[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6575396,"mediaKeyId","3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a","parentId",3111948,"title","HAPB weighs shifting review authority from staff to board and use of Secretary of the Interior standards","audioSeconds",3129,"startMs",1275000,"endMs",4404000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a&start=1275&end=4404","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a/thumbnail_1275000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6575396/Venice/Sarasota-County/Florida/HAPB-weighs-shifting-review-authority-from-staff-to-board-and-use-of-Secretary-of-the-Interior-standards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575396-c377d30da3687a1ed07f62969dc9f125/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175255&Signature=CPH7ea3wtIZcbeq0oIGJCJ6aFGrUwp7efv-K6G1caihfG2hSwwy~RDt0yMEH~J1qQlx0xQHmRzsl0YmlkRLzP8oc6bdnkTqVjBziarttsDkm-WcSCyaxklOAcLXWXJNu9o4GgYDk3sywimA--gHcdgoPTxwOoJ3VmpOLpbf2ikQXHQua9CxLmiVLwIITZssnwQPfhICXZSk9mB607klgtcykrqM~b75zljRnKsQpTOzLWdZbyYbVsR-AbPaaMB4hpBrZGkIva6vLu0PmC0zGU8ggV9QpkHdmUgL1eiZz-p7LfNxpmhcEGQOgsDsrhlu5pcqhvVdT9vOT2Or3DQBvpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Venice","date","2025-04-24T00:00:00Z","article","Board members, staff and the planning director spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing proposed revisions to the municipal code (Section 7 and related sections) that would change review authority for historic properties.

John Barrick, a long-time HAPB member who prepared the proposed edits, described language that would clarify the board’s responsibilities and in some drafts shift specific review authority now held by the historic resources manager to the board. Nicole Tremblay, senior planner for the City of Venice, reviewed the proposed edits line by line and advised the board on which additions restated existing duties and which would create new duties or require code-wording changes.

Harry Klinkhammer, historical resources manager, cautioned against fully eliminating the staff-level, one-on-one review and guidance that applicants now receive. “To just completely remove that very important face to face layer of the process, I would caution you about that,” Klinkhammer said, explaining that staff assists applicants with material selection and the administrative process before a public hearing. Several board members responded that they want to remain “in the loop” and proposed a two-step process where staff performs an initial technical review and then the board sees an application in near-final form for approval. Planning and zoning director Roger Clark likewise said he would not present incomplete or improperly prepared items to the board and favored staff vetting before board hearings.

A major point of contention was whether the board should use Secretary of the Interior standards (SOI) when evaluating tax-exemption applications and alterations for locally registered properties outside the city’s VHP (Venice historic) style. Staff noted that Chapter 66 of the city code (the ad valorem tax exemption) already references the SOI standards for tax-exemption review and that some cases — notably a recent project at 640 West Venice — had been reviewed under SOI standards. Klinkhammer said he already uses SOI guidance for non-VHP local-register listings and that many federal programs and tax-credit processes rely on those standards. Tremblay and the planning commission previously expressed concerns about adopting SOI standards more broadly because of potential added workload or perceived restrictions; board members said the standards are the nationwide norm for historic-preservation review and argued they should be authorized tools for the board.

The board also discussed exemptions for structures that are not built in the VHP style: current language would exempt non-VHP structures in the historic district from some CAC (Certificate of Appropriateness) requirements, avoiding undue burden on buildings that do not meet VHP style criteria. Members asked staff to ensure that the exemption language is applied consistently so that routine material replacements (for example, roofing material swaps that do not alter prominent historic fabric) do not unnecessarily trigger full board review.

Nobody voted on code text at this meeting. Instead, members asked staff to prepare a redlined draft that preserves staff’s front-line role for intake and technical review while adding a clear pathway for board review and approval of alterations and tax-exemption-related COAs. Several board members asked staff to craft language that would explicitly allow the board to apply SOI standards in the tax-exemption and local-register alteration context and to include an explicit, no-additional-cost consultation allowance (referencing CLG guidance) when outside expertise is needed but not budgeted.

Staff said it will produce draft code amendments with strike-through/underline edits for review at a future meeting. The board directed staff to return language reflecting the compromise: maintain staff intake and technical vetting, add a formal board review layer for local-register alterations and tax-exemption reviews, and clarify exemptions for non-VHP structures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Venice - Historic and Architectural Preservation Board on 2025-04-24 9:00 AM - Apr 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Board members and staff debated proposed code changes that would shift some review authority for locally registered properties from the Historic Resources Manager to the Historic and Architectural Preservation Board and clarified whether the board should formally use Secretary of the Interior standards.","taxTitle","Venice, Sarasota County, Florida","taxId",56285,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6575401,"HAPB approves up to $850 from Centennial Fund interest for Venice Beach Pavilion plaque",556,893000,1449000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a&start=893&end=1449","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a/thumbnail_893000.jpg","/articles/6575401/Venice/Sarasota-County/Florida/HAPB-approves-up-to-850-from-Centennial-Fund-interest-for-Venice-Beach-Pavilion-plaque","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575401-69d2a4afc552f148306218a095485d55/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175255&Signature=WkVprdzVKT04~6TPVmtRHLJDaIGH2hP5az9m66nG4ykyzmgFv~gqpvHPvmoJIHQ2ZqMH4TuHOiT-JlxJfnPc-JKjJ955LfYFuUFvt65HIbJ9o5S~kJU3AsxK8je9QynA6UJqYYf-vtF4kTuyuREojyWzcgZ~F846zKK8GZRPN2cKdUyoiCKnn5Gf7EJZJ-yY~msLpUhvLPo83enywgybkt7W98aoosfedpIlfW83gUrRGC1~aZ3WVQ4lyhxFDcWpSZRU3R4RNAOCnmjYdpOw1Vt4C5zFDYTNqR~OR70C6bdf8iezyJS3em7lDqBqGSHTT-yDXlVFKHDghTMrvQTYTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Venice Historic and Architectural Preservation Board voted to authorize staff to buy a local-designation plaque for the Venice Beach Pavilion, approving an expenditure range of $600 to $850 to be paid from interest available in the City Centennial Fund.

“Actually, the city has a what's called the Centennial Fund ... the stipulations are that, city council can approve expenditures from the principal. But this board can approve expenditures from the interest,” said Harry Klinkhammer, historical resources manager for the City of Venice, describing the source of funds. Klinkhammer said the interest balance is “about a couple of thousand dollars” and that staff has a vendor who has produced prior local-register plaques.

Board members asked about likely cost and material. Klinkhammer said the last plaque cost $595 for a local-register plaque for a mobile home park clubhouse and that the vendor casts plaques in bronze. “The manufacturer that we work with already has that. So I just need to plug in the information to them and say, here's the next plaque, and here's, you know, the name, the, you know, the date of construction and date that it was, listed, and they can go ahead and knock it out for us,” he said.

Board members discussed where the plaque would be installed; staff said Public Works would coordinate installation and that a visible location on the pavilion would be selected once the plaque is in hand. The board also agreed to authorize a slightly larger contingency than past plaques to avoid returning for another vote; one board member proposed approving “up to $850 so we don't have to come back.”

A motion to approve an expenditure of between $600 and $850 for the Venice Beach Pavilion plaque was made and seconded; the board voted in favor. The board also agreed that if the final price exceeded the approved cap, staff will return to the board to request additional funds.","The Historic and Architectural Preservation Board authorized staff to spend up to $850 from interest in the city's Centennial Fund to produce a bronze local-designation plaque for the Venice Beach Pavilion; staff said the city has a vendor and expects the plaque to cost roughly $595–$600 based on prior orders.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6575405,"Venice HAPB reopens 2025 Legacy Award after single nomination",628,124000,752000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a&start=124&end=752","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3111948-f05dfbbacfdb5cb26306b80592bcf85a/thumbnail_124000.jpg","/articles/6575405/Venice/Sarasota-County/Florida/Venice-HAPB-reopens-2025-Legacy-Award-after-single-nomination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575405-bf97aa9f71eb0ff335d8685481950202/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175255&Signature=YdyiSK~kPAAiHVNZWUULg2yp-PEUqIDxXrIOBUl7Thlc28rqFTw-uvi6eVTSXvYh9a569AjABnGPiGL3NMk0y6adAGNUgBbZkJ72HXKp36MWBXI9L2eUzcr74RXu4kz~byJMR2O0wi3hmRa40Aal-zI1lraVHhBw3SC96Wv9xOEDQYuQtNDBvgio8iwGQ33xBxjKBkhifOhJT145Ric0NndodMj556yMTOWBE2jIppHRn5xot80r58FP2FtMER1xBYynFAckS3U8hFILJHn5NKQTLbncP~qXafXmdbfKus4sq~6VHOH95RzO-wQm5ObhgtnCsj~dwF60wAq3WrCa0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Venice Historic and Architectural Preservation Board on an unspecified 2025 meeting discussed the 2025 Legacy Award after staff reported the board had received a single nomination.

“For this year's legacy award program, we received 1 nomination,” said Harry Klinkhammer, historical resources manager for the City of Venice. Klinkhammer said the nomination and one supporting story had been circulated to board members.

Board members raised concerns about eligibility because the sole nomination — from the Venice Area Historic Society — had previously received the award in February 2006. “If we were to start giving out the same award again ... it should probably be for their most recent work that they've done since receiving the award last time and that was not how the application was written,” a board member said.

Board members discussed several options: accept the single nomination, reopen the application period to solicit additional public nominations, or revise the application language to clarify whether past recipients may receive the award again and what timeframe of work should be considered. The board’s original timetable had sought nominations December through March, review in March–April, and presentation during Preservation Month in May. Staff and several board members noted the current calendar makes a May presentation unlikely if the nomination period is reopened.

Klinkhammer offered to prepare two things for the next meeting: (1) to accept any new nominations submitted via the city’s online form (the nomination form is set to deliver submissions directly to him) and (2) “a little snippet” listing individuals and projects that have not yet received the legacy award as possible nominees. Board members asked that staff also work with the city’s public information office to remarket the program and the (reopened) nomination period.

On timing, staff said the earliest realistic period for a reopened public nomination drive would be “at least a month and a half,” which likely moves consideration past May and toward a June meeting. Several board members favored reopening the program to ensure the award has more than a single applicant and to broaden outreach, including a possible new award category recognizing historic architects and designers.

The board did not vote to select a winner at this meeting; instead members directed staff to re-advertise the nomination period, return a list of suggested past-unrecognized individuals and projects, and bring any new nominations to the next HAPB meeting.","The City of Venice Historic and Architectural Preservation Board discussed a single nomination for the 2025 Legacy Award, agreed to reopen nominations and asked staff to prepare a list of past unrecognized individuals and organizations for consideration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

HAPB weighs shifting review authority from staff to board and use of Secretary of the Interior standards

HAPB approves up to $850 from Centennial Fund interest for Venice Beach Pavilion plaque

Venice HAPB reopens 2025 Legacy Award after single nomination