And I've got questions. All right. It is 630. I'm calling this meeting to order. Thank you all for being here. Roll call please. Good evening,
chairperson Burzynski here, Miss Hallett here, Mr. Cadena. Mr. Ponty here. Miss Prados, miss Caplan is absent. Thank
you. Public comments. Does anybody have anything? Questions or comments that does not relate to anything that's on the agenda tonight? If not,
okay, we'll move on. Number four, we're going to approve, hopefully some minutes from previous meetings. Did everybody get a chance to look
through them? No. November 3rd 2020 five minutes. I'll need a motion to either approve or not if you've read them. Anybody?
For the record, since I wasn't at that meeting or the February 1st, I don't feel qualified to opine on that. And actually, you. You can vote, but to make a motion probably doesn't make
any sense to you either. I know, but I need to say something. I wasn't on the board for some of these minutes. Correct, I understand that, so. Well,
somebody it's a procedural aspect and we still need and we still need a motion in the second. And we still need a vote. We still do. You said yes.
So I need a motion. Motion to approve the minutes as presented for the November 3rd the November 3rd. Okay. And we need somebody to second it. If
I wasn't present, can I say you can still do it? I second it. Great. All right. We have a motion and a second. I'd like to take a vote, miss. Yes. Mr.
Bonnie, you can vote. Yes, you can vote if you did. If you don't, when you change members of the board, we would never be able to pass minutes. Right.
Because we wouldn't have a quorum for minutes or a majority. So it's a procedural thing. Okay. Based on the attorney advice, I will say yes.
Okay. Mr. Cadena, yes, miss Howlett. Yes. Chairperson. Burzynski. Okay. All right. And I yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. B
we're going to do the same now for February 2nd, 2026. Hopefully you've read it. Read them. I need a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the
minutes as presented. I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Can we go to a vote, please? Miss produce, on the advice of the attorney,
I will say yes. Mr. Same thing on Mr. Attorney's advice. I'll vote yes. Mr. Cadena. Yes. Miss Howlett? Yes. Chairperson. Mrozinski. Yes. Thank you.
Let's move on to number five quasi judicial announcement and swearing in of speakers. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the 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 competent, 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. Is anybody in
the board have ex parte communications to declare? The only thing I want to mention is I live next door to one of the applicants, but it's not going
to for me. It's no problem. It's not a problem. All right. I just wanted to mention it. I would just like to make note that Mr. Hoffman lives across the street from me. But we do
not discuss any of this. The only communication I have is through his cat. Thank you. Mayor. I also wanted to
disclose that we received notice for item six B, the application on Pinellas Avenue. We own a home in the district. My husband owns several commercial properties, but I'm
not involved in the application. I don't know the people. I'm not working for them, so I don't believe that would be a conflict. And I see no conflicts of interest by anybody on the board. Yeah. If you're going to speak tonight,
please stand and raise your right hand. There's always a delay, so it's okay. Do you
swear or affirm your testimony? Be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Before the Heritage Preservation Board. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. Applications 26.38 Hoffman Certificate of Approval for new kitchen, bathroom and garage at
184 North Spring Boulevard. Carolyn. Good evening, Caroline Lanford, can you speak up a little louder? It's hard to
hear you down this end. Yes, ma'am. Caroline Lanford, principal planner with the Planning and Zoning Department, city of Tarpon Springs. I'm
presenting application 2638. This slide shows the location and land use context of the subject property. This slide is
showing the location of the subject property within the Local and National Register Historic District. The property is a circa 1900 folk Victorian
single family residence known as the Bigelow Cottage. The cottage was named after Hayes Bigelow, who was an early nature photographer, and some of the earliest photographs of
Spring Bayou that we have are. Were created by him. The subject property is located at 184 North Spring Boulevard. It
is again a folk Victorian and is contributing to the district. The applicant is seeking a certificate of appropriateness to renovate an existing covered
patio into a kitchen, construct a breezeway and a new covered patio, a reroof and extend the roof on an existing contributing shed and construct
a new two story garage. This slide is showing the location of the subject property on the 1919 Sanborn. The the property
that was built on prior to that. But this is the first Sanborn map that shows up on. This slide is showing you a picture of the property as it existed
at the time of survey in 2009. Note that some of the folk Victorian elements that are visible in this picture have
been altered since that 2009 survey, such as the gingerbread porch brackets and the chamfered wood posts. The
subject property has also been added to and altered over time. However, some of these unsympathetic alterations could be reversed and the building
retains its general historic form as well as some of the architectural details, and it continues to convey its historical significance and enough to the point where it
continues to contribute to the National Register and local historic districts. This is just one of the the the
photographs from Hayes Bigelow, the photographer that the cottage is named after. This slide is showing you the facade of the property facing Spring
Bayou today. This slide is attempting to show you where the. The covered porch that would is proposed to be changed
into a kitchen would be located. It's really not visible from the public right of way. And this is a view of the property from Reed Street showing where
the proposed garage location would be, where these cars are parked. That is part of the subject property, just showing
you a little bit more of that area. And this is just showing you some of the context on Reed
Street. This slide is showing you the property looking west, and just some of the context around Spring Bayou where the
property is located looking west. This is the proposed floor plan for the project. I've kind of circled the areas
I didn't circle here. So this is the existing covered porch that is proposed to be converted into a kitchen. This would be a new covered porch in
a breezeway, connecting to this contributing shed that is proposed to be reroofed. And they're also proposing to extend the roof out a little
bit here. And then over here would be the proposed new garage. This slide is just showing you some elevations of
the proposed project. Some additional. This is the the existing rear, the east elevation and the site plan for
the project. And again, this is showing you here. This is this. The existing covered porch
proposed to be converted into the kitchen. And just some additional renderings of the proposed project. Here's some
renderings and elevations of the proposed detached garage and upstairs accessory dwelling
unit. And with that we'll go through the standards for review for the Certificate of appropriateness. So the first
relevant criteria would be new construction consistency. The height and width of the proposed addition is relatively consistent with the adjacent
contributing structures. So the the new changing altering the existing porch into a kitchen would would alter the subject
property. The covered porch that exists now is an historic addition. Again, this renovation would not be visible
from the public right of way. And the. The proposed addition, the patio, the breezeway, all of that. They're. They're of similar architectural style and
character, of contributing structures and the original primary structure and other structures throughout the district. The height and width
of the proposed new two story garage appears to be generally consistent with adjacent contributing structures. Most of the houses around the
subject property are two and three stories, so the addition of that two storey detached garage with accessory dwelling unit isn't is generally
consistent with the surrounding areas, although a detailed site plan and specifications for the proposed structure have not
been provided. It's not anticipated that a two story garage addition would significantly adversely impact
the the visual rhythm or the character of the neighborhood. But any plans for a two storey detached garage that the board would approve would need to
meet district setbacks and height regulations, or they would have to seek a variance for that. So just be aware of that. The next relevant
standard for review would be window doors and entries. So product sheets and specifications for the windows, doors and entries were not provided with the application.
However, the architectural rendering renderings that were provided indicate that the width and height of the windows on the addition renovation are
larger than the windows on the original historic structure. The proposed larger windows could be interpreted in any
number of ways. They could be seen as complementary to the original structure and visually compatible, while also
providing some distinction that this is a new addition. This is not pretending to be historic, so you could see it that way.
It's up to the board to determine how they see the difference in the height and width of the windows and doors. But again, these windows and doors would not be visible from
the public right of way. Additionally, we don't have specifics in terms of like product sheets for windows and doors for the proposed two storey detached garage, but the
renderings of the windows and doors are in proportion to similar structures throughout the district and don't appear to be adversely inconsistent with the architectural
character of the district. So there is some relevant guidance in the Design Review Guidelines manual, and that new additions should be compatible with
existing historic buildings in terms of scale and mass, but they should be visually different from the historic structures to prevent that
false historic appearance. Additionally, on additions, windows types and proportions and the alignment should be sensitive to the historic
district, and similar window spacing patterns should be used on additions throughout the historic buildings of the same type in the neighborhood. The same would go for doors. We
generally want to have complementary style and scale throughout the district, and so the HPB should determine if
these different scaled openings are consistent and compatible with other buildings in the historic district, and the primary structure. Number three
would be neighborhood and district context. So the proposed new additions would not alter the historic North Spring Boulevard streetscape,
nor its relationship to the open space in the street. Because, as I noted, it's really not going to be visible from the public right of way. The proposed two storey
detached garage would alter the streetscape of Reed Street by constructing a building that's visible from the right of way, where there's currently open space. Due to the presence of
the surrounding two and three story buildings in the immediate vicinity, I interpret the impact to the streetscape as not significantly adverse.
However, that would be for the HPB to determine the contributing structure that is adjacent to the proposed two storey garage at 153 Reed
Street would be visually impacted by the construction of a new two story structure next to it. It's up to the HPB to determine whether or not that
would be a significantly adverse impact to that contributing structure and the streetscape of Reed Street. So
the next criteria that we would want to look at would be. It is relevant to point out that the setbacks for the proposed two storey garage appear to conform
with the district standards, and are very similar to other accessory structures in the immediate vicinity. But again, any plans that they would have
for this two story garage structure would need to conform with district regulations, or they would have to go through the variance process. So with
respect to the roof shape and texture. Texture, they didn't provide any product streets for product sheets for the roofing material that's proposed to be
used for the renovation, or the contributing shed that they're proposing to reroof and extend the roof a bit. So, or the the
covered patio or breezeway. So should the HPB approve the project, I would recommend that the approval be conditioned by the use of architectural
shingles for all of the components of the project. The size, massing and shape would be our next criteria that we
would look at again, the size and mass of the proposed addition, the renovation, the breezeway, the new covered
porch those are all behind the building, not visible from the right of way, generally conforming to the existing footprint of the the primary
structure, and are definitely consistent with the. The size and massing of surrounding structures. The size and mass
of the proposed new detached garage is is also similar to the size and mass of accessory structures and primary structures in the vicinity, but
it would be a change for for the subject property. So the landscaping is not applicable.
With respect to to architectural features. No, I'm I'm not sure why that's highlighted because no distinctive architectural features would be destroyed or
removed. I suppose there would be an alteration to the roof shape on the contributing shed.
With respect to adherence to the Secretary's guidelines. Generally, the following standards would be applicable to this project. The property
would continue to be used as it historically has been used. Most notably that new additions, exterior alterations or related new construction would not
destroy historic materials. And we want to ensure that that new work is differentiated from the historic structure and will be compatible with historic
materials and the surrounding area, and that new additions and adjacent and related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if
they're removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and the environment would remain unimpaired. So all
of these proposed portions of the the project could be undone. There's nothing that they're proposing that couldn't be
undone in future. Finally, conformance with other city code requirements that the kitchen additions, new patio and breezeway. Those all definitely conform with the
Land Development Code and could be interpreted as balancing the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed two storey garage
appears to conform with the Land Development Code and is generally consistent with comprehensive plan. I will again reiterate that any building plans that are
submitted would need to conform with the district standards, or they would need to seek a variance. So here's just some
some snippets from the Design Guidelines Review manual that are relevant. New additions should respect the historic setback use through the throughout the neighborhood. So
really the addition isn't so much addition an addition. It's a renovation of an existing addition. So not really
changing the footprint of the primary structure. With respect to the the proposed two storey garage, it would can still be
considered to be subordinate to the primary structure, even though it's a two story structure. And the historic structure is a single story.
It's not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. This home is actually, you know, the only single story home in
the immediate vicinity. And again, we just have some guidelines on additions being compatible with the historic
buildings in terms of scale, windows and doors being compatible. They don't necessarily have to replicate those on the historic structure. And sometimes it's actually
better not to to differentiate that this is new construction, not the historic structure. So
the design guidelines for locating garages and outbuildings and guideline 22 is also relevant, since we're talking about a slight
alteration to a historic outbuilding. And then the guideline 33 on new garage or
outbuilding construction. Again, the HPV needs to determine if the new garage is compatible with the primary building in terms of scale, massing and
style. Those. Those alterations to the the view shed of Rich Street and the scale of the two
story garage next to a single story contributing structure on Reid Street. And then we do always want to use the
appropriate carriage style doors on on new garages. So staff would recommend that if the HPB approves the project,
the following conditions would be added to that approval. One would be that the exterior siding on the addition will visually approximate the siding on the historic structure. It
doesn't have to match it exactly, but we don't want it to be something radically different. Although again, it will not be visible from the
public right of way. I would also recommend that we condition any approval with the use of architectural shingles for for all aspects of the
project. That carriage style doors would be utilized for the garage and that the certificate of appropriateness would expire within three years. If a building permit has not been
issued for the project. And with that, I will enter the presentation and staff report into the record and answer any questions that you might have of me. Okay. Thank you. Carolyn,
does anybody have any questions for Carolyn? Cindy. Miss Lanford, I understand the city recently adopted a accessory dwelling unit code provision. Would this structure with the
dwelling unit on top of the garage fall under that new regulations? Yes. Since the building plans for it have not been approved yet. Yes. Those.
Those new. The new code would apply. So basically accessory dwelling unit provisions allow another unit on a piece of property. It doesn't have to
necessarily be on top of a garage. If I'm understanding the regulations. Right. And all pre and this was previously to all residential properties within the city within if they
can conform to the code, have the right to have an accessory dwelling unit. And do we know if this proposed accessory dwelling meets those regulations in terms of size
and setbacks? In terms of size and setbacks, they do appear to meet the current code, which is the newly adopted code. However, we would need those building
plans to to really ensure that it does. But yes, generally it appears from the site plan they provided that it would conform to the code. They may need to seek a variance on the size on
the which on the size of the accessory dwelling unit. But even that one I think it would conform. And then the other question I have is I'm. I guess
I'm confused because there wasn't really a site plan in here. There's a floor plan. This site doesn't go all the way through to read. Write doesn't have frontage on read.
It does. It does actually go to read. And you know, let's see. So it's struggling to understand because it doesn't
on this, if you could see right here where this red line goes, there's a driveway off of Reed Street in the back. I can show
you a picture of where that is their ownership. Go to read. Yes, ma'am. It does. Well, then. So this, this would we don't have a site plan that shows that. That's why I'm confused
there. There was a site plan that was provided. It is a beautiful rendering. It is not your typical building plan type
site plan. But yes, this this site plan here shows. The property going. This is Reed Street here. So it it makes a
little L shape. It's it's here. Yeah. I mean, I wish I had my magnifying glass today because I really, I really couldn't see that it's and it's not obvious on, on the floor plan. They
don't really show it in context to the, to the property boundary. So you can't tell what the setbacks are. You can't tell. I really couldn't tell that they owned all the way to Reed. I mean, that's why I was trying to figure out
where's the driveway going to come from, because there's no didn't appear to be a street. And what you're saying is it's this driveway is going to come. They own all the way to Reed.
They own a piece of property that abuts Reed. Yes, ma'am. So it's behind that new house on the corner or between the new
house on the corner and the historic house that's on Reed. Yes, it's. Where's the photograph that shows? Yeah. So
here's the the new house. You can see the pavers there. This is the driveway. And this is the this is the contributing structure that's next to their
driveway. This is their their existing pool cage. Okay. And so where those cars are, if you extended that to the right all the way to Reed, that's the piece that access is. Yes, this
is this is Reed off screen here. Okay. It's not clear to me. So right right here, you can see it right here. So this is the contributing structure, the
single story contributing structure that's adjacent to the subject property, which is right here off of Reed Street. And the fence, that black fence
to the right is that's the the new construction home adjacent to spring. Yes. To the west of the subject property. Okay.
Cool. That's all the questions I have for her. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Yes. My concern is the the new
garage with the living dwelling on top, the houses on that street. It's all under historic preservation. When the
gentleman built the house on the corner. His property didn't go to Reed Street, but they let him go ahead and build it. And
it didn't conform to what was supposed to be in the historic district. My concern is this garage where where will we
stand with our historic designation? If this garage is built with a living structure on top? The. The new
construction that would. The new structure would not affect the. Whether or not. I mean, this structure has already been
altered over time. I'm more concerned about the architectural integrity of the existing primary structure. The
construction of a new accessory use would not affect. The contribution of this structure to the district, because it's
not destroying anything that's historic and could be removed in future. So the construction
of the new garage would not affect the district status of the subject property on something that. Is not really
within the historic district and can be removed. That doesn't make sense to me. I think perhaps to clarify,
you're not degrading the architectural integrity of the historic structure by building something adjacent to it. So, for example, the new home that
exists next to the Bigelow College cottage, that didn't affect the architectural integrity of the subject property because there's
something new next to it. Okay. And you used a word. I forgot what the word was that you used.
It appears to be. What's the word in that? I just can't set that straight in my head that something can be there. And if something comes up with the
historic, it would have to be removed or lose it. That's what bothers me. So that's what you're going to have to clear for me. And. So that means two
families can live on that piece of property. Yes. I guess I would just say, I mean, the
commission has made a legislative decision that they want to allow these accessory dwelling units so that that's really not our call. There are a bunch of garage apartments all over the district, and our
house has one. I mean, so I'm not as concerned about that. But what I want to understand is whether or not they have the potential to meet the setbacks and the heights. And I don't know that because I don't have a site plan that shows the
setbacks from the property line. I mean, honestly, I never even saw this little tiny thing that was a site plan. I didn't even process that as a site plan. So that's, I guess that's I have some. Well, I'll let reserve
the rest of my comments for the applicant, but I really I didn't understand how they were getting to the garage. Tell you the truth, until you just show me so that it was very difficult to understand what
was going on in the application. Okay, correct me if I'm wrong. If this is approved by us as as
is, and when the applicant goes for their building permit and building and zoning, planning and zoning, whoever it is that gives them the permit, if it is
not allowed in that district, whatever we've done today is a moot point. Correct. Because they won't be able to build it unless it meets setbacks,
height restrictions, zoning as to how many people families can live on. One lot. That has really nothing to do with what we're doing here tonight, does
it? Correct. That's typically why we run projects in the historic district through HPB first, so that the applicant doesn't spend a lot of time and
energy and money coming up with specifications and plans for these projects that if the HPB says, well, no, you can't build that, then they've spent all
this time. So yes. The project would need to go through the building department. It would go through the planning and zoning department again, and it would need to conform with code. There may be some things that
they would try and seek a variance for, but then again, there's a process for that. So. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I had one other question. Sure. I missed
the last meetings. We were out of town, but the first meeting that I attended in April, y'all remember we had the Safford house. And when the in the application packet that we had before us before we got to the
meeting, it didn't have pictures of the roofing material or a cut sheet or anything about it. They did bring that to the meeting. So we were able to, to look at it. But on this application, if I'm
understanding you correctly, same problem or same issue, we don't have cut sheets on the windows. We don't have the cut sheet on the materials for the, the new building, like what's
the siding going to be? We don't have that on the doors and on a new construction. I think that we really need to see those things before we say
yes, because once we approve it, if we approve it, they're done. And then we put the, you know, you we've first of all, we've abrogated our responsibility, I think, to the staff, which I don't think we should do. But
second of all, then what if the staff says, well, I don't think that's what the board meant. And then we get into a do loop, you know, the applicant and and the staff. And I don't want to put the staff in that position
or the applicant for that matter. I think it ought to be crystal clear exactly what gets approved. And we don't have that information here today. So but I'll you know, I have other comments for questions for the applicant, but I think I want
to hear from him as well once we're off and you'll be able to. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Carolyn? Okay. I just have
a couple quick ones under the preliminary staff recommendations, you mentioned architectural shingles. Do we know or is this something I should ask the applicant? Do we
know what's on the house right now? It is. It's shingle it. Yes. The historic structure has shingles on it. But do we know if they're the architectural
shingles that you're specifying? I believe they are. Okay. And what is your definition? I think I, I know, but what's your definition of a carriage
style door? So that. Is specified in the design. Review. Oh, I don't have a picture of
them. I think they may have even shown them in the rendering. Yeah. I it, it appears in the rendering that they've shown them. So it's, you know, got got the windows
in it. And so that's what you would consider a, a carriage style door. Again, I don't have a cut sheet in front of me, but it appears to be a carriage
style. All right. I don't think I had any other questions for you, Carolyn. Thank you. So we could hear from the applicant
now. Come on down. The microphone is over there and
state your name and address. Tom, DVD 184 North Spring Boulevard, Tarpon Springs. What
was your name again? I'm sorry. Tom DVD, Thomas DVD. Do you want to give any presentation time? I think this was pretty
adequately covered. You know, maybe just in general, I don't think we do have architectural tiles on it or shingles on the house, but we would look to match whatever is up there currently with the back portion
of the house. In regards to the architectural style in general, we're looking to keep it historically accurate, right? So not just the frontage but this auxiliary building. We want to build it in such a way
that it complements the house. It doesn't, you know, draw unnecessary attention. The frontage for the garage is on Reed Street. There is no driveway on North Spring
Boulevard. It's, you know, basically open to the sidewalk. So we would continue to keep it that way, right? We don't plan on putting a driveway in the front. And the auxiliary building. Currently we have no
garage. So that would be a nice to have, right? We just parked the cars outside currently, and we would seek, obviously all the appropriate setbacks that were required. So we would go
through, you know, zoning to make sure that everything was set back appropriately. You know, next to us is one of the historical homes, I think, one of the original historical homes. They have a detached
garage in the back that, you know, we would look to mirror something like that. But with our architectural style of our home. So, you know, the very next building next door has the same setup, you know, with
separate frontage that comes in behind their house, actually past that Safford Museum, ours would come off of Reed Street, but those buildings would look at each other and they would
both be auxiliary buildings. Do you all have any questions for me? Okay. Anybody here have a question for the applicant? Not
right now. Until we hear from Mr. Well, are we if you anyone else going to speak? Is anyone else speaking for you? John? Did you want to say anything or
John or architect. Okay. And again, name and address, please. Yeah, I'm John Hoffman, I live
at 900 Bayshore Drive in Tarpon Springs. Did you want to add anything or just feel? So I just want to say to the group
that I. That through my career as a designer here in Tarpon Springs, I've met a lot of people that have worked on historic homes. And I think
these these folks seem to be truly dedicated to preserving the, the history of the House as well as being sympathetic to anything, any kind of additions
that they would do to, to it. So having said that, okay. Any questions for Mr. Hoffman? Go ahead. John, I can't tell from
any of the documents how tall the existing house is and how tall is the proposed garage. The the garage itself. Let's
see if I can find an answer to that. I think one of the the subjects, Cindy that Carolyn brought up was about the amount of time and, and effort that
goes into just presenting before this group and how much money that people have to pay for my time just to get acceptance to know whether we
can proceed. So that's, that's where the, you know, some of the things are limited. There's, there's not a full set of plans on the house. And there's not there's not specifications on
the windows because that's, that in itself is a laborious task to, to figure out what kind of windows to purchase, because there's so many. The
style of the window would be a wood double hung window is what they're typically using on the house. And I think they have already. So so they're, they're trying to make everything they
can to maintain that. But whether it's an Anderson window or a Pella window or a handmade window, it. It really is going
to have to, you know, that goes before the building department to meet wind loads and stuff like that. So, so there's a lot to each, each one of your questions has a lot of
specifics to it. Like, like the shingles, the shingles are existing shingles on the roof. But. It's not, it's, it's in good shape. And I think it
would be, I don't think it would be fair to the clients to make, make them replace the whole roof just to, to, to fit this one, one gable in that we're putting on the backside
that nobody sees, all we would be doing is matching that. So everything, everything else we've done, we're trying, we're trying to be sympathetic to the historic structure. No. And believe me, I do understand the
cost involved, but I and maybe we're working towards another way to get at it. Maybe it doesn't have to be a cut sheet from a particular manufacturer,
but some narrative about or a better picture of what window is going where. For example, on the rear elevation of the house,
I'm talking about the house part, not the garage. Looks like you're taking out a window to the left of where the new kitchen is going to be, and
replacing that. It's a it's a four light two over two and replacing with something. I can't tell what it is, but it's not a two over two anymore. So
I'm concerned about that. Let me jump in on that. That is not. I'm sorry we can't hear you if you don't go to the microphone. That that window that you just mentioned is not part of the
old historical structure of the House that was added on later. That's that's not part of although it is changing, that is accurate. It's not part of the historical structure. Well,
can you go to this that page, that photo right there. So the third window from the right. Yeah, it looks like in your drawing that that's being replaced with like a bayfront window. If you go to the next
page, maybe. Caroline, I'm not sure where the whole back of the facade of the house is. Not the original house. That's all an add on currently. So but that that big bay window wasn't
changed a window there currently, but that window was not part of the historical house. It's it's a brand new window. But this let's distinguish between a new window because I have new
windows in my house and I have some old windows in my house. Most of them are old, but the style, the window is what I'm talking about, and the two over two is very a typical historic style. Like you have it like it
is there today. That's what you're saying. That at least that's what the drawing is saying. That's what's there. The the three pane windows to the right is, I guess, a screen room now. So I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about
the third one. That one. So then when you go to the proposed, you're taking out that historic style window, even though it may be a newer window and putting in a bay window, which is not historic
at all. It's not a it's not a bay. Well, there's, there's several things that are going on here. Again, through the process of design. There are
some ideas there about the, the, the back window. Let's see. I wanted to talk to you all about that picture to talk about that. I'm worried about the elevation picture. That one. Yeah. That
that window, how it's drawn currently is not how it exists. It's half that size. It's only the top half of that. So that although it says existing, that's not accurate. And that whole back of the building is
not part of the historical structure, even though it's attached to the house currently. That was probably built in the 80s at some point. I don't remember that. That's that's
not what the. Yeah. If you go back to the floor floor plan. Carolina. If you look where the new kitchen is every everything
there or even if you go back to to that the the sheet before that, I think it. Oh, well that one, the little, little drawing
on the bottom right, the bottom right, the little small drawing that shows the roof plan. Okay. That's, that's showing what we're proposing to do is we're
adding that kitchen, which is right now being, being a is a flat roof. And that flat roof goes all the way around. That's all there. And that's just TPO
there's no shingles on that whatsoever. It's just a because these houses are hard to put, you can see it on the top elevation. You can see how it's all just going on that very top
there. There you go. Right above that window there, that roof above there is all just just a straight pitch to get the water back. But if you look at the roof plan on the bottom
right, it shows the the structure with the porch and the, and the cross shape of the original structure, which is all intact. And we're all leaving that alone. And we're,
we're, we're not trying to touch that. So, so, so, so it preserves its historic. And I, I understand that and I don't
have a problem with the, the, the left section on where you have the roof plan, the little section that you're creating as a new roof and creating it from an open, it's an open porch or
screen porch and you're making that a kitchen. I don't have a problem with that, but I have a problem with is the window, but it's not on that drawing. If you can go back to the other drawing. Yeah, back to that.
Yeah, that is part of the original house according to this floor plan. And according to the square, I mean that that's the part actually. It's not it's it's moved back. That's part of the new the addition. Again, if you go back
to my, my, my roof plan. Yeah. But the plan says exist the exist. No, the roof plan the little drawing on the right. The existing house stops back
where the where the main cross is in the middle. That's everything from there back is new or was added as an add on. From where? Back from from the
existing structure. Almost need to point to it because I walk up there and point to it. Yeah, sure. We've got a pointer. Don't you want to have a pointer? It is. You see this
cross here? Yeah. Hold on. Now I, I changed your PowerPoint. I go back that's that's you and that that plan exactly because of the window that's there. Now
that plan kind of shows it because the where the blue line. Well where were we. Sorry it's here. So what we're saying is
from where the existing old house was, the house has already been added on to by about 12, six feet, eight feet past the old original house. So
that window that you're talking about never is not a not an existing window from the original structure. Yeah. This cross shape and this porch here are the only original
structures. This all back here was built on years later, probably in the 80s would be my guess. And this is where you're looking at. That window is right back here. And that
windows, it's not drawn correctly. It's just a standard window. It doesn't even look like the front of the house. So those floor to ceiling, you know, you can open from the top, open from the bottom. That's in
the old historical part of the house that does not exist currently on the back of the house anywhere. Well, according to the master site file, there were alterations done in 1950
which might be consistent with that. But regardless, a bay window is really not a historic type window. So whatever was there, there's no bay window on there. I don't understand where
you're saying the bay window go to the the proposed section, the proposed plan. That's what you're telling me. That's a that's labeled existing. That's that that's well, that window
is new because it's well, just because I drew it there while I was drawing the addition, because it's part of the addition. So that window is new. You're right. All right. So go to the. But it's. Two. But the
way I'm showing it, there is two double hungs this is another option that I was showing to, to so that when they're in their little dining area, they're looking out through something that's sympathetic to the, the
structure itself. That's right. Where there is. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah. If you don't want that on there, I'm sure they'll scratch that out and leave it off if that's what you want to do. Yeah. I don't
think that that's a historic window. It's two the panes. Well the house is not the addition is not historic either. Yeah. It would Neither is the breezeway, nor the swimming pool, nor the planters. We're
not talking about the pool and all that. I mean, if that. If the additions were done in the 50s, honestly, that's 75 years now. If we want it to look like a 1950s house, you need to say
that. Yeah. I mean, the window is just a square window that goes to about here right now. There's nothing attractive about the window in any like the front of the house. The windows are beautiful. I guess
maybe the better way to say it is that it's not historic, and it's not consistent with the pattern that you have going on along there, whether it's new or old. It just doesn't. The pattern doesn't look that great to me. But that's, that's not
that's the least of my concerns, quite frankly. I have other concerns about the, the garage and the apartment. And if we were having a I if it were only
a garage and there weren't any second floor, I would be a little less concerned. But I really can't tell from the data that I have whether that, how that second floor is going to
be seen from spring, how it's going to be seen from read and how it's going to be seen from. Well, you know, from we go back to the if we go back to the I think it was one of those
sections. Carolyn. Well, this is the way it would look from read. Right. So you would see these two bay doors. You come in that's looking north. And this would be the two doors that you look into from spring.
And if you see it, that's the height to the top of that roof. So we don't have it's 246. It's written right next to it. It's on the plan. It's written down. It's kind of hard to read. So
I'm trying to say it's really hard to read. So if you go, if you go to the section of the,
the side view of the whole house. I'm sorry. I had it down
there. So that's looking from the new house that you all were referring to as the house that's on the corner, on the corner that is not historical, that view in the center. So
this year is looking from Reed Street. So you would see this garage and you would see none of this because it's blocked by the house next door from Reed. You would just see this part of
the building right here. So in the problem we had with getting the height is there, the the existing structure has a chimney that stack towers up approximately as high as this
house is, and then the garage is. And then I took the garage down because they wanted a little headroom in the upstairs, but I dropped it down to eight feet, so it was as low as I
could get it and still living there. So. And literally the property right next door has almost the identical garage that looks right out over
towards Spring Bayou, looks at my property, looks towards Reed Street and looks towards I think it's center or whatever street Stafford Museum is on. So their garage and the
adjacent building has the same thing too. So there's a few of them in the neighborhood right on our block that all have that second story garage. I think the other thing that's deceptive about this, where
there's the red, see the red letters and stuff in that and the existing house, that's all you you really can't see that. Certainly from Reed Street. You can't see it because there's a
three story house that covers all of that. Yeah. You wouldn't be able to see any of this from the side from Reed Street. It's all blocked by. Unless you walk down their side yard, you'll.
You'll never see that view. But for what that's worth, either, like the only thing back there is somebody else's property that we're going to put some foliage in. So nobody sees
where that window is that you were asking about. Except us from the backyard. And what and
how are we going to solve the answer of we don't have information about the types of windows and the types of material. Even you have a narrative that describes them. I don't have I don't have a
description on the footers that are that are going to hold up the kitchen either. Well, we don't have purview over the footers, Mr. Hoffman. What we have, we don't have review authority over the footers. What we have review authority
over is how it's going to look. Okay. And so right now, I don't know. Are you are you saying you're saying that you don't approve of the the back elevation? I say and I have some concerns because I don't
have enough information. Are you using Hardie board? Are you using wood. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to Hardie board on a new building, but I don't know that because I don't have that information. That's what I'm
trying to say. Yeah. No I and everything to be historically accurate. Right. So if the whatever the siding looks like in the front, which I'll call shiplap, I don't know if I'm using the right term, we're
going to use the same thing along the back, and we're going to try to get the windows to, you know, complement, not mimic because quite honestly, mimicking those windows would look a little awkward in the
back. And again, this window here is just this tiny little window right now that doesn't look anything like that. So if we're looking to improve and make it look better, that's
substantially better than this little window that's there currently. I personally feel a lot more comfortable. If I had
a site plan that was scaled that showed what the setbacks were for this new portion, and I would have either a narrative or photographs or something to show what materials you're
planning to. If you. I think some of the materials you can do as a narrative to say, we're going to either match it, match the existing house, and it can be either Hardie board or it can be wood. But, you know,
nothing in here tells me that right now we weren't sitting on the window. We weren't asked those questions. A fair question to to ask Mr. Hoffman what material he's planning on
using, and that could be put in a motion that that material has to be used. I'll be glad to answer all those questions.
Okay. So so the the window I tried to describe, I mean, we haven't picked the specific manufacturer of the, the window, but we know the style is a is a
wooden double hung window. Are you talking about the windows on the garage apartment or the windows on all these windows that you're seeing in that picture? And, and well, with the exception of the fixed
glass on the kitchen, we did talk about that a little bit. But everything else, any, any time that would be a window that's replaced or like the
next to the one to the left of the window in question. Not well that one, but that one would simply just be a double hung window. To match the
others on the house. So it's so it's a matching window. With the exception of the, the, the, that one and the, the surround,
we were trying to get a better view out the back from the kitchen. So what are you telling me is going to be different than what is shown on
that plan today? Nothing, nothing. Okay. And what materials are you proposing to to use. I heard Mr. the owner say he's going to use for the
siding on the new structure. What will that material be? It'll be a shame to match the existing structure, which I think is called shiplap. So it would be same paint color, same
design, shiplap wood siding with a wood siding party board would would. Well, is there a problem with the the Hardie board? I personally don't have
a problem on an addition on the new part. Yeah. It would be Hardie board on the new part. Just it's more durable. But on the on the house, if we redid the siding it would be with what matches the rest of the
house. I didn't think you're in here today for anything on the house except the kitchen part. Yeah. That's true. Yeah. So you're going to need siding on here. You're going to need siding up here, right? There's
going to be siding on that side of the house too. It's got to match the rest of the house so it will all match the rest of the house. And is the kitchen addition a bigger footprint than the existing screen room
or porch or whatever you're calling? It comes out a few additional feet from the existing screened in porch into the yard, towards the pool, into the backyard, and before the pool. It's coming out
enough to get onto the porch from those that double the double doors there. So you will
have so on the existing house, the new kitchen that will be the same shiplap as to match the house, not Hardie board.
Well, are you saying that we cannot use Hardie board on it? I personally have a problem with Hardie board going on an existing house. It doesn't have Hardie board on a new structure and in addition I think that's
a different story. The garage to me would be a different story if you wanted to use Hardie board. I personally am not opposed to it, but I'm not speaking for anybody else. I'm just saying on a new addition
or whatever garage addition to use modern materials, I don't think it's a problem on the existing house. I think it is a problem inconsistent. Yeah. For a little bit of siding that needs to be put on on when the
kitchen is done, we would look to match the existing siding. So it would be with wood siding.
Yeah. I think you've clarified a lot of things for me. I still think that the I really am not sure that it's not going to have a negative impact on the
people on Reed Street, the houses on Reed. That's just my opinion. The addition, the garage addition. So the only house that looks at this from Ritchie Street is that
converted church that has 18 bedrooms in it that nobody lives in. And then the other lot next to it is empty. That's the only people that have visual eyeballs onto my driveway that would see it from
Reed Street. I guess I'm talking about the house that is immediately to your east, that fronts on Reed. That house is what I'm concerned about because you're. That garage is going to be in their side yard.
Basically. It would. But we would do all the appropriate setbacks. And I appreciate that. And I and I think you have all the best of intentions and I, and I, and I don't doubt that.
But until I see it on a site plan, I don't know that. And what I fear is you getting approval from this board. And then you go into the the variance board and saying, well, the Preservation Board approved it. You have to approve this
variance and that I don't want this board to be put in that position because we didn't see that. Yes. You really met the setbacks. That's why I am concerned about the site plan. It's not that I don't think you
have good intentions. I'm sure you do. But I, I just am concerned that if we don't see the setbacks, even the staff said it appears to meet the setbacks. I don't want to appear to meet it. I want to
know before I'm going to approve something. So that's my concern. So let me ask you this question. If you were to approve this, the your decision
to approve it somehow influences permitting. It doesn't influence permitting, except that it whatever the permitting, whatever building permits are issued have to be consistent with what this board
approved, what I that that part I'm not worried about because they're going to look at the plans and. But honestly, I don't know that permitting can look at this plan and tell you what the setbacks are because they're not on here. That's my
problem. That's why the building department is going to get a whole nother set of plans different than these. These are these are constructed just for you guys. Nobody else. I understand because it's just my
opinion. I, I think we ought to have a site plan that shows the setbacks. You want everybody to take five steps before they can take the first step. And we're trying to take the first step here today. I think that your
floor plan that you have is close. It just needs to be put into context of the boundaries of the lot. That's why I couldn't figure out how you're going to get to this garage, because I didn't see that you
had frontage on Reed Street. I looked at the all the other documents I had from the city. Well, I don't I don't know, Cindy, how the site plan. I just took off the survey and it's all here. I know it's very
small. We can get you a bigger copy of that, but but it doesn't seem like it's. Does it show the setbacks for the new building doesn't show. Where is it? No it doesn't no. Doesn't
show the new building at all or the new garage at all. It just shows the lot coming out to retreat. That's why I was surprised you didn't understand that. It came out to read. I couldn't read it. And the documents from the city that
show the Sanborn map don't show any. They must have bought a piece out to read later. I get that now. Oh, okay. But on the Sanborn maps and all the other maps that I got from the city, their property ends. It's. It's
doesn't front on Reed, so I. And honestly, I couldn't see that. And again, even if I had seen that site plan and had used my magnifying glass to look at it. The new
construction is not on that site plan. So how do I know you meet the setbacks? I'm sure you have good intentions. I'm not trying to say that, but I'm. I'm charged with checking you. Do you have you? We assume that
we would be locked into the setbacks that the the building department or the variance or the Planning and Zoning board would allow, not the historic. I guess we're going. In my opinion, we're going down a slippery slope. If we don't
have a site plan that shows the setbacks of some new. If it's an existing building, it's existing. It is what it is. If it's a new construction, I think we need to have a site plan that shows the setbacks
and we don't have that, so I'm not comfortable. We also don't have any power over that. No. Yes. Well, setbacks. Do you even know what the setbacks are supposed to be? No. That's my
job. Exactly. And it's not our job either. In my opinion, it is the only way. Setbacks. I don't think they are. It's not. I'm not saying that setbacks are in our authority. What I'm
saying is how the property fits on the site and and the site relates how it relates to other properties is within our purview. And I don't not comfortable with the information I have that it's not impacting other people. I
understand that's just my opinion. You know, other people can do what they like. I'm not I'm not comfortable with where it goes, where the garage is going, and I'm not comfortable with the height is not going to
have an impact. It might be, but I'm not comfortable with that. So that's just my opinion. Thank you. It would be considerably lower than the adjacent home. I'm sorry I
couldn't hear you. It's going to be considerably lower than the adjacent to homes the garage, the two homes to my left and to my right have much taller buildings than what we're proposing. Well, there's
there's two different standards for a principal building and for an accessory building. An accessory building is supposed to be subordinate to the principal building. So you have a one story house. I'm willing
to consider a two story garage if I understood how it's going to impact or not impact the the next door neighbors and the other properties that to its to what it's immediately adjacent,
i.e. the house on Reed. But I don't really understand that yet from the drawings that I have. That's my that's my opinion. That's not the rest of the board's. I'm just saying that's my personal opinion. I
don't think we have enough information to make a decision. If you had a two story house, right. I might not be as
concerned about it. But when you have three story houses on both sides, I don't understand how that becomes relevant. It's the it's the connection of an
accessory dwelling. An accessory structure, by definition, is subordinate to the principal proper house or building on the property. So you've got a one story
principal house. You've got a two story garage with an apartment. And I'm not convinced yet that that that garage apartment is subordinate
to the the first story house because it's taller. Right? I'm not understand. I'm not really sure proportion and it's in scale. So I mean that that
elevation. I tried to show how the two relate. One to the other. I think it has the potential to negatively affect the house. On Reed, the one to
the east to the to the east of the lot. To the east of this lot. Yes. Yeah. Right where your driveway is. Yeah. That's been our concern all along. And I think they've talked to their
neighbors and it's, it's a, you know, it's basically a landscape issue across there at this point. So again, to me, it's basically a landscape
issue at this point to, to provide separation between the people on Reed and the. I know that that's not an official excuse, but it does happen.
Yeah. If you look at this picture here, the one to the right is that newer home that's on that's Reed Street that you're looking at. You're looking across Reed Street at the house. My house is behind
that house. You can't even see it. But that is the view from
Reed Street. Where this like minivan is parked here. This would be the driveway into where that porch is or where
that garage is going to go. Okay. I get there. There we go. So that's what you would see from Reed Street. Is that top
right hand drawing from John that says North Elevation. That's what you would see from Reed Street. And behind it you would see a three story house,
and in front of it you would see a three story house. Any other questions for the applicant or for Hoffman? I
have a concern about the garage with the living quarters on top. When I went down there and looked at the whole picture of all the properties there, I'm
concerned that that garage with the living quarters on top is going to take over the house. It's going to be big, you're going to see it. You're going
to see it from the bayou area. And well, if you look at the elevations again, back to the garage, Caroline, if you could, it's going to be higher than the house currently. You see
the shed. That's the auxiliary building. You also see the gentleman's house behind us. Yes, the white building. So it's not that you can't see. And then if this picture was taken a little differently, you
would see the auxiliary garage that the big blue house that's next to us sits in their backyard. You would see all of that if this was oriented a little bit differently. But that garage was there when it
was built with the house of the Victorian house next to you. The one next to Greek school there. I remember it. That was there. Yeah. Who on Stancil way back then? Yes. Before we had
even had the historic. But it looks beautiful, right? It makes the neighborhood look gorgeous. And that's really our. It doesn't overpower the house. Your garage will overpower the house. It doesn't overpower the
house because the house. The house was added on with a three story pool in the middle of it, all the way back to to the museum back there. Is that what you're talking about? The, the,
the stencils additions that she did to that house? Yeah, yeah, there's it's huge. It's absolutely huge. Can you go to the other photos from Reed watch. I'm sorry, can you can
you all change it to the other photos from Reed? So that fence that looks like kind of a chain link kind of fence, is that your fence or your pool cage? That's their pool cage. Yeah. That's correct. And that's
their they're talking about, they're proposing to take that down. And where that shed is currently would be the farthest right side of the garage where
that green shed is. So where the, where the little tin shed with the white trim. That's where the. Yeah. That's correct.
And that cage would come down. As you can see, that's the big blue house off to our right. If you're looking at it from North Spring and behind that. So in
between there is a pool that they've attached with a facade. And then behind that is a two story garage with an apartment on top. Yeah, I know. The other
thing about the garage and the apartment on the top, Anita, is that the that the house has been flooded. Yeah. And so the idea was that they could go up
into the garage apartment and stay dry as I don't think they're talking about leasing that out. I don't know, but and I notice that it's going to have a balcony so they can
overlook into the bayou. That's what it looked like on this. Yeah. The balcony. Yeah. The the, the stairway out of it is over on the pool side. So
that's pretty much in a private. This is the side that would be facing North Spring Bayou. This is the side that faces Reed Street. So the the east
elevation. Tom, the one straight up above on the left. That's the one that's facing the house that y'all are concerned about. And I I'm certainly sympathetic to that.
I think so are the. So are the owners. So that that's why they were talking about some sort of a, a nice hedge or some, some vegetation that grows across there. That's why I limited it
down to the two windows. But we can eliminate those windows if we needed to. But I don't know that that's going to solve anything. And what would the
setback be off of that edge, which is what I can't remember, Cindy, but I think it was seven and a half, 7.5ft or might even be less. I think they're down to five in some areas. And one
more question for Miss Lanford. So I understand that the current owner saying that they don't tend to lease it, but an accessory dwelling unit can be leased, right? Yes. That's not part of our decision. But I
just want to be clear that it's another unit, whether someone lives in it or they use it for a housekeeper or how are they use it that it's another unit. I know that that's certainly
true. And I, I totally understand that, but I also understand I saw the water and the damage of the water into the house. So the idea of having a place to stay, stay
dry during situations like that, that's up to code and everything. I think it's a, it's an admirable thing to, to save an old house. That had
about two feet of water through it. Mr. chairman. Mr. chairman, yes. I want to remind ourselves of something which we probably won't use here, but when the
city manager came in with the roofing of the Safford house, they brought samples. And at that meeting I can be corrected.
But we stated that when something like this came in, we needed to see samples of the materials that are being used. I'm going to say something and I'll probably be asked to leave
the board. Something's wrong here. They're coming to us for approval. Without the site plan to go to the planning and zoning, go through the motions
and getting it approved, and they're not going to know what we saw or what we talked about. Everything should come to this board finished for approval.
And that's the gamble you take. That's what they're doing in Clearwater. That's what they're doing in Saint Pete and in Tampa, especially down in Ybor City. We're a little backward
here. We should know everything. I looked at this, and that's why I went down there and walked the area. And the lady, someone from the white House was in the yard said, what are you doing here? And I said,
they're coming for an approval, and I want to see what it's going to look like. We have to protect the historic properties. That is our job. I don't like
saying I didn't like saying no to the city manager, but he was wrong. And we need to have everything. We need to go to the commission board or the Planning and Zoning Board needs
to let them know we have a problem here. It's not fair to you, and it's not fair to the board members for this to happen. My problem is the garage is going to overlook
with the living facility over the house, and it's going to be heavy there. And that's what I'm concerned about. We've all grown up seeing that house
walking the area. We know what it was like when they got the pool. I was shocked because we see what's happened to the the
old Papa home on the bayou. He put up four poles with a tarp over and parks his truck right in front of that historic home.
We see what's happened with the sheds around town in good homes. But we can't help that. That's right. We can't help that because it wasn't done by that.
But this is what we've got to keep it to this, and I am I'm giving you examples so we'll know what we're talking about. We're still we're at questions. We're questions for the applicant. So we're not at is
discussion. All right. Let me make I well I have a suggestion for a compromise. But it involves whether the applicant would agree to this. So if I could ask you a question. Thank
you. So I am still uncomfortable with not having in writing from you all as part of your application, what the material is going to be on the historic house and what's the material is going to be on the
the garage apartment. I'm uncomfortable with the lack of information on the windows. I would agree if the you know, personally the board has to agree this. But if we approved
this in concept for the design and the things that are here, and you come back to the board next month or two months, what. I mean, you got to take a while to do plans anyway. Come back and show us either in writing,
you know, either a narrative discussion about the materials, some photographs of windows doesn't have to be you don't have to pick the window from Anderson or whoever, but at least a drawing of the windows
that are going to be done and some discussion about are they vinyl windows? Are they wood windows? I mean, that's what I kind of I'd like to know if you would agree to if you would you all come back with that
information if you got some approval today so you knew that you could move forward. Sure. Next month you're asking us to wait till next month for that. I mean, I can come back
tomorrow with that. No, I'm I'm I would just interject that. No, we could not see you next month. It would have to be at least two months, probably three.
That's that's part of with all due respect to this body, every time you mentioned that Clearwater and Saint Pete have
have a different process for the that everything has to be done for the historic Preservation Board, all the things, just like a regular set of plans that have to do for the building department. You
want that set of plans first? No, I don't think so, because that's what they do in Clearwater and Saint Pete. You just said that. Somebody just said that, I said it. Okay. So so that's that, that's the
that's the rules. And but let me tell you about New York City a little, little more advanced than Clearwater or Saint Pete. I went and had talked to my
client there about how to get a building department permit because they wanted to remodel the restaurant in Midtown. You know what he told me? No. No
permit. We don't get any permit. We have our lawyers debate this for two years while our restaurant operates, and then we go do something else. And
that's because there's so much paperwork involved and people don't don't know how to they they only have limited funds. So to have to, to, to know whether they're going to be
able to proceed. I thought what we were doing at the Historic Preservation Board was to see if this was in sympathetic to the whole house, saving the old house, doing all the things
that were relevant to historical things. And I guess that's what I'm trying to say is a compromise that if we agreed to approve the package
today of conceptually the the location of the building, the new building, the, you know, all the things that you submitted, you've got 4 or 5 parts to it, but you just come back as they just come back.
You would have to notice it, but it's just the information. They would bring back Caroline or Miss Lanford to the board that we're asking them for, and then they can come and talk about it if they want, and then
we can vote on it and say, yes, those are the materials and the windows that we're thinking of. It's just I'm not asking to continue the whole case. I'm saying, could we compromise in here? So, you know, you have approval generally, but we want
to know a little more detail about the materials and the windows. That's all I'm saying. Okay. Well, I don't have a problem with that. But the problem is, now that you're setting us back two months in the project, well, I'm asking
if we can't do that next month if all they're doing is submitting a narrative. I mean, if they submit, you'd have to submit by like Friday probably. I mean, I'm not trying to speak for the staff, but if you turn it around pretty quickly and
it's just a narrative that's a supplement, can we not hear that in in July? Alternatively, you could put conditions on your approval. You could say we
require this. We require that because we do have noticing requirements, we already have a full agenda for next month. I mean, I, I am willing, I am
willing to do whatever to, to, to help people get to. Yes. So there's a couple different ways we can go here. We could
condition the approval that the, the garage addition has to meet district setbacks and heights and regulations, or they have to come back in front of the
board again before they seek a variance. You could do it that way. For that concern, you could specify the type of window that you want or think is appropriate. You could specify. We can tell you that
right now. I mean that that that would be my preference. You could, you could. That's what I think we want to know. I this isn't New York. It isn't
clear water. This is us here right now. If we talk about the material, you already mentioned anything that was relating to
the existing structure would be wood siding to match exactly what's there. I believe you talked a little bit about Hardie board for the addition
for the garage addition. Is that what you're saying? It'll it'll be the same size clapboard. It'll match the house, but it'll be cement
board. That's that's right. And only for the reason that the the regular wood is, is is not available. There is not heart pine down at the lumber yard. I
don't know if you'll understand that, but the wood that you get is, is, is spruce or yellow pine. That's the, the worms eat right through it. So you put up new new lap siding and your old
siding makes the old heart pine stays there, but the new new wood gets eaten up. So if the hardie, if the house is going to be painted, it's not going to be a natural wood surface.
If the if the hardy board is going to be painted and it looks exactly in the dimension of the siding, and you touch it and feel it, and it feels like the same stuff, I, I don't see
what I, I don't see a problem with that, but I totally understand what you're saying. So we're talking about wood siding for the house where there's any patching or
whatever that has to be done for any new construction. You're talking about a cement board that will match the look
and color of the wood house. Yeah. Okay. Let's get on to the new construction. We're talking about the garage only. Well, that's the new construction. Okay. Because the new. I don't
want them to misinterpret the new kitchen construction. The new the kitchen is not new. That's that's part of the existing. And that's the part that would be wood sided. I think he mentioned that earlier,
but it's good to be sure. It's good to mention that. So let me be clear. So we're talking about the anything on the house needs to be wood. Yes. And we can use the Hardie on the. Well
that's if we get the approval. Correct. Correct. Windows. Okay. We're talking about wooden. Personally I don't care about the brand. Are we talking wood.
Are we talking fiberglass? Are we talking vinyl? I thought we you had wood in there, don't you? Yeah. We're talking about wood windows double hung in the in the and again I'm saying new
construction. So let's just say garage. All the windows and doors in there would be wood. Anything in the new kitchen, any anything else that you are
making a hole to put a window or door will be wood. Yes. I don't care if it's Pella or whatever. I'm just asking material. Yeah, okay. The
garage doors. Are we looking at wood for that too, or is that more of a that that was that's a great question because I had that question. Question for y'all about the the carriage
doors. Does that mean they have to be made out of wood? I don't know. No, no. Okay. No, it's just that they have the handles on it. They don't have the roll
up. Yeah. Open out. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's, that was our intention. But the, the they do make wood carriage doors. But, but those are typically up north and you know, Maine and
places like that. Fine. But Florida is used to be humid. So it's a problem. It's problematic to that to material is way different, is handled way differently down here than
it is in colder climates. I totally understand that. But the, the carriage doors that we're talking about, because I didn't know what that meant either. We're looking at that exhibit that's shown. It was in your package. They've got it's
got panels, it's got lights at the top. That's what we're talking about. Yeah. Okay. And that was Carolyn's definition of the carriage doors. Okay.
Any do we need to talk about any other materials or are we did we cover with the wood and the Hardie board? In the garage?
Are they going to be double hung like they're shown. Yes. Okay. Yes they are. Okay. So typically when you're talking
about a carriage style garage door, you can see the similarities all throughout here is that there is some sort of light at the top and that it has handles on it and opens out
rather than rolls up. I mean, the whole thing cantilevers out, pulls out, it can actually roll up, but it looks like it opens out. It's more about the appearance of it. It looks like
you can put your horse and buggy in it, you know. Okay. All right. So we covered the windows. We covered the siding, we covered the garage doors.
Any other materials that we need to ask about? The roof. Oh the roof. What's on the existing structure? The house. Right now it's just a dimensional shingle. So that
would be considered architectural. And what you're going to be doing is matching that. We're trying to match that just yeah. Now what they want to do in the future, maybe there's a better if the if the
board has a suggestion for in the future. But we'd like to let the, the roof live its life because it's, you know, quite a cost. Yeah. The roof's only, I think two years old. But you
want to match the new structure. You want to match that roof as best as possible. So when it is time to do the house, you would be able to match the new
structure, right? That's correct. Should be able to do that. We would look for everything to match. All right. Okay. I personally would be
okay with a motion being made to approve and add as many stipulations as you want. Specifying siding material,
special specifying roof material, specifying window material, double hung, anything that we're concerned about. I
would be comfortable with that. And even if you want to throw something in that if if the building. What's the department
chair. I would suggest adding a condition that if the dimensional requirements, if they're going to be seeking a variance for any dimensional requirements related to the new
building, that they would need to come back to HPV before they go seek the variance. Right. Okay. I would be very comfortable with that sort of
motion. But I'm not the one that makes them. So. Does anybody else have any more questions for the applicant or
for the architect? It's just my only concern was the height of the garage with living quarters. But she's getting a beautiful kitchen. I was very impressed
with that. Okay. It's very nice the with the windows and looking out. Yeah. And and the height of the garage. I know you're looking at it strictly
as the historic. Yes looks, but it's possible that that height to 24, 6246 is legal. I don't
know what the ordinances say about it would be up to 35ft. I think the neighbors are all probably right. Maxed at 35ft. Well, you have to look at the, the contour of the property to
how it goes down and the house is low. So, so. I think we've talked a lot about this. I think we've covered a lot of
area and I'm I'm ready for some sort of motion on this. If there are no more questions or comments, I will make a motion for discussion purposes. But
I'll say that that's exactly why we want to have all this information in the application. So we don't have to spend all this time debating asking, are you going to do it this way? Or
are you going to do it that way? That's the problem I have. It could be so much cleaner if we had all this information at the at the beginning in your package. But but you're looking at me like I was supposed to
know that. So I would expect that chair. We'd have to either you're still asking questions or not. Then we have to close off public comment. Do we have any more questions? No. Okay. Well, I'm going to close the
questions then. All right. No more questions before this board can discuss. I want to hear some sort of motion and a
second so we could discuss. Yeah. I'll make a motion for discussion purposes. Motion would be to approve application
2638 for 184 North Spring Boulevard for the renovations and new construction shown in the application with the staff conditions and these additional
conditions. Number five on the new structure, the garage, the wood siding would match the existing siding at the. Let me
start over on the on the existing house. Any new. Any siding, any new siding would be wood to match the existing house on the garage. Addition, the siding would be the same
size as the house and dimensions as a house, but it could be either Wood or Hardie. Board number six. The garage windows would be wood, double
hung windows. The. The new windows in the house would also be wood double hung. Windows number seven, five, six. Okay,
so number seven, the garage doors would be a carriage style type door as shown on the plan number eight. The roof on the garage structure would be
dimensional shingle to match the existing house. And number nine, any variances as needed to the new structure that they would come back to the HPV for
review. Can I get them all? I think you did. We can talk about the rest of this later, but I know I understand the difficulties in wanting to get an approval motion. You made
your motion. We need it. We need a second now before we can go any further. Anybody want to second that second? You're going to second it. Okay. Now we could discuss. And Chloe,
did you get all of that? I, I believe I caught all of them. How about if you read it back to us? So the condition was to approve following the conditions from Miss Lanford with the addition of number
five, with the wood siding to match existing siding. Number six, the garage doors will be there. The windows will be double hung windows that are wood. Number seven is carriage
garage doors. Number eight. It was dimensional or any dimensional changes would have to be brought back to the board prior to the variance. And number nine. I believe I missed
that one. Number eight was that the roof would be dimensional shingles to match the house. And I think they're I didn't quite hear number five correctly on the siding on the
existing house. Any new siding on the existing house will be wood to match the existing. On the garage addition it would match the house, but it could be wood or another material.
Number nine was it any variance would require them to come back back to the board. That was number nine. The board. Okay. So everyone understands that.
Let's discuss that before we vote. You made the motion. So you can go first. You can go second. Do you have any more discussion or have you
exhausted at all? I wish we hadn't had to take all this time to discuss it, but I mean, no, I don't have anything more to add. I think we've got it all. All right. You were. You seconded it. You can ask a
question or discuss if you need to. Okay, I'm fine with it. Except I do have a problem with the second story. Garage. Okay. That's it? Yeah. All right.
What's your on a one story house? If it was second, second, you know, if it was a two story house, two story garage. Yeah.
I, I lived next to one. Yeah. I had a concern about that too. And I'm. I wouldn't say I'm a little less concerned. I said
I'm, I feel like we've covered, we've covered it. If, if they need a variance, will there be closer to the neighbor and it comes back. That's kind of relieving my concern a little bit. Not totally, but a little
bit. I mean, they they have so much going. It's like the neighbors know they got that neighbors have to notice because they got notice. So. Right. And there's no, there wasn't. So they could have been
here. Do we ask for any public comment? I don't yeah, there wasn't any public comment. No. Well that was the beginning.
Okay. Any other discussion before we vote? No. Okay. So I'm going to call a vote. A yes
vote would be approving this project with all the noted stipulations. Does anybody need to hear the motion again? No.
Okay. Let's call a vote miss. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Cadena. Yes. Miss. Howlett. Yes. Chairperson. Rosinski. Yes. All right. The
vote passed. You guys understand all the stipulations. I'm sure we can get you a copy of that if you need it. That would be great. Good luck with
the rest of the city that you have to deal with. All right. Oh, well, thank you very much. Thank everybody on the group and the preservation. Thank you.
You're welcome. I appreciate your work. You're welcome. All right. Next application. Okay.
Two, six. I'm sorry. Go ahead. It's application 2226. Are you going to read it or do you want me to read it? Let me read it.
26.40 Locatelli certificate of approval for new building, garage and storage structure at 116 North Pinellas Avenue. Okay, strap in because this is
another two story accessory structure. So this first slide shows the location and land use context. The the subject
property is located in the city special Area plan and it is in the Downtown Character district. District in the T5D transect.
So, you know, our downtown area has a special plan. This slide shows the location of the subject property in the city's local and National Historic
District. Here's the property information for the subject property. It is a circa 1926 frame vernacular structure that has had a series of
unsympathetic alterations and additions that has diminished the architecture, architectural integrity of the structure to the degree that it no longer conveys historical significance.
And it is a non contributing historic structure within our local and national district. And the applicant is seeking a certificate of appropriateness
to construct a new two story garage at the non contributing historic property. And this is showing it on the 1926 Sanborn
map. To clarify. Well here is the the slide showing the subject property as it appeared at the time of survey in the
Florida Master Site file. This is showing the facade of the subject property facing North Pinellas Avenue. So this would
be facing west. This would be facing north. And so back here would be the location of the proposed two storey storage
structure. I would like to clarify that the application is for a garage and storage. This is not for an accessory dwelling unit. As indicated in
the application. This is a view facing south. As you can see, the subject structure is located adjacent to one of our city's most prominent
structures, the Greek Orthodox Church. And here we are some context looking north on North Pinellas Avenue. This is
information provided by the applicant as to the appearance of the proposed project and the location of the proposed
project. This is provided by the applicant. The site plan provided by the applicant. And
for our standards of review. New construction consistency should be highlighted. I apologize, that is very relevant. The height and width of the proposed new structure
is consistent with adjacent contributing structures, and two story building is not inconsistent with the character and architectural style found throughout the immediate
neighborhood in the district. With respect to windows and doors. Again, we do not have any product sheets for windows and doors. The rendering
provided shows doors and windows in similar proportions to to contributing structures throughout the district. With
respect to the neighborhood, district and context, the proposed new building would alter the historic streetscape and change the relationship of the open space and the street.
The proposed setbacks for the property conform to district standards and are similar to other properties in the immediate vicinity. No
specifications or product sheets were provided for roof materials. It's recommended if the HPB approves the proposed project, that approval be conditioned by the use of architectural shingles. Also,
the renderings provided by the applicant propose a hipped roof. Front gable roof would be more consistent with the architectural style of the historic building. Even though it is a noncontributing
building, it is a historic building and it would be nice to have any approved accessory structure be considered
visually consistent with the historic building. With respect to size and massing and shape, the size and mass of the
proposed structure is similar and compatible to contributing structures and accessory structures throughout the district. However, again, a front gable roof design would
be more consistent with the original architecture of the historic structure. Landscaping architectural features are that
that's not relevant because nothing historic is being altered with respect to the adherence to the Secretary's
guidelines. The know historic materials features would be altered. However, you know, spatial relationships that characterize the property would
be slightly altered by the addition of a new structure. With respect to the adjacent
construction to to the historic property. It would, would is anticipated to be undertaken in a manner that in the future it could be removed without any
adverse effect to the historic property. And then with respect to conformance with other city code requirements, the proposed
project does conform with the Land Development Code and is generally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. And
with that, I would enter. Oh, I'm sorry, I do have some more. These are the design review Guidelines review manual. The
new garage should be located in the rear yard. It's proposed to be located in the rear yard. Again we have B which is for the new garage and outbuilding
to be designed to reflect the architectural style of the primary building, which is why I'm proposing that condition with the roof line. Again, this
would be visible from the public right of way, so it would be best if the new accessory structure was consistent with the architecture of the historic
structure. Again. So with guideline 33, the new garage shall be compatible with the primary building. In terms of scale, massing and style. We're dealing with a similar
situation here where we have a single story structure, and we're proposing a two story accessory structure. The scale of the new garage should be
compatible with both the street and alley environments of the historic district. There are two story buildings in the
vicinity off of the in the neighboring vicinity, so it would be compatible. And then again, we have the use of carriage style doors, which
utilize handles and look like they open out, Even if functionally they do not. With respect to windows and doors,
we want to have. Complementary to the style and scale of the historic building's architecture. We do not have any product sheets for those.
Just a general proportions and views. And again, the roof shape and slope on new construction. We are proposing
that if the HP be approved, the project would utilize a front gabled roof to mimic the historic structure. So with that, staff would recommend
that if the HP approves the project, the design would be revised to utilize a front gable roof. The exterior siding would visually approximate the siding on the historic
structure. Architectural shingles, or dimensional shingles would be used for the roof of the new structure and carriage style. Doors would be utilized for the garage, and
the certificate of appropriateness would expire within three years. If no building permit has been issued. With that, I would enter my staff report and presentation into the record and answer any
questions you might have. Thank you Carolyn. Any questions for Carolyn? Go ahead, Miss Lanford. Can you go to the slide that shows the proposed project and
the building? Yes. That one. So is it your understanding that that this is as if you're standing in the alley looking at that structure? That's that's the facade from the alley. Yes. So be the garage.
And the driveway will be accessed from the alley. Yes. Which is basically the north side of the property. Yes. Is that right? North? Yeah. Yes.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Carolyn? Okay. Is the applicant here? Come on up.
Name and address, please. Once you get up here. And 116 North
Pinellas Avenue is my business address. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to add from.
Carolyn told us. Not really. No. Okay. That's fine. Pretty basic. That's fine. So now, does anybody on the board here have
any questions for the applicant? You do? Go ahead. Will you still be able to see Nicholas? I didn't hear that. Would you still be able to see Saint
Nicholas Church from now? Completely blocked from the alley? Yeah. You really can't see it now because there's a that tall building behind, and then there's on that lot,
there's a bunch of trees. So you really can't see the church. I mean, you can see the tower. Is that what you're asking? That little tower. You still be able to see that? Yeah. If you
walk farther down the alley, you can see the tip of the church. Absolutely. Excuse me.
The the garage is going to go where that picnic table is. Yes. Oh, okay. Yeah. Behind the the structure. Okay. You had a
question. Go ahead. Ma'am, can you just give us an idea why you wanted to build this structure? Well, I'm. I started an arts and craft business, and
I need storage. And I also need space to work to have, like, in my garage. I plan to have a little workshop where I can, you know, cut things and make
things and refurb. It's too difficult to do it inside the home, inside the business. Some things get smelly. So I'll be doing those in the garage and I
need additional storage for all of my supplies. So the, the structure that's there is you're not living in it. It's your it's location of your business. Is that correct?
There's no residential activity. You don't live there at all. There can be there can be in the back. I don't currently live there. I have another home.
But eventually, possibly. But eventually what? Eventually. I might live in the home, in the the the current structure
existing. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Did you understand Carolyn's
recommendations about the roof? Yeah. Yeah. You understand that that's not an issue. Yeah. And the door. The carriage type doors you have no problem with.
No, no. What? The existing structure. It's. I'm assuming it's vinyl because I can see it kind of wavy. And that's what
you want to use on the. No, I wouldn't use vinyl on the new structure. What what are you thinking? I would probably use like a Hardie. Same type of so
it'll match look, but I wouldn't use vinyl. Okay. Okay. Okay. Are there any other
questions for the applicant? If not, I'll close. Thank you so much. Is there any public comment? Are there any public
comments for this? No. Okay. All right. I guess I'm looking for some sort of motion. Can we have a little discussion first? Well, we always have discussion.
I do a motion first, so there's something to discuss. I'll. I'll make a motion to deny it, as I think it's inconsistent with the design guidelines. For discussion purposes. This is where I think it really does
need a second. But now we need a second for that. So you're you're making a motion to deny. Correct. And you're seconding that. Yes. Okay. Now we could discuss. This is where I think
the two story addition or new structure versus the one story existing is dramatically out of scale. The other one, they were separated. In this case, we
heard earlier, there was a big separation between the existing structure and the new structure. So there was a visual separation in your mind. Secondly, the other case we
just heard was a much larger lot. I mean, this is this is really. I don't know any other word to say, except it's kind of shoehorning it in. If you've been by there, you've seen it's
a, it's an extremely small lot and it's an extremely small space that's left. So I don't think that this meets the intent of an accessory structure. I think it's, it's
way too big and out of scale with the existing building. And I appreciate that. Maybe you need some more storage. I mean, maybe there, I mean, I would be happier to see you do an
addition to the building rather than a whole new structure. I, I just think it's just too, too, too, too much. It's, it's too first of all, we don't even know how tall it is because the
drawing you gave us again, the other one showed at least a height, although it's hard to read. We had a height. We have no height of this. The staff is saying that the roof structure is not consistent. How? How do
you. How do you approve it without seeing what the roof looks like? So I just I can't support something that's it's, it's completely out of scale
with the existing house. It's out of scale with even the urban area along alternate 19. It's out of scale with that as well. And furthermore, if if it becomes an accessory dwelling
at some point or it becomes another separate retail space, which could happen if we're approving it, they don't have any legitimate parking today. If anybody's been buying their their parking is on the alley
and it's not long enough. I mean, I parked my car there was sticking out into the alley, so I'm not really sure how they solved that problem with if
it's just storage, but that might just be this one person. The next person that comes along buys the property. Now they want to have a second retail operation on the second floor and or someone to live in
it. And then how, how is the parking situation solved, which is less my concern, but just just the mechanics of how it works. The biggest problem is I just find it to be inconsistent
in scale and mass with the area and with the existing building. Carolyn, do we have a height on this? You know, I don't think
that was provided. No. So but the setbacks do meet the code. So we don't. And it's because
it sits behind the structure. We don't know if how much of it if anything, will see from Pinellas Avenue. You would definitely see it. Definitely
see just how much of it you would see. And I mean, what is this? What is the size of it? I mean, I so the proposed side of the the proposed accessory
structure would be 20 by 48. And just to give you a comparison for scale, the primary structure is 40 by 40.
So the structure be 960ft■!S. Is that am I doing the math right? 20 by 48 for 80. I think that's right. I mean, the way the
building is shown, I don't the driveway is going to extend into the alley. I mean, I know the planning department will deal with that if it got approved. But again, we're
looking at the design. It's just it's too, too big. I mean, I would certainly support. I understand businesses grow and maybe you need a, you know, add on a little part in the back, but I just don't I just don't
see how this is consistent. And frankly, it's the same problem I have with the other application. We don't have enough information. We don't even know what the height of the building is. So how's the staff when the staff comes back
to look at it for building permits, are they going to scale this off and say, yeah, well, we think it was about 22ft, but with respect, we
would be looking at building plans before giving approval. I wouldn't it would not get approval for building by scaling off these drawings to approve it based on this one
drawing the one drawing that's on the screen, which is just incomplete in my opinion. Yeah. I'm going to agree with you on that one, Mister chair, if I might, I think this is
precisely why I don't always ask for building complete building plans, because I saw this project, I think it's out of scale a little bit with, you
know, it's it doesn't it's not overtly accessory to the existing structure, but I don't know what, what the HPV is going to say. And that's your
job to determine it. So I didn't want to ask the applicant for additional information on something that was ultimately going to be denied. But sometimes that
additional information helps us and that that can be the case. And you can say applicant, if you provide this additional information, we're going to
approve it. But I just, you know, we have such long lead times with the noticing that's required as it is, if something is going to be denied on its
face. I try to be considerate of the applicant's time and resources. When you look at the
area and you look what's behind it, what's next to it, it's going to be greatly out of. It's not going to fit into the.
To the North is a one story building. It's got a tire, it's a tire company. And then it's the restaurant called the Greeks. Across the street is two story buildings. But again, we're talking about accessory
building to a one story building, right. And you have to look at what's on the businesses on the other side of it also. And that alley, is that a city alley or does
somebody own that? It's it's public right of way. It's a public driveway. It's public right of way. Yes, the public alley. So the city owns it. Yes. People use it too. Because if
you pull into that tire store, you, rather than backing out in a. 19, you can go down the alley and get over to. Yeah.
Hibiscus. Yeah. And that's crowded also. So there you go. And more industrial. Than that building would show to be. If
she's going to cut wood and do things there. Yeah. Frankly, I have a problem with the
placement with that being a public alley. And we know people park there, whether that's legal or not, I don't
know. They could very easily just block the way to that garage. They could park right in front of that garage. And I'm guessing there's really
nothing the applicant could do about that, about having access to their garage, just having it off of that alley doesn't
necessarily mean that they have all the access. Yeah. I'm not
I'm not too crazy about this either. And I think it's the height, the height, it's the access. And I don't think we
could rule on what future use there might be there. Because whatever the zoning allows, it'll be whatever the zoning
allows. Yes. Any any other ideas about how maybe something could be changed or. Downsized?
Downsized? Yeah. I mean, and we want to clean up north. I'm sorry, a one story structure is going to have the same parking problem. It'll have the same parking problem. But if you did
an addition, you know, on this south end of the of the building so that you would have maybe then you could maybe create some. Seems like people parking there already, but then you could create some parking,
a couple of parking spaces there, but I don't know if that's going to meet your needs, but and again, if it's a public alley, there might be some ordinance that you can't park
in a public alley anyway. Yeah. Definitely can't. I'm just saying not for her to park in the. I'm saying if she if she put the building as far south on the site as she could as a one story addition to this. And
then she would have space on the. Oh, I see what you're saying. Like a little like a little driveway off the alley and park on on their property. Right. That parking problem now. But right. Kind of existing. We
can't do anything about that. Yeah, I understand that. Does it have to be a garage? Can it be a a shed or a. You know,
that's one story shed and maybe utilize it differently that way. Well, the problem with the shed is the shed is going to have to meet the design guidelines too, right? Right. Tricky to do. I
mean, I don't have a wouldn't have a problem if she came in with an addition that was half the size of one story, if that meets your needs. But if it doesn't meet your needs, maybe you've outgrown the site. I
don't know, I mean, that happens, but you know, if it's larger, you know, it's higher than the building in front.
It's just looks very bad from the street. It's out of scale. Yeah. Okay. We're only voting
on this design, but it doesn't mean we couldn't make suggestions for another time because we wouldn't have that
in front of us right now. So I'm hearing some suggestions of downsizing the height, perhaps moving it back to create a
small area to maybe park a car so you're not illegally parking in a public alley. Are we
hearing anything else? Well, I did close, but you know what? I'm going to allow it. Would
you come back to the microphone? So where am I behind those cars there? Or where that car is parked up against my fence?
That is my property. And I have five parking spots on my property. So. So that's not a public are you saying it's not a public alley? This this is
not. So the out there's an alley and then there's my parking. So my property has five parking spots and then
there's the alley. So if you look at the picture where the trailer was. Right there. So
that's where we, that's where we currently park, where that trailer is. We can park two cars right there. And I'm proposing just a one car garage
so I can pull my car out of the sun. I like to park my car in a garage, but so, but I do have five parking spots on my property there. People don't
have to park in the alley. Just to be clear on that. Okay. And just to clarify, yeah, what we're looking at were the trailers. That's where you want
the new building, correct? Okay. Correct. Yeah. But it really it goes from the edge of the existing house to the back of the existing house. Yes.
Correct. Correct. That's what I'm proposing to put a garage there. And when I purchased the property, I was told that I could build a two story
structure in the back, that it was allowed by the city. And they, I guess because it's a non conveyance or whatever, I don't know all the technical
terms because it's not considered historic per se, because it's been modified so many times. I was told that I could build a two story
structure there. That's unfortunate that somebody misled you about that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Zoning might allow that, which is why they
probably told you that. Yeah. How much space is between the existing house and the proposed
garage? A little walkway, or is it like 30ft? Yeah, about 30in. Yeah, about 38ft. Oh no, no, no,
I mean, I mean, between the existing house and the new garage. Oh, four feet between four feet proposing four feet between and then three feet on
the other side from the property boundary. Okay. All right. I allowed more questions for the applicant. I don't know
if anybody else wants to ask anything. If not now, I really am closing the discussion there. All right. We have a motion on
the table. And a second. Chloe, can you read that motion again? I just noticed that you guys motion to deny the motion as it
was stated by Caroline when she prevented Miss Lanford when she presented it. Okay. Is that what I said was motion to deny the application because it was inconsistent with the design
guidelines. You know, it's just it's a motion to deny. Yeah. To be specific. That's all you have to say. I mean, you can if you want to add that we do. If you want to say that, that's
fine. I would like to have that correct. Okay. So Chloe, I'm making note. Yes, that you wanted to state that it's inconsistent with design. Okay.
Design guidelines. Okay. All right. Any other discussion on that motion? Let's let's go to
a vote. And actually before you do that so a, a yes vote will be denying the application motion to deny. Right. I just
want to make sure everybody understands that. Yes. Okay. Okay. Miss. Produce. Miss Tarpon. I'd just like to remind
everybody you need to speak into the mic because this needs to be recorded. Thank you. Mr. Cadena. No. Miss Howlett. Yes.
Chairperson. Burzynski. Yes. Thank you. So the motion your your application was denied, but it doesn't mean that you
can't refigure it come back to us. You heard some of the suggestions. I think the biggest problem was the height.
Not so much. Maybe the setback for the. Since you mentioned that you own part of that alley, I didn't wasn't aware of that.
So keep that in mind and let's. Let's make it work. So come back to us. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Is everybody
okay here to continue? Yeah. Anybody need to take a break? Good. These applicants have been sitting here for a while.
We're freezing. Yeah. So two hours. But you what? Oh, good. You thought it was going to be like that, didn't you? Okay.
I'm teasing. All right. This is application 26.43. McLean. Certificate of appropriate of approval for single family. New
build at 305 Bath Street. Caroline. Yes. Application 2643. This slide showing the location and land use context of the
proposed new single family structure on Bath Street. This slide is showing the location of the subject property within the local historic district.
The applicant is seeking a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new single family home on a vacant lot at the subject property. The property was formerly the site
of a non contributing, non historic, single story single family home that was demolished. And the applicant is seeking a
certificate of appropriateness to construct a new single family home. This slide is showing the subject property at
305 Bath Street. Giving some context. Looking to the south. Some more context on Bath
Street. This would be to the north. Looking to the east but showing the property to the north. This is the property to
the south of the subject property. This slide is showing the proposed project. The site
plan for the new construction. The slide showing the exterior elevations on the east and
north. And the west and south. The relevant standards of review are obviously new construction consistency and the height and width of the proposed new home is consistent
with adjacent contributing structures, proposed windows and doors proportions, as shown, are consistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. There are full building plans for this project in your packet that you may refer to. If you have any questions about specifications.
With respect to the neighborhood and district context, the proposed construction would alter the historic streetscape and change the relationship between the
open space and the street. However, the the proposed setbacks for the property conform to district standards and are similar to other properties in the immediate vicinity. I only say that it is
a change because it is currently a vacant lot, and it was previously a single story home, so it does change the historic streetscape. The applicant is proposing a metal
standing seam roof, which is found throughout the local historic district and is consistent with the character of the district. With respect to the size and mass of the proposed structure, it is
compatible with contributing structures in the district and neighboring structures. The house next door is a two story structure, contributing structure with respect to
landscaping. Before the building permit is approved, they would need to provide landscaping plan that would be in conformance with code, but this would be handled through
the building permit process. With respect to architectural features, I'm not sure why that's highlighted because there are no distinctive architectural historic features.
With respect to adherence to the Secretary's guidelines, the new construction would be undertaken in a manner that we could go back to a vacant lot if we wanted to in the future,
and the proposed project is in conformance with the code and is in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan generally. So we do have some design guidelines for new construction. Generally this. This new
building is compatible with the adjacent structure in terms of massing and proportion. As I stated, there's a two story structure immediately adjacent
to it. And this this property proposed project is very similar in size and scale. It's again, it's similar in size and
scale. So B and C don't really apply. It would be placed on a vacant lot. So that's consistent with D there. It is
being oriented to the street. So it's consistent with F. Again G it's consistent with the principal facade facing the
street. The spacing is consistent with the historic spacing on the street along the street. The the patterns and
placement of the window openings are very similar to other structures on the street. Now, with respect to L, under
guideline 30, vehicular access to the property shall be compatible with the district's historic context. Now, it is always my inclination where there is an alley, to suggest
that the vehicular access be accessed off the alley. However, the historic well, the non historic structure, there's an existing driveway coming off of
Bath Street, so we wouldn't want to remove access from anyone that had previously had access. I'm sorry, could you. I didn't quite understand what
you said there. So it's always my tendency in the historic district, if there is possible to have vehicular access off of an alley to require vehicular
access off the alley. However, on Bath Street, there's a mixture of driveways off of Bath Street and access off the alley and the structure that
used to exist on this property had existing driveway access, and there's still a remaining existing driveway, so I am not proposing that as a requirement
of of approval. I would, however, recommend to the H PB if they approve the project that they suggest redesigning the the front facade that's
facing Bath Street so that the parking is somehow screened under the house so that it's not just a big garden. And this could be accomplished in any
number of ways. It could be a landscaping requirement. You could require some sort of physical screening, some architectural feature that provides screening. It's really
up to, to your purview to, to, to, to state that within any approval that you might have. And with that, I will enter the presentation and staff report into the record and, and ask if
you have any questions. Okay. Thank you. Carolyn, any questions for Carolyn? Yes. No.
Yes. Go ahead. Does the building meet the setbacks? It does. The building plans are completely compliant with the code. And just to make sure I understand correctly, I think I
heard you say there was an existing house on this that was demolished because of flood damage or. Yes, ma'am. Was that a historic structure? It was not. It doesn't even have a
site file on it. It was yeah. It's not a historic structure. And it was not the same ownership with the site to the south. No, not that I'm aware
because one picture in here has a picture of the house to the south and labeled it as 305 Bath Street. So I got oh no, I was just it's showing context
for 305 Bath Street. I apologize. Yes, that, as I noted, is the structure to the north of the subject property that you can see there to your
to the right, the, the vacant lot is 305 Bath Street. Thank you. Any other questions for
Carolyn? Go ahead. Sorry, I have one other question. What's the flood? What's the required flood elevation here on the site? I do not know. Off the top of my head, I guess what I'm getting at is are they you
can get up. Do they have to go up an entire level to to meet the flood elevation, or is it less than that? I cannot say
that definitively, but I feel 95% confident that, yes, in order to meet the base flood elevation at that location, they they need to go up. We can ask the applicant. Maybe they
know. Okay, actually, I think I know when I built my addition behind my house, I'm up three
feet and I had to I couldn't do any electrical work lower than 42in, three and a half. So that's three and a half and
another. So it's like seven feet or 6.5ft or something like that. And I think the elevation requirements may have they
probably have changed since since then. Okay. Any other questions for Carolyn? If not
applicant, please. So again, state your name and address. All right. My name is Samantha
Bowers. My address is 902 22nd Avenue, North, Saint Petersburg. I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. Say it again, Samantha Bowers, Mrs. Bowers. Thank you, Miss Bowers. No problem. I'm
the with the construction company. Matt is the owner, so I'll give a little bit of insight just into the project as a whole. So Matt had bought this house just a few months
before the hurricanes hit, as his first home was out on vacation when the hurricanes hit. So he had to sit on vacation knowing that his house was flooding. By the time he got back, his house had already
been completely demoed on the interior, so he left with a first home and came back with no home. So this has been a little bit of a process, obviously funding and whatnot
as well. So insurance provides funds for the house that went away, not the house that we want to put back, you know, so that's obviously a restraint.
But as far as the build itself, we're really just trying to maintain the historic details as well as accommodate the flood requirements. I did
notice that some of the photos in Caroline's presentation, I'm not sure if the ones you guys have are the updated ones. The ones that we originally submitted was returned to us
with the guideline packet. And I was like, oh man, that's not good. They didn't give any comments. They just said, take a look at this guideline packet. So we did make the correct set. I'm not sure if you show the
standing seam roof, but we actually did make quite a few adjustments to accommodate the historic features. A few of those include. Let me just go to the elevation so I can speak
to it, and I can pass the two elevations around the updated ones as well, if that would help. So before we had the standing seam roof, we did alter that to do the
architectural shingle just because we noticed that the surrounding houses did have more of that. We also added some trim and just some architectural detail around the windows before it was presenting itself a little bit
more modern and sleek. So we were trying to go, you know, a little bit more Florida vernacular. We also created a band that separates the garage level from the living level.
And the point of that band isn't just architectural feature. It's really just to kind of separate those two, you know, to not make it look like a second or two story house to
make it look like, you know, a single living level that had to get elevated. It's really requirement mandated. I don't think Matt wanted to elevate his home. That's why he bought
a non elevated home. But just a few details. We also added a covered feature on at the front door. We noticed a lot of the surrounding homes had, you know, more of a centerpiece at the
front door. So earlier we heard you mention the hipped versus gabled roof and having that gable, you know, with the point facing on the front. So that architectural detail that we
added over the front door does replicate that. We also tried to use some of the houses in the area, just because that is a lot of what the new build construction, especially not being a technically historic
home. So there is a house on Lemon Street just down the street. It's I'll give you the exact address since a lot of you sound very familiar with
the neighborhood, you might be able to ramble this or ramble this one off a little quick. 125 West Lemon It's a elevated yellow home. It almost looks. Our elevation almost looks
identical. Is it okay if I pass these around? Okay, perfect. So you guys will be able to see. The Lemon Street on there. The structure that we propose is
that also is it's the updated one that was on one sexual shingle and. High elevation may look very similar. To they are
already well known. So the plans that we have different from what she's talking about. That's what it sounds like. Yeah. So so the city does have looking at here is really not what you're building. It's the
exact same thing. Just architectural features. That's it. We just changed the shingles to standing seam. But the building itself, all the elevations as far as D, F e, b,
f. To answer that question, it is a nine foot BFE, so an 11 foot DFE, which does I think it's like six inches shy of the garage level being required.
But the elevation that you have there is the correct elevation. I'm not sure how, because we submitted that set before we ever had submitted to this, you
know, application. So when we submitted this application is when we submitted the updated set that I have. So maybe just
ahead of the horse. So it looks like the roof has changed the roof plan itself. The only thing that changed the roof plan itself is just that, that
hipped or gabled roof that you're seeing over the front door. So it's not much different, just a little bit just to align better with the neighboring homes. Yeah. Okay.
I see, and you've got some detail around the windows. Yeah. Just like I said, just to make it fit in with the neighborhood a little bit more over the door. And I also have the full set
with me as well. So what's the starting material? The siding is currently proposed as stucco and stucco, and that is what it was before it was demolished. The original structure that
we're replacing. So just to be clear, you're asked the plans that you you're circulating now that we're looking at with the revised front elevation, is
what you're asking us to vote on tonight. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Actually, no questions for you yet because you're still giving
your oh, great presentation. Okay, perfect. I don't have much else to share. We're pretty amenable, as you can imagine. It's been a long year
plus for Matt. So if I I've heard a couple or the question on siding, if Hardie siding is the preference. But on our second submission to the building department, we did
take into consideration as much as we could with the packet within the constraints of the
property, of course. So if it's stucco, it's going to be stick built, and then it'll be block on the ground. And just because it has to be block below the D,
F, E, and then it will be stick above that, above that. And really even doing the hipped roof, it's a hurricane consideration, you know, doing
a hipped roof versus a gable roof. That's kind of why we did that elevation over the front door to give the appearance of that gable roof while still
having the wind tolerance of a hipped roof. Okay, so just to be clear that the documents that you passed around the first page says 305 Bath Street,
it's the front elevation. It's been revised to add more detail around the windows. The door changed a detail, architectural detail above the door on the
roof, and the roof is now sink shingles, not a metal roof. Yep. Instead of the standing seam, it's architectural shingle. And then the other two pages is a just an example of a different
building. 125 West Lemon, which is not what you're doing. Right? And then a floor plan. So the only page that we're really talking about that you're proposing to change is this front elevation, correct, ma'am. The windows around the whole
entire structure and I have both elevations actually have the full set of plans that have the updated ones. I was under the impression that that's what you had as well. But I do have the full set of plans with all
elevations, if you'd like me to pass those around as well. And then also that BFE, d, f e is all noted on the cover. I think our draftsman does a fantastic job because the cover sheet has
everything you need to know. BFEDFE materials used. Even that, there's an existing driveway that we're maintaining, so we tried to put it in one spot for you so you wouldn't
have to look through all the details. Okay. Would you like me to pass around the two elevations from the updated set?
Sure, yeah, as long as you have them. And when we made those
revisions, didn't we didn't change the inside or not that that's what we're voting on today, but we really just made architectural adjustments to align more with the proposed packet. I almost printed that
packet today, but it's 235 pages. So so I did not write. A lot. They don't all apply to us,
but. Can I ask a few questions? We're not asking questions yet until she's finished. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought she made. Are you ready for some questions?
Yes. Okay. I'm ready. Question. So just kind of wondering why you decided to use the staircase that goes off to the side instead of just the one that comes straight out the front? Setbacks say again,
setbacks. We weren't all the staircase counts and setbacks, and if we would have made it go forward, we're basically butted right up against our front setbacks. I also have a site
plan. Hold on one second. I can pass that around. Has to be counted in the setback. Yeah. Yes. Yep. Exterior stairs do count within the setback. Unfortunately, you do have. I
mean, the whole staircase counts. Can't miss Lanford. Yeah. Yes. So the front setback starts at the bottom of the
staircase. Yes. Wow. We were disappointed to learn that as well. I agree with your assessment. That's a real. Because, you know, honestly, the side staircase makes it
look like a still house. I mean, if it comes out the front and it's, you know, because you got a very symmetrical design, which is great, you've got, you know, two windows on each side. I mean, it's, and if it could
come straight out the front and you could move the house back some, but I guess there is a big beautiful tree in the backyard, a big, beautiful banyan that we're really trying hard to maintain. And we
actually did reach out to the city arborist in advance. Caroline has been amazing. Thank you for all your suggestions. And they advise that like in order to maintain that tree, we can't just go
right up against the tree. If you look on the site plan, there's like a round paver on noted. That tree is right in the center of those pavers, and it's a pretty healthy size, so we don't want to get too close
to it because then of course, root intrusion, all sorts of considerations with building that close to a big tree. I guess my other comment that
would Miss Lanford alluded to it, I think. I would hope my first hope would be that you would change the access to Boyer, even if you still wanted a driveway in the front,
because if you did and had your cars come in off Boyer, whatever the alley is, then you could do some kind of a, you know, lattice or screening or something. This is this was sent to us by an applicant. You
can take a look, but we've got to do something to break up that giant garage underneath or open space. It's not really a garage. It's just an open. See what I'm. This is what I'm talking about. She wanted to
point out something. I was just going to show you. You can have it. But see how she's got these lattice. But you can't do that with the cars there. But if you came in on off of the alley, you still had a driveway. I
don't have a problem with driveway, but that giant open space is. So I mean, I know we have to elevate and I get that, but we got to somehow mitigate that space in there with some
kind of lattice or landscaping or both, or I mean, the, the lattice work. I appreciate the AI work that was done on that house, I really do, and I mean,
that does look like this house with just a couple extra features. We did maintain the driveway for a couple reasons. One, it's the existing streetscape. You know, we didn't we didn't modify that at
all. It's what's existing. Additionally, like I mentioned, this was this is not your fault or your problem, but this was Matt's first house ever. And within months of owning it, he
now has to knock it down and rebuild. I'm not sure on the requirements through the building department to change the street access, but in other municipalities that I've worked in, that's quite an undertaking
as well. Not to mention the additional plans that would be required to then do that. So we were trying to maintain as much as we possibly could, and given we had to knock down the whole
entire house, we held onto the driveway as the the driveway and the tree in the backyard are really the only two things that we were able to maintain. Well, I mean, I think we have a
big interest here, all of us here in trying to minimize that open space look. So if you want to keep the driveway off of. Bath, at least the south side
of the building where the where the steps are, you can do some kind of lattice along there. I mean, I'm not I don't have to be lattice. I'm just saying something to screen that. So even if it was just on the one
side where the cars don't pull in, I would be. We're absolutely open to that. Yeah, that's totally reasonable. So then it would just be almost as if there were garage doors there, but they're not. So, you know, if you want to put a
garage door there, look like a carriage doors, like we were seeing these others, you could, but if you want to keep it open for air and light, that's fine with me too. I think that would
help the rest of my the rest of the board think that would help that screening along that south part of it. Yeah. And I do acknowledge, I mean, we added that band on the bottom for
that very reason. What you're commenting on, we're just trying to make it look like it's two separate things, you know, like a house up there. So I don't disagree. And I think lattice is a great suggestion because it's extremely
affordable. You know, just some wood lattice that just goes on that front. The part that the cars aren't pulling underneath. Right? Yeah. No, I can absolutely get that added to the plans. I think that would
make that pull your eye down too. So it's going to, it's not just a whole feel like a two story elevated building, but. Absolutely agree. A lot of that
can be dealt with. Some good landscaping to. But that's a that's a good idea, I think. I mean, I'm happy if that's another option, but I had the impression that it was
underneath that. Is it paved right there on that south edge, the south half of the garage? Well, that was actually one of my questions is what were you
have the cars. I assume it's going to be concrete or some sort of crush and run gravel or something underneath of it. Correct. Okay. Because I wanted to know what's what you have
planned for underneath the whole structure right now, just parking just the two spots for the, for the surface, for the yeah, the foundation. I would say that ultimately it's up to
the structural engineers that we do have the structural plans. Let me see if I can pull them up and digest them. Hold on one second. You're asking what's going to be concrete, but I
imagine poured concrete. That would be my water and concrete. Yeah. So you're you're planning on doing a slab and then building off of that, that's what you would typically do on
top of block. I'm just double checking your structural plans to make sure that's what structural suggested as well. One of the concerns with that
area is water. And I, some people would be concerned if that was all concrete. The water runoff won't have any
place to go. Yep. Maybe they could just could they could you just pave or do concrete where the cars are and the rest of it be shell or something like that? That was going to be one of my
suggestions. There's also have you ever seen those turf blocks? Yes, the holes and they're fabulous. Yep. And they give
you a nice hard surface, but they also allow for water to go through, right? Yep. So that's something to think about. The area where there won't be any
cars, crushed shell, crushed shell, pebble, anything like that. Yeah. I mean, you could still walk on it. You could still store things down there. Essentially what you're hoping
as long as it's an impervious surface. Correct. Just something that the water can go through and not sit on top. Okay. Correct. We can. Absolutely. That's no problem.
We can make that happen. That's not a emotionally attached to the slab that we've poured yet. So and he hasn't paid for it
yet. So he'll be he's good. Okay. So we talked about some screening, but we didn't really
talk about screening for the cars, did we. And is that necessary? Well, it wouldn't be necessary if they would take the access off of the alley.
Ali is about 6.5ft wide. It'd be almost it's very narrow. It's a very, very narrow. It's not even eight feet. I mean, I don't know how you do the screening if you're gonna have cars in there. Well, I don't
unless it was on some sort of rollers, I don't I personally don't think it's needed. And when I like when I'm looking at you have the elevations, the proposed west exterior elevation D, which is the front
elevation of the home. Based on what you're proposing earlier, doing where the deck is, where the stairs come down, anything behind the deck. So front door
over to the right all have lattice. So the only opening would be exactly where those two cars were. So it would make the you know, just proportionately wouldn't be
building holes. And if it would be better, we can absolutely do that on the sides too. Like I said, lattice is a very reasonable accommodation because it's so affordable, you know, building block walls all
the way around that might be filling up more loan paperwork, but I think we can handle lattice. So, you know, if
you're planning on leaving the fence that's there now. Yeah, I was thinking that too. AM I allowed to speak without stating my name and address? Just give us your name and
address. Let's make it legal. Hi, everybody. I'm Matt Trainer. I own 305 Bath Street. So to answer your question, that was a question that I also have that we will have to deal with
with probably landscape architects, I would imagine, to try to work around because it doesn't make sense to have a fully wooded fence surrounding a sorry, two story coastal
structure with lattice. It would be hard to configure. So we'd have to either get rid of the fence entirely or modify it somehow. Okay, I guess I was
just asking because we're talking about screening and that's kind of a screen that's there already. But I understand, I understand that it may not
work. Yeah. With your design. Yes. Okay. Carolyn, these handouts, these AI photos, do
we know what the the person that sent it? Do we know what their idea was? Because it doesn't really say, I apologize. I should have mentioned that we had provided you with an email
that we received from a member of the public earlier today. So I didn't have time to incorporate it into the sooner, so I apologize. Yeah. No, that that that is my fault. That is
all the information I have is that we have provided you with an email that was he was a former planner planner here in the city. That's who this
person is. Okay. But again, she didn't really give any opinions. She just gave photos. Right? Half of these are on the street
already. And she shows them raised. Okay, okay. Thank you. Any other questions for us? I'm sorry I said any other questions we can answer for you?
Well, that's what I'm going to ask. Do you have any more questions for the applicants? Nope, nope nope. Do we have a full set of the elevations she gave us tonight? The revised
ones submitted to the city. I thought you said you had a full. The other. I passed them down. I think you have them. Sorry. Yeah. So I think we need to put
these in the don't go into the into the app to the correct. I have the full set listed. Do you guys want them just to or printed to put them in. Well we
want to put them along with your application. Okay. I didn't really look at those. Which ones you have to look at.
Those look the same. And this is a bigger version of that.
Okay. Okay. Any other questions for the applicants. Yes. No no. Okay. I would like a motion of
some sort so we can move on. I'll make a motion. I'll move approval with the following conditions. Number. Staff conditions. I don't know how
many there were all those. Plus a new condition. Number one, that the new plans with an elevation submitted at the meeting will be the governing
plans for the project. Number two that the. Either lattice or landscaping will be provided as screening from going from the
door to the south end of the building. It could be either or together however you, you know, want to do it. And then third, that the the two cars under the
building that that that surface be concrete only for the two cars more or less. And that you use some other type of impervious material for the rest of it underneath the building, whether it's paver blocks or whatever impervious
material you want something. So the only, the only pay where the car is going to go. Yep. I'll second that for you. Address your concern, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Thank you. Can you seconded it. Did you get
all of that? Chloe, could you read it back? Can I get who second that motion I was typing, I apologize, I'm sorry. Who?
Second the motion. Anita. Okay, so I have amendment or I have a motion to approve with staff's two conditions that were noted
along with the three additional conditions. First one is new plans will be submitted with elevations. So the new plan submitted at the meeting will
be the governing plan here will be part of the application application. That's what we're approving. This is what we're approving. So I'm going to be giving this to you. I understand I was just about to
finish my sentence and state that I was going to submit the new plans into the record at the end of the meeting, and that's what we were making the motion on. Perfect. Thank you. The second part of it, of the
motion additions is going to be lattice or landscaping will be provided as screening from the door to the south end of the building. It's an either or.
And part three, the two car garage surface area is concrete and some other type of impervious material be used outside of the concrete area.
Is that clear? You got all of that? I got all of it. Okay. All right. Does everybody understand the applicants okay with that? Are you okay?
Everyone understands the motion. Okay. So again, a vote of yes will be approving the project.
Chloe, miss. Yes. Mr. Bonnie. Yes. Mr. Cadena. Yes. Miss. Howlett. Yes. Chairperson. Mrozinski. Yes. Okay. Approved.
Yay! And you? And you, you get everything we talked about. All completely understood. Oh. This is for us again. Yeah, yeah.
Perfect. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you guys. Okay. Thanks for hanging out. The only real winner for waiting.
Okay. All right, hang on. I closed my computer, but I have to get back to the. Because we're not done yet. Neighbors.
He's he's real nice. Right. Okay. Board and staff comments. Carolyn, did you have any more comments? I do have some staff
comments. I just wanted to note that we did have another potential application for tonight's meeting. It was a sign application and
unfortunately, I was not able to get the correct materials from the applicant in time. I should have put it on the agenda to defer it, but I
instead, it was removed from the agenda. So we will need to re-advertise it, but we will be hearing it in July. However, this. I'm bringing all of this up to say we have been talking
about potentially making some changes to the Land Development Code. The article that governs this board should be article seven, and one of them would be
potentially looking at removing sign review from the HPV purview, because it really does come down to does it meet the dimensional requirements? We can't say yes or no to a sign
whether or not we like it the way it looks, if it's placed appropriately, and if it's the right sign size legislatively, we need to approve it or we can get ourselves into some real
trouble. The attorney can can tell you about it. Wouldn't have anything to say about color or design. I mean, honestly, you don't know. You don't have the ability to say
that now. So that's an example of something that in future, at some point we might be bringing in front of the HPV as some some amendments to article
seven of the Land Development Code. Okay. That would be fine. That'd be fine. Any comments from the board here before we
adjourn about anything? Go ahead. Just to go about the sign thing, I think I'd be concerned about taking that away because an attached sign, there's so many different ways
a sign can be attached to a building. Some of them are historically correct, some of them are not. I mean, I'd be really, especially in the main historic district like Tarpon
Avenue, court, lemon, orange, maybe there's a way to limit it, I don't know, but I'd be concerned about it. Okay. Well, we'll address that when we get to it. Yeah. I mean, we talk
about we get there and then with these three applications tonight made me think of something I feel like I don't like to feel that I don't have enough information. And I
really got very uncomfortable with what Mr. Hoffman had presented tonight. I thought it was an incomplete application. Definitely. The lady on Pinellas was an incomplete application. It wasn't even a
scale drawing. But I also understand that people want to get some kind of a, you know, a yay nay. Maybe we like it, maybe we don't. I wonder if there's a way to amend the code
to say we have a conceptual review still gets noticed because I think everybody has to get noticed. But all that wouldn't be a whole lot of work for you guys. It would just be just a couple of maps to show
us where it is. Whatever the applicant turns in, we take a look at the more detail they can give us, the more detailed feedback we can give them. And it would not be binding. But like that lady today, the second case, that's a
conceptual application. That's not even a real application on that we had in front of us. Admittedly, it had other problems, but the application was not complete. But if you,
you know, if you guys think that's a good idea, maybe that's a way to get around this, these problems where people are not sure if it's going to get approved or not, they get some feedback like how to, you know,
what, if you did this, we might like it a little better. And again, I'm not trying to make more work for you. I'm just trying to say if just make it a real simple. Whatever they submit is what they submit. You
don't have to, you know, try and talk them into giving us more. They submit an application, they submit whatever drawings they have, and then you give us a map that shows where it is, that's it.
And then let them come in and talk about it. I think I think that second application is really demonstrative of, of kind of what I'm dealing with.
So there are things that I can approve at a staff level. There are things that require HPV approval. There are things that
I feel on their face. I, I feel that the HPV probably is not going to approve this, but it meets technically it's meeting
requirements in terms of setbacks and the use or whatever. So it's a balancing act of, you know, asking an
applicant to develop plans that I know are likely not going to be approved. And for them to come in with a concept, just simply a concept. And you say,
okay, well, that that concept is just not going to fly. Here's how you can change that concept. And were you to do this, this and that, and maybe bring us a full set of plans and an appropriate site plan
and all of that, then maybe we could approve it. So generally, I would love it if applicants, I mean, I don't know if people are listening, but I would love it if applicants would come to
me first with a project and we could sit down and have a staff review, and we had time and everything wasn't a rush, rush, rush. But that's not what I am dealing with. That's not what
our department is dealing with. We are dealing with people who want to build things yesterday. And then I Tell them. Well, I'm sorry you're going. This case is going to have to be heard by
the HPB. Oh, and by the way, you didn't get it in by the deadline for noticing. So it's going to be two months from now before that happens. And that I mean that's a matter of due diligence. You purchased
property in the historic district and the onus is on you. But I'm here to serve the city of Tarpon Springs and its citizens. And I always want to try and get to yes, maybe. No,
not exactly that. But let's try and get to what you are wanting to do with your property. Well, that's why I'm suggesting maybe there's a middle ground for somebody like this lady. The
second case tonight that she really she didn't really have a real application. We all know that. Well, yeah, but you denied her concept, so she
didn't go off and expend her resources developing plans for something that got denied. Right. But I think that what I'm trying to make is the distinction is let's let's call
it conceptual. We wouldn't vote on it. We would just give people feedback. And she wouldn't have spent a bunch of money because she didn't spend any money to get here tonight, except whatever the $50 application fee is. So there
was probably something. And I think that historically this board, that's how it has operated, is we will approve something in concept and then say, you know, conditionally,
we're approving this concept. Come back to us when you have complete plans. We do that all the time on this board. That's what we should have done on Mr. Hoffman. But and Mr. Hoffman knows better. And I'll say this
to him personally, he he knew better than to come in without a site plan. That was just wrong. He's been around a long time, and it made us all uncomfortable. Right. And we had to go through a lot of
discussion to get to, to spell out in words what a few good pictures from him would have solved. And that's all I'm trying to say. If you have a lack of information, like in
the first case, you certainly could say we're uncomfortable in making a decision. We will continue this until you bring us the information we need, or
your option is to deny it because you didn't have enough information. You shouldn't feel uncomfortable in making these decisions. You should have the information you need necessary
or the testimony. But you all had to drag some of that information out that you were hoping would be presented. And I felt very uncomfortable that
he was acting like he didn't have to give it to us. And I, it made me feel uncomfortable, like we were in the wrong. And I don't think we were. If you're uncomfortable and you don't have the information, you
don't have to approve the application. But then they'll just turn around and then go to the commissioners. Well, you're a board that's established to
help the city and the commission. So if you're not getting a sufficient information, then we need to correct that and make sure that you're getting it. I wanted to
correct something. I made a statement about Clearwater Saint Pete, Tampa. They're very organized. Not saying that we aren't, but Clearwater and I
don't I'm not for Scientology, but they're doing what they're doing. Downtown is right. The materials, the design, the history on the buildings,
putting the buildings back like they were. I see it all on TV and you can see it on Sunday mornings on Tampa Bay program. I don't care for them, but
they're really going down the down the path of doing it right. And I hate to give them that credit, but this is something we need to look at. If you go
uptown, sign hand drawn signs all over the street, this business is here, this business is there. And we had an ordinance. I don't know what happened to it. I think a few
years ago we had an ordinance. You couldn't put those signs on the street. The other day, one of the bakeries on hibiscus had put a sign right on the street
and a car hit it. There you go. So I think I'm going to see City Manager. We need to look at our ordinances and what they're supposed to represent here in the city and start
imposing them, because the sponge docks looks like a carnival. We can't solve that problem tonight. No, I mean, but that's that is why I made that statement. We've got to do
something. Sure. Then the commission and the attorney and our head, the mayor, the heads of the boards here in town have to do something. Because sometimes it makes us look bad
up here. And I think there's a fine line to that. I mean, I live in the district, we have properties in the district. We understand we got to come in and, you know, get the approval
to do any changes. But I understand it adds time for the development process. So we you know, I think everybody here wants to make it as painless as
possible. But again, there's we got to have a site plan. Miss Langford, please just impose on impress upon people. We have got to have a site plan of what
they're doing. You know, our chairman was right, Mr. Hoffman was there, did no better. But. Okay. All right. Any other
discussion comments? Nothing. Okay. Let's adjourn. It is 927. Thank you everyone. Thank you
Chloe. Thanks, everybody.
Carolyn, thank you so much.