OKAY, IT'S 4:00 AND STAFF'S READY.
[Landmark Commission on May 16, 2022.]
[00:00:12]
ALL RIGHT, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S REGULAR MEETING.TODAY IS MONDAY, MAY 16TH, AND THE TIME IS 4:00.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ROLL CALL.
OKAY, CATHERINE, DOES ANYBODY HERE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE CASES TODAY? NO? MOVING FORWARD, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO OVERLOOK THE MINUTES.
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS THAT YOU SEE? SEEING NONE, MINUTES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.
OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO GO ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
CATHERINE, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY? WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT.
OKAY, THE NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CASE, SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PUT IT ON THE NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH CASE 22LC-017, WHICH IS 302 MOODY OR 21ST STREET REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS.
SEVEN NOTICES WERE SENT OF THOSE, NONE WERE RETURNED.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CONFORMANCE, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE WINDOW AND DOOR MODIFICATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SCOPE OF WORK HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AS PART OF THE OWNER'S PARTICIPATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
OKAY, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE ALREADY PUTTING SCAFFOLDING UP.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
OKAY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? OKAY, THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE.
APPLICANT SHOULD BE ON THE ZOOM CALL.
SAMSON, ARE YOU THERE? OH, SORRY, I THINK I HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE HAD APPLICANTS ON THE LINE.
SAMSON, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I'M HERE.
GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU TO THE STAFF AND ALSO TO THE COMMISSION FOR TAKING THEIR TIME TO REVIEW THIS APPLICATION. AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION BEYOND WHAT MS. GORMAN HAS ALREADY PROVIDED.
[00:05:03]
PROPERTY, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY NICE ADDITION TO GALVESTON, AND WE'RE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IT.
I WAS HOPING MAYBE YOU COULD ANSWER THEM FOR ME.
ALL OF THE WINDOWS THAT YOU ARE REPLACING ARE ALL BEING REPLACED WITH THE SAME SIZE.
THERE ARE NO OPENINGS THAT ARE BEING INCREASED IN SIZE FOR A NEW WINDOW.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, AND SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS, IT SHOWS A TWO OVER TWO OPERABLE WINDOW, I THINK THAT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, BUT IN YOUR ILLUSTRATION, YOU ONLY SHOW ONE OVER ONE IN THOSE WINDOWS THAT HAVE TO BE REPLACED, THAT ARE TWO OVER TWO.
WILL YOU BE REPLACING THAT WITH TWO OVER TWO OR ONE OVER ONE? ONE OVER ONE.
I'M SORRY, ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN.
YOU WERE GOING IN AND OUT? YEAH, LET ME SPEAK INTO THE SPEAKER.
IS YOUR INTENT WHEN YOU'RE REPLACING A TWO OVER TWO.
ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE THAT WITH A TWO OVER TWO OR A NEW WINDOW THAT'S ONE OVER ONE.
NO, THE INTENT IS TO REPLACE IT WITH TO OVER TWO.
OKAY, SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME STYLE WINDOW THAT YOU SHOW.
IT WOULD JUST BE A TWO OVER TWO CONFIGURATION.
YES, MA'AM. OKAY, AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS IN SEVERAL OF THESE ILLUSTRATIONS THAT YOU SHOW, I NOTE THAT YOU'RE REPLACING ALL OF THE STEEL WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM WINDOWS, WHICH MAKES TOTAL SENSE, BUT THE GLASS LOOKS PRETTY DARK IN THESE ILLUSTRATIONS VERSUS WHAT'S ON THE ACTUAL BUILDING.
OKAY, SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE INK AND THE ILLUSTRATION.
YES, MA'AM. OKAY, AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS ON THE BULLOCK HALL, THE LARGE BANK OF WINDOWS THAT'S ABOVE THE ARCHES. IS THAT THE SIZE OF THE GLASS CONFIGURATION THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE? BECAUSE THAT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE A SIDE OF THE BUILDING I CAN'T SEE.
IT'S THE BULLOCK HALL ILLUSTRATION, RIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SIZE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
CURRENTLY. OKAY, BUT IF NEED BE, I CAN GET ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION FROM OUR ARCHITECT ALONG WITH OUR HISTORICAL CONSULTANT ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.
OKAY, AND ARE THE ARCHED OPENINGS BENEATH THOSE WINDOWS? ARE THOSE EXISTING ARCHED OPENINGS? [INAUDIBLE].
ARE THE ARCHED OPENINGS ON BULLOCK HALL? ARE THOSE EXISTING ARCH OPENINGS? YES, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE EXISTING [INAUDIBLE] PHOTOS REAL QUICK.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.
I APPRECIATE IT. THAT CLARIFIES EVERYTHING FOR ME.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO? IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROJECT, MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS PROJECT? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WOULD ANY OF YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON CASE 22LC-017.
GO AHEAD. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22LC-017 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SARAH SECONDS IT. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
WELL, LET ME SEE WHAT THE QUESTION IS, BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE TO GO-- WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST ON THIS PROPOSED STEEL WINDOW FOR BULLOCK HALL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ON OUR BUILDING.
I THINK THAT'S JUST SHOWING WHAT HE WANTS TO DO ON THE WINDOWS, RIGHT? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ARCHED WINDOWS.
[00:10:02]
RIGHT, THAT'S AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS WHAT THE PROPOSED WINDOWS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT BUILDING.
IS THIS A NEW BUILDING? NO, IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE WINDOWS.
OH, OKAY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING IS.
I'M LOOKING AT A WHOLE PART OF THE BUILDING GOING WHY AM I NOT SEEING THIS.
OKAY, THAT WAS A LITTLE TOUGH TO SEE.
I COULD SEE FROM THE COLORED KEY THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY VERY FEW REPLACEMENT.
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR, AND COMMISSIONER KERSTING.
ARE YOU IN FAVOR? THANK YOU AND COMMISSIONER KERSTING, COULD YOU TRY TURNING YOUR CAMERA ON AGAIN? I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE PERMISSION NOW.
I'M DOING IT RIGHT NOW SO YOU CANNOT START YOUR VIDEO BECAUSE THE HOST STOPPED IT.
OKAY, SO DID YOU HAVE CONFIRMATION OF HIS VOTE? YES, HE WAS IN FAVOR.
OKAY, GREAT. SO ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSES.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO CASE...LET ME SEE WHERE I AM AGAIN, GOT MY PAPERS ALL SHUFFLED AROUND [INAUDIBLE] SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE [INAUDIBLE].
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO CASE 22LC-014 2202 MECHANIC.
ALL RIGHTY, SO 22LC-014 ALL RIGHT, YEAH, THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUEST TO RESTORE WINDOW OPENINGS AND INSTALL SOME NEW WINDOWS ON SOME OF THE FACADES.
THIS IS THE [INAUDIBLE] BUILDING OF COURSE.
FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, NONE WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE WINDOWS TO BE ALUMINUM.
I'M SORRY, ONE ON ONE CONFIGURATION THE WINDOW CASINGS WERE POSED TO BE OF BRICK AND STUCCO.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO--NO, I'M SORRY, THAT'S IT.
I GOT MY TWO CASES CONFUSED FOR A SECOND.
I APOLOGIZE. PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE WINDOWS ARE VISIBLE FROM 22ND STREET ON THE BACK.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM THE PUBLIC REALM BY AN ADJACENT ONE STOREY BUILDING.
BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCATION, BOTH WINDOW OPENINGS AND REPLACEMENT WINDOWS MAY BE APPROPRIATE HERE.
THE PHOTOS ARE NOT CLEAR TO SHOW THE DETAIL.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DESIGN IS REASONABLY SIMPLE AND UNADORNED.
THE WINDOWS THEMSELVES WERE POSED TO BE WOOD WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING AND 1 ON 1 CONFIGURATION.
THERE'S A GOOD SIZED CANOPY THAT KIND OF BLOCKS THEM FROM THE PUBLIC REALM.
I'M SORRY, AND THEN THEY'RE NOT THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASE 22LC-014 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE, THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A, THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS THE WINDOW IS PROPOSED SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY IF THE STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS PERMIT AND ALL WINDOWS IN THE SOUTH AND EAST FACADE SHOULD MATCH REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S DISCOVERED.
PLUS [INAUDIBLE] CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH FIVE, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
[00:15:20]
SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SEEN FROM THE INTERSECTION LOOKING GENERALLY, I BELIEVE NORTHWEST.WE HAVE OUR LITTLE VICINITY MAP AS WELL.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS OF THE SOUTH AND WEST FACADE THAT WERE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF HISTORIC PHOTOS, ONE FROM THE EARLY 1900S THERE AT THE BOTTOM SHOWING HOW THOSE BANKS OF WINDOWS WERE ORIGINALLY CONFIGURED, AND THEN ALSO A PHOTO FROM 1936 LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET TOWARD THE EAST FACING FACADE, SHOWING THOSE SAME KIND OF BANKS OF WINDOWS.
OKAY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK MR. CULPEPPER IF HE WANTS TO STEP UP.
YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO. THE FORMER COMMISSIONER SIGN IN STATE YOUR NAME.
THANK YOU, FIRST OFF TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS FOR SHOWING UP TODAY.
I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS JOB TAKES A LOT OF HOURS OUT OF YOUR WEEK.
APPRECIATE YOU HEARING OUR CASE.
THE 1877 [INAUDIBLE] BUILDING WAS ONCE ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, IN 1960, WHEN HURRICANE CARLA CAME, WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY DAMAGED BY HURRICANE CARLA OR WHETHER THE URBAN RENEWAL WAS SWEEPING THROUGH AND IT WAS A GOOD EXCUSE, THE TOP FLOOR AND A HALF WERE REMOVED AND THE WINDOWS WERE FILLED IN, AND IT'S REALLY OBVIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE SIZE OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS WERE BECAUSE THEY WERE FILLED IN WITH A FIRE BRICK AND NOT THE NOT THE TRADITIONAL CEDAR BAYOU TYPE HANDMAIDS.
SO WE KNOW WHAT SIZE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS WERE, AND WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS WE'D LIKE TO CUT THE OPENINGS AND PUT ORIGINAL SIZING WINDOWS, AT LEAST IN THE WE ACTUALLY SAW IT AND RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
I'M GOING TO GUESS HERE, BUT MAYBE 11 YEARS AGO TO DO THIS WORK WHEN WE GOT THE COA TO DO THE BALCONY CANOPY DUE TO BUDGET CONCERNS, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT, BUT NOW WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SPOT WHERE WE FEEL LIKE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
WE FEEL LIKE NOT ONLY WILL IT IMPROVE OUR BUILDING, BUT IT WILL BRING IT MORE IN LINE WITH THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE AND THE BUILDINGS THAT EXIST IN OUR [INAUDIBLE] MECHANIC DISTRICT. YOU SAW THE SLIDES THAT MOST OF THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PRESENTED ARE THE SLIDES THAT WERE SHOWN.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS I KNOW THERE MAY WELL BE SOME.
IT IS AN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND IT'LL BE ONE OVER ONE.
THE TREATMENT AROUND THE WINDOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN OPTION ON IS ACTUALLY THE TREATMENT THAT WAS ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE ORIGINAL [INAUDIBLE] BUILDING, THE ONE THAT WAS AROUND ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THE PICTURE, IT WAS A LOT MORE DETAIL, AND FOR US TO TRY TO RECREATE THAT WITH THE BLURRY IMAGE, WE JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE WE COULD DO IT JUSTICE.
SO THE BUILDING IS PRETTY WELL OUTSIDE OF THE REALM APPROPRIATE FOR THE FOR THE DISTRICT ANYWAY.
SO WE FEEL LIKE THE LEEWAY OF BRINGING THAT THIRD FLOOR DOWN SHOULD NOT BE A BIG THING BUT ANYHOW, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU AGAIN.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CULPEPPER? NO? WELL, I'M EXCITED TO SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH IT.
THANK YOU. IT'S GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL.
THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS PROJECT? NO? OKAY, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 22LC-014
[00:20:06]
2202 MECHANIC REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE WINDOWS.I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 22LC-014 WITH STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS.
GREAT, I'LL SECOND. SHARON'S GOING TO SECOND IT.
DISCUSSION? NO? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR.
I. MR. KERSTING HAS VOTED IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU, LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT.
MOVING ON, 22LC-015 1402 20TH STREET.
OKAY, MR. KERSTING, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONNECT YOUR VIDEO NOW.
THANKS TO PATRICK'S TROUBLESHOOTING THERE WE GO, WE CAN SEE YOU.
OK CASE 22LC-015 IS 1401 20TH STREET.
THE STRUCTURE'S FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS CURRENTLY AT 11.6 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
THE PROPOSED SKIRTING IS A MIX OF LATTICE AND VERTICAL WOOD PLANKS.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, ELEVATION, THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY 0.9 FEET BELOW THE CURRENT REQUIRED ELEVATION OF 12.5 FEET.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO RAISE THE HOUSE AN ADDITIONAL 1.4 FEET.
SKIRTING, STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SKIRTING DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS INDICATE THAT A HOUSE RAISED FOUR FEET FROM GRADE SHOULD USE LATTICE SKIRTING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE SOLID SKIRTING PROPOSED FOR THE FRONT ELEVATION BE CHANGED TO LATTICE AND THE STAIRS IN THE LIFT WITH THE ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE, THE FRONT PORCH STAIRS WILL REQUIRE AN EXTENSION AND RELOCATION.
THE PROPOSED STAIR RECONFIGURE AND LIFT LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE, THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS. A, THE PORCH RAILING DESIGN SHALL BE OMITTED AND THE EXISTING RAILINGS BE RETAINED.
ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THEN A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG AVENUE M HERE ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
YES, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE INDICATED, THAT THE DRAWING SHOWS THEM BEING CHANGED, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ASSURED ME THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED , AND I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT INTO THE CONDITIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.
ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY, WELL, I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT OR MRS. JOHNSON OR MRS. SMITH ARE PRESENT.
I'M HERE IN THEIR PLACE. I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
SIR, IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.
[00:25:03]
OKAY, I JUST THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TO REVIEW THIS, BUT I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.IT WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YEAH, I AGREE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 22LC-015 1401 20TH STREET.
SARAH. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22LC-015 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I'LL SECOND.
DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANYTHING ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SAY? ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING? I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS ONE COME BACK.
WE GOT ALL KINDS OF GREAT CASES TODAY.
SO EXCITING. OKAY, WELL, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FOR A VOTE.
EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF CASE 22LC-015, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
LAST CASE IS 22LC-016 2328 AVENUE O.
THERE WERE FOUR PUBLIC NOTICES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER TO ADD A SECOND FLOOR, EXTERIOR DOOR, A LITTLE EGRESS, A DECK AND STAIRCASE TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT.
ALL THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL BE WOOD, ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS SUBMITTED.
THE EXISTING HOUSE IS WOOD FRAMED WITH WOOD [INAUDIBLE] SIDING COMPOSITION ROOF.
NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO DESIGN STANDARDS ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THAT MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT EASILY VISIBLE FROM ANY RIGHT OF WAY AND LOCATION D NOT TYPICAL TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE.
THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AS THE PROPERTY IS MID-BLOCK AND THE HOUSE OCCUPIES MOST OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, REALLY DIFFICULT TO SEE ANY PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION. THE NARRATIVE INDICATES THAT THE ENTIRE DECK, STAIRS AND HANDRAILS WILL BE OF WOOD CONSTRUCTION WHICH CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
FINALLY, THE PROPOSED REAR DOORS ARE A FAIRLY SIMPLE DESIGN AND LIKELY TO BE CONFUSED WITH A HISTORIC DOOR AND MATCHES THE MATERIALITY AND APPEARANCE OF THE NEW DECK AND STAIRS AND SO THEREFORE IT JUDGED TO BE CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS WELL.
SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SEEN FROM THE STREET SHOWING THAT THE KIND OF THE LOCATION OF THE MAIN HOUSE ON THE LOT AND OF COURSE SERVICE CITY MAP THAT SHOWS THE SURROUNDINGS AS WELL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE AN OBLIQUE RENDER OF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE SHOWING THE DOOR OF THE WALKOUT DECK AND THE STAIRCASE GOING DOWN.
WE ALSO HAVE A SITE PLAN SHOWING HOW THAT WOULD KIND OF LAY OUT ON THE SITE.
OKAY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF MR. AND MRS. CUNNINGHAM ARE HERE, OR A REPRESENTATIVE.
TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
WELL, THIS IS A FIRST FOR ME, SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TO DO.
[00:30:09]
WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAINTAIN THE MAJESTY OF IT AND SPIRIT OF IT, AND OTHER THAN THAT, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE GOT TO ANSWER.IT'S BEAUTIFUL FROM THE FRONT.
IS THAT A NICHOLAS CLAYTON? IT'S A [INAUDIBLE] IT'S GORGEOUS.
IT WAS BUILT LIKE [INAUDIBLE].
HE A PLASTERER, AND I CAN ATTEST TO YOUR PLASTER.
[CHUCKLING] SOUNDS LIKE A HOME TO OUR HOUSE.
WHEN WE REWIRED THAT HOUSE, I STAYED DOWN HERE FOR TWO MONTHS AND LEARNED HOW TO PLASTER.
I MAY NEED TO COME TAKE SOME LESSONS FROM YOU.
HUH? I SAID I MAY NEED TO COME TAKE SOME LESSONS FROM YOU.
BRING IT, I'VE GOT ALL THE STUFF. [INAUDIBLE] [CHUCKLING] GREAT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CUNNINGHAM? NO.
ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE? WELL, THERE'S NOBODY LEFT, SO THAT WOULD BE A BIG NO.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 22LC-016 2328 AVENUE O.
HAVE A SECOND, SARAH? SARAH SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION? ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS? NO? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. CUNNINGHAM. ARE THERE CONDITIONS THAT I NEED TO FOLLOW? ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH AN EMAIL? YOU'LL GET AN ACTION LETTER IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS IN YOUR EMAIL, AND IT'LL LIST EVERYTHING FOR YOU.
IT'S JUST THE STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE REPORT.
YEAH, THANK YOU, LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM.
THE LANDMARK MEETING ON JUNE 20TH HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR JUNE 21ST AT 9 A.M..
DO WE HAVE ANY CASES AT THIS TIME? TODAY IS THE DEADLINE FOR THAT MEETING AND AS OF TODAY, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT WE TYPICALLY HAVE A GRACE PERIOD OF A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER THE DEADLINE, SO WE'LL KNOW IF ANYTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY WEDNESDAY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THIS ON TO REMIND THE COMMISSION OF THE DATE AND THE TIME CHANGE TYPICALLY IF A MEETING DATE FALLS ON A HOLIDAY, WE JUST CANCEL THE MEETING, BUT THIS NEXT MEETING'S ALREADY CANCELED DUE TO THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY.
THAT SEEMED LIKE A LONG TIME TO WAIT WITHOUT A MEETING.
SO IF WE HAVE ANY CASES, WE WILL SCHEDULE IT FOR THE MORNING OF JUNE 21ST AT 9 A.M..
DISCUSSION ITEMS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AT THE NEXT MEETING? NO. OKAY SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.