[00:00:01]
[Landmark Commission on August 2, 2021.]
WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR AUGUST 2ND, 2021.WE'LL START UP WITH ATTENDANCE.
>> ANYBODY WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? NO. DID SOMEBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
ANY RUSSIANS CHANGES, COMMENTS.
THEY WILL BE PRESENTED. STANDARDS PRESENTED. MEANING FORMAT.
>> A LITTLE BIT OF A MEETING CHANGE TODAY WE'RE BACK IN CHAMBERS FIRST TIME IN A YEAR AND A HALF.
WE ARE CONTINUING TO DO HYBRID MEETINGS.
SO WE MAY HAVE PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE HERE ON VIA THE ZOOM, ALL OF THE STAFF MEMBERS ARE IN PERSON TODAY.
WE DISCUSSED WITH FRED, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ROLL CALL VOTES TODAY.
FRED WILL ASK FOR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
IF YOU'LL TAKE JUST A COUPLE OF BEATS, KEEP YOUR HAND UP, MAKE SURE THAT WE RECORD THAT VOTE.
AND THEN THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT SUSPENSION THAT ALLOWS US TO DO HYBRID MEETINGS IS GETTING READY TO EXPIRE.
SO WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE MEETING IN AUGUST THAT WILL BE THIS HYBRID VERSION AND THEN WE'LL BE GOING BACK TO ALL IN PERSON.
WE DON'T HAVE A FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER BECAUSE OF THE LABOR DAY HOLIDAY.
SO OUR SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER WILL BE JUST THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE.
>> DOES ANYONE REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM OR AN ITEM WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING? NONE. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WE'LL GO WE'LL START OFF WITH THE NEWS BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARING ON A FIRST CASE IS 21 LC - 044.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD SOLAR PANELS PANELS TO THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE.
THERE WERE FOUR NOTICES SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INSTALL 33 SOLAR PANELS ON THE EAST, WEST, AND SOUTH PORTIONS OF THE ROOF.
ATTACHMENT B WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT WITH MORE DETAILS.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE STRUCTURE IS TWO STORIES WITH A HIP ROOF.
THE PANELS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY VISIBLE FROM 21ST STREET ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE ROOF OR WEST SIDE OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE.
DUE TO THE HIGH LEVEL OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBJECT STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS A HIGH VISIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PANELS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE CLOSEST TO 25TH STREET BE OMITTED OR RELOCATED TO A LESS VISIBLE PORTION OF THE ROOF.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION 1, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT INDICATED AND EXHIBIT B WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
A, THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE FRONT ROOF SECTION CLOSEST TO 21ST STREET SHALL BE RELOCATED TO A LESS VISIBLE LOCATION AND OR OMITTED IF RELOCATION IS NOT FEASIBLE, AND B, THE SOLAR PANEL'S FINISH SHALL BE MATTE BLACK.
ITEMS 2, 3, 6 ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS AN AERIAL WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST.
HERE'S THE EXHIBIT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SOLAR PANELS SO, SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE SOLAR PANELS AT THIS LOCATION BE EITHER OMITTED OR RELOCATED.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC- 044 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
[00:05:03]
>> NO. THE APPLICANT'S NOT IN THE AUDIENCE, THE OWNER IS HERE.
IF HE'D LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, HE'D COME UP.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> MAKES SENSE [LAUGHTER] THE COMMISSION HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT OWNER.
>> I DO. DO YOU KNOW ARE THESE PANELS ARE THEY PLACED IN GROUPS OF 2, 3, 4? FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR DIAGRAM, WE SEE A BUNCH OF LITTLE RECTANGULARS.
SO ARE THEY ALL INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER? YES.
>> I SEE THE PIPE. THE PIPE'S ON THE DRAWING THERE.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN OF THIS ONE THAT IS ON THE VERY FRONT OF THE SIDE THAT THAT WOULD BE VIEWABLE FROM THE STREET? CORRECT. WHERE YOU'RE SEEING THE DETAIL AND IT POINTS TO IT.
THAT ONE. NOT WHAT NEXT TO IT BECAUSE YOU GET FURTHER ENOUGH BACK.
BUT UPON LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, TO ME, LOOKS LIKE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT CLEARLY FROM THE STREET AND FROM THE ALLEY, RIGHT? RIGHT.
>> WHEN YOU HAVE A TREE THERE, THERE'S A TREE THERE TOO, ISN'T THERE?
>> BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SORRY. THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO'S SIGNED IN TO THE ZOOM MEETING, IF THAT PERSON WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS CASE, WE ASK YOU TO USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SEEING NONE.
>> THEN I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-044 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21LC-044 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH IS TO RELOCATE THE PANELS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO A LESS VISIBLE AREA OF THE HOUSE AS STATED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF SHUTTERS.
THERE ARE NINE NOTICES SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD METAL SHUTTERS TO THE HOUSE FOR STORM PROTECTION.
THE SHUTTERS ARE TO BE A MIX OF THE BAHAMAS AND COLONIAL STYLE AS INDICATED IN ATTACHMENT A.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING METAL SHUTTERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SPOKEN TO VENDORS AND SHUTTER INSTALLERS AND DETERMINED THAT METAL SHUTTERS ARE PREFERABLE.
THEY ALSO MENTIONED THE COST OF LUMBER IS BEING PROHIBITIVE.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT CONFORMANCE.
THERE'S PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FROM 2015 WHICH WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT B, THAT THIS HOUSE ORIGINALLY HAD WOOD SHUTTERS IN SOME OF THE WINDOW OPENINGS.
STAFF IS ABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE WOOD SHUTTERS DUE TO THE EVIDENCE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL OF METAL SHUTTERS RATHER THAN WOOD,
[00:10:03]
THEREFORE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS IDENTIFIES METAL SHUTTERS AS INAPPROPRIATE WHEN VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE USE OF WOOD LOUVERED SHUTTERS ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS AND METAL SHUTTERS ON THE REAR WHERE THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
CONDITION 1, THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
THE METAL SHUTTERS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE REAR NORTH FACADE ONLY, AND ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX ARE STANDARD, AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
[NOISE] THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE ARE THE SHUTTER EXAMPLES SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-046.
[NOISE] ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
>> I'LL JUST ASK IF THE CALLER ON THE ZOOM CALL IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS CASE, IF YOU COULD USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SEEING NONE.
>> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ONLINE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-046 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION.
[LAUGHTER] WE APPROVE CASE 21LC-046 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND JUST CLARIFYING THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE USE OF WOOD, LOUVERED SHUTTERS ON THE FRONT-END SIDES, AND METAL SHUTTERS ON THE REAR FACADE WHERE THEY'LL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
>> GIVE IT TO JANE. ALL RIGHT. [NOISE] ANY DISCUSSION?
>> ONE COMMENT, ONLY THAT THE PICTURE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US SHOWS A FIXED SHUTTER, NOT AN OPERABLE SHUTTER BUT THAT'S[OVERLAPPING].
>> I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE PICTURE OF WOOD.
>> ANY COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT CASE, 21LC-047.
>> THIS IS 2111 STRAND, IT'S A REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM.
IN NOVEMBER 2020, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR TAX ELIGIBILITY FOR WORK DONE AT 2111 STRAND.
SINCE THE APPLICANT EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR PARTICIPATION, THEY ARE NOW REQUESTING VERIFICATION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM HAVE BEEN MET.
THE THRESHOLD TO PARTICIPATE WAS $127,000.
THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF A 188,000.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON THIS SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM.
THE TAX EXEMPTION WILL FREEZE THE CITY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS AT THE PRE IMPROVEMENT VALUE OF $275,000.
CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THIS REQUEST AT AUGUST 26TH AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
[NOISE] WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING MORE. ALL RIGHT THEN.
ANYBODY FROM THE COMMISSION HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-047 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
[00:15:07]
>> MY NAME IS PETER VAN HANSEN, I'M A PROPERTY OWNER. [NOISE]
>> ANY COMMENTS? YOUR DOCUMENTATION IS AWESOME, ALL I CAN SAY.
>> THE LENGTH AT WHICH YOU WENT TO SAVE THIS BEAUTIFUL BUILDING IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE HUMBLED TO OWN IT TRUTHFULLY.
>> WELL, NO, THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER]
>> I HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT I CAN ADD A COMMENT IS THAT JUST HOW CLOSE THAT BUILDING REALLY WAS TO COLLAPSING.
IF IT WAS ONE GOOD STORM AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO WE FACE, ONE GOOD STORM AND I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT NORTH WALL WOULD HAVE FELL.
>> THIS IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A GOLD STAR OWNER.
>> [LAUGHTER] THANKS. I HAD A GOOD TEAM. IT WASN'T JUST ME.
>> I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO WORK ON THAT.
THAT'S JUST EXCITING TO SEE ALL OF THE STUFF THAT YOU DEALT WITH AND WORKED WITH AND REPAIRED AND IT IS JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE HAD THE BEST PEOPLE WORKING ON THIS.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION.
>> DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE ON THIS CASE?
>> I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW FRED, THE ATTENDEE ON THE ZOOM HAS DROPPED OFF SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE ON ZOOM.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-047 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> SHE'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21LC-047.
>> LET ME SECONDS. ANY DISCUSSION.
NO. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR RAISE RIGHT HAND.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WILL YOU BUY SOME MORE? [LAUGHTER].
>> LET ME TALK TO THE REAL BOSS.
[00:20:12]
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? I'VE SEEN NONE.I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-048, AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE.
[BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER] COME ON UP.
STATE YOUR NAME AND AN EMPLOYEE'S.
>> WE'RE NEW OWNERS. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S A PRETTY LITTLE HOUSE.
>> WELL, I MEAN LITTLE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
NOT THAT IT'S SMALL, BUT I MEAN [OVERLAPPING] IT HAS VERY DELICATE DETAILS TO IT.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT.
>> WELCOME TO SEALY, YOU'RE OUR NEIGHBOR.
[LAUGHTER] DAVID AND I ARE BOTH FROM SEALY.
>> YEAH, WE JUST ACQUIRED THE HOUSE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
THE DOORS, ALL THREE OF THEM, HAVE SOME OF IT SHATTERED FROM PEOPLE MOWING THE GRASS.
NATURALLY, WE WANT TO REPLACE THE DOORS.
WE FIGURED THE BEST THING TO DO IS JUST TAKE THE DOOR OUT OF ITS CASING AND PUT A [INAUDIBLE] DOOR REPLACEMENT THAT THE GLASS WON'T SHATTER.
>> IT'S PROBABLY MORE SECURE TOO, ISN'T IT?
>> THE HIGH IMPACT, WE'RE DOING HIGH IMPACT.
THEY CAN PRETTY MUCH DO A LOT OF THINGS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
>> THAT'S ALL NEW TO US. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT OR QUESTION? NO? WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. NOW, YOU HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT IT'S APPROVED WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH THOSE CONDITIONS?
>> THEY'RE ALL STANDARD CONDITIONS.
YOU'LL GET WHAT WE CALL AN ACTION LETTER IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS, AND IT WILL DOCUMENT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS FOR YOU.
>> BUT WE CAN GET YOU A COPY OF IT NOW TOO.
>> ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I SEE NONE.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 LC-048 AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21 LC-048 [INAUDIBLE].
>> [LAUGHTER] I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION? I'M SEEING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
WE'RE GETTING UNANIMOUS, I THINK. GOOD.
>> WE'RE ALL IN SYNC WITH EACH OTHER TODAY. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK SO. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE WORKING IT.
[LAUGHTER] NEXT CASE IS 21 LC-049.
[00:27:35]
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC- 049 AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT, THERE HE IS. HEY BRICE.>> BRICE EASTER WOOD 26 27 AVENUE K ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT.
THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND NICELY DONE, PATRICK.
WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS A SMALL HOUSE ON A REALLY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE IN THE BACK WHERE THERE'S CURRENTLY A DECK.
A SCREEN PORCH WE'RE LOOKING AT IN CLOSING THAT FOOTPRINT AND EXTENDING A LOW SLOPE SHED ROOF OVER THAT PORTION.
REALLY THE ONLY SOME SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, IT'S NOT REALLY POSSIBLE TO GET A ROOF THAT WOULD LOOK MORE TRADITIONAL THAT WILL DRAIN.
THAT'S THE STRATEGY HERE IS JUST TO GET THE WATER OFF AND PROVIDE THEM WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE INSIDE AND SOME REAL SMALL HOUSE.
WE'RE JUST ADDING THIS SUNROOM, SWING SPACE FOR GUESTS AND AN EXTRA SPACE JUST FOR LIVING.
ONE THING TO MENTION, THAT PATRICK MENTIONED WAS THAT THE SIDING WOULD BE DIMENSIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S THEIRS BECAUSE IT'S ASBESTOS SIDING THERE NOW.
BUT THE OWNER IS ACTUALLY PLANNING TO REMOVE THAT ASBESTOS SIDING GO BACK TO WOOD SIDING, AT LEAST INITIALLY ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND POTENTIALLY ON THE ALLEY SIDE AT SOME POINT TOO.
THEY WOULD BE MORE IN KEEPING BUT I STILL THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE ROOF FORM, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT IT'S AN ADDITION.
>> PERHAPS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THIS RIGHT, THAT KICK OUT WITH THAT ADDITION IS ONLY THREE FOOT FOUR INCHES?
>> THEN THAT STILL LEAVES YOU BETTER THAN A FOOT FOR THE EASEMENT?
>> IT LEAVES A LITTLE BIT IT LEAVES ABOUT TWO FEET.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT CONNIE, BECAUSE THAT IS STILL WITHIN THE THREE FEET WHERE
[00:30:01]
WE JUST GOT A SURVEY LAST WEEK THAT SHOWED US THAT DIMENSION.BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE FEET, IT REQUIRED TO HAVE A ONE HOUR WALL AND YOU CAN HAVE OPENINGS IN THAT WALL.
BUT BELOW THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A ONE-HOUR WALL AND YOU CAN NOT HAVE ANY OPENINGS.
THE OPENINGS THAT SHOW ON OUR EAST ELEVATION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
>> BUT STILL IT'S A LOT FURTHER APART THAN WHEN I SEE A LOT OF OUR SISTER BUILT IN 1900, REACH OUT AND TOUCH THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR [LAUGHTER].
>> I THINK THAT THE OWNER, HE CAN SPEAK TO HIS NEIGHBOR AND HIS NEIGHBORS IS IN SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY ONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ON PAGE 21, YOU'LL SEE - 049, AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
>> YEAH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21 LC -049.
>> SARAH, SECOND IN I NEED DISCUSSION? I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
I WILL READ ANONYMOUSLY AGAIN, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT PATRICK DID HIS FIRST PRESENTATIONS OF STAFF REPORTS TODAY.
[LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] HE WAS FILLING IN FOR DANIEL, SO HE WAS JUST INFORMED THIS MORNING THAT HE HAD TO DO IT AND I THOUGHT HE WAS VERY WELL PREPARED AND DID A VERY GOOD JOB.
>> YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IT WAS YOUR FIRST TIME.
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM.
>> I THINK COUNCILMAN BURR COLLINS WANTED TO TALK ABOUT POSSIBLY MOVING THE MEETING TIME.
>>THE CONCERN IS THAT IF MEETINGS RUN AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK, SECURITY HAS TO REMAIN IN THE BUILDING UNTIL ALL CITIZENS ARE OUT OF THE BUILDING THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE US.
[LAUGHTER] WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS.
THE POLICE OFFICER DOWNSTAIRS IS GENERALLY OFF AT FIVE.
BUT IF MEETINGS RUN LONG, THEY HAVE TO STAY AND PROVIDE SECURITY.
I THINK STAFF WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER WE COULD MOVE THE MEETING'S TIME FROM 4:00 TO 3:30 FOR LANDMARK NZBA, PLANNING ALREADY STARTS WITH 3:30.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY HAVE MOVED SOME YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF THE GENERALLY LENGTHIER MEETINGS DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT OFTEN WITH THIS COMMISSION, BUT SOMETIMES IT DOES THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.
I KNOW THE COUNTERARGUMENT IS THAT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO GET HERE EVEN AT FOUR MOVING INTO 3:30.
MAKES A SOMEWHAT MORE DIFFICULT I JUST WANT TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT AND SEE HOW THE COMMISSION FELT ABOUT THAT.
>> WELL. I MEAN, I GO, YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMMON CONCERN IS FOR THOSE OF US THAT WORK AND WORK OFF THE ISLAND FOUR O'CLOCK IS ALREADY A CHALLENGE SOMETIMES.
EVERY MINUTE COUNTS FOR ME AT LEAST, AND IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE HYBRID FOUR MEETING WHERE YOU COULD ZOOM IN IF NEEDED.
IT WOULD NOT BE MY PREFERENCE TO MOVE THEM EARLIER BUT THAT'S ME.
>> JUST TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO ATTEND A MEETING VIRTUALLY IS JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED.
NOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO JUST USE THE ZOOM.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AHEAD OF TIME IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE, YOU YOU PARTICIPATE IN THAT METHOD.
AFTER SEPTEMBER, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE ELECTRONICALLY VIRTUALLY.
WE JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT BEFOREHAND BEFORE WE POST THE AGENDA.
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS, BUT STILL POSSIBLE BUT NOT AS EASY AS IT IS TODAY.
>> IT'S A 48 HOUR REQUIREMENT?
>> BY THURSDAY I'VE GOT TO KNOW.
>> YES, AND WE ACTUALLY PREFER TO DO OUR AGENDAS BEFORE THAT.
OUR GOAL IS ALWAYS WEDNESDAY BEFORE THE MEETING.
>> YOU STILL MISS THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP PRESENT, SO NOT EVERYBODY CAN CERTAINLY SAY I'M GOING TO VACATION OR WHATEVER AND ATTEND VIRTUALLY.
IF THERE'S FIVE MEMBERS, AT LEAST THREE NEEDS TO BE PHYSICALLY IN PLACE AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE CHAIRPERSON IS RUNNING THE MEMBERSHIP.
HE IS NOT GOING TO BE PHYSICALLY HERE, HE NEEDS TO BE IN A PUBLIC LOCATION SO HE MAY BE ELSEWHERE BUT HE WOULD NEEDS TO BE IN A PUBLIC LOCATION IF HE IS RUNNING THE MEETING.
[00:35:01]
THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF THEM.>> DONNA FOR CLARIFICATION, WHEN YOU SAY THE CHAIR NEEDS TO BE IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
>> YES. SO HER RESIDENCE WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION?
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH, AND IF THIS PERSON IS NOT IN THE MEETING.
I'M GOING TO LOOK MORE INTO IT BECAUSE WE ARE COMING OUT OF THIS.
>> FRED WOULD LIKE ME TO GO TO STARBUCKS AND HAVE THE MEETING THERE?
>> IF HE SO CHOOSE. [LAUGHTER]. TECHNICALLY, HE'S IN A PUBLIC SETTING.
THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IS TO BE IN A PUBLIC SETTING.
I'M LOOKING AT MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP WOULD NEED TO BE PHYSICALLY IN PLACE.
>> I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION EITHER WAY BECAUSE I'M A RETIRED PERSON THAT LIVES SIX BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET.
BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT VOLUNTEERS OF A YOUNGER AGE, NOT THAT I'M NOT YOUNG, BUT OF A YOUNGER AGE THAT ARE WORKING.
>> I KNOW. THANK YOU. I PAY HER WELL.
[LAUGHTER] BUT THAT'S A CONCERN BECAUSE WE REALLY DO WANT TO CONTINUE TO ATTRACT YOUNGER PEOPLE TO COME INTO THIS.
I HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE AFTER THIS AND I THINK WE'LL HOPEFULLY STREAMLINE OUR MEETINGS SO WE KNOW WE'RE OUT OF HERE PRETTY QUICKLY.
IF WE DO SO, THAT MAY BE AN AVENUE THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER TOO.
>> DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY? DO WE HAVE TO AGREE ON IT TODAY? NOW?
>> IT'S ON FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
YOU CAN DISCUSS OR YOU CAN TAKE ACTION. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ALREADY MENTIONED THAT SHE HAS SOME THOUGHTS ON IT.
>> YOU SAID YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
>> YEAH. I DO BECAUSE I THINK IT COULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.
I KNOW THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN REMOTELY.
I THINK IT IS A CHALLENGE FOR EX-OFFICIOS TO FIND PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY, IF THEY'RE WORKING PROFESSIONALS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, SO FORTH, AND SO ON.
BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE TO BE ACTIVE IN THOSE FIELDS.
BUT WHEN I LOOK OVER, WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT MAYBE DONNA WILL SAY IT'S OKAY BECAUSE IT'S IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS.
THAT IS THAT WHEN WE HAVE CERTAIN ITEMS LIKE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THAT REQUEST MEETS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THAT'S BEEN VERIFIED BY STAFF THAT THE PERSON'S REQUEST DOES FALL WITHIN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THEN THERE REALLY IS NO CONFLICT THERE.
WE TAKE THOSE CASES AND PERHAPS EVEN THE MINUTES AND PUT THEM ON A CONSENT AGENDA.
WE CAN ALWAYS TELL THE OWNERS, "HEY, THIS IS GOING TO BE IN A CONSENT AGENDA.
IF YOU WANT TO REPRESENT SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE REALLY WELCOME TO HOLD THAT OUT." BUT IF THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION, WE'LL PUT THESE THINGS INTO A CONSENT AGENDA THE MINUTE, THESE CASES THAT ARE APPROVED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PUT THEM IN A CONSENT AGENDA.
MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, I HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT, SO I WOULD LIKE THAT CASE WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A TOPIC THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE DISCUSSED ON AS AN AGENDA ITEM.
NOT EVERY AGENDA WILL HAVE CONSENT ITEMS ON IT.
SO I THINK IF WE STICK TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT THE TIME TO MOVE AND MAYBE THROW OUT SOME IDEAS ON THAT OR THOUGHTS ON THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE TOPIC THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT.
>> BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE CANNOT PUT ON THERE, AND OF COURSE, AT THE NEXT MEETING, I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE HISTORY SO THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REFLECT BACK ON, HOW THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED HAD WE BEEN ABLE TO GO TO DA DA DA DA VERSUS HOW WE DID IT.
THAT MAY BE A BIG ADVANTAGE FOR KEEPING OUR MEETINGS UNDER FIVE O'CLOCK.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY ELSE?
>> WANT TO GO DOWN THE LINE TO SEE HOW EVERYBODY FEELS? [BACKGROUND].
>> ACTUALLY ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THERE, SEAN, IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE UP FOR LANDMARK APPROVAL, THEY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THEIR HOUSE AND THEY LIKE TO HAVE THAT PUBLICLY PRESENTED.
I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO
[00:40:01]
TAKE THE STAFF APPROVAL ITEMS AS CONNIE HAS MENTIONED FROM CONSENT AGENDA.THAT IS, AS DONNA SAYS, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT DOING THAT SPECIFICALLY.
I REALIZE CONNIE IS ASKING THAT QUESTION JUST TO TALK ABOUT WAYS OF SHORTENING THE MEETING.
THAT CONVERSATION CAN CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.
>> ALLERGIES. SHORTENING THE MEANING, THOUGH, I THINK IS A DIFFERENT AGENDA TOPIC.
IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHETHER OR NOT TO COME IN AT 3:30 OR FOUR O'CLOCK.
IF YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE, MAYBE YOU CAN STATE THAT IF YOU WANT, AND THEN WE'LL JUST GO DOWN TO COMMISSIONER WOOD AND GET HIS THOUGHTS ON IT AND THEN EVERYONE, I THINK, WOULD HAVE WEIGHED IN ON THE MATTER OR WHOEVER HASN'T WEIGHED IN CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN.
>> I'M OFF ON MONDAYS [INAUDIBLE].
>> JUST A HALF AN HOUR EARLIER.
>> WELL, I'LL THROW IT OUT THERE. I WOULD PREFER THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE CAN HEAR CONNIE'S PIECE AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S REALLY GOING TO MAKE AN ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN THE TIMING OF THE MEETINGS. THAT WOULD BE MY PIECE IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> THERE IS NO URGENCY TO GET THIS DONE.
>> BECAUSE BY THE NEXT MEETING I CAN GO THROUGH AND GO BACK INTO THE HISTORIES OF OUR LAST MEETINGS AND ACTUALLY COME BACK WITH SOME DATA THAT SAYS, THIS IS HOW MANY CASES WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON A CONSENT AND THE TIMEFRAME WE WOULD HAVE SHOWN.
IF I CAN GO BACK, LET'S SAY SIX OR EIGHT MEETINGS AND SHOW WE COULD HAVE EASILY GOTTEN THIS DONE WITHIN AN HOUR.
I THINK ALSO I MIGHT UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCILMAN COLLINS IS SAYING.
BUT THERE ARE ALSO SOME PEOPLE THAT SAY, HEY, I CAN'T GET THERE AT FOUR O'CLOCK.
IT'S A PUSH FOR ME. IF IT'S AN ARCHITECT OR A CONTRACTOR OR A HOMEOWNER THAT WORKS.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THEM TO FEEL PENALIZED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE HERE.
THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT MAY SAY, I THINK IT'S WORTH EXPLORING, AND I KNOW THAT CATHERINE CAN EVEN SAY, HEY IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIONS, WE'D LIKE TO PUT IT ON A CONSENT AGENDA.
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. BOOM. BOOM. WE'RE DONE.
BY NEXT MEETING, I'LL HAVE SOME DATA THAT WE CAN LOOK OUT AND SEE WOULD IT REALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. BUT IT MIGHT.
>> MAY I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
IF WE PUT SOMETHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA LIKE SOMEONE'S HOME AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ASK.
BUT THE HOMEOWNER STILL WANTS TO BE HEARD.
HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, DO THEY JUST SAY?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN YOU OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION, AND THEY CAN PRESENT THEIR CASES.
>> I GUESS, MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR CATHERINE.
CATHERINE, WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH WORK ON YOU TO ASK THEM, HEY, YOUR CASE MEETS THE CRITERIA, THE DESIGN GUIDELINE, AND I'M RECOMMENDING WE PUT INTO A CONSENT AGENDA.
>> CAN I INTERRUPT HERE JUST FOR A SECOND? THIS DESERVES ITS OWN TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE THINGS THAT CANNOT GO ON A CONSENT AGENDA WOULD INCLUDE THINGS THAT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE ON THESE INDIVIDUAL CASES.
SO IT DESERVES ITS OWN TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION.
SO I'D RECOMMEND THAT WE DO THAT NEXT TIME.
>> SURE. I'VE PUT ON FOR THE NEXT TOPIC, THE NEXT MEETING TO DO A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR A CONSENT AGENDA POLICY AND TO PUT AGAIN THE MEETING TIME DISCUSSION.
>> WILL YOU PUT THE MEETING TIME BEHIND THE CONSENT AGENDA?
>> THEY INFORM EACH OTHER. [BACKGROUND]
>> YEAH. THE MEETING WILL MOVE FORWARD. [LAUGHTER]
>> WITH THAT, I COULD DON'T WORK OFF THE ISLAND.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DEFER THIS? BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION TODAY.
>> A MOTION? NO. REMEMBER THAT? [BACKGROUND].
>> WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE. [LAUGHTER].
>> GOOD IDEA. I'M GOING TO RETAIN THE MOTION TO ADJOURN IF THAT'S ALL.
RE-ADJOURN. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
[BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.