Number two. Roll call please. Mr. Brzezinski here. Mr. Sprecher here. Miss Howlett here. Miss Ryan here. Miss
Kaplan here. Thank you. Public comments. Only if they have. If they pertain to something other than the agenda item. Anybody
have any questions or comments? Okay, we'll move on. Number four, approval of minutes from March 3rd, 2025. Can I get a
I'll make a may I make a motion to accept them as is. Okay. I'll second. Okay. Any discussion on that? All right. We have a
motion and a second. Can we take a vote? Miss Kaplan? Yes. Miss Ryan. Yes. Miss Howlett. Yes. Mr. Sprecher? Yes. Mr.
Rudzinsky. Yes. Okay. Number five, quasi judicial announcement and swearing in of speakers. Thank you. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where
the Heritage Preservation Board acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply law
that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and
apply those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, in order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board
may only consider evidence at this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues. If the 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. If you're going to speak tonight, can you stand to be sworn in? Raise your right
hand. When in doubt, you should probably stand up. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the board shall be the truth, so
help you? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going to look at the first application. Number 25.19.
Certificate of approval to elevate contributing structure
at 233 Grand Boulevard. Carolyn. I apologize. There we go. Here
we go. Okay. Caroline Lanford, principal planner with the city of Tarpon Springs. We're looking
at application 2519. This is the land use and location of the subject property at 233 Grand Boulevard. This slide shows the
location of the subject property in our local and national historic districts. It is a contributing structure in both. This is the 1926 Sanborn Map,
and the empty spot that is circled is where the subject property sits now. It was believed to be constructed about two years after this map was
made. So the information on the property is on this slide. It is a Tudor Revival, circa circa 1928. It is a contributing
structure. And the applicant is seeking a certificate of approval to elevate the home approximately six feet above existing grade. Enclose the
existing patio, add a new wraparound wood deck and a new exterior porch and stairs to lead up to the front door. This
slide shows you the photograph from the Florida master site file of the home. This is the
east elevation of the home. The facade. This is from the west. And this side shows the north
elevation. There's also a one and a half story garage apartment. Which is also a contributing structure on this
property. This is showing kind of the north neighbor context.
That is the. Out here. That's the HDL Webster House. That's. Neighboring the property to the
north. There's some more context looking further north. This is the west context. It's actually right next door to the home that
you looked at last month, which is a 1940s frame vernacular. The South context. And the
Universalist church is right across the street from the subject property. And some further southern context. So
this is the boundary survey for the subject property. This slide shows you the site plan that
they have. This is showing their their plans for demolition. And
then the proposed ground floor plan. This this is showing you
the proposed east elevation. So you'll notice there'll be a new first floor. And then they're
proposing to carry the porch out past the historic home to tie in to the proposed wraparound deck
that they have on the back, and made an attempt here to try and pay homage to the original wing
wall. This is showing the south elevation with proposed garage doors leading into that new first floor kind of basement
area with the proposed wraparound porch. Notice here they have, they've pointed out, using steel garden handrail
painted wood handrails. With cedar wood post stairs and decking. This is showing the
west elevation. Some more of that wraparound porch you can see behind that proposed new
wing wall. And then the north elevation. Here's some renderings. Just to kind of give
you a better idea. This is from the southwest. The northeast.
They've also included a landscaping plan. So we'll go through our standards for
review. So actually new construction consistency should have been highlighted. So our
first. I'm sorry. Our first criteria is whether the height or width of any proposed alteration would be consistent with adjacent contributing
structures and structures of similar character and architectural style found throughout the immediate district or neighborhood. So this subject property is located
in an eclectic area of our historic district. We've got Gothic revivals across the street to the north. Frame
vernacular just to the south. There's a craftsman. Just to the west of the subject property. So there's kind of a mix. And in this area, as you can see, a lot
of the properties that are surrounding the subject property are larger, more than one story. And kind of grand, imposing
buildings. There are only four Tudor Revivals in our local historic district. And this is the only one that is not one
story. So it's kind of unique on its own. And. And elevating it. You know, being unique in that it's the only one. There's no
really any other architectural peer to compare it to. So it's my opinion that while elevating
the structure would change the height of the contributing structure. Because it is in this area surrounded by other large,
tall buildings. Some of the visual impacts of elevation would be lessened by that
surrounding. So go to our next criteria, which is the width and height of the windows doors. Being consistent with the
character of the building's original architectural style. So if you'll note here, on this elevation, they did not. The applicant did not provide
dimensions or product information about the proposed windows. They are proposing four over one, which is consistent with the architectural style.
But as illustrated here, they're not. The these as shown here. The dimensions and the proportions aren't compatible
with the historic building. We'd like to see something that is more narrow, more more focused on that vertical, like the
existing windows. And grouped together differently. So it's my recommendation that if the board should choose to approve this project, a condition of approval
would be a revision of the fenestration plan for the proposed new front first floor.
Let's see. This is probably a good one to discuss. Our third criteria, which is the relationship of the structure. Within the district to the open
space between it and the street, and to other buildings and scenic views and streetscapes. So the proposed new porch and
deck would comply with the setback requirements and meet code and everything, but it would alter the views from the street and the views from from
other structures. So. One one area of concern is this, you know, tall, new straight up stairway. The Secretary of
Interior has guidelines for elevating historic homes. And one of those guidelines talks about trying to soften the visual impacts of that elevation. It's my opinion that
adding a landing would kind of soften that rise. It would be a gentler step up and would have less of an impact. So I'm recommending that should the
board decide to approve this application, condition it with. A revision to the front stair
plan to incorporate a landing, and also the massing of that deck is going to change a little bit. The relationship to the street. On the other side. But I
think that the impacts to the facade are the most significant. So I'll just keep here. Criteria
five the proposed. So the size and mass of the building after the alteration should still be reflective of the building's architectural style. Just
inherently in elevating the structure and adding on a new deck. It will alter the height and massing of the historic
structure and just aren't reflective of the original architecture. You would never see a wraparound porch on a Tudor Revival. So, and in
addition, you know, the entryway, the proposal to extend this front porch out past the historic structure. That's just it's not consistent with the
original architectural style. And the needs to determine if, if these changes are significantly adverse. Number
six is that the landscaping shall be utilized as a means to enhance the architectural character and appearance of the structure. The landscaping plan that they provided should help
soften some of the visual impacts of the proposed project. Particularly liking the retention of the existing live oaks. That's going to help maintain those important
elements of that streetscape there and kind of keep the relationship of the structure
with the public realm. Okay. So criteria number seven is that distinctive architectural features shall be repaired
rather than replaced wherever possible. The main architectural detail that I'm concerned about
here is that historic wing wall. Let's take a look at it. So you can. So you can see this wing
wall here and its relationship to the historic structure. And then what's being proposed. It's
rather different. And I understand it seems like they're trying to pay homage to the original architecture, but I
just feel like it's not working and it's really altering that historic facade. A design that creates there's any number of
design solutions. In consultation with the county's historic preservation specialist. His preference would be for the historic wing wall to
stay at ground level. But I'm asking as a condition. If you should choose to approve this,
that we kind of look at. The design of this wing wall and also. Plans for the guards and
rails for the stairs on the facade, and then criteria eight. That all buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. And
we shall not attempt to create an earlier appearance than the original date of construction. I do not feel that the proposed alterations attempt to create an
earlier appearance. Criterion nine is compliance with the Secretary of the interior. Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for rehabilitating Historic buildings. The primary guidelines here from the Secretary that are applicable be number two. So the historic
character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. So
the project does alter the character of the historic property. However, alterations associated with the elevation would contribute to the
longevity of the historic structure. Alterations associated with the addition of the second floor deck need to be evaluated by the HPB to
determine if these alterations are significantly adverse. And then number five that distinctive features, finishes
and construction techniques. Examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved so as the plans as presented generally
attempt to preserve the distinctive features and finishes that characterize the property. My main concern with, with the exception of my main
concern being the alterations to the facade with the stairs and the proposed new wing wall. So
alterations to that design would definitely enhance this project. And then number nine new additions, exterior alterations and related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment. So again, generally the alterations are compatible with the original architecture of the of the structure and will
not destroy historic materials. The elevation component will certainly increase the longevity of the structure. And I think
with just a few redesigns, we could better preserve the historic architecture. And then
our final criteria is that the proposed project shall conform with the other requirements of this code and be in compliance with the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. For the most part, the project is expected to be constructed in compliance with the Land Development Code and the Florida Building Code. I
will point out that the highest point shown on the plans is 28.4ft, which is measured from the bottom of the roof line and the maximum height allowance in
the R 60 district is 35ft, which is measured from the mid point of the gable. So this structure has a steep roof, pitch, and
it's difficult to tell from the plans provided, but it possibly could exceed 35ft. And if that's the case, they would need to
seek a variance. The proposed project can be interpreted as balancing the goals, objectives policies of the Comprehensive Comprehensive Plan by increasing
the longevity of the structure. Although the project does not fully comply with the review criteria or the Design
Guidelines Review Manual. So with that, I'm recommending conditional approval. I've got
one. Oh, this is the wrong one. I've got quite a list of. So we're not going to pay attention to that. Got quite a list of
conditions. The first being that the new ground floor should be differentiated from and subordinate to the historic structure. Design solutions can
be developed. And so I'm asking that the board condition any approval with requiring that some sort of design solutions be
be developed with staff. The second condition would be the stairs on the facade would be redesigned to incorporate a
landing and mimic the original architecture of the stoop at the bottom, utilizing the rounded shape. Because the. Existing
historic structure, the entryway really focuses on arches, and there's a rounded stoop here. So you've got the rounded batten
door, you've got the rounded arch arch. I feel like the design could be improved by calling back to that that shape.
Condition number three would be the new porch on the facade. Would be redesigned and limited to the extent of the historic
home with no connection to the wraparound deck. So. I'd like to
see that new porch stop here. Connect back to the proposed wraparound that goes around the back of the house. Condition number four would be that the
wraparound deck will utilize squared balusters rather than turns. Condition number five would be the design and materials for the proposed new
facade. Stairs would be reviewed with staff. Number six the fenestration pattern on the first floor to be redesigned in consultation with staff. Number
seven the plans for the wing wall would be redesigned in consultation with staff. Number eight that the new garage will utilize carriage style doors and
architecturally appropriate hardware. Because we have that in our Design Review Guidelines manual. And then number nine would be that the certificate of approval will expire in three
years. If a building permit has not been issued for the project. And I'm going to try and find the document on here so we can
all see those together. Oh my goodness. Just over there.
There. Well, while that's trying to load so that we can all take in the nine conditions, I'm
recommending for approval. Do you have any questions? Yeah. In our in our packet here it only
shows the five. It wasn't updated. Yeah I updated the staff report and presentation today because I got comments from the county historic
preservation specialist today which it should. Could you bring those up then? I'm trying to.
Let's see if a refresh won't help.
There we go. Okay. Thank you. Can you leave
that up to for us? Certainly. Is this the first time this board has had to deal with the razing
of a house? To my knowledge, yes. And this is also the first historic home case of elevation in Pinellas County at this point. Interesting. From these
storms at this point. So this is a precedent setting case. And I do completely understand why the homeowners would want to elevate it. We just want to make sure
that we get that elevation done right. Of course. Any questions you guys have Carolyn. No no,
no. I have a point of information. You'll you'll have an opportunity to your presentation. I'd recommend leaving those up there for us. We'll leave those up. Before we
move on. Any any questions from the board up here, Carolyn? For Carolyn, I'm just concerned about the basement, the garage
area. And there's going to be a basement as well as the garages underneath. Yes. Yeah. So it's
just going to be it's I think the applicant could probably explain it better, but it's just like a new first floor that's going to be a garage. Okay. Are
they going to do. Whatever needs to be done in order, you know, for breakaway walls or something on the basement level? That that
would be a question for the applicant. Let's save those for the applicant. We'll save those for the applicant. Okay. Questions. Okay. Well thank you
Carolyn. Now I'm going to want the applicants to make their presentation. Thanks for coming
here. Okay. No problem. Hello. My name is Daniel Edgell. I'm with sand bar architecture. We're the architect for the applicant here. And thank you
for doing a nice and thorough review here. So I just want to cover a couple of things that were mentioned in your review.
You know, the first is regarding the window size. You notice that they were stunted. On the south side of the house there are similar there is a similar
window of that size and style on the south side of the house. So, you know, isn't it isn't a totally foreign size to the house. In addition to that, you
know, we need to leave room for structure and planting at the bottom. So, you know, we have some functional items to consider as well. For the stair.
The house is currently non conforming with the current zoning setback. If we add a landing or stretch that stair out we increase the non conformance beyond what we're
already proposing. That is going to require us to get a variance for the stair, even the one that we have in there. So I just want to make you guys aware of that,
that you know we might totally agree with you, but then the other board may not. So we do have a additional hurdle that
would be required. It just by extending the stair. There is a deck that wraps around the what is it the west and the south
side of the house. And so currently functionally the three sides of the house are connected. Even though there's no deck on the front, it's, you
know, it's a small elevation, but there is a deck that does exist on two sides of the house. The landscape plan, you know, sounds like you guys are happy
with it. It's the landscaping that the clients you know currently use. It's been proven to work in that area. So we just thought we'd kind of leave well
enough alone since we know those plants grow. The wing wall, if we left the wing wall on the ground, I'm afraid that it's going to look inappropriate to
the house. It's going to be it's going to be covered by the stair on one side. You know, it's currently higher in proportion to where the house currently is. So if we raise the house it to
us, it makes sense that the wing wall would, would, would come up with it. It would look inappropriately small if we kept it at the same size. We extended it out and we gave it, gave it a
little bit of interest with the curve. And if we took the curve straight to the ground, it would look static and uninteresting. So, you know, a little bit of
whimsy I think is required with that wall. You know, differentiating it from the ground up, you know, that's easy enough that that's, you know, that that's a facade treatment,
if that's what we had to do. Keep in mind that the lift company did give us some limitations because of their structural requirements. We have
a six foot maximum structural bay in there. So it's a lot more constraining than what we would normally see. And I think it's
because of the characteristics of the house. You know, variance for the height will, you know, I guess, cover that with somebody
else there. So. With the railing on the front currently there's no railing on the front. We used the a railing style that that's
you know, it's not on the house. It's a little less. We, we wanted something that was a little more minimalistic just to preserve the way that the house
looks on the front as opposed to using, you know, a bulkier system like we're showing on the side. So that was our thought
process there. Is there anything else? Garage doors. So the stoop is actually currently square. We don't have a rounded student on our home for the front. The
front stoop is squared off. It's two tiered squares. So he's he's saying that the stoop is currently it's square. It's not rounded. If there's if there's
an arch to it it's very subtle. So you know arching the arching a landing or the, the stair
design. Well you know. I don't know. It's so subtle. Nobody's going to notice it from the road. So I don't know if you
have anything that you'd like to add. No. You covered. I wrote down four things. You covered the four things I wrote down. Okay. We had a question about the basement. Anything that's
code required, we will do. And it's just a condition of the building code and the function of our job. So I don't think breakaway walls are required at
this location. You know, it's a little closer to the water, but we will have flood mitigation built into the project. All right. Okay. And we discussed
that with our lifting company directly. So. Okay. Yeah. Give us your name and speak into the mic. I'm Nick Gunther. I'm the homeowner. My wife is sitting
over there, so the lifting company we spoke extensively about specifically that bottom floor, what do we have to do for flood prevention and what should we do architecturally and structurally for managing all
that? So we've discussed it with with sandbar and we're all on the same page. What has to happen there? The garage will have it'll be slightly below grade. We currently have an actual basement. So this will be
significantly higher than that. So our current basement is a 4.5ft to five foot excavation. This will only be 18in or so, and it's only for the portion
where we physically putting a vehicle. Everything else will be at ground level with the normal flood vents, so it's only a
small step. Okay, thanks. Any anything else you guys want to say? Not particularly. The motive is pretty obvious. You
know, we flooded. And don't sit down. We might have some questions for you. Sure. Guys, questions for the applicant right now. No, I've got a question. You're talking about
the just for the window comment. So is there so much structure that is required that you couldn't lengthen the windows? Or maybe do less windows in that section that Carolyn's referring
to the physical like width of the windows is going to be limited by the I think it's the height, the height, the height. Right. You're talking about. Right. So that they look
similar. Similar look right now proposing is allowing some space for some landscaping underneath the window so that the windows aren't sunk into the landscaping. We need four
windows. There's four available bays. Yeah. No, I get that. The only reason I'm asking is we could do two longer windows. You could take away the two other ones for the landscaping. Could
that be. Well, so to do, we need to make sure you speak in the mic. Okay? Please. Thank you. So what I'm what I'm saying is that the actual number of windows
across the front of the facade isn't the issue. It's the physical height that's available to install a larger window that we're looking at. So, you know,
we will likely have a tie beam above those windows. We'll have landscaping below those windows. We don't want to bury the windows in the landscaping itself. You know, you plant
bushes, you're going to hide the windows. So, you know, we're trying to allow them to be seen through the landscaping. Right.
I'm not sure I'm following. So what is the square below is that for. That's for flood. Right. The below that. That's where those are. Flood drain out. Yeah. So behind the window is that like just concrete back.
That's part of the garage right. Or is it or is it actual graded behind those windows. Yeah. They'll be there'll be some concrete. Okay. So it's an open
space in the garage. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So if you get if you went to the floor plan for the garage. You'll see the depressed
area. You know, where it physically says the garage and it's, it's dashed out. And then the other areas around it are elevated a little bit higher. I
think that the four short windows give it a more modern look to where I think that's what's kind of sets it off, that it doesn't kind of flow together. I think that if we
could if there was any way to address that piece, I think it would go a long way. If I could, if I could add something. Yeah. Her, her, her suggestion was
also to differentiate the new construction. So, you know, we have to decide, are we matching the new construction and trying to, you know, are we trying to match it or are we trying to
differentiate what we're doing? I'm hearing mixed signals here. I think I kind of have mixed signals for you, because we're just trying to find our way here. No. That's understandable.
Comply with it. But speaking with the county historic preservation specialist, if you didn't want windows, that would be okay, too. If we could make
this first new first floor look like a foundation. So. Particularly on the facade. So yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm
supportive of either the aspect ratio in that first floor is going to be funny. It's only a six foot lift. So it is. Me. So
it's tight. So having the normal size windows which are the majority of our actual walls on the other floors, it's difficult to hit the same aspect ratio. So
we're kind of constrained. So what you're saying is, you know, you can leave those windows out completely. Yeah I understand. So that was that was what one of
the takeaways that I took in speaking with Tom was that if we could make this really just look like a new foundation, that would give more, draw your eyes
more to your house than to the foundation. Come up. Yeah. It's too busy looking. Yeah, sure.
Saves us $10,000. Okay. Anything else? I actually think you did a great job for this monumental
task that you've kind of gotten yourself into. As far as that wraparound porch goes. I personally don't have a real
problem with it, since it's a way to access those back doors and the windows. And like you said, there was a deck there now
isn't there? Yes. So you're basically raising the deck and putting a railing around it? Yeah. If you could show the demolition plan, you could see where the deck currently sits.
So all of that, all of that red on the on the west and the south side are that's the existing deck that's coming out. And as
far as that wing wall goes. I'm not expecting you to redesign it on the spot here, but can you see a way of kind of making that a little. Well, let's, let's I
don't know that you can without it looking weird, you know. You can't take a wing. The wing wall, if you're looking at the
house. Okay, that wing wall above the first floor, above the foundation is the same. It should be fine, except for a little bit that comes out and
meets this bottom one. But it's, you know, it flows a lot better. I think if it went straight down or if you didn't have it there, it wouldn't look right. Yeah. We're also concealing some stairs with that wall. Right.
And I see that. Yeah. Yeah. Another thing too is the stairs, the doorway through it. If you just had a wall there, it wouldn't look right. But staff
is also recommending that there is no porch there. So there wouldn't be that doorway. That entryway. Yeah. I think I'd have
to. Go with the owner on this one. Yeah, maybe. Maybe this. These are things that we'll discuss after discuss later. So let's let's keep this to
questions for the applicant right now. Helen, can you put
your, your list back up? Okay. Okay. I don't have any
other questions. Okay. No other questions. Are there any public comments, pro or con, about this
project? Give us your name and address, please. Yes. My name is Rene Torres. I live at 400 Grand Boulevard. I am a retired
architect, a historic preservation architect. I have presented before the board when the church that was shown, I led
the remodel efforts there. I want to I my point of information was you showed a house that's at the corner of
Reed and Grand that was elevated somewhere in time. That house you you can see it in, in the pictures that you showed. So
there is a precedent already in the neighborhood. This house was lifted. I am applying for the same process through Elevate
Florida. I have a big gray craftsman that sits at seven foot finished floor elevation and in. In spite of being a
finish seven feet, we flooded a foot. So I am going to be. I came here to see how this was going to work, but I have no no negative comments. I think
everything has been done by the book. And very professional. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. But you may want to take a look at that slide that you put up,
because it clearly shows a house with the stairs. How about the rest the rust colored one right. It's kind of a rusty color. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And it has a
landing. But the stairs are practically all the way at the front of the street. There you are. You have it right there. Oh. That one. That house is
about the height that I want to elevate mine to. That's my favorite house in Tarpon
Springs. Okay. Any other public comments about this project?
Okay. I will close those public comments then. And unless there's more from the applicant and from staff, I'll close those
comments also. And now I'm going to bring it back to us for consideration. Let's talk about
it. I think we need to take it one step at a time. Okay. Okay. And then let's do that. We'll we'll bring it up for a motion after we hash it out. Let's do
that. Okay. This is like that other one. Yeah. All right. Do you want to start? Okay, let's just start with number one.
Okay. The ground floor should be differentiated. Understand that. The windows. You know, the only
way you can. I think you can put windows in there is to have the proportional. In other words, the height is one third of the height. Whatever the proportion
of the old ones to the new ones. But really, if you look here, bring up the. Can you bring up the front of the house, please?
Now their drawings, the proposed. Yeah. Yeah. The front door. There. Oh, you want to see
that? Okay. That one? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It does look off there. And if you're
differentiating differentiating it, if the whole house is above it. So you really want to make a, you know, solid walls. I'd be
in favor of that. Lose the windows. Yeah. And the front. And the sides. Or are we just talking about the. I would say the street sides. The street
side, street side. They could soften the foundation by shrubbery. Yeah. And that eliminates those windows that are in the way of anything high
growing shrubbery. Yeah. And foundation is foundation needs to be strong. You know. Yeah.
So. Okay. So. So, look, so the windows on the foundation, the first one and then the window. I would just say remove the windows, let them take the recommendation from the historic
preservation. As she spoke to today on that piece. Okay. There would be solid. Can we go back to your list, please? Okay, let's talk about number two,
then. The stairs. I think if you push those out, it's going to be very strange coming off the street. And then if you want to add a path here, it's also going
to be very strange. So I think that I think we kind of leave the stairs like the way they are proposed now. No, you can do you shrubbery or something like that
to soften it. I go along with that. All right. So number three. Okay. What's number three? The porch facade. I don't really have an issue with that.
I kind of get why you would want to connect them. Okay. Now that is that's on the front facade right here. Front porch. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Because that goes in
with the wall. Okay. If you just had a blank wall there, it wouldn't look right. Well you know. That's right. Unless it flows a lot better. Yeah. Yeah.
It'd be waste. Yeah. So I don't really have an issue with that piece. It's going to be different. It's good. I mean, it's a big change, and I totally understand the change. I would
want the same thing. I would want to not worry about a flood. Yeah. So I think that that's okay. And I think we could look at that as a safety feature,
frankly. It gives you another access. Yeah. That's true. To move around the house. The design and the materials for.
Okay. So we're good on number. So what are we thinking about? Number three. That porch. I'm okay with it. Yeah, I'm okay
with it, too. Anybody else? What do you guys think? I think it's fine. You know, I, I mean, it's
old, but it's old, but it's new, you know? So you're gonna have a little bit of change. Different. And it's a wonderful way to live
with a wraparound deck. In the landing. Oh, look. All right, let's talk about number four.
For one second. Do we have an actual detail of those? Yeah, it goes to the garage. Okay. Got it. Okay. That's good. Yeah. Oh,
I see, what are we talking about? The wraparound railings.
Number four. Oh, oh, are you talking about on the back? Oh. Right here. This is what she's talking about. These? Yeah, the turned ones. And just using
square instead. I'm okay with that recommendation. Yeah. So my. Are they going to be wood
or. They're wood or wrought iron or. No. Back here. These are wood. Right. The white, the wood. The ones in the back. The wraparound. I think they're what would. Right. Nice. Okay. All
right. Let's talk about number five. Oh, well, I guess that's a given. What was that? Number
five. Right. And I said yeah. What is I don't know. That's just for staff will work with them as far as the on the
materials. That's fine. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Number six. I think that we said, well, actually that's talking about the windows, and we just talked
about removing those windows. Right. Right. I think we just leave it to the recommendation of the preservationists and at least on the front of the house.
And then maybe we amend that to you work that we that they work with Caroline on the other sides. We're talking about windows now. No, we're talking about the fenestration pattern.
The numbers. Number six. That's the texture of the wall. We're talking about. I'm talking about the window. Well, it's also includes the windows. And if
we're already talking about removing those windows, maybe that, maybe that one's a moot point. But I would just phrase it. Philip, remove. Remove the
windows off the front of the house and then leave it to the discretion of Caroline and staff on the other sides. Okay. Remember that when you make. A
motion. All right. Then number seven. Number seven. I'm in agreement with them. It would just seem very strange to have
that wall. Kind of like the mass of the house is in the height. I think you need that. I would have put that for the proportion
would be. Up. You mean higher? Well, no. It was originally. Oh, right. Yeah. Where is it originally? I think you know how
they designed it. How else are they going to design it? Okay. Then how do we feel about that number seven? I would. Okay. As
is. Okay. As is, as is proposed. Number eight. I'm good with the staff recommendation on that. Yeah. And number nine. Same.
Okay. Did you write all this down? I I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said about number eight. I did make some notes. You got everything. Okay. I missed what you said about
number eight. I couldn't hear you. Number eight, go with staff recommendation. Okay. And number
nine, staff recommendation is good. We. Did you get number seven? I actually eliminated
that. Okay. I can tell you what I have. Okay. To. Well, the number one. The new ground floor should be different from this.
And subordinate to the historic structure. Windows on the foundation should be removed and be accented with vegetation.
Yes. That's good. To your second one. The stairs on the facade are acceptable as presented by the applicant. That's what I got from your discussion. Yeah. So you could remove that one. And
then the new porch on the facade will be redesigned to limit the extent this is. I still have the same one. We would remove that one too. You want to just remove that whole. Yeah. Okay. And then
the wraparound deck will utilize square balusters. We would keep that. Okay. And then the design and materials for the proposed new facade stairs will be
reviewed with appropriateness first. Yes. Staff. And then the new garage will utilize carriage style doors and architecturally appropriate hardware. Correct.
And then three years. Yes. Okay. How do you have number three listed? Removed? Well, I removed it. Removed it. So I have number three as the wraparound deck will utilize square balusters
because that's how I had it written down here. Okay. Thank you. Okay. You're removing number three. In other words, we're leaving number three the way it is. As proposed by the
landowner. Yes. The way will be there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. You make a motion. If
there's no more discussion. You guys got any more down there? Any questions? Any more comments? Questions? Let's do a
motion. You want to do it? Yes I do. Okay. Your turn. I need you to read it now. I'm kidding. Okay. Make a motion to number
one. We will remove that. Wait, wait. Couch with you. Make a motion to approve. To approve. Subject to the following condition. I make a motion to approve, subject to the
following items. Number one, we would just remove that from stipulations. So the. Sorry, guys, I'm trying to read from here. I do interrupt, I do feel
that you wanted to keep number one. Is that the new ground floor should be differentiated from and subordinate. Yeah. So I suggest that we're basically
keeping one. Right. Getting rid of two. Yes. Getting rid of three. Keeping four. Yes. Keeping five. Six is no longer necessary. That's going up with
one. Seven would be removed. Eight would be retained, and nine would be retained. Correct? Yes. That's what I have here. For number one, I haven't
changed. So? So it would be condition number one as altered, which Kim could read back for you really quickly. I can read back the whole motion if you'd
like. Please. Okay. And can can this count on the record so I don't have to repeat it? Yes. As long as we have that clear on the record. I just want to make sure. Okay. Just to verify, your
motion is to approve the application with the following conditions. The new ground floor should be differentiated from and subordinate to the historic structure. Windows in the
foundation should be removed and be accented with vegetation. The stairs on the facade are acceptable as presented by the applicant. The wraparound deck will utilize square balusters
rather than turned. The design and materials for the proposed new facade stairs will be reviewed for appropriateness by staff. The new garage will utilize carriage style doors.
And architecturally appropriate hardware. And the certificate of approval will expire in three years. If a building permit has not been issued for the project. It all sounds right, doesn't it?
Correct. Everybody understand that? Any questions? Any more discussion? No. Need a second? Do we have a second vote? Oh, we need a second. Second. Second
would be good. That would be good. Thank you. I knew that. I knew it before you told me. Okay. Now we have a first and a
second. And if there's no more discussion, let's call for a vote. Okay, Miss Kaplan? Yes. Miss Ryan. Yes. Miss Howlett. Yes. Mr. Sprecher? Yes. Mr.
Burzynski. Yes. Congratulations. Nice job. Do a good, beautiful. Do a good job. All right. Thank you. Beautiful. Beautiful.
Beautiful. Thank you. Let's see. Moving on. Board and staff comments. Carolyn, do you have anything else to say? I do not have anything to say today. You
did very well. Should we expect more of these? Yes, we definitely should. So this isn't the first elevation in in our historic district, but this is the first one since this round
of storms. And this is the first one. And I don't think it's going to be the last one. I don't think so. Okay. This is a question. Yeah. Go ahead. It's
for Carolyn. What was the original? I mean, what was the official height of Helene? The storm surge. All right. I don't know, off the top of my head too
much. Oh, I know that. Okay. Just wondering, I don't know, off the top of my head. Okay. Any any other comments from the board here about anything? Nope.
No. Okay. We will adjourn. It is 731. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Very hard. Racking my brains. Ever since I saw the
plan. Find a house? Yeah. Are you done? What can you do,
Austin? Yeah.