>> FRED, WE'RE JUST ABOUT READY TO START. [00:00:02] WE THOUGHT A QUORUM, [Landmark Commission on May 17, 2021.] BUT NOW WE'RE MISSING JOANNE AND DOUG SO BOTH OF THE ALTERNATES WILL BE VOTING. I'M PRETTY SURE JOANNE'S NOT GOING TO BE AT THE MEETING. >> OKAY. >> DOUG MIGHT JUST BE JOINING US LATE. IF DOUG JOINS US THEN SHARON YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE VOTING MEMBER TODAY. >> ALRIGHT. >> BOTH OF YOU UNTIL DOUG JOINS AFTERWARD [INAUDIBLE]. >> OKAY. [OVERLAPPING] >> [INAUDIBLE] ONE MINUTE AND WE START. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST ME BUT YOU COMING IN GARBLED. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TWO TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS WORKING THERE, YOUR PHONE AND YOUR COMPUTER, BUT IT IS YOU'RE COMING QUITE GARBLED. >> YOU'RE BREAKING UP ON MY END DONNA. >> IF PUT MY MICROPHONE DOWN TO MY MOUTH; IS THAT BETTER? >> [LAUGHTER] MUCH BETTER. >> [LAUGHTER] MY PHONE HERE GOT IN THE WAY. BUT FRED, DO YOU MIND SPEAKING AGAIN TO SEE IF WE CAN GET BETTER QUALITY? YEAH, YOU'RE MUTED. >> [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE STILL MUTED. >> HOW ABOUT NOW? >> FROM THE LITTLE YOU SAID IT WAS MUCH BETTER. >> MUCH BETTER? >> AWESOME. >> I CAN RECITE SOMETHING [LAUGHTER]. >> NO, YOU'RE COMING IN QUITE CLEAR, SO WE'LL JUST WAIT FOR CATHERINE TO ALLOW US TO PROCEED. >> WE'RE READY TO START. >> I'M CALLING MEETING TO ORDER, WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HERE ON MONDAY, MAY 17, 2021. LET'S BEGIN WITH THE ATTENDANCE. >> COMMISSIONER KLICH? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN? NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTON? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER LANG? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER MCLAIN? HE'S NOT PRESENT WE'LL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT IF HE JOINS. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] THOMPSON? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER SWANSON? >> PRESENT. >> WOOD? >> PRESENT. >> DAVID COLLINS IS NOT GOING TO BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY. STAFF WE HAVE IN PERSON MYSELF KATHERINE GORMAN, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INTERSTATE PRESERVATION OFFICER, PLANNING TECH PATRICK COLLIN. ON THE PHONE WE HAVE PLANNING MANAGER ATRIAL MOLTIVON, PLANNER GALE LANCEFORD AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER. >> ALL RIGHT. >> I WOULD JUST THROW IT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT STILL MR. MCLAIN JOINS THE MEETING BOTH ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] AND COMMISSIONER SWANSON WILL BE VOTING. IF MR. MCLAIN DOES JOIN US THEN SHARON [INAUDIBLE] THOMPSON WILL BE THE VOTING MEMBER THEREAFTER. >> OKAY. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? NO. SEEING NONE HERE'S BY A CHANCE TO VIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING OF MAY 3, ANY CORRECTIONS, CHANGES, ETC? NO. SEEING NONE THEY WILL BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED MEETING FORMAT. >> JUST A REGULAR MEETING FORMAT REMINDER THAT IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE VIDEO OR MEETING ON GALLERY VIEW, IT LETS YOU SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME AND IT'S HOW THE MEETING IS SENT OUT TO THE PUBLIC. WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOURSELF MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE. WE ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIRS ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION. THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TO PARTICIPATE BY PHONE AS OUR STAFF AND WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL-CALL. >> HAVE WE HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED. >> THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEW BUSINESS, ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS. FIRST CASE IS 21LC-022. >> 21LC-022 1601 POST OFFICE [INAUDIBLE]. THREE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. [00:05:02] THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RECONFIGURE THE EXISTING REAR YARD DRIVEWAY AND EXPAND THE EXISTING CURB CUT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ANGLE DRIVEWAY AXIS FROM 16TH STREET. PLEASE REFERENCE EXHIBIT A FOR MORE INFORMATION. PLEASE NUMBERS, OWNING A LAND THIS INFORMATION, AS WELL AS THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES ON PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT. CONFORMANCE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTY STATE THAT CURB CUTS FOR DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM WIDTH. STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED ANGLED DRIVEWAY AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CURB CUT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS. DUE TO NON-CONFORMANCE FOR THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RECONFIGURE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND EXPAND THE EXISTING CURB-CUT BE DENIED. HOWEVER, IF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FINDS A REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY APPLY AND IT'S ONLY ONE SPECIFIC CONDITION, AND THAT BE THAT THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND THAT THE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF THE ENTIRE CURB-CUT SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 FEET. PLEASE ALSO KNOW STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SEVEN ON PAGE THREE OF YOUR REPORT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED REVISIONS TO THE DRAWINGS AS OF TODAY, AND THOSE ARE FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION. AS I MENTIONED, STAFF JUST RECEIVED THOSE TODAY AND WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO PROPERLY CONDUCT A PROPER EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TODAY. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS [BACKGROUND] >> ARE YOU READY FOR THE POWERPOINT ADRIAN? >> YES, MA'AM [BACKGROUND] THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE. NEXT SLIDE, CATHERINE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT DRIVEWAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A REVISION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TODAY, AND THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW THE SAME. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. [NOISE]. >> DOES ANYBODY FROM THE COMMISSION HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? BECAUSE I CAME IN LATE THIS AFTERNOON, I DIDN'T SEE IT JUST BEFORE THE MEETING. [NOISE] THE SLIDE YOU PUT UP, WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO SHOW THE REVISED [OVERLAPPING] >> YES. >> IT WASN'T VERY CLEAR. COULD YOU GO BACK TO IT, PLEASE? [NOISE] NOW, I CAN SEE BETTER. >> OKAY. >> HERE WE GO. THEY'RE ADDING A FEW FEET TO JUST ONE END, IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING, I GUESS? >> CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WHAT'S THE EXISTING WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY? DO YOU KNOW? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. BUT MY GUESS WOULD BE, THIS ONE, IT'S APPROXIMATELY, I THINK IT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL FOUR FEET, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SO IT'S PROBABLY ROUGHLY AROUND 10 FEET OR SO. THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE AND CAN PROVIDE FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THAT. >> ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? >> I DO. >> YES, CONNIE? >> CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT SAME DRAWING, PLEASE? [NOISE] LOOKING AT THIS DRAWING WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE BLUE-SHADED AREA THAT THEY WANT TO EXTEND THE CURB CUT SO THAT THEY CAN COME IN AT AN ANGLE, IS THERE A REASON THAT THEY CAN'T SIMPLY MOVE THE DRIVEWAY DOWN AND STRAIGHTEN IT OUT? I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD REQUIRE RELOCATING A PALM TREE, BUT THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A STRAIGHT-IN DRIVEWAY, IT WOULD JUST BE FURTHER OVER, IT WOULD RUN PARALLEL WITH THE FENCE. IS THERE A SETBACK REASON THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY? >> WELL, I THINK, AS YOU MENTIONED, I THINK THERE'S A TREE THAT WOULD BE ON THE WAY. [00:10:02] A POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF THAT. >> BUT IS THAT THE ONLY REASON? WHAT IS THE SETBACK ON THAT FENCE? DO YOU KNOW? THREE FEET? >> THE SETBACK ON THE FENCE? >> YES. >> FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? >> CORRECT. WHAT IS THE EASEMENT ON THE FENCE ON THE BACK LOT? IS IT THREE OR FOUR FEET? >> I'M NOT SURE ON THAT. [NOISE] >> OKAY. >> CONNIE, I THINK THERE'S ALSO, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A LIGHT POLE OR A POWER POLE OR SOMETHING. >> OKAY, I GOT IT. I SEE IT. >> THAT'S IN THE WAY TOO. [NOISE] ANYBODY ELSE? NO? SEEING NONE. I WILL PUT IT INTO PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-022 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. [NOISE] >> MR. UMBACH IS PRESENT ON THE CALL. WE'VE UNMUTED YOU ON OUR END. IN ORDER TO SPEAK, YOU CAN UNMUTE ON YOUR END BY PRESSING STAR SIX IF YOU'RE ON YOUR PHONE. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >> WE CAN. >> GREAT. HI. LISA IS HERE ALSO. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S A UTILITY POLE OUT OF THE STREET THERE, NOT A TREE. WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE EASILY MOVED. WE ORIGINALLY HAD THE PLAN FOR THE STRAIGHT-IN DRIVE TO THE RAMP THERE. EXCUSE ME. THEN WE NOTICED THAT FEW HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD ANGLED DRIVEWAY, SO WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS EASIER SO THAT'S WHAT WE ENDED UP PROPOSING. ONCE I GOT THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CITY AND SAW WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS AND LEARNED A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE STANDARDS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME FOR US TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THEN I SAW THAT THE ANGLE SEEMED TO BE THE ISSUE HERE, SO I'VE PROPOSED A REVISION BACK TO A STRAIGHT ENTRY JUST WITH THE WIDENING OF THAT RAMP AREA. ONCE THE VEHICLE IS UP THAT RAMP AREA, THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE FOR THE VEHICLE TO TURN SLIGHTLY TO GO INTO THE DRIVEWAY. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE ORIGINAL GARAGE WHICH IS NO LONGER THERE. IT'S SHOWN, I THINK, ON A SANBORN SURVEY IN THE EARLY 1900S. WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GET A CAR PARKED OFF THE STREET. THE STREET FLOODS BADLY, BOTH STREETS TOO, BUT THIS STREET IN PARTICULAR, 16TH STREET FLOODS BADLY, SO WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE A CAR OFF OF THE STREET WHEN WE HAVE THE RAIN CONDITIONS. THAT'S ONE OF OUR CONCERNS HERE. WE ALSO DO HAVE AN EXISTING PAD IN THE BACKYARD; IT'S A BRICK PAVER PAD. THE SMALL, NEW CONCRETE ADDITION IS REPLACING SOME BRICK PAVER THAT WE TOOK UP IN THE GATE AREA THERE. THAT WOULD CONNECT THE PAD TO THE DRIVEWAY RAMP, SO WE'D HAVE SUFFICIENT PAD SPACE TO PARK A VEHICLE PER THE OTHER CITY STANDARDS SO THAT SHOULD BE OKAY. WE DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE PALM TREES. WE LOVE PALM TREES, FRANKLY, AND WE THINK IT ADDS A LOT TO THE PROPERTY. WE'VE BEEN ADDING PALM TREES TO THE PROPERTY, SO THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T CONSIDER MOVING THE DRIVEWAY, STRAIGHTENING IT OUT, ALTHOUGH IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE POSSIBLE, I SUPPOSE. WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY TO MOVE THAT POLE. THAT POLE SERVICES ONLY OUR HOUSE, SO IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE, BUT WE THOUGHT PROBABLY WE BETTER LEAVE ALL THAT ALONE. YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE IN THE PICTURE THE CONCRETE BASE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL FENCE LINE WAS, EXTENDS WELL BEYOND WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING A DRIVEWAY CUT TO GO, SO IN TERMS OF THE LOOK, IT'S PROBABLY VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WE SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY SOMETIMES GO IN INTERESTING LOCATIONS RELATIVE TO THE HOUSES. I WAS AWAY TRAVELING, AND THEN WHEN I DID GET THE REPORT FROM THE CITY, I WORKED TO REDESIGN THAT AND CREATE THE NEW DRAWING THING AND SUBMIT THEM AS SOON AS I COULD IN THE HOPES THAT WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME GO-FORWARD UNDERSTANDING OR APPROVAL. I NOTED THAT THE COMMITTEE DID NOT RECOMMEND ITS APPROVAL, AND ONCE I UNDERSTOOD WHY, I TRIED TO AMEND WHAT I THOUGHT THE OBJECTION WAS. BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE'RE JUST LEARNING HOW THIS ALL WORKS AND LEARNING ALL THE STANDARDS, BUT I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO APPROVE THE PLAN WITH THE AMENDMENT, OR IF YOU WOULD AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT APPEARS TO MEET THE STANDARD, AND THEN IF I HAVE TO REAPPLY WITH A NEW APPLICATION, THEN I WOULD DO THAT. BUT I'D LIKE TO GET A GO-FORWARD PLAN BECAUSE WE HAVE EVERYTHING TORN UP RIGHT NOW. WE'D LIKE TO GET IT PUT BACK TOGETHER. [00:15:03] >> STEVEN, WHAT'S THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY? >> IT'S EIGHT FEET. >> EIGHT FEET? >> YES. >> VERY TIGHT. >> IT'S VERY TIGHT, CERTAINLY FOR A MODERN CAR. [LAUGHTER] >> OKAY. CONNIE? >> THE AMENDMENT DRAWING WENT BY PRETTY FAST. THE NEW WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY IS WHAT? HOW MUCH FURTHER AWAY IT'S SPANNING OUT THE CURB CUT? >> EXISTING AS EIGHT. WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE IT TO 14, WHICH WOULD GIVE US AMPLE ROOM TO DO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AND I BELIEVE THE MAXIMUM STANDARD THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS BY THE COMMISSION IS 15 FEET PER THE REPORT. >> ESSENTIALLY, ON THIS AMENDED DRAWING HERE, YOU'RE ASKING US TO CONSIDER, INSTEAD OF DOING A DIAGONAL CUT ON BOTH SIDES, YOU LEAVE IT STRAIGHT-IN, BUT EXTENDED IT SIX FEET OVER TO ONE SIDE, AWAY FROM THE PALM TREE AND THE UTILITY POST. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. [NOISE] >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? [NOISE] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY, CONNIE. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR. YOU REALIZE THAT UPON APPROVAL, THE CAR CANNOT BE PARKED ON THAT DRIVEWAY. IT EITHER HAS TO BE ONE THE CURVE OR BEHIND THE HOUSE, BUT IT CANNOT BE ON THAT DRIVEWAY, AND YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT, RIGHT? >> YES, CORRECT. WE HAVE A FENCE PERMIT, AND THAT'S WHY WE WORKED ON MODIFYING THAT FENCE LINE SO THAT WE COULD DO THAT EASILY, YEAH. >> OKAY, GREAT. >> ANYBODY ELSE? NO? ALL RIGHT THEN. THANK YOU. LET ME ASK IF ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? >> IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE, THEY CAN USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN AND YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN THREE MINUTES. SEEING NONE. >> SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-022 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. >> NOW, CONNIE? >> YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE, 21 LC-022. PER THE AMENDED DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE SIX-FOOT EXTENSION TO ONE SIDE OF A CURB CUT AS OPPOSED TO THE DIAGONAL CURB CUTS, SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT BASED ON THE SITUATION, THE EVIDENCE, AND THE GAME, THAT WE APPROVE THIS CASE. SIX-FOOT IS A REASONABLE TRADE-OFF FOR GETTING ANOTHER CAR OFF THE STREET. I ALSO LIVE ON THAT STREET JUST A COUPLE OF BLOCKS NORTH AND SOMEONE WHO'S ALREADY HAD MY CAR FLOODED AND HAS TO DEAL WITH TWO SUMP PUMPS WHEN IT RAINS HEAVILY TO KEEP THE WATER OFF OF OUR STREET, I KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, AND SOMETIMES IT COMES FAST. I HATE THAT WE ARE NOT PRESERVING THAT CURB CUT IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE, BUT THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION BECAUSE THERE IS A UTILITY POST THERE. SIX FEET GETS US ONE MORE CAR OFF THE STREET, THAT'S WORTH ACCEPTING THIS AND WE ALLOW THESE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. >> SHARON, YOUR HAND WAS UP NEXT. >> I WAS GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION. >> THAT'S VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTS? >> CHAIRMAN. >> YES. >> I REALIZE THIS AS I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE AND I DON'T KNOW IF STEPH, HAS AN ANSWER TO THIS YET. ARE THERE ANY OTHER UTILITIES IN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY [BACKGROUND] THAT WE'RE AWARE OF? >> NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AT THIS POINT DONNA. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> OKAY. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> YEAH. WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE AREA FLAGGED WHEN WE DID THE INITIAL PERMIT FOR THE CITY FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH WE HAVE APPROVAL FOR. THE ONLY UTILITY GOING THERE IS FROM THAT POWER POLE THAT GOES TO THE STREET LIGHT ON THE CORNER, THAT WAS ADDED WHEN THAT STREET LIGHT WAS ADDED, AND THEN THE GAS LINE. >> THE GAS LINE WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED? >> WELL, IT WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE NOTED IT WAS THERE BUT IT'S ALREADY UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING RAMPS, SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DEPTH RELATIVE TO WHERE THE GAS LINE IS. [00:20:05] WE SHOULDN'T BE IMPACTING THAT AT ALL. THE GAS LINE DOES CURRENTLY RUN UNDERNEATH THAT RAMP ACCORDING TO THE UTILITY COMPANY. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> ALL RIGHT. CONNIE. >> YEAH. I KNOW THAT WHEN WE COME TO A LANDMARK, WE ONLY CAN CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED IN FRONT OF US, BUT I WILL SAY FOR US, PERSONALLY, WE RAN OUR ELECTRICAL UNDERGROUND. MAYBE SOMETHING THAT'S MORE BENEFICIAL TO YOU EVEN IF YOU HAD A DIRECT LINE IN, IF YOU COULD RUN THAT UNDERGROUND, WE LOOK AT A PALM TREE AND THEIR ROOTS ARE FAIRLY SIMPLE TO MOVE. WE MIGHT ACTUALLY PICK UP MORE ABILITY BACK THERE, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, [OVERLAPPING] BUT MY MOTION STANDS AS PROPOSED. >> THEN THAT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT THE MOTION AT ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO? [NOISE] THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THIS MOTION. >> MR. CLICK. >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. GALVESTON. >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. LANG. >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. PATTERSON. >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. WOODS. >> IN FAVOR. >> MRS. COLON-TOWNSEND. >> IN FAVOR. >> MRS. THOMPSON. >> SHE'S MUTED. >> IN FAVOR. >> [LAUGHTER] SHE IS IN FAVOR. >> SHE'S INDICATED THAT SHE IS IN FAVOR. ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT CASE IS 21LC-023. >> THIS IS 1423 CHURCH AVENUE F, WHERE SIX PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, NONE WERE RETURNED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT GARAGE APARTMENT IN THE REAR YARD, PLEASE REFERENCE EXHIBIT B. NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE INFORMATION AS FOLLOWS A HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. ALSO NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, WHICH IS TWO AND THREE. CONFORMANCE. THE PROPOSED GARAGE APARTMENT IS LOCATED IN LOCATION D, NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE, MORE FLEXIBILITY INTERIOR MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THE WINDOW DIMENSIONS AS INDICATED IN THE REAR ELEVATION VIEW, EXHIBIT B. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL WINDOWS IN THE REAR ELEVATION FACE IN THE ALLEY BE OF SIMILAR SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS TO ACHIEVE A SENSE OF HUMAN SCALE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SPECIFIC CONDITION 1, THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT INDICATED ON EXHIBIT A, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS WHICH IS: THE APPLICANT SHALL MODIFY THE REAR ELEVATION WINDOWS FACING THE ALLEY TO BE OF SIMILAR SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SIX. NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS. [NOISE] THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBSET PROPERTY. NEXT LINE, CATHERINE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE SUBSET PROPERTY. NEXT LINE, PLEASE. WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION. CONNIE. >> THIS IS IT. [BACKGROUND] I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, BUT I KNOW IT'S AN LDR ISSUE. [BACKGROUND] WHEN WE HAVE A SMALL PROPERTY LIKE THAT AND THE PROPERTY ISSUES FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, AND THEN THEY ASK FOR A GARAGE APARTMENT IN THE BACK TO INCREASE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO QUESTION? >> NONE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. THAT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION FOR A LANDMARK. >> ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE CASE 21LC-023, AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. >> THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. [00:25:02] >> ALL RIGHT. >> HELLO. THIS IS JOHN. >> HELLO JOHN. >> YES. THE REAL PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS ADDITIONAL UNIT IS PRIMARILY TO GET TWO ADDITIONAL CARS OFF THE STREET THAT WE CAN ENTER INTO THE GARAGE FROM THE BACK AND ALSO TO PROVIDE GUEST SPACE FOR OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO HOPEFULLY EVENTUALLY BE ABLE TO COME AND VISIT ONCE THIS COVID THING HOPEFULLY CALMS DOWN. WE HAVE PERMANENTLY MOVED HERE AND IT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE QUESTION. IT'S NOT A VACATION RENTAL. >> ALL RIGHT. I SEE THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE WINDOWS THAT FACE THE ALLEY. >> YES. THE MIDDLE WINDOW FACING THE ALLEY, WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE THAT SIMILAR SIZE TO THE WINDOW TO THE LEFT OF IT AND THE WINDOW TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE WAS A BATHROOM WINDOW, WHICH I THINK THE DESIGNER JUST MADE IT A SMALLER, MORE NARROW WINDOW. >> SURE DID. [LAUGHTER] >> WE CAN WORK WITH THE DESIGNER TO MAKE CERTAINLY THE FIRST TWO MORE SYMMETRICAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CODES ARE SPECIFICALLY ON A BATHROOM WINDOW OR A SHOWER. IT'S GOING TO BE A SHOWER ALONG THAT SECTION. >> I'M SURE IT CAN BE DONE WITH SOMEHOW - >> YEAH. >> - OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> THAT'S NO PROBLEM. NOT FOR US ANYWAY. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? SEEING THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? >> IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC, WE ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN TO INDICATE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK. SEEING NONE. >> ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-023 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. YES, CONNIE. >> THANK YOU. YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 21LC-023. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THAT IS SUCH AN ADORABLE HOUSE. I REMEMBER JUST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS PRETTY RUNDOWN. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY DO ANYTHING LESS THAN ADORABLE ON THE BACK, SO ANYWAYS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST. >> OKAY. SARAH? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> WE WILL SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. >> MR. CLICK? >> IN FAVOR. >> JOE HUDDLESON? >> FAVOR. >> MR. LANG? >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. PATTERSON? >> IN FAVOR. >> WOOD? >> IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE]? >> IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE]? >> IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> NEXT CASE IS 21LC-024. >> THIS IS 11 ATTITUDE FEELINGS. IF THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE OF AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE NINE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT TO RETURN THOSE TWO IN FAVOR. THE ADVOCATE IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE OF AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE. STAIRCASE IS VISIBLE FROM 11 STREET. THE [INAUDIBLE] MIDDLE INDICATES THAT THE STAIRCASE WAS ORIGINALLY ENCLOSED AND WITH MODIFIED IN THE 1970S WHEN THE HOUSE WAS CONVERTED INTO APARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND FORMAT. THAT'S FINE FOR THE WORKLOADS GENERALLY CONFORMED TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DISTORT PROPERTIES AND MODIFICATIONS ARE LOCATED IN LOCATION B HIGHLY DIFFICULT SECONDARY WALL, PRESERVATION AND REPAIR IN PLACE IS THE PRIORITY. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPH THAT INDICATES STAIRCASE SPECIFICALLY ENCLOSED. THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC DOOR OR WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS. ANY NEW DOORS AND WINDOWS FROM MOST IMPORTANT TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS THEN WOULD BE SUBJECT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REVIEW DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. SAP RECOMMENDATION, FABRIC APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE: THE APPLICANT STOCK AND FORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT SHANNON ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION. A. THE FINAL WINDOWS AND DOORS SELECTED [00:30:02] SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. I HAVE TWO THROUGH SIX OF STANDARD AND WE HAVE THE PHOTO. GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO GET THOSE UP. OKAY, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PROPERTY ALONG 11 STREET AND THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE INFILL. THIS IS THE RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED PLAN. YOU SAW THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THAT THE STAIRCASE HAD BEEN IMPOSED AT A CERTAIN POINT. THE EXISTING CONDITION, PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SHOWED THAT DECIDING TREATMENT ON THE INTERIOR IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EXTERIOR. THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH TO THE EAST TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST AND THAT CONCLUDES FIRST REPORT. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-024 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. >> LOOKING OVER WE'VE UNMUTED YOU ON YOUR END, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK. >> OKAY. YES, WE'RE HERE. >> [OVERLAPPING] LOVELY. >> SORRY, IF YOU COULD SAY YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >>OKAY. ITS BRIAN [INAUDIBLE]. >> I LOVE THE EUROPE. YOU'LL START PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOUSE. >> YEAH, THANKS. WE'D ACTUALLY MET WITH CATHERINE AND WE HAVE A 1907 PICTURE JUST AFTER THE HOUSE WAS RAISED AND THE PORCHES ADDED. I'M GOING TO GIVE THAT A SHOT AT THE TIME THAT WE'RE BRINGING THE HOUSE BACK BUT THERE'S A LOT OF ALUMINUM WINDOWS TO REPLACE AND RESTORE THE WOOD WINDOWS AND A LOT OF THINGS OF THAT NATURE, SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A LONG JOURNEY BUT WE'RE GOING TO GET IT BACK THERE. >> ALRIGHT. YOUR RENDERINGS ARE REALLY NICE TOO I'LL SAY. [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. YET YOU DID YOUR RESEARCH AND LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. SOMEBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? SEEING NONE IS ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC FLECK TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? >> YES, FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK RAISE THEIR HAND FEATURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SEEING NONE. >> SEEING NONE. I WILL THEN THANK THE APPLICANT AND I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-024 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. I WILL MAKE A MOTION IN THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21LC-024 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS. YES, SARAH. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTS? NO. SEEING NONE I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. >> MR. CLICK? >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. PATTERSON? >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. LANG? >> IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE]? >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. WOOD?? >> IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> IN FAVOR. >> MS. JOHNSON? >> MS. JOHNSON INDICATE SHE'S IN FAVOR. ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> ALRIGHT THEN. THE NEXT CASE IS 21LC-025. >> ALL RIGHT, 21LC-025, THIS IS A 1517 CEILING. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, INCLUDING A REAR ADDITION. THERE ARE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO ENCLOSE EXISTING GROUND FLOOR, REAR STUPORS, INTERIOR AREA, BUILD A ROOF OVER AN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR DECK, REMOVE AN EXISTING DECK AND STAIRCASE, REPLACE THE GROUND FLOOR SCREEN PORCH, EXISTING WINDOW, AND DOOR OPENINGS WE RECONFIGURED AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHMENT, ANY OF THE STAFF REPORTS AND NOTE ALL THEIR PROPOSED WORK IS IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. THE PLANS ALSO INCLUDE MATERIAL CALL-OUTS AS [00:35:02] SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A INCLUDING WOODEN LAP SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING, WOOD TRIM FACIAL, AND FREEZE BOARDS TO MATCH EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE RELOCATED AND RE-USED. BOARD AND BATTEN SKIRTING TO MATCH EXISTING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TO MATCH THE EXISTING. THE EXISTING HOUSES WOOD FRAMED WITH WOOD LAB SETTING COMPOSITION ROOF. PLEASE NOTE ALSO THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF FINDS REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES. THE MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT EASILY VISIBLE FROM ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LOCATION D NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE OR FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREETS. NARRATIVE ALSO IN CASE OF THE SIGN TRIM FACE, FREEZE BOARDS, AND THE SCREEN PORCH WILL CONFORM WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN REGARDS TO MATERIAL AND APPEARANCE. THE EXISTING DECK AND STAIRCASE TO BE DEMOLISHED ARE NOT CONSIDERED HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. THEY SEEM TO BE FAIRLY RECENT ADDITIONS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RELOCATE, REUSE EXISTING WINDOWS AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCREEN PORCH. SCREEN PORCHES WERE NOT COMMON DURING THE ERA OF THE HOUSE DAYS FROM, IS UNLIKELY TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE STORE CONSTRUCTION. THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS FOR SCREEN PORCHES IN THE REAR. THE SMALL STOOP IS QUITE SMALL AND DOING THIS WILL NOT AFFECT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR ROOF STRUCTURE. FINALLY, THE PROPOSED ROOF OVER THE EXISTING REAR SECOND-FLOOR BALCONY IS NOT EASILY VISIBLE FROM CEILING AND THE ROOF ADDITION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MAIN HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE BE VISIBLE. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT SHOWN ATTACHMENT A, PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS WAS TWO THROUGH ALL THE WAY TO SIX, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE STREET AND THE VICINITY MAP. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING SITE PLAN, PROPOSED SITE PLAN ON THE LEFT SHOWING WHERE THAT ADDITION WILL TAKE PLACE AND WHAT'S BEING DEMOLISHED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THAT. YOU CAN ALSO SEE AN ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, AND TO THE WEST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NO. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-025 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. >> YES, I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, WE SURE CAN. >> OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU TO DANIEL FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF AS USUAL. I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. IT ALL SHOWS PRETTY WELL IN THE MIDDLE, I THINK, AND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY CHANGES TO THAT SINCE THEN. SO YEAH, BASICALLY REPLACING A SCREENED-IN PORCH AND A DECK ON THE BACK WITH A LITTLE BIT BETTER, I DON'T KNOW HOW DO YOU SAY IT? A LITTLE BIT BETTER-LOOKING SCREEN PORCH THAN WHAT'S THERE. THE PORCH AND DECKS THAT ARE THERE ARE NOT VERY WELL DESIGNED OR ENGINEERED AND SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO CLEAN UP THE BACK OF THE HOUSE A LITTLE BIT. >> THE EXISTING LOOKS SCARY. [LAUGHTER] >> YEAH. IT IS. >> ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION? >> WE ASK THAT THE PUBLIC USE THE RAISE THEIR HAND FEATURE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. SEEING NONE. >> SEEING NONE THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-025 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. YES. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> I SEE. SHARON. >> YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 21LC-025 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. >> THANK YOU, SHARON. DO I HAVE A SECOND? YES SARAH. >> I'LL SECOND IT. >> VERY GOOD, ANY DISCUSSION? [00:40:01] NO. SEEING NONE I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE CASE 21LC-025. >> COMMISSIONER KLICH? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTONE? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER LANG? >> IN FAVOR. >> PATTERSON? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER WOOD? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? >> IN FAVOR. >> SWANSON? >> IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> NEXT CASE IS 21LC-026. >> 1716 AVENUE K. IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INCLUDING SIDE AND REAR ADDITION. SEVEN NOTICES WERE SENT, ONE RETURNED, BUT ONE IN PAPER. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR FRONT AND REAR ADDITIONS FOR A SIDE ADDITION LOCATED ABOVE AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY WEIGHING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH THAT INDICATE THAT THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A SECOND-FLOOR BALCONY AT THIS LOCATION OF THE SIDE ADDITION. THE INTENT IS TO RECREATE THAT HISTORIC BALCONY AT THE FRONT OF THE SIDE ADDITION. PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND CONFORMANCE. STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, THE REAR ADDITION IS LOCATED IN LOCATION D, NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE, OR FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION. IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE SIDE ADDITION IS LOCATED IN LOCATION B, HIGHLY VISIBLE SECONDARY WALL, FOR PRESERVATION AND REPAIRING PLACES OF PRIORITY. THE DESIGN STANDARDS STATE THAT ADDITION SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND LOCATED TO THE SIDE OR REAR. THE STANDARDS ALSO STATE THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE HISTORIC ORIGINAL USING CHANGES IN MATERIAL, COLOR, AND OR WALL PLANE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE VERTICAL BATON BE PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ADDITION TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. CONDITION ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION, A VERTICAL PATTERN BE PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIDE AND REAR ADDITION. THEN ITEM 2 THROUGH 6 ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. [MUSIC] THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? IS THE PICTURE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SIDE ADDITION? THE PICTURE OF THIS 100 PROPERTY FROM THE ALLEY. [OVERLAPPING] THEN WE HAVE THE FRONT ELEVATION, SIDE ELEVATION, REAR ELEVATION, AND THE EAST ELEVATION. THE SITE PLANS AND EXAMPLES OF THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS CAN BE REUSED. THEN HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH BY THE APPLICANT AND FITS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFFS REPORT. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NO. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CASE 21 LC DASH 026, AND ASK IF APPLICANT'S PRESENT? >> THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE REGARDING THE ADDITION. [NOISE]. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? >> LAURA BOURGEOIS. >> THANK YOU. >> LAURA, I HAVE A QUESTION. I'VE BEEN BUYING [INAUDIBLE] THE DRAWINGS. THE WAY DRAWINGS SHOW, I HAVE THE PORCH ATTEMPT. REBUILDING THAT THE PORCH, IT SHOWS IT BEING IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING CORNERS OF THE HOUSE. BUT LOOKING AT THE HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LOWER. IT'S TOPSY JUST UNDERNEATH THE EVE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. [00:45:01] I NOTICED THAT TWO OF THE PILASTERS FROM THE ORIGINAL PORCH ARE STILL THERE ON THE WALL. THERE ARE DEFINITELY [NOISE] THE TOPS OF THEM OR LOWER THAN THE COLUMNS THAT ARE ON THE FRONT PORCH. SHOULDN'T THE RESTORED PORCH LOOK LIKE IT USED TO LOOK AND NOT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT? I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO RAISE UP THOSE PILASTERS HIGHER THAN THEY ARE. TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE DRAWING. >> WELL WE ARE TYING INTO THE EXISTING ROOF LINE FRED AND SO TO BRING THEM DOWN, WE'RE HAVING ALREADY ISSUE TYING INTO TWO. APPLES I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING DOWN THAT ROOF, TO MEET THE TOP OF THAT PILASTER. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE CAN LOOK INTO IT, I'M NOT SURE IF STRUCTURALLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO TIE IT IN WITH THE WAY THE OTHER TWO [INAUDIBLE] ARE BECAUSE THIS ONE'S GOING TO BE TYING IT TO THE SIDE AND THE REAR. THERE' ALSO AN ADDITION THAT WAS DONE IN FRONT OF WHERE THAT COVERED PORCH WAS. >> RIGHT. >> IT'S GOING TO LOOK SLIGHTLY NARROWER THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING IN FRONT OF THAT NARROW ADDITION. >> [INAUDIBLE] I'M JUST CONCERNED BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY [NOISE] LOWER WAS TO TRY TO AVOID HAVING TROUBLE WITH ALIGNING WITH THE EXISTING ROOF LINE, MAYBE IT'S ONE REASON I HAD IT, THEY HAD IT LOWER. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS REINTERPRETATION OF IT, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID LOOK, THE WAY YOU HAVE IT DRAWN. THAT'S A BIT OF A CONCERN FOR ME. [NOISE] IF YOU'LL NEED TO RAISE UP THOSE EXISTING FILE PILASTERS HIGHER TO MAKE IT WORK WITH. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT HIGHER UP, WHICH WILL ALTER THE WAY IT LOOK. [NOISE] >> WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO TO BRING IT DOWN? >> WELL, IT'S JUST A CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT IT TO LOOK THE WAY IT DID LOOK. THAT'S MY CONCERN. [INAUDIBLE] HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ASK IF ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK? >> IS ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WE ASK YOU TO USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SEEING NONE. >> SEEING NONE. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ONE CASE 21 LC DASH 026, BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. >> CONNIE HAS HER HAND UP FRED. >> YES CONNIE. >> YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21 LC DASH 026 WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SAID ''I APPRECIATE YOUR SHARP AYE WISH WE COULD ALWAYS MAKE IT A 100 PERCENT. BUT IT IS NICE TO SEE IT COME VERY CLOSE, AND [INAUDIBLE] WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO BE ALL AROUND''. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THIS CASE THE STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS. >> YES. ASHA. >> I SECOND THAT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CASE? SEEING NONE. I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER CLARK? [00:50:02] >> I'M IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE]? >> I'M OPPOSED. >> COMMISSIONER LANG? >> I'M IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> I'M IN FAVOR. >> CHIEF WOOD? >> I'M IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'M IN FAVOR. >> [INAUDIBLE] SWANSON. >> I'M IN FAVOR. >> SIX IN FAVOR. ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE MOTION PASSES. >> NEXT CASE 21LC-027. ALL RIGHT. 21LC-027. THIS IS A 1323 ROSENBERG. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A STRIP OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE REAR ADDITION AND A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THERE WERE FOUR PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A REAR ADD-ON AND OPEN DECK, BUILD A GROUND FLOOR ADDITION, AND CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE APARTMENT ALONG THE ALLEY. ONCE AGAIN, ALL THE PROPOSED WORK IS IN THE REAR OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHMENT MADE TO THE STAFF REPORT. THE DRAWINGS PROVIDE AN ATTACHMENT AID, A CLUE, CALL-OUTS TO PROVIDE A MATERIALS LIST COMPOSITION THAT WOULD MATCH EXISTING AND THIS IS FOR THE REAR ADDITION. A COMPOSITION ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING. THE WOOD TRIM FACE AND FRIEZE BOARDS TO MATCH EXISTING. THE SALVAGED WOOD WINDOWS AND TRIMMED TO MATCH EXISTING. TREATED WOOD LAP SIDING TO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE. WOOD LATTICE SKIRTING TO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE. AN EXISTING REAR DOOR TO BE RELOCATED AND REUSED. THERE ARE ALSO MATERIALS AND TREATMENT CALL-OUTS FOR THE PROPOSED GARAGE, WHICH SHOULD BE COMPOSITION ROOF PITCH TO MATCH EXISTING SMOOTH HARDIE LAP SIDING, SCALLOPED SMOOTH PATTERN, HARDIE LAP SIDING, SMOOTH HARDIE TRIMS FACIAL WATER TABLE, AND FRIEZE BOARD. VINYL FRAME WINDOWS AND A ONE-OVER-ONE CONFIGURATION. VINYL FRAME EXTERIOR DOORS, TREATED WOOD HANDRAILS AND STAIRS, AND THEN A METAL OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR. PLEASE NOTE. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS A WOOD FRAME WITH LITTLE LAP SIDING COMPOSITION, SHINGLE ROOF. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF FINDS THE QUESTION WOULD CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES. FOR THE REAR EDITION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE A SMALL ADD-ON ADDITION AND REAR END DECK AND THE REAR GROUND FLOOR OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND ADD A ONE STORE ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATELY 400 SQUARE FEET. THIS ADDITION WILL INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL SMALL OPEN DECK AND STAIRS WITH ACCESS TO THE HOUSE TO KIND OF REPLACE WHAT WAS MOVED FOR THE REMODEL. THE MODIFICATIONS ARE IN LOCATION. D LISTS VISIBLE REAR FACADE, MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING WOOD TRIM FASCIA FRIEZE BOARDS, AND TO MATCH DOMAIN STRUCTURE AS WELL AS COMPOSITION MOVING TO MATCH. THE EXISTING SKIRTING IS WOOD LATTICE, WHICH WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE REAR EDITION AS WELL. NOW THE REAR PORCH IS SHOWN TO BE WOOD WITH HANDRAILS WITH A SIMPLE, SQUARE DESIGN WHICH IS TYPICALLY RECOMMENDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THE REAR DOOR WILL BE AN EXISTING RELOCATED DOOR, AND THE WINDOWS ARE PROPOSED TO BE SALVAGED TO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE. WHILE NO SPECIFIC WINDOWS WERE INCLUDED FOR REVIEW THIS DOOR PRESERVATION OFFICER CAN REVIEW PROPOSED WINDOWS FOR CONFORMANCE DURING THE PERMANENT REVIEW PROCESS. ALL THESE PROPOSALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS. FOR THE NEW GARAGE APARTMENT, THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 600 SQUARE FEET OF FOOTPRINT AREA WITH APARTMENT ABOVE WHICH GENERALLY CONFORMS TO DESIGN STANDARDS AND IT'S LIKEWISE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD, NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE PROPOSED SITE OF MATERIALS IS SMOOTH HARDIE LAP SIDING OR HARDIE PANELS, PLAIN SCALLOP DESIGN. STAIRS, HANDRAILS, COLUMNS, AND DECKERS WOULD HAVE HANDRAILS AND TYPICALLY ACCEPTABLE SIMPLE SQUARE DESIGN AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE ROOF MATERIAL IS COMPOSITION TO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE. WHILE DOORS AND WINDOWS ARE PERMISSIBLE ON NEW LESS VISIBLE ADDITIONS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE PROPOSED OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR SHOWN IS OF A DESIGN TYPICALLY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL. THE STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED SKIRTING. THE APPLICANT'S DRAWING SHOWS HARDIE'S LAP SIDE TO GRADE. WHILE LAP SIDE TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSES IS ACCEPTABLE ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL. THE DESIGN PLAN SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIES [INAUDIBLE] FOR HIGH-RISE STRUCTURES BELOW THE FINISHED FLOOR OF THE SAME STRUCTURE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS A SKIRTING BE SMOOTH WHITEBOARD BED AND AS SPECIFIED IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REVISED PLAN AND HE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE KIND OF [INAUDIBLE] ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO REQUEST THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION 1. THE APPLICANT SHOULD FOR THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT IS SHOWN ATTACHMENT A WITH A FINAL MODIFICATION. FINAL WINDOWS AND DOOR SLIPPERS SHALL BE APPROVED BY [00:55:02] THE SOIL PRESERVATION OFFICER DURING THE PERMANENT REVIEW. SKIRTING BELOW THE FINISHED FLOOR SHALL BE SMOOTH, HARDIER, SIMILAR PRODUCT AND A BOLTON BEN PATTERN PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SIX. NOW, WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS. WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE VICINITY MAP. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE ONCE AGAIN THE EXISTING PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING WHERE THOSE CHANGES ARE GOING TO OCCUR WITH THE DEMOLISH OF THE LITTLE DECK AND ADDING ON THE ADDITION AND RESTORING A LITTLE SIDE ACCESS DECK AND OF COURSE, THE NEW GARAGE DEPARTMENT BUILDING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS SHOWING THE PROPOSED CHANGES, AND THE CALL-OUT SHOWING THE VARIOUS MATERIALS TO BE USED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE TWO VIEWS OF THE REAR ADDITION. ONCE AGAIN SHOWING THE DOOR WINDOW CONFIGURATION IN THE MATERIALS CALL-OUTS AND OTHER DETAILS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ONCE AGAIN, HERE ARE THE OTHER TWO VIEWS OF THAT SAME GARAGE APARTMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE OBLIQUE ARCHITECTURAL MODELS, 3D MODELS OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE APARTMENT IN THE UPPER LEFT YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE BEYOND TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, PROPERTY TO THE EAST, PROPERTY TO THE WEST, AND PROBABLY TO THE SOUTH. THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT. >>ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU'RE REQUESTING THE BOLTON SKIRTING ON THIS STRUCTURE, BUT YOU DID NOT REQUEST IT ON THE EARLIER CASE WITH THE 023. I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STRUCTURES. >> [OVERLAPPING] ALL RIGHT. >> [OVERLAPPING] FEELS GOOD. >> [NOISE] I CAN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER TO THAT FRED, AS ANOTHER STAFFER WROTE THE STAFF REPORT FOR THAT PREVIOUS CASE. BUT PERHAPS CATHERINE CAN CLARIFY. >> I'M JUST OPENING THOSE CASE FILES TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT. [NOISE] >> NO YOU'RE NOT. STANDARDS SAYS ABOUT ENCLOSING SPACE BETWEEN THE ELEVATED FOUNDATION PIERS OF A RAISED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. BUT IN THE EARLIER CASE, THEY DON'T HAVE ELEVATED FOUNDATION PIERS, IT'S A SLAB ON GRADE STRUCTURE. >> I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS OF THE PREVIOUS CASES, AND TO BE CONSISTENT I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MADE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION ON THE PREVIOUS CASE. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION THAT IT STILL ISN'T IN THE TYPICAL PATTERN OF A GARAGE APARTMENT, AND THAT WOULD BE WITH BOARD AND BATTEN ON THE BOTTOM PORTION. >> I JUST WONDERED, WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO CASES? >> I THINK IT'S JUST AN OVERSIGHT ON THE PREVIOUS CASE. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR STAFF. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-027, ASK IF THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT. >> FRED [INAUDIBLE]. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTIONS [INAUDIBLE]. SHE'S SAYING NO. MY APOLOGIES. >> I'VE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING OF CASE 21 LC-027, ASKING YOU IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT? >> I AM PRESENT. THIS PRACTICE THE [INAUDIBLE] 2627 AVENUE. THIS IS JUST LIKE DANIEL SAID, AN ADDITION ON THE BACK OF THE MAIN HOUSE WHERE WE WILL BE USING SALVAGE WINDOWS. WE HAVE REVISED THAT REAR ELEVATION SLIGHTLY TO INCLUDE TWO VERTICAL ORIENTED WINDOWS RATHER THAN THE HORIZONTAL WINDOWS, [01:00:05] SO THE TWO BALANCE ON EITHER SIDE. THEN WE'VE ALSO MADE THE CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE BOARD AND BATTEN ON THE GARAGE APARTMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF DANIEL'S ABLE TO SHARE THOSE WITH YOU GUYS. >> [NOISE] CATHERINE, I ACTUALLY HAVE THAT SAVED IN THE SERVER AS ARCHITECTS OF DINDEM 051721 IF YOU CAN GET TO THAT. >> SURE WILL. [NOISE] >> IT'S REALLY COOL ALLEY BACK THERE, I'M SURE CLYDE KNOWS ALL ABOUT IT. BUT ANYWAY, IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING ALLEY BECAUSE OF ALL THE ALLEY HOUSES THAT FRONT ONTO THAT ALLEY. WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING FUN TOO AS YOU ENTER FROM THE ALLEY THROUGH THE FENCE THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PRESENTATION, IT'S JUST AN ASIDE THAT IT'S A REALLY COOL ALLEY. THERE YOU SEE ON A 3.1, CATHERINE'S SCROLLING UP, YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGE TO THOSE REAR WINDOWS. THOSE TWO VERTICAL WINDOWS ARE THE CHANGE, ELIMINATING THE TWO THAT WOULD BE IN-BETWEEN. THEN SCROLLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, YOU SEE THE CHANGE TO THE GARAGE APARTMENT TO INCLUDE THE BOARD AND BATTEN AS RECOMMENDED. >> I LIKE IT A LOT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> IT LOOKS VERY CUTE. >> THANK YOU. >> NEVER HEARD OUR ALLEY CALLED INTERESTING BEFORE, BUT I'LL TAKE IT. [LAUGHTER]. >> YEAH, IT IS. I WAS JAZZED ABOUT IT. >> I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT THAT WAY THERE, BUT OKAY. [LAUGHTER] THEY WERE FILMING A VIDEO OUT THERE SATURDAY MORNING. DID YOU KNOW THAT CLYDE? >> I DID NOT. >> I NEED TO GO BEHIND TO LOOK. DO YOU ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, BRIAN. >> THANK YOU. >> YES SIR. ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? >> ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU CAN USE THE RAISED HAND FUNCTION. [NOISE] >> CONTINUE FRED. >> ALL RIGHT THEN. THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-027, BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. >> YES, SARAH. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 21 LC-027 FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. >> I SECOND. >> THANK YOU SHARON AND SARAH. [LAUGHTER]. >> JANE. [NOISE] [LAUGHTER]. >> EVERYBODY LOVES THIS GARAGE, I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TOO. [LAUGHTER] I WANT TO [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER]. WE ALL LOVE THIS GARAGE. [LAUGHTER]. >> THANK YOU. >> I CAN JUST CONFIRM THAT THE MOTION WAS FOR APPROVAL WITH STUFF RECOMMENDATION. A MOTION MAKER WAS COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] THOMPSON AND THE SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]. >> CORRECT. THANK YOU. [NOISE] >> IN YOUR DISCUSSION, SAYING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. >> MS. [INAUDIBLE]. >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. ROBERTSON. >> IN FAVOR. >> MS. HELEN. >> IN FAVOR. >> MRS. [INAUDIBLE]. >> IN FAVOR. >> MR. WOOD. >> IN FAVOR. >> MRS. [INAUDIBLE]. >> IN FAVOR. >> MRS. THOMPSON. >> IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. [NOISE] >> WE HAVE TWO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. THIS IS AN UPDATE ON CASE 21 LC-013. >> THIS JUST GIVE AN UPDATE TO THE COMMISSION, IT WAS NOTED IN YOUR MINUTE. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE THAT COMMISSION ACTED ON THIS CASE IN THE LAST MEETING [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE THE MEETING AND I DIDN'T SEE IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO MY EMAIL. THE CASE WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THE COMMISSION ACTION IS NULLIFIED BY THE WITHDRAWAL REQUEST. >> OKAY. [01:05:01] >> THEN SECOND IS DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED POLICY ON IN-PERSON COMMISSION MEETINGS. >> OH, OKAY. YOU SAID, CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED A POLICY ON IN-PERSON MEETINGS, THEN THE COMMISSION ARE ABLE TO RETURN TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS IF THEY SO WISH. THE POLICY WITHIN YOUR PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW. I'LL NOTE THAT THE POLICY ALLOWED FOR IN-PERSON MEETING OF THE COMMISSIONERS ONLY, SO IT STILL WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC, THE APPLICANTS AND THE STAFF WOULD CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS VIRTUALLY, THE WAY WE HAVE THEM. >> WE'LL BE THERE ALL BY OURSELVES. >> YEAH. BUT IF THE COMMISSION CHOOSES TO RETURNED TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS, THEN IT WOULD BE HELD IN ROOM 204, WHICH IS THE WORKSHOP ROOM, NEXT DOOR TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. YOU GET TO SPREAD OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THERE. AT LEAST MYSELF WOULD BE PRESENT, AS THE STAFF MEMBERS, THEN EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. >> DID YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP? >> [BACKGROUND] AS I WAS READING THROUGH ALL THE SPECIFIC DETAILS IN OUR REPORT ABOUT US MEETING IN PERSON. I JUST WANTED FOR VERIFICATION. AS LONG AS WE TAKE A RAPID TEST, WE DO NOT HAVE TO WEAR A MASK AS WE WERE IN THIS ROOM TOGETHER OR DO WE? >> THAT IS WHAT THE POLICY STATES. I WOULD NEED TO GET INFORMATION INTERNALLY ABOUT HOW THAT ACTUALLY FUNCTION. >> BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A MASK? >> WELL, CATHERINE, IF I COULD THIS INTERJECT FOR A LITTLE BIT, AS I THINK MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AWARE OF AS OF LAST WEEK, MAYBE A WEEK AND GOING TO HALF AGO, THINGS HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE FLUID BASED OFF OF THE CDC NEW RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES. THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS TO GET THE GIST OF HOW THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL ON THIS ISSUE OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. THERE MAY BE FURTHER CHANGES OR FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FUTURE. BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GET AN IDEA OF HOW YOU COMMISSIONERS FEEL AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE? >> MASK, NO MASK IN-PERSON. IS THAT OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS? >> YEAH. >> YEAH. >> IF WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A MASK, I WOULD RATHER STAY IN THE ZOOM MEETINGS BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MASK ON, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF MEETING BACK TOGETHER FACE TO FACE. I THINK IT MAKES IT EASIER AND MORE COHESIVE WHEN WE'RE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH STAFF TO ASK QUESTIONS AND WHEN OUR MEETINGS, SINCE IT JUST GOES A LOT MORE EFFICIENTLY. I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT, BUT I'M NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO SITTING IN A ROOM FOR A LONG MEETING WITH A MASK ON MY FACE. >> AGREED. >> AGREED. >> YEAH. >> I GUESS HAVE ALL OF US HAVE BEEN VACCINATED. I GUESS THERE'S ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE. >> I HAVE. >> WELL, I WANT TO CLARIFY BEFORE EVERYBODY ANSWERED THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> [LAUGHTER] RIGHT NOW. IT'S ON THE HONOR SYSTEM WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE VACCINATED AND YOU FEEL AS IF YOU CAN ATTEND A MEETING BECAUSE OF YOUR STATUS. WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT IF YOU'RE ATTENDING AN IN-PERSON MEETING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN FULLY VACCINATED AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ASSUMPTION OF THE CITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO IN THE BOOK, BUT WHEN I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO CLARIFY, YAY OR NAY. >> NOTE THAT [LAUGHTER]. >> I'VE BEEN VACCINATED, AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE MY CARD, BUT OUR SENSE OF PERSONAL CHOICE ONLY BECAUSE I CARE FOR MY ELDERLY PARENTS WHO WAS SOMETHING THAT REALLY NEEDED TO DO. IF I DIDN'T HAVE THAT I MIGHT HAVE CHANGE MY MIND [LAUGHTER]. >> [NOISE] JUST TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT IT APPEARS A GROUP WOULD LIVE IN-PERSON COMMISSION MEETINGS. THEY PREFER NOT TO WEAR MASKS. YOU ASSUME THAT [INAUDIBLE] RETURNS THE MEETING WILL BE OR HAS BEEN FULLY VACCINATED. WHAT ELSE IS ON THERE CATHERINE, THAT I'LL PROBABLY NEED TO TOUCH A BIT? RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY ONE STAFF PERSON THAT WOULD BE IN THERE AND CATHERINE WOULD BE THAT PERSON UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES IN THE FUTURE. >> CATHERINE DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD THAT YOU WANTED TO GET? [01:10:04] >> I WILL JUST ADD THAT YOU CAN AS A COMMISSIONER CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY IF YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE DOING THAT. IT'S NOT ALL IN PERSON OR NO ONE IN PERSON, IT CAN STILL BE A MIX. >> YEAH. YOU STILL HAVE TEMPERATURE CHECKS WHEN YOU COME IN AND THAT KIND OF THING. >> [NOISE] WHEN ARE WE ANTICIPATING THIS TO START? >> BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE OUR NOTIFICATION THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY STARTED. IF THE CONDITION WISHED TO DO SO IN THE SECOND MEETING, JUNE. [INAUDIBLE] NOTIFICATIONS FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN JUNE, SO WE'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT ALL CORRECT. >> OKAY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN. YES [INAUDIBLE]. >> I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE PUT ON OUR NEXT AGENDA TO CONTINUE THE TALK THAT I RAISED ABOUT THE PARAGRAPH BEING ADDED TO THE HISTORICAL PAGE THAT WE SIGN A CLOSING WHEN PURCHASING HOUSES THAT ANY CHANGES TO THE FRONT FACING AND OUR WINDOWS ETC NEED TO COME BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS THAT, WE DIDN'T AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO YOU THAT DON'T KNOW. THEY KNOW THEY BOUGHT A HISTORICAL HOME, BUT THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T MAKE CHANGES TO IT AND I'D LIKE US TO DISCUSS SOME WAY THAT THAT COULD BE SHOWN TO BUYERS WHEN THEY'RE CLOSING. >> CAN WE HAVE THAT TOPIC FOR OUR WORKSHOP IN JUNE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YEAH. I THOUGHT THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT ALREADY. I CAN GET AN UPDATE ON THAT. >> YES, WE'LL BE ABLE TO [INAUDIBLE] IN WORK SHOPS. >> OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. >> I HEARD THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION IT'S TO RETURN TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS, THE SECOND MEETING IN JUNE. >> CORRECT. >> YES. >> YEAH. >> I SEE SOME HEAD NODDING THAT'S WE THAT WILL BE OUR PLAN MOVING FORWARD [LAUGHTER]. >> THAT WAY EASIER FOR FRED. IT'S GOT TO BE EASIER FOR FRED [LAUGHTER]. >> IT HAS BEEN FUN. THIS HAS BEEN FUN. ANYBODY ELSE? >> I'VE HAD TO GET OUT OF PAJAMA BOMBERS NOW. >> PLEASE, YES. [LAUGHTER] DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD? OKAY. WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THE PATIENTS THAT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS IN ALL THE MEETINGS DURING THIS PROCESS. IT'S BEEN A LEARNING PROCESS FOR ME FOR SURE. I THANK YOU ALL. >> ALL RIGHT THEN. I WILL I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> I SECOND. >> THANK YOU SHARON. ALL IN FLAVOR [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU EVERYBODY SO MUCH? >> ALL RIGHT. THANKS. [OVERLAPPING] >> BYE. >> BYE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.