ALL RIGHT, I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[Landmark Commission on January 4, 2021.]
[00:00:03]
WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE REGULAR LANDMARKS COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 4TH.CALL] COMMISSIONER WOOD WAS HAVING SOME PROBLEMS SIGNING IN, HE MIGHT BE JOINING US WITH AUDIO ONLY. OK.
BY PHONE, WE HAVE PLANNER DANIEL LUNSFORD, PLANNING MANAGER ADRIEL MONTALVAN AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? NO? SEEING NONE. EVERYBODY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER SEVEN, TWENTY TWENTY. I HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS, CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? NO. IF NOT, THEY WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
I GUESS OUR STANDARD REMINDER, IT'S BEST TO SEE THEM LAUNCH THE MEETING AND [INAUDIBLE].
THAT'S HOW IT'S SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT ENABLES YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME.
IT'S BEST TO KEEP YOUR MICROPHONE MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE. STAFF MEMBERS WILL BE PRESENTING THEIR CASES BY PHONE.
AND THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TO PARTICIPATE BY PHONE AS WELL.
AND WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL.
WERE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, THEY WILL GO AHEAD AND GO TO OLD BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS. FIRST, THE FIRST CASE IS 20LC-074.
THAT IS 1818 AVENUE L TO REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION AND A GARAGE APARTMENT.
TWENTY NINE NOTICES WERE SENT, ONE RETURNS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND GARAGE APARTMENT.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
[INAUDIBLE] TO NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES. STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT THE DESIGN OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND GARAGE APARTMENTS ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE MASSING AND SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
THE SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE FIND ARE NOT BEING MET ARE LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. PLEASE NOTE THAT STAFF INITIAL COMMENTS WERE CONVEYED TO THE APPLICANT ON NOVEMBER 13TH, TWENTY TWENTY.
ON DECEMBER 14TH, TWENTY TWENTY, THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED THE ATTACHED DRAWINGS THAT RESPONDED TO SOME OF STAFF'S COMMENTS, BUT NOT THE ABOVE COMMENTS, BUT THE ABOVE COMMENTS WERE MADE OUTSTANDING. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CASE BE DEFERRED TO THE FEBRUARY FIRST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE MEETING IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO STAFF COMMENTS. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER FOR STAFF? NOBODY? ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN ON CASE 20LC-074 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. DID YOU HEAR? YES, WE SURE CAN.
THERE WAS AN APPLICANT PRESENT, BUT LOOKS LIKE HE MAY HAVE JUST DROPPED OFF THE CALL.
I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF HE SIGNS BACK IN.
WELL SEEING THAT IS THE CASE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-074 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
IS IT POSSIBLE COMMISSIONER TO TABLE THIS PORTION SINCE THE APPLICANT WAS ON? IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO STATE SOMETHING IT MAY BE BETTER TO TABLE IT UNTIL WE EITHER HEAR ANOTHER CASE OR UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING.
[00:05:04]
WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.I CAN MAKE A REQUEST THAT WE TABLE THE CASE FOR THE TIME BEING. AND, CATHERINE, IF YOU CAN JUST LET US KNOW IF AND WHEN THE APPLICANT DOES MAKE THEMSELVES, I GUESS, AVAILABLE ON THE MEETING, THEN WE CAN GO FORWARD.
THEN IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT COME BACK ONLINE, THEN, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE MEETING, WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH ANY VOTING THAT'S NECESSARY.
WELL, THEN WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND THEN MOVE ON TO OUR NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARING. THE CASE IS THE FIRST CASE OF THIS 20LC-075.
THIS IS A LICENSEES RECOMMENDATION ADJACENT TO A SIX ONE THREE FIFTEENTH STREET.
THERE WERE THIRTY SIX PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
NONE WERE RETURNED. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE CITY ALLEY AND STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
THE EXISTING TWO STORY REPORTS ENCROACHES TWO POINT TWO FEET INTO THE 15TH STREET AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE INTRUDES ONE POINT FIVE FEET INTO THE ALLEY.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THIS REQUEST TOMORROW, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY FOR THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 20LC-075 REQUEST FOR A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A LICENSE TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS REPORTED.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND TWO, AND STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH EIGHT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SUBJECT STRUCTURE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THIS IS THE SURVEY WHICH SHOWS THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE ALLEY SIDE AS WELL AS THE FIFTEENTH STREET RIGHT OF WAY. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FROM STAFF? NO QUESTIONS, THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
IF WE APPROVE THIS, IT JUST MEANS THE BUILDING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT LAND BEHIND IT, IF ANYTHING IS BUILT ON THERE, THEY'D HAVE TO GET A NEW. JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING, RIGHT? NOT IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
AND THIS ONLY PERTAINS TO THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE THAT'S IN PLACE ALREADY.
ANYBODY ELSE? NO, THIS IS NOT THE COMMISSIONER MCLEANS HAND IS RAISED CHAIRMAN.
OK. WERE THEY CITED FOR THE ENCROACHMENT? WERE YOU CITED, WAS HE CITED FOR THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK THIS IS A PART OF THE PROCESS.
HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY RECENTLY, AND I THINK WANTING TO MAKE RENOVATIONS.
AND THIS CAME UP AND WAS SEEKING A RESOLUTION TO IT NOW.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES. YES. YES.
OK, SO I DIALED IN BECAUSE I CAN'T GET THE MEETING ON MY LAPTOP, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING.
BUT YOU'RE FROZEN. OH, NO, I'M KIND OF DROPPED OFF.
YEAH, BUT. BUT I CAN HEAR YOU.
OK. OK, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN-- I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING OR-- ALL I CAN SEE IS MY PHONE'S KEYPAD. SO IS THERE ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE MEETING ON MY PHONE? FINE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG EITHER ON FACEBOOK LIVE OR THE CITY'S WEBSITE, WHICH IS GALVESTONTX.GOV, OR CHANNEL FIFTEEN ON [INAUDIBLE].
BUT THERE WILL BE A LAG BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE AND WHAT YOU HEAR ON THE PHONE.
[00:10:03]
I HAVE A QUESTION.HOW LONG HAS THAT BUILDING BEEN THERE ENCROACHING ON THIS? SINCE 1912.
OK, THAT IS THE FIRST TIME ANYONE'S EVER THOUGHT IT WAS A PROBLEM? WELL, I THINK SOMEONE JUST PURCHASED IT.
AND THEY FOUND OUT. WELL, IF IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1912 AND IT'S NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW.
THEN I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20 LC-075. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, I AM MICHAEL [INAUDIBLE].
HI MICHAEL. HOW ARE YOU? GOOD. YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT THIS HOUSE OR JUST LET US ASK YOU QUESTIONS [INAUDIBLE]? YEAH, NO, I MEAN, I THINK QUESTIONS ARE FINE.
I THINK IT WAS 1912 IS THE FIRST DOCUMENTED MOMENT WE HAVE IT THERE DUE TO A [INAUDIBLE] MAP. BUT IT WAS LIKELY SOMETIME BETWEEN NINETEEN HUNDRED AND 1912 OR 1899 [INAUDIBLE] AND 1912. BUT IT'S BEEN THERE A WHILE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? NO, I'M JUST ACTUALLY VERY, VERY EXCITED TO HEAR THAT'S GOING TO BE WORKED ON.
IT'S BEEN A REAL EYESORE FOR A LONG TIME AND IT WAS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S ALMOST IN TOTAL DISARRAY.
SO GLAD TO HEAR YOU'RE WORKING ON IT.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I WILL-- NO ONE ELSE HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-075 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
AND COMMISSIONER PATTERSON HAS HER HAND RAISED.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 20LC-075 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. COMMISSIONER LANCASTER HAND RAISED.
I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT THE FINAL APPROVAL OF IT, BUT I THINK GIVEN THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF GALVESTON AND THE AGE OF THESE HOUSES AND KIND OF THE CHANGE AND SHIFTING OF THE STREETS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE'RE GOING TO RUN ACROSS THIS.
THIS IS SO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY THAT ACCIDENTALLY BUILT THEIR [INAUDIBLE] TOO FAR OVER, ENCROACHED INTO CITY PROPERTY.
THIS APPARENTLY, AS SHARON POINTED OUT, HAS BEEN THERE A VERY LONG TIME.
SO I THINK THERE'S IN THESE CASES LIKE THIS IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE TO GRANDFATHER THEM IN. OH, SURE.
YEAH, NO KIDDING. YEAH, DON'T LOOK AT MY HOUSE TOO CLOSE.
ALL RIGHT. AND ANYBODY ELSE? NO, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE.
COMMISSIONER MCLEAN. IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON. IN FAVOR.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
THIS IS 603 10TH STREET. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO INSTALL A VINYL FENCE.
PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT WERE SIX, TWO RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THE VINYL FENCE WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CITED FOR INSTALLATION OF A FENCE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE DESIGN
[00:15:01]
STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RETAIN A FRONT YARD AND FIVE YARDS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME PORTIONS OF THE FENCE ENCROACH THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY.
IF APPROVED, THE FENCE WOULD NEED TO BE RELOCATED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CONFORMANCE. THE FENCE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE FENCING SECTION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT VINYL FENCING IS AN INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, WHICH IS NOTED ABOVE. THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WHEN THE PREFERRED APPROACH IS NOT FEASIBLE.
THE PREFERRED OPTION IS A WOOD PICKET FENCE, AS STATED IN THE FENCING SECTION.
WOOD PICKET FENCES ARE FEASIBLE AND ARE THE MOST COMMON FENCING MATERIAL IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. LOCATIONS THAT HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC ARE IDENTIFIED AS INAPPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN TEXTURE, FINISH AND FEEL.
DUE TO NON CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CASE BE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE, THE VINYL FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE LANDMARK DECISION.
AND STANDARD CONDITION TWO, REGARDING APPEAL.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IS THE PICTURE OF THE FENCE IN QUESTION.
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NO.
SEEING NONE. I WILL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-077 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. I AM.
DO YOU HAVE A STATEMENT FOR US OR WOULD YOU LIKE JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS? WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I DID GET THE FENCE IS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS A BETTER MATERIAL THAN WOOD BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T CHIP FOR DISCOLOR OR FADE OR ANYTHING WITH TIME AND BECAUSE OF OUR HURRICANES IT DOES GOES INTO THE GROUND AND IS NOT-- IT DOESN'T COME UP IF THERE WERE HURRICANES.
AND SO BEING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I DIDN'T WANT IT TO COME UP AND HARM MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO THAT WAS MY THINKING IN GETTING IT.
AND AS OF NOW, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
AND AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS MS. SWOR, MS. PATRICIA SWOR, WHO'S SPEAKING.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSION? CHAIRMAN, I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS FROM THE COMMISSION.
I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS. I'M SCROLLING THROUGH.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, IS THIS A RECENTLY PURCHASED HOUSE OR WAS SHE WHERE SHE WAS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? I RECENTLY PURCHASED IT IN AUGUST.
ALL RIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE? NO? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING CASE 20LC-077 BACK TO THE COMMISSION. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY CASE 20LC-077 PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER CLICK HAS HER HAND RAISED.
DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A MENTION TO MS. SWOR THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AT WANTING TO IMPROVE YOUR PROPERTY AND BLEND IN WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.
I'M SORRY THAT YOU WERE KIND OF IN BETWEEN THESE GATES THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS WELL.
ITS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION, BUT IT DOES HAVE AN END PURPOSE TO IT.
AND WE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, BUT WE CERTAINLY DO APPRECIATE IT.
[00:20:06]
SO I WALKED BY TODAY, SAW YOUR BIG OLD GERMAN SHEPHERD ON THE PORCH.I REMEMBER WHEN THAT HOUSE WENT UP FOR SALE, WISH I COULD HAVE A LITTLE COTTAGE LIKE THAT.
IT'S ADORABLE. AND I HOPE YOU WILL ALWAYS FEEL MOTIVATED TO WORK ON YOUR PROPERTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS CASE.
COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON. SHE MIGHT BE FROZEN. I'M IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SWANSON.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
NEXT CASE, SORRY, CHAIRPERSON COMMISSIONER PATTERSON HAS HER HAND RAISED.
I DO. I JUST REALIZED THAT AS WE'RE VOTING BOTH COMMISSIONERS AND BOTH ALTERNATES ARE VOTING. THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
I WILL--. I THOUGHT I CAUGHT IT THE LAST TIME AND I THINK WE'RE NOT-- I THINK THAT THE--.
I MEAN, ALTERNATES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO VOTE UNLESS THEY'RE TAKING THE PLACE OF A COMMISSIONER WHO'S ABSENT, CORRECT? YOU'RE CORRECT.
DONNA, DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO REDO THE VOTE? NO, UNLESS THERE WERE SOME DIFFERENCES IN VOTING, WE'LL JUST NULLIFY THOSE ALTERNATE VOTES AND MAKE THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE DID CATCH THAT.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE ROUND OF APPLAUSE TO CATHERINE WHO IS TRYING TO DO DOUBLE DUTY. SO [INAUDIBLE] AND CHAIRPERSON, I'M JUST CALLING OUT THE HANDS AS I SEE THEM. HOPEFULLY FOLKS DON'T GET TOO ANNOYED WITH MY VOICE.
NOT AT ALL. AND AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP CATHERINE OUT WITH SO MUCH THAT'S ON HER PLATE RIGHT NOW. AND I'M TRYING TO SCROLL BACK AND FORTH ON MINE.
SO IT'S A VOTE FOR YOUR HARD WORK.
AND THANKS FOR YOUR HELP, DONNA. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
YEAH, WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
THIS IS REQUESTS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE SITE.
THIS BEING A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE.
THERE WERE SEVEN PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONE RETURNED.
SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE.
FIRST FLOOR WILL REMAIN A GARAGE AND SECOND FLOOR WAS THE LIVING AREA AND KITCHEN, BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND SECOND FLOOR DECK IS SHOWN ATTACHMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE EXISTING GARAGE IS KNOWN AS NON HISTORIC AND THE HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY AND ATTACHMENT D. PLEASE NOTE THE MATERIALS LIST IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE EXISTING GARAGE IS CINDERBLOCK.
NO ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE MAIN HOUSE.
SO PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THAT THERE WAS GENERALLY PERFORMANCE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND LOCATED ALONG THE ALLEY WHERE VISIBILITY IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED ON THE CORNER. MORE FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE ON LOCATION D.
THE SITING APPEARS TO BE A HORIZONTAL LAP SITING PROPOSED TO THE UPPER LEVEL.
SIGNAGE WILL BE SIMILAR. EXPOSURE, TEXTURE, [INAUDIBLE] SIDING, BUT SHALL BE SMOOTHER THAN A RAISED GREEN AND RUSTIC SURFACE.
AS IS TYPICAL FOR DESIGN STANDARDS.
STUCCO IS PROPOSED BELOW GRADE OVER THE EXISTING CMU WALLS.
HOWEVER, THE DESIGN STANDARDS PREFER A BOARD AND [INAUDIBLE] SIDING AT THAT LEVEL.
[00:25:05]
LET'S SEE HERE.APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE CUT SHEETS FOR THE WINDOWS OR DOORS, BUT THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS INDICATE THE WINDOWS WILL BE VINYL WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS, AND TWO [INAUDIBLE] CONFIGURATION.
DESIGNS [INAUDIBLE] NOTE THAT ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT VINYL WINDOWS CAN BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A LESS VISIBLE AND SENSORY STRUCTURES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS; SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH TWO STANDARD CONDITIONS, THREE THROUGH SEVEN.
JUST NOTE THAT THERE'S ABOUT A 30 SECOND DELAY ON MY END.
SO HOPEFULLY MAYBE CATHERINE CAN HELP ME, LIKE, SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.
SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE FRONT HOUSE AND THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.
AND THEN THE ELEVATION DRAWING, PROPERTY TO THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST AND THEN PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT GARAGE.
AND THEN I THINK THAT'S THE END OF THE PHOTOS.
THANK YOU, CATHERINE. APPRECIATE IT.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DANIEL AND CATHERINE THAT DOES NOT PARTICULARLY APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST.
HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO ASK IT ANYWAY.
LOOKING AT THE MOST RECENT PHOTO OF THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THIS HOUSE, CAN EITHER OF YOU REMIND ME WHETHER THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN CITED FOR THE TILE WORK DONE ON THE STAIRS? I SEEM TO REMEMBER THAT, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN OR IF IT HAPPENED.
AND SO COMMISSIONER LANG, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
SO I WOULD WAIT UNTIL EITHER AFTER THE MEETING OR PUT IT IN AN EMAIL SO IT CAN BE ADDRESSED THEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-079.
AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
THIS IS BRAD [INAUDIBLE] ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OK? YES. YES, I CAN.
GREAT, GREAT. WELL, JUST THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THEIR STAFF REPORT AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'D LIKE TO JUST MAYBE ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE CONDITIONS, IF I COULD.
ON THE ISSUE OF THE SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT.
THE INTENTION THERE WAS TO USE AS A SURFACE APPLIED MULLION.
AND I WOULD ASK IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
BUT IF NOT, [INAUDIBLE]? THE SECOND THING THAT I'D LIKE TO REQUEST IS [INAUDIBLE].
AND JUST FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS, BECAUSE NORMALLY IF THIS THING WAS BEING BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP, WE'D HAVE WOOD STUDS THERE TO PROVIDE THE BOARD AND BATTON, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO.
SINCE WE HAVE THIS STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY THERE THAT'S MASONRY FEELS A LITTLE MORE HONEST TO STUCCO IT FOR ONE THING, RATHER THAN TRYING TO REPLICATE A [INAUDIBLE] THAT WASN'T THERE.
SO SECONDLY, I JUST LIKED THE IDEA OF THE STUCCO OVER A [INAUDIBLE] ESSENTIALLY HANGING OFF OF THE BUILDING FOR WATERPROOFING AND WEATHERPROOFING PURPOSES MORE SO THAN APPEARANCE, HONESTLY.
BUT THAT'S THE PALLET THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
SO I'D JUST LIKE TO OPEN THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS. EVERYTHING ELSE LOOKS GOOD TO ME.
SO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
[00:30:03]
ANYBODY? ANYBODY THERE? NO. SEEING NONE.I WILL CLOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THE CASE 20LC-079 BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 20 LC-079 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OMITTING ITEM B, WHICH CALLS FOR ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS, AND D CALLING FOR THE SIDING APPLIED OVER THE CMU.
I DO NOT SEE A HAND RAISED FOR A SECOND TO THAT MOTION, CHAR.
OH, WAIT. OK, COMMISSIONER DOUG.
I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION? I WAS KIND OF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OVER THE CMU.
IT SEEMED TO ME IT'S THE CINDER BLOCK.
IT'S AN EXISTING EXISTING FEATURE, AND TO ME, IN A WAY IT'S [INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE IN A WEIRD WAY WOULD BE A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORY TO CAMOUFLAGE THE CMU.
ANY OTHER COMMENT? NO? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. I SEE COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] HAND RAISED, CHAIRPERSON.
YOUR MOTION SAYS THAT THE WINDOW SHALL NOT BE ONE OVER ONE.
YOU WANT TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE]? THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ONE OVER ONE.
THEY CAN BE TWO OVER TWO WITH THE APPLIED--.
I THINK IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE TWO OR TWO, THEY SHOULD BE REAL TO OVER TWO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT [INAUDIBLE].
WELL, SEEING THAT, I CAN AMEND MY MOTION.
AND GO AHEAD AND AGREE WITH YOU THERE AND REINSTATE LETTER B, WINDOWS SHALL BE ONE OVER ONE.
WELL, IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER CLICK WAS A SECOND TO THAT ORIGINAL MOTION.
COMMISSIONER JOANNE, WAS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT REGARDING THE TWO OVER TWO? YES. SO PROCEDURALLY, CHAIRPERSON, DO YOU ACCEPT THEIR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE TWO OVER TWO? I DO.
AND COMMISSIONER CLICK, DO YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE TWO OVER TWO? I DO. THERE YOU GO.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CHAIR PERSON PATTERSON'S HAND IS RAISED.
YEAH, FRED, COULD YOU JUST REREAD YOUR MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 20LC-079 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCLUDING ITEM D, CITING BELOW THE FINISH FOR ELEVATION TO THE WOOD BOARD AND BACK. AND THE WINDOWS AS STATED.
THE WINDOWS SHALL BE ONE OVER ONE AS STATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
CAN I MAKE A COMMENT HERE? OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS FIRST? NO, WELL.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION. WELL, I HAVE BEEN TROUBLED RECENTLY BY SOMETHING THAT I'VE SEEN THAT WE HAVE GIVEN A GREEN LIGHT TO APPROVE THIS ALMOST A DUPLICATE RESTORATION OF
[00:35:06]
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND WINDOWS AND DOORS AND MOLDINGS.AND IT'S REALLY TROUBLING TO ME BECAUSE IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE ON THIS. WHY SHOULD WE POSSIBLY ELIMINATE THE FAKE TWO OVER TWOS? IT LOOKS BETTER.
I MEAN, FROM A DISTANCE UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT LOOK BETTER.
WE ALL I WOULD, I THINK WE'D ALL AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS NOT FALSIFY THE APPEARANCE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S SORT OF WHAT OUR DIRECTIVE IS.
BUT I'M REALLY-- THE CONTRADICTION HERE IS VERY TROUBLING TO ME.
OK, I'M STANDING OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW.
ALL RIGHT. I ONLY THINK I WAS--.
THINKING ABOUT ACCEPTING BECAUSE IT'S AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND I KIND OF THINK THAT--.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN. IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTON. IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER MCLEAN. NOT IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER WOOD. COMMISSIONER WOOD.
IN FAVOR. SO IT WAS SIX IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION PASSES.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT CASE, 20LC-081 . EXCUSE ME WHILE I FIND MY MATERIALS HERE.
GOT CLIPPED TO ANOTHER REPORT.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATION TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING FRONT PORCH RAILINGS AND STAIRS.
ZERO RETURNED. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT PORCH, INCLUDING RAILING STAIRS AND PORCH FLOORING.
THE SCOPE OF WORK IS AS FOLLOWS.
REMOVE THE CONCRETE STAIRS ON THE FRONT PORCH AND REPLACE WITH WOOD STAIRS, ADD WOOD DECKING ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE ON THE FRONT PORCH FLOOR AND INSTALL NEW RAILINGS ON THE FRONT PORCH. PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED CHANGES GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES. THE DESIGN STANDARDS IDENTIFY CONCRETE SUPPORTS OR STEPS AS INAPPROPRIATE.
SO THE REPLACEMENT WITH WOOD IS AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL TREATMENT.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS STATE THE PORCH RAILS SHOULD BE REINSTALLED TO MATCH EXISTING RAILS WHEN APPROPRIATE. THE PROPOSED RAILING DESIGN IS MORE ELABORATE THAN THE RAILINGS CURRENTLY FOUND ON THE HOUSE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE RAILING DESIGN BE SIMPLIFIED AND MATCH THE DESIGN FOUND ON THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH.
RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 20LC-081 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT INDICATED AN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
A, THE DESIGN OF THE RAILING SHALL BE SIMPLIFIED TO MATCH THE RAILINGS FOUND ON THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH. ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX ARE STANDARD.
OK, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO THE MODIFICATIONS TO THIS PORTION OF THE PORCH HERE.
THESE ARE THE DRAWINGS SHOWING THE PROPOSED RAILING DESIGN.
AND THEN WE HAVE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION?
[00:40:01]
I'M SORRY.COMMISSIONER CLICK HAS HER HAND RAISED.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RAILING.
I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD MATCH THE RAILING THAT IS ALREADY THERE UPSTAIRS, BUT MY QUESTION IS THE RAILING THAT'S ON THE STAIRS THAT'S SLANTED DOWN IN THEIR PROPOSED DESIGN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST A VERTICAL SLASH.
AND SO I'M WONDERING IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION INCLUDES HAVING THE XS ON THE STAIRS ALSO? YOU KNOW, IN MY RECOMMENDATION, I WAS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE RAILINGS ON THE PORCH.
I THINK THAT THE RAILINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO JUST BE SIMPLE SQUARE PICKETS ON THE STAIRS ARE FINE. OK.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION THAT MAY REMEDY SARAH'S QUESTION, IS WHEN IT'S AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT, LIKE UNDER TWO FEET, IS THERE A CERTAIN HEIGHT WHERE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE STAIR RAILINGS? THAT IN OTHER WORDS, THE STAIR WELLINGS ARE ONLY REQUIRED ONCE YOU GET THE HOUSE IS AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT AND BEFORE THEN, IT'S TOTALLY UP TO THE OWNER? DO WE KNOW THAT? THAT IS CORRECT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE CUTOFF IS.
MAYBE FRED KNOWS, BUT THERE IS A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT UNDER WHICH RAILINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED.
OK, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THIS HOUSE IS PRETTY LOW, LIKE IT MAY NOT EVEN REQUIRE THE RAILINGS ON THE STAIRS.
YES, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER FROM [INAUDIBLE] I THINK IS ABOUT 30 INCHES OR SO.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS THREE FEET TO THE FINISHED FLOOR.
THIRTY FOUR THIRTY SIX TO FINISHED DECK.
THIRTY OR THIRTY SIX INCHES, I THINK BEFORE YOU HAD TO HAVE A [INAUDIBLE].
COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, I'M SORRY, CHIEF JOANNE.
IF THEY WANTED TO PUT AN X DESIGN ON THE RAILS, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? SINCE THEY SEEM TO WANT THAT MORE ELABORATE X DESIGN.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, MOST OF THE RAILINGS DO MATCH THE HOUSE.
I THINK EITHER TREATMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
YEAH, LONG AS THEY MATCH THE EXISTING DESIGN.
RIGHT. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, AGAIN . JUST TO DOUBLE BACK ON THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE, I THINK KATHERINE SAID EITHER IS ACCEPTABLE, EITHER STRAIGHT OR WITH KEEPING AS DESIGN IS ACCEPTABLE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE JUST THE DESIGN X'S.
CORRECT? CATHERINE? YES, THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
OK, VERY GOOD. I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-081.
ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE HIM ON THE LINE.
BOBBY, ARE YOU THERE? BOBBY, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? CATHERINE IS THIS WHERE THEY HAVE TO PRESS STAR OH, IT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE UNMUTED.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, THERE YOU ARE.
OR IF YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
AND I HEARD YOU TALKING ABOUT THE XS ON THE UPSTAIRS.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO MATCH ON THE DOWNSTAIRS, THAT ELABORATE STUFF, THAT'S JUST WHAT THE ENGINEER DREW.
BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET CLOSE AS I CAN OF MATCH THE UPSTAIRS, BUT MAYBE AT THE HEIGHT THAT Y'ALL NEEDED IT TO BE AT.
THE HEIGHT CAN MATCH WITH EXISTING UPSTAIRS.
YEAH, YEAH, THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE IT KIND OF CODE COMPLIANT THAT THEY WOULD SAY NOW.
[00:45:03]
THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. YES.THAT'S WHAT THE OWNER WANTS TOO.
SHE WANTS TO MATCH WITH THE UPSTAIRS IS.
I JUST--. YEAH. THE ENGINEER GOT CARRIED AWAY.
YES, HE JUST THREW THAT TOGETHER AND I TOLD HIM THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE WAS LOOKING FOR.
SHE DOES WANT THE VERTICALS GOING UP THE STAIRS.
BUT THE ONE ON THE RIGHT THERE, SHE DOES JUST WANT TO MATCH THE UPSTAIRS ON THE X'S.
OK. ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSION ? ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT, AND THANK YOU, SIR.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-081 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 20LC-081 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER CLICK HAS HER HAND RAISED.
ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTON. IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER WOOD. COMMISSIONER WOOD.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
CAN WE GO BACK TO CASE 20LC-074.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SIGNED BACK IN.
AND JUST A REMINDER, THIS IS FOR 1818 AVENUE L.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL UNTIL FEBRUARY THE 2ND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? I DO NOT SEE ANY HANDS.
ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL CLOSE-- WELL, WAS GOING TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20LC-074, AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
AND HE'S NOT. SO I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING ON THE CASE AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION . COMMISSIONER CLICK AND THEN COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER CASE 20LC-074 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND? YEAH, I SECOND THE MOTION TO DIVERT CASE 20LC-074 TO FEBRUARY 1ST PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. WELL ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ? SEEING NONE. I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTON.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER MCLEAN.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.
COMMISSIONER WOOD. COMMISSIONER WOOD.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ALONG TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. UPDATE ON 523 10TH STREET AND 1809 AVENUE M.
I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE A BRIEFING.
THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS BROUGHT UP ABOUT 523 10TH STREET.
[00:50:01]
WE'VE REVIEWED THE CONSTRUCTION.THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
AND IT SEEMS TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
SO I DIDN'T FIND ANY VIOLATIONS THERE.
OK, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN READING SOME VERY CONFUSING ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN OUR BUILDING STANDARDS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
AND IT'S VERY CONFUSING DISTINCTION THAT IT'S VERY EASY TO BLUR THESE LINES.
BUT THEY'RE CRITICAL, I THINK, TO MAINTAINING THE HISTORICAL INTEGRITY AND NOT IN MIXING UP OLD STRUCTURES AND NEW STRUCTURES.
BECAUSE AS I SEE IT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE HAVE APPROVED AND I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF IT SOMEHOW AND I'M VERY SORRY THAT I DID, BUT I THINK FOR THE TYPICAL BUYER OR THE TYPICAL TOURIST, THEY WOULD DRIVE BY THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE.
AND THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT IT THAT WOULD MAKE YOU THINK THAT IT WASN'T THE EXACT SAME PERIOD AS THE [INAUDIBLE].
AND THAT'S BOTHERSOME TO ME BECAUSE WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT SMALLER ITEMS IN SOMEBODY'S FRONT DOOR, THE GLASS IN THE FRONT DOOR NOT BEING APPROPRIATE OR, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST-- I'M HAVING A REAL HARD TIME SETTLING WITH THIS.
AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO ASK FOR A WORKSHOP WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE.
I KNOW THAT YOU'RE CATHERINE EVERYBODY SLAMMED RIGHT NOW.
BUT IF WE CAN FIT IT IN AND IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH THE THREE POINT THREE ZERO DESIGN AND NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.
AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REREAD AND RECONSIDERED BY EVERY ONE OF US.
MAYBE THERE'S A CHEAPER, SIMPLER WAY TO DO IT.
BUT I'M REALLY, REALLY DISAPPOINTED WITH MYSELF FOR HAVING ALLOWED, YOU KNOW, NOT SPOKEN UP ABOUT IT. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S MY COMMENT ABOUT IT.
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH DOUG HERE.
I KNOW IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE STANDARDS NOT TO COPY HISTORIC DETAILING SO MUCH TO MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE IT'S LIKE HE'S SAYING LIKE THE SAME PERIOD IS COMING FROM, YOU KNOW, THE EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS OR WHATNOT.
SOMETIMES TO SAY YOU CAN TAKE SOMETHING AND MAKE IT AS FAR AS BEING NEW OR AN ADDITION OR SO NORMALLY I THINK WE USUALLY TRY TO MAKE IT JUST TRY AND SIMPLIFY A DETAIL, WHATEVER IS SOMETHING, AN ELABORATE DETAIL, MAKE IT A SIMPLE DETAIL, THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT I KNOW IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE MAYBE SHOULD HAVE A CLOSER LOOK AT.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN HAS HER HAND RAISED.
YEAH. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH DOUG ALSO.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GLASS ON A STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY DONE THERE AS OPPOSED TO A NEW STRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN REBUILT, BEEN BUILT WITHOUT HAVING EVER BEEN THERE.
SO I THINK WE DO NEED TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT THAT DISTINCTION ABOUT THE TOTALLY NEW BUILDINGS AND SEE IF WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF CUT TO THE NOISE AND GET TO THE SIGNAL.
AND THAT IS IN OUR PURVIEW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, LIKE SOMEBODY POINT OUT IN THE BOOK WHERE IT SAYS DIFFERENTLY, OUR PURVIEW IS SITTING IN FRONT OF A RESIDENCE.
WHAT WE CAN SEE FROM THAT CURB, LOOKING AT THAT RESIDENCE.
WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO A 360 TURN ALL OVER THIS PROPERTY AND SCRUTINIZE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT. THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES OR THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
IT WAS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
SO I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE CAN ALSO SWING IT TOO FAR THE OTHER WAY WHERE WE'RE DISCOURAGING HOMEOWNERS FROM INVESTING IN THEIR PROPERTIES, PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TAKE THAT VENTURE.
AND IT IS A VENTURE TO ENGAGE AN ARCHITECT AND A BUILDER AND EVERYTHING ELSE, DON'T WANT TO BUILD A BOX.
THEY WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT COMPLEMENTS THEIR PROPERTY.
AND IF THAT BUILDING IS NOT SITTING IN FRONT OF THIS HISTORIC STRUCTURE, WHICH IS OUR PURVIEW. THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REAL CAREFUL ABOUT HOW MUCH WE START MEDDLING AND WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING TO THEIR PROPERTIES.
[00:55:01]
I THINK THAT IT'S TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE THAT WHEN SOMEONE BUILDS A STRUCTURE IN 2021 TO HOUSE A GARAGE, AND THEY HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO CODE, WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO BE SO HIGH.ARE WE GOING TO JUDGE THAT AS WELL? AND I MEAN, I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE REAL CAREFUL ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING.
WE'VE SEEN IT BE REALLY, REALLY STRICT AND WE'VE SEEN IT GET REAL LOOSENED.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER ONE THING, AND THAT IS OUR PURVIEW IS SITTING ON THE CURB, LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I MEAN, THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE FROM THE FRONT, AND THAT WE CERTAINLY GIVE MORE LEEWAY TOWARDS THE BACK AND WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE HOMEOWNERS FROM INVESTING IN THEIR PROPERTY. AND PARTICULARLY A GARAGE IS A MAJOR INVESTMENT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME OPTIONS TO DO THEIR NEW STRUCTURES THAT COMPLEMENT THEIR HOME.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE IN THE PRESERVATION BUSINESS OR TO APPEASE TOURISTS.
COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, IF I MAY INTERRUPT.
I BELIEVE THE REQUEST FOR A WORKSHOP SOUNDS AS IF IT'S MORE THAN APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS JUST TO DISCUSS THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
BUT CLEARLY, IT SOUNDS AS IF A WORKSHOP IS MORE THAN APPROPRIATE FOR THIS ISSUE.
AND I BELIEVE CATHERINE HAS HEARD THAT AS WELL.
AND I BELIEVE YOU CAN HAVE WORKSHOPS DURING THE ZOOM AS WELL.
SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE INHIBITED FROM HAVING A WORKSHOP DURING THIS PARTICULAR PANDEMIC TIME. CATHERINE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SCHEDULE FOR? ABSOLUTELY. I WAS JUST CHECKING THE CASELOAD FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO SEE WHAT THAT'S LIKE.
SO WE COULD IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO DO A WORKSHOP BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS FEBRUARY 1ST. OH, OK.
COMMISSIONER LANG HAS HER HAND RAISED.
SO I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYBODY HAS SAID.
I THINK WE NEED TO WORK OUT THAT.
I THINK WE NEED TO WORKSHOP SOME OTHER THINGS.
I'M GOING TO BRING BACK UP CASE 20LC WHATEVER IT IS, DASH ZERO SEVEN NINE, 1126 CHURCH.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR AN UPDATE ON THAT PROPERTY.
THAT TILE IS CLEARLY NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND I, IN MY BRAIN SWEAR THAT WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED THAT.
IF WE HAVE AND THOSE OWNERS ARE STILL NOT COMPLIANT WITH IT, IT REALLY GETS IN MY CRAW THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO APPLY FOR MORE WORK TO DO IN THEIR BACK, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THOSE ARE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS OR NOT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO WORKSHOP THE IDEA THAT WE NOT APPROVE FURTHER WORK ON HOMEOWNERS PROPERTIES UNTIL OR UNLESS THEY RECTIFY THINGS THAT THEY'VE DONE UNPERMITTED OR INADVERTENTLY OR WHATEVER THAT GOES AGAINST OUR DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE HAVE QUARTERLY UPDATES OF ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THAT STILL REMAIN OUTSTANDING, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE KIND OF JUST LET THOSE, AND BEFORE I SAY THIS, I DON'T MEAN THIS IN ANY KIND OF DISRESPECTFUL WAY, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE KIND OF DON'T EVER HEAR AGAIN ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NON-COMPLIANT.
AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD OFFICER POPE OR SOMEBODY ON A REGULAR AND FREQUENT BASIS GIVING US UPDATES ON WHERE THESE RED TAGGED PROPERTIES STAND AND WHETHER OWNERS ARE ACTUALLY MAKING ANY HEADWAY OR NOT.
THE TILE ON THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN SOMETHING I'VE NOTICED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AND SO, AGAIN, I DO BELIEVE IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THEY WERE GIVEN TO RECTIFY IT OR WHETHER THEY'VE DONE ANYTHING.
I CAN'T RECALL WHETHER THEY'VE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION.
SO, A, IF WE COULD GET AN UPDATE ON 1126 CHURCH AND THE TILE ON THE FRONT PORCH, AND B, IF WE COULD ADD THE ACTION ITEM TO THE WORKSHOP TO ADDRESS WHETHER WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW OWNERS TO APPLY FOR FURTHER WORK IF THEY HAVE NOT FIXED PREVIOUS INFRACTIONS, I SHOULD SAY. OK, I HAVE THIS ITEM.
[01:00:05]
I DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER HANDS CHAIRPERSON.OK, THE OTHER ADDRESS WAS 1809 AVENUE M.
1809 AVENUE M HAS HAD VIOLATIONS AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ADDRESS THEM. THEY'VE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE WINDOW VIOLATIONS IN THE FRONT, BUT STILL HAVE SOME WINDOW VIOLATIONS ON THE SIDES TO ADDRESS.
IT'S JUST TAKING THEM A LONG TIME TO FIX SOME OF THOSE CORRECTIONS, BUT AGAIN--.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN HAS HER HAND WAVED.
OH, HAVE THEY BEEN RED TAGGED IN THE MEANTIME? IT APPEARS TO ME THEY'RE STILL DOING A LOT OF WORK.
I DON'T THINK THEY'VE BEEN RE-RED TAGGED BECAUSE THE LAST CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE OWNER, HE WAS BEING VERY RESPONSIVE, SO LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THOSE.
WELL, HE'S SAYING, LOOK, I GUESS I SHOULDN'T SAY THIS, BUT HE SEEMS TO BE TAKING A NEW TACK WHERE HE JUST AGREES WITH YOU AND JUST DOESN'T DO IT.
AND I THINK A RED TAG IS APPROPRIATE.
HE WENT A LONG TIME WITHOUT A RED TAG DOING THINGS WHEN HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.
AND I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE HIM AWARE THAT THIS SERIOUS.
I WILL FOLLOW UP TOMORROW. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE? SO CAN WE PUT THAT BACK ON THE NEXT MEETING AFTERWARDS, JUST A DISCUSSION TO HERE ON THE FOLLOW UP FOR THAT, CATHERINE? SURE. OK.
I THINK BROADLY ON AN AGENDA ITEM FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTIES WITH THE OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM ALL.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THAT WOULD BE REALLY NICE.
ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, SEEING NO HANDS [INAUDIBLE], I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
AYE. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.