You think which story? We don't keep anything dead. Put it on that for some money. I'm sorry. Well, but that's the one we have to go by. And it's always the last minute. We've we've had that same argument. It's
It's always the last minute that takes the longest, isn't it? I think you said that last meeting. Not tonight. Oh. Oh, Bill. Bill. Apparently not. It's actually 3 minutes slow. We'll have to fix that.
more this month. Okay, it's 6:30. I'm going to call uh this meeting of the Heritage uh preservation board to order. Roll call, please. Mr. Mzinski, here. Miss Howlet.
Miss Ryan, here. Miss Kaplan here. Mr. Spreer is not pending. Thank you. Uh are there any public comments that do not relate to anything that's on the
agenda? Anybody have any comments, questions? Okay. Uh we'll move on to number four, uh minutes of the May 5th, uh 2025 meeting. Did you guys get a chance
to look at them? Anybody would like to just need a motion to approve. You need a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve. Seconded. Okay. Uh, any discussion? If not, no. We'll take a
vote. Miss Kaplan, yes. Miss Ryan, yes. Miss Hall. Mr. Rosinski? Yes. Uh, okay. Number five, the quasi judicial announcement and swearing unit of speakers, please. Thank you. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the
heritage preservation board acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity. At a quasi judicial hearing, it is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been established. In a quasi judicial hearing, the board is required
by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and apply those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the code of ordinances in order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may
only consider evidence at this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues. If the competence, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the code of
ordinances, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the code of ordinances, then the board is required
by law to find against the applicant. If anyone's going to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm your testimony before the Heritage Preservation Board shall be the truth so help you? Thank you.
Okay, we'll move on to number six applications. A application 25.33 certificate of appropriateness to replace a metal shingle roof with an ashvalt shingle roof on the contributing
structure at 119 South Spring Boulevard. Caroline, good evening. Caroline Lanford, a principal planner with the planning and zoning department. So this is application 2533. Uh this slide is showing you the
location and land use context of the subject property. Uh this slide is uh demonstrating the the subject property's location within the national register and local historic districts. Um this slide's giving some basic
information about the subject property. Uh it is a frame vernacular. It is a contributing structure. And they are requesting to uh replace the existing metal shingle roof with an asphalt shingle
roof. This slide uh is from the Florida master site file for the subject property. This is showing the facade of the house uh a few weeks ago. Uh this is just giving some context. Uh
you're looking north in this view. Uh this is looking south. As you can see, uh the subject property is located directly south from the nap house. Some additional views of context
for the area. Uh and it is located on the spring bayou vista. So I will uh briefly go through our standards of review. Uh number the first one that's really relevant to the the property um is uh
the relationship of the structure within um the historic and preservation district uh and its relationship to the open space and and the street and scenic views vista and streetscapes. Um so the
application does not propose any alterations to the historic roof line. Uh however, a change of materials would alter the appearance of the streetscape. Uh there are two adjacent residences to the north that have architectural
shingle roofs. The nap house uh which is an 1886 Queen Anne revival uh and a 1909 Craftsman at 103 South Spring. Uh the adjacent 1915 frame vernacular structure to the south of the subject property at 127 South Spring has a standing seam
metal roof. Um, so the the HPB should determine if this change in material would have an adverse impact on the streetscape. Uh, number four, this one's the really the most relevant to this proposal. Um, again, they do not propose
any changes to the historic shape of the roof. However, the texture and type would be altered. Uh, shingle roofs are not inconsistent with frame vermacular. uh uh types within our district. We have
plenty of frame vernacular structures that have shingle roofs. However, the the original roof for this structure is this this metal shingle roof which has lasted over time uh and is a distinctive feature of the original architecture of
the subject property. So um it is my analysis that a change of texture would be inconsistent with the original architecture of uh the property. However, again uh a shingle roof is not inconsistent with frame
vernacular architecture within our district. Uh the next uh relevant criteria would be number seven, architectural features. Um and with this we're we're looking at our design review guideline manual uh which is saying
guideline 63 says that we should retain and repair historic roof materials where feasible. At this point the applicant has not provided any information as to why it is infeasible to retain the historic roof. They have an opportunity to do so after this presentation. Um and
and then if all roofing material is to be removed, uh then the guidelines state that the new roofing material shall match the existing or be characteristic of the architectural t style in terms of material size and pattern.
Um so um really we need to the HPB needs to satisfy themselves that uh this new roof um would be consistent with the architectural style uh and that the material size and pattern would be consistent.
Uh the the current roof is composed of uniformsized shingles and the proposed replacement um would be different sizes than uh the current dimensions of the existing metal shingle roof. Uh in terms of thickness, uh the replacement
shingles would be of similar thickness as the current shingles. Uh the real difference comes in with finish and texture. So um the current metal shingles have a metallic finish and a smooth texture and the proposed replacement with asphalt shingles would
change the finish and the texture uh to a granular texture rather than smooth. Um the applicant has not provided any information about the the color on the project sheets the product sheets. Um
the HPV cannot specify a required color. How? However, I would state that the use of a matte finish in light gray would min would minimize the aesthetic alteration to the streetscape and the subject property. Um, and it's it's your
job to determine if this change of material uh is a significant deviation from the original architectural style. Um, the last couple of really relevant criteria are adherence with the the the secretary guidelines. Um and and
it this proposal does not strictly meet the intent of the secretary's standards as a distinctive feature characteristic of the original architecture of the structure structure would be inappropriate replaced um and and it would compromise the integrity of the
historic property. Um with respect to conformance with other city code requirements uh the project is expected to conform with the city code. However, it does not strictly comply with
um the the comprehensive plan uh nor article 7 of uh the land development code because of that change of materials and texture and the way it looks and in rather than preserving the original architecture of the
structure. Uh and this is just uh showing you the the guideline 67 um stating that you know the best choice is always to replace well it's always to repair and then after that would be to replace with the same materials what was
historically there and generally it's not appropriate to uh replace with different materials. However, as I stated previously, uh a shingle roof, an asphalt shingle roof is not inconsistent with a frame vernacular structure in our
districts. So, uh based on a strict interpretation of our guidelines and criteria, I I'm recommending denial of application 2535. Should the HPB deter determine that they want to approve this project, I would suggest that we put the conditions that the historic roof line
must be maintained, the historic chimneys will not be altered, uh, and then that the certificate of appropriateness would expire in 3 years if uh, no building permit has been issued. Uh, the project was publicly noticed and no responses uh, to that
notice were received. And uh with that, I will enter my staff report and presentation into the record and uh offer to answer any questions you may have. So, so no, I don't maybe I'm missing them. Was there a speck on the the
shingles? I see the timber line like is it a three tab? Is it dimensional? They don't So that that was not provided in the application. What what you have in your backup is is what I got. Okay. So you can maybe ask those questions of the applicant. Thank you. Okay.
Uh Carolyn, do you know if those metal shingles that are on that roof now, um if there was just a repair that was needed, do you know those are even available anywhere? I know there's tons of them in architectural salvage stores for sure. And largely with those metal
shingles, it's really about the sealant. It's not the actual metal that's corroded too much. Occasionally that will happen given our environment. Mhm. But it's no, it's not something you can go buy at Lowe's for sure, but they they do exist and and could be obtained.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Caroline? No. Okay. Uh let's move on to the applicant. Hi, good afternoon or evening at this point. I am uh Matt Turpin. I'm the
owner of 119 South Spring Boulevard. So, if you'll indulge me, just want to give you a little bit of background because I think it does, you know, play into some of the mitigating factors we find ourselves in these days. So, we purchased the property at um 118 South Spring Boulevard. It's our sole home. We
purchased it back in 2014. At that point, the roof was 75 years old minimally. Um, we had to have five roofing inspections. Uh, the fifth inspector was able to, um, find an area that needed repair and
certify the roof, I think, for 10 years. Um, we needed that in order to get just a loan or to get insurance. Mhm. And now the roof, uh, we go forward a couple years of 2018, roof's about 80 years
old. Um, we added an addition to the home which was approved and the addition has an asphalt roof. It's on the back. It's not in the public facing part, but we were able to do that. Uh, that was considered consistent at the time. We
also, you know, the home's been, you know, it's a four square home. It has this parameal shape. It has been again not on the public facing side but on the back side it's been enclosed like an upstairs porch downstairs porch both of them have been enclosed so the shape of
the roof in the back is much different than the shape in the front. So looking at it in the style that it's in as a four square the historical features of these homes don't really include the materials. They do include that it has a cube shape which for the most part it
does. They also include that it has a a low pitch tipped roof and it looks from the front as you can see seen in those pictures very parameal particularly from the front side where again it hasn't been altered as it was in the past. So from the street view it's very parameal
and flat. Um the these homes also typically have a dormer. Unfortunately ours doesn't. A lot of them have dormers. Adds a lot of character. Our home doesn't have that. Um they also tend to have a wide porch that's centered in the middle. Ours is off to the side as you can see there. But
again, these features, the cube shape, the hipped roof, um we don't have a dormer to consider, but also the porch, none of these things will be affected by this. So, and those are the features that this style of home actually have in common with all of these type homes
built around the country. It's not materials. Um, the other thing, these homes were designed to be very economical. It's kind of ironic. It's next to this Victorian like place, but it's like the economical homeowner um right next to that. And one of the things that makes
this challenging is that even in our current environment, whether I put a metal roof uh of whatever grade or type, it doesn't change any of the considered mitigating things for insurance cost. So, for us to get insured, whether it's shingles with other wind mitigation or
metal, they treat them both the same. And when the roof gets 10 years old, it's 10 years old, whether it's shingle or metal. Um, and then, uh, the other thing, uh, we certainly can have our, our roofer here just explain the materials and how, you know, trying to
replace exact shingle look, uh, the cost and what type of materials would really take because it is next to a saltwater environment and the some of the materials now may not match those materials. Plus the ability to put shingles on. We said we can salvage
these, but having somebody with the skill and the ability to actually put them on without a mess is a completely different story. But I'll let you go ahead. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Hey, um, my name's Chip Rome with Aries Roofing. Um, we've been a contractor here for a long time. I'm sure you guys have heard
our name and dealt with us. Um, looking at the photo from Mrs. Lanford there, be honest, even as a roofing professional, it looks a lot like a dimensional shingle on that roof right now. like if I did not see this property and walk that roof, I would think it was probably a dimensional shingle and that is what
we have proposed. Uh so not a three tab shingle like you asked earlier. So there is a dimensional aspect. Um this is the GAF Timberland HGZ. I know it doesn't look like much here, but this is what 90% of homeowners are putting on
nowadays. Um also what we've been dealing with a lot nowadays is insurance. Um, so we have strict criteria what homeowners have to deal uh to do and uh what their rates have gone to and if they can even get insurance. And we were talking about this thing.
It's it's rough having a home that's not insured as the intensity of storms are increasing and people can no longer get homeowners insurance. It's it's worrisome and the cost of this insurance premiums are going up and up. And at one point I think they told me it was $14,000 to insure this home. And now
they've no longer been able to secure homeowners insurance due to primarily I would suggest the roof. Um, as these insurers are getting wiser and wiser, ensuring a roof that's the age of this one, if if one shingle goes missing, can
they find it in a salvage yard? Maybe. But what's the integrity of that metal that's been taken off of something that's 50, 60 years old and is going to protect their home and their head and in the middle of a storm if they have to stay? So, a lot goes into saying like,
did we give these people the best chance using salvage material to protect their investment, their home? And the insurance companies are saying we don't want to insure it anymore. And uh it's worrisome. So, with a new wind mitigation report and a new new dimensional shingle that's has an
unlimited windspeed warranty, etc., their insurance premiums could drop significantly. I mean, uh, not they could also get homeowners insurance and they may be paying around the $5,000, uh, annual premium, which is still, I would say, averely high, but would be
more than a 60% discount for these homeowners. Um, so since it's their primary residence, it seems kind of crazy to not look at that. Also, some of the things we've been looking at as roofing contractors is um there's no guarantee with even a metal roof that
they would uh continue to get insurance coverage longer than 10 years. It may be 15 years, but they some carriers are still looking at a metal roof as the same as a shingle roof, and they're requiring replacement every 15 years. So
now as we fast forward a little bit, the cost of a metal roof is not the same as it was 20 years ago and I'm sure it will be different 20 years from now. But what we've seen is increased cost. Um COVID was a crazy time. We saw a lot of crazy cost and now we have tariffs. Um
aluminum being probably tariff the most. Um and that metal being the most expensive. But the reason we talk about aluminum is due to the saltwater proximity. No metal manufacturer is giving a material warranty on their product within 1,400 feet of the
saltwater. So if this homeowner is going to put on a metal roof, they have to spend the money to go aluminum or they run the risk of getting no material warranty. So not only are they spending double the money to put on a metal roof. If they don't spend triple the money or
maybe sometimes quadruple the money, then they run the risk of getting no material warranty. Um, which is worrisome because people are like, "What do you mean I don't get a material warranty?" And it's like, "Not from the manufacturer, you don't." We will stand behind it, but the manufacturer may not. So, it it makes it more complex and not
so straightforward to say, "Well, do you put a metal roof on? You put a shingle roof." There's no material warranties against this. We have unlimited windspeed warranties. The dimensional shingles have manufactured backed warranties that are very big. Uh, the metal industry just doesn't have that. I love metal roofing and there's
definitely a place for it but you got to have the right metal and the right application and uh and and feasibility comes into it and uh now today the last ever since 2020 you imagine co we saw huge spike increases in labor materials
and um and material increases and at at some point feasibility has to be taken in consideration for these homeowners. I mean I run into it every day. People would love to put the metal roof on, but at what cost? Um, so that's something that's difficult for the historic
society to understand and and review. I get that. Uh, but it puts a lot of homeowners in a difficult spot. Do they splurge and go metal and maybe have to replace it in 10 years, 12 years because their insurance company's mandating them to? Does it rust out or do they go crazy and put the aluminum on and then maybe
they have to replace it in 15 years because maybe the insurance companies don't want to um insure it? So, there's a lot of factors that go into this. It seems like it's just a roof. And, uh, coming from the roofing industry, a roof is not always so straightforward and easy to understand. Um, but that's some
of the factors that we're looking into it. I think from the street aesthetic, I don't think you're going to see a big difference. The color is going to match pretty close. The texture looks very similar to a metal uh, shingle. Um, it's going to get insurance approval. These people will get a new wind mitigation
report. They will be up to code on their decking requirement. They will have a secondary water barrier and they'll have a new roof. Uh that will be easier to uh get insured, maybe sell the house. Um and without break baking breaking the bank, excuse me. Um nothing would be
changed with the chimneys. Uh the gable, the hip roof on the front, uh the street aesthetic would be very similar in my opinion. And then the other thing is is if you look I would say uh in a 360 view I would say majority of the shingles are
majority of the roofs are shingled around there um that are historic homes. So all those things I would think have to be in consideration. Is there anything I missed on that? And we we did uh in the past we we did do some things to try to preserve this roof too. We painted it.
The color it is now is the color we painted it. We also did some uh mitigation in the back where we had the addition because we had leaking after the addition. So, we actually spent about $10,000 worth of uh coating and everything too to try to give this roof
life. But, I think we're at the end. Uh it's 80 years old and uh that's where we are. Otherwise, we love the place and we wouldn't change anything, but this is where we're at. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Can Can we see the the shingle color? It was
hard to see from Well, it can be painted. So, this birchwood shingle stop making the white because it show dirt, traffic, anything like that. So, birchwood's pretty popular. Um, doesn't always look that great at the
close, but from a distance have a textured piece. That's why they call it a dimensional architectural shingle. So it will have a texture to it. That roof is not currently. So if you're gonna if you're going to
speak, you have to be you were close enough, but you have but but one of the things too is we have a lot of oak pollen that gets on the tree uh from the trees that gets on there. If you have a really light color, it's going to look terrible. So you you really don't want it a really light
color because you know unless you're going to go up there and hose off the roof and it's quite high and pitched um it it gets collections of oak pollen and things on it. Um and that also rust it so it's not just just the seawater too. We've just experienced that.
We do have an algae warranty. Thank you. Okay. And again, you you said there would be no change uh to the roof line, no change to any chimneys or nothing. Correct. The only thing that we would maybe have to change would be
flashing um which would meet at head walls and sidewalls and around chimneys. um nothing that would be out of um context with like traditional old style flashings, whether they be step flashings or head wall flashings. Um I
think we were even talking about replacing the siding if we had to replace any flashing on that, which more than likely we will. Um but it was doing the siding back the same way. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions for the applicant?
Uh any comments from the public about this project? Good evening. Nilsi, 124 Shadic Street. I live in the historic district as well. I was a licensed general contractor for 30 years here in Florida. So I know a little bit about what I'm
talking about. So, one of the things that was interesting is the city recommends to put uh isometric coating on the roof, which only lasts maybe 2 or 3 years. So, what good is that? You're going to spend this
money to do something like that. It doesn't change anything. The city has no idea what it takes to do roofing. uh they're incompetent in that part, but they go by the rules of whatever is going on there. We all live in Tarpon.
We all a lot of us have historic homes. We're all there. What they're trying to do is just put a new roof on a house. And if you look at the house, it's been 85 years on that roof. And the city mentioned that
you could get some roofing material from a recycler which is already 85 years old. So you're putting an 85y old shingles on an 85y old roof. I mean come on. What these people are just trying to
do is just put a roof on and get insurance just like all of us. So I think uh I think the decision is pretty clear. Any questions? I don't think anybody is I feel like you're you're being a little bit
belligerent like you're against what we think. We all live in the district. We all get the roof piece and I definitely get the insurance piece. I don't think that the staff is being they're trying to stain a design guideline. That's all they're doing. That's their job. Well, I
live in that and I've dealt with this and we're going to weigh it and we're going to talk about it and we're not against you. Well, first off, the historic district is all going to change now that we've all been flooded. So now we're going to raise homes. We're going to change this that we're going to tear down old homes that have been over 50%.
Now a new home's going up. So our historic district and the way we think about things are all going to change, which is why she tries hard to she tries to keep us from Look, I I'm all about making things more modern and work for the
homeowner. And I think Caroline will tell you that I'm probably the most into modern materials. I like it. I want it to last. I don't want it. Well, some are good and some are bad. But so I think if you're okay, but what they're trying to do with the house, I think with the the
style of shingle and the color of the shingle, you're not going to even really notice anything when you drive by there. And you can't even find a shingle that's going to look like that metal roof right now. That's impossible. So, all right. I've got more than 25 years of home
improvement background. I I get it. That's not an easy thing to find. It's a very costly thing to find and we'll definitely talk about it. Okay. Thank you. We hear you. Thank you. Okay. Any other public comments relating
to this uh project? Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh if not then I'm going to close the public comments and bring it to the board for a discussion. I don't I don't know that I have
really the two bigger the other two houses shingles on them already. I get that. Yeah, the texture is going to be different, but unfortunately that's a hard thing to find and it is tough with the insurance company. They won't they won't give
you They need a new roof. And what are we going to do? Okay. They need insurance. Want me to make a motion? Okay. So, um, application 25.35, I
recommend that we approve it with the shingle that they showed us today, which is a GAF, I think, dimensional shingle. We also will not any changes to roof line or chimneys, right? And the uh
state of approval. Do you need to specify that color? Yeah. What is that color? Birchwood. Birchwood color. A second. Second. Okay, we have a uh a motion and a second. Any more discussion
on that motion? If not, uh we'll vote. Miss Kaplan, yes. Miss Ryan, yes. Miss Howlet? Yes. Mr. Rosinski? Yes. Thank
you. Okay, let's move on. All right. B. Application 25.35, certificate of appropriateness to enclose a nonhistoric patio at the contributing structure at 21 North
Safford Avenue. Carolyn Yes. Uh this this slide is showing you the location and land use context. Um this is the Tarpon Tavern which is in our special area plan. Uh the historic
structure is a circa 1925 uh masonry vernacular structure. Uh it's shown on the 1926 Sanborn map as the office of the American Railway Express Company. Uh the the structure has undergone alterations over time, but it
does remain uh to keep its contributing. It has enough integrity to to keep its contributing status in both the national register and the local uh historic district which shows its location at the edge of our national district and within
uh the loca the local district on this slide. And this is uh just showing you the 1926 Sanborn where the building is extent. This slide's just giving you some basic information about the subject property. It is in our uh special area
plan T4A residential own retail office. It's currently used as a restaurant. Um and again it's a contributing m masonry vernacular structure. Um so the certificate of appropriateness being sought is to enclose the non-historic
covered patio edition. Um and the addition of this patio was approved by the HPB. Uh this slide's showing you the the picture from the Florida master site file. It's changed a little bit, but you can you can see how it still maintains
what it would look like when it was first surveyed. Uh this slide's just showing you the facade a couple of weeks back. Uh a view of the the patio proposed for enclosure. It's giving you a little bit of
context and some close-ups of the the non-historic patio edition. Uh this is showing you some some things about the historic structure. Um just want to note these these wood surrounds under the windows. um and the historic
doors. So, uh this is the proposed floor plan for the project. So, it would be enclosing that porch to to make the the restaurant space larger. Uh this is showing the uh east elevation facing
Safford. Uh and this is the the proposed elevation uh which would be facing Orange Street. Uh these are the the windows that they propose to use to uh enclose the porch and then a single one of of these French
doors would be used uh on the orange street side. So they'd be closing uh there's currently an exit out onto Safford from the porch that that would be closed and be windows. So, our relevant standards of of review
are um the new construction consistency. Um so, the the height and width of the proposed it wouldn't alter the height of the width of of the non-historic porch or the the historic property. Uh number two, um windows,
doors, and entries. Um the proposed enclosure again is a non-historic addition. Uh it was done fairly well. It's um subordinate to the historic structure. It utilizes the same stucco cladding that the historic structure has
uh with a simple design that's that's complimentary to the historic structure. Um and and the proposed enclosure would would kind of follow that utilizing the the wood surrounds that are on similar to what's on the historic structure. Uh
the windows would be similar dimensions. um not not the exact same but complimentary. Uh and and it would really um the windows and doors although you know modern materials they would be complimentary to those on the historic structure without pretending to be
historic themselves. Um but you know the the HPB should determine if the enclosure of this patio is is generally consistent with the character of the the contributing structure. Um the third criteria we want to look at is the neighborhood and district
context. Um so it is located on Safford Avenue streetscape which is you know one of our you know quintessential downtown thoroughares. Um and and it would alter the aesthetics of the streetscape um largely through its relationship uh uh
with the contributing property to the the streetscape. So, as it is now open, it kind of provides like a transitional area to, you know, the the kind of semi-public space of a restaurant to moving out to something that's more open
to moving out to the the full public realm. And that would be altered a little bit by uh the enclosure of the patio. Uh and the HPB should determine if if that alteration is considered adverse. Um the fifth criteria, well it's the
fourth criteria we're going to look at, but criteria number five. So the massing of the original structure was altered by the addition. Um and it would be further altered a little bit by by the enclosure. Um but the the proposed enclosure is not significantly
uh increasing the existing alteration. um and the resulting size and mass of the building after the proposed alter alteration would be consistent with the character of other contributing buildings in the district. Um so with respect to number seven
architectural features u since it's a non-historic uh piece of you know addition to the building um it would not alter uh the the historic structure and um the materials proposed to to use to
enclose it uh would have a similar visual quality um of the historic features of the contributing structure. So, oh well, it's um so in terms of adherence to the
secretar's guidelines, um the board did a great job when they approved this um this addition because it is um set back from the historic structure. It's simple. It matches the cladding of the historic structure. So, we don't have to
be quite as strict because it's non-historic, but we just want to make sure that it's complimentary to the historic structure and not really changing anything. Uh, and the project is um expected to conform with other city code requirements. And in terms of
the comprehensive plan and article 7 of the land development code, uh it would conform generally with those with those requirements. And these are just uh the design review guidelines for porch additions and and modifications. So since it's not a
historic porch, uh we don't need to be quite as stringent, but again we just want to look for that kind of consistency within the district and complimentary to the the historic structure for an addition. Yeah. So, uh, with that, I'm
recommending approval of application 2535, uh, with our standard condition that the certificate of appropriateness would expire in 3 years if a building permit has not been issued. Um, the project was publicly noticed. Uh, there
were some inquiries about it, but no formal responses to, uh, the notice were received. Uh, and with that, I'll enter my staff report and presentation into the record and be able to answer any questions you might have. Thanks,
Carolyn. Any questions for Carolyn? Pretty straightforward. Okay. All right. How about the applicant presentation? No, you don't want to make a presentation.
Chicken. Come on up. Anyway, in case there's some questions, I I do have a question for you. So, introduce yourselves. I'm Dan Jen. I own uh Cobblestone Cobblestone Management Group, which owns the building, and Torpin Tavern I also
own. And Andrew Pavas, the architect. You had some questions. What What are the windows? Are those aluminum or are they vinyl? They're going to be uh vinyl coated impact. I Yes.
So, is the design are you planning on having this open like in the winter or you still get fresh air in there or is is it going to be totally closed? Yes, Michelle. The the purpose of it because we're starting to get warmer here in Florida and also we face north so we get
that cold north wind. Um our business really hurts in the winter a little bit and then to an extreme in the summer. self. Instead of uh keeping those windows closed, we're going with a single hung window. So, as often as we can keep that open, uh we're going to keep windows up for that purpose.
Exactly. I'm all for keeping it closed, just so you know, cuz it is hot. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Are you going to be able to keep that existing roof or is that going to have to all be rebuilt? Yes, the flat roof is going to be kept. Uh there's no changes to that as Caroline outlined. We're just
going to be mimicking as closely as we can that wood trim in between the windows. Uh we're keeping the stucco that's existing right now and similar to what the original building had. There's stuckco going around where the new section is that stuckco also uh around
the windows will be wood trim. Yeah. Which is similar to the the area around that's not windows or stucco above it and then wood trim below it. So below the current opening on the patio is currently stucco
and that Yeah, because it just had it had two different types of pattern on the elevation. So I just thought it was So you see the white capping that's a concrete slab. Uh we're going to keep those and then below that the red is all
currently stucco. We're not going to alter that at all. But where it is open there, we're going to have uh for uh 14 windows, I believe, or 13 windows, and then a single door. And those will all be trimmed out uh to match how they
are trimmed out on the front of the the historic part of the building, which is all wood trim. Thanks. Okay, any other questions? Uh any comments from the public regarding this
project? Okay, I'm going to close the uh public comments then and bring it back to us to talk about either nice project. Okay, I I'll do it.
for application 2535. I um wait a minute now. Wait a minute. I close historic. Okay. Go with the staff recommendations.
You go ahead. Okay. Okay. Um All right. So, application 25.35, we recommend approval with staff recommendations of certificate approval. expire in three years. Okay. Second.
Okay. We have a uh motion in a second. Any more discussion here? No. If not, I'll call for a vote. Miss Kaplan, yes. Miss Ryan, yes. Miss Howlet? Yes. Mr. Mazinski? Yes. Yes.
Thank you for coming. I might actually eat there now, Dan. Right. I never get a table inside. Open the window for you. Okay. Application 25.36 certificate of appropriateness to
construct a new patio at the contributing property at Craig Park. Carolyn. Yes. Uh this is application 2536. Uh this is showing the location and land
use context of the subject property. It is the recreation center that is located within uh Craig Park. Uh and this shows uh the location of the subject property within our local historic
district. Just gives some basic information about the subject property. Um it is currently used as recreation open space and will continue to do so. Um the architectural style of the the subject building uh is a circa 1936
masonry ver vernacular um building. Uh this this building was constructed as part of the works progress administration project that that improved Craig Park. Um and the building was built to be a recreation center and and it exists as such today. Uh it has
had a few alterations over the year. However, uh enough integrity remains for it to be considered a contributing structure in our local historic district. Uh so the applicant, which is the city of Tarpon Springs, is is seeking a certificate of appropriateness
to construct a 16x 50 foot composite deck at the rear uh on the west elevation of the the contributing structure. So that would be behind the building. Uh this is just showing the the Florida master site file photo from when it was
first surveyed. This is just showing the the east elevation. So that's the the side that's facing Beakman. Uh just some another picture of the east side showing you some of the context within the park. Uh and this is
the the west elevation where they're proposing to uh put that composite deck. It's a little more context its location next to Spring Bayou. Uh that's showing a little a
little clearer where by the door there, that's where they're proposing to to be putting the patio just a north elevation. And then uh this is showing the the proposed project. So with respect to our
standards for review, um new construction consistency, uh the height and width of the proposed deck is is similar to uh decks found throughout the historic district of buildings of similar size. Uh with
respect to the neighborhood and district context, um it would be potentially visible from the public ride ofway uh on Beakman uh and poss potentially from South Spring Boulevard uh given the site's unique location within Craig
Park. You'd see it when whenever you're in the park in that area and you could also potentially see it from Spring Bayou if you're out there kayaking or not. So, uh, it would have a minor alteration on, um, the the the vista of
the area and the HPB should determine whether or not that that change is significantly adverse. Um, with respect to architectural features, um, no distinctive architectural features, no architecture, historic architectural
features would be altered, um, with this proposal. Um it it one of the benefits of this project is that it's completely reversible. It would not be altering the historic building in any significant way. Um and so generally it conforms uh
with the secretary's guidelines because the addition is at the rear of the building and um again would not be destroying any historic materials or making any alterations to the the historic structure. Uh the the the
proposal would certainly conform with uh city code requirements and is generally consistent with uh the land development code. Well, it it would be consistent with the land development code and is generally consistent uh with the historic preservation element of the comprehensive plan.
Uh and this is just uh showing you our design guidelines review manual uh about locating accessory structures which a deck is considered an accessory structure and it would be at the back of the building. Um given its location, it's
kind of hard to not it's its location within the public realm. It's hard to find a location that's not visible from the public right away, but it is the one of the the less innocuous uh parts of the uh subject
property. Um, with that, staff is recommending approval of application 2536. Uh, and I will enter my staff report and this presentation into the record and answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Carolyn. Any questions for
Carolyn? What are the um the the railings? What is that made out of? Uh it's it's all proposed to be composite materials, right? Caroline, could you bring up that picture of the new Oh, there it is.
Okay. Wow. Okay. That'll be on the bayou. Pretty Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Uh, okay. Uh, do we have an applicant? We do. Hi everyone. My name is Jamie
Taylor, recreation city uh, superintendent with the city. Appreciate you being out here and um, checking out the proposal here. Any questions? No. Looks pretty straightforward, right? Easy enough.
I'll be quiet then. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, okay. Any any uh buddy any public comments about this project? No. Okay, we'll close the public comments and bring it to the board to discuss. If I
may, I I did neglect to tell you. Um, we did get a couple of inquiries about the project, but the only formal response we received was uh a notice of no objection to the project. Yeah, I thought you did say that, but okay, that might have been
for the last one. Uh, any discussion? Okay, Michelle, you're on a roll. Okay, hang on. Let me get back to where that page is. All right. So, this is
uh application 25.36. Uh recommend approval with staff's recommendations. Certificate of appropriateness. Uh expire in three years, I guess, is what it would probably say. I don't I can't find that page.
Okay. I second. You got to second it. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? If not, let's call for a vote. Miss Kaplan, yes. Miss Ryan, yes. Miss
Howlet? Yes. Mr. Mazinski? Yes. Thank you. All right. Number seven, board and or staff comments. Staff have any more comments about anything? I do not.
No. You guys all good? All good. Okay. Thank you, Carolyn. Uh, all right. I'm going to adjourn at 7:22. Wow. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Well, you think so? Maybe. Well, it's
because you do such a good job.