She's all dressed up. She's all dressed up. Okay, it's 630. I'm going to call this meeting to
order. Welcome, everyone. Roll call please. Mr. Burzynski. Mr. Burzynski here. Mr. Sprecher
here. Mr. Sidana here. Okay. Before we go any further, what I have to mention is we technically have a quorum.
There's three out of five that's normally a five member commission, but that means that we have to vote. It has to be a
unanimous vote for anything that we're talking about tonight. So if you're not comfortable with that, there's
no problem with us moving you to the next meeting to next week or next month, when we would hopefully have more than three people. So do you
understand what I'm what I'm saying? Everyone here has to vote, either in favor or against. There has to be unanimous. So you're good with
that? Everybody's good with that. Okay. All right. We'll move on then. Public comments. Anything that does not have to
do with the two agenda items. Does anybody have any questions or comments? No. Okay. Then we're going to go to number
four. The minutes approval of August 4th, 2020 five minutes. Did you guys read them? Yeah. Want to make a motion? Okay. You want a second then I'll
second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. The was to accept them. Accept. Accept. Okay. Yeah. Turn on your motion to accept. It's on. It's just too
far away. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. We can vote. Mr. Sidana. Yes. Yes. Sprecher. Yes. Mr.
Burzynski. Yes. Okay. Number five, quasi judicial announcement and swearing in of speakers. Good evening. This is
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 to 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 competent,
substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, than 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
Ordinance, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. Have there been any ex parte communications
that need to be disclosed? None. Seeing none. Okay. Is anybody intend to speak tonight? Testify tonight. If you could raise your hand and I'll swear
you in. Anybody? Okay. So just raise your hand. Okay. Anybody? Anybody intends to come to the microphone, please raise your hand. Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and your testimony in these proceedings this evening? Yes. Okay. Thank
you. Thank you. Okay. The first application, 25 Dash 65, Certificate of Appropriateness. To partially demolish the
contributing primary structure for the purpose of constructing a new primary structure. Location 226 North Gross Avenue.
Carolyn. Good evening, Caroline Lanford, principal planner, the city of Tarpon Springs. Caroline Lanford, principal
planner with the City of Tarpon Springs. We're here to discuss 2565, which is located at 226
North Gross Avenue. This slide is showing you the location and context of the the subject property. It is located in the
northern part of our downtown area, in a primarily residential district. This slide is showing you the subject property's location within the National Register
and local historic districts. The larger blue boundary shows the local historic district, and the red dashed shows the National Register District. And
the applicant is seeking a conditional certificate of appropriateness to partially demolish the subject property.
Reconstruct a new residence, landscaping, the construction of a garage, and construction of a pool. So at this time, the applicant is under contract for
the property and before investing in full plans for the property, they'd like to get that conditional approval for the partial demolition before
they come back to the Heritage Preservation Board, with plans to then be approved to actually construct something. The subject property is a frame
vernacular structure built circa 1910. This slide is showing you the photograph from the Florida master site file
for the property. This slide shows you the location of the property on the 1913 Sanborn Map. This is a fairly recent
picture of the facade of the front of the primary structure, and these photographs are from the current real estate listing for the property. As you can
see, it's it's overgrown. There's some damage, some aerial shots. And then some interior shots, which kind of
show the extent of the damage to the property. This slide is showing you a very conceptual plan. For what? For what? The applicant is going to come back
to the board and ask to do. They would like to preserve the the facade and then reconstruct the house in a similar footprint to the historic
structure. At a pool to the property and a garage at the rear of the property. This is just showing that plan on an
aerial. So we're going to approach this case as a demolition because that is the the primary thing that we have to discuss with this case. So
our standards of review for demolitions, we first look at the historic architectural and cultural significance of the structure. This structure has
no special significance beyond the fact that it does contribute to the national and local historic districts. The second criteria would be the
importance of the building to the ambiance of the district, or patterns of land use, reflecting cultural traditions of the community. Again, the
subject building has no known documented significance beyond contributing. It is the northeastern most parcel within the National Register District.
This area of the district is rather eclectic as as our district is as a whole. To the east, there's a 1956 ranch
residence that's contributing. There's several craftsman in the immediate vicinity, ranging from 1910 to the 1920s. There's
three Colonial Revival structures dating from 1913 and 1919, and then a 1957 masonry vernacular residence. I will
note that the block that the subject property is on is largely intact, so there are only two of the 18 structures
that are considered to be noncontributing. So partial demolition of the structure would alter the streetscape here in this intact, intact
block. However, the plans to reconstruct within the historic footprint would minimize that, and any redevelopment would
require a HPB approval. So our next standard of review would be the difficulty or impossibility of reproducing such a building. It's a frame
vernacular building. It would not be difficult to reproduce it, including the design, texture, material and details of of the subject property and
the location and the setting of the structure are not unique to a frame vernacular structure. The fourth criteria we look at is whether the building or
structure is one of the last remaining examples of of its kind. Within the district. Frame vernacular is the most common architectural style we have in the district, with 147
of the 371 structures. So that's nearly 40% of the structures are identified as frame vernacular. This particular structure comes is
is a circa 1910 structure, and the majority of frame vernacular buildings within our National Register district were constructed prior to 1915, so
it is not one of the last remaining examples of its architectural style or of that time period. The fifth criteria
that we look at is the future utilization of the site. The site is located in the R 70, a single family residential district. So that means
generally there's a few other uses that could be used, could be constructed within there, but generally it would be a single family residence that would be constructed on the
property. And the applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residence, again
using the historic footprint and replicating elements of the historic structure. Structure. It would be recommended that
the HPB condition any approval requiring an HPB approved site plan and design. Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, so that we're not
allowing the structure to be demolished prior to knowing exactly what will be constructed on the site afterwards. The six criteria is
whether reasonable measures can be taken to save the building. We don't have a detailed analysis of whether or not the
structure is damaged beyond repair. However, if you look at the photographs that were supplied by the applicant, there is significant damage to
the structure. And then the seventh criteria would be whether the building structure would be capable of earning a reasonable economic return on
its value, and whether perpetuation of the structure, considering its condition and location, and the anticipated expense of rehabilitation would be economically feasible. Now,
staff cannot render an expert opinion on whether or not it would be economically feasible. However, and a detailed
reconstruction or restoration cost has not been provided by the applicant. They did provide a kind of order of magnitude cost that they received from a
reliable contractor of approximately $700,000 to restore the historic structure, the Pinellas County Property
Appraiser sets the 2024 market value of the property at 200,033, roughly $233,000, so
the value of that $700,000 as a general estimate of what it would take to restore the property. Again, I can't render an expert opinion on whether or
not that's economically feasible. However, you know, the entitlements available for the property would allow for a new single family home to be
constructed that could exceed the present value of the structure that is currently on the property. So my recommendation is that you look
at the evidence contained within the staff report in this presentation, and that if the proposed partial demolition and reconstruction of the property
is consistent with the review standards, I would recommend that any approval be conditioned with the following
one. That the parameters of the guideline 41 of the the guideline review manual be followed. That primarily concerns documentation of the
historic structure before it is demolished. Number two, that the demolition permit would not be issued prior to HPB approved plans for the property, and
then, once that is issued, that the Certificate of Appropriateness would expire within three years. If no building permit has been issued. The project was publicly
noticed as as they all are, and we did receive an email today. I've supplied that email with you and it could be read into
the record if if I the the person that sent the email said that they may be able to come to the meeting, I'm not sure, but we do have that and we can read that into the record if
you'd like. And with that, I can take any questions. Yeah, just some clarification. What we're looking at tonight. We're
not looking at any plans. We have no plans. All we're looking at is a possible
approval of demolition. With it being contingent on approval of any future plans before there's any demolition done. That's.
We're not approving any plans. We're not we're not allowing any demolition tonight. Correct? Correct. We're the applicant is seeking a conditional
certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition and reconstruction of the structure. And it would be conditional on us seeing plans that we would
approve. Yes. Okay. Anybody else question? No. Okay. Let's have the presentation by the
applicant. I, I didn't know who. All right. Thank you. My name is Mike Hanks. My wife Patty. We appreciate that you have
given us time on the agenda today. And also thank Caroline for your assistance. We've met with her twice in this process, and she's given us quite a good education on what it means to
be an historic district. So appreciate that. So what I want to do is just introduce who we are, why we're coming to Tarpon Springs, and what we're requesting from you. So we have
been living for the last 17 years in Saint Pete. We assumed we'd stay there for until we go to an assisted living facility. But Patty decided to have a
career change. And so over the last five years, she's become a minister. And. Okay, I was
going to do this, but I am. Okay. Take your time. I'll better. So last last September, she was hired at the Unitarian Universalist Church here in
Tarpon Springs as their minister. So they've just extended her contract for another couple of years. And I work from home. I'm retiring soon, so it makes no sense to
be there and have her commute while I don't have to. So we're moving to Tarpon Springs, so that's why we're coming here. The house we live in for 17
years, we moved here from Michigan and developed a place where we absolutely love. It's a 100 year old craftsman house.
We put in what we basically our own little resort. So we have a pool, we have an apartment in the back, and we love the place.
So what we're looking to do is replicate what we have there in Tarpon Springs. And so we've been looking to do so. This property, we saw it before we even listed our house for sale
and it just hit all the boxes we're looking for, with the possible exception of how much it cost to do it. So that's why we're here today is to get some,
I guess, comfort on how much is likely to cost for us to do this project. And that's what we're asking for you, is a little bit of just reduce the uncertainty that we're facing
as to whether we can do this or not. So. We we are not at the place yet where we can develop plans. We do have an offer on
the property was contingent on what response we get from from you on this request today. So. The photograph that Caroline
saw at the beginning, that's what we fell in love with. That's what we want. So our intention is to have that as what the place will look like
when we finish our project. We did go in and visit the house twice, and it's not hyperbole to say the condition of the house is alarming. The photographs you saw on the
inside, you see little patches on the floor. Those are cardboard or record covers taped over holes in the floor. Unfortunately, none of the
photos showed this, but the the back half of the house, the the cross bar of the T is actually tipped away from the front, and there's about a two inch gap in
the ceiling in the upstairs just because the they're falling apart. We had a a contractor with us and an architect while we looked at
this. So. Sort of the two questions of the seven that Caroline went through that you're to consider number six talks about, is there any
option besides demolition? From my perspective, this was in bad enough condition that I thought the only option is, you know, you bulldoze the place and start over. In conversations
with the contractor, with Caroline, an option that didn't know existed is what we decided we would shoot for, which is to maintain the front wall of the
house, demolish everything behind it, and then rebuild the house. So the the front of the house would stay the same. There's undoubtedly some things
that need to be fixed on that front because of rot and such and such like that, but the way that my contractor described it is the front wall will never hit the hit the ground that stays up and the house gets
built onto that. So that's that's our plan. So that's what we're looking for. A partial demolition instead of full. And then we love the footprint of the house. We that's what we
want to build. So we want a house that looks like what's there only not falling apart. And then the other things that we would like to add would be
like what we have in Saint Pete, a pool. We have a small garage with an above garage apartment in the back. We'd like to do something like that. Our thought for the garage
apartment is it looks like the house. Just like the house has a wraparound porch. Like a porch off the side that faces the pool. And then landscaping.
That would. Don't have any plans for this yet. But first of all, take it from being the jungle that it is right now and to something that looks. Presentable with probably
landscaping that would help to hide the pool. A little bit of privacy from the street for the pool. We would like to add a fence. We have two little dogs and a grandson we'd like to
keep out of the street, so there's no fence around it now, but we would like to add would be a fence like that. So that's basically what we have in mind.
In talking with the contractor to get estimates for what this would cost, it was, I guess, to our naive, inexperienced ideas
of what it would cost was shockingly high. And so that's part of what we're concerned about. Our budget is basically set by what our house in Saint Pete sells for, and it's on the
market right now. So we'll hopefully have an answer to that soon. The cost of this project from buying the property, building house,
adding the things we're interested in, looks like it's coming in at something like 1.1 million, which is more than I anticipated, is more than our we thought our budget would be.
But we think we can do that. What we don't think we can afford is if the if your decision is that more of the structure needs to be retained
from what the contractor described to us, the cost that would be to retain more of the exterior walls or the foundation, that adds enough that I think we probably can't
afford to do it. So that really gets what our request is to you. With what we're planning to do. Does that meet, you know, essentially the the preferred
criteria of what you would like to see with this property. Is that enough that we can go ahead with this, with this project, or is the preference that more of it is retained?
And if so, then it's probably not us. Somebody else would probably need to do that. I think that's all I had. All
right. Well it was a lot. Thank you. So you haven't really. Or have you. Has anybody actually
given you costs or feasibility of actually just restoring the house? I mean, you threw out some numbers and you. But was
that just your estimate or or was it some engineers or contractors or architects? It's a mixture. The cost for the
house itself was talking to the contractor. We also talked a little bit to an architect who hasn't seen us. So he was just throwing out throwing out general numbers. But the
contractor was there with us and the. The estimate that he gave us for like new brand new house construction, he was
talking 300 to 350 a square foot. And then the cost to like if we kept all the exterior walls, redid all the inside, probably redid the foundation.
They're concerned that the foundation itself is not in good condition, which is why they think the house is falling back. That, he said, really can't put a number on it. But
he did something like that recently, which added 150,000 by itself just to do the foundation. Okay. And, and I guess maybe not so much the money, but the feasibility of
restoration is it is are you being told it's so far gone that it really cannot be saved?
Well, I can, I can tell you two things. One, what the contractor told me and one, the conversation between the architect and the contractor looking at the house, just how
their conversation changed as we were there. First, the contractors comment was when he was new in the business, his mentor told him that everything
can get fixed. It's just how much do you want to spend? And I think that was a little bit of a joke, but not completely given the condition of the
house. And then the conversation. The architect was clearly interested in the structure, loved the idea of saving it, and then as we walked through and just
recognized that the back half, half, half of the house is falling down went from saving the whole thing to maybe we save the front half. And then
as we kept walking around and looking at it, was less and less saying that was a
possibility from my perspective as a layperson, there's water damage everywhere. Termite damaged floor, holes in the floor, holes in the ceiling.
Holes in the roof. Not. It would be difficult for me to think of part of this that would be salvageable. From talking with the from our
contractor and how it would be done. It's like, okay, actually you can it's expensive. Has mentioned that the architect there was often oh, okay. The
architect was at Hoffman that we had with us. Maybe I you probably know who he is. I know the name. Okay. Anyway, so my,
my impression of it was. The cost of rehabbing or fixing it up probably was beyond what was reasonable. That was my
impression. And from what I gathered from them, I'm pretty confident is beyond what we can do, beyond what we can afford.
Okay. Anybody? Do you have any. Thank you for that. That was pretty thorough. Thank you very much. You're good, you're good,
you're good. Okay. Well thank you, thank you. All right. Well,
shall we discuss? We can discuss now. That's what we need to do okay. Since the. Okay. We don't have any more.
Okay. Yeah. A couple things. One is, you know, it's a. Contributing structure, but we have a lot of around. Okay. And
the main reason it's contributing over there is because of the exterior of it. You know, it gives ambiance to the. Neighborhood, to that
street. There's no construction in there that would be unique to the house. I can understand frame vernacular as a frame vernacular. You know, they're
building up just about the same now, a little bit different almost. So if you've got one that far gone where it's
breaking apart like that. You'd be, you know, replacing stick by stick would cost you a lot of money. You know, it really. And you wouldn't be gaining
that much because it when it's all said and done, the whole interior is new, okay. And it looks the same at the outside.
So kind of makes sense to just knock down on the on this one to knock it down. And the idea of keeping the the forward wall,
that's a good idea. I like that, you know. But you know, that keeps a little bit of the old house, you know. Yeah. I think trying to save part of the house at least, rather than
just raise it. And how do you feel about restoration versus building new or is it that's a case by case? Yeah. Okay. If we
had a. Frame vernacular that had history or frame vernacular that, you know, had a different type of construction, then you'd want to save that
construction. But this is line of sight, you know, it's how it looks on the outside. You know, they're willing to make a look
about the same. So that's what it sounds like. Yeah. Yep. Carolyn, did you have any other comments on this after that
presentation? No, I think I guess I would only say that the alternative would be, you know, we allow the contributing structure to continue to, to
deteriorate to a point where it's definite that there's no alternative but demolition. And we might have a new owner and applicant come in who wants to build something completely
different rather than preserving what of the structure? We can. Yeah, yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Same thing? Yeah. All right. Have we discussed it enough? I think so, yeah. I've said my
piece. I'm a big fan of saving and not tearing down. But I tend to agree on this one. If
indeed the new structure is going to, it's not going to look exactly like it. But if it's close, I could probably
get behind that. Well, if there's no more discussion here, does somebody want to make a motion? I'll make the motion. Okay. I'll make the motion to
accept. Accept the demolition on contingency of seeing what it's going to look like. You know, the original, the final conceptual plans for demolition
before any demolition is done, essentially. The recommendations of the staff. Yeah, I second that. Yeah. Have the recommendations from the
staff other than the three, the three. Oh I see yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. Okay. I was thinking the other one. No. Yeah. No one was documentation. The other
one was. Yeah. Okay. Yeah okay. So that's that's the motion. Yeah. You want to second it. All right. Do you understand. You guys understand what the motion was. Do you want any
more discussion on it? No. Okay. Let's call a vote then. Mr. Cadena. Yes, Mr. Sprecher? Yes, Mr. Brzezinski. Yes. So you did
get a unanimous vote here, and you understand that before anything happens, you need to come back to us. Great. Good
luck. All right. Admirable. But what you're trying to do really, is, you know, it's very good. All right. We have. Let me get
back to it here. Application 20 5-6 for Certificate of Appropriateness to create new openings in the contributing outbuilding structure. And I'm
sorry, structure comma and access ramp at the contributing primary structure. And for landscaping location 118 East
Orange Avenue. Carolyn okay. Yes this is application 2564 at 118 East Orange Street. This first slide is showing the
location of the subject property within within our downtown. It's just north of Tarpon Avenue, which is our main street. So it's kind of in
the center of our historic downtown. This slide shows the location of the subject property within the national and local historic districts,
kind of smack dab in the middle of both. The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an
Ada ramp on the west side of the primary structure to have new window openings on the
contributing outbuilding, and to put up some landscaping. The structure is a masonry vernacular structure that was
constructed approximately in 1925. The contributing outbuilding is is a cottage style that was constructed
around 1950. The Florida master site file for the property lists the principal building as a masonry vernacular structure that also has some Greek
Revival and French Creole style elements. The building was most recently known as the Oxford Oxford Tea House, but it has been vacant for for some time
now, and it's not currently occupied, so this is showing the location of the subject
property on the 1926 Sanborn Map. And this is a photograph, a recent photograph of the facade. So I should note that a
previous certificate of approval had been issued for some of the work that's been going on. This this application is for additional work that was
not contained in that previous certificate of approval. And this is showing the southeast elevation. This is the
outbuilding and that large opening there. That's that's one of the new. It can bind some existing openings, consolidated them. And then
that door was, I believe previously a window. This is a survey of the subject property, a rendering provided by the
applicant showing the proposed project. And then some additional photos from the applicant of the outbuilding.
The photograph to the right of the screen is the outbuilding facing the alleyway that sits in between Orange and Tarpon
Avenue. This is plans provided by the applicant for the the outbuilding. And these are the
landscaping plans provided from the applicant. So for our standards of review, the first applicable standards would be
new construction consistency regarding the height and width of the alteration and its consistency with adjacent
contributing structures. So the addition of the Ada ramp on the west side would minimally increase the footprint of the primary structure. This impact
is not considered to be significantly adverse when balanced with the increased access and the impermanence of the alteration of the ramp
would not be altering the the contributing structure itself and could be removed at a later date. So I apologize. Number
two should be highlighted with respect to the new openings at the contributing outbuilding.
So the the outbuilding. Had three door openings on the front facade and one door opening on the rear facade, and
five window openings on the front facade. When the previous certificate of approval was issued to replace all of the
doors and change one window opening into a new door. So since that time the fenestration pattern has been altered, and converting that window into a door, and then to
enlarge window openings on the facade. This is an accessory outbuilding. It's not visible from the street. It does serve
a subordinate function on the property. So overall, the the changes to the fenestration are not considered to have
significantly adverse impacts to the property as a whole. However, these changes likely have affected the contribution
of the outbuilding to the contributing property. I guess what I'm saying is the changes are not going to change whether or not the entire property
continues to be a contributing structure in the district. However, the outbuilding may no longer be considered contributing. Number three
would be the relationship of the structure within the historic district. Again, the the Ada ramp would minimally impact the relationship of the
primary structure with the streetscape and alter the streetscape, not consider these these impacts significantly
adverse. With respect to the the new. The consolidated window openings. They're not visible from the public right of way and therefore would not
affect streetscape. The proposed landscaping would alter the streetscape. However, the landscaping proposed is is
complementary to the historic structure and not considering these landscaping changes to be adverse. The next applicable
criteria would be the size and massing of the street, the the size and massing of the primary structure again would not be
altered minimally with the addition of the Ada ramp. And then no alteration to the outbuilding. Obviously. Number
six landscaping. The proposed new landscaping is considered to be complementary to the primary structure and would visually enhance the
streetscape, possibly so. Architectural. I apologize again, the architectural features, the distinctive architectural features should
should be repaired and replaced rather than replaced whenever that's possible. So when the window openings were enlarged,
some historic materials on that contributing outbuilding were destroyed. So the removal of those materials from structures from the the outbuilding structure altered its
appearance. However, again, this alteration is not visible from the street. And I would
say. Generally the these changes adhere with the Secretary's guidelines and they are in conformance with other city codes and requirements.
And this slide is just showing you some of the information from the Design Guidelines Review manual regarding safety codes and accessibility. So we
always do want to provide access. To buildings to historic structures. But we want to minimize the impact that that that access causes
for the historic structure. The location of the proposed ramp on the west side, and the plans for it do tend to minimize this
impact. It's not going to be installed on the primary facade. It's going to go over on the side of the building. So
generally the plans conform with the Design Guidelines review manual. So guideline 22 is about preserving historic
outbuildings. As I mentioned, there have been alterations to historic outbuilding which could affect its contribution to the district. And then in
general, the landscaping plans proposed conform with guideline 18. And with that, I'm recommending approval of
application 2564 with our standard condition that the the certificate of appropriateness would expire in three years. If a building permit has not been
issued. And with that I can take any questions. Thank you Karen. So I do remember that this property was in front of us a few years ago. This is
completely different from what we approved before. Did we even look at that back building? Last time you did? It was a certificate of of. At the time,
certificate of approval was issued to replace the historic doors with fiberglass doors and convert that window into a door. So it's just there was a little
bit of additional work that has been done that, that that is different from the certificate of approval that was issued at that time. And that's what the applicant is here seeking. Okay.
Okay. Great. So anything that we approve tonight kind of supersedes that one then. Right. Or adds to it adds to it adds to it okay. All right. Great.
Any questions for Carolyn. No thank you. No okay. How about the applicant here. I'm also
going to call Heidi up just because it's going to make her uncomfortable. And I want her to get used to speaking a little bit. So that'll be fun. So I'll speak for context background information related to this project and kind of how
we're here. And then really just ask questions to bring clarity. If you have any questions. Your name to Matthew. My name is Matthew. Matthew. So
born and raised Tarpon Springs, this is my brother as well, his wife Heidi, and my wife Mary Rose, that we're all here. We're involved in this project as we affectionately known as
the tea House, which is it's a really cool story of the history and the people and the connections and all related to tarpon. So our heart's desire
and what we're trying to do is align with, really the spirit of Tarpon Springs. This is where we live. This is where we play, where we go to school, where I went to school. We have businesses here, and we're
really connected to the community and trying to take this property and bring it back to its kind of its original glory. From an architectural
standpoint, what the building looks like, the landscaping, the design and all of the aspects of it are with that in mind, it's actually in use is going to be an event space.
What what you mentioned has already been approved was with our friend George. He was going to do a restaurant. So all the buildings, all the plans, everything was already pushed through as a restaurant for
everything that was related to that. I don't want to unpack all of that. We kind of we picked that up from George, and we're taking over the project with a very similar it's just instead of a full scale
restaurant, it's going to be an event space. So these alterations that are being made are, with that in mind, converting some of the things that were approved. As Caroline mentioned, there's a little
confusion because of the length and complexity and different levels of we thought it was all approved related to this back structure. So there's three things really, is that we went ahead with the the work that
was on the plans that we absorbed and kind of took over. But the back structure there was ambiguous in nature, and some of the things that we did on the plan were not actually approved. So we're we're here
to get those approved. And, and I can speak to that if you have specific questions to is the landscaping again there's a beautiful plan I can dive into that I just I don't want to ramble unless you guys have
questions about it. So ask questions I can answer. And then three is the Ada ramp, which is probably the most significant change. What was originally approved on the
plans and have gone through the approval process they were going to take. There's like we could reference a photo, but I could probably describe it off the street. There's stairs that
go up and it kind of goes up into the house. So it was actually carved out to kind of take apart the historical wall. That's right. Connected to the sidewalk in the middle of the
property. And there was going to be a ramp that comes on the east side of the property. And there was like a lift that was actually approved because there was already plans that were approved from a building
standpoint to change the use and function of the property so that there you go, where that man left bucket is on the left. They were basically going to cut into that wall and make like an Ada ramp to satisfy the
building code side of it. So our thought kind of where the gentleman is standing there in front of the steps to keep the structures intact, is most in
as best as we can was to and we can pull up the landscape plan. But to take those steps, go up and then bring them kind of to the right and bring them up on the west side of the property
and kind of not make it visible. It has to have an Ada ramp for public use, but we're trying to move that ramp from what was approved from the east side of the building and cutting into
that beautiful wall and trying to have it come up the stairs and go around. So we're trying to make it less conspicuous, more discreet, kind of a look. Yeah. Disguises come around and
that's going to be like the the service side of the building. It's an Ada ramp, a mechanical equipment and all that kind of stuff over there. So we're trying to preserve everything on the the three elevations to
the north, to the east and to the south with the landscaping plan. So that's really the three objectives that we can that are different from the first approval. So we can
continue moving ahead and get the project finished and make it a beautiful, glorious building, which is good for tarpon. And I know all of our friends and neighbors and other
businesses are super excited because it's been a eyesore and a dead, you know, unoccupied building for a while. So it's it's fun putting life back into
it. So that's what we're here tonight. So really it's kind of, I think enough of background, you know, just to open it up for questions for you guys. If I can bring clarity to anything.
Oh you you covered it pretty well, I think. Any questions for the applicant? You did cover it. Well, that was good. I usually have a bunch of
questions and I can't think of anything better for him to be speechless. Well, I'm not speechless. Okay, well, Carolyn,
do you have anything to add to your question for Heidi? Yeah. Heidi. What? No, I'm just kidding. Okay, so it looks
pretty straightforward what you're asking. And I know we've approved a lot of things on this property before, and we
were always. You know, excited about this seeing seeing some life there. Nice. Yeah. Nice. I mean, it's really that's kind of the watercolor, but that's the idea. We're trying to bring
it back as much as possible to what it was nice. Nice. Looks good, looks good. Any discussion here? Any comments? I think this is an improvement.
Yeah I think so too. Okay. Yeah I think it was a good move. I remember the way they were going to put it up on the east side. Right. It's a better move on the west side like that.
Yeah I think so too. I think so too. An improvement to the design. Yeah okay. Anybody feel comfortable making a motion for
this okay. All right I'll make a motion to accept it. As stated by the staff. Appreciate that. To approve to approve
with the. Well they actually isn't really the only recommendation is the three years, but it. Right. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. So repeat that. So okay. Kim gets it. Okay. Approve it. Approve the
proposal as presented by the staff with the condition of being a. Three years for the building permit. Okay. 2560.
Okay. A second. Okay. So you both understand the yes motion. Any other discussion? No. Let's take a vote. Okay. Dana? Yes,
Mr. Sprecher? Yes. Mr. Mrozinski? Yes. Very good. Thank you very much. Congratulations. It's exciting.
Yeah, yeah. And nobody else had the talk. All right, all right.
Thank you. All right. Give me a second here. Okay. We're not. We're not done yet. I'm just
going back to my agenda. Okay. Board and staff comments. Any I don't have any additional comments. Anything you guys
want to talk about or ask? Okay. Well, we are adjourned at 724.
Thank you all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you guys.