>> ALL RIGHT. IT'S FOUR O'CLOCK.
[Landmark Commission on June 21, 2021.]
[00:00:03]
I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER WITH MAYOR [INAUDIBLE] THROUGH THE RIVER MEETING ON LANDMARK COMMISSION HERE ON MONDAY, JULY 19, 2021.I'LL START OFF WITH ATTENDANCE.
>> COMMISSIONER LAY. COMMISSIONER MACLEAN? VICE-CHAIR PATTERSON?
>> COMMISSIONER STETZLE THOMPSON?
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST? NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
I'LL INVITE HEAD OF CHANCELLOR TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
I HAVE CORRECTIONAL CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, COMMENTS.
>> THEY ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
>> WE'LL CONTINUE IN OUR HARVARD FORMAT.
I BELIEVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT IN PERSON TODAY, BUT WE WILL HAVE SOME APPLICANTS THAT WILL PARTICIPATE BY PHONE, AND ALSO THE STAFF MEMBERS WILL BE MOSTLY PARTICIPATING BY PHONE.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS?
>> IF A PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
>> THEN I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEMS, NEW BUSINESS, AND TALKING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CASE 21LC- 034.
>> 1818 AVENUE L, IT'S A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROVISIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
TWENTY-NINE NOTICES WERE SENT.
>> BACKGROUND, THIS CASE HAVE BEEN HEARD A COUPLE OF TIMES AT THE FEBRUARY FIRST MEETING REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT THEN RE-APPLIED FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO REQUEST AN ELEVATION OF 21 FEET AND 0.75 INCHES FROM SEA LEVEL.
THAT CASE WAS DIFFERED TWICE, AND ON MAY 3RD, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE ABOVE SEA LEVEL BE REDUCED TO THE REQUIRED ELEVATION OF 12.5 FEET.
THE SUMMARY, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RECENTLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION AND DISLOCATION.
ONE OF THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS WAS THAT THE ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE ABOVE SEA LEVEL BE REDUCED TO THE REQUIRED ELEVATION OF 12.5 FEET.
THE APPLICANT RE-SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION TO REQUEST AN ELEVATION OF 21 FEET AND 0.75 INCHES FROM SEA LEVEL.
STAFF HAS REQUESTED THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST CITING THE SECTIONS OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT SUPPORTS THE REQUEST.
THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT FORTHCOMING, BUT WE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS AND EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WHICH SOME REASONS FOR THE REQUESTS WERE DISCUSSED.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE STORED PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT CONFORMANCE.
STAFF FILES REQUEST IS NOT CONFORMED TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE HOUSE IS SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER THAN THE HOUSES DIRECTLY TO THE EAST AND WEST.
THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE TO THE EAST IS 21.8 FEET AND THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE TO THE WEST IS 24 FEET, THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS 37 FEET.
AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THE HOUSE IS LOCATED 8.5 FEET ABOVE THE REQUIRED BASEBOARD ELEVATION.
IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSE BE CONSTRUCTED WITH PREVIOUSLY CREATED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT AN ELEVATION OF THE REQUIRED 12.5 FEET.
THIRD RECOMMENDATION, DUE TO NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES, THAT RECOMMENDS THAT REQUEST BE DENIED.
HOWEVER, SHOULD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FIND A REQUEST CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS, ALL COMMISSIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IF THE CONDITION ONE IS STANDARD CONDITION.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE [NOISE] AND THE HOUSES TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST.
THAT GOES WITH THE HOUSE ITSELF.
THERE'S A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND ELEVATION OF THE HOUSES ALONG THE STREET.
THAT'S THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF [NOISE] FROM THE COMMISSION? IF THERE'S NON, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-034
[00:05:03]
[NOISE] AND ASK THAT THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.>> THE APPLICANT IS SIGNED ON IN THE ZOOM CALL AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK NOW.
>> I'M SORRY. YES, I NEED TO BE UNMUTED.
THAT'S MY FAULT. THERE YOU GO.
>> WE CAN HEAR YOU MR. [INAUDIBLE], YOU CAN SPEAK.
>> MR. BAZONI, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> MR. BAZONI, CAN YOU HEAR US?
>> OKAY. I WAS ASKING IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK TO US ABOUT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU'LL ALLOW US TO DO THAT HIGHER ELEVATION AS WE SUBMITTED.
>> WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS CASE A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING WITH YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
>> ARE WE FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS?
>> I'M WONDERING WHY YOU WANT THE HOUSE TO BE THAT HIGH.
>> IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THAT AREA IS IN A FLOOD, AND YOU KNOW IT.
>> WE BUILD IT, TRYING TO HASSLE AROUND, SO AS PART OF THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE THE VIEW OF THE HOUSE DOES NOT LOOK SO TALL, BUT OUR REASON FOR THE HEIGHT IS JUST CONSIDERED GET OUT OF IT, AND HAVE THE HOUSE UNDERNEATH TO UTILIZE.
EVEN PARKING. PARKING IS HORRIBLE ON THE STREET.
EVERY DAY THAT STREET IS FULL ALL THE WAY DOWN.
WE'D LOVE TO HAVE A BOTTOM TO HELP PARK OUR CARS.
I THINK THAT'S ONE MORE OPTION.
MR. BAZONI, THIS IS CATHY PATERSON.
IS THERE ANYTHING NEW THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TODAY THAT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THIS CASE? IS THERE A NEW REQUEST BASED ON SOMETHING WE DIDN'T HEAR THE LAST TIME?
>> I THINK YOU HAD ASKED FOR SOME CHANGES ON THAT LAST PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED, WE DID BRING THOSE PLANS TO CORRECT WHATEVER CHANGES YOU HAD ON THERE.
BUT THEN AFTER THOSE CHANGES, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF YOU WOULD ALLOW US TO GO UP A LITTLE BIT THE ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE [INAUDIBLE]
>> HELLO. MY NAME'S DANNY. I'M WORKING WITH MR. BAZONI.
BASICALLY TO SUM UP WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY, THERE'S BEEN CONCERNS BOTH WITH HIM AND WITH HIS LENDER THAT AS TIME GOES ON, GLOBAL WARMING BEING WHAT IT IS, STORMS BEING MORE FREQUENT AS THEY ARE, THAT IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE HOUSE FLOODS.
HE'S REQUESTING THAT THE HIGHER FINISHED FLOOR BE APPROVED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE'S DONE DOOR TO DOOR WITH VARIOUS NEIGHBORS, NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS WHATSOEVER TO THE HOUSE BEING ANY HIGHER THAN THEIRS.
IF NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARKING UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE, IT'S JUST FOR MAYOR TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH FLOODING IN THE FUTURE.
THE CONCERN THE COMMISSION HAS IS THAT THE HEIGHT IS EXCESSIVE FOR THE LOCALE OF WHERE IT IS.
IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE OUT OF LINE WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.
>> IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR HEIGHT ABOVE THE 12.5 FINISHED FLOOR THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE WILLING TO APPROVE THAT MAY BE LESS THAN THE 21 FOOT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED?
[00:10:09]
>> I THINK IT'S UP TO THE OWNER TO SUGGEST SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSION BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED HERE, IN THIS CASE, TODAY SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING BY.
>> CORRECT. THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE REQUEST THAT FOR THE INEVITABLE IN THE FLOODING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH ADDITIONAL DAMAGES FROM FLOOD WHENEVER IT FINALLY HIT.
THE INSURANCE COMPANY WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR A HIGHER FINISHED FLOOR BE APPROVED IN THIS ONE.
>> DOES 12.5' LIFT YOU OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT FLOOD PLAIN MAPS?
>> ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT FLOOD PLAIN MAPS, YES, IT DOES.
BUT THE FLOOD PLAIN MAP ACROSS THE COUNTY, THE BASE LEVEL ELEVATION HAVE BEEN RAISING JUST CONSISTENTLY SO IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THIS IS GOING TO BE HIGHER.
IF THEY REVISE THEIR MAPS NEXT YEAR AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN 12 AND A HALF FEET WELL THEN, WE NOW GET 12 AND A HALF FEET WHICH IS BELOW THE FLOOD, AND THEN WE HAVE AN ENTRANCE ISSUE.
>> BUT I THINK THE RECENT FLOOD PLAIN MAPS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE RECENT FLOOD PLAIN MAPS WENT FROM 100 YEAR-FLOODPLAIN MAP TO A 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT HAPPENED IN IKE BECAUSE THAT WAS SUCH AN UNUSUAL EVENT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN UPDATED FROM 500.
[OVERLAPPING] IS THAT RIGHT, STEPH?
>> WE RECENTLY HAD OUR MAPS UPDATED.
>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT EXACTLY BUT WE RECENTLY HAD THEM UPGRADED.
WE'RE NOT UNDER A MAP REVIEW CURRENTLY.
>> NOW, I THINK THAT WAS THE 500-YEAR.
>> FEW YEARS. THEY'VE EVEN UPDATED.
>> DO YOU GUYS HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DOES ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC HERE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> ALL RIGHT THEN. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-034 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
[BACKGROUND] I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THEN THAT WE DENY THE CASE 21LC-034.
>> FIVE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> I'LL JUST COMMENT THAT I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE OWNERS' CONCERNS OF THE FUTURE, I THINK WE ALL ARE, BUT THE MAPS THAT WE WAITED A VERY LONG TIME FOR, I'M PRETTY SURE WITH THE 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAPS.
I THINK IT'S EXTRAORDINARY THAT WE'RE SEEING SO MANY HOUSES COME OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, SO MUCH HIGHER THAN THEY WERE BEFORE.
BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE A YARDSTICK BY WHICH YOU MEASURE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE YOUR 20' MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE FEELS IS NOT ENOUGH AND THEY WANT TO GO 30'.
IF WE DON'T HAVE SOME KIND OF DEFINABLE GUIDELINES BY WHICH WE ALLOW THESE THINGS, THEN WE HAVE NO WAY TO CONTROL THE LANDSCAPE OF YOUR STREET, THE NEXT STREET, THE ONE BEHIND YOU, THE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THAT'S THE GUIDELINES THAT WE'RE SETTING BY AS WELL A COUPLE.
>> I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS IS SOMEWHAT CLOSE TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN HURRICANE IKE, WE ONLY GOT THREE FEET OF WATER THERE.
>> IT'S A BLOCK FROM MY HOUSE AND NOW MY I GOT TWO-AND-A-HALF.
I IMAGINE THE FLOOR OF THIS HOUSE IS GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN THE FLOOR OF ANY HOUSE NEAR IT AS IT IS AT 12.5.
>> IT'S ABOUT WHAT OUR BUNDLE OF IT WE HAD ON 19 WAS.
>> WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
>> COMMISSIONERS STETZLE THOMPSON.
[00:15:01]
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> THIS IS 1522 EVOLVE TO REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE AND FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING THE FRONT PORCH.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE SIX FROM RETURN BUT NONE IN OPPOSITION.
BACKGROUND, THE CASE WAS FIRST HEARD BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ON JUNE 21ST AND WAS DENIED.
THAT IS BRINGING THE CASE BACK FOR A RECONSIDERATION PER SECTION 13.301B3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STAFF AND BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION IF THE ORIGINAL DECISION WAS BASED ON MISUNDERSTANDING, FRAUD, OR MISREPRESENTATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE MISUNDERSTANDING WAS THE STATUS OF THE STUCCO FIRST FOUR COLUMNS.
THE STAFF REPORT REPRESENTED THAT THE FIRST FOUR COLUMNS HAD BEEN STUCCOED AS PART OF THE RECENT WORK.
HOWEVER, THE FRONT COLUMNS WERE STUCCOED IN 2017.
AT THAT TIME AND AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FOR THE STUCCO WAS APPROVED BY STAFF.
SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RETAIN THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT PORCH THAT HAVE INCURRED WITHOUT A PERMIT OR HISTORIC REVIEW.
PHOTOS FROM THE HOUSE FROM 2015 AND 2017 WERE PROVIDED AS ATTACHMENT A.
THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED DECORATIVE COLUMNS, RAILINGS, TREES, AND TRIM ON THE PORCHES.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COLUMNS ON THE FIRST FLOOR HAD BEEN MODIFIED AT SOME POINT IN THE FIRST FEW BRICKS.
THE APPLICANTS APPLIED STUCCO TO THE BRICK COLUMNS IN 2017 AND THAT TREATMENT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR PORCH.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO ADDED TWO INCHES OF FIBERBOARD SKIRTING.
PLEASE NOTE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND CONFORMANCE.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE MODIFICATIONS ARE LOCATED IN LOCATION A, PRIMARY DESIGN AND PRESERVATION AND REPAIR FEATURES IN PLACE OF THE PRIORITY.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT PRESERVING FRONT PORCHES ARE A HIGH PRIORITY AND THAT ORIGINAL PORCHES SHOULD BE MAINTAINED.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS ALSO STATE THAT ADDING ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS NOT COMMON TO A PARTICULAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SUCH AS INAPPROPRIATE.
IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE MADE IN COMPLEX DECORATIVE FEATURES APPROPRIATE FOR CLEANING AND STYLE AND ARE REPLACED WITH INAPPROPRIATE COLUMNS AND RAIL LENGTHS.
IN THE NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CASE BE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, THE HOUSE SHALL BE RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE AS SHOWN IN THE 2015 PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE STUCCO ON THE FIRST FOUR FLOOR COLUMNS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION.
ITEM 2 IS THE STANDARD CONDITION REGARDING APPEALS.
HOWEVER, SHOULD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FIND THE REQUEST DOES CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
SPECIFIC CONDITION 1 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 2 THROUGH SIX. I HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS PICTURE FROM STAFF'S FILES FROM 2015.
AGAIN, ANOTHER PICTURE FROM 2015.
THIS IS A PICTURE FROM THE PERMIT IN 2017 SHOWING THE BRICK COLUMNS ON THE FIRST FLOOR HAD BEEN STUCCOED AND THEN THIS IS FROM THE APPLICANT DETAILING THE WORK THAT'S BEEN PERFORMED AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-036 AS THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
>> YEAH, GO AHEAD. FLOOR IS ALL OPEN.
>> LET ME GET RIGHT IN. [LAUGHTER] IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, YOU NEED TO TIME IN HERE.
>> OH, YEAH. THIS IS MARKED AS MY WIFE AND I INCREASED IDEAS ON THE PROPERTY.
>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SEE IF WE COULD DISCUSS [NOISE] WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE ACTUALLY, BECAUSE AT THE LAST MEETING I DID NOT APPEAR IN PERSON.
MY ARCHITECT, THE ENGINEER, APPEARED VIA ZOOM, I GUESS, THAT'S WE'VE SEEN SOMEBODY ELSE DO, AND VICE CHAIR PATTERSON MADE A MISREPRESENTATION THAT THE BRICK WAS THE CENTRAL ISSUE AND SHE ATTACKED HIM OVER THE BRICK AND OF COURSE HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE BRICK AND HE'S LIKE,
[00:20:01]
I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE THAT WAY AND SHE'S LIKE, NO, I LIVE TWO DOORS DOWN AND I CAN PROMISE YOU THEY WERE NOT THAT WAY SIX WEEKS AGO.THEY'VE BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 2017.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE 2017 PICTURE, YOU'LL SEE MY PORCH RAILS UPPER AND LOWER DID NOT MATCH.
OBVIOUSLY, THE LOWER PORCH RAILS WOULDN'T BE HISTORIC BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN BRICK WORK WAS DONE, WHICH ANYONE'S GUESS IS IT WAS DONE SOME TIME IN THE '50S.
I WANTED THEM TO MATCH, AND SO I GUESS NOW AT LEAST TEMPORARILY, THEY DO MATCH.
YES, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE STUCCO COLUMNS, AND I PLAN ON PUTTING BACK THE DECORATIVE TRIM, IT'S JUST [NOISE] THAT IT'S NOT THERE YET.
I HAVE SOME PICTURES, I'LL PASS AROUND TO Y'ALL, WHICH SHOWS WHY THIS STARTED.
IF YOU'RE FACING MY HOUSE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE PORCH WAS SAGGING ON THE TOP, AND SO ALL THIS UNDERNEATH AND UNDER HERE WAS ROTTEN.
IT'S NOW BEEN REPLACED AND BROUGHT BACK UP TO LEVEL, BUT AS A RESULT, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT MY HOUSE FROM STREET ON THE LEFT SIDE, THIS IS THE EXTERIOR WALL AND YOU CAN SEE THE CRACKS BECAUSE THE ATTIC WAS PULLING DOWN ON THE WALL.
ON THE LEFT SIDE, SAME WALL, OR I'M SORRY, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE, IT'S NOW ON THE RIGHT SIDE, I'VE GOT THE SAME ISSUE, WELL, I HAD THE SAME ISSUE, BEFORE WE SHORED UP THE NEW COLUMNS.
ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'LL HAVE THIS IN ANY OF THE PICTURE, THERE ARE TWO MORE PORCHES, AN UPPER AND LOWER, AND I WAS TRYING TO DO THOSE THE SAME.
ONE THING THAT YOU CAN SEE, AND THE REASON I TOOK THIS PICTURE, THIS COLUMN MATCH THE COLUMNS THAT WERE ON THE FRONT.
IF YOU LOOK, AND I TOOK SOME CLOSE UPS, ONE OF THE PROBLEM IS IT'S NOT ONE SOLID PIECE, THERE'S A BASE, A MIDDLE, AND THEN TWO SECTIONS AT THE TOP, AND THAT'S WHERE THE WATER WAS COMING IN THAT RUINED THE DOWNSTAIRS PORCH WHERE THEY WENT THROUGH TO THE DOWNSTAIRS PORCH.
I WAS NOT OR AM NOT TRYING TO BASTARDIZE THE ARCHITECTURE OR MAKE THE HOUSE LOOK DIFFERENT THAN IT SHOULD.
SINCE I HAVE THE STUCCO COLUMNS, I THINK IT WOULD LOOK NICE IF THEY WENT ALL THE WAY UP.
I THINK IT WOULD LOOK NICE ON THE HOUSE IN GENERAL IF ALL THE PORCH RAILINGS MATCHED, SO THAT THE VIEW FROM THE STREET THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME AND IT LOOKS NICE.
THE DECORATIVE TRIM THAT SHALL WANT BACK UP TOP, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, BUT IT JUST WASN'T ADDRESSED AT THE PRESENTATION.
[NOISE] THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT PICTURE THIS IS, IN THE EXHIBITS, IT'S NOT LABELED.
WELL, I GUESS YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE 2017 PICTURE.
UNDER HERE, THERE WAS VARYING LATTICE, I DIDN'T LIKE IT, I DON'T THINK LATTICE BECAUSE IT'S PREFAB LATTICE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S HISTORICAL, BUT THE OTHER ISSUE THERE IS, THE ONLY REASON YOU CAN SEE IT NOW IS BECAUSE OF THE FREEZE, ALL OUR LANDSCAPING DIED, OTHERWISE YOU CAN NEVER SEE THE LATTICE, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE LANDSCAPING BACK WHENEVER WE FINISH UNTIL THE NEXT FREEZE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF ME, IF THERE'S STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS OR ARCHITECTURAL, HE CAN ANSWER THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE LOADS.
>> YOU KNOW YOU'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO GET APPROVAL BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY CHANGES.
>> YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?
>> IN THE FREEZE, WE'VE GOT EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO OUR PIPES, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I'M SURE.
IT STARTS UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE AND THEN RUNS, AND BASICALLY ALL THE BARS RUN UP EXTERIOR WALLS.
SO IN ORDER TO FIX THE PIPES, WE HAD TO START REMOVING WOOD, THAT'S WHEN I FOUND A LOT OF ROTTEN WOOD.
OBVIOUSLY, FIRST I REPAIRED ALL THE PIPES, THEN I HAD TO DEAL WITH ALL THE WOOD DAMAGE.
IT HAS NOT BEEN EASY TO GET GOOD SKILLED LABOR BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING GOING ON.
[00:25:08]
IT'S HARD EVEN FOR CONTRACTORS.SO I FOUND SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE AND WHO COULD DO IT, AND SO I JUST DECIDED, YOU KNOW WHAT, SINCE I HAVE TO DO ALL THIS, I'M JUST GOING TO IMPROVE THE WHOLE HOUSE.
I MEAN, I WASN'T GOING TO STOP HERE.
MY SHUTTERS ARE HORRIBLE, MOST OF THEM DON'T WORK.
IF YOU LOOK FROM THE STREET, THEY MIGHT LOOK OKAY, BUT THERE ACTUALLY MISSING SOME, NONE OF THEM WORK.
WE HAD TAKEN ONE OFF AND I'D TAKE TWO WOODWORKER WHO HAS SUFFICIENT MACHINERY TO BUILD ME NEW ONES.
I JUST DECIDED I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING.
I WANT TO BEAUTIFY THE WHOLE HOUSE.
YOU'RE RIGHT, I MEAN, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT I SHOULD'VE COME HERE FIRST, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, I'M TRYING TO BEAUTIFY THE HOUSE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO DESTROY THE HOUSE.
I WANT MY HOUSE TO LOOK BETTER, I LIVE IN IT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, INSTEAD OF GOING UP WITH THE STUCCO AND MAKING IT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THAT WAS BUILT NOT THAT LONG AGO, WHY NOT TAKE THE BRICK OFF AND PUT THE WOOD COLUMNS BACK, LIKE THEY PROBABLY WERE ORIGINALLY, TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A HISTORICAL HOME?
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF COST FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I PURCHASED THE HOUSE LIKE THAT, THE COLUMNS HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE '50S.
>> WHY WOULD I GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF REMOVING THE BRICK.
>> WHY WOULD YOU GO TO THE EXPENSE OF TAKING THE WOOD OFF AND THE DECORATIVE TRIM ON THE SECOND FLOOR, EXCEPT TO DUPLICATE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT HISTORICAL AT ALL.
>> I INTEND ON PUTTING BACK THE DECORATIVE TRIM, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
I MEAN, IF THE ONLY ISSUE IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT THE STUCCO COLUMNS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THAT'S FINE, I'LL PUT BACK WOODEN COLUMNS.
MY ISSUE IS I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPERTY.
I'VE HAD ALREADY A ONE MONTH DELAY BECAUSE OF MISINFORMATION, BUT WHATEVER IT IS Y'ALL WANT ME TO DO, I'M WILLING TO BE REASONABLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD, AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW, IT'S AN EYESORE.
>> I LIKE TO STATE, FOR THE RECORD, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES.
FOR YOU THINK THAT I WOULD KNOW A HOUSE TWO DOORS DOWN FROM ME THAT HAD BRICK STUCCO SINCE 2017, BUT HONESTLY, IF I RAN INTO YOU IN THE STORE, STAYING IN FRONT OF ME, I WOULDN'T KNOW YOU WERE MY NEIGHBOR.
I HAD IT IN MY MIND THAT IT WAS BRICK, AND THEN WHEN I SAW THESE CHANGES, I JUST ASSUMED THEY ALL CAME TOGETHER.
SO MY APOLOGIES, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES ABOUT MISUNDERSTANDING.
I HAVE READ THE BRIEF AND UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DID GET A PERMIT TO DO THAT WORK ON THOSE LOWER COLUMNS, SO PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES BOTH OF YOU.
>> YEAH AND I GUESS THIS LAST PAGE HERE, THAT SHE'S GOT HERE, IS BASICALLY OUTLINING THAT ALL THAT DECORATIVE TRIM AND ORNAMENT ON THE RAILING, THE ORNAMENT ON THE PORCH IN FRONT OF THE NEW SIDING, AND THE ORNAMENT ON THE TOP SIDE, WOULD ALL BE GOING BACK TO MATCH EXISTING.
IT WOULD JUST BE SHORTER BETWEEN THOSE STUCCO COLUMNS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT, YOU BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN THE STUCCO ON THE LOWER PORCH AND THAT YOU RESTORE THE UPPER PORCH BACK TO WHAT IT WAS.
IS THAT AGREEABLE WITH YOU? ARE YOU ASKING US FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT?
>> IF WHAT YOU WANT IS FOR ME TO NOT DO THE STUCCO ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND GO BACK TO WOODEN COLUMN, THAT'S FINE.
I WANT MY PORCHES TO MATCH, IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PORCH THAT'S TOO LOW AND UNSAFE, I MEAN, THE RAILING THAT'S TOO LOW AND UNSAFE.
I WOULD SAY IF IT'S THAT YOU WANT WOODEN COLUMNS BACK, FINE, I'LL PUT WOODEN COLUMNS BACK.
THE BOTTOM ONES WERE JUST THE TWO-BY-TWO SQUARE POSTS, NOTHING APPEALING ABOUT IT, BUT I'VE TRIED TO GO BACK WITH ON BOTH FOR SOMETHING MORE DECORATIVE, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT.
[NOISE] IF YOU WANT WOODEN POSTS, I'LL PUT WOODEN POSTS, THAT'S FINE.
I'M GOING TO GO BACK WITH THE DECORATIVE PIECES NO MATTER WHAT Y'ALL DECIDE, BUT YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE RAILINGS.
I WOULD LIKE FOR ALL THE PORCHES, THE TWO ON THE FRONT AND THE TWO ON THE SIDE TO ALL MATCH.
>> THE SIZE OF THOSE POSTS WILL PROBABLY INCREASE BECAUSE THAT'D BE THE ONLY THING.
[00:30:02]
THEY'D STILL BE TURNED AND DECORATIVE, BUT THE DIAMETER OF THOSE POSTS, I THINK BASICALLY THAT ATTIC AND THAT ROOF USED TO BE CANTILEVERED OUT 10 FEET, AND THAT'S WHERE IT STARTED SAGGING AND CRACK THIS INTERIOR FINISHES SO.ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THOSE COLUMNS ON THE OUTSIDE DO SUPPORT THE PORCH.
>> WHEN THEY WERE DETERIORATING LIKE THERE WERE, THAT'S WHY THEY CAME OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I THINK THEY JUST FRAMED IT UP WITH WOOD AND SAID, OKAY, WOULD YOU RUB IT WITH STUCCO AND THAT'LL HOLD, THAT'LL SUPPORT THE ATTIC SPACE THOUGH, THAT WAS WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THAT.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? [NOISE] WHEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, OJ'S 21 NAILS, SOME BACTERIA WITH RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR FACTORY CONDITIONS?
>> WELL, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED.
I THOUGHT STATUS SOURCE AND MOTIONLESS TO RETURN IT TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM, AND WE'RE HEARING THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
>> I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ORIGINALLY WE HAD BASED ON THE MISUNDERSTANDING, TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD TO RESTORE THE GREAT COLUMNS.
>> PART OF THAT WAS BASED ON MY COMMENTS THAT WAS THE REASON WHY [OVERLAPPING] IT WASN'T.
>> NOW WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE IS THAT IT NEEDS TO RETURN TO THIS.
>> WHAT ARE YOU SAYING YOU CAN'T RETURN TO THOSE.
>> WELL, I CAN. [LAUGHTER] IT WAS THAT.
IT CANNOT RETURN TO THAT WHEN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> HE SAID HE COULD RETURN INTO THAT BUT HE WOULD PREFER THEM TO MANAGE.
>> WELL, HE IS SAYING HE HAD TO HAVE WIDER POST AND NOT EXPOSE WALL TO WALL.
>> LET ME SEE THE HIGHER RAILING IF YOU HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN AND MAYBE THEY COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL RAILING ABOVE TO RAISE THE HEIGHT IF YOU HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT CHILDREN CAN THEN SERVE AS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO HERE BECAUSE WHAT WE OWN THE HOUSE AND POST-OFFICE, YOU HEARD THAT RAILING IS VERY INSECURE WHEN YOU WALK UP TO IT, WHAT ARE THE APPLYING GUIDELINES SAY ABOUT ABOUT THAT? OR DO THEY SPEAK TO THAT? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOW RAILINGS ON BILL HOUSES AND WHAT IS THE MARCH STANDARD?
>> TYPICALLY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GIVES A WAIVER FOR THE LOWER RAILINGS BECAUSE THERE ARE HISTORIC FEATURE.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING HIGHER THAN, WE WOULD RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT CONNIE WAS SAYING, SOMETHING THAT'S INDIVIDUAL AND APPLIED ABOVE IT AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED.
>> OH, WE DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO JOIN. HI, DOUGH. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE IS JOINING THE MEETING. [LAUGHTER]
>> HE IS GHOSTING IN HERE. [LAUGHTER]
I DON'T HAVE A BOAT. I'VE BEEN WATCHING YOU BUT I WASN'T LATE.
I HAD TECHNICAL PROBLEMS. BUT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE HEIGHT ON SEVERAL HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
TYPICALLY ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE REAL USER, REALLY A KEY TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF A HOUSE, WE'VE INSTALLED A SECONDARY RAILING ON TOP OF THE ORIGINAL RAILING THAT QUALIFIES TO READ CODE.
BUT ANOTHER THING TOO IS TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THERE'S A CODE REQUIREMENT FOR HOW FAR APART THE SPINDLES ARE.
IF THE SPINDLE IS IN YOUR POSTS ARE FURTHER APART, 1.5 INCHES UP CENTER.
ACTUALLY FOUR WHICH DIDN'T SPEND OR COMMERCIAL THAT YOU CAN REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH KIDS AS BEING ABLE TO GO THROUGH.
JUST PUTTING A CLEAR NETTING ON THE INSIDE OF THE RAILINGS AND ALSO SAFEGUARD AGAINST KIDS GETTING THROUGH THE SYMBOL.
>> MY CONCERN ABOUT IT IS IT'S NOT JUST CHILDREN.
I FEEL INSECURE AROUND THOSE RAILINGS.
AS I GET OLDER, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO FEEL LESS SECURE. THOSE KIND OF RAILINGS.
>> THOSE ARE STAIR RIGHTLY UPSTAIRS AND GOING UP AND AROUND TO OUR SECOND FLOOR PROBABLY 24 INCHES.
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY HERE THERE IS A SOLUTION TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL RAILING.
[OVERLAPPING] HAM ROBERT IS TRAINING.
>> I'M JUST SAYING [OVERLAPPING].
>> CAN WE COME UP WITH A MOTION AND INTO HABITUS QUESTION.
[00:35:02]
>> I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> DENIED CASE 21 HILLS, C DASH 036 WAS TO HAVE RECOMMENDATION.
>> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL BASED ON EVERYTHING ELSE BUT ALLOWING THEM TO RETAIN THIS STUCCOD LOWER COLUMNS.
>> WELL, I CERTAINLY FEEL LIKE IMPORTANT FEATURE ARE NOT ONLY BEEN REALLY WANTED TO TOSS, BUT THAT WOULDN'T KILL THE STYLES, YES, BECAUSE THEY MATCH THE ENTIRE FODGE THAT HAS THAT KIND OF CAR STYLES.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS PUT DOWN THERE.
IT'S REPLACED BY SOMETHING MODERN OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW THAT.
I THINK ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND THAT'S JUST MY YES.
ANOTHER WAY OF ADDING, CONTINUING WITH SQUARES AND EVERYTHING GOES ON THERE.
THAT WAS, THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL PORCH.
WANTED TO GO DOWN INTO THE PRETTIEST.
>> I WONDER IF YOU WOULD HAVE SOME ORIGINAL PHOTOS OR EARLY PHOTOS BEFORE THE COLUMNS WERE PUT ON.
>> WELL, IT'S SISTERS THREE HOUSES DOWN.
ALL CALLED FOR A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> DOUG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE OR WE CAN MARK YOU AS ABSTAINING?
>> MORE OF A TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
>> WITHOUT A RESPONSE, WE'LL DO ABSTAIN.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZLE THOMPSON.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION OF THE MOTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT CASE IS 21LC-038.
THIS IS THEIR REQUEST FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THERE WERE 26 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, TWO RETURN AND BOTH OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
HOUSE OF 3125 AVENUE O WAS BUILT IN 1914 AS A TENANT HOUSE FOR JOHN F. AND [INAUDIBLE] SWEENEY, WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR 3127.
JOHN SWEENEY WAS A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR ORIGINALLY FROM TENNESSEE, BUT [INAUDIBLE] RESIDENCE SINCE 1880.
HE ALSO WORKED AS A MASTER MECHANIC BEFORE OPENING OVER THE WHOLESALE COMMISSION HOUSE CALLED PERRY AND SWEENEY AS PART OF THE PARTNER, SORRY, CHARLES PERRY.
LATER SWEENEY PARTNERED WITH REALTOR ROBERT SAM TO FORM SAM AND SWEENEY, REAL ESTATE AND LAND AGENTS.
THEY'RE LOCATED AT 25 [INAUDIBLE].
1922, JOHN SWEENEY SOLD THE HOUSE TO [INAUDIBLE] WHO WAS CAPTAIN OF THE FIRE, BOTH CHARLES CLARKE AND BEFORE THAT [INAUDIBLE] HE LIVED AT 312 WITH HIS WIFE CATHERINE [INAUDIBLE] UNTIL THEIR DEATH.
FAMILY INHERITED IT AND KEPT UNTIL 1983.
IT FIRST TURNED INTO A RENTAL PROPERTY WHERE FRANCIS BOIS AND HIS FAMILY, AND THEN LATER CECIL WHEEL AND HIS FAMILY.
BOTH WERE POORLY BUILT COLORADO FANTASY AND RAILROADS AND A VOID WAS IN CLERK TO THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT.
MUELLER WAS THERE AT THE TELEGRAM DEPARTMENT.
I ASCERTAIN MUCH RETAINS MUCH OF ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE OF THE NATIONAL FOLK STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE, HISTORY, THE TIBIAL HOUSE OF OWNERSHIP BY GALVIN'S INVOLVED IN THE POST 1900 STORE RECONSTRUCTION AND MARITIME TRADE PARALLELS OVERALL STORE OF GALVIN'S HISTORY AND PRESERVING THE HOUSE WITH THE GAUSSIAN LANDMARK SECURE ITS PLACEMENT IN THESE HISTORY.
PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST OF JULY 20TH, 2021 MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FILE COMPILE THIS DISREGARD THEIR REQUEST AND WE'LL HEAR THAT INTO AUGUST 25TH MEETING.
WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SEPARATE RULE BY THE WAY, WE TOOK THE PHOTOS LIKE YOU.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND [INAUDIBLE] SLIDE, PLEASE.
THERE'S THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH AND TO BELIEVE THE WEST AND THIS INCLUDES DEATH REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE EQUATION.
SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PAGE 21LC-038 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
[00:40:08]
>> SEE THAT THERE'S ONE IN THERE.
[NOISE] I DON'T WANT TO BE THERE AVAILABLE.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU'RE BEING HELPFUL.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND WE ALSO KNOW [LAUGHTER] WOULD ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC ELECTIVES SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-038 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT CASE 21LC-038 AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I SAW THE HOUSE ON THE HOME TOUR. IT WAS FABULOUS.
>> I RECKON, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CLINTON?
>> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? [NOISE] ABSTAIN.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> SIX VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> ALL RIGHT, NEXT CASE 21 LC-040.
>> IS THIS FINE [INAUDIBLE] IS REQUESTING DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
25 NOTICES SINCE THE ORIGINAL.
GOVERNMENTS ARE REQUESTING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE REFERENCE OF PATRICK'S AS THE GALVESTON LANDMARKS AND ITS FRANCIS RICHARD LUBBOCK HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1876.
MR. LUBBOCK WAS THE 9TH GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND HE WAS IN OFFICE DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
HE WAS THE BROTHER OF THOMAS SALTUS LUBBOCK.
FROM THE MOMENT THE CITY AND COUNTY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS EARNINGS.
THE PLAYED COMMISSIONER IN HERE, THIS REQUEST ACTUAL ANOTHER LINE, MEANING THE OUTLETS FINAL DECISION REGARDING REQUEST NOTE ABOUT GLAMOUR DESIGNATION AND IT WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 26TH.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WAS OUR STANDARD CONDITION FOR THAT IS [NOISE] IS THIS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? THEN THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST, AND THAT INCLUDES STUFF LIKE THIS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, ALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-040, HAS TO GIVE THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
>> THE APPLICANT IS HERE ON THE ZOOM CALL AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HI, THIS IS MAYA HERE, AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT HOME.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> DOES ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21 LC-040 AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
[OVERLAPPING] DISCUSSION, I WILL UNCOMMENT THAT GOVERNOR LUBBOCK BECAME GOVERNOR BECAUSE HE USED TO RESIDE ON THE OTHER BECAUSE IT'S GETTING MORE WORTHLESS, THE CIVIL WAR AND UTILIZED.
ST HOUSTON WAS OPPOSED TO IT, A LIVING COMMUNITY.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CLICK?
>> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? ABSTAIN.
>> VICE-CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON?
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> WE HAVE 6 VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> SINCE 1923 AVENUE [INAUDIBLE] REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO REMOVE DECORATIVE TRIM.
[00:45:02]
EIGHT NOTICES WERE SENT TO RETURN WITH TWO IN FAVOR.LANDMARD COMMISSIONER OF EITHER REQUEST DURING THE SECOND WAS FILMED AT THIS LOCATION ON MAY 3RD.
THAT REQUEST WAS DENIED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE DECORATIVE TRIM WILL BE REPLACED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A NEW APPLICATION THAT INCLUDES A HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
THOSE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED THAT WE GET APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE DECORATIVE TRIM.
A DECORATIVE TRIM CONSISTED OF STARS, WORKLOAD THINGS ABOUT THE WINDOWS AND DOORS.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED INFORMATION THAT THE DECORATIVE TRIM WAS NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE TO INCLUDES IN ATTACHMENT A AND ATTACHMENT B INCLUDED PICTURES FROM OUR STAR STACK RECORDS IN WHICH THE TRIM WAS VISIBLE.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STORED PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, CONFORMANCE.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN PREVIOUS CASES WHERE PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WAS INDISTINCT, BUT NOT CLEARLY INDICATING THE ORIGINAL APPEARANCE OF THE HOUSE.
THE NEWLY SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPH IS MORE CLEAR AND SHOWS THAT THE DECORATIVE TRIM WAS NOT IN PLACE AT THE FRONT DOOR OR BAY WINDOW.
THE STYLE OF DRESS AND THE PEOPLE SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH IS THOUGHT TO DATE FROM 1918.
DUE TO THE NEWLY SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR THE REMOVAL OF THE DECORATIVE TRIM. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, SPECIFIC CONDITION 1 AND THEN ITEMS TO A PARTICULAR STANDARD AND PROCEDURES.
THIS IS A PICTURE FROM 2015 AND YOU CAN SEE THIS DECORATIVE TRIM OF THE WINDOWS AND DOORS.
HERE'S THE PHOTOGRAPH, IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED AND HERE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE TRIM WAS NOT IN PLACE ABOVE THE DOOR AND YOU CAN FAIRLY WELL SEE THE BAY WINDOW AND ALSO DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN PLACE.
NOW THE PROPERTIES AS TO THE EAST, TO THE NORTH, AND TO THE WEST, AND THAT INCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-041 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
>> APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ON THE ZOOM CALL AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION NOW.
>> THEY'RE AUTHORIZED, I'M SURE.
>> HERE TO THE BREATH OF THEM.
>> ALREADY. GOT RID OF THE 12.
>> HE CAN JUST SIGN IT HERE AND THEN STATEMENT, AGENT.
>> WELL HE TOOK IT ALL OFF. THAT'S THE NEW PHOTOGRAPH.
>> YEAH. I THINK YOU'VE COVERED IT ALL REAL WELL, AND ALL I WANTED TO ADD IS I'VE GOT A CLEARER PICTURE OF THEM CAME THROUGH ON THE EMAILS.
>> YEAH. IT'S REALLY CLEAR ON THAT ONE FOR SURE.
>>YEAH. I'LL PASS THIS AROUND IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
>> HOW DID YOU FIND IT, COME ACROSS IT?
>> IT WAS LEFT IN A STACK OF MATERIAL FROM PREVIOUS OWNERS, AND A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK ONE OF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS CAME BY AND SAW MY WIFE AND HE MIGHT HAVE DROPPED IT OFF AT THAT POINT.
THAT'S AN ORIGINAL FLAKE READY TO DIE IN 1940.
>> BECAUSE ONE OF THE LADIES ON THE PEOPLE IN THE PHOTO.
>> I FEEL LIKE THE MOST COMPELLING.
I MEAN THE PHOTOGRAPH TO ME [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SEARCHED TOO, I WAS TRYING TO FIND A PICTURE BUT I COULD FIND IT.
>> I THOUGHT THE ORIGINAL 19 THE RACING PICTURE WAS CLEAR TO ME, BUT IT WAS GRAINY. I AGREE.
>> THE PICTURE DOESN'T REALLY SHOW THAT IT IS OR IT ISN'T.
YOU CAN'T SEE THEIR HANDS IN THAT PICTURE EITHER.
BUT THE MOST COMPELLING THING TO ME IS IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THEY WOULD HAVE PUT 1923 ON TOP OF IT.
>> THAT'S REALLY THE MOST COMPELLING REASON FOR ME IS THAT IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THAT DECORATIVE TRIM WAS THERE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE STACKED NUMBERS ON TOP OF THE ICEBERG.
>> IN THIS PICTURE, I CAN'T EVEN MAKE OUT HANDS LIKE CLEARLY 1923 SITTING ON TOP OF WHERE THAT STAR AND THIS GLUCOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HARD AND NOT LIKELY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT.
>> IT WAS GREAT JOY THAT CAME FORWARD WITH IT.
>> YEAH. I WONDER IF THE STUDY GUIDES THIS PICTURE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER ON. ANYTHING ELSE?
[00:50:01]
>> [LAUGHTER] WE'LL SAY THE HOUSE LOOKS MUCH BETTER.
>> YOU CAN GIVE A COPY OF THAT TO THE ROSENBERG LIBRARY AND THEY CAN HAVE A PER TILED.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-041 [NOISE] AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 21LC-041 ON THE STAFF'S SUGGESTIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
>> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? [NOISE]
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON?
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> WE HAVE SIX VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS ANOTHER LANDMARK REQUEST AT 1610 WINNIE.
THERE WERE 30 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONE RETURNED, AND ONE IN FAVOR.
THE HOUSE AT 1610 WINNIE WAS BUILT IN 1906 FOR STEVEN FRANCIS SGITCOVICH, NATIVE GALVESTONIAN, THE OLDEST OF NINE CHILDREN BORN TO AUSTRIAN IMMIGRANTS, HE MARRIED WINIFRED JULIA TELLER IN 1902; TOGETHER THEY HAD A SON AND A DAUGHTER.
THE ORIGINAL INSURANCE RECORD DESCRIBES THE HOUSE AS A TWO-STORY FRAME BUILDING WITH A METAL ROOF THAT CONTAINS FIVE ROOMS, THREE HALLS, ONE BATHROOM, SIX CLOSETS, PLUS A PANTRY AND THREE PORCHES.
THE HOUSE WAS WIRED WITH ELECTRICITY AS WELL.
FURTHER ALTERATION BROUGHT THE NUMBER OF ROOMS FROM FIVE TO SEVEN AND REDUCED THE NUMBER OF HALLS FROM THREE TO TWO.
THE HOUSE WAS FURTHER IMPROVED IN 1911, ALTHOUGH THESE CHANGES ARE NOT DESCRIBED IN THE RECORD.
THE HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY DESCRIBES THE HOUSE AS A MASSED PLAN, FOLK VICTORIAN STYLE.
AS WITH THE OWNERS OF MANY HISTORIC GALVESTON HOMES AND LANDMARKS, STEVEN FRANCIS SGITCOVICH WAS A NOTEWORTHY GALVESTON BUSINESS OWNER.
THE 1898 DIRECTORY LISTS HIM AS A CLERK FOR A LONE STAR LINE, WHICH WAS A STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
BY 1913, HE STARTED HIS OWN BUSINESS, SGITCOVICH & CO. STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
HIS SHIPS OPERATED BETWEEN GALVESTON AND FRANCE, ENGLAND AND SPAIN.
IN THE HEIGHT OF THE COMPANY'S SUCCESS, THEIR OFFICES IN THE COTTON EXCHANGE BUILDING OCCUPIED THE ENTIRE FOURTH FLOOR.
IN ADDITION TO HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS, SGITCOVICH WAS ACTIVE IN CIVIC AFFAIRS AND CHARITY.
HE WAS DIRECTOR OF THE GALVESTON COTTON EXCHANGE BOARD, BOARD FOR TRADE, AS WELL AS THE STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BUILDING COMMITTEE.
HE WAS A MEMBER OF SEVERAL CIVIC GROUPS, INCLUDING DEEP WATER COMMITTEE, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS, ROTARY CLUB, AND THE CONCATENATED ORDER OF HOO-HOOS.
THAT'S A REAL THING. [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
I SUGGEST YOU LOOK IT UP, IT'S VERY INTERESTING.
[LAUGHTER] COMPLETE NARRATIVE OF MR. SGITCOVICH'S LIFE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THAT REPORT.
THE STEVEN F. AND WINIFRED SGITCOVICH HOUSE HAS RETAINED MUCH OF IT'S ORIGINAL FOLK VICTORIAN STYLE.
WHILE IT HAS UNDERGONE CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH ITS HISTORY, IT REMAINS AN ESTABLISHED AND CONTRIBUTING PART OF THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND PRESERVING THE HOUSE AS A LANDMARK WILL SECURE ITS PLACE IN THE CITY'S HISTORY.
PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE JULY 20, 2021, MEETING.
THE COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST, AND WE'LL HEAR THAT AT AUGUST 26, 2021, MEETING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE [INAUDIBLE].
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE PROPERTY IS TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? [NOISE] NONE.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-042.
ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
>> WE'RE RIGHT HERE. [BACKGROUND]
>> NICE. YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND SIGN IN, AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR WONDERFUL HOUSE.
>> IN THE INTERIM COMMENT, THE CONCATENATED ORDER OF THE HOO-HOO WAS AN INTERNAL ORDER OF LUMBERMEN AND THOSE IN THE RELATED [NOISE] TRADE.
[00:55:01]
>> THEY HAVE A VERY FUN HISTORY THAT DANIEL AND I HAD A LOT OF FUN LOOKING INTO.
>> HOO-HOO, WHO KNEW? [LAUGHTER]
>> MY NAME'S RICHARD RENNISON AND MY WIFE TRACY'S HERE.
PRETTY MUCH DESCRIBED EVERYTHING SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.
>> ANYBODY HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION FOR HIM?
>> DID YOU RECENTLY PURCHASE THIS HOUSE?
>> DID YOU RECENTLY PURCHASE THIS HOUSE?
>> YES, IN JANUARY. YES, MA'AM. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. IT SEEMS LIKE I REMEMBER THIS HOUSE CAME BEFORE TO US AND THEY WERE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO BUILD A TWO-STORY GARAGE WITH TWO APARTMENTS ABOVE IT OR BEHIND IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN IN 2012, THERE WAS AN ADDITION PUT ON THE REAR AS WELL FOR STORAGE AND A BATHROOM.
THEN MY WIFE REMINDED ME THAT WHEN MR. SGITCOVICH DIED, SOME OF HIS HONORARY PALL MEMBERS WERE NAMES OF KEMPNER AND MOODY, AND SOME PRETTY PROMINENT PEOPLE.
SO HE WAS A BIG DEAL, PRETTY WELL KNOWN.
>> I THINK IT WAS IN THE WRITE UP THAT I SUBMITTED, I BELIEVE.
>> RICHARD RENNISON. I'M DAVID COLLINS. I'M YOUR CITY COUNCILMAN.
>> WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] WE ARE LOVING IT HERE.
THE KIDS HAVE THEIR SCHOOL AROUND.
WE'VE BEEN STAYING A FEW SEMESTERS AND WE ARE JUST LOVING THE HOUSE.
>> IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. [OVERLAPPING] [BACKGROUND]
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS IN THE WRITE-UP BECAUSE, WELL, HE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY GOT THE PORT OF GALVESTON STARTED AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU PUT IN THERE.
>> WHEN HIS DAUGHTER DIED IN, I BELIEVE, 1976, I COULD BE OFF BY A YEAR.
HER OBITUARY TALKED ABOUT HER FATHER WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN MAKING THE PORT OF GALVESTON MODERN, AND IT WAS A BIG REASON WHY IT BECAME SUCH A NICE PORT.
>> VERY NICE. DEAL'S [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT'S EXCITING TO SEE IT GO TO A NEW OWNER AND GET SOME TLC.
>> YES, IT'S GETTING SOME WORK.
>> WE WERE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THAT TOO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY ALWAYS GET WORK. [LAUGHTER]
>> FIRST WORK, GET IT LANDMARKED.
>> KEEP YOUR PAINT BRUSH HANDY.
>> ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? ALL RIGHT.
NOW WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-042 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS CASE 21LC-042.
>> I WILL SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? NO. I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> WE HAVE SIX VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTENTION, THE MOTION PASSES.
>> OH, 21LC-043 IS A 1217 CHURCH.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INCLUDING REAR ADDITION.
THERE WERE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONE OF THOSE RETURNED [OVERLAPPING]AND ONE CAME IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE EXISTING REAR PORCH AND ENCLOSE FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA INCLUDING REFRAMING THE REAR ROOF INTO A SINGLE CONTINUOUS ROOF STRUCTURE AND ADDITION OF A REAR STOOP AND STAIRS.
EXISTING WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS WILL BE RECONFIGURED AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT AND ALL THE PROPOSED WORK IS IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.
EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS WILL BE RELOCATED AND REUSED.
THE NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: WOOD AND SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING, WOOD TRIM PATIENTS SOFT ENFORCED TO MATCH EXISTING, EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS WILL BE RELOCATED, AND REUSED IN COMPOSITION, SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH THE EXISTING.
THE EXISTING HOUSE IS WOOD-FRAMED WITH WOOD LAP SIDING COMPOSITION ROOF.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLICABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO DESIGN STANDARDS.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE MODIFICATION'S NOT EASILY VISIBLE FROM ANY RIGHT OF WAY IN LOCATION INDEED [NOISE] NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE, MORE FLEXIBILITY [NOISE] AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATIONS.
THE NARRATIVE ALSO INDICATES THAT THE SITE ROOM, FASCIA FRIEZE BOARDS, AND SKIRTING PROPOSED WILL CONFORM TO THE DESIGNS STANDARDS, IN REGARDS TO THE MATERIAL AND APPEARANCE.
THE EXISTING REAR PORCH HERE'S THE [INAUDIBLE] BETWEEN 1899,
[01:00:03]
1912 ACCORDING TO SAME BOARD MAPS BUT WAS PARTIALLY CLOSED AS IT IS NOW THAT I KNOW DATE THAT BECAUSE PROPOSER TO RELOCATE RE-USABILITY WINDOWS AT REAR OF THE HOUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION WHILE [NOISE] THEY HAVE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT PROVIDED SPECIFIC DESIGN FOR THE REAR STOOL PAN RAILS TYPICAL STIFF-HOLD WEAR DESIGN IS DIVISIBLE.FINALLY, PROPOSED ROUTE MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE CHURCH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE MODIFICATIONS WILL PROTECT THE HOUSE BY COVERING THE JUNCTION BETWEEN THE PORCH AND THE MAIN HOUSE UNDER ONE ROOF STRUCTURE.
THAT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL REQUEST FOR BOTH CONDITIONS.
CONDITION ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHOW ATTACHMENT AND A SUCCESS REPORT FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS AND REAL INTERVIEW WITH TEMPLES WERE DESIGNED TYPICALLY USED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC DISTRICT MUST ENTER CONDITIONS TO PREDICT.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THIS DENSITY MAP, TAKE ONE PLEASE.
[NOISE] WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN HERE SHOWING THROUGH THE EXISTING PORCHES AND THE NEW ADDITION TO EXTEND THAT PORCH WHEN THEY DO THE ENCLOSING.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE THE EXISTING PROPOSED FOUR PLANS AND ONCE AGAIN SHOW WHERE THE EXISTING PORCHES AND THE EXPANSION TO THE SIDE AND AN ENCLOSED AGAIN.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE ELEVATION ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE, RIGHT ELEVATION YOU CAN SEE HOW THE REMODELED PORCH, A ROOF WILL ACTUALLY CLOSE THE PORCH UNDER ONE STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO HAVING COVERED OVERHANG WHERE THE EXISTING PORCH MATCHES.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE A REAR-VIEW AS WELL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES THAT REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS TO PRESENT FROM THE SUBMISSION?
>> I DO. IN THE PICTURE SUBMITTED, IT SHOWS THREE WINDOWS BUT IN THE DRAWING, IT SHOWS FOUR WINDOWS.
WHICH ARE WE APPROVING? IS THERE A FOURTH WINDOW THERE THAT WE DON'T SEE THAT'S BEING ADDED IN THAT WE CAN'T SEE BECAUSE OF OBSTRUCTED FROM THE PHOTO? AT THE BACK OF THIS PHOTO, THERE ARE THREE WINDOWS BUT IN THE DRAWING THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THERE WERE FOUR WINDOWS PUT THERE.
THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION, JUST CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
REUSING THESE THREE WINDOWS OR AND IF THERE IS, THEN THE DRAWING SHOULD LOOK LIKE THREE WINDOWS, NOT FOUR.
THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS IT SAYS RELOCATE THE DOOR, ARE WE TO ASSUME THAT ALSO MEANS THE TRANSOM WILL BE RELOCATED WITH THE DOOR?
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT PERHAPS HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE ON THESE.
>> ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THESE IS THE DRAWING.
>> OKAY. WHERE ARE WE GETTING THE FOURTH WINDOW FROM?
>> WHERE IS THE WINDOW PHYSICALLY COMING FROM?
>> YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT.
>> OKAY. [LAUGHTER] I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD RELOCATE THE TRANSEPT BECAUSE THE ROOF IS TOO SHORT?
>> ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM ALL THE DEBATE.
IT'S 21 LC AT ZERO, FOUR, THREE, AND ASK THE APPLICANTS, IS THE FOCUS.
>> I DO. OTHER THAN WHO RETURNED THE [BACKGROUND] I'M LISA HALL AND I'M NOT SURE WHO RETURNED THE "YES" OUT OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES, BUT I DO HAVE ONE MORE TO SUBMIT.
>> THIS IS OUR, THAT'S GREAT, OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS.
THERE'S ONLY ONE DR. SALLY ROBINSON AND CATHY, CHAIRMAN.
THEY'RE IMMEDIATE TO THE WEST OF US.
THE EAST PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY THREE PROPERTIES THAT FACE 13TH STREET.
SO WE HAVE THE BACK OF ALL THREE OF THOSE, RIGHT?
>> CATHY IS EASY TO VIEW WHAT SHE'S COUNTING.
ANYWAY, CATHY AND SALLY WILL BE THE ONES THAT WOULD BE FULLY EFFECTIVE BY FELLOW DECONSTRUCTION OF THE VIEW? THEY SAID HAVE FUN.
>> I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
>> PRESUMABLY [OVERLAPPING] WHAT'S THE WINDOW?
>> THERE IS NOT A FOURTH WINDOW YET, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO FIND ONE, IF I CAN'T FIND IT WE'LL JUST MODIFY IT.
>> OKAY. [OVERLAPPING] THE DRAWING IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
>> THE TRANSOM, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TRANSFER THAT BECAUSE OF THE [NOISE], RIGHT?
[01:05:02]
THE OTHER MODIFICATION TO THAT IS IF YOU NOTICE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE SIDE, THERE'S A SLIGHT BEND.WE TAKE THAT MAY NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN IF WE TAKE THE EXISTING [NOISE] FOOTPRINT OF THE DRAWINGS BACK INTO THE [INAUDIBLE] OF SOME SORT.
>> IT'S OKAY. YOU CAN DO THAT.
>>BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD.
>> THAN [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
ANYBODY IN PUBLIC SPEAK ON THE CASE?
>> SEEMS THAT I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
LISA, THOSE ORIGINAL CASEMENTS ARE THEY FIXED?
>> THIS IS NOT RIGHT. ARE THOSE FIXED WINDOWS?
>> OKAY. THEY'RE NICELY [INAUDIBLE] I'M NOT SURE IF DAVID [INAUDIBLE] HAD THOSE REPLACED [INAUDIBLE]
>> OH YEAH. THAT WILL BE GREAT.
I'M BRINGING REPORTED CASE 31LC OVER 43 CLASSIFICATION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21LC-043 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> [NOISE] DURING SECOND DO THE DISCUSSION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE ON MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? YOU WILL SAY, COMMISSIONER OR A VICE-CHAIRPERSON PATERSON.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZLE THOMPSON?
>> WE HAVE STAKES VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
[NOISE] ARE YOU THERE? [NOISE] PETE [OVERLAPPING] DO THE STAFF REPORT.
PETE, IF YOU'RE ON YOUR PHONE, YOU MIGHT PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE.
>> OKAY. I THINK THAT WORKED. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU, CATHERINE. OKAY. CASE 21LC-045, THE REQUEST AND THE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A LICENSE TO USE FOR A STORAGE CONTAINER AND THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS 1813 24TH STREET.
WE MAILED OUT 25 PUBLIC NOTICES AND WE RECEIVED ZERO.
WE HAD NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS AND THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY READS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO USE A STORAGE CONTAINER FOR AN ONGOING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THE SUBJECT STORAGE CONTAINER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY'S TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE A PERMIT PROCESS THAT HAS EXPIRED.
FOR OTHER REVIEWS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY ON THE LICENSE TO USE REQUEST AND WE WILL REVIEW THIS REQUEST TOMORROW JULY THE 20TH.
STAFF RECOMMENDS 21LC-045 BE APPROVED TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NOTE OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER 2, WHICH READS THE LICENSE TO USE SHALL EXPIRE ON JULY 31ST, 2022.
SHOULD THE LICENSE REQUIRE MORE TIME, AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE TO USE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
APPLICATIONS FOR THE NEW LICENSE TO USE [NOISE] MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO JUNE 21ST, 2022 IN ORDER TO AVOID INTERRUPTION AND THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF PHOTOS RELATED TO THIS REQUEST.
[01:10:05]
YOU SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, AND IN THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE STORAGE CONTAINER AND ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION.IN THESE PHOTOS, YOU CAN SEE A VIEW FACING SOUTH TOWARDS THE GULF OF MEXICO.
YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE STORAGE CONTAINER, AND THERE IS ALSO A VIEW FACING NORTH WHERE THE STORAGE CONTAINER IS IN RELATION TO THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
IN THE THIRD PHOTO TO THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE PART OF THE BACKGROUND, THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION THAT IS TAKING PLACE ON-SITE.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF INFORMATION? [NOISE] SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-045 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A GARAGE RENOVATION PROJECT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY LANDMARK COMMISSION AND PLANNING.
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE GARAGE HAD TO BE EMPTIED SO WE GOT A TEMPORARY PERMIT TO PUT THE POD IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, CONSTRUCTION HAS INCURRED NUMEROUS DELAYS.
>> GETTING PRODUCTS, SO WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FINISH THE PROJECT IN THE TIMELINE THAT WE ANTICIPATED, AND IF WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT POD OUT THERE BY JUNE OF 2022, I WILL SHOOT MYSELF IN THE HEAD FIRST.
[LAUGHTER] THE POD WON'T BE THERE ONE DAY LONGER THAN IT TAKES US TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SO AS SOON AS WE CAN GET IT DONE, DOORS ARE OUR BIGGEST DELAY.
IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BEAST RIGHT NOW WITH SHIPPING AND I DON'T LIKE HAVING TO COME AND ASK FOR AN EXTENSION, BUT HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS JUST AN EXTENSION OF OUR TEMPORARY AND THIS WAS THE ONLY AVENUE FOR US TO TAKE TO MAKE SURE THE CITY DOESN'T GIVE US A TICKET FOR THE POD, IT'S [INAUDIBLE].
>> FINALLY [INAUDIBLE] IN THE QUEUE.
>> THESE WERE PERMANENT LICENSES TO USE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] IT'S VERY SERIOUS.
I DON'T NEED A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE, I JUST NEED ANOTHER COUPLE OF MONTHS.
HOPEFULLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT IT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL.
>> YOU DON'T LIKE IT? [LAUGHTER]
>> [OVERLAPPING] I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT.
>> EVERY TIME WE NEED OUR LAWNMOWER OR SOMETHING TO DO YEAR WARD, WE HAVE TO GO INTO THE POD AND THEN WE HAVE TO TAKE THINGS OUT OF THE POD.
[LAUGHTER] BUT THAT'S NOT AS BAD AS LOOKING AT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT JUST SITS THERE AND WAITS FOR A DELIVERY TRUCK.
WE'RE JUST TRYING NOT TO LOSE OUR MIND.
>> TOUGH TIMES. [NOISE] ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A STAKE THIS CASE IN THE PUBLIC? [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT.
NOW I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC0-45 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. WE APPROVE 21LC-045.
>> LANG SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. THEN LET'S GO, CALL FOR A VOTE.
ABSTAINS. VICE-CHAIR PATTERSON.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
>> WE HAVE SIX VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION.
>> WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO [NOISE] ADJOURN.
>> I'LL SECOND. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> I TOLD THEM IF THEY DIDN'T APPROVE THIS PERMIT, I WAS GOING TO GO HOME AND BURN THE GARAGE.
>> GOODBYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.