Welcome to the August 2024 meeting of the Community Planning and Preservation Commission for the City of St. Petersburg. This commission reviews proposed changes to the comprehensive plan, land use and zoning as well as historic preservation related proposals and makes recommendations to the City Council. Our agenda today includes presentations, staff, the applicant, and any registered opponent. Each have approximately 10 minutes for their presentation. After presentations, each member of the public who wishes to address the commission will have three minutes to speak. When called on to speak, please step up to the podium and 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, the chair. As 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. We ask that all cell phones be silenced, and we'll have a roll call. Wanna Maker, Jeffrey, Gardner, Marbeguer, here Moultrie, Nelson. Here. Carasco. Here. Michaels. Here. Magnello. Here. And we have a poem. All right. At this time, please join me in pledging allegiance to the flag. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the minutes of the last meeting do we have a motion for approval? Motion for approval. Is there a second? A second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no? The minutes are approved. At this time, we'll have the public comments. We have Jeff Danner. Welcome to the Community Planning and Preservation Commission. All was nice to see a former City Council member here. Thank you for your service. Thank you, and thank you for your service today. My name's Jeff Danner, I live at 2351, Dartmouth Avenue, North, in historic, Kenwood. So I want to take a few minutes today just to kind of let you know that things in our historic district are not going well. We are 80% of the historic resources in historic districts in Kenwood with close to 500 homes. We've got a set of policy and set of ordinances that distinguish the difference between being in historic district and being an individual landmark. An individual landmark has one applicant, one owner who benefits or does the consequences of that. A district takes a whole community. 51% is misleading because the city counts non-respondence as a no vote, we treat this like an election, we go out there and knock on doors, let people know the benefit of this. When we're at 70%, we feel comfortable telling the city to start the process. So it takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of volunteers. The goal is to protect the character of the district. So the criteria needs to support that goal. Does the proposal support the character of the district? Does it deteriorate that character or does it do neither? If it supports it, it's an easy approval, get it to the permitting department as quick as possible. If it deteriorates it, give the denial, they have the opportunity to come here and peel it. The problem lies in those things that do neither. So many things that aren't, they don't affect the character, they don't diminish the architecture, they're not permanent, they have a short lifespan, they can easily be removed. We have 500 COA applications to review now on things that can be much easier, much more consistent. All things that are historic are not a good idea. Nobody's proposing jealousy, windows are chain-linked fences in historic Kenwood which are historic components and amenities that were not historic in the 20s but today are the norm such as backyard and side yard elevated decks pooling closures so many things that are not time to list they're behind the six foot fences nobody sees them the only way you're there is if you're invited. Again, it doesn't support, it doesn't deteriorate that criteria, or that'd be a problem. If it's not historic but is now under review, it's a contrived history. And while this may be necessary, it needs to be done so with members of the district that voted in, construction and design professionals, the availability of materials. An example is colored aluminum drip edge was not historic, but now you're being told which color is right or wrong. That loses support in the district. There's an effort to move in every single one of our districts to unwind these. I'm tired of going to porch parties and picnics and people target me how do we do this or how do we save it from those that want to unwind it? We have to have this conversation, we have to do it as soon as possible, or we will start losing these districts. Thank you. Thank you, we appreciate your remarks, and I will give them consideration. We have three cases for us to consider today. There were originally four. three cases for us to consider today. There were originally four. The third one on the agenda has been deferred. That's a city file 24-902-073-71031street north. So that will be held on September the 10th. And at this time, I'll ask the clerk to read in the first case. This is a city file number ZM-18. The request is a private initiated amendment to the official zoning map from neighborhood traditional one to neighborhood traditional mixed residential 1 in TM 1 for a 0.1 acre portion of 0.2 acre parcel The owner is dhw holdings LLC the agent is Darren Cooper and the staff Contact in this case is Andrew jurowitz and mr. Chair may I make a comment before Mr. Drew, it begins his presentation. Certainly. Just once it can firm for those of you who have applications remaining on the agenda today, I believe you were all previously contacted, but we do only have five members today. It takes four voting members to approve a vote. It's not a simple majority, we'll need the four votes. So you do have the option per the city code to defer your application until next month when we may have seven members I believe by You remaining here that you've all elected to proceed, but I just wanted to put that on the record If you do change your mind before your application, please see your staff planner Thank you chair. Thank you. All right we'll start with the staff presentation. Sounds good. Do I need to swear in? Yes Say it can be sworn in. Okay. Do you a firm? Do you swear or a firm that that makes you well good today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. Thanks, Iris. Good afternoon commissioners. Andrew Gerowitz here. A planner for the record presenting amendments to the official zoning map for a 0.10 acre portion of a 0.20 acre parcel located at 30 89 15th Avenue South initiated by Dan Cooper The purpose of this rezoning is to provide for consistent NTM 1 zoning across the 0.28 20 acre parcel and per the applicant's notice of intent the site will be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily town homes. This is an aerial of the subject property which is located at 308915th Avenue South at the Northeast intersection of 15th Avenue South and 31st Street South. The site consists of one plated parcel and two plated lots consisting of open lawn with scattered vegetation. All areas in the immediate vicinity of the site contain single family homes though some of the lots are currently vacant. This is the future land use map showing the subject site designated planned redevelopment residential, or PRR, the proposed rezoning will not require an amendment to the future land use map. Additionally, the proposed rezoning will not require an amendment to the county-wide plan map, which is designated as residential medium or RM for the subject property. This is the zoning map showing the 0.10 acre site as currently zoned neighborhood traditional one or NT1, which as mentioned is proposed for amendment to neighborhood traditional mixed residential or NTM1 to be consistent with the NTM1 zoning on the remaining 0.10 acre portion of the parcel to the west and to allow for the potential redevelopment of multifamily housing. Partsles north, west and south of the site have consistent NTM 1 zoning which extends north to south along 31st Street South Partsles directly east as well as further west across 31st Street South are zoned NT1 So prior to the filing of this application, the 0.10 acre amendment subject area, Lot 27 was an individual parcel separated from the abutting 0.10, 810 acre site, Lot 28 to the west. Staff informed the applicant that the lots would need to be re-plated and combined to be in compliance with the minimum land development regulations established for the NTM1 district. Specifically, parcel combination would be necessary to ensure compliance with the requirement that qualified NTM properties must retain direct connectivity to a future major street. So to maintain direct connectivity of the entirety of the site to 31st Street South, which is a future major street, the applicant has successfully applied to have the lots combined to form 1, 0.2 acre parcel. So the change in development potential from neighborhood traditional one to neighborhood traditional mixed residential one changes the density, and intensity of allowable development. Firstly, a change to NTM1 would allow for redevelopment of multi-family use, whereas this use is not permitted under the current NTM1 zoning. The allowable base density would increase from 15 dwelling units in acre, though NTM1 is limited to one primary and one accessory per lot, to a base density of 30 dwelling units in acre, though NT1 is limited to one primary and one accessory per lot, to a base density of 30 dwelling units per acre. For the 0.10 acre site, this would result in an increase from one single family and one accessory unit to three multifamily units. When analyzing the 0.2 acre parcel as a whole, the zoning change would result in an increase from five units, one primary, one accessory for the NT portion and three multifamily for the NTM portion. And that those five units would increase to six units. So the 0.2 acre parcel would be resumed to NTM consistent across the site. The base floor area ratio is 0.5 for both NTM1 and NTM1. However, NTM1 allows for a bonus of up to 0.2 FAR for developments which achieve a set of design standards. Height regulations are the same for both districts, while maximum impervious surface and building coverage allowances increase from 0.65 to 0.75 and 0.55 to 0.6 respectively. As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendment is consistent with numerous policies of the conference of plan. For example, the proposal provides for an orderly land use transition from 31st street south to the west and neighboring single-family residences to the east. It's compatible with the character of the surrounding area and it also allows for more dense residential uses to be located along major streets, 31st Street South in this case. Also provided in the staff report, the level of service impact analysis concludes that the proposed future or rezoning, sorry, will not have a significant impact on the city's adopted level of service standards for public services and facilities, including potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, traffic, mash transit, recreation, and storm water management. The proposed amendment also furthers the goals of the city's housing opportunities for all. And the Advantage Penelope Housing Compact that aim to address housing affordability by increasing the availability of housing options. With that, staff recommends a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan and recommends that City Council approve the proposed zoning change from NT1 to NTM1. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Does any member of the commission have questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant going to make a presentation? Would you want to make a presentation? No. I think we're all set. Are there any comments from the commission? Oh, I'll make a comment and support of the application. It meets the key policy, LU 3.6, which discusses the importance of this particular change being compatible with the surrounding areas, the character of the surrounding areas. And what we're seeing here is rezoning the parcel from NT1, which provides 15 units per acre and no multi-housing to NTM1, which allows for 30 units under zoning, but still 15 units under the FLUM. But it does allow for multi-family housing, including duplexes. And it is compatible with most of the surrounding areas there. So this has my support. I do have a couple of comments about storm water, but I'll hold those until the updates at the end of the meeting. Chair, can we confirm for the record that there were no requests for public comment for this item? Are there any requests for public comment at this time? Can we have a motion then to? I'll make a motion to approve City File number ZM-18, a private initiated amendment to the official zoning map from neighborhood traditional to neighborhood traditional mixed residential for a point one acre portion of a .2 acre parcel. Is there a second? A second. Do we have a motion and a second? We'll call please. Marbe. Yes. Nelson? Yes. Horasco? Yes. Michael's? Yes. Magnello? Yes. And that motion passes unanimously if the clerk can read in the next case please okay and this is city file number 2 4-902 0 0, 0, 0, 5, 9. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of front yard pavers, poles and lighting and vinyl fencing at 336 Lane Court North, a contributing property located within a local historic district. The owners are Robert and Rosanna Castellucci. The address is 336 Lane Court North, excuse me, and the staff planner is Kelly Perkins. Go ahead. All right. Good afternoon, Kelly Perkins. The start preservationist with the City of St. Pete. We are here for a CUA at 336 Lane Court North, and we received two public comments in support of this project. So here's another photo of 336 Lane Court North. As shown here, it is a contributing resource in the middle of Lang's Bungalow Court. This house was constructed circa 1912 by Al Lange as his personal house in the development of Lange's Bungalow Court, which he, of course, also developed. It was built in the craftsman's style. And it was part of a sort of modern California Bungalow Court where you had these houses built sort of in a block with really large setbacks. Ideally, it was supposed to be round large central front gardens, kind of part of the whole city beautiful movement. Over time, with Lynx Bungalow Court, front fences were installed. This is mentioned in the staff report for designation. Mostly wood picket fences, a lower height around three to four feet. So the California Bungalow court was sort of founded in around like early 1900s in Southern California. The one I left is Saint Francis Court, which is one of the older ones. It was sort of these collection of smaller houses built around a central pedestrian spine with these again open central gardens. So some news articles about the plot being accepted in 1912 and then the article about the first two houses were built and now they're already they had they were built with a large front setbacks a hundred feet apart from the center so 50 feet from the center pedestrian walkway. So currently most of the houses do have a three foot long hex block pavre tile walkway that kind of goes straight to the front stoop with these sort of large open green spaces. And some of them do have low wood picket fences. So the request is to remove the existing 18-inch hex block pver in the front yard and install a new seven foot wide hex block pver. Install a new 930 square foot patio in the front yard. Install new vinyl fencing to replace the three foot tall wood vents. And then to have vinyl fencing that's six foot tall all the way to the front property line. And then it will decrease and height the four feet. And then also to install new vertical poles with string lighting. So here's where the sight planer you can see it'll take up a majority of the front yard. And then here's sort of the proposed rendering showing you can see the front fence or the six-foot fence will come all the way see the front fence or the six foot fence will come all the way to the front. And they are planning to propose to install some privacy hedges to block the patio. So, South's recommendation based on other requests, this commission has seen, this is not the only district where we don't have sort of rear yards, granada terracesaces notorious for having wedge shaped yards. Where the houses have a backyard so generally patios have been approved to be in the side yard. And to not take up the large open green space which is really characteristic of most 1910s, my 1920s neighborhoods. In regards to the fence, this commission first reviewed vinyl fencing in 2019. It was proposed in the Northwest Kenwood local historic district. At the time of the discussion, the commission agreed with the design guidelines that it was not a traditional material, but due to the proliferation of vinyl fences in that neighborhood, the commission has approved them in that neighborhood. This is our first time receiving a front vinyl fencing request outside of that area and in a district where there isn't that material that is currently in place or highly visible. So do this stuff has felt that found that most of the criteria do not meet our general criteria for the granting of certificates of appropriateness and our guidelines for alterations. So we are recommending denial. I do have a list of conditions in case of mission wants to move forward. Some of it relating to retention of the historic hex block pver path. Some didn't talk about replacing instead of the vinyl fencing with wood fencing in the traditional design and making sure that the fencing height is consistent all the way around, which is keeping, with and keeping of the other yards and Leng's bungalow court. And the rest of our conditions are our standard conditions. So that's the end of my presentation. Yeah, applicant is here, and I know they have a presentation as well. Any questions for staff at this time? We'll hear from the applicant. Could you give us your name again and your address please. My name is Robert Castellucci, 336 Lankourt North. Okay. Good afternoon commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present our case today. I'd also like to express my gratitude to Kelly Perkins and historic preservation team for preparing the very detailed staff report. And for the continued efforts to preserve the unique character of our city, especially Langsmonglou Court. I live at 336 Langcord North with my wife Rosanna and our two young children. Since we purchased the home in 2019, we have invested more than $100,000 into repairing and restoring the home, including foundation and roof repair, remodeling multiple rooms, refinishing our 100-year-old pinewood floors, and converting our historic carriage house into an ADU, which I did work with historic on. On a personal note, I love the history of the home and of Alang, and I have a growing personal collection of Alang memorabilia, including original press photos, original correspondence side by Mr. Lang while he was president of the Chamber of Commerce. So if anyone's selling, I'm buying. But all of which, I do hope to pass down to future owners of the home. My wife and I began considering how to redesign our front yard after a concerning incident where a two-year-old daughter slipped through what we believed was a strong picket in our fence, only to discover it had been compromised by termites. Fortunately, we were able to catch her before she entered the busy fourth avenue right next door. But this incident did highlight the critical need for a yard that is secure, private and safe for our young children. So as we begin this process, several considerations emerged for us that were very important. First is security. That being our top priority is ensuring our yard is secured to prevent our children from wandering into the busy streets and to deter intrusions. Living downtown, we have experienced in the past incidents where homeless individuals have entered our property or where personal items have been stolen such as bicycles. Second is privacy, which without our backyard, you know, we don't have a backyard, our front yard must serve multiple functions, including being a private play area for our children. Given the proximity of short-term rental properties and the St. Petersburg Freaklink food pantry, privacy is crucial for us, particularly with strangers frequently passing by. Third is ease of maintenance. As busy parents running our own small businesses, we have limited time to maintain a yard. We need a space that is practical and low maintenance. Fourth is functionality. Our yard should accommodate our family's lifestyle, providing open spaces for our children to play, and for hosting family gatherings. And lastly, health considerations. Our grass yard currently attracts stray cats, which unfortunately are plenty in downtown, resulting in frequent excrement on the lawn, which poses health risks to our children. We want to eliminate the use of materials that could harbor contaminants or that our children might ingest as well. So over the past eight months, we've worked diligently to modify our initial design based on feedback from historic preservation team, balancing the historic charm of our neighborhood with our family's needs has been challenging. After reviewing the staff report, I figured it best to just discuss each of those main concerns that were raised and provide our responses. A concern number one is Papers in patio and the Central Garden Esthetic. So the staff report suggests that our patio and Papers detract from the Central Garden concept and that a side yard patio is a reasonable alternative. Our design retains green space at the front of the yard as you can see and incorporates hedges to obscure the patio area, a compromise intended to preserve the garden aesthetic. We believe this design meets the requirement for green space preservation with enforcement being the primary concern according to the staff report. I'd argue that enforcement concerns alone should not be grounds for rejecting our design, especially since the hedges which are the enforcement issue itself are also essential for our privacy and security ensuring commitment for us to the maintenance of those hedges. With regards to the side yard suggested alternative, our current side patio is already being utilized for outdoor meals with a picnic table. The staff suggestion would require us to remove that essential space, leaving us without a desething area for outdoor family meals. The remaining proposed side yard, which includes pavers in a tree, is an area we intend to eventually convert into an additional parking space in the future, a valuable thing given the challenges of downtown parking. Also, there have been concerns by my neighbor on the property line here of extended fence further towards the back of the property. Third is vinyl fencing concerns. The staff report notes that vinyl is not a historic material and that a six foot fence may visually intrude on the open green space. Our primary concerns with the fencing are security, privacy, and durability. With young children and a busy street just steps from our home, we need to ensure our property is as secure as possible. While we understand the requirement for a four foot fence at the front, we request a six foot privacy fence on the sides to prevent our children from climbing over and to shield them from the view of many of the strange, frequent, short-term rentals next door. Given Tampa Bay's association with child trafficking, we believe this is also necessary precaution. For the material consideration, our current wood fence has been severely damaged by termites, as you can see here in the photos. Wood deteriorates quickly, increasing the risk of a breach. We're open to using aluminum fencing, which our neighbor, directly on the property line as well, has also installed as a compromise. We believe that modern living conditions, especially for families, necessitate greater privacy and security than what was historically common. Fourth, lighting and posts. The staff report suggests that poll-stering lighting is more suited to commercial properties. However, poll-stering lighting is widely recognized as a residential feature that adds a warm-on-beyond-st outdoor spaces. We are willing to install this lighting in the side yard, but would also like to have similar lighting in the front yard for visibility and atmosphere. We note that similar lighting is already in use at another property within Land Court at 349 land court north. Last is hex block path removal. So the report states that removing the three foot wide hex block path is inconsistent with the district's character and that a seven foot wide walkway is not traditional. Our existing hex blocks are in poor condition and sourcing enough historic hex blocks for this project would be difficult. We opted for a seven foot walkway to create an open, low-maintenance space that also accommodates my father who uses a wheelchair. The material not being grass or other organic materials means it will not pose a health risk to our children for ingesting of soil grass or a feline excrement. And then the hex block replacement, the staff also recommends repairing rather than replacing the hex blocks with smaller 16 inch versions. However, given the current state of the blocks and the challenges of finding 18 inch replacements, we feel it's reasonable to replace them with the 16 inch blocks. These blocks do respect the approach that historic design while addressing practical concerns. Similarly, if a baseball were thrown through my historic window at Landcord North, historic preservation, to my understanding, would not require me to replace it with the same historic wavy glass, but instead we would accept modern glass, partially because of how difficult wavy glass is to obtain. So in summary, again, our goal with this resign project is to provide a safe, maintainable outdoor space for our family. We've already made a number of compromises from our initial design and the spirit of maintaining a historic exterior and have also proposed a compromise today regarding fencing material in effort to balance history with the needs of modern families. We also have received support from our neighbors for the existing design, including from the owners of 370 land court north. Though I'm not sure if they did send that into the city. I'll have to have someone verify that with me, but they were in support of this who we share a property line with. We appreciate committee's time and consideration. Welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed design. There's the commission have any questions for the applicant of this time. Two questions. One looking at Google Earth, which you know, I don't see so much. Your neighbor to, I think it's supposed to be to the north, 370. It looks like they have, I mean, it's turned 90 degrees, but it looks like they have a similar layout where they have large patio to one side and the grass is, you know, not, the patio goes all the way to the front, it looks like, right? That's correct. So my understanding and Miss Perkins can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was done before historic, it became a historic neighborhood in 2014. Yep. And then additionally, so the, the additional recommendations that Ms. Perkins had here, one, one and two, so if we were to approve it with additional considerations, are there any issues with those that she listed? Could you please mention the one and two that would have those in front of me. Yeah, I can read it. So the first one was number one, three foot wide historic hex block papers shall remain in place and any new hex block papers will be installed outside of the historic path creating a delineation between the historic hex block and the papers in the new patio. The walkways should remain the same with and not be altered. Number two would be the fencing shall be replaced with wood fencing and traditional design and style that is consistent in height on the front and sides of the property and should not be taller than four feet. And the rest is just over and stuff. I mean, from your summary it sounds like you have issues with those two still. I think I would like to have a conversation around those two since we do have issues. I think in all reality, if you're telling me that's the only thing that would push forward, this would be an improvement from what we currently have, but when we're talking about putting 20 or $30,000 into redoing this front yard, it's a hard pill to swallow. So we would have to think about that, but yeah. I was just curious to hear. Yep. Do I have any other comments from the commission? I have a question. This might be more for Ms. Perkins, the proposed amendment to this as far as like a three foot wide block pavre shall remain in place. Are we saying that we would consider adding to the side of that, or where I'm a little clear on what that recommendation is for the recommended changes number one the three-foot wide historic hex block paver shall remain in place and any new hex block will be installed outside of the historic path. So I mean the priority from staff's perspective is that there shouldn't really be any paving installed in front of the house in that three-footaver, three foot white paver. Ideally, with the historic hex block pavers, if they have to be replaced with new 16-inch, we would like to at least try and keep it as close to the three foot width, not to double the width. If you guys want to approve a front yard patio, I would then at least still keep that delineation from the historic hex block pathway so that you, anyone looking at it, can see that there's a clear difference between what was the historic pathway and then what is the modern patio installation? Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the commission or either the applicant or the staff? Any other questions from staff? We haven't finished the cross examination and closing remarks. I don't know if we should do that before we go more into questions. Any other group would recommend we ask questions, follow up questions in executive session. Do we have any public comment chair? No, no comment cards. No. Chair. No, so we have, I don't have the, this is the first time I've chaired the meeting. So bear with me. I don't have the wording that we're supposed to use here for cross examination. Just say, staff, do you have any cross? Okay. Staff, do you have cross? City waves. Okay. And applicant, do you have any cross examination? I've always wanted to cross examine someone. But I do have one maybe small question for Miss Berkins. You mentioned that the majority or many of the properties have the hex block path. Do you know the number of properties in which those I thought was maybe less than half, but my memory could be all here. Or maybe Google Earth will tell us if number has a lot of tree can't be there. And I'm careful with that. Seven of the properties have the historic hex block paper half which I think there are ten or eleven properties in the district total. Some that don't are the ones that were built in the 1940s, so they were built after this sort of, and I know that that duplex on the south side doesn't have the historic hex block papers. But I had it listed here. In my staff report, 332 Lane Court North, 335? I thought it's 336, Lane Court North. Sorry, 349, Lane Court North, 361, Lane Court North, and 858, 4th Avenue North. Okay, so that will be the five properties. One, two, three, four, five. Yeah, I guess I can't count. So I'll have. Okay. one two three four five yeah I guess I can't count so happy okay no further questions all right so at this time do the thank you thank you is the staff had have any closing remarks? I guess I would just close with this is sort of the first, one of the first properties built in this neighborhood for the developer of this neighborhood outling. So I do think a lot of the historic character of this property is really important to the district overall and the district's character. Regarding the aluminum fencing, there was aluminum fencing installed in this district. It did not receive a COA, so we've not had any discussion over whether the aluminum fencing is an appropriate material choice. It does at least retain the transparency, but it's certainly something to discuss if the commission wants to. Oh, that's it. And does the applicant have any closing remarks? I'm conflicted because I certainly agree that 336 land court north has history specifically associated with Alang, but I would perhaps argue that it shouldn't be treated any differently than any of the other properties within the historic district unless it's a individually listed historic site, unless it's a individually listed historic site, which it is not. Second is that I believe our proposal, other than the removal of the historic hex blocks, would not involve us removing anything at all that is historic in terms of materials. The hex blocks are the only thing in that entire plan. Everything else can be moved and changed in terms of materials. The hex blocks are the only thing in that entire plan. Everything else can be moved and changed and modified if need be in the future. But those hex blocks are the only historic thing that would, I suppose, be going away if this miss were, design were approved. Thank you. So this time we'll close the public hearing and we'll go into executive session. Do any commissioners have any remarks? Two questions. About what year Miss Perkins about what year was this district made historic? 2014. Okay. So before 2019 and then not saying it's a recommendation for this property, but has there been research done on say stamped concrete, you know patterns that can mimic the hex blocks? There has been discussion of that to my knowledge Derek might be able to answer a little bit more in terms of sidewalk requirements. Like you can see on forestry, there are some, this is it, I think explored doing stamped concrete for that, but to my knowledge that has never been contemplated for private property, generally because typically if you have hex blocks on private property, it's generally that kind of front three foot wide walkway, which is pretty traditional to not only just this district, but some of our other 1920s neighborhoods as well. Do any other commissioners have comments? I can add to that question just in additional detail. It doesn't apply directly to this particular example but in the city's streetscape preservation section which talks directly to Public right away hex block sidewalks granted curves and brick streets There is a statement in there that explicitly says hex stamped concrete is not a suitable Substitute for hex block pavers for the purpose of that particular section of the code So again, it doesn't apply directly, but it does talk to that stamped alternative section of the code. So again, it doesn't apply directly, but it does talk to that stamped alternative. Any other comments from the commission? Yes, I have a comment on this. I think we've had this come up in the past before where you have a homeowner, pridavonorship, we're in a historic district and we're trying to retrofit improvements on a property to adhere to, you know, historic codes and historic compliance, you know, the pavers. I mean, if you take a walk around St. Pete and you look at the 18-inch hex block pavers, a lot of them are just, I mean, they're almost a hundred years old, so they'll be cracked and not necessarily even. So I don't, I have a hard time not supporting this as requested by the homeowner, because we have something that's aesthetically following with the architectural norms required by the historic district. So whether the pavers are, if you try to buy new pavers, most likely are 16 inches, is probably what you can procure in the open market, as opposed to trying to find actual old historic 18 inch pavers. So I'm having a hard time reconciling this where you have somebody who's trying to improve the property again not changing out windows doors, port just things that we usually deal with here but we're trying to improve the front facade of a property, especially the location of this property where they don't really have a backyard. You know, and your two houses down from Port Ab North just south of the 375 on ramp, on the other side of MLK. So I don't see this is not really falling in line with. Maybe it doesn't fit the letter of what the historic codes are, but I think that there's good intentions here and the property owner is, again, having pride of ownership and wanting to best utilize the property as it is while maintaining a lot of the historic aspects of it, at least aesthetically. Are there comments? I actually think, am I allowed to ask a question to the applicant? Yes. I have a question. So I personally, you know, I enjoyed your presentation and thank you for putting time into it. You know, it shows that you guys really care. And my question is, why seven feet and not three feet for that walkway? If you could come up to the podium, please. I thought we had mentioned everybody might not been caught, but my dad's in a wheelchair, and just for his accessibility of getting in and out and the papers right now, them being super wobbly, it just, that's why we wanted the extra space for it. Okay, okay. Any other comments? extra space for it. Okay. Okay. Any other comments? I'll just add I walked over there today and I haven't been in the Bunglow Court in quite a long time but it I really appreciate your care for your home the restoration you put into it and being a part of that special court there. I did notice the structures that I know city staff had mentioned and they do have the hex walkways that are going up and that definitely sounds like a defining feature of this district. So I really appreciate the conditions that were added by city staff and I think that I would be in favor of approving that because I know that two and three do show that inconsistency here in the criteria with some of the changes in the district but I feel that the conditions that were added by city staff will still give you the enjoyment of the property that you're looking for but also keep the district looking really cohesive. I know in Grenada Terrace, it comes up sometimes because it has that open park feel and how important that can be where the fencing might impact that. But I think that the way that it's written out here, it will have a little impact on the district, but you guys will be able to also enjoy your property as well. So I would be in favor of approving it with staff conditions. Any other comments? I share Commissioner Nelson's thoughts on this. I am kind of torn about it. One one issue that I'm dealing with here are the criteria that we need to meet and this particular proposal is not meeting most of the prior criteria. It's only meeting one of five general criteria and none of the five criteria for alterations. So I do feel its weight needs to be given to that. And I'm concerned about the scale of the once being proposed if it were to be scaled back, I think that would be helpful, but I would support a motion to approve this with the conditions that the staff are proposing. So at this time do we have a motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 336 Lane Court North including the five conditions that were outlined in this staff recommendation. We have a second. A second? Any discussion? Roll call please. Marbe? Yes. Nelson? Yes. Horasco? Yes. Michael's? Yes. Magnello? Yes. Net motion passage unanimously. Thank you. The clerk would read in the third case, please. Okay, and this is city file number 24-902-0075. The request is a review of a certificate of appropriateness application for alterations at the Robert West House, a local historic landmark. The owner is the Kurt Hartman Living Trust, the agent is Doug King, King Contracting, excuse me, and the address is 1016th Avenue, North East, the staff planner in this case is Kelly Perkins. Ms. Perkins. Good afternoon. So we are here for COA 24-902, 0,00075 for alterations to the Robert Westhouse. We've received one public comment against the published application. So the subject property is a local historic landmark, designated in 1995. It was built circa 1911 for Robert West. It was built in the colonial revival style with queen Anne details. It has undergone some renovations over the years, especially after being struck by lightning in the mid 1990s, which is when the metal roof was installed. So the original request was to pretty much replace the entirety of the wood siding with a polymer ash, like composite siding on the main housing garage. Replace all the trim with a James Hardy flat stock versus a text PVC. Remove the soft at B-board and install nude wood soft fit. Replace all eight of the Tuscan columns with fiberglass columns and to replace what call as the standing seam metal roof with like material. Reviewing it with the National Park Service Preservation Brief, which talks about the use of substitute materials, where it really recommends doing incremental replacement and kind, as you can see in the photo on the left showing some replacement of some woodlap sighting. They do talk about if you want to use substitute materials, it needs to have the visual compatibility of the historic material. So the photo in the center is showing the traditional collaborative sighting on the left and then hearty board on the right, showing as an example that it does not match the physical characteristics of the historic material. Our design guidelines also recommends to retain, you know, wood materials, such as siding, cornices, brackets, soft fits, fascia, etc, wherever possible, and only doing selective replacement materials rather than complete replacement. And then that match replacement materials should be in kind with the same profile texture and finish. So staff found that that proposal as submitted did not meet our criteria for appropriateness or our guidelines for alterations. After the applicant saw the staff report and had a discussion they've decided to revise the proposal, which is sent to you guys this morning, and I've listed it here. I met with the applicant on site yesterday. We went through the building, so it's more about wanting to repair any damage sighting or trim is needed with in-kind materials being wood, replacing the roof at the 5V crimp metal roofing, which is the current metal roof type, and then replacing any softwood materials. They are not going to replace the front columns with any fiberglass materials. So when stuff went to the site, you can definitely see from the inside there was a fair amount of some water intrusion, particularly at the corners and around the windows. The contractor mentioned it didn't seem that the windows were properly flashed, which is then led to water intrusion Which would require probably a significant amount of sighting replacement, which is why I wanted to keep this item on for the commission I'm generally staff only kind of does smaller replacement requests, you know a board here there once you get to more significant Replacement of sighting we send that to the commission You know, so saw where you could see a rotted piece of trim. He just pulled off and you could see there is some mold and clearly rot underneath. So knowing that the scope of this work is probably going to exceed what staff can normally approve, we still wanted to send it to the commission. But after reviewing the criteria staff met that they met a majority, I mean, it still is removing a significant amount of material so that does make it somewhat inconsistent, even though we can see that there are some conditions now that warrant replacement. So staff is recommending approval. Here's a long list of conditions here. A lot of them were based on the conditions that were in the staff report talking about, obviously the first goal is to repair. And then if that they need to replace, contacting staff so that we are notified so we know when significant, like an entire wall needs to be replaced, we can kind of work with the applicant that replacement materials will be in kind materials that we need to not make sure that impact any reveal or step back of the windows. I do have some concerns. If tie-vec or insulation has to be installed that can impact the wall appearance because also now you have another implement installed. So we just want to make sure that it still has that same visual appearance at the end. That replacement roofing shall be the 5V crimp metal roofing. Asphalt shingles are also a compatible replacement because that's actually what the building had from the 1920s until the 1990s and making sure to protect any of the historic windows. They plan to reinstall them. A historic preservation final inspection is required and the rest are our standard conditions of approval. So that is my presentation. I know the applicant has a presentation and I'm here if you have any questions. The applicant can come forward please. State your name and address please. My name is Michael McRaefe. I'm with King Contracting and my address is for the property at 101 6th Avenue North East St. Petersburg, Florida. This is the Robert West House. Thank you. Well first of all I want to thank you for this time and definitely thank you for your time yesterday. I really, really appreciate it. I am here representing the homeowner, Kurt Hartman, who is the owner of the Robert West House. As Miss Perkins has stated, the Robert West House was built in the early 1900s and it was approved for historic designation in 1995. The home sits proudly on the corner of first street north and sixth avenue north. Some refer to it as the pineapple house. It is a great honor for this home to be recognized for its unique architectural style of colonial revival with Queen Anne and craftsman detail and it is a cherished icon in the old Northeast community. Since the approval of the designation almost 30 years ago, the Robert West House has had multiple owners and has transitioned from a single family resident to a rental property back to a single family resident with the heartmins as a current owner. The exterior condition of this historic home has had its issues over the years with improper maintenance and poor quality repairs and haphazard wood rot replacements. This neglect has impacted the heartmins greatly as they are in the middle of their second mold remediation projects since the purchase in 2019. In our COA application, we attempted to illustrate our need to properly encapsulate the envelope of this home to eliminate the repeated mold infestation. But discovered we mispoke about the extent of the project's scope, and did not provide clarity necessary to meet the requirements set forth by the historic preservation team. Specifically, we suggested a complete removal and replacement of the exterior siding and trim with non-in-kind materials. We discovered our error in scope and in final stages of preparation of this meeting. Fortunately, we've had an opportunity to meet with Kelly Perkins at the job site so that she could see the issues we are facing, which we feel illustrate the old saying, you can't tell a book by its cover. During this meeting, a few were able to provide Kelly with clarity in the scope and commitment to our work together in hearing to the design guidelines and partner building services to address the code requirements. We're able to show you how water has penetrated the house, cause significant damage to the sighting and trim, specifically from the windows, and here's image here. Just under my control. All right, is that my first photograph? Yeah, so we can see some more. As Miss Perkins noted, a lot of this has to do with the fact that there's no flashing on top, and even the above piece that looks as always had repairs over the years. Additionally you can see that even the siding is different sizes and width. We showed where new and current building materials were used to replace the siding and trim and suspect that was done without the consent of this commission. So we are seeing a lot of repairs over the years prior to the Hartman's owning this house that was done incorrectly. We also identified multiple locations with termite damage. There's a soft, more wood rot. Let me get to the inside. Okay, here's more of the patch and replace and a lot of those that timber estated in the historic designation. This is a balloon frame. You can see that structurally we've got a lot of termite damage in addition to that. Okay. Let me just kind of show you around. This is one area in particular that's excessively damaged. This shows how things were put back together and not done structurally. Correct. There's part of the house that was completely redone, so the outside has as in-kind materials, but not the original. Same thing on this gable end as well. You can see that we've had to gut the entire inside of the house. The mold levels in the house were off the charts and in the houses currently uninhabitable. I'm getting to the my best photograph. But it's not here. I apologize. The really the most disturbing discovery was the damage of high voltage line inside the house from rodent activity under the second floor. Access to this area from the exterior has not been confirmed yet, but that's how the rodents came in and it's from the outside. However, the important thing to note is if this damage to the wire was not identified, the potential for fire could have been catastrophic. With that said, and with Kelly's guidance, we have resumitted a revised scope of work that is more in line with the design guidelines and King Contracting's passion commitment to work alongside with the Preservation's Commission and the building services to make the necessary corrections that will ensure the lifespan of the Robert West House and provide heartmints with a safe and comfortable home. Here in detail and reiterates what Kelly had posted on our revised scope. We're going to change the core of this project from a renovation to a real abilitation. More specifically, change the philosophy and guidelines and align with the design criteria. We'll not in any way change and or add anything that will change existing conditions or character of his historic property. We want to put it back just like the way that it was approved. As outlined in the design guidelines, we will work to repair any damage sighting and or trim as needed within kind materials. We will be mindful to replace any damage sightiding and or trim as necessary within kind materials. We've changed the material from the standing seam to a more accurate and historic 5V-V crimp metal roof, and we will also replace any sheeting as necessary. Especially up along this house right here on the backside. The flashing is really bad. We're seeing a lot of wood rot and damage both in the front and the back, due to the way this roof was put on. We'll make any repairs and or removing siding and we'll play close attention and control removal, the upper level trim of the house specifically around the softet and the areas in the gable of the house. The goal is to encapsulate the house so that we have a strong mechanical environment and that it keeps the condition space and to keep the moisture from penetrating the house. And we will, as we go up the house, depending on sections of the soft. Those we'll find when we explore we'll we have found and noted areas that do need to be replaced and corrected. But again our goal is to maintain this character of this house and not change it in any way. Just get it back to a livable space. We also mentioned we are not going to change the columns in the front of the house. In fact, there's really no reason to touch the porch at all. So we've kind of removed that from our scope of work from the original application. Additionally, King Contracting will work closely with St. Petersburg building services to include that to ensure that all required building codes are met without jeopardizing the integrity of a historical character of the home. So as you see through the photographs are walking through with Kelly, there are many corrections that need to be taken, both from a structural and from a replacement from the termite damage that's inside. So Kelly has pointed me to the right direction of the right person in plan reviewed to work with. We've worked with them in the past and we've got a good relationship with them. So this will be a great partnership between our three departments, our three focuses and make sure that we maintain the historical character of this house. In closing, I respect the hard work and resources community planning and preservation commission has provided and to help to maintain the architectural history of our community and will work hard to earn your trust in this craftsmanship. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Again, my understanding is that you are in favor of the conditions that the staff have spilled out in the original staff report. Absolutely. That correct? Yes. Thank you. And we'll work closely with, as we discover things, we'll work closely with them to adhere to that. Yes. Are there any, well, are there any questions from the commission right now for other staff or the applicant? So we will have public comment. Is there any public comment? I have no cards. Okay Does the city have cross examination? Does the applicant have cross examination? All right City can make closing remarks at this time. My only closing remarks are that if you're going to approve the conditions, please approve the conditions and the presentation because they are slightly different from what was on the staff report. All right. The conditions in the presentation address the revised scope of work, whereas the conditions are in the staff report work. So if we make, if we make just reference to the conditions that's presented in the presentation, that will cover it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And does the, is the applicant have any closing remarks? Okay. All right. We'll close the public hearing at this time and go into executive session. Does any commissioner have a comment? Question? I after you know watching both presentations and you know reviewing the photographs and the application, I think that a thank you is an efforts to all of Kelly's work and the staff's work, all of your work. And it seems like this was a very quick turnaround time from yesterday's site inspection to get this done. And you can tell that it's very important to you guys and also to the homeowner because I can tell that that's a lot of work that's been going on. I do feel as though all of the things that were mentioned in the applicant's presentation in my mind and capulate, oh my gosh, it includes preserving this home in a way that it can be used for future generations. It seems like a lot of care and effort is going into rehabilitating this home so that way it's not just a quick fix. This is something that will be fixed permanently. And I mean, with the amount of mold damage that they said, I think that it is important, and I support approving this as it is, with the conditions that we're put forth in the presentation, to allow for this beautiful home to get rehabilitated and, you know, once again be a charm of the neighborhood. Thank you. Does any other commissioner have any comments? I fully support Commissioner Nelson's comments and very much appreciate the care and the concern that you have for this home. It's the testament to the legacy of historic preservation in our city here, and we appreciate your supporting it. At this time I'll ask for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness application for altercations at the Robert Westhouse located at 1016 Avnorth East including the staff conditions that were revised and included in the presentation today. Is there a second? I second that. We'll call please. Marbegg? Yes. Nelson? Yes. Yes, Michael's yes, Magnello. Yes, and that motion passes unanimously And this time we'll go on to updates and announcements. Thank you again for Good afternoon. Derek Kilburn, Manager of the planning and historic preservation. We do have several updates for you. Some of them just kind of relate to schedule in the past, schedule coming up. I also am prepared to go back and address some of the comments that you heard in the open forum section of this meeting. I would like to thank you for the time being. I would like to thank you for preparing to go back and address some of the comments that you heard in the open forum section of this meeting. I think it is important to address them today instead of letting them kind of linger and I have some data to back up some of our response. First we did receive an inquiry from one of the commissioners to provide you an update related to application Flum 75, which is Pasadena Community Church. As the commission knows, you took up that case, and this commission voted zero to seven, back on May 14th, recommending against the MAP amendment. It was a zoning MAP amendment from NT3 to NSM1, and it was also a future land use MAP amendment from institutional to RM residential medium. After that hearing, the application decision is final, but it can be appealed by the applicant. And in this case on May 23rd, the applicant appealed the commission's decision to the City Council. The City Council did conduct a public hearing this past August 8th. Prior to that meeting, the City Council as part of what they receive is the preliminary transcribed minutes from the meeting. They also receive a City Council cover memo from staff highlighting some of the reasons that the commission voted the way that they did. There's also the meeting which is archived on the city's website for live stream capability so you can go back and watch the meeting. So the council did have all that information ahead of time. The council did decide to vote five to two. That five to two vote was in favor of upholding the appeal and overturning or overruling the commission's decision against the map request. That five to two vote did meet the minimum superma requirement in cases where a council is voting opposite the commission decision and recommendation. It is still an active application. So that application does have to go onto the county where the countywide plan map category is also evaluated for amendment. It does have a kind of institutional category to it right now, reflecting the church ownership, but that map would also have to be amended to what they call our residential medium. So that is the next step in the process. It is still a live application, which is why there are some limitations to what we can discuss today in terms of the details of that council decision, but the council hearing is also available online and you can't go back and watch that hearing video. Okay, if there's no additional questions on that, the other application that the council heard, since I'm giving you an update on Flum 75, the other case was Flum 76, which was a rezoning council also approved that at the same hearing and moved that one forward and that was Flum 76. This commission's done a lot of work this year on the Sunrunner Target Employment Center local overlay. There was a hearing in the spring and it has then gone on to the City Council and external agency and county process. After this meeting today, Elizabeth Abernathy, the director for our planning department and myself will be at the county tonight for the countywide planning authority meeting. They are required to take up our city request in a public hearing, and then if the county approves their portion of the application, it will return to our city council, which is tentatively scheduled for September 5th. And that September 5th date would be the final city council public hearing and if council approves it at that time, the target employment center local overlay process would be complete. That would be applied to the map and the changes along 22nd Street corridor would be in effect. So that's a substantial application that goes back multiple years and obviously we're excited to see that come to conclusion. There was a remark earlier about the City Stormwater storm water, storm water master plan. So I did want to let you know that on July 25th, there was a presentation from the city's engineering and capital improvements department to the city council, who was meeting as the committee of the whole. As we were talking here, I queued up an email that we're going to send to all of you that links to the meeting agenda packet and also links to the recorded livestream itself. So again, you can watch the presentation from Engineering and Capital Improvements Department. Commissioner Michaels, did you have a question on that one before I addressed the comments from OpenFORM? Well, I just wanted to comment that again we dodged a bullet here in a way. Had the first major storm, a tropical storm when it came through St. Petersburg and we had like about 11 inches of rain. That could have been a lot worse. We had areas nearby where they had double that amount of rain and if we had had that much rain it would have been a really different story, a negative story for our city. We did have wastewater discharge during Debbie, 400,000 gallons were discharged, 152,000 of that making its way into the neighborhood. So that's a concern. And as you have a more intense storm you can expect that wastewater discharge will possibly be worse. But if you went back and compared it with what happened in 2015 and 2016 at that time we had something like 200 million gallons of wastewater discharge. So the $300 to $400 million that we put into the piping system in the city here appears to have been very helpful and successful, although nobody likes to have any wastewater discharged into their neighborhoods. So again, I think it would be, I appreciate the links I've seen, the hearing, the presentation that was made on the City video and've also got the hand out that was given at that time but I do think that it would still be very useful to have the city engineer come to the council to the commission here and give a direct presentation so that we can get a fuller understanding of where the city is at this point and who knows, you know, maybe some of us would have some ideas to suggest that would help to improve what's being proposed. The stormwater master plan, the budget for that over 20 years has been recently increased from $760 million to a billion dollars. I'm not clear on exactly whether that's just a revised cost estimate of the original projects or whether additional projects are being proposed to account for that increase in the budget there. And again, we're still in the baby steps stage of preparing for storm surge. We've got a seawall study that's underway, but it's only addressing the city's seawalls. It does not address private seawalls throughout the city. And there's also what's called a comprehensive vulnerability study, which is just getting underway, but it's only addressing city buildings. It's not addressing comprehensive vulnerability study, which is just getting underway, but it's only addressing city buildings, it's not addressing private buildings or businesses within the community. So I think it would be useful for the commission to know what the big picture is here. We've got a couple of components here, which are important, but still far short of what, for example, Miami has done with there. I think it's a $2.7 billion surge plan for the Miami-Dade area. We've got a long ways to go to accomplish that yet. Thank you. Thank you. That was a lot of information. I didn't click the button yet because I thought there might be a question or additional information that we could link in. You mentioned the update from Tropical Storm Debbie. Public Works Director Claude Tankersley gave a really detailed and excellent presentation at last Thursday City Council meeting. So the other thing I will do is I will link in the email to that Thursday presentation and I'll time stamp it in a way that you can jump right to his presentation. But he gave some really great details about what the city is currently doing through their master planning work and how that related to the impacts from the tropical storm. So you'll be able to see that as well. That would be useful, I haven't seen that yet. Yeah. I have a comment about that really quick. Yes. I did not know that figure from 2015 to 2016 about the wastewater discharge. You know, your any number, you know, it's, you know, doesn't make you feel great, but hearing, you know, did you say two million? 200 million. 200 million gallons. No, that's, that's that. Those are gallons of wastewater back in 2015 and 2016, compared with 400,000 during Debbie. So a huge difference. Yeah, I think that it would be really great, during the presentation, if they could make comments as to what they've done in such a short amount of time. Between 2015, 2016 to now storm season, it really isn't that much time. And so I think that it would be really great to see how they've implemented things so quickly. And what their goals are to the future to, I know the goal is not zero is not probably probable. But I think hearing how we can keep getting better each year, I think that'd be really great. I think if you watch, you'll find that Director Tank released presentation acknowledged that there were still some challenges during the tropical storm, Debbie. But also he really tried to highlight how much worse it would have been if the city didn't implement some of the specific improvements that he described in his presentation. So it was a great compare contrast to where we were and where we are in the last storm event. So that link, just responding to your comments, that link I know will be important to you to click in and watch his presentation. Thank you. One other fact here is that the budget for allocating the, for accomplishing the storm water master plan is I understand it. I think it's gone from 17 million being spent this past year. I think the figure is 24 million. Maybe others know, know here. So there's been an increase of about 7 million or so. But in that first presentation, the public works administrator, Mr. Tinkersley, stated that he actually needs a budget of $50 million a year in order to accomplish that $1 billion goal at the end of 20 years. So again, we need to be doing everything we can to ratchet that up while at the same time meeting other priorities within the city. I didn't have any other planning updates other than addressing the comments in open forum. Were there any other questions on the planning updates or historic preservation updates? Okay. Before I addressed those, Commissioner Michaels, I saw Director Tanker Lee's presentation because my son was part of the Sister Cities program this year. So I would like to just quickly and publicly thank you for some of the historic research you've done and published about the Sister Cities program. It was definitely a wonderful program for our son and family and we appreciate your contribution to it. Thank you. And on behalf of my wife who has helped you run the Sister Cities program and used to be on the Cultural Resources Commission here when we had one. She thanks you, too. Sorry, I went off script there for a minute. Okay, coming back to open forums. So there was a comment about some of the challenges in the historic Henry neighborhood and specifically within the local historic districts. This obviously a question that has been presented to you several times over the course of the last year we have addressed it in different ways outside of the commission hearing. But I have some of the data here. So I wanted to go through some of the data so you get a more exact picture of what is happening in the Kenwood local historic districts. Now this data was through April 16th of this year 2024 so it's a little outdated but fairly close to where we are on the calendar right now. Across the four local historic districts in the Kenwood neighborhood there have been a total over the entire history, there have been a total of 493 certificates of appropriateness applications. Of those 493, 324, which is 66%, have been approved. Another 146 of those, which is an additional 30%, was determined by staff that a COA was not required. So if we can, we will interpret something as maintenance and repair so that the owner does not have to go through the COA application process and we can keep them in the permitting process only and not have to process the COA application and COA application fee. So of those 493, 96 percent were either approved or referred as maintenance and repair no COA required. Six of those were denied, 1%. And then an additional 13% or 3% were withdrawn. Now the reason that those 13 were withdrawn, it's speculative, it probably is because there was feedback from staff that we could not support something and the applicant decided to go in a different direction. But 96% approved or not processed as a COA maintenance and repair only, is in my opinion a very favorable number given the overall scale of what we're doing with certificates of appropriateness. Now the second question is of those 493 how many had to go through the public hearing process and how many were handled in-house administratively on a much quicker timeline and a much more affordable application fee. 419 of those 493, that's 85% of the total number was handled as an administrative staff review. 74, which is 15%, were processed as public hearing. To me, when you look at these numbers, this is not showing an overwhelming procedural problem with regard to public hearings and denials. One of the things that is important to also remember here is that the standards of review in the city's land development regulations regarding historic preservation have not changed. Our local standards of review, and I'm sorry, they have not changed since the prior to the Kenwood districts coming online, and that's important. Our local standards of review are based on the federal secretary of interior standards for historic preservation. Those also have not changed. That's the framework that we are working from. Federal secretary of interior standards, that informs our local standards of review they haven't changed and the details of those standards were all presented at public information meetings which are required prior to the balloting process for becoming a local historic district and our staff me personally attended those information meetings before balloting began. So that is one part of what you heard. There was also a reference to a drip edge and this is one example that keeps coming up and it's the same example that the individual who spoke is referring to. There was a certificate of appropriate and as request on a roof replacement. And along the Eve line there is a drip edge that is typically installed. In that particular example, one example, there was a request to install a drip edge that was contrasting in color to the balance of the trim on the house as well as the roof. Now in the city's design guidelines under roofs, there is a subsection called maintaining roof shape and elements. And in there it says, I'm going to read it to you because it's only a couple of sentences. The roof is a significant element of any building both in terms of function and appearance. Changing the slope, color, or orientation of a roof can severely impact its historic character as can altering any chimneys, dormer, windows, or eve and cornice details. As such, it is recommended that any roof repairs or replacement be sensitive to the original design of the roof system and leave any design elements intact. So when staff receive the request to change the drip edge to a contrasting color, our staff response initially was that the drip edge should be consistent to the trim and eve on the existing roof system. We weren't dictating a color. We were simply implementing the language that is in the city's own adopted design guidelines. Now since that time, we have adjusted our interpretation of that language based on that one example. We are still having detailed discussions about contrasting color when somebody is proposing coping on a Mediterranean revival structure because typically, historically, you did not have coping on that style of building. We understand the building reasons why you would have coping today, but because historically it didn't exist, it's not historically appropriate to have contrasting color today, especially on a Mediterranean revival style home. But that is some of the history on the drip edge. It was implementation of the language as written in the city's existing design guidelines. Now that one example keeps coming back and we keep explaining, look, here was the basis for the original answer. And we have slightly modified our interpretation based on how strong the feedback was from that example. But we will continue to address this. We will continue to reach out to the neighborhood association. We've made different presentations over the last few years on specific elements, fences in particular. Even before fences, we had a more comprehensive discussion about the COA matrix. You'll recall that we moved a number of additional things from public hearing to administrative review. But again, just to kind of close the circle on some of what you heard at the beginning of the meeting, the number of COAs is not overwhelming towards denial or towards public hearing. The standards of review haven't changed. And oftentimes, as you're seeing, we're putting it more into the staff reports itself. What do the design guidelines say first? That's what our staff interpretation is based on. And if the commission wants to go in a different direction based on the information and evidence you heard in a particular case we understand but there is a rational start point for many of these details and it's in the design guidelines book which is available to everybody in the community at the beginning of their project before they're starting their design phase. Finally I did mention recently that because there was a similar discussion, we have been having problems with applicants and contractors coming to this commission for public hearing review, having specific conditions of approval approved as part of your action and then changing their requests at the time of permitting. Now you can change things and we can try to work with you on an administrative level. Sometimes we can't approve everything and things might need to come back to this commission but we are feeling it in our office. Some of the friction that is happening with the local historic districts, particularly in Kenwood, are contractors who are not following the determinations of this commission are not following the approval of the COA from staff. Or they're not following what was approved through the construction services and permitting process. They're issued a building permit. They make field changes. They don't come back in to update their permit documents and when our historic preservation is goes out to do a final inspection based on this original COA and what was permitted we're finding that windows have disappeared. Three window bays have become one window. What was described as a full window is now become a half window. Many of these violations are not even historic preservation related. They're violations of the zoning standards, totally independent of historic preservation. So we're continuing to work on that too. Can we change the permitting process and inspection process in a way that we're catching some of these things earlier. But it is important to understand the full picture that there are these challenges that staff is dealing with. And we continue to try to fix them administratively in office but sometimes they do bubble up to your level. So thank you for hearing me out today. It was important. Usually I'll brush these things off but it was important for me to tell you that today after hearing it in open forum. Well they do bubble up to us. Yes. And you know I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said it's hard to argue with a battery of damn facts. So I think you have presented us with a battery of facts here today and it would be helpful at least to me as a commissioner if you could put what you have presented here today and the way of information into a memo and send it to me or send it to the commission so that we have that at the ready as we deal with the bubble which is sometimes a friction as well that we're dealing with. We're hearing different things that are not jiving with the information that you're presenting to us today and we need to do our part to make sure that the process here is being accurately presented and perceived. I have a question. Yes. So, as a part of those conditions, you know, there is that final inspection that's, you know, always a part of the criteria. I'm not trying to put more work on the city staff by any means by the suggestion. Is there any way that there can be periodic construction evaluations throughout the process? You know, is there getting started as things are moving throughout the construction process? You know, perhaps that might work. You know, instead of getting to the final day where they're ready, you know, to enjoy all the renovations. Maybe there's a way that periodically can be checked in that way if there are any violations we can address them really quick as they're happening. So you can schedule and progress inspections. We don't always make them, actually we typically don't make them a requirement for this just doing the final inspection. But a lot of times contractors will, especially for new construction, will call us out, you know, throughout the process so they can double check and make sure. And we found like, no, that window opening wasn't on your construction plans. It wasn't what was approved by this commission. We talked about maybe doing it for, yeah, some of that new construction, but some of these issues are smaller. Like, I think one of the project's reference was an elevated deck. It was an addition and elevated deck that was approved by this commission. It was permitted and then when, if this is the project, I don't know, it was built when I went out, it was built into the setback. So I had a zoning violation. So that's really the issue with that one was it didn't meet the setbacks, which is the zoning requirements. But a lot of that wouldn't have come in till towards the end of the project anyway. Yeah, I was just curious if there was maybe some of these like reoccurring issues that kept happening and maybe at that point, you know, an in progress inspection would be helpful. You know, I just obviously, you know, the last agenda item, there's a lot going on with that home. And while I have full faith that they're going to execute everything properly, you know, maybe projects of that size in that caliber, maybe an in progress inspection would be great because there's so many, you know, conditions that they have to meet to get that, you know, final inspection approval that maybe, you know, there's a lot of suggestions. Maybe that would be a good criteria addition to having in progress inspection. I don't know if that helps you guys or not, but I think that maybe that will allow for more communication. Yeah, I mean, I've definitely thought about it a lot and a lot of times within progress, it doesn't have a required step in the process of where the contractor is required to request that. And because that would change with I think every project. And so the ones that, you know, the contractors voluntarily do it or the applicants, I think it's great because they know when they call us. And I really do think that helps resolve problems earlier on than later on in the process. But it does put the onus on the contractor or applicant to do that work and to proactively schedule that. I don't know how there's a way that we can require an improgress, but I don't know there's a way we could require it at the right step, at the right point of the project. Do you feel like maybe when you're working with the applicants literally saying exactly what you just said now, it's not a requirement, but it is really helpful to keep things moving in the right direction, you know, it's a service that we offer. You know, I just, just to see, you know, it is voluntary, but it will help this project be a success so you don't have to come back here and spend more money just offering it, maybe. If I could interject to piggyback off of Commissioner Nelson, you know, probably the point of contention is the contractors making most likely on the spot field changes and selling it to the applicant property owners. Like, hey, this is not a big deal. We can just go ahead and fix this on the fly. And then it comes up in the, you know, post inspection. Where now it's going to be a costing curve by the homeowner. And that's where that tension arises like, hey, well, now the city came out and they're not going to prove this. So we're going to charge you X, Y and Z more to change out the window that we thought we could do or whatever. So is there a way to, I mean, obviously we're not trying to add additional layers of red tape here, but maybe just as do you have a disclaimer on the front and when the permits are approved saying, hey, to manage expectations, field changes are, need to be reviewed more thoroughly or whatever. Like you're not just gonna be able to say, hey, we're just gonna swap out this window after we've gone through all these steps to approve a certain. I mean, the permit approval process you're supposed to go by what's in the permit? You're not supposed to make field changes, so I understand that happens But that's really actually not the process if if especially you're going to the permit that's going through multiple departments and each department has their own condition Field changes shouldn't be happening. You should be submitting a revision to your building permit and then it gets routed through the proper departments. We could though I think maybe make that a condition of approval, a suggestion, like a condition suggested for certain project types and we could either discuss that or staff could think internally which ones would probably more benefit from maybe having a condition of approval recommending that they schedule them progress inspection throughout the process. I mean I had to say in the history of architecture there's always been field changes, so many in Ausbuilt, that's actually in Ausbuilt. So any H.J., not just St. Petersburg, but anywhere in the country in the world is having the same issue. It's a point it's like, you know,'re gonna change it you're not gonna get approval. Yeah, shame on you. I know. I think we understand that. Yeah. And it could be a simple phone call to the office and an email. Hey we're changing this and we can acknowledge back. Got it. It's on the city record.'re good keep going But some of these are pretty substantial changes that the matrix that should be made by the commission itself So we try to work with people and like I said make you know, just kind of resolve it in house and Keep things moving but yeah as an architect. It's frustrating for me because depending on the level of service I provided client 910 times construction administration is an additional service so I don't go out there and make sure that what we actually drew and spapped is getting built and then you know I get progress photos after the fact and you know the owner approved it but it wasn't approved by us so I understand your opinion too. We have tried to make an effort more recently to include property owners on communications with contractors because we're seeing sometimes, yeah, the contractor is misrepresenting the experience to the property owner with city staff. And when city staff then shares the information and the timeline and the background to the property owner with city staff. And when city staff then shares the information and the timeline and the background with the property owner things change. So we have made more of an effort to include the property owner on those correspondence so that they can see what's happening with the contractor. But. But thank you for listening to me on that point. Thank you. Anything else any commissioner would like to bring up today? Staff, anything else? Do we have a motion to adjourn? Or adjourned? earned. you I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it.