes and speed limits exceeding 35 miles per hour. These homeowners, including myself, are required to navigate the certificate of appropriateness application process for fence approval. Well, I believe that a single set of rules for fence approval may work for most streets in the district. It does not account for unique circumstances like mine, where my property is directly facing a high speed traffic, noise pollution, littering, and in my case, a boss stop directly in front of my home. These environment factors affect only a small subset of homes in our community, creating a need for a nuanced consideration. I would like to address some of the key points raised in the staff report. First, streetscape, visibility, and pedestrian experience. The pedestrian experience in our street is limited due to it being in a major road. Most pedestrian activity we have observed consists of vocational bicyclists and individuals who often exhibit concerning behavior, such as appearing to be under the influence. This environment does not encourage safe or comfortable pedestrian use or in my case for a homeowner seeking to feel secure with their surrounding area. I would like to share a statistic from the National Library of Medicine that is called Barrier to Walking safely in the United States, perceive reasons and potential mitigation strategies, according to the study nearly one, out of four, adults identified traffic as a barrier to walking with vehicle speed, being the major contributing factor. The road in front of my house is a city collector street, a high traffic area where their concerns are particularly relevant. The second one is the historical compatibility and the reversibility. The fences the design is modern but does not permanently alter the property if removed the original historic character remains intact. The commission has a Provincial fences in other homes including privacy and shorter front yard designs establishing establishing the precedent for consideration. Giving the specific safety challenges of my location I believe my fence warrants for an exception. The visual at impact on the street, there are factors that can enhance street escape and experience such as landscaping. As mentioned on the application, we did show some landscape has been installed that has helped to soften the visual dominance of the fence. We have plans of adding more plans. However, we stop when we receive the violation notice. Since we were not sure we're going to be able to keep that fence. The fourth one would be height and opacity concerns. The height of the fence is directly tied to mitigating the high speed traffic and providing a level of safety and privacy that shorter fences cannot achieve. There is precedent for taller fences elsewhere in the district, even on properties not located along major roads. Material and concerns. While vinyl is not a traditional historic material, it is durable and low maintenance option that ensures the fence remains in a good condition, helping to preserve the properties' appearance for years to come. As you may know, owning a historic home comes with significant costs, especially when it comes to repairs, which can be both frequent and expensive. By using a more sustainable material for the fence, we can save on maintenance costs, allowing us to allocate resources more effectively toward the necessary repairs to maintain the integrity of our home. And lastly, safety versus historic guidelines. Safety and livability both take precedence. Maintaining, I believe that maintaining historical aesthetics is important, but it should not come at the cost of the wells being of the residents, especially for homes that are situated along major roads, which is my case. This fence has essentially improved the safety, security, and overall experience of my home. While remaining minimally impactful and its historic character, it allows me and my husband and my family to enjoy a property in a way that feels secure and private, addressing challenges that are unique to home situated in high traffic roadways. By granting the approval that commission will demonstrate a commitment to both preserving the historic charm of our neighborhood while supporting the well-being of their residents. I respectfully request the approval of the fence. I recognize that it's essential for the defense does play an essential role in protecting my family and enhancing our quality of life, especially with the reality of our unique location. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. I did bring a few other things, but I'll let you go through. If you've got images, you can bring them over here. Oh, I have them in here. Go ahead. Go ahead. So here are a few fences that I see in the neighborhood. They are not all of them. And I have the addresses, but I can't recall if they're all in between the local historic, but there are taller fences, opacity, there are with higher opacity of 50%, less opacity of 50%, sorry. And then I know there was something in the staff report about the difference of the side of the fence and the front of the fence, the different style. And there are some other homes that also have different styles from the side of the fence to the front of the fence. So I just wanted to show a few images. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Again, I do not have any green cards. So we'll move ahead to cross-examination, rebuttal, closing comments from City. Staff doesn't have any other than just to mention that I don't know that specifically in the guidelines, it says anything about the front elevation of the fence being the same as the side elevation. I think it's just typical what we see is One-hole matching fence for a front yard fence versus a backyard fence, but if Commission is not worried about that then it was just a comment from staff, okay? And does the applicant have any additional closing remarks or comments? Oh, okay Okay, then we will go ahead and move into executive session any commissioners have any or comments. No? Okay. Okay. Then we will go ahead and move into executive session. Any commissioners have any comments or questions? For staff or the applicant? Can we confirm that those properties she showed are... I mean, he said there was no precedent, but she had some photos that shows her its... I think the majority of them, I think we've discussed a few of the addresses specifically were not in the district. There is, I believe one in this particular district that is under construction that may need a notice, but I believe there's no six foot front yard fences existing in this district or any of the other Kenwood that I'm aware of? I drove again this neighborhood and by the applicants home. And there, especially along 28th Street, there are some six-foot tall fences, opaque, but they're in the side yard. They're not in the front yard. They're either a side yard or back yard. So I was specifically looking and I did not really see any. So I'd also like to point out that this particular property has the benefit of that maybe 20 inch raised wall in front of the property, meaning that if there was a four foot fence on top of that wall, they would have at least a six foot tall fence from the sidewalk. And that sidewalk, I think it's six feet wide. I think it's six feet wide. It looked pretty wide and I think I could read that from the survey. And I did see somebody walking a dog along the sidewalk when I drove by. So there's 28th Street is busy. But it didn't. And yes, maybe it's a little bit more busy than 31st Street that we just looked at, but I would be very concerned about, I mean, it's a, this fence is a start contrast from the adjacent property owners who have open front yards. And I think staff has maybe provided a way forward again for this applicant if we so choose to approve this with conditions. So other comments? I saw this when it first went up and I literally was jarring to see the contrast of that. And of course my initial thought was how did this get approved. And I thought about it for a minute. I'm like no, I'm sure this is one that's going to come in front of us as a code violation. I get the idea of trying to create the security and everything. But I really feel that as Commissioner Wanamaker said, having that two foot and then a four foot fence on top of that, in this case I'd really recommend that it be not vinyl but metal and really have an opacity to it, especially with the landscaping you've put in front of it. That pepperoni plant grows very fast and is gonna give you the privacy that you want, but I think the vinyl fence itself, just to me, it sets a bad precedent. Anyone else? Commissioner Barbay? Yeah, I would say that that would be my concern too because this would be the highest fence. That would be approved in a local district and just the thought of driving on that street understanding its busy. So I get the need for the privacy. But if all the homeowners would take the same initiative after this. I think that it would look very, very out of place for the local historic district. I would approve the four foot tall fence and the recommendations by staff. Other comments? Commissioner Michaels? I'm sharing the comments that they've made by the people and the others. OK. So are we ready for a motion? Yes. Council. I know that Cindy indicated that there would be conditions that might make this, but this doesn't appear to be a modifiable situation in the way that the last one perhaps was. That's why conditions weren't listed out. So I think this would just be an alternative. Oh, I see. Yeah. I think this is just a yes or a no. Not it. OK. Obviously, if they came back with something that was compliant and was staff review, it would just be reviewed by staff, according to the matrix. Actually, I'm sorry. No, your time is up. There's nothing else. You wanted to say something about the fence. I did say that to Cindy, like I did talk to the contractor and they can bring it down to four feet. OK. Yeah. OK. OK. Well, that's good. Well, there might be more that needs to be done than just bringing it down. Okay, so what we have is, well we don't have any motions yet actually, but it does appear that we're all on the same page in terms of denying, I believe, the current certificate of appropriateness. So, and like council just mentioned, if the applicant came back and they wouldn't necessarily have to come back to the commission, it could be staff approval if, if, actually, Ms. Cohanick, what did you mean by proposing this potential alternative motion? I was unclear if the CBC would want to approve a vinyl fence in this situation at four feet, which is not staff-reviewable, whether it has 50%, or 70% opacity vinyl, it's just not an option for staff review at this point. Okay. I think we just need to vote on the certificate of appropriateness that's in front of us, and let city staff work with the applicant on anything future. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion or comments? Okay. Can we have a motion please? I would make the motion that based on general inconsistency with chapter 16 of the city code of ordinance is that the community preservation Commission recommend approval of the certificate of appropriateness for the after the fact permit application for the fence at 810 28th Street North, a contributing property in the historic district. Yeah, and that motion is made in the affirmative. Is there a second? I second. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, roll call please. Want to make her? No. Jeffrey? No. Marvay? No. Magnello? No. Michaels? No. Drake? No. And that motion fails. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to go to the council. Michael's. Drake. No. No. And that motion fails. Okay. Thank you very much. I just encourage the applicant to work with city staff on what you what is what would be allowed. Okay. All right. Moving on to the next agenda item. We have agenda item number six. Iris, please read that in. It's a city file number 24 debt. I'm sorry excuse me. City file number 24-902-00127. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness application for the replacement of windows at the Robert West House, a local historic landmark. The owner is the Kurt Hartman Living Trust and the agent is Doug King with King Contracting. That address is 101 6th Avenue, Northeast and the staff planner is Kelly Perkins. Great. Thank you. All right. Miss Perkins. Good afternoon. I'm here for COA for 24-902-00127. We did receive one public comment. It was printed out and brought to you at your desk. This is a local historic landmark known as the Robert West House. It was built in 1911. And it actually came before, this property came before this commission a few months ago for a replacement of citing trim other exterior elements. It was approved for the replacement of deteriorated citing and trim for the contractor to work with staff to work through that. It was approved to be in kind replacements. the public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. The public. Most of the house have nine over one double hung wood windows. The owner did receive a CUA approval in 2020 to have the windows repaired. They were repaired by wind window makeover in Tampa. But now they're coming into replace. They're proposing to replace 53 windows throughout the main house on the first, second, third floors. They're proposing a place with Anderson A-Series windows with storm watch protection. They will have the three-quarter inch traditional simulated divided lights and they are a mixture of the double hunks sashes. There's a few awning windows and then there are some fixed windows such as sort of the third story attic which that was a 1990s rebuild after the house was struck by lightning. So our standards for review rely on the criteria for alterations, which typically says not to replace historic materials unless deteriorated beyond repair. Staff was unable to see any evidence that the windows themselves were deteriorated beyond repair. Staff was unable to see any evidence that the windows themselves were deteriorated beyond repair. They appear to be in proper condition, what you expect for windows that were recently repaired. But our criteria for replacement windows, which was approved in 2015, state you may replace historic windows, but that the replacements need to match the historic and all visual compatibility configuration. So most of the windows are 9 over 1. The applicant is proposing to install new windows that do visually match the existing windows. So because of that, that's why staff has sort of, some of the criteria staff has to find that is inconsistent with our criteria for replacement, but in general it does meet the guidelines for window replacement. So staff is recommending approval with conditions with the conditions of approval, the standard conditions about it being recessed into the wall plane. The measurement was provided by photos from the applicant that the windows will have the exterior contour three-dimensional grills to replicate traditional month and profiles and that they need to match the extant configuration of the windows. Final inspection is required and all their necessary permits will be will need to be obtained and in the approval date will be to December 10th in the staff report actually wrote December 12th but be approved for two years for December 10th in the Southropore Act, I wrote December 12th, but be approved for two years for December 10th. That is the extent of my presentation. I know the applicant is here, and I think he has a presentation as well. Right, thank you very much. So we'll hear from the applicant. Hi, good afternoon. I think I've had some visuals also, I guess I think I've sent something to you. One second. All right. Well, while that's going up, good afternoon. Madam Chair, it's good to see many of you again. I was here back in. Please state your name and address. Oh, I sorry. My name is Mike McCrave. I'm with King Contracting and I'm representing the homeowner, Kurt and Kerhartman in the trust. As you know, this is Robert Westhouse. Please, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Your address please. Oh, my, sorry, the address is 101 6th Avenue Northeast. Your address. 39 31 Central Avenue. Thank you. Sorry. I got working with Kelly Perkins. It's a great honor to be able to work on this house. This is a fabulous property. And being here earlier in the year, talking to this commission about the reason for the siding replacement. It's because this home has gone through several renovations since it was listed on the historic society. It has taken a beating over the years. Recently, this house had an extensive mold and rodent in infestation. We have since taken and remediated that. We've been able to get the the air quality down to approved levels and we're ready to get the inside back together. In the conditions that were set, my apologies, I fail to present the windows at the time. The windows are a big part of being able to encapsulate this house in order for us to secure it and keep the mold down. There is this house is currently uninhabitable. The condition of the house is uninhabitable. And we want to make sure that we work very closely with the city and be able to put this house back together again in its original form. So being able to put the siding back together not touch the columns, keep the trim the same. I mean our purpose is to encapsulate this house not to change this house in any way. And the photograph that you saw is a great example of that. Now getting to the windows, the staff made a really good evaluation based on our presentation. And there's a couple of inconsistencies that I wanted to bring forth to you. Number one, on number five, whether or not this house is the client can live in this house. The client cannot live in this house. We do need to encapsulate this and waterproof these windows and make sure they're insulated. There is a photograph of, actually, Kelly had the photograph up earlier in the comparison. You know, back in the day, these were the weights. There it is right there. I saw that image right there. They have the weights on the side. And that cavity on the side right there is a big part of the insulation of the window side right there is a big part of the insulation of the window. And this is a big part of where water intrusion has come in because these back in the day, they didn't waterproof windows the way they do now. We purposely selected the Anderson A-series window because Anderson has, these windows are specifically configured for historic homes. So we are able to, with this design and the style of the window, we can match the 9 over 1. Our sashes are almost identical. The reveal is very, very close to the original window. But being able to, taking these windows, original windows out, it's not feasible. Back when they modified these and repaired the windows, they did this from the inside. They actually cut the frames of these windows in order to do that. They accessed the channels, the weights on the side, they repaired the ropes, and they have actually compromised the frame of the window. So these windows, if I take them out, I cannot put them back in with the integrity and hold the integrity. Nor can I waterproof these windows. The, as I said, one of the things that was mentioned in the summary, the A-series window is not a final cloud window. This is using the technology Fibrex so that I am able to keep the finish, maintain a finish, maintain a consistency with it, and more importantly, because it is a Fibrex window, I'm able to maintain the sash and the dimension of the windows and keep that proportion of that window to the existing style of the house. A vinyl window structurally would be wider. I wouldn't have the glazing, the glass that we have on these windows. The other thing that we've noticed through this review is on the backside of the house during some of the renovations, they had Pella windows actually. There are vinyl windows. Those are vinyl-clad windows on the back. And what we're proposing to do is take those out and replicate and go back to this same style that we have with the same, keep the same reveal on the millions in the center and reconfigure these windows so that we can get all of the windows to match the historic character of the house. Much of the new windows to the right where the addition are, those were also recreated to match, so they are not the original windows to the house. One of the things that I want to make sure that I get to this commission and I don't want to lose sight of this because there's a condition that Kelly had put in and that is the grills have been, they're inconsistent from window to window. These have been modified over the years of those who've ever worked with windows. The glazing has been changed. The dimensions vary. We did find a consistency of three quarters. So we are able to, with the Anderson window, maintain a high degree of consistency to these original windows. Are there gonna be some subtle variations? Yes, there are gonna be some subtle variations, but the structure of the window is going to give us a better product. It's going to protect from storms. We've had two hurricanes already, so we're gonna be able to protect the house and capsulate the house and achieve our original goal that we came to this commission for. I guess just in closing, thank you again. I've learned a lot. Miss Perkins has been a fabulous resource. I'm as a new builder to St. Pete and being with King Contracting. I just, I love the opportunity in the old Northeast. I love the opportunity of working with the historic society. So I'm doing my very best to make sure that I maintain the design guidelines set forth and make sure that the Pineapple House here, the Robert West House continues to stay as an icon and can stand for the pineapple house here, the Robert West House, continues to stay as an icon and can stand for the next 100 years, I should say. Okay, so thank you very much. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Again, I have no public comment cards. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? Okay, Ms. Perkins, do you have any cross examination? No, the city waves. Okay, any cross examination for city staff? And how about Rebuttal? None, thank you. Okay, any questions? Anything in closing? Nope, closing comments? Okay, we will move into executive session. Comments, questions. I have a couple. And maybe I'm not sure who would answer this, but the windows, they have these little decorative elements up at the top, and they're too layered as like there's an existing window behind and then there's another window in front, is that a storm window and removable and that's what those little decorative elements are for. Yeah, traditionally in St. Pete you'd have the window and then you typically have little brackets on the outside that would hold a screen. Up north, it would be a storm window. So I'm not sure when these storm windows were done or installed, but some people do them because they do help with noise, energy efficiency, other reasons that you might want to. So generally, it would be a screen that would cover the entire window that's removable. Okay. the entire window that's removable. Okay so I guess my question is is there any intention to replace the storm window or we will we just have a single new Anderson window there's not gonna be an extra storm window so those what will happen with those brackets will they just be removed or are those original to the house do they need to stay what yeah I don't removed or are those original to the house? Do they need to stay? What? Yeah. I don't know if they're original to the house. I mean, there's something that's easily available to purchase. I don't consider them. I mean, they're historic, but if we have a lot of people coming in to replace these historic windows with new impact, I don't see it as a requirement to retain them because you can always buy new ones and reinstall them if you want to install a screen or you were to return back, which I don't think is likely, but could be possible. Maybe you could answer that. Yes, actually the homeowner is here. And those were added at the time when we repaired. There is, they were manufactured to fit that size to mimic the 9-over-1 grill just to provide that weather proofing because these windows do not have any weather proofing to them whatsoever. Another question, the arch-dormer windows. They appear to have just stick on exterior muttons. What's the intention for all of those? I mean, I'll let him. Okay, we're going to just do. Okay, come to the podium. I was just going to, let me just clarify. Yeah, those windows are not original. That was an expansion that was done in the 90s. So, a staff review that is a non-historic alteration. We would prefer new windows still have the exterior grills to replicate all of the instruments. Okay. Well really all over with the trim very much in our first presentation to you is that the trim on the house the casing all the little details that are around the windows up in the crown up all around the house. We're going to we're going to put that right back and exactly the same as it was. So any details around those windows that are existing today, we are going to put it exactly the way it was before. So what you're seeing there, that wide band around those windows is actually just trim. The window itself is a lot smaller. Yeah, understand. Other comments or questions? And clearly the homeowners making quite an investment in this home, replacing, proposing to replace all of these windows with very high quality Anderson windows would. So, no comments or questions okay do we have a motion based on general consistency with chapter 16 of the city code of ordinances I recommend that the community planning and preservation commission approve with conditions the certificate of appropriateness requests for window replacements at the Robert West House with the following conditions listed in the staff report. Is there a second? Second? Okay and I'll just confirm with the owner applicant that you are okay with all the conditions in the staff report. Yes, okay. Applicant is shaking their head, yes. And I guess one other comment is we did receive a letter from Hona, the historic old northeast, and they were actually opposed to the window replacement. Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern Northeastern North Jeffrey? Yes? Marbe? Yes. Magnello? Yes. Michaels? Yes. Drake? Yes. Now motion passage unanimously. Okay thank you very much. Next agenda item is number six. For seven. There we have them. Seven. Yeah. Item seven. Okay. Will you please read that into the record. This is a city file number 24-902-00128. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness application for an addition window, endure replacement and accessory building changes at 27404th Avenue North, a contributing property in the local historic district. The owner is Juan Manuel Varella, LLC, the agent, Redolfo Schaefer, and the address again, 274040th Avenue North. The staff planner in this case is Cindy Cohanick. 44th Avenue North. I'm sorry. 2740, 4th Avenue North. 2740, 4th Avenue North. Thank you. Great, thank you very much. Ms. Cohanick. And the Cohanick, the preservation is with the city of St.P. This project is a COA review for 2740, 4th Avenue North. No public comments were received for this project. The property is a contributing resource 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 accessory building at the rear. The bungalow with craftsman details was constructed sometime between 1925 and 1928. Editions and alterations were made in 1934. A one car frame garage was constructed on site in 1932, which was partially converted to living space in 1949 and added to in 1951. This request is for the new construction of a one-story approximate 475 square foot addition on the rear of the house. Work also includes the removal of an approximately 441 square feet on the utility area of the garage to accommodate the new driveway. Window and door replacement or changes on the main anchorage and the fence replacement as well. Plans indicate that the rear addition is about 475 square feet but the COA and building permits indicate 1,750. Math based on floor plans indicates it's closer to 436 square feet so clarification is needed on the exact number of the addition. Differentiation is accomplished with a bump in on the left side and there may be an appearance of a separation of foundation framing on the left and right sides as well. Materials include hearty lap siding, Pella 410 single hung and Pella 510 fixed picture vinyl impact windows. A concrete pier with framed concrete lattice foundation to match the existing wood stair and railing which appeared also match the existing on the house which is historically accurate. Most of the existing windows and doors are proposed to remain. Window and door changes on the main include the removal of the existing windows and doors on the rear elevation to accommodate the new rear addition. The removal of paired window set on the rear of the right side elevation. Four new windows would be added on the rear of the right side elevation to the main, I'm sorry on the main, and two new square fixed windows will be added. There's no precedent for square windows on the house. One of these on the right elevation is a little bit more visible than the left side elevation which is at a bump on the bump in area. Because it's set back it'll be less visible but due to the visibility the right side square window might be more appropriate to do a different window type on that area. The proposed Pellet Single-Hung Windows appear to have styles that do not match between the top and bottom sash. This is likely due to the function, and as a single-hung window, basically, it appears similar to the PGT win guard, at least from their images from their websites, with a single hung that has been previously approved by staff and the commission. That's that image in the lower corner there. Window and door trim on the new addition should match the historic trim on the main portion of the house. Proposed work includes the removal of the approximately 441, excuse me, square foot on the utility area of the garage or the left side wall to accommodate a new, sorry, I'll keep going though. To accommodate a new driveway, plans indicate 84 square feet of existing utility to be renovated and the new utility area to be 42 square feet of existing utility to be renovated and the new utility area to be 42 square feet. So we need some clarification on what exactly is happening there. Should I pause Iris? It's working. The one the commission has you can see. Okay. Okay. We could we started that anymore. Oh, there's a spec. Okay. Um, for the garage, the left side door on the front or interior lot side will be removed. This utility area that is proposed to be modified is too small to be the 1932 one-car garage as even the smallest one-car accessory building at that time would have been 10 by 18. The eastern section of the garage, which per the property card was added in 1951, is nevertheless considered historic now. It is not addressed in the application as to why this is needed or why the parking could not be accommodated at the rear without removing part of the accessory building as existing. All details, including eavesiding corners, etc. on the house should be matched to the original portion of the house other than a few elements in order to provide differentiation between the original versus the new. Applicant should add a vertical trim board on the right side to delineate the new addition from the existing house. This will also provide separation from the existing siding to the new. This area does not appear, it sort of appears in set in the renderings, but I don't think that's really the plan from the actual plans. A gable and vent in the rear gable end to match the existing side gable vents would be appropriate. And best practices would be to center that single window on the rear under the gable end or to add a corresponding window on the right side. Staff to review foundation design for the addition, which should be differentiated from the foundation on the original section of the house. This is a very simple way to kind of delineate old from new. Summary of findings basically, staff evaluation yields that most of the relevant criteria were met for the granting of the COA Guidelines for new construction as well the staff evaluation yields that many of the relevant criteria were met for the guidelines for alterations and as such I'm recommending approval with conditions for the proposed edition the changes, and the accessory building changes. As listed here, I noted all of the, most of the conditions in the previous slides. And then of course, we've got the standard conditions of approval included as well. That's my presentation. I'm here for any questions and the applicant and owner are in attendance. Does the owner applicant have anything that they would like to say? No comments? Nothing? No presentation? Okay. Thank you very much. And again, I do not have any comment cards so we can just move into any cross examination, rebuttal, closing comments. That's definitely. Okay. Any closing comments. That's deaf waves. Okay, any closing comments? None at all. Okay. Okay, so we will go ahead and move into executive session. Then, okay, any comments by the commission? I'll make a comment. Because I always make a comment. I folks got something. One thing that's really striking is if you look at the window schedule on the construction drawings, the existing windows, the new windows on the home, and then again on the garage, what's really striking, and I think what adds to kind of the quirkiness of the house is how many different kinds of windows there are. The different sizes, the different proportions, the, I mean, and I almost think to try to, like really specify and make them all the same size or make them consistent will detract from kind of the quirkiness of the house. And I know, Ms. Cahannock, you mentioned that there is no precedent for a square window, but I think window W17, which is an existing window in one of the restrooms, one of the toilet rooms, is, it's identified as being square, two foot by two foot. And the homeowner is replicating that in another toilet room, restroom, on that same elevation. So you've got W17, which is existing, and then W26, which is a replication 2x2. So, and then on the back elevation, the way that the plan is laid out. W22 is, you mentioned that it would be better if it were centered or if they could duplicate that and create a symmetrical window. But looking at the plan, they'd really have to reconfigure the interior plan to make that happen. And again, because it's on the back side, I'm not as concerned about the asymmetry or it not being centered. So I do agree with some of the other conditions about the delineation between old and new and the dormer detail up at the gable, but the different size and locations of the windows don't really concern me very much. Anybody else? Well, I just chime in that I had the same feeling when I was looking at it. But what's funny for me is in watching this house for years that was three units plus a unit in the back, it's been renovated about five times that I can remember in each time going into much better direction and it's it's it's finally nice to see this return to a single family house. I certainly support the quirkiness. other comments? Maybe if we look at the Yeah I was going to ask a question on that so I'm looking at the conditions here I'm am I missing? Okay here we go the recommendations on the windows. I think number three might be the one. Is that what? Okay. Has the applicant reviewed all of the conditions? There are several, one through 12, and is the applicant amenable to complying with those conditions if the commission requires it. It looks like we might remove one of them. So, okay, applicant agrees. All right. Okay. All right. Are we ready? Ready for a motion? So, I'd make the motion that the determination of general consistency with chapter 16 of the city code of ordinances that we write the community preservation planning and preservation commission approved with conditions the certificate of appropriateness application for replacement for the addition window replacement and accessory building changes at 2740 fourth Avenue the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of seven eight nine ten eleven and twelve. Okay. Do we have a second? Second? Thank you. Any more discussion? Roll call please. Want to make her? Yes. Jeffrey? Yes. Marve? Yes. Magnello? Yes. Michaels? Yes. Drake? Yes, and that motion passes unanimously Hey, great. Thank you very much Does anybody want to take a quick break or We do have one more agenda item, right? This is yeah I'm not sure how long this one is going to take. I can use it with break. Okay, let's take a quick break. Yep, five minutes. All right, we are going to put it on. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm 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. Yes. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. 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 the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. 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. you Okay, welcome back. And we have one final item on the agenda. Iris, will you please go ahead and read that into the record. This is the updates and announcements, the LGCP CIE 2024 annual capital improvements element CIE update. And that is going to be presented by Britain Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Good afternoon Madam Chair. so this is just a quick report to let you know that the annual CIE update went to City Council for first reading last week and it is going for public hearing this week. It is not being brought to this board as a public hearing. Florida statues does not require that the CIE come before the local planning board. It is to be, it's basically a modification to the comprehensive plan. It's not an amendment. It's to only requires one hearing before City Council and due to the storms in order to get it done by the end of the year, you need to go straight to City Council. I will add that Commissioner Michaels did send in two questions related to the report itself. We have responded to Commissioner Michaels that the technical answer to those questions is best answered through Claud Tanckersley Public Works Director and Brigette Pramin Director for Engineering Capital Improvements. So we have forwarded the questions to their attention, asking them to reply. When we have an answer to those questions, we will forward those back to the full commission for your information so that you can see both the questions and the answers that we receive. Bergesh Pramman did a company, Britain Wilson, in her presentation to City Council, and was available to answer and address questions from the City Council at first reading. Several questions were asked from City Council member Lissette Hanowitz. Likewise, he will accompany her again and be available to answer any additional questions City Council might have at their public hearing. So this is a change from what we've done before. Previously we've wound compliance with the comprehensive plan for the capital budget. Correct. We held a courtesy public hearing before the commission, but Florida Statues does not require that it be heard by the local planning commission before it goes to City Council like a typical amendment to the comprehensive plan. Okay. And just for the commission's information here, my questions had to do with the budgeting for the stormwater master plan. We were looking at a budget of 21.9 million for the upcoming year, but the public works administrator had previously said that it would take approximately 50 million on average to accomplish the plan within 20 years. I'm trying to get a clarification here of exactly what the cost is and what the timeline is going to be for that. And then my other question had to do with storm surge planning. As I think we all know, by now, the stormwater master plan does not with storm surge planning. As I think we all know by now, the stormwater master plant does not address storm surge. As I understand it, we're just getting underway doing a storm surge plan. And there is no budget, obviously. We don't have a plan, so we don't have a budget for that. And the thought was that it would be perhaps prudent to include in the budget for the upcoming year some contingency money there to apply to a storm surge plan once that is accomplished. It was with the nature of the questions. I guess I'll just say it's just really striking. I mean, but understandable how much money is spent underground and you know, we don't see it. And hopefully maybe someday in the future we'll be able to spend shift more of that money to above ground architecture and construction and parks and a community quality of life, not that fixing storm sewers and storm drainage doesn't contribute to quality of life, but more civic oriented projects. But yeah, I mean we're on the coast, We have a lot of shoreline and it's understandable how much needs to be spent underground basically. So and on infrastructure. So anyway, it's just seeing it in hard numbers is yeah. But every year it's, we see an, you know, extent, we have a crisis that we're dealing with, you know, hundreds, thousands of people have been flooded out of their homes. You know, you ride around certain parts of the city here, depending upon where you live. You might not know that there was this crisis that occurred just a month or so ago. And we need to start thinking about what we're going to do to provide protection so that people can remain living in their homes in many of our neighborhoods. I did have one question. And it's probably a question you're not able to answer. But I'll just put it out there because I think the community does want to know. With all the debris disposal and everything that's going on because of the hurricanes, I know that there's a 100% reimbursement if FEMA, if we get it done in 90 days, I just wondered if that looks like that's going to be possible. And then I did hear from someone in the community that they anticipate that it will take 60 years to get caught up with all the debris that we got from that. And I just don't know if that's accurate or not, but it seems like an astronomical number. But when I drive around and see what is piled up on the sides of the street, I tend to believe it. Working backwards, I don't know anything about the 60-year number. And with regards to the targets for pickup, my information is a couple weeks old now, because I saw a presentation, public presentation from the mayor, but as far as I understand, they're still on their targets. And so if there is something different, I will bring that question forward as well. I guess I'll also say that it's good that developers are still building in St. Pete. They're still bullish on St. Pete and it's adding to our tax base. So to help provide money and resources to alleviate and to fix some of these issues. So yeah. Do we need, yes, go ahead. I have an additional comment and I believe, Assistant City Attorney Judd may have a comment as well. What I wanted to mention was because I think maybe Commissioner Michaels was going towards this question is are we changing the policy of bringing these to the commission? That is not our intention right now. This year because of the storms and the timing of the storms and when things have to be submitted for the commissions and the councils, we kind of got into a timing issue and so we decided to bring it to council in the way that we did this year. But as a courtesy, we still wanted to come back and and provide this to you as a report item. But in the future for right now, we intend to follow what we've always done, even though we haven't had to do that since 2011. It's just always worked and we've always received valuable feedback from this commission that has helped the council in their review. So we intend to continue doing that in future years. This year we just kind of ran into a timing issue. I just wanted to mention to the commission since we were talking about storms that related to storm recovery. I'm sure many of you have heard a lot of talk about the FEMA 50% rule in St. Petersburg and 49% rule. But one of the exemptions for calculations of substantial improvements towards that 50% would be if you are in a locally designated historic district or a locally designated landmark. So that is one of the benefits of designation that doesn't get talked about a lot because fortunately we haven't really had to deal with that but locally listed districts and properties do have that protection so they can repair their home without it being considered a substantial improvement that would require them to elevate or demolish or remove the home. So it is a benefit if you know anyone who had storm damage this time or got close to storm damage and they may be eligible for historic designation that might be something that they want to look at and to just have that peace of mind in the future. Thank you for that reminder. Are you looking for a motion or it's just a courtesy report item? Okay. Any other questions or comments for staff? Yes. Regarding this issue, we talked about in June, sending letters out to properties in historic districts. Is there an update on that? I think we thought that was going to happen relatively quickly. We did too. There's been a lot of mail pieces going out from the city lately so we've kind of been sitting on it for a minute to avoid confusion with all the other information that's been going out. There were a couple other details that we wanted to refine in there. We are editing the content of the brochure now to also add additional information about storm preparation and post storm response for historic buildings initially in the draft that we were intending to send we did have a link to a nice document that was published from the National Park Service relating to flood resiliency and historic buildings. So we want to, and we think we need to, based on the description we just received from Ms. Judd, talk a little bit more about storm impact in historic preservation because we weren't emphasizing that in the draft we intended to originally mail. So we're making some edits to that. After the local historic district case that is going to City Council this Thursday, we think we're gonna have a little more space through the turn of the new year to kind of close out some of those open loose ends that we had from earlier in the year. Thank you. Okay. All right, any other updates or announcements? No. Happy holidays. Yeah. New years. Goodness. Happy New Year. I have a question on the meeting minutes. Yep. We're going to approve next round. You know, this is the first time I've seen a full, what's it called? Verbiya. Verbiya, it's to not, not, not, not, not, but you know, everything isn't here word for word. So I'm assuming that this is being utilized for some of the cases that were there that day. You know, are we responsible for validating for some of the cases that were there that day. You know, are we responsible for validating that all this stuff was exactly said? I can explain that. So you are not required as a commission and Iris is the clerk to commission to compile verbatim minutes. However, it has been the request of my office and previous city councils that when we do have cases the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the city council. We have a lot of work to do with the and findings of the commission. So we do provide those verbatim. Also cases that are inactive litigation already, we do that because that is another piece of evidence that we take to support any challenges to the decisions that are made here. It's to point in, it's record evidence. So we do do that extra step, we're not required to. And it's not required to be an absolute Perfect exact copy obviously. We're doing the best we can But if someone wanted an exact copy that's why we do and all of our notices Encourage people if they want that or are planning future litigation to bring their own court reporter But these minutes are very helpful for counsel and for staff if we have appeals and or litigation. Okay. Okay. All right. Great. So we are adjourned. And if you do find anything like you're like I, I didn't say that, Commissioner Michael said that. If you just send those notations directly to I, I risk. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe and Yeah. and and What what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what Thanks for watching!