[00:00:01]
>> I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[Landmark Commission on March 15, 2021.]
WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR MARCH 15, 2021, AND WE'LL START OFF WITH ATTENDANCE.>> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN IS ABSENT.
>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] THOMPSON?
>> COMMISSIONER WOOD. I DON'T SEE THAT HE'S JOINED US, I'LL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT WHEN HE DOES. COUNCILMAN COLLINS?
>> [INAUDIBLE] MYSELF, CATHERINE GORMAN, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND HER THIRD PRESERVATION OFFICER; [INAUDIBLE] PLANNING MANAGER.
LANA FAIRWEATHER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
>> ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO ANYONE?
ALL RIGHT. IS THERE BY CHANCE WE LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 1ST? ANY ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CONSIDER THOSE TO BE ACCEPTED, APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MEETING FORMAT.
>> JUST THE STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS, THAT IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW THAT LETS YOU SEE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME AND IT'S HOW THE MEETING IS SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC.
IT'S BEST TO KEEP YOUR MICROPHONE MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE.
WE ASKED YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PHONE AS OUR STAFF AND WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS?
>> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
>> CATHERINE, YOUR NAME'S VERY LARGE ON THE SCREEN.
I CAN SEE FOUR OF US AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM IT SAYS, "CATHERINE GORMAN", VERY LARGE SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE THAT A LITTLE SMALLER.
>> I THINK THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE DISPLAY ON YOUR END.
YOU MIGHT CHANGE IT TO HIDE THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE VIDEO.
>> ALL RIGHT THEN. I SEE NO COMMENT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> ALL RIGHT, 20 LC-080 AT 2019 AVENUE IN AND A HALF.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL.
THERE WERE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE FRONT PORCH DECKING WITH COMPOSITION DECKING.
MATERIALS COMPOSE A COMPRESSED WOOD AND FIBERGLASS FIBERS, OFTEN GENERALLY REFERRED TO BY THE BRAND NAME 'TRICKS DECK'.
THE APPLICANTS PROVIDES SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIAL INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT A.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS WELL IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
[NOISE] DESIGN STANDARDS DO NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT THE USE OF COMPOSITION DECKING.
THE SPECIFICATIONS INDICATE THEIR PROSE MATERIAL IS SMOOTH AND LACKS A RUSTICATED OR PATTERNED SURFACE.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR DESIGN STANDARDS FOR USE OF, FOR EXAMPLE, A HARDIE BOARD.
IN ADDITION, DESIGN STAIRS SPECIFICALLY PERMIT ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS WHEN PORCHES OR DECK BOARDS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DETERIORATING ALTHOUGH ORIGINAL MATERIAL IS STILL PREFERRED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SPECIFIC CONDITION 1, A REPLACEMENT DECK THAT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 2 THROUGH 6.WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE, I BELIEVE.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP IN JUST A SECOND.
>> I'M HAVING TO DIAL IN TODAY SO THERE'S A BIT OF A LAG ON MY END.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, EVERYONE.
>> I'VE RUN THROUGH THE PICTURES FOR YOU, DANIEL.
>> HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SOME PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE CONDITION OF THE PORCH FLOOR AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH,
[00:05:02]
EAST, AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PHOTOS.>> THANK YOU, CATHERINE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STEP FROM THE COMMISSION? CONNIE?
>> IT DIDN'T SAY IN THE APPLICATION IF THIS REQUEST WAS JUST FOR THE LOWER PORCH OR FOR THE UPPER PORCH AS WELL. CAN YOU CLARIFY?
>> YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S JUST FOR THE LOWER PORCH, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN MAYBE CLARIFY THAT.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? NO? ALL RIGHT THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20 LC-080 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT?
>> YES, I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> OKAY. GREAT. YEAH. SO I'LL ANSWER CONNIE'S QUESTION FIRST [BACKGROUND] AS SOON AS THE SIREN STOPS.
>> IF YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> [INAUDIBLE] 2627 AVENUE K AND REPRESENTING CRAIG AND ANGELA BROWN ON THIS AND TO ANSWER CONNIE'S QUESTION FIRST; JUST THAT IT'S LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR PORCH, SO NO REPLACEMENT DECKING UP ON THE UPPER PORCH, AND THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT LOWER PORCH IS ACTUALLY EXPOSED, SO THE PORCH FLOORING THAT'S THERE NOW THAT'S JUST WOOD IS EXPOSED AND IT'S BUCKLING AND IT DOESN'T WEAR VERY WELL.
BUT I DO DEFINITELY WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR TREX DECKING AT ALL.
THE BRAND NAME OF THE PORCH FLOOR IS AZECK.
IT'S A COMPOSITE MATERIAL BUT IT HAS THE EXACT SAME PROFILE AS THE EXISTING WOOD PORCH FLOOR SO IT'S NOT A DECK.
IT'S REPLACEMENT WITH PORCH FLOOR, BUT IT IS SYNTHETIC MATERIAL THAT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE A WOOD PORCH FLOOR.
>> CONNIE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION AGAIN?
>> YEAH. BRAX, CAN I ASK YOU IS THIS A [INAUDIBLE] GROUP CONFIGURATION?
>> CAN I ASK YOU WHAT THE WIDTH OF THIS PRODUCT IS? IS IT A QUARTER, THREE, FOUR, WIDE?
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AS THE PORCH FLOOR.
I WILL MEASURE IT FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
IT IS TONGUE AND GROOVE AND THE WIDTH OF THE MATERIAL IS THREE INCHES WIDE AND THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH THICK.
SO IT'S NOT A TREK'S PROFILE WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE SIX INCHES WIDE AND LOOK MORE LIKE A WEST END DECK.
THIS IS REALLY THE SAME DIMENSION AS PORCH FLOOR.
>> [OVERLAPPING] CAN I ASK YOU, HOW LONG HAS THIS PRODUCT BEEN ON THE MARKET, THIS SPECIFIC PRODUCT ON THE MARKET?
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT'S RELATIVELY NEW, IT'S WITHIN THE LAST 10 YEARS I WOULD SAY BUT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> YEAH. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT THERE WAS AN IMAGE, I THINK, ON ONE OF THE IMAGES THAT SHOW A KIND OF A CROSS SECTION, SHOWED A PIECE OF IT.
>> YES, I THINK I SUBMITTED IT.
I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT THERE SHOULD BE A PHOTO.
>> YEAH. IT WAS ON. I SAW IT HERE.
>> YEAH. IT DID LOOK LIKE TREX TO ME EITHER [LAUGHTER].
>> RIGHT. WE WOULDN'T PROPOSE TO PUT A TREX DECK ON THE FRONT OF A HISTORIC HOUSE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO? SEEING THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRAX.
>> ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20 LC-080 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> DO WE NEED TO TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING?
[00:10:08]
>> THERE IS NO AUDIENCE, I DON'T THINK.
>> WE CAN DOUBLE-CHECK WITH CATHERINE, BUT I BELIEVE SHE STATED THEY WEREN'T ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
IT'S BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
[NOISE] [BACKGROUND] I'LL MAKE A MOTION THEN THAT WE APPROVE CASE 20 LC-080 WITH STAFF HEALTH CONDITIONS.
DOES DOUG APPROVE, SECONDS THE MOTION? ANY DISCUSSION? CONNIE?
NOT BECAUSE I CAN'T SYMPATHIZE WITH THE HOMEOWNERS' DILEMMA, BUT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES CLEARLY STATE THAT WE SHOULD WHENEVER POSSIBLE, REPLACE AUTHENTIC MATERIALS THAT ONCE STOOD.
IT'S REALLY PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
THE ONLY TIME IT SAYS WE SHOULD DEVIATE FROM THAT IS IF THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY AND MATERIAL CANNOT BE FOUND.
THAT WOULD BE ONE TIME THAT RECOMMENDS THAT.
THE OTHER TIME IS WHEN IT SAYS THAT IT'S ACCEPTABLE FOR US TO CONSIDER IT IS IF IT IS ON THE SECONDARY SURFACE, AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE A SECOND STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
BUT IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 31 OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, IT SAYS WE'RE MOVING ORIGINAL MATERIAL DIMINISHES THE INTEGRITY OF AN HISTORIC PROPERTY BY REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDING FABRIC THAT REMAINS ON THE PERIOD OF THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE RETAINING THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS, ALWAYS PREFER.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I DID RECENTLY THE SAME THING, ALMOST 40 LINEAR FEET OF MATERIAL THAT WAS RECLAIMED LUMBER TO REPLACE MY PORTRAITS.
I HAVE THE EXACT SAME SITUATION.
I HAVE A CORNER THAT JETS OUT DOESN'T HAVE A ROOF ON IT.
WE DID FIND SOME WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE A LITTLE BETTER BY COVERING THE SCENE WHERE THE JOINT COMES TOGETHER BY INCREASING THE SLOPE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD THE DRAINAGE.
IF THEY WERE NOT AN ALTERNATIVE, THEN I COULD SUPPORT THAT.
BUT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE CAN INCLUDE IN DESIGNED GUIDELINES.
STATE WHAT THE PROTOCOLS ARE FOR GOING WITH AN ALTERNATIVE.
THE OTHER PARTIES I THINK THAT WE OPENED THE DOOR FOR FOLKS TO COME IN AND SAY WELL BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS SYNTHETIC SHUTTER BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH LESS MAINTENANCE AND I DON'T HAVE TO PAINT IT FOR 50 YEARS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.
THEN BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, THE WINDOWS ARE GOING TO GO, THE BALUSTRADES ARE GOING TO GO, THE SHUTTERS ARE GOING TO GO, THE DOORS ARE GOING TO GO.
I THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE WE CONSIDER.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S A CASE BY CASE, BUT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO SAY WE SHOULD RETAIN THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL WHEN POSSIBLE.
WE SHOULD ONLY CONSIDER WHEN THE DAMAGE IS EXTENSIVE AND THE MATERIAL CAN'T BE FOUND OR IF IT'S NOT THE PRIMARY FACE OF THE BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK IT'S REQUESTS MEET THAT THRESHOLD. THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
>> WELL, FOR ME I KNOW I HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME TRYING TO LOCATE LONG LEAF PINE FLOORING TO REPLACE THE FLOORING ON MY PORCH. I JUST DID.
>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, IT'S NOT EASY.
WE DID OURS A YEAR AGO, IT WAS 42 LINEAR FEET BY SEVEN AND A QUARTER WIDE.
IT WAS ALL RECLAIMED LUMBER THAT WE GOT FROM TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES TO REPLACE THE LOWER GALLERY AND THE FRONT PORCH FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON BECAUSE IT HAD WORN.
BUT A YEAR LATER, IT'S STILL HOLDING UP BEAUTIFULLY.
I EXPECT IT'S GOING TO HOLD UP FOR ANOTHER 25,30 YEARS BECAUSE WE WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL.
CAN YOU GET IT AT HOME DEPOT? PROBABLY NOT.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET INTO HOME DEPOT,
[00:15:01]
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE SPECIAL CARE OF IT.BUT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LAY OUT WHEN WE SHOULD CONSIDER ALLOWING THIS.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE MET THAT.
I DON'T THINK THIS REQUEST MEETS THEM.
>> I JUST THINK THIS IS AN UNFAIR THING TO PUT ON A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASING SCARCITY OF LONG LEAF PINE.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY DO WITH THE NEW PINE. IT'S A TREATED PINE.
YOU CAN'T GET A TREATED PINE THAT THE BOARDS ARE STRAIGHT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM EVEN IF THEY'RE [INAUDIBLE] AFTER TREATMENT.
YOU'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON.
UNLESS YOU TAKE THE TIME AND HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND TO FIND THE LUMBER, CLEAN THE LUMBER, MILL THE LUMBER, TO INSTALL THE LUMBER, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO FOR VERY MUCH LONGER IF AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE SCARCITY OF THAT MATERIAL.
I KNOW THAT UNCERTAIN JOBS I'VE USED IPE BECAUSE IT'S A VERY STRONG, SOLID, STRAIGHT LUMBER AND IT'LL LAST FOR 50 YEARS.
IS IT OKAY TO GET SOMETHING LIKE IPE? IT'S NOT SYNTHETIC IN PLACE OF SOMETHING ELSE.
I JUST THINK THERE'S A LINE THAT YOU HAVE TO REALLY CONSIDER ESPECIALLY WHERE YOU HAVE A HIGH TRAP TRAFFIC AREA LIKE A FRONT PORCH.
IF YOU GET HIGHER FRONT STAIRS THAT ARE FIVE-YEAR-OLD TREATED LUMBER IN THEIR CUPPING AND SCALLOPING AND THE WOODS STICKING UP, SOMEBODY COULD RIP THEIR FOOT OPEN TO THIS LUMBER BECAUSE IT'S SO SUCH POOR QUALITY.
IF I CAN GET TWO BY SIXES OF LONG LEAF PINE, IT'LL BE GREAT BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY.
I JUST REPLACED MY ENTIRE PORCH, 42 FEET OF PORCH, SEVEN FOOT WIDE AND SOMEWHERE IS NINE FOOT WIDE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LONG LEAF PINE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 150 YEAR-OLD LONG LEAF PINE.
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES OUT THERE LIKE THE IPE WOODS, THE BRAZILIAN HARDWOODS.
THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE OVER AT [INAUDIBLE] GRILL.
IT IS A WOOD SPECIES THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE AND EXPOSED FOR QUITE A WHILE AND IS WEARING QUITE WELL.
I'M NOT SAYING FORTUNATELY, I DO A LOT OF RESEARCH.
I WALKED INTO A DEEP DIVE OVER TREX BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE MATERIAL THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.
I'M GLAD IT'S NOT BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO INTO THE CONSUMER REPORTS ON TREX, IT'S NOT FRIENDLY.
NOT EVEN THE NEW PRODUCT OF TREX.
LET'S JUST SAY, THERE WAS ALMOST 200 REVIEWS OF IT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
IT GOT A ONE STAR RATING OUT OF FIVE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE THERE YET.
THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE THERE YET TO BE CONSIDERING THAT.
I THINK THERE'S STILL ALTERNATIVES OUT THERE.
RESILIENT HARDWOODS BEING ONE OF THEM.
I DON'T ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING].
>> KNOW WHAT THE COST COMPARED TO THIS PRODUCT VERSUS A BRAZILIAN HARDWOOD OR RECLAIMED LUMBER.
EVERYBODY IS GOING GREEN SO YOU CAN FIND THE PINE LUMBER.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> RIGHT. I'LL JUST NOTE THAT BOTH ALTERNATES WILL BE VOTING BECAUSE MR. WARD HAS NOT JOINED US. COMMISSIONER CLICK?
>> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? COMMISSIONER MCLEAN?
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON? COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> I'M SORRY. COULD YOU SAY IT AGAIN?
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS MONSON.
>> THE VOTE WERE THREE IN FAVOR, FOUR ON OPPOSITION.
[00:20:08]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE HEELS OF THIS, THAT THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO WORKSHOP, AND MAYBE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD LIKE BRAX COULD GUIDE US ON THAT EFFORT TO EXPLORE SOME OF THOSE MATERIALS, TO REALLY SEE WHAT THE LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE OF THEM IS.
BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT I DIDN'T MENTION AND THAT IS, IS THAT WHEN WE APPROVE ONE CASE OF SOMETHING, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S A PRODUCT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REVIEWS ARE OF THIS PRODUCT. I KNOW WHAT TREX ARE.
I WOULD NEVER AT THIS POINT GO WITH TREX.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS OTHER PRODUCT IS.
IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO EXPLORE.
BUT IF WE ALLOW ONE PERSON TO DO THAT, DO WE NOT SEND A MESSAGE TO OTHER HISTORIC HOMEOWNERS THAT THIS PRODUCT IS GOOD, WE'VE GIVEN IT OUR SEAL OF APPROVAL, WE LOVE IT.
THEN IT TURNS OUT TO BE SOMETHING THAT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
I WOULD LOVE IT IF WE COULD REALLY RESEARCH DEEP DIVE APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS AVAILABLE.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT [INAUDIBLE] SAYING.
I JUST THINK AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE READY FOR IT WITHOUT KNOWING MORE.
>> BEFORE WE HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THAT, WE NEVER DID HAVE A WORKSHOP.
[LAUGHTER] I COULD USE OVER ON THE HACIENDA, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT WORKSHOP.
IT JUST SORT OF BIZARRE [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] WORKSHOPS.
>> OKAY, BECAUSE THAT ONE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN AND I GUESS WE RAN OUT OF TIME IN THAT MEETING?
>> WE CAN DISCUSS WORKSHOPS AT THE END OF THE HEARINGS, AT THE END OF THE CASES.
>> MOVING RIGHT ALONG IS REALLY WANT TO HERE AN ALTERNATE NOTION? [NOISE]
>> CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE.
SO THAT CASE IS FAILED, THAT MOTION DIDN'T PASS.
>> YES, AND I'M SURE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL GET WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING ANY OTHER POSTS MEASURES THAT THEY MAY NEED TO DO.
>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE IS 21LC-002.
>> [NOISE] 21 LC 002 THIS IS 3601 AVUP.
REQUESTS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL A NEW PERIMETER FENCE, 51 INCHES IN HEIGHT.
EVERY NINE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONLY ONE RETURN IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 43 INCHES TALL WOODEN FENCE WITH THE NEW 51 INCH TALL FENCE TO MATCH THE EXISTING FENCE DETAILS.
OUR COMMISSIONED REVIEW IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE FENCE HEIGHT EXCEEDING ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 48 INCHES IN THE FRONT YARD FOR A STAFF APPROVAL, PLEASE NO DESIGN STANDARDS OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES ON PAGES TWO AND THREE OF YOUR REPORT, THE FENCE DESIGN AND MATERIAL CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS BASED ON THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED FENCE WOULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY.
HISTORIC STRUCTURES SITUATED A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL NOT IMPEDE OR OBSCURE THE VIEW OF THE HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, ONLY ONE, THE AFRICAN SHOVE REFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHOWN IN EXHIBIT B IN STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SIX.
YOU ALSO HAVE A ZONING MAP RIGHT-HAND CORNER.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, SO THIS IS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH, WEST AND EAST. [INAUDIBLE].
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND THE COMMISSION?
>> DID I READ IN THE REPORT THAT THERE WAS HISTORICAL PHOTOS THAT SUGGESTED THAT THE FENCE WAS ORIGINALLY AT THAT HEIGHT.
[00:25:07]
>> I DON'T THINK SO, I THINK THE PHOTO SUBMITTED WERE THE ORIGINAL FENCE BUT NOT THAT IT WAS AT THE PROPOSED HEIGHT.
>> TO CLARIFY, WHEN IT SAYS THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THIS 51 INCH TALL FENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE 48 INCHES.
WHY IS STAFF DOING THAT? IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY HISTORICAL PHOTOS THAT SHOW THAT GATE AND THE ELEVATED PIECE TO THE SIDE OF IT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO COME UP AND MATCH IS ACTUALLY HISTORICAL.
>> OKAY. THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK PROPERTY.
THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE NOT HISTORIC.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN A SENSE, USUALLY HAVE A 16 INCH TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD WITHOUT ANY FURTHER APPROVES.
SO STAFF FEELS THAT THIS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
>> THE 48 INCHES IS THE CUTOFF FOR ITS STAFF APPROVAL.
THE STAFF CAN APPROVE A FENCE 48 INCHES OR UNDER ANY TALLER THAN THAT NEEDS TO GET A LANDMARK COMMISSION.
>> SO THIS IS THREE INCHES HIGHER.
>> NO, THEN I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC- 002 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT?
>> THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.
>> THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ON CASE 21LC-002 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. YES, CONNIE.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CASE, 21LC-002, AND OFFER UP MY REASONING BEHIND THAT AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> CONNIE CAN WE GET A SECOND ON THAT?
>> ALL RIGHT I'LL WAIT. THANKS, DONNA.
>> OKAY. [OVERLAPPING] I CAN'T SAY [LAUGHTER] THERE YOU BEHIND IT, ANNE.
>> [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT, YOU'LL SECOND. DISCUSSION, CONNIE?
THE CONSIDERATION THAT I GAVE TO THIS AND ALLOWING THIS, OR APPROVING IT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE GUIDELINES SPEAKS TO WHAT WE ALLOW FOR CONTINUITY WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, IN THE DISTRICTS.
THIS HOUSE IS NOT AN HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT'S LANDMARK, BUT IT'S SEVERAL BLOCKS, FIVE SET OF BLOCKS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT.
IT DOES LOOK A LITTLE ODD THE WAY IT DROPS OFF.
SOMETIMES I'M A HARD NOSE BUT I TEND TO BE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, REACH THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN HISTORIC DISTRICT WHERE WE ARE SO GUARDED WITH THESE APPROVALS.
I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS CASE.
IT'S REASONABLE AND IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT.
>> ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? SEEING NONE. I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF GROUND-LEVEL DOORS.
SEVEN NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO REPLACE TWO DOORS ON THE GROUND LEVEL.
[00:30:01]
A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE EXISTING DOORS WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS ATTACHMENT A.THE EXISTING DOORS OR MODERN STYLE DOORS ARE NOT ORIGINAL FOR THE HOUSE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DOORS WITH ONE WOOD DOOR, IT'S SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT B.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CONFORMANCE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE EXISTING DOORS ARE NOT ORIGINAL AND THE PROPOSED DOORS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AGING STYLE OF THE HOUSE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
THE CIVIC CONDITION ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT, SHOWED IN ATTACHMENT B OF THE STAFF REPORT AND ITEMS 2 THROUGH 6 ARE STANDARD, WE HAVE THE PICTURES.
OKAY, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT'S ALONG 25TH STREET.
THIS IS A PICTURE SHOWING THE DOORS.
THESE ARE ON THE AVENUE M FACADE.
THIS IS THE REPLACEMENT DOORS.
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF? NO? ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-003, AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
>> HI. COULD I CLARIFY SOME THINGS? I SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE PHOTOS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, THE ORIGINAL INSURANCE PAGE FOR THE HOME SHOWING THIS IS ACTUALLY A BASEMENT.
THE SURVEY INCORRECTLY SAYS IT'S A TWO-STOREY HOUSE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A RAISED COTTAGE, I GUESS YOU'D SAY.
BUT REGARDLESS, THAT'S ACTUALLY A DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, AND SO THE NEW DOORS PICTURE THAT I SUBMITTED IS TWO DOORS, SO IT'LL BE ACTUALLY LIKE DOUBLE DOORS THAT WILL SWING OUT AS THEY WOULD HAVE, BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE WANTED TO PULL IN A MODEL P OR WHATEVER.
>> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T MISLEADING, YOU.
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION COMING FOR THE APPLICANT.
I WILL THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-003, AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVED CASE 21LC-003.
>> OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. DISCUSSION. ONE REASON I'VE APPROVED THIS BECAUSE I HAVE AN EARLY EARLY DOOR IN MY RAISED BASEMENT AREA BECAUSE MY HOUSE STAYED FROM EARLIER IN 1905, BUT IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE DOORS, BUT MINE IS ORIGINAL DOOR.
I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THE HOUSE.
SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> JUST TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER SWANSON HAS A CONFLICT IN HIS UP STATING.
THE MOTION IN HAS SIX VOTES IN FAVOR AND PASSIVE.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. NEXT CASE IS 21LC-004.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING, EXCUSE ME, DECORATIVE DROP RAILS AND BRACKET.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE EIGHT, TWO RETURNED, THOSE TWO IN FAVOR.
BACKGROUND. IN DECEMBER OF 2019, THE OWNERS FILED A LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION TO RETAIN DECORATIVE TRIM THAT WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
AT THE JANUARY 6TH, 2020 LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING THE REQUEST WAS DENIED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE TRIM BE REMOVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION,
[00:35:02]
AND THAT THE COLUMN CAPS REMOVED DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE PROHIBITED ITEMS BE RESTORED.IN JUNE OF 2020, THE OWNERS FILED AN APPLICATION REQUESTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO PERFORM THE WORK.
LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED THE EXTENSION REQUEST ON JULY 20TH, 2020 WITH A DEADLINE OF JANUARY 6TH, 2021.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOW REAPPLIED TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO RETAIN THE DECORATIVE TRIM RATHER THAN REMOVE.
SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RETAIN DECORATIVE DROP RAILS AND SUPPORTING BRACKET AND SOLD ALONG THE UPPER AND LOWER FRONT PORCHES.
THIS WORK CAN'T OCCUR WITHOUT A PERMIT AND A RED TAG WAS ISSUED.
PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE BEFORE AND AFTER THE WORK WERE INCLUDED IN THE ATTACHMENT B OF THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
CONFORMANCE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT ADDING ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS NOT COMMON TO A PARTICULAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SUCH, IT'S INAPPROPRIATE.
IN THIS CASE, THE ORNATE AND COMPLEX DROP RAILS AND BRACKETS INSTALLED ARE APPROPRIATE FOR A QUEEN ANNE STYLE, BUT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE MUCH MORE SIMPLE AND UNADORNED GREEK REVIVAL STYLE THAT THE HOUSE EXHIBIT.
THE GALVESTON ARCHITECTURAL GUIDEBOOK SPECIFICALLY NOTES THE PLAINNESS OF THE FRED GABLED VERANDAH IS EVIDENCE THAT IT'S AGED, AND ALSO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES BY THIS HOUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF GREEK REVIVAL BUILDING IN APPENDIX I OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
DUE TO NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THIS DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CASE BE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, THE DECORATIVE ELEMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE COLUMN CAPS BE REINSTALLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION AND THEN THE STANDARD CONDITION REGARDING APPEAL.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. SORRY, MY COMPUTER IS BEING A LITTLE SLOW WITH THE PICTURES.
OKAY, HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS A PICTURE FROM OUR RECORDS TAKEN IN 2015.
IT SHOWS THE BEFORE CONDITION, AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM COMMISSION? NO? SEEING THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-004 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
>> MS. HOOD, YOU CAN JUST PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> YES. THIS IS PATRICIA HOOD. I AM PRESENT.
>> DO ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> DOES MS. HOOD HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHE'D LIKE THE COMMISSION TO KNOW? THIS IS YOUR TIME TO PRESENT.
>> WELL, WE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY TO THE HOUSE.
IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO US BY THE REAL ESTATE AGENT.
ALSO, I WENT THROUGH ALL MY CLOSING PAPERS AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY TYPE OF DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THOSE CLOSING PAPERS THAT SAID THAT WE COULDN'T DO ANY ADD.
WE DIDN'T STRUCTURALLY DISRUPT THE HOUSE.
EVERYTHING YOU'RE STILL THERE, WE JUST ADDED SOME STUFF, WHICH MAKES THE HOUSE MORE AESTHETIC.
ACTUALLY THE HOUSE IS NOT A GREEK REVIVAL, IT DOESN'T EVEN CONFORM TO THE GREEK REVIVAL.
[NOISE] IF YOU'LL LOOK UP THE STANDARDS FOR GREEK REVIVAL, IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CENTER DOOR.
WE HAVE NO CENTER DOORS, IS TO THE SIDE.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT DESIGN THIS REALLY IS.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PARTICULAR DESIGN FOR THIS HOUSE.
THE ONLY THING THAT RESEMBLE THE GREEK REVIVAL IS IT GOT COLUMNS, WHICH EVERYTHING HAS COLUMNS.
>> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. HOOD. YOU LIVE ON THE CORNER OF 12TH AND POST OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> DO YOU HAVE BROWN STREET SIGNS THAT SAY "HISTORIC DISTRICT"?
[00:40:06]
HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THEM?>> OKAY. RIGHT DOWN THE CORNER OF YOUR YARD, AREN'T THEY?
>> NO, WE HAVE NO SIGN THAT SAYS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> ON THAT INTERSECTION OF 12TH AND POST OFFICE THERE'S NO HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGNS ON THE STREET SIGN?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, I'M OUTSIDE. AS A MATTER OF FACT I'M OUTSIDE RIGHT NOW AND I'M LOOKING AND THERE'S NOT ANY.
>> YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY REMOVED THEM OR WHATEVER, BUT THERE'S NO SIGN.
>> ON THAT INTERSECTION THERE'S NO SIGN THAT SAYS POST OFFICE STREET? THERE'S NO SIGNS THAT SAYS [OVERLAPPING] EITHER?
>> YEAH. I'M AFRAID THERE IS ACROSS THE STREET ABOVE THE ONE WAY SIGN.
>> OKAY. IS IN THAT LITTLE BITTY WHITE SQUARE THING THAT IT'S ON THE SUIT, I GUESS I NEVER REALLY LOOKED AT IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? SAME, NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-004 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. CONNIE?
>> YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DECLINE REQUEST TO RETAIN THE TRENDS HORRIBLES IN BRACKETS FOR 1128 POST OFFICE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TERM GREEK REVIVAL HAS MANY INCARNATIONS.
THERE IS A GALVESTON VERNACULAR FOR A GREEK REVIVAL, THAT ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE ONE.
I WILL SECOND THE MOTION AND REQUEST FOR ANY DISCUSSION.
I WILL SAY THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED AT LEAST BY 1860, WHICH MAKES IT AN ANTEBELLUM STRUCTURE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE MANY SURVIVING IN GALVESTON, SO THIS IS A SPECIAL BUILDING FOR GALVESTON.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR NO? SEEING NONE, THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSES.
>> THIS IS 1424 CHURCH AVENUE.
WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE PLACEMENT OF A SINGLE ROOF WITH THE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF.
THERE WERE SIX PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND NONE WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF.
THE CURRENT ROOF SURFACE IS COMPOSITION SINGLES.
PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT B FOR MORE DETAILS ON THE PROPOSAL WITH THE MATERIAL.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS ROOF NO FORMS AND DESIGN STANDARDS BASED ON THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE ROOFING MATERIAL AND IT WILL NOT CHECK FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF 21 LC-006 TO INSTALL A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, ONLY ONE.
THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFS SPECIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER IN STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SIX.
[00:45:03]
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A SAMPLE MATERIAL OF THE PROPOSED METAL ROOF.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS ARE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NO. I'M SEEING NONE.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-006.
ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
>> THIS IS MICHAEL ELLIS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. ELLIS? NO? WE'RE ALSO VERY HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE.
>> NO COMMENTS. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-006, AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I'VE MOVED TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 21 LC-006 FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
ANY DISCUSSION? NO? NO DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON? I THINK YOU JUST MUTED YOURSELF AGAIN.
>> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> WE HAD NEVER GONE TO A NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THIS IS CASE THE NUMBER 21 LC-009.
>> ALL READY, 21 LC-009, THIS IS AT 1915 AVENUE M AND A HALF.
IT'S REQUESTS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, INCLUDING A REAR ADDITION.
THERE WERE FOUR PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING REAR PORCH, AND TO AVERT INTO ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AS PART OF INTERIOR RENOVATIONS.
THE PORCH IS NOT VISIBLE FROM AVENUE M AND A HALF AND NOT EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE REAR ALLEY.
IN ADDITION TO THE PLANS, THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A MATERIAL LIST FOR A POSE EDITION WHICH IS WOODEN LATIN CITING TO MATCH THE EXISTING, WOOD OR HARDY BOARD AND BATTEN SIDED BLOW, FIRST FLOOR TO GRADE.
SALVAGE WOOD, AND WOOD WINDOWS ARE PROPOSED, AND A PAINTING TO MATCH THE HOUSE.
THE EXISTING HOUSE IS WOOD FRAME WITH WOOD LAP SIDING, AND THE EXISTING PORCH ROOF WILL REMAIN UNTOUCHED.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF LINES REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO DESIGN STANDARDS.
ACCORDING [NOISE] TO THE APPLICANT, THE MODIFICATIONS INVOLVE ONLY ONE SMALL PORCH WHICH IS NOT EASILY VISIBLE FOR ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN LOCATION D, WHICH IS NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE.
MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR INCOMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
THE NARRATIVE ALSO INDICATES THE SIGHTING AND SCREEN PROPOSED WILL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN REGARDS TO MATERIAL AND APPEARANCE.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC DOOR OR WINDOW PHOTOS, BUT DID NOTE THAT THESE WOULD BE HISTORICAL IN NATURE AND PURCHASED FROM A SALVAGE WAREHOUSE.
ANY SUCH DOORS AND WINDOWS MUST CONFORM TO DESIGN STANDARD, AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS REVIEW DURING THE PERMIT PROCESS.
THE OVERALL DESIGN IS SIMPLE WITH [INAUDIBLE] , AND DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE QUEEN ANNE STYLE FACADE AND UNLIKELY BE CONFUSED WITH HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION.
SACRA RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF REQUEST WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION.
ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO DESIGN MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHOWS TAX FOR EITHER THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS, THE FINAL WINDOWS AND DOORS SELECTED SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE STORE OF PRESERVATION OFFICER PART OF THE INSTALLATION.
[00:50:02]
AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.CATHERINE COULD YOU GO THROUGH THOSE FOR ME PLEASE?
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION, AND FROM THE SIDE, AND THEN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NOT SEEING NONE, I OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-009, AND THAT'S IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
>> YES. THIS IS JONATHAN [INAUDIBLE] IN HOMEOWNER.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO, IS AS YOU SAID IS TAKE AN EXISTING COVERED PORCH THAT ARCHITECTURALLY DOESN'T MATCH THE HOUSE, AND IS IN THE REAR AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND ENCLOSE IT AS PART OF THE KITCHEN, AND IN OUR GOAL WITH ADDING IT IS THEN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES MATCH ARCHITECTURALLY THE REST OF THE HOUSE WHEN USING APPROPRIATE MATERIAL.
I DID UNDERSTAND AND READ THE NOTE, WE WILL MAKE SURE TO GET THE DOORS AND WINDOWS APPROVED BEFORE THEY ARE INSTALLED.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? ALL RIGHT.
IT LOOKS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE HOUSE.
IN SEEING IT'S DONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT, THE CASE 21 LC-009 BACK TO THE COMMISSION. CONNIE?
>> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 20 LC-009 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT, AND STEPHANIE, SECOND?
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
>> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> CATHERINE CAN I ASK YOU ABOUT, DO WE HAVE A SCHEDULED WORKSHOP COMING UP IN APRIL?
>> WE HAD DISCUSSED A HOLDING WORKSHOPS I THINK ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF THE MONTH, AND THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE AN APRIL.
DO WE HAVE THE CONTENTS TO THAT MEETING?
>> I UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE COMPLIANT ISSUES AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, CONTINUATION OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION.
>> OKAY, THE ONE THAT WE DIDN'T GET TO THE LAST TIME THEN. OKAY.
>> ANYBODY ELSE SOMETHING ON THEIR MIND, OR I CAN CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU ALL, HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY.
>> YOU TOO.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.