the august 5th public hearing for the city of tampa's architectural review commission welcome everyone i'm ted kempton chair of the commission if you are here to present a project you will have limited time to make your presentation so we suggest being thorough but concise when coming to the microphone you will need to identify yourself and your relationship to the project the commissioners will not ask any questions during your presentation your project should be presented in the following order site plan elevations architectural details and wall sections staff will then present their report we will then ask for public comment please state and spell your name clearly if you are here to speak for or against a project your time will be limited to three minutes so take some time now to summarize your comments because three minutes goes by very quickly following public comment the commissioners will ask questions in the same order as the presentation next the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal the public hearing will then be closed after the public hearing is closed no further testimony can be given the commissioners will then discuss the case and will make their decision based on chapter 27 of the city code of ordinances the design guidelines the secretary of interior standards historic preservation development review committee comments and the testimony given at the public hearing the arc can only act on items that are within our specific jurisdictional responsibility owner agents are independently responsible to obtain any appropriate permits and or approvals if you haven't already done so please silence cell phones and i will start on my left for the introduction of commissioners ellenna paris ketchum attorney representative john broke up i practice architecture brian hammond architect tim jones general contractor and building inspector also in attendance we have from the city staff ron vila heather bonds jared barnum and our attorney dana crosby call your city attorney's office i'd like to ask if any member has a conflict of interest with any item on the agenda this evening okay seeing none has anyone engaged in ex parte communication regarding any item on the agenda thank you under continuations reflected on the agenda on page two uh we have one that's arc 26 dash 0000360 for the address of 1410 de soto avenue this request for is a continuation for the new construction portion for the accessory structure if you look on the agenda our first agenda item uh also reflects that that address 1410 to soto they're coming forward for the demolition of the contributing accessory structure that will be heard this evening and the new construction that will take place in the event that that is approved we've been continued to august 5th 2026 at 5 30 pm in city council chambers and if we could get a motion for that please what was the date you just said october 5th october 5th all right looking for a motion yeah i moved to uh to to move to continue um the arc 26 00 00 306 at 1410 to soto avenue uh the request for new construction to the monday october 5th 2026 public hearing at 5 30 pm second all right we have a second seeing no discussion all in favor signify by saying aye aye aye motion passes and for the record that is um in council chambers 315 east kennedy perfect um we do have an uh uh adjustment to our agenda as well and uh dana will take the lead on that as well um again dana crosby collier um item number two on your agenda this evening arc 26 dash 0000340 at the applicant's request um we're going to ask that this be removed from your agenda for tonight it will come back soon and when we have the date it will be noticed so we just need a motion to remove this item from the agenda tonight i move to remove from the agenda arc 26 dash 0000340 for the property at 1810 north highland avenue agenda this all right we have a second scene no discussion all in favor by signify by saying aye aye motion passes at this time we're going to move to the swearing mr varnum will swear everybody in everybody who wishes to testify please stand up and raise your right hand moving to our first agenda item which is arc-26-00-00360 this is for the address of 1410 south de soto avenue this is in the hyde park historic district currently there's an accessory structure that's contributing uh it was built in 1915 our records reflect the zoning attached to that parcel is rs60 the request is for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of that contributing structure in front of you you have a report that um adheres to chapter 27 116 the burden of proof and economic hardship the applicant and the owners will go through this you have that to follow along the owner does have experts here so be cross-examined when the time is right if needed and at this time we're going to go through a photo presentation i'm going to quickly go through this the owner and the agents have additional photos to provide you and if for any reason you have to look at these again they're available starting with the sanborn map this is off of de soto which is here it's highlighted in the green you have hills to the north and you have bay shore to the south if you look here you have a series of accessory structures that all in that corner there is no alley so there is no separation and this is the existing condition that's out there currently today i also like to show the vicinity map so you see where it's at in the overall scope of the hyde park historic district so it's in the southwest corner this aerial doesn't tell you too much but i wanted to show this then zoom in so you see the real life kind of story what's happened there you have the primary structure you have the detached accessory structure that's there and then you have the accessory structures that are in that media vicinity by the neighbors get you familiar with the site that craftsman style home has all the characteristics of a craft style home that's the front elevation as you move around to the north the front and then the north this is the abutting property to the north going back to the subject site looking down the portico share looking at that south elevation as it continues to the rear this is picking up of the primary house and the rear elevation of the primary house there is a pool in the backyard to focus on the accessory structure itself we went out there these were taken on different days we went out there one day and then went out there just to focus on the accessory structure this is front through the through the portico share it's a one bay two story you see the different siding that's here and that's on all the elevations that we could see i couldn't see this the rear elevation but on the two visible elevations this is that south elevation the proximity to the property line you see it here as you look closer to the foundation there's some deterioration here and here getting a little closer it appears that the sill plate is on bricks that is sitting on bricks this is that same elevation you see the different siding it's a little tighter siding as you go up you see the overhangs here going to the rear elevation there's going to be some discussion about the proximity of the structure how it sits to the property line the back facade is on the property line and then you have this encroachment and this is what i was trying to get you see the separation here that there's no fire separation that is met for today's code this is the the pool decking and how it engages with that elevation moving to the interior there is a slab there the joists around the foundation the picture speak for itself uh we were able to go upstairs um it was pretty dicey going upstairs there is several uh structural bracing in place that comes on the bottom of the upper floor and then you see the structural supports and uh i'm going to conclude with that at this time i'm going to have the owner address the board and then the agent as well thank you good evening thank you all um my name is matt brazes uh property owner along with my wife erica and our one and a half year old who i'm sure you've already seen and heard from already um basically we're we're here today because we're trying to discuss and get done the demolition of our our back unit that's there so we we bought the home 2023 we renovated the the main house we love the the house we love the property my wife works at tampa general hospital we want to stay there as absolutely as long as we can but the back unit has been a problem because with our son we're extremely uncomfortable with him being in our backyard and we flat out just don't allow it uh you even saw the fence around the pool and when we're in the pool we use it to keep them out of the backyard which is the exact opposite use you'd think for the fence around the pool um but the the back unit there has become an economic hardship for us because in order to renovate it uh basically get it up to speed for something that we can actually use as a family it would be exceedingly expensive for us to be able to accomplish that and as far as our our future planning i know we have some uh the next agenda was october we had discussed the potential accessory unit that we're going to do we just uh basically don't know exactly for family planning what we're going to do yet and that's why those plans are on hold uh we're between just wanting to put pavers down and replacing it um or potentially doing an addition off our main house we just honestly don't know what we want to do we just know at this time the unit isn't safe for us to have in our backyard with our son and future kids um so that's uh yeah that's why we're here thank you all um oh last thing i had for you so what we did do yesterday we went uh past couple days we went around to our to our neighbors all around us and assuming this works for paper well maybe not but okay there you go awesome so we went around to our neighbors we got signatures uh this was the staff notes that that ron villa made when he came over so we got uh all of our neighbors to uh basically that share a property line with us and another across the street to sign off and agree that the our back unit the accessory structure uh should be demolished and we even have one of those neighbors here today um supporting us so that's it thank you good evening my name is katherine coil i'm with boggs engineering 601 south alexander street plant city and um serving as the agent for mr brazos and his wife i'll be brief through this because the experts are here as well so what i'm giving you tonight is the summary of the findings and the documents that we put together in the binder as well as the findings that i'm presenting for 27 116 burden of proof and economic hardship just briefly again the project location is 14 10 south de soto the site is approximately 64 or 68 square feet east side of de soto south of hills avenue and the owners they are a married couple this is the survey we're requesting the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the two two-story accessory structure contributing structure this is the survey with the building in the back where it's located immediately on the property line and just a couple feet away from the southern property line the front elevation of it which you've seen in previous pictures and this is a slightly different angle we were able to go over the kind of reach over the fence and show you just how approximate it is to the rear structure and again the owner mentioned that the a neighbor is here to speak in favor and it is the the rear neighbor that owns the building that is shown in that picture we do have the structural engineer's report which is tab g of your binder joseph goiardo is here who put together that report the estimates for construction and rehabilitation and demolition urban craft construction christopher polo he's here and the appraisals were performed by belanti appraisal group anthony belanti he is here as well and that's tabs j k and l he performed an as is with it being demolished and then with it being rehabilitated appraisals briefly through the pictures there are the tabs f g j k and l all have tons of photos in them f are all the photos that i took initially from several months ago g is from the structural engineers report j k and l are the appraisals that happened in june so you'll a lot of the pictures are almost repeats but there are different perspectives these are the pictures from the engineering report just the overview of the front back and left and right side and again mr grayardo is here and he can go into more detail but you'll notice in the report the deteriorated wood at the base of these posts you'll notice ron mentioned that the the plate is sitting right kind of on bricks they're really it's hard to say there's really a foundation or footers the building literally just sits on this concrete pad the posts just sit and at the bases of almost all of them they are rotting and there's structural decay and it is i'll go through and show you what that is in the findings he went through all the braces that are in there with the decay and it's been happening over time with moisture there's shifting structural shifting in the second floor you can see the gap here it's over an inch and a half i believe it's mentioned in the report you'll notice the rotting in the in the wood on the second level at the windows in the second floor when you go up into the ceiling of the you don't even have to go up into the ceiling of the kitchen it's just open there have been some repairs that were that were tried to be made over time where they put in some structural supports this was not the the current owner this was done previously just to shore it up the best they could we didn't see any records of permits for those so it appears that maybe that's unpermitted activity which makes it even a little less safe and questionable you can see these additional braces that they've tried to add to hold up the second floor you can see the wonkiness of the staircase going in i did go upstairs with the owner very sketchy i just personally it was uh unnerving i can say that it didn't quite wobble when we were up there but it didn't feel safe and you can see the posts there's just rot throughout the staircase going up and the posts and the railings and the stair the treads and this is another review of that eve just hanging over this other building and as it leans a little bit to the rear and a little bit to the to the north um looking at 27 116 f1 the burden of proof um these findings are tab c of your report of the binder um you'll notice right here the aerial i did a blow up of it to show you in the magenta dash line that's the structure that the subject structure you can see it's immediately abutting the structure to the rear which is a large accessory structure and there were only maybe four feet from the structure to the south that is uh their garage shed building going through the actual burden of proof criteria first letter a alternatives demolition demolition or relocation such as planned development the property zoned rs60 it's compliant with rs60 short of the lot width rezoning it to a pd is actually irrelevant in this particular case the arc has the authority to grant any variances that would be needed should this building be required to be rehabilitated or rebuilt in its current location relocating it you'll find in the report is very suspect given the structural the lack of structural integrity and the findings from the belt report whether the letter b whether the landmark or building structure can be retained on site i've summarized some of the things in tab g under summary and recommendations of tab g the structure quote exhibits widespread and advanced deterioration affecting multiple primary structural components including the support system wall assemblies and floor framing that goes directly to the fact that it's literally just posts rotting sitting on top of a concrete slab with some plates and then laying on top of random bricks it's it's very sketchy the structural deficiencies are systemic and affect multiple interconnected structural systems throughout the building that's why you get the shifting in the second floor with large gaps and the leaning of the building additionally the report says quote the structure is considered unsafe and exhibits conditions consistent with a significant risk of structural failure under the applicable florida building code loading conditions the report specifically notes the deterioration and instability is quote consistent with long-term moisture intrusion and long-term structural movement the reason why it's important to cite that particular those particular findings is because this isn't the result of the owner that's only owned it for three years he's been trying to figure out what to do with it we've been on this case for about eight months putting together the experts he did have a previous engineer that was working on it that just couldn't get it together this is very long-term damage and decay furthermore the other thing that makes this difficult is this is a unique block in hyde park there is no alley there's no alley access so there it's very difficult to get to the back of the structure considering it's sitting at zero setback so there would have to be some type of agreement with the rear property owner to allow access to their property to help with the building for repair let's see letter c whether relocating the landmark or building or structure is appropriate or feasible based on tab g the belt report relocation of the structure would not be appropriate or feasible due to its current condition serious risk for failure as noted previously and risk posed to adjacent structures and properties letter d whether the applicant has the ability to build the new proposed within a reasonable period the homeowner does have the ability to begin construction prior to the expiration of any certificate of appropriateness that should you grant one in the future and letter e whether the demolition is justified as an economic hardship i'm just referring to the responses here under economic hardship which is uh 27 116 f3 that's also in tab c and i'll go through these briefly estimate the cost of proposed demolition or relocation and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with recommendations of the arc the demolition proposal from urban craft construction as mentioned chris repolo is present for future questions this was conducted may 18th the estimated cost to demolish the existing accessory structure is 19 440 that's tab i of your report the estimate notes specifically that the cost does not include any testing or removal of hazardous materials or any associated permit fees so that cost will go up based on the age of the structure additional materials testing asbestos lead paint and so on may be required prior demolition to ensure compliance with local state and federal environment regulations there is an additional note on the demolition it is subject to increase due to the close proximity of the accessory structure as mentioned before they will have to work a little bit harder to make sure it doesn't fall to the rear when they go to demolish there is also you'll if you noticed in the picture with the portico share it's very narrow there and you can't even drive a car back to it that's why it's not a garage with the ac unit and the way that the house and the property come together they it's going to be difficult to bring a lot of large equipment into the lot of it will just have to be either hand carried out or carted out uh upon demolition uh report of a licensed engineer letter b with experience from rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of the structure and suitability for relocation and or rehabilitation as stated under the summary and recommendations of the belt report which is tab g quote due to the widespread deterioration affecting multiple primary structural systems the extent of repair is required is expected to be extensive and may exceed the practical feasibility of rehabilitation and they did have the benefit of all the other information including the appraisals and the the cost estimates letter c estimate the market value of the property both in its current condition and after completion of the demolition or relocation to be presented through an appraisal i mentioned anthony belanti with belanti appraisals appraisal group he conducted those three appraisals june 26th the first two appraisals of real property market value of the subject property and the accessory structure as is tab j evaluated and estimated the current market value with the accessory structure and its current condition at one that one million seven hundred eighty eight thousand dollars the demolished accessory structure appraisal which is tab k evaluated and estimated the current market value with it removed at one million eight hundred thousand it actually increases by twelve thousand this actually the the as-is appraisal core correlates and corresponds to the original appraisal done three years ago when he when the owners purchased there was no value assigned to the structure because of the condition of it at that time as well and that was in the record in the original submittal letter d an estimate from an architect or developer real estate consultant or appraiser professional experience in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation the third appraisal which is tab l is the appraisal with the accessory structure being rehabilitated the estimated market value under that appraisal was one million nine hundred fifty thousand so it does go up what should be noted however in addition to the appraisal the estimated construction budget which is tab h the cost of rehabilitation was four hundred twenty seven thousand fifty six dollars thirty three cents i included two specific notes that are actually noted at the bottom of that if you read tab h i won't read it in full but it's essentially saying this could go up uh because of their unknown conditions and unsafe conditions and unstable conditions with the building those costs could go up once they actually get in there and and um start ripping it apart and trying to rehabilitate it and just for your awareness for the record urban craft construction they did have the benefit of the structural report when they did their estimates as well letter e amount paid for the property was one million fifty five thousand july 7th so they've literally owned it three years um the current owner purchased from a regular mls listing they had no relationship to the previous owner or the seller if the property is income producing the annual gross income for the previous two years this is not income producing it is owner occupied and maintains homestead that's tabs a and m the remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured the current balance as of june 2026 is 951 888 dollars it's obviously gone down just a hair with the payment in july uh no other loans or financing has been secured against the property at this time all appraisals obtained within the previous two years letter h and that's just referring you back to tabs j k and l for the appraisals that were done in june any listing the property for sale or rent within the previous two years the property owner has not listed it they've lived there it's their home uh for rent or for lease within the previous two years or for sale letter j the assessed value of the property according to the two most recent assessments and the assessment of the property after demolition according to the property appraiser the assessed value is 726 501 dollars for 2025 and it went up by about 20 20 000 in 2026 to 746 117 that's tab a real estate taxes paid for the previous two years you'll find in tab m went from 12 799 in 2024 to 13 743 in 2025. letter l form of ownership operation uh the property is owned by a married couple it serves as their primary homestead and finally any other information that would assist in making a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners the subject property is not income producing any investment in or improvement made by the property to the property are born by the homestead homeowners and tied to their personal family finances that's just logical it's just plain plain plain fact thus a typical homestead owner um it's our opinion would generally expect any year that any yield a reasonable return on investment would be generally comparable to their investment one would hope anyway and that's market dependent as referenced in the 2026 belanti appraisals tabs j k and l the existing accessory structure has no value in its current condition it actually increases the current market value by twelve thousand dollars and that's the difference between j and k furthermore in those tabs show the estimated market value increases by 162 000 if the accessory structure is rehabilitated great it goes up however once the estimated 427 056 for the construction costs are factored in this is the estimated increase is completely eliminated thus posing an inordinate burden an estimated negative return on investment of 265 056 so it's actually a much larger loss if they rehabilitate it and factoring in the fact that it's still unknown how much it's actually going to cost the contractor the best he could on the status of it today with the additional caveats at the bottom of his estimate and the additional caveats of the structural engineer until they actually get into it it could very much very well cost more to rehabilitate and finally the summary the expert findings and documentation provided status we believe satisfy 27 116 f1 bourbon of proof uh the expert findings and documentation provided sufficiently and appropriately demonstrate economic hardship under 27 116 f3 and i'd also like to cite the arc administration of administrator opined in his report page six of your staff report and i'll read it verbatim therefore it is the administrator's opinion that based on the substantial competent evidence submitted into the record an economic hardship will be established in rehabilitating the accessory structure in accordance with the structural engineers recommendations and historic preservation standards while achieving compliance with the fbc the administrator has not concluded that the current owner contributed to the deficiencies of the structure based upon the current based on the current owner's purchase of the property in july 2023 um it's a high burden to get the approval or the recommendation of approval from staff especially for hyde park and we definitely appreciate ron's work with us on this and in his findings when he went out and and dennis's as well they've been great to work with and um i just wanted to cite that opinion in the report as well for the record therefore we respectfully request your approval of the certificate of appropriateness and for any questions that you have the experts are here great thank you very much thank you good evening commissioners ron v llama planner with historic preservation this is a finding of fact as you have in front of you this evening you have the report that was given to you you have the experts that are here that are answered uh able to answer any questions you have the owner and the agent the agent did a complete presentation and all the information i believe is into the record additional questions i believe could be asked for the economic hardship for items b and d there are some numerical numbers that could strengthen their position the submission for the demolition satisfies the submission requirements for chapter 27 116 f 1 through 3 with the exhibits that were shown she read the report into the record but i wanted to conclude that it's the administrators reports the decision that is specifically for arc 26 dash 0000 360 located at 1410 south de soto avenue that the information that was put into the record for this this particular request and this is not binding or or uh related to any other property so this is solely the information that is for the review this evening i'm here to answer any questions thank you ron is there anybody in the audience that's here to speak for or against this project come forward and please state your name clearly how are you um james ford merriweather and we live my wife felicia here we live at the property immediately behind uh 1410 de soto um at 1407 nance avenue and we came before this board in 2011 with a and had a garage in a similar location that shows on the plat that that we showed earlier uh i'll show you that just for for humor's sake i don't know if you can see this right oh there you go so our garage was literally on their property line and it was about six inches from the neighbor on nance and the roof actually hung over the fence at the time um i mean it was pretty well dilapidated but it's a lot better shape than what the one at 1410 is right now um so we we came here and got a certificate to allowed us to remove it and we built a new um accessory structure three feet from the property line three feet from the property line and um the thing that's a little bit discerting i guess is we have our survey shows that the that the the building on 1410 uh has a uh actually is on 10 inches over the property line it sticks out and so there's no fence right there so the building is actually part of the fence but i measure this the separation from my garage to their garage is 45 inches and then the roof is like 22 inches you know what we did we had to put a firewall in in our structure because it was so close to existing structure and we we put fire retardant paint on those structures but that's not going to save it for very long but anyway so i'm definitely for taking this thing out and i know she mentioned a little bit about um you know contractors having access so we don't have a problem getting access provided that we have hold harmless you know general liability workman's comp or anything that somebody needs to to do to get in there to have access to it so um i did talk with uh matt on monday he came by and we talked a little bit so i let him know you know that i was coming here um a little concerned when the building comes out the fence comes out that our backyards are connected and i have a swimming pool and it's not i don't have a cage around my pool so i'm going to have a little bit of a liability so if i have to put up a temporary fence or whatever i have to do to save it off or if they can get a fence put up pretty quickly that'd be great but uh this side of the i don't know if you know that this side is a lot worse shape than the other side that ron showed you um the some of the studs are exposed and you can see the studs are rotting on the back side so i'm afraid of the back of wall will collapse within you know a few years um if nothing is done so um definitely all supporting uh supportive of this so if we can get the property line sorted out and then have the structure you know demoed i don't think relocation makes sense um you would have to basically reconstruct it but uh which is kind of what we did we reconstructed the garage and then added onto it you know as part of our our project so anyway that's all i got thank you very much is there anyone else in the audience okay seeing no one we will start with uh questions from the commissioners so am i right i just have one uh question for the owner yes sir if you were to get your certificate of appropriateness to tear down the home listening to your your neighbor do you have plans to to put up a temporary fence before you come back before this board to put fencing up to keep your son from running into his pool and vice versa that would be uh very highly important for us to put some sort of a structure up that uh obviously would keep our our little one from getting there we also have a dog so that's the high importance for us too and uh the other neighbor that we share that same wall with not the back unit borders up to but just the fence we're going to accept the cost of replacing the fence for both neighbors since they're kind of in the middle of our backyard so we'll put up obviously a new fence as quickly as i can uh i can't build the fence it's not my skill set so uh we'll certainly have whatever team that we have that does uh the demolition whether it's it's chris or uh whoever we can get it done as soon as possible okay that's it that's all the questions i had i have no questions i have no questions no questions i have some questions all right um have you guys determined like this is for the owner or the applicant either one have you done any research to determine the age of the structure um i just know that it's a contributing structure i assume that it would all let kathy answer that it shows in the property sorry katherine coyle bugs engineering it says in the record uh property record that it was built concurrent with the hum in 1915. i don't know if it actually was given the difference in the siding and the way that it looks constructed but it's cited as plus or minus five years yeah uh stay up please um condition of the roof when you purchased the property was the roof waterproof so i believe the roof was redone when the main house roof was redone so before we bought the home um i i guess the question i have is was the roof leaking when you bought the property on the detached unit uh i never inspected it i don't i honestly don't know um so oh my neighbor can answer that so yeah so the condition that we're seeing today yes would you describe it as similar to what it was when you bought it in 2023 i understand yeah it's in the exact same condition we haven't done anything to it to improve it or to the detriment of it okay has it deteriorated more other than just natural aging if it got worse i couldn't honestly tell you it did yeah okay um let's see all right there are two urban craft proposals in this submittal they're both the same date but they're different numbers uh katherine coil again boggs engineering yes one is for the rehabilitation and one is for building new based on the plans that we originally submitted the ones that are continued to october it's just to show you the difference in cost of what it would take to build a new one correctly versus what it would take potentially to rehabilitate the existing it's about a hundred thousand dollar difference with the caveats what i'm looking at is a 401 versus 427. oh one is under one of the appraisals of real property under tab k and then one is looks like the tab h the tab h is dated 518 it's 427 000 and then one is under it looks like an appraisal but it's got the same date urban craft and it says 401. oh you know what the um this was all going through me and having the different uh experts and so when chris when urban craft sent me the original one of 401 i had follow-up questions but i also had to get it to the appraiser so he could get the appraisals done and then there was a follow-up uh adjustment once he went back through and re-evaluated the structural engineers report because there was an amendment to the structural engineers report with additional findings too for the record 427 the 427 is correct yes and then which tab has the uh proposal for new construction uh we actually removed it from this because we continued it it was in the original binder that was filed okay but from an economic hardship standpoint oh okay differential oh it's a it's a hundred thousand it was 327 i believe okay is that in the record it's in the original record yes it's just not in this particular binder because i we continued it i'm sorry okay well we would want that okay i do have a copy of it that would be great if you could submit that okay um i don't have any other questions anybody else have any questions okay you have five minutes for rebuttal if you so choose uh nothing further at this time we just respectfully request your approval based on the findings okay great thank you at this point we're going to close the public portion of the hearing and we will move on to discussion the floor is open it's a shame but i we see it all over the place in high park people that the last 10 years don't take care of the property and it starts deteriorating and it's passed a point where they can do anything about it so i don't think this owner contributed to it i think it was on its way downhill and it was on its way downhill and i don't know if they stopped it from moving downhill but it is what it is i don't know they can do anything with it yeah i think we you know we're going to face you know these issues constantly is that you know at any cost to rehabilitate or reconstruct a historic structure or even accessory structure um once you've done that is it historic anymore right you know does it have any historic fabric or is it just a brand new building shaped like the original building that was there because you have to replace everything everything um and that's that's almost a philosophical discussion to be had but um yeah i i don't think this is rehabbable frankly and building new you know with respect and respecting learning setbacks and and that kind of thing and bringing it to current wind code this right now is a danger if a hurricane you know came over it's a danger of damaging i mean i think there could be short-term things done kind of tighten it up to prevent that from happening the different setbacks approaching on this neighbor if we were to say no you have to rehabilitate it we also have to bring him variances try to figure out how to do a three-dimensional variance over i think they think they even have to move it yeah yeah you have to move it to rehab it yeah and that's which is which is probably not in these estimates yeah well what i would tell you is the conversation of these because it's so far because right now this is 25 percent more right and you go right is that an economic hardship or is it 30 or is it 40 or whatever i think this one is way too much this is agree agree comments come on speak up speak up i think it's a mess okay yeah okay all right i would like to make a motion yeah yes i move to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the drawings and documents presented this public hearing in arc-26-0000306 for the property located at 1410 south de soto avenue because based on the final fact and proposed project is consistent with the hyde park design guidelines in the city of tampa for the following reasons it is an economic hardship for the owners to rehabilitate or to move the existing structure a second i'll second all right we have a second any further discussion all right not seeing any all in favor signify by saying aye aye hi all right it's unanimous congratulations motion passes thank you so much you're welcome all right i'm looking for a motion to receive and file submitted documents did we get the new did we get that oh yeah perfect so moved so moved second all in favor say aye aye motion passes all right the meeting is adjourned