To order the meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board. And today is June 3rd at. And, it's 630, and we're at the City Hall having this meeting. I don't have the address right off hand, so we can start with public comments and these comments would be anything not related to what's on the budget. So if you have any comments you can get up now. No okay. Oh I don't know if there's anything. And we want to look at the meeting minutes for April 1st. And Madam Chair, we do have to do a roll call. Oh, I'm sorry. Roll call. Okay. Mr. Knopf. Yes Mr. Mrozinski. Not on here. Okay. Mr. Sprecher. Miss Hallett here, miss Ryan here. Miss Kaplan here, I guess Mr. I didn't respond to you, but he called in and has an excused absence, but we haven't heard from Bill. Yeah. Thanks. Keep, keep me going. Here. So we need, I guess that you have to read. What is your last name again? I myself, last name? Daniel Lewis. Lee wise, Lewis, though I should have remembered that, do you want to read the quasi judicial and, we have to do the a motion, to a motion and second to approve the minutes. Okay. Sorry. My screwing up today. Motion to approve the minutes for April 1st, 2024, I, I make a motion to approve the minutes as presented, and. Have a second. Second. It and a vote. Kaplan Miss. Ryan, I wasn't here. Do I still vote on it, then? Yes, miss Howlett. Yes, Miss Danoff? Yes And now, can you read the quasi judicial. Yes. The matters before the city of Tarpon Springs Heritage Preservation Board are quasi judicial in nature. And a quasi judicial proceeding. The board's function is 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 city of Tarpon Springs. Code of Ordinances. This is a legal decision regarding the application before the board. The board may only consider evidence that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues arising from the application and the applicable code sections only if the evidence demonstrates the applicant meets the criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required to approve the application. If the evidence demonstrates the applicant does not meet the criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required to deny the application any and all persons providing testimony at this hearing are required to do so under oath. All persons testifying at this hearing must give their name, address and must indicate whether or not they have been sworn for the record prior to proceeding with their testimony. All testimony and questioning at this hearing must address matters that are relevant and material to the issues under consideration, based on the criteria established in the in the City of Tarpon Springs Code of Ordinances. If any board member has disclosures regarding an application, please make your disclosures on the record at the beginning of the hearing. This includes ex parte communications or voting conflicts of interest. The following is the established procedure in which which will be followed at this quasi judicial hearing. Number one city staff will present its testimony and evidence relating to the application. First. The applicant will then have an opportunity to ask questions and cross-examine the staff and any city witnesses. Number two, the applicant will then have the opportunity to present its witnesses and evidence. The city will have the opportunity to cross examine the applicant and any of the applicant's witnesses . Number three members of the public opposing the application will be given the opportunity to present their testimony. Evidence number four members of the public in support of the application will be given the opportunity to provide their testimony and evidence. Number five, the applicant and then and then the city may present any rebuttal, testimony and evidence in a closing statement of Summary Number six, the board will close the public hearing for discussion and consideration of the application. At this time, anyone desiring to speak on a matter before the City of Tarpon Springs heritage Preservation Board, please stand and receive the oath. Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth on the matters? Before the City of Tarpon Springs Heritage Preservation Board this evening? Yes. Okay. A reminder, anyone coming to the podium to speak, please state your name, address and whether or not you've taken the oath. So we'll start with the item. 20 3-1 53. The applicant is requesting that the home at 158 Reed Street be demolished. And do you want to start? Caroline Yes, ma'am. Hold on just one moment. Okay. I got that, we're discussing application 23 153. Which is located at 158 Reed Street, Miss Lanford, would you talk into the mic a little more? Sorry. Here, let me pull it up a little closer, so we are, discussing, 158 Reed Street. It's shown here on on this slide, on the next slide, you can see its location within the National Register Historic District. And this slide shows a picture of the subject property from the Florida master site. File the applicant is seeking a certificate of approval to demolish, this contributing, altered structure. This slide shows, the survey for the property, and as you can notice, it is set much further back than any other property in the vicinity, the Florida master site file for this property notes that it was perhaps constructed as an outbuilding for one of the surrounding properties, and, that's part of the reason why the lot is so narrow, not really sure. Don't haven't done all of the research to find out exactly how that lot was divided off, but it is considerably smaller and it is a non conforming lot size as of right now. This is just a current picture of the subject property, showing the context of the area, this is a photo supplied by the applicant showing street flooding in the area, and some damage to the structure that was done when the area most recently flooded, so our guidelines for demolition are a little bit different, than our guidelines when we're looking at alterations to properties, we have some very specific things that we need to look at, the demolition should always be considered a last resort, when there's no other feasible alternative, and so I'm going to go one by one on the, criteria for determining if a demolition is appropriate, the applicant has some, some relevant issues. The applicant has provided an existing conditions report, a cost estimate for the elevation and repair, and then some photos of the street flooding and damage that I shared with you. And those should all be in your packet, so the first standard, for review is the historic architectural or cultural significance of the building or structure, I was unable to find any special significance beyond the fact that it is a contributing property in our historic district, as I previously noted, the fight style the Florida master site file indicates that it may have been constructed as an outbuilding, for one of the surrounding properties, because it's set so far back from the street from other surrounding properties, criteria two is the importance of the building, to the ambiance of the district or to the patterns of the land uses reflecting cultural traditions of the community or the local ethnic group, here, I feel that the pattern of land uses is actually out of context with the surrounding land uses, you have the large former church on Reed Street adjacent on the west side , and then the, adjacent house, the craftsman on the east side, and because this structure is set so far back, I don't see that there would be a significant change to the feeling or setting of the district if it were to be demolished, the third criteria we need to look at is the difficulty of reproducing such a building, it's my determination that it would not be that difficult to reduce reproduce the building, with respect to the design, texture and material , because it is a wood frame building, and the location and setting, is not unique to a frame vernacular structure. It's not exceptional, criteria for is whether the building is one of the last remaining in the district. It is not. There are approximately 147 frame vernacular structures in the district, and 87 were built, within the similar time period, there's sufficient representation of residential frame vernacular styles throughout our district, so that criteria would not really apply, and then the final, the fifth criteria is the future utilization of the site and or group occupancy of the structure, because this, structure is on a nonconforming lot and the adjacent lot is held in common ownership. If, the structure is demolished, the lot would be combined with the adjacent structure that's in common ownership. And we would, be discontinuing the non-conforming use, and then finally, the last criteria is whether reasonable measures can be taken to save the building structure or traditional cultural property, and as I noted, the applicant has laid out, an estimate for, how to how they might be able to restore the building, some of their reasoning behind it is that the structure is flooding pretty regularly, and is suffering from water damage. And and mold, and, and, while as a historic structure, they are not required to, to, fully elevate to, the floodplain management requirements, the applicant is noting that they are getting repeated flooding and they would need to elevate it at least to some degree. And then, one of our last criteria that we need to look at is, if there can be a reasonable economic return on the policy. So what the board needs to review here is to compare the current property value, to the value of the restored property and whether there's a reasonable economic concern return on, the staff. I can't I can't render an expert opinion on that. But I did go to the property Appraiser's website and look at surrounding structures, and with the estimated cost of repair plus the purchase price of the property, it would result in approximately $918 per per square foot, which is significant higher than the median sales price of about $245 per per square foot, so I will, agree that there's likely not an economic return on repairing this. So generally we don't we don't like to have anything destroyed in our historic district. But, going by our own criteria, staff is recommending approval. With the condition that the design review guideline, manual, guideline 41 will be followed. And that requires documentation and salvage of any, historic materials that are in the structure before the demolition occurs. In that guideline, it is the board's responsibility to determine the level of documentation and the responsible person, that to produce that documentation. So if the board chooses to approve that, you would also need to determine what level of documentation and salvage would be appropriate, and with that I will enter my staff report and presentation as testimony. Winston confirming what they said. It was nonconforming. Right. So it does not conform to our current code. The size of the lot. You couldn't have a new lot be made that size. Say that again. You couldn't, so our current code for that district in the zoning district, it's in it's too little. It's the overall lot is too small, and it doesn't meet the, dimensional requirements for a lot. So they can't rebuild on it. No. Okay It's just demolish the house. The house would be demolished. And because it's in common ownership with the adjacent property, it would be combined back into that. And that would become one lot. Anybody else have questions for. Well, if they rebuilt, would they have to build up, like a garage or, no. So if they wanted to restore the structure, the historic structure, they could continue to keep it at the elevation it's at right now. The applicant is hesitant to do that because they are getting continually flooded at the elevation that it's at right now. So they would not need to meet the full measure of requirements, but for them to continue to gain any kind of economic return on this property, they would need to elevate it somewhat. So okay, but you said you don't feel that it's economically feasible, not what other houses are selling for and not not based on the, the evidence that was provided by the applicant. Okay. Any more questions for Caroline? No. The only thing I don't understand how we would. Would. Can you hear me? Okay If you could get a little closer, the salvage piece , how would we designate that? Because there are no photographs of anything that we can see other than some windows on one wall, so I don't know how we would do that. Yeah. I'm not. I'm not, not entirely sure for the procedure for that, but yes, from what I've seen, the windows do seem to be something that is salvageable, I believe that the board could say, the applicant is responsible for, documenting the structure and salvaging materials, you know, with staff review. And I could look over the work that's done. Okay. Thank you. Has it been flooded more than once, or was it just the past storm, I will leave that to the applicant. Ask them. Yeah, okay. Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay. Would you like to respond? Yes. Okay. My name is Anthony Martini, 405in drive, Tarpon Springs. And you've been sworn. I've been sworn in. Thank you. Robin Hancock, six two, three East Tarpon Avenue. And I have been sworn. I think I asked, excuse me, how is this the only time that's been underwater or. It happens every time a big storm and high tide or. I've only owned the property for about two years and it's happened twice, so. And everyone I talked to, you know, feels it's below. What's the proper term? It's below base flood base, flood elevation. And, as, as was described, it's a small home. A less than five, six, 600ft■!S. , okay. And unless it's elevated and right now, the roof is pretty low. So if you begin to elevate things, it gets out of scale. Even we own the church. We renovated the church and, we took some water in the church, but it's in the garage. So So it wasn't relevant as if it were in a living area where all, all of the components of living get destroyed and the mold we can't deal with and, I don't know. I mean, we looked at it many different ways, what we could do with it and the most economical and feasible we feel for the neighborhood is to combine it with the church. Right. Or the lot next to it, either one. And it'll I think it'll make the neighborhood better and create a better environment and actually enhance the church and the little bungalow craftsman that's next to it. So it's economic and we love the historic district, which is why we live there and we want to preserve it. So as was documented, I don't know if it was originally built as a historic building, which apparently it wasn't. You know, it was like an outbuilding. And if we could preserve the integrity of that location and spread it either to one, one, one home or the church, whichever, it's going to enhance the whole property and that the church and grander the church is right on the bayou. It's between between canal and reed Canal. Okay. It's right at the junction. If you're going to the sponge docks, you got to make a right turn and it's the white building right on the corner. Okay Okay. Yeah. I really don't have any more questions because. No, you do, do I do you have any idea of anything that needs that could be salvaged from that building? You know, honestly, I would say no, but, you know, I you guys might be better experts than me, so, I mean, I encourage you, you know, to go look at it and see what you think might be, you know, what do they say? You know, someone's something is someone else's jewel or whatever, but, honestly, we would for utilitarian purposes. I mean, with all you know, with the windows being what they are, and, and the new regulations and so forth, they don't subscribe to any of those. And so I think that if we were to renovate, we'd want to bring everything up to code, not just for beauty's sake. Although this one won't win any beauty contest. Put it that way. Is the door original, or is that like a replacement door? It's hard to tell from the picture. I'm surprised it still exists if you open it. It. I I don't know, I've, I haven't owned the property that long so I don't know what transpired prior. Okay All right. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Anything else? Any more questions? Then are there. You can probably sit down then. Are there any public comments on this topic? It sounds like the affected parties aren't here, but who is? So should we. Close public comments and have a motion? Have a motion, Madam Chair, just so just so we make just so we follow the procedure. As long as the city has. And just make sure that the city has any rebuttal. Rebuttal rebuttal testimony or, closing statements and the applicant has any rebuttal testimony. In closing, I don't anticipate it, but at least it's been it's been addressed. Okay Are there any rebuttals from Uttara? The only thing I would say is, if you choose to recommend approval, just include a condition. At what level? You think documentation is appropriate and that, that you feel the applicant should be responsible for. I don't understand that documentation, I guess what I would ask is for you to include a condition if, if you're looking to approve the application to include a condition that, photo documentation of the structure will be provided by the, the owner and applicant. To the to the city. But what are we asking them to provide in documentation , a digital file of photographs of the structure, interior and exterior. Okay. Can Do you have a rebuttal, sir? A rebuttal? Okay. Thank you. I I'm not certain. I'm sorry. I should come up here, please, just to clarify, do you want photo photos other than what was sent to you? Yes. I would like additional photos of the interior and exterior of the structure so that we can document it and keep it in our records. Okay? Okay I would like to go ahead. Say something. Okay In the research that I did on this structure, property, the building has never had a homestead put on it in the tax records. And the work that was done on the interior appears to have been done in the 80s. There's drywall, insulation, wiring. There was never a permit pulled, the air conditioning unit again is like 1983. So it appears that the work that was done to it was in the early 80s. And up until that point, the interior probably never had a finish on it, there's no evidence of plaque or laugh anything of that nature. Okay. So that leads us to believe it was like a shed, as Mr. Tony indicated, reusing the windows for somebody else's property, we would never get a permit on it, the Florida building code does not allow you to install, windows and doors that do not have a product approval. So but someone, if they want what's in there, it's to live with termites, and it's warped from the water damage, but yes, we would document every wall, every window, everything that's there for you. Great. Thank you. I think that's exactly what you need, isn't it? I would like to point out, though, that, historic structures do not have to strictly follow the Florida building code because they're historic structures. And, as long as it's not a life safety issue, according to the building official. So those windows could maybe be used, for someone who is trying to renovate a historic structure with original materials so could be used as long as the. And we building official determines that it's not a life safety issue. And we don't know that these were 1925 windows or 1983. There's nothing to indicate the difference. They're just, are they would they are would. But I can tell you, in 1986, I bought wood windows for my house and installed them. I was new to Florida. They were clad on the outside, but they were wood on the inside, and it can happen. But when does it are there are clad on the outside? No, no, what? I'm saying that you could buy wood windows in the 80s. Yeah. You could not. Oh you could, you could. Okay. Thank you, thank you. So are we ready for a motion? Yeah So are you closing? You ready? Yeah, I think we can. Yeah. Okay I'd make. So we're closed. I can make a motion. Yes. Okay I would make a motion to approve, with the, the documentation of photographs and then to let, them decide on salvage ability of any materials I second. Okay. When do we have further discussion, can we go for a vote then? Kim Yes. And we're voting to approve the demolition? Yes. Okay Miss Kaplan. Yes, miss. Ryan? Yes. Miss Hallett? Yes, miss Denoff. Yes. You're all set. Okay. And we'll go on now to applicant 24 Dash 22 for 20 to 26. Ibis Street, Hibiscus Street. Applicant is requesting an after the fact certificate of approval to alter previously approved facet plans at the contributing structure. Caroline. Yes, so the address of the subject property is 2226 Hibiscus Street. So that's 20, 22, 24 and 26, this slide shows the location of the subject property on Hibiscus Street. This slide shows the location of the property or kind of smack dab in the middle of the National Register district. And the applicant is seeking a and after the fact certificate of approval, for the replacement of the storefronts, in a configuration, different from what was, approved, in this slide is just showing, the location of the subject property within the special area plan. The slide, is the picture of the subject property from the Florida master site file, this slide is showing you the 1913, Sanborn map, which is interesting because the storefronts at 26, 24, and 22 were constructed in 19 by 1913. And then on the 1919 Sanborn map, we see that they, constructed 20 subsequently, but it was constructed to match the existing storefronts. Also of note, 20 Hibiscus Street was used as the Tarpon Springs leader newspaper headquarters. This is just a closer view of the 1919 Sanborn. So, the applicant was issued a certificate of approval for application 22 139 at the regular meeting of the HPB in March of 2023, after the applicant had commenced work on the contributing property without HPD approval or a building permit. The HPD refused approved the request to replace windows and doors at the storefronts as presented in the application, with some conditions. One, that they maintain the existing recessed configuration of the two remaining alcove entryways. Two, that the cornice would be restored and, our typical certificate of approval would expire in three years. It was discovered through the inspection process that what has been constructed is substantially different from the plans that were presented at the March 2023 HPB meeting, this slide kind of goes through a timeline of this project. So in November of 2022, they had a renovation remodel permit application submitted. It was approved by PNC, the building department subsequently, in, December of 22, approved removing and replacing stucco, in the we received a certificate of approval application to remove the storefront glass and fixed grass glass to reframe it at 90 degree angles, and it's the same work that was done at 101 East Tarpon Street as East Tarpon Avenue. So, that back drafts on the other corner there, and in December, PNC conducted the site review and noticed that the work had begun, the property owner, contacted planning and Zoning to inform that, they wanted to restore the original facade under the stucco, and they wanted to revise the project application, so, in March, the HPB March of 2023, HPB issued that conditional certificate of approval for the storefront replacement, and then in October of 2023, that's when we discovered that the work was not within the parameters of the certificate of approval. And the applicant was notified that they could either alter the construction to conform with the certificate of approval, or come and present the modified project to the HPB. And this is what we have today. Were those windows up or windows approved? No they were not. That's what I thought. Was it, I'll just go back to the drawing that was approved. Single doors now instead of double doors. Yes, ma'am. They're they're single doors, rather than double doors. And we're only talking about the two at the end. No, the entire the entire way. They have single doors. Okay the alcoves are gone, the alcove, the one remaining original alcove has been altered from its original configuration. So all of them are flat and don't have the one of them does have the alcove configuration, but it's not the same. It's not the original dimensions of the original, so you can see it there. These two containers have the alcove configurations, but those are not the original dimensions of the alcoves, the applicant has provided, some information as to why they felt that they could not comply with the original CCA , one of them being water intrusion. Because there's now wood framing in front of it, and then some concerns about the environmental implications of, exposing the beam. So, in response to, to those, the cornice is behind the facade because the original brick facade has been stuccoed over, there are architecturally appropriate solutions that could have prevented, water intrusion in and could have been explored. Alternatives to wood framing over the storefront cornice should have been explored with city staff. The basis for the presence of lead, has been, substantiated, it's over 100 years old, so I'm certain that, at some point, lead lead based materials were used within its lifespan, but there's no factual evidence that's been produced to corroborate, and the assertion that the only option for restoration is dry sandblasting, is just not accurate. And I've, included a preservation brief from the National Park Service in with the packet, a similar storefront at 151 East Tarpon was restored with sealing and painting in 2015. I have a picture of that in here. So this is what the, intact alcove entryway looked like, prior to the demolition. And this just shows you the various components. The cornice, the storefront cornice, the transom windows, the display windows, the double entrance doors, the structural supports and the apron or bulkhead and just comparing it with what we have now and what we had then. And you can see the, the alcove was originally much deeper than, than it is now. So the recessed entry has been reduced. We have the single entry door. The signs weren't included, in the application. These windows up here weren't included in the application. And then all of these new widened mold runs with within the storefront have been added and were not included in the application for the certificate of approval, and this is the property on East Tarpon Avenue that was restored in 2015. So our standards for review, include new construction consistency, windows, doors and entries, the neighborhood and district context, size, massing and shape, architectural features, adherence to period of construction in adherence with the Secretary's guidelines and conformance with other city code requirements, so with respect to, the height and width, the subject construction activities demolished the storefronts and significantly altered the height and width of the existing facade features, with respect to the width and height of windows and doors, they've they've all been replaced with a contemporary storefront. And the building really no longer conveys its historical associations, the replacements were not based on any kind of duplication of the original architectural components, the relationship of the structure with the street has definitely changed. Those alcove entryways were really both a method of bringing the store out to the street and being bringing people into the store. So it was kind of a liminal space between the public realm and the private street. And that that relationship has, has been destroyed, the building's massing has been adversely altered through the reduction of the alcove space, and the current facade design is inconsistent with the architectural style, the subject construction activities have destroyed and obscured distinctive architectural features. And, while the previously altered storefronts may have not achieved architectural significance in their own right, they did, retain some original architectural components such as wood doors and the double doors and the transom windows that conveyed a connection with the historic character of the structure, with respect to adherence to the Secretary's guidelines, you know, the historic character of the property has definitely been damaged, deteriorated, historic features were destroyed rather than repaired or replaced, and also, with respect to conformance with city code requirements, reflective glass was used on all the storefronts, which is in conflict with the requirements of chapter 43B of the Smart Code, which requires the use of clear glass within the district, so with respect to, recommendations, given the significant inconsistency with all of our review guidelines and, and our code, staff is recommending denial, should the HPB choose to, to approve the certificate of approval, I would have you note that the project is in ineligible for Community Redevelopment Area facade improvement grant funds due to this inconsistency with our historic district, regulations and. With that, I'm going to let you guys kind of discuss it because it's a little difficult because you can't unring a bell. So, I'm going to let, I'm going to let I'm going to suggest that the, the board discuss amongst themselves the appropriate course of action, because unfortunately, you can't unring a bell. It has been destroyed. The storefront looks like it belongs in any suburban shopping mall. Not in our historic district. So is there something, is there a list of what? You probably have it, but a simple list of what they would have to do to have this approved to have these buildings approved? Can we do that, or are you saying that we have no choice here? I think they need to bring it up to code, bringing it so you could you could suggest you could recommend denial and suggest, referring the issue to code enforcement. That's one option you can take. Can we can we hear from the applicant? Pardon? Can we hear from the applicant? Yeah We do need to hear from the applicant okay. He's a contractor. I'm Bill Larson I live at 20 Read Street, I was sworn in. I feel like I need a lawyer. I am perplexed at all this. You know, I remember Pat McNeice sending me a notice that I couldn't close out my permit because I didn't, have the cornice right on the building. And I said, Pat, I, I, I measured the banding. I put it exactly the way it was. I put it exactly back the way it was. But I want to back up first. The whole idea of not having a permit and doing work. That's why I'm a licensed building contractor. That is just not true. I got a permit because the stucco above the original storefront was falling, failing. It had failed. Had water intrusion. It had been going on for years. It was popping off the brick and it was a life safety issue. So I permitted just to redo the parapet wall above the existing storefront. And I had to use, that stainless steel structural lath to hold the brick from just completely coming down. So that was a separate permit, and I got a permit in fact, I, I set up my scaffolding to do the work and the building inspector shut me down and he said, where's your permit? And I provided the permit to him, showed him the permit. And then everything was, I thought was fine. So we proceeded to do that portion above the storefront. And the when we came here to get approval to do the storefront like it is on the front of the building, the existing building and twisted orange as well. We did it exactly like that. And it's the alcoves are still there. In fact, there was a gentleman here that he insisted that we didn't just make it 90 degrees because we talked about. I remember, like the storefront owner or the, the, the tenants would have lost, or had to been charged more square footage. It would have changed the inside of their building if we made that all 90 degrees. So I couldn't alter anything. I mean, those load bearing, pillars that hold up that building are there. I simply just put new, impact, tempered, glass up and the double door thing, I that I thought we kicked that around and it was all agreed that it was a single door. But now I'm backing up. I'm just kind of trying to go through everything when I. When I got the notice that I couldn't shut my permit out, I was I was perplexed and I so I called Pat and she said had to do with the cornice. I don't have that notice in front of me. I think there was a couple other things on there that, had to do with the compliance of what our meeting was when we got it approved to put the storefront in and so, you know, the term cornice, you know, to me, it's like a frieze board or dentil molding. That's where I came up with the banding. I'm like, no, that's Pat. I did that exactly the way it was. And, she she indicated it had to do with the I-beams or the I-beam that was supporting the parapet wall wasn't exposed. Well, once we got back on the project and got the approval to do the storefront, I realized there because you'd even said something about, you can do. There was a picture, actually, that was sent to me from Pat, and it showed that the brick walls and it was being supported by some, you know, pressure treated lumber in front of the I-beam. And I realized, oh, this is holding there's actually two layers of brick there. You can't tell behind the stucco, but it's actually holding this up. So, so moving the beam or exposing the beam would have just been you might as well just turn a hose on the in inside of the building. It wasn't it wasn't it would have never been feasible to do that. And I even suggested about because there was some mention about the rosettes. I said, hey, we can get those duplicate rosettes and put them right over each opening, even though there was only two one on each end, because they have a rod that goes through and goes to the other steel beam on the other side of the, you know, like on the east side. So but that was kind of, you know, Pat was like, I don't know, you just have to come here and talk about it, but I couldn't leave the beams exposed. So this is like all this is new to me. I thought it was just a matter of we. You know why we didn't leave the I-beams exposed? And frankly, when you you're looking at it and you realize, okay, there's wood attached to the front of this I-beam, and it's holding this four foot block parapet wall up. So I, you know, I, you know, it has to be an engineer that's beyond, you know, it has knowledge beyond me on how to. I was supposed to do that, I don't know what else to say. I have a question. Then how did the windows get around the top of it? Yeah Those windows. That was okay. I had to go back on. Yeah, they were truly there. We didn't know they were there. And but when we were taking the stucco off of the brick, we're like, oh, there's these cool looking, they were all, you know, there was nothing left of them. Some of them were broke, some of them were just plywood it in, but they were there. That was the whole that was the thing that Nikki wanted to do. She's like, oh, well, stop, Bill. You know, if these are here, you know, we're going to we're going to put some fixed or transom panels up there. And I, you know, I can remember having conversations with the board on those fixed transom panels. In fact, when I went back on YouTube to watch you know, what I, what I had, you know, what had transpired, I think it was Michelle that was asking me about the I-beam initially, and I'm answering a question to someone else on the board, and then she's having a conversation with Caroline. And then the lawyer was like, we can make that a stipulation. You know, we can add that to us. They're just here for this. I mean, meaning we're just here for the fixed transom storefront. So I'm just like, Bill, that was a condition to the approval of that facade. That was that was keeping the historic piece. Exactly. And we lost it. That is not what we approved. That looks like a brand new building that that's not. I actually made the motion. You're you're you're you're if I remember correctly, it was about the I-beam you wanted to see because we were trying to keep an element of historic significance in the building by because you guys had already done this with this storefront around the corner. So again, you guys had already kind of we've lost some of that historic significance. So that was the one thing we asked for was, was to keep the cornice and, and you said, yes, you could do it and you're the contractor. So I said it like you said, you're the expert. I had to go back and watch it. I was answering a question. I said, yeah, that would be great. Turns out I couldn't. First of all, that's the confusion. Stop. I-beam was the I-beam was isn't cornice to me. That's that's that's the terminology thing, what is the thing the thing that was sent to me, it just said cornice. If it had said leave the I-beam exposed, that would have light bulb would have went off in my head. Cornice is what is what you see extruding from the end of the parapet to the roofline. It's like dentil molding, you know, it's something that protrudes out from the flat surface. And obviously the I-beam was recessed in approximately three inches. So I was that's, you know, as far as everything else was, I thought the fixed transoms were fine. I thought because there was that stop or not, that, you know, 100 years old stuff right behind the top of the storefront. When you figured out you couldn't do the I-beam, why didn't you stop and come back to the city and say, hey, I can't do this. Instead of moving forward and look, you know what? Look you're right. Hang on. Because I walked down that street every week to go to dinner, and I happened over here. Your guys talking about actually this group that day and how you guys were doing what you wanted to do. So. No, I did outright heard it. And that's when I called. Caroline said, hey, they're not doing what we what we said. That's the whole thing that set this off is like, that's not what we approved. I can't speak on what you heard on the street from somebody that may or may not been working for them. They worked for you. Yeah, well, because I know what Larson . Yeah, I know, I know your company, and I know that they work for you. And actually, it does seem like you just do what you want to do because you haven't come back. No, Michelle's got a point about me not coming back, and I. You know, I stand here to say it's like when I looked at it logically, I was like, oh, I scratched my head. I'm like, well, the picture that Pat actually sent me showed the framing in front of the I-beam and I was like, yeah, well, now I get it now, you know, because when we did the stucco we had, we covered it up and we had to wait months before we could get back in there to, to get approval to do any of this stuff. And when we undercut when we undercovered it, I was like, oh, darn, you know, now, I probably should have stopped right then. And said, but the logic in me is like, oh no, this, this is actually holding up the brick parapet. I can't just take it out. I think we all thought that that structure was just holding your temporary tree cover. You know, that's actually boarded up. So I think that's what we all thought that was. Right. And when you had said that day, you know, that that was a good kind of meet in the middle place that we could keep, you know, some, some relevance of its history. Yeah. And then give you guys what you wanted on the windows. I thought we would have met that. But when you say give us guys what we wanted on the windows, that's, that's that's where I'm so perplexed with all these items. Like, you're we're talking about the lower section. We're talking about the storefronts, because there are so modern compared to the building. So So you're. Yeah. So I'm still confused about those fixed transoms not being approved. I'm not. I'm not talking about the transom. I'm talking about the lower section that was kind of our meet in the middle is we were going to get that. We were going to get the I-beam exposed. Yeah. And you guys are going to get your up to date modern doors and windows down below. Right? I vaguely remember the transoms being there, or talk being talked about that you can see them from the outside, but I think you could see them from the inside or something. Yes, it's very vague, but look, overall I, I'm so disappointed in the, in the whole thing. And you're going to hear a lot. I feel like a little trust has been lost too, because you do lots of projects here in town, so you gotta look, I've, you know, I was born and raised here. I'm all about it. I'm I'm not one of those guys, you know what I mean? I'm I try to do everything the right way and I'm at fault. I'm telling you, I as far as the I-beam is concerned, it's like when I looked at that, I'm going, oh, I can't do anything with this. You know, I it's inside the building. It's not protruding enough outside that I could ever leave it exposed. The rest of the stuff that Caroline's saying, I, I'm, you know, I got to go by. I don't have it with me, but I got to go by what was sent to me about the cornice and in my head cornice is those bands that were always there, I guess, apparently, or at least at some point in time. And I, you know, I'm it hurts me to feel that way . And the double doors, I'm like it was single doors. It was not. It was in your application that was approved in March. Do you have a copy of, sir? You can, you can. It's part of the backup for this material. You can look at the application that you provided in March of 2023. You had products specific. Yes. And they were double doors. This is a picture of what you provided. The applicant provided in March of 2023. Does this look like this? It does not. It I would like to rebut the argument that he had. Is it is it time for staff response? No. Yeah. Okay. And, those signs, those signs were there. That was when I got there. Those. You were saying those signs. Something about those signs, the signs were not included in your your application for a certificate of approval. They had been previously permitted. It's just another layer of something that was not in your application that you just went ahead and did. Okay. So because I didn't say that the signs that are there, I that's a different this is not conversational. Yeah. Well, hey, I'm just I'm just I'm trying to address everything. Nikki Valdez is here as well. She she's the owner of the building. Was Oh. I'm sorry. Yeah. Does anyone else have on the board? Have any questions for the applicant for. Nikki. No. Nikki, I don't think so. Do you have any more questions, Mr. Nikki Not right now. Okay. That's good. Okay. My name is Nikki Valdez. I am the owner of the building 101 105, 20 to 26 is. It's 101 105 Tarpon Avenue. 20 to 26 hibiscus. I purchased the building, in 2008. And. Sorry, have you been sworn in? Yes, I have, I'm sorry. I have been sworn in. I purchased the building in 2008. We all know what the street and what the buildings look like. So compared to what it was then, till now, it's a whole different picture. However, when we first started remodeling the building, we started with Tarpon Avenue. We brought the iron bronze glass up to code to 101 as Backdraft Pizzeria. Then when twisted was getting ready to be renovated and Mr. Bill Larson did the construction for all my buildings, we had a issue with the windows the way it was. We everyone wanted to keep the way the historic look was, however, because we were approved and permitted to change 101, we wanted to bring it all the same. We made that new scenery, a new view of the window of 105. So it all looked the same and, the same and in 2023, as Caroline said, I did apply to have, this building being, repaired. The building didn't have water problems coming from the roof when we had hurricanes and rain, all the water was coming into the building from the walls, from the front, from the storefronts. It was years and years afterwards where I said, I have to fix this problem. We couldn't do this. Tenants didn't like it. The old windows that Caroline was showing pictures of were clear glass ceiling by caulking, clear caulking. It was barely any frames around them. They were movable. The doors were old, everything was just falling apart. Termites. Every May, a bunch of other stuff. So I applied to have the buildings, the storefronts repaired. When I first came here, I came with a different photo than the one that Caroline showed. There was another photo of how we came, and we wanted the building to look after. We got the first approval, the first permit to start on the drywall, because there were two permits that the city approved for us. One was to start on the drywall and the other one was for the for the glass doors. The storefront. It's without even knowing that they were windows above, as you see now. And even the beams with the rosettes, we didn't know what was underneath that very thin layer of stucco until Mr. Larsen started pulling it apart. After part of this came apart, we saw the actual brick. We saw the rosettes. We saw it was a beautiful building coming to life. And this is where I said, let's all stop and see if we can get a permission from the city to allow us to keep it the way it is. This is where I came back to revise the application in March 2023, and showed that picture. But as little as we knew, it was only visually shown. Mr. Larsen will be the one to say whether the building the way it was, was durable enough to take on what was there . I made lots of phone calls. I asked people to come out from the city to come and see it, I believe I called Caroline, I called Pat, please come and see it. It's a beautiful building. As a matter of fact, that one day that I wanted everybody to come down and see it before, we didn't know what to do with it. And I was waiting for the city to give me the approval. Mr. Hoffman, the engineer, Ed Hoffman, was on the on the opposite side with his brother taking pictures because you should keep it this and that. I said, listen, Ed, first of all, it's not durable because the brick was so old that it was falling apart. And second, it's going to cost a lot of money. The rosettes and the beam. Because I'm a bridge painter, I've been in bridge painting for over 40 years now. When a when a piece of steel is covered for many, many years, it turns to rusty and it turns into lead. When you start removing the process of sandblasting or cleaning that steel, it causes all the airborne dust to go into the public. You can't just go and clean a piece of steel and allow all that to be exposed, especially to the traveling public, and especially where the building it is. So since I came here and talked about keeping that, they said that they would come back with an approval whether we want to keep it or not. I did say that it was very expensive. We realized that the brick that was there and the beam to keep was just too much. It was too, it's not it wasn't safe to keep. We talked about the doors. Some of you people said that you want to keep the doors. We said that the doors are not up to code. Another storm would knock the whole thing down. We. They did approve. You guys gave us the okay to put in the brass looking doors and the windows, as we did for one on one and 105. Matter of fact, there was an audience here was an older man, and he got up and said, well, you guys messed it up because you from back at 101 and 105 gave them the permission, the permission to go this route. And the person across the street from Tarpon Avenue, amazing finds, did the same thing. Now, how can you stop this person from doing it from just carrying the same picture? All the way around? And that's how I believe we got the approval to do this. And that's what we did. We like the windows, the windows. We didn't make the windows. The windows were there and we wanted to keep them. And that's why I paid an additional more money to get the windows so we can have some light coming in, because the buildings inside are still with the old ceilings. The old brick between the buildings. It's really pretty. And that's what the rowdy was. We had no intentions of going behind your backs and doing our own thing. And as a contractor I am. If I'm painting a bridge or if I'm doing something I'm not supposed to do, and Inspector is supposed to stop you put a stop order into work, fix what the problem is, deal with the misunderstanding, and then move on. You guys saw what was going on. Nobody said anything. We didn't intentionally do anything . That's what I wanted to say. Thank you. Any questions for, for Miss Velez? I pulled the I still had the documents from three six because I was here that day, yeah. The what we got is not what was in that packet. So you did present double doors and, you know, there is a picture that shows the transoms just underneath that beam so I can see that with the scaffolding, the scaffolding there. I think that if you just, like, stopped and came back for approval, none of this would have happened. Everybody we could have we could have talked about it, but instead you guys just went forward and you gave us a building that doesn't even fit in the neighborhood anymore. It doesn't. We got we got rid of the pharmacy, rounded windows over on twisted orange. We got now we got rid of that whole Hibiscus Street. Now it just looks like a strip center. Well, can I. Okay so I gotta say something about that with the building. The concern of the building is that was all approved out front. Twisted orange and back drafts. It's the same product approval code. No, you're right, it is the same. And that was the whole reason we asked to keep the I-beam so that we could have it. And I think I was the one that said, you know what? You guys have already opened up Pandora's box. We've already let them do these two other storefronts. So yeah, we've got to it's going to look cohesive, but we still need some part of the history saved and we didn't save any of it. There's no history there anymore. I mean, I'm very I'm I'm sad about the whole situation because it was a I could see that it was interesting looking right area there. Yeah. And you know, back to the. Yeah Well, ma'am, if you're going to talk, you just have to be into the microphone so it can be otherwise. So it can be picked up. And also has to be one person at a time. Yeah. No. Yeah. I think we addressed some life safety there . You physically the picture that Caroline showed about how the storefront looked originally right there you could just push that glass out with your hands. So, I mean, I know that has nothing to do with history, but, you know, you you got to think about just simple people walking around. Yeah, alcoves were beautiful. The alcoves are still there. One. No, I there, there's two there. There we go. Look at them right now, yeah. And all all the doors of the alcoves. Well Caroline's saying that my rendering, we had a rendering. Someone drew a rendering of how we wanted or proposed this. And she had double doors, and they had the double doors in the alcove, and so we have single doors, but the product approval codes were submitted when we did it. So, I mean, I, I thought we were doing single doors. I, I and see you're looking at one with a double door. Some of them were single. So apparently that was a stipulation, though that they were double doors. I, I missed that, I guess, but I do, you know, it just kind of it kind of gets me because I remember when I first came here for the storefront, Caroline saying something about we didn't have a permit, we always had a permit. I'm not going to do work without a permit. I might have screwed something up with the I-beams, but I can't really see how I could have exposed those I-beams and even still, I was like, if the rosettes is what everybody was talking about, and there was only two of them, by the way, they weren't for I could simply, you can get something, you can get anything duplicated and mounted to look historical. Okay. Sure sure. If Mr. Larson wouldn't have exposed the, stucco from before the. Without the windows, the building would be the same. And the only thing that would be different, Michelle would have been underneath the doors. Those windows were hidden by the stucco. These were old windows. We couldn't keep the actual windows because they were falling apart. It was wood frames, very thin windows that we found, but we made them look like they were. Nobody has an issue with your windows. I don't have an issue with the windows. Okay, but the steel beam, the rosettes. If we wouldn't have shown them to you guys, you would have never known they were there. I know, but that. But we did know they were there when you presented. We knew you showed them to us. I did, but it was very hard to keep the historic significance or some type of attachment of history to that building which we lost. Well, I want to say that the city didn't make the effort to put in their help to help me keep it, because it took a lot to keep. That isn't just show it off and it is. It had to be cleaned. It had to be taken care of. That's money. That's money cost. So no one really on your end made the effort to expose what was there. And then with the doors underneath, I asked when I first came with my first application, they were straight doors, just like 101 and 105. But then you guys said, no, we don't want a straight door. We want to have that opening. And we did, and we gave you that. And we agreed. So we thought we were okay. Thank you. Miss Langford, are you ready for rebuttal? Sure actually, again, sorry for sorry, but from a procedure standpoint, city actually goes. Unless there's anything else from the applicant side, city has the opportunity to go last, they're. So I just just want to make sure that's clear. But if there's nothing else to be put on by the applicant or any other questions by the applicant. So Caroline goes, it's okay for Caroline to as long as the applicant has nothing else. Is nothing else. I'm sorry. I just want to add one more thing. Because of the change, because of the clarity of the street right now, the way it looks, people stop. People do go down that street, especially on First Fridays before, the problem with my tenants were nobody comes down this way. There's no signs leading people down this way. Now even in the evenings. And you guys put the strands of lights over there. My between my building and Saint Nicholas and the church. And it looks beautiful. It looks great. People can have both. Both both ends. They have the historic section walking down the street, the brick, the flowers. We widened the sidewalk. And it's something good to look at before people will turn their head and not even go down that street. We have beautiful tenants. Sweetwood. Is there. She's doing amazing. She's drawn in a lot of crowd, and I think that's a plus. That's that's what a main street's about. Thank you. I don't want to take up too much more of the board's time, but I just would like to point out that, the permit that was originally applied for was a stucco repair permit. That was all that was originally applied, applied for, and so that's why the stop work was order was issued was when an inspector noticed that more work than just stucco repair was going on. Sir, this is, the applicant's. This is the applicant's time. This is a city in the city records the permit that I found for that building was for stucco repair only. You're you're part of the meeting is closed. I'm not allowed to speak anymore. Is that. Is that what you had? That's. We had the. This the city has the last word on it. Well, I didn't know that we were, you know, so we don't know. That's just unfair because it's not true. Because if that was the case, the building inspector, when he saw my permit, would have never let me continue on working. That's why the stop order was originally issued. And you and the applicant needed to come to the Heritage Preservation Board to get a certificate of approval. We can go back to the timeline that I compiled, if you'd like to, to refer to that, so with respect to that, that's why stop work was stopped the first time, I would like to clarify that two alcoves are still there, but they are not in the same dimensions that the historic alcoves are. That's the distinction. There I will note that at the meeting in March, the applicant, seemed to understand what we were talking about when we were talking about a cornice, and, and, it's a bit concerning that there's a misunderstanding that you need to do what you're applying to do and use the products that you've been approved to use, which if you go back and look at that March application, what has been built is inconsistent with what has been applied for, and with that, I will just enter my staff report and presentation as testimony. Attorney Lewis, is this something we can defer to the next meeting before we do a vote? Or or do we do a motion now and then defer it? Why? What would be the basis of the deferral, I mean, I'm just I guess I just don't know how I would vote on it. I have no, I don't think I have enough information on it. I mean, it was a lot of information today, Carolyn. I mean, we're here because we're in, you know, historical preservation. We're not here to modernize buildings in this building has been totally modernized. So what do we do? I mean, I just don't know. Do we deny? We just deny it? Ultimately, if the board moves to deny, deny the after the fact, certificate of approval, according to the code, there has to be statements of why there was a denial. And then, if there is a possibility of if there is a possibility of giving recommend of the board giving recommendations on how to cure that, and then bringing back the application that is also part of the code as well, if it's again, if it's possible, it's, 109 section 109.02, subsection B, a denial of certificate of approval shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for such denial. The board shall make recommendations to the applicant concerning changes, if any, in the proposed action that would cause the board to reconsider its denial and shall attempt to resolve the differences between the owner and the board, the applicant may amend the application and order in order to provide the recommendation to provide for the recommendation of the board. Now, I understand this is somewhat of a different circumstance of, as Caroline was saying, I can't really unring a bell, but that is what's before the board. So we reject redirect this to code enforcement. What happens then? I mean, ultimately it would be an investigation by code enforcement, it would go to that process because if we don't set a standard for this going forward in this board, then this will continue to happen to where when we make a ruling and we ask, we try and protect our history. Yeah, that it's going to continue to happen because there's no there's no reason not to. Why have a board. Yeah. Why be here if we can keep it. So we should, I just heard heard you say redirect this whole issue to code enforcement, if that is. I mean, because I don't know how else you hold accountability. I mean, if I'm incorrect in in in that, please correct me. I just I feel like that if, if we're going to do something, we say, hey, this is what we're going to do x, y and z. And then we come back and we have something totally different. This is this is not at all what we approved in March. It's similar, but it's a shiny new penny and we've lost our history on that whole street. And if we look, I'm happy. I know we're not supposed to. So I'm happy to make a recommendation, a motion, a motion here. I mean, I recommend Denial of Application 2422 at and in the and again the statement on that would be would again, would it be on the basis of what was provided by the city's right, based on based on the city's recommendations, and that it'd be referred to county or code enforcement to city code enforcement. I'll second that. Any more discussion on this from the board? Are we okay? Are we good to vote? He said a yes vote for that. Well, since the denial would be a yeah, since since the vote is to deny it would be a yay vote. Okay, we're all set. Can we vote? We can vote. Okay Miss Kaplan. Yes, Miss Ryan. Yes, Miss Hallett? Yes, miss Danoff? Yes. Any other staff comments, then? Just thank you. Any other comments from the staff, no. Thank you. Okay. I said staff, so I guess I was looking at the board. Do you have any other comments? I do not have any further about the board. Nope. Can we adjourn the meeting then at 751, we can adjourn.