OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Venice Historic Preservation Board Meeting - June 11, 2026

City Council & BoardsThursday, June 11, 2026
BodyVenice, Florida
SessionCity Council & Boards
DateThursday, June 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:01:57

Transcript — Verbatim
0:15

All right, thank you.

0:18

All right, we'll call to order uh the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the Historic Architectural and Preservation Board.

0:28

And uh can we have a roll call attendance?

0:32

Yes, Chair, one moment.

0:40

Chair Beebe.

0:42

Here.

0:42

Ms.

0:43

Trammell, present.

0:44

Ms.

0:45

Moore.

0:46

Present.

0:47

Mr.

0:47

Watkins.

0:48

Further.

0:49

Mr.

0:49

Green.

0:50

Here.

0:50

Mr.

0:51

Barrick?

0:52

Here.

0:52

And Mr.

0:53

Stecketty.

0:55

Wow.

0:56

Full board today.

0:58

All right.

0:59

Uh have before you the minutes of the Thursday, May 14th meeting, or last meeting.

1:06

Is there any comments or revisions on that?

1:12

I do have one.

1:16

Anyone has on the on the minutes of Thursday, May 14th.

1:23

Um regarding first application at 417 Nassau Street for the alternative for the fence height exceeding six feet.

1:41

And that is uh Mr.

1:44

Hardy clarified that the application did not request a fence height of six foot eight inches as indicated by staff, but rather a height of six foot as shown on the application site plan drawing.

2:01

Does anyone have any comments on adding that?

2:05

That was the early clarification during the presentation, and it was clear that it was just inaccurately stated.

2:13

Mr.

2:13

Hardy clarified that.

2:18

And down below on this on these minutes, um it's also says planner Smith stated the application material would need to be amended to reflect the six-foot fencing, which I believe we could strike if that's the case.

2:32

So does anyone have any comments on that?

2:37

I agree with the change.

2:39

Okay.

2:41

All right.

2:41

Um you need a motion or still need a motion to separate the recommendations.

2:50

I have language.

2:52

Uh if someone wants to read it, or can I make the motion?

2:55

All right, I'll I move that we we add the sentence after the second paragraph to state Mr.

3:04

Hardy clarified that the application did not request a a fence height of six foot eight as indicated by staff, but rather a height of six foot as shown on the application site plan drawings.

3:18

And further that we strike uh the requirement for application materials to be amended for the six-foot fencing.

3:30

I'll second that motion.

3:32

Gene seconds it all in favor.

3:35

Aye.

3:36

Opposed.

3:38

All right, we'll make that change.

3:42

Thank you.

3:44

Uh any other modifications to those minutes anyone has.

3:49

All right.

3:50

With that as modifications, we'll move ahead.

3:53

Um, uh, is there any general audience participation this morning?

3:59

We have to make a motion to approve all the minutes.

4:01

Oh, I'm sorry.

4:03

You're right.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Historic Preservation█████████████████████████████████████████████72%
Procedural██████████16%
Planning And Zoning████████12%
Summary of Proceedings

Venice Historic and Architectural Preservation Board Meeting - June 11, 2026

The Historic and Architectural Preservation Board (HAPB) met on Thursday, June 11, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the City Council Chambers. The board approved minutes from the previous meeting with a correction, received a comprehensive presentation on the Edgewood and Seaboard Historic Resources Survey, and discussed potential revisions to facade color regulations. No public comments were made.

Approval of Minutes

  • The board approved the minutes of the May 14, 2026, meeting with a correction regarding a fence height application at 417 Nassau Street. The applicant clarified that the requested fence height was 6 feet, not 6 feet 8 inches as staff had stated, and the requirement to amend application materials was struck.

Presentation: Edgewood and Seaboard Historic Resources Survey

  • Holly Baker of Chronicle Heritage presented the findings of the Phase II Historic Structure Survey for the Edgewood and Seaboard neighborhoods. The survey was funded through a matching grant from the Florida Division of Historical Resources.
  • Key Findings: 184 historic resources were identified, 143 of which had never been previously recorded. Seven buildings were documented as demolished. The survey covered development from the 1920s through the post-World War II period, revealing a greater diversity of architectural styles (bungalow, Tudor revival, ranch, mid-century modern, etc.) and a concentration of resources from the post-war era.
  • Notable Resources: The Edgewood Cottage (721 Myrtle Avenue), the Venice Train Depot (recommended extension of National Register period of significance through 1971 and addition of transportation significance), and Union Missionary Baptist Church (404 Warfield Avenue, recommended individually eligible for National Register under ethnic history).
  • Recommendations: Expand the Edgewood Historic District boundary and extend its period of significance beyond 1928; update the John Nolan Plan of Venice Historic District to extend its significance beyond 1960; and conduct additional survey for resources from the 1960s and 1970s.
  • Next Steps: The draft report is 99% complete, pending state approval and submission of Florida Master Site File forms for each property.
  • The board voted unanimously to accept the survey findings.

Board Discussion: Facade Color Regulations

  • Chair Beebe initiated a discussion on Section 7.10.4 of the code regarding facade colors, particularly the current requirement for specific color coverage percentages (75% body, 20% secondary, 5% accent). Board members expressed concern that the percentage mandate is overly restrictive, burdensome for staff and applicants, and inconsistent with historic practices where single or subtle color schemes are common.
  • The consensus was to remove the percentage requirement and instead allow for either a single facade color (with trim/accent) or multiple colors, with an option for documented historic colors. Staff (Amanda) noted that formal action would require a future agenda item with proper notice. Chair Beebe agreed to place it on the next meeting's agenda for further discussion and potential text amendment.

Staff Comments and Other Items

  • Harry Klinkhammer reported on the successful Local Register Forum held the prior week, with approximately 20-30 attendees. Interest was expressed in the Agile Warum tax exemption program.
  • Staff indicated that a grant application for the next survey (Gulf Shores and Golden Beach) is pending gubernatorial approval, and a resurvey of Venetian Park will be submitted for the next funding cycle.
  • A discussion occurred regarding a non-VHP style home in the historic district undergoing full renovation. The board advised staff to evaluate the scope of work and use pre-application meetings to help applicants decide whether to conform to VHP standards or retain the existing style, consistent with past practice.
  • The next meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2026, with a pre-application for a mixed-use building at 127 East Tampa Avenue.

Meeting Transcript

All right, thank you. All right, we'll call to order uh the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the Historic Architectural and Preservation Board. And uh can we have a roll call attendance? Yes, Chair, one moment. Chair Beebe. Here. Ms. Trammell, present. Ms. Moore. Present. Mr. Watkins. Further. Mr. Green. Here. Mr. Barrick? Here. And Mr. Stecketty. Wow. Full board today. All right. Uh have before you the minutes of the Thursday, May 14th meeting, or last meeting. Is there any comments or revisions on that? I do have one. Anyone has on the on the minutes of Thursday, May 14th. Um regarding first application at 417 Nassau Street for the alternative for the fence height exceeding six feet. And that is uh Mr. Hardy clarified that the application did not request a fence height of six foot eight inches as indicated by staff, but rather a height of six foot as shown on the application site plan drawing. Does anyone have any comments on adding that? That was the early clarification during the presentation, and it was clear that it was just inaccurately stated. Mr. Hardy clarified that. And down below on this on these minutes, um it's also says planner Smith stated the application material would need to be amended to reflect the six-foot fencing, which I believe we could strike if that's the case. So does anyone have any comments on that? I agree with the change. Okay. All right. Um you need a motion or still need a motion to separate the recommendations. I have language. Uh if someone wants to read it, or can I make the motion? All right, I'll I move that we we add the sentence after the second paragraph to state Mr. Hardy clarified that the application did not request a a fence height of six foot eight as indicated by staff, but rather a height of six foot as shown on the application site plan drawings. And further that we strike uh the requirement for application materials to be amended for the six-foot fencing. I'll second that motion. Gene seconds it all in favor. Aye.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com