GOOD AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING.
[Landmark Commission on October 17, 2022.]
[00:00:05]
TODAY IS MONDAY, OCTOBER 27TH.I'M SORRY, OCTOBER 17TH, WISH IT WAS THE 27TH, OCTOBER 17TH, THE YEAR 2022.
WE WILL START WITH ATTENDANCE.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BAKER. PRESENT.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FLINT-BUDDE.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER KERSTING.
IS ABSENT. VICE CHAIRPERSON LANG.
PRESENT. CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SWANSON.
PRESENT. AND COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS IS ABSENT.
HE WILL BE JOINING US SHORTLY.
AND PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER BAKER WILL SERVE AS THE VOTING ALTERNATE.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST? DO WE HAVE A CONFLICT WITH ANY OF OUR CASES.
HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? DO YOU SEE ANY CHANGES? CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? NOBODY. ALL RIGHT.
THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
CATHERINE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
GREAT. OKAY. WELL, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
OUR FIRST CASE IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
IT'S CASE 22LC-036 1728 SEALY.
I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT DUE TO THE CONFLICT FROM COMMISSIONER LANG, COMMISSIONER FLINT BUDDY WILL BE VOTING ON THIS CASE AND COUNCILMEMBER COLLINS HAS JOINED US.
MA'AM. IF YOU COULD TURN UP MY VOLUME AT ALL ON YOUR SIDE.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? MY VOLUME IS VERY LOW ON YOUR SIDE.
OKAY, WE'LL TRY TO TURN THAT UP.
THANK YOU. SO YEAH, THE ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS 22LC-036.
NOW THERE ARE 27 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TWO RETURNED, ONE OPPOSED AND ONE WITH NO COMMENT.
THE WALL IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FOOT HIGH.
THE WALL IS STYLISTICALLY AND HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOUSE ITSELF.
SANBORN INSURANCE MAPS FROM 1912.
NOTE THE WALL IS BEING PRESENT AT THAT TIME.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL, THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS FAIRLY VISIBLE FROM THE 18TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND LOCATION B HIGHLY VISIBLE SECONDARY WALL PRESERVATION REPAIR IN PLACE AS A PRIORITY.
STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED ADDITION TYPICALLY SIDE AND REAR FENCES AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE NO HIGHER THAN SIX FOOT OF VERTICAL WOODEN BOARDS, WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO FOOT OF WOOD LATTICE ABOVE, WHILE THE PROPOSED FENCE WOULD OVERALL BE SHORTER THAN THAT, MAXIMUM 28.5 FOOT OF LATTICE IS MORE THAN THE TYPICAL TWO FOOT OR 24 INCHES THAT WE WOULD APPROVE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
AND SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ONLY TWO FOOT OR 24 INCHES OF WOODEN LATTICE BE ALLOWED.
HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE PROVIDED THERE'S CRAIG. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED AT TIME OF PERMITTING FOR HPO REVIEW.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO REQUEST THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE THE APPLICANT SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT.
SHOW ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
THE PROPOSED WOOD LATTICE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO FOOT HIGH, AND THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON HOW THE LATTICE WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE WALL AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING FOR HPO'S REVIEW PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS 2 THROUGH 6.
WE WILL HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE JUST A MOMENT AS SOON AS CATHERINE GETS BACK.
[00:05:16]
WE'RE WAITING FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO RETURN BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON WITH THE MEETING.OKAY. WELL, WE'RE DONE WITH OUR REVIEW.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. PULL UP THE PICTURES.
HERE YOU GO, DANIEL. ALL RIGHTY.
SO HERE IS THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND YOU CAN'T SEE THE FENCE IN A WALL IN THIS PHOTO.
WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SITE PLAN, OF COURSE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING EAST.
SO BE THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FACING 18TH STREET AND YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED CIRCLE AREA.
THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THE WALL IN QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THE WALL GOES AROUND THE ALLEY, BUT THIS IS THE MOST VISIBLE PART.
WE ALSO HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
SO REAPPROACH? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK, IS THE APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER PRESENT? DO YOU MIND SIGNING IN FOR US, PLEASE? CAN YOU SIGN IN THE SIGN IN SHEET THAT GIVES YOU A PERSPECTIVE FROM INSIDE? GIVES YOU THE PERSPECTIVE FROM INSIDE THE YARD? BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. I WALK BY THAT MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK.
SO IT'S THE INTENT IS TO GIVE US A LITTLE MORE PRIVACY ON THE INSIDE.
AND ALSO, MY SON HAS GOT A DOG THAT CURRENTLY JUMPS UP AS HIGH AS A FENCE MOUNTING AROUND, AND THE INTENTION IS TO DO THE LATTICE IN A MANNER THAT IT CAN BE REMOVED WITHOUT DAMAGING THE FENCE.
SIMPLY, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY AND ANSWER.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHELTON? NO.
I'LL JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING.
I DROVE DOWN 17TH AND 16TH STREET, AND THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF LATTICE THAT IS MORE THAN EIGHT FOOT ON THE TWO THINGS.
OKAY, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC.
IS ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS CASE? NO. OKAY.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE, SHARON.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22LC-036 ACCORDING TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
DISCUSSION. NO, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
I THINK WE JUST DO A SHOW OF HANDS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
NANCY, YOU WERE VOTING ON THIS ONE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PASSES.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.
WE ARE GOING ON TO CASE 22LC-039 2440 MECHANIC REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A WALL MURAL.
29 NOTICES WERE SENT, FIVE RETURNED TWO IN FAVOR, TWO IN OPPOSITION AND ONE NO COMMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A WALL MURAL TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH WALL OF A ONE STORY BUILDING IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE SERGEANT BUILDING, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MECHANIC AND ROSENBERG, 25TH STREETS.
PLEASE NOTE THIS WORK WAS STARTED WITHOUT LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVAL.
THE 2006 DOWNTOWN SURVEY DOES NOT PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION DATE FOR THE BUILDING AND EVALUATES IT AS AN INTRUSION, WHICH DETRACTS FROM THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISTRICT. SANBORN MAP RESEARCH INDICATES THAT THE ONE STORY ADDITION MAY DATE TO BEFORE 1889, BUT HAS BEEN HEAVILY MODIFIED.
NO DECORATIVE FEATURES EXIST ON THE SOUTHERN WALL.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
[00:10:02]
THE SUBJECT SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY HISTORIC FEATURES THAT MAY BE OBSCURED BY THE MURAL.MURAL DEPICTS STYLIZED WAVES AND IS IN KEEPING WITH GALVESTON'S ENVIRONMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT ITEMS 2 THROUGH 5 ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. OKAY, HERE IS THE SUBJECT SITE WITH THE MURAL IN PLACE.
PROPERTY TO THE EAST TO THE SOUTH.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SORRY. I DO.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THERE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS AN HOA FOR CLARK AND COATES? THERE WAS A QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDED THE HOA'S APPROVAL TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, AND THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.
DID THE HOA APPROVE? I REALLY CAN'T SAY WHAT THEY APPROVED OF, BUT THEY APPROVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION.
IS THERE ANY INDICATION ABOUT WHAT THIS BUILDING WAS IN THE 1880S? BECAUSE I KNOW BACK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SANBORN MAPS, YOU SEE A LOT OF LIKE HORSE STALLS.
AND IT WASN'T ALL PRETTY, PRETTY BUILDINGS.
WHAT WAS THIS? DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA? I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND? I LOOKED AT THE SANBORN'S, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.
I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH AND IT SAID IT WAS A GROCERY WAREHOUSE.
YEAH, RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST THE DOOR IN THE GARAGE.
AND I'M THINKING IT WAS MODIFIED, BUT IT OBVIOUSLY WAS NEVER BUILT TO BE A LIVING SPACE, RIGHT? I WOULD NO, IT WOULD NOT BE.
I WAS VERY SURPRISED. KEEP THAT ON ANY OF THE MAPS I COULD SEE.
OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY.
AND IF YOU GUYS WOULDN'T MIND SIGNING IN.
SHOULD THE ADDRESS I PROVIDE BE OUR HOME ADDRESS OR THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY? YOUR HOME ADDRESS.
WE MISUNDERSTOOD PAINTING, AND I TRULY APOLOGIZE.
I WASN'T TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT ANYTHING WITH THAT.
THE ART BRINGS IN A CERTAIN AESTHETIC TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HONESTLY, IT JUST CHEERS YOU UP.
CHEERS ME UP. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ART IN PUBLIC, WHERE IT'S BROUGHT TO PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE DESIRE OR THE ABILITY TO GO TO DIFFERENT ART SHOWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO HAVING PUBLIC WORKS OF ART, TO ME, IT IMPROVES QUALITY OF LIFE.
AND CATHERINE STROUD IS HERE WHO'S THE ARTIST.
AND I THINK IT'S VERY GALVESTON WITH THE WAVES AND THE COLORS.
AND IT'S THE BACKDROP FOR ONE OF THE TURTLES ABOUT TOWN.
SO WE'RE IN THE NEXT TURTLE INSTALL AND I THINK WE'RE ON THE BACK FOR THE TURTLE AND THE TURTLE.
IT MATCHES IT KIND OF IT'S ENHANCED BY THE BACKGROUND OF THAT.
SO IT'S TO ME, IT'S MORE OF AN ART INSTALLATION, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BACKGROUND AND THEN THE TURTLE IN THE FOREFRONT, IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE VERY PRETTY. OKAY.
HE'S THE ARCHITECT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO HEAR HIM SAY SOMETHING.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SARAH HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IS THIS COMPLETE? LIKE IT'S DONE MINUS THE TURTLE? YEAH. THANK YOU. JUST GENERAL UPKEEP ON IT.
OKAY. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE? COULD YOU COME ON UP IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SIGNING IN AND STATING YOUR NAME?
[00:15:07]
HI. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.I'M DEBBIE ADRIAANSE, AND THIS IS MY HUSBAND, BART ADRIAANSE, AND I HAVE SOMETHING PREPARED THAT I WANT TO SPEAK ON ABOUT THIS, SO I'M GOING TO READ. EXCUSE ME, BUT I WAS AFRAID I'D FORGET SOMETHING.
I OWN PROPERTY OR WE DO IN THE SHIPS MECHANIC OR BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS. SO IT WAS FORMERLY THE SERGEANT BUILDING.
I'M OPPOSED TO THE EXISTING MURAL OR WE ARE.
THE MURAL WAS APPLIED TO OUR BUILDING BY THE OWNERS OF UNIT 2420 BEFORE CONSULTING RECEIVING APPROVAL FROM OUR BUILDING BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE NINE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING, OR BEFORE RECEIVING A PERMIT OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM YOU ALL.
WE, ALL OF US HERE TODAY ARE UNFORTUNATELY CHARGED WITH DETERMINING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MURAL THAT VIOLATES OUR BUILDING'S COMMON ELEMENTS DECLARATIONS, AS WELL AS THE GALVESTON CITY DESIGN STANDARDS PROCESS.
IS THE MURAL APPROPRIATE NOT ONLY FOR OUR BUILDING, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, DOES IT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC GALVESTON? OUR BUILDING IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE FOUR LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AS OUTLINED IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO IT'S THE STRAND MECHANIC STREETS HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT KNOW THIS, THIS IS BOTH A LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT AND A NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE AS OWNERS RESIDING IN THIS DISTRICT, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS, AND THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON AND TO THOSE WHO VISIT OUR CITY TO APPLY CONSISTENT PRESERVATION STANDARDS TO OUR BUILDINGS AND STREETS.
AS RESIDENTS, WE ARE FIRST AND FOREMOST MEANT TO BE HISTORIC STEWARDS OF THIS DISTRICT.
SO I'M GOING TO SKIP OVER A COUPLE OF THINGS.
BUT ON PAGE 126 OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE DESIGN STANDARDS ADDRESS SPECIFIC MURALS, SPECIFICALLY MURALS ON BUILDINGS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, AND I QUOTE, MAY CONSIDER A NEW MURAL PAINTED ON THE SIDE OF A BUILDING.
THE MURAL IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PAINTED ON THE FRONT OF OUR BUILDING.
THE MURAL DESIGN WAS NEVER REVIEWED BY ANY BUILDING OWNERS, MEMBERS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION OR THE CITY OF GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION, AND FURTHER THE INSTALLATION OF A TURTLE STATUE ON OUR CITY SIDEWALK IS ALSO BEING CONSIDERED AT SOME POINT.
AND THEN ON PAGE 152 OF THE STANDARDS, THERE'S A CONCERN FOR THIS DISTRICT LISTED CLUTTERED SIDEWALKS, SIGNAGE AND OTHER MERCHANDIZING MATERIALS THAT OBSCURE THE DISTRICT'S HISTORIC CHARACTER.
SO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND SUPPORT FOR SEA TURTLES IS CRITICAL AND TO BE COMMENDED.
EXCUSE ME. I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT JUST THE MURAL.
AND YOU'RE ALSO GOING ON ON A SEPARATE CASE.
SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND HOLDING THOSE THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS UNTIL THAT CASE HAS BEEN FAIRLY HEARD.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MURAL RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, WHICH I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M GOING TO SUBMIT THIS IN WRITING.
AND I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE ON A ROLL.
YOU WERE DOING GOOD. IT'S OKAY.
IT'S OKAY. I ONLY INCLUDED IT BECAUSE IT IS LIKE IT SEEMS TO BE ONE PROJECT.
ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
[00:20:10]
REST OF THE OWNERS IN THIS BUILDING? NO. BY WE I MEAN COLLECTIVELY, EITHER US IN THIS ROOM OR WE AS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.AND AT THE BEGINNING, I DID CITE THAT I AM OPPOSED.
RIGHT NOW, I JUST WANT TO FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD, YOU'RE NOT AN AGENT FOR THE OTHER OWNERS.
YOU'RE JUST REPRESENTING. NO I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF.
THANK YOU. JUST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION AS WELL.
THE HOA DID VOTE TO ALLOW THE OWNERS TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.
THE VOTE WAS 2 TO 1 AND WE ARE THREE MEMBERS OF THE HOA.
SO THERE WAS ONE OPPOSED TO THIS.
AND THE AREA HAS BEEN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHERE THAT WHERE THE YOGA STUDIO IS NOW.
IT HAS BEEN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE PAST.
OK. I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ASK IF THE OWNERS WANT TO SPEAK.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY REBUTTAL WHEN THERE'S A PUBLIC COMMENT ON YOUR CASE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER FOLKS HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? COME ON UP. SIGN YOUR NAME.
YEAH. LET ME JUST HOLD YOU THERE FOR JUST A SECOND.
HELLO. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
I'M THE ARTIST WHO PAINTED THAT MURAL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS CLEAR, BUT THE OWNERS HAD A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT REQUIRED A PERMIT FOR THE CHANGES OF THE BUILDING.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NEVER AN ORIGINAL PERMIT THAT CAME THROUGH YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE.
BUT WHILE PAINTING SAID MURAL, I HAD THE JOY OF BEING THERE.
AND THIS IS A BLOCK OF DOWNTOWN THAT DOES NOT HAVE MUCH ASIDE FROM RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S A SOUND BAR ACROSS THE STREET, AND THE TREMONT HOTEL'S A BLOCK AWAY, BUT TYPICALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TRAFFIC.
AND THEY ALL INTERACTED SO WELL.
THEY WERE SO HAPPY TO SEE THIS COLOR GOING IN ON AN OTHERWISE BLAND BLOCK.
YOU DO HAVE THE BEAUTIFUL MARDI GRAS ARCH THAT'S JUST A HALF A BLOCK AWAY.
AND TO THE WEST, YOU CAN SEE ANOTHER MURAL THAT'S ANOTHER BLOCK DOWN.
AND IT REALLY DOES PROVIDE A BEAUTIFUL, COLORFUL INTERLUDE BETWEEN TWO COLORFUL SPOTS ON THE ISLAND.
AND OTHERWISE, IT'S A VERY, VERY GRAY BLOCK.
AND I RESPECT VERY MUCH THE HISTORIC QUALITIES OF OUR CITY.
I WOULD NEVER PAINT ON THE FAÇADE OF A BUILDING THAT BOASTED ITS ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL.
YOU'RE WELCOME. THE OWNERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND OFFER A REBUTTAL IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ABOUT THIS CASE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A REBUTTAL, YOU'RE ALLOWED.
CAN I JUST CLARIFY, CHAIRWOMAN? IT'S NOT A REBUTTAL.
WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF THEY WANT TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT, THEY CAN AND THIS WILL BE IT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL COMMENT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK I THINK DOUG WILL SHARE.
I WOULD JUST SAY I MEAN, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCERNS AND EVERYTHING AND I APPRECIATE THE STATEMENT.
IT DOESN'T MAKE WHAT WE DID RIGHT, WRONG OR INDIFFERENT.
THERE'S A PROCESS. WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT NOW.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES AROUND TOWN WHERE THE REFERENCE TO THE LDR ON PLACEMENT MURAL HAS CLEARLY BEEN EITHER VIOLATED OR IT'S BEEN WORKED AROUND.
IT'S NOT BEEN AN ISSUE, YOU KNOW, JUST IN THAT AREA ALONE.
I'VE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOTTING THIS OUT AND I THINK I'VE GOT ABOUT 20 LOCATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE THERE'S CLEARLY SOME SORT OF DEVIATION GOING ON TO WHAT'S INTENDED ON THE LERS.
AND SPECIFIC TO THE STRAND HISTORIC AREA, I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE YOU THERE'S THREE, YOU KNOW, SO I YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHAT THE TEXT SAYS IN THE CODE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT CLEARLY THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME OTHER THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S ALL I ASK, IS THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT AS WELL AS PART OF THIS.
[00:25:01]
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE, JANE? I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT CASE 22LC-039 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SHE'S GOING TO SECOND.
DISCUSSION. DO WE DISCUSS BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? NO, WE MAKE THE MOTION.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT BELONGS ON THE FRONT FACE OF THE BUILDING.
THERE ARE TONS OF MURALS DOWNTOWN, BUT THEY ARE ALL ON SIDE FACES OF BUILDINGS.
IT'S WELL OVER 50 YEARS OLD, SO IT GETS THE HISTORIC IN ITS OWN RIGHT DESIGNATION.
SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? YES, I DO.
THE BUILDING HAS A GARAGE DOOR ON IT.
SO TO ME, IT'S NOT LIKE A PROMINENT HISTORICAL BE WHATEVER.
I'D LIKE TO SAY, ALTHOUGH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT STEPHANIE IS SAYING, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE CONSIDER PUBLIC ART IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A MURAL OR A STATUE OR TURTLE.
THE CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN AS TO WHETHER IT OBSTRUCTS THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING.
THAT'S THE CONSIDERATION THERE.
IF WE PUT SOMETHING REALLY LOUD AND SPLASHY ON TOP OF A BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC BUILDING LIKE NICHOLAS CLAYTON, IT IS GOING TO INTERRUPT OR DISTRACT THE FAÇADE OF THE BUILDING.
SO A LOT OF TIMES OUR CONSIDERATION IS DOES IT DISTRACT FROM THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING? THIS BUILDING HAS A GARAGE DOOR AND AN ENTRY DOOR.
THAT'S IT. THERE'S NOTHING TO OBSTRUCT.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT WAS THAT'S WHY IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED THIS WAY IS BECAUSE THE ART THAT'S THERE IS NOT ACTUALLY OBSTRUCTING ANYTHING. AND SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT.
I THINK IT ADDS SOME VISUAL INTEREST TO THE BLOCK, AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO DETRACT FROM ANYTHING ARCHITECTURALLY ON THAT BUILDING.
THAT WOULD BE A HILL I WOULD DIE ON.
BUT THIS ISN'T THIS IS JUST A PLAIN FLAT.
AND OF COURSE, WE WANT TO PRESERVE.
OKAY THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. ANYBODY ELSE? NANCY. NANCY.
YEAH. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID THAT THIS IS PART OF THE CONDOMINIUM.
IF IT IS, STAFF SHOWS THAT IT'S OWNED BY DOUGLAS AND MELODY.
I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO BE INCORRECT.
I THINK PERSONALLY, IT ENHANCES THE BLOCK.
IT'S DIFFERENT. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN PEOPLE CELEBRATING DIVERSITY IN GALVESTON.
THE BUILDING GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING FUN IN GALVESTON.
ANYBODY ELSE? NO. I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED. WE HAVE FIVE VOTES IN FAVOR TO OPPOSE THE MOTION PASSES.
WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED TO HEAR CASE 22LC-040 2019 AVENUE N AND ONE HALF OUR REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
[00:30:03]
ALL RIGHT. YES. SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS OF STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ENCLOSING AND EXTENDING A SIDE PORCH.THERE ARE EIGHT PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TWO RETURNED BOTH OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
THE ADDITION WILL BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND WILL SERVE AS A DINING ROOM.
NOTE THAT THE SAME REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED UNDER CASE 17 LC-040.
THAT REQUEST WAS APPROVED AT THE TIME.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
IT IS SOMEWHAT VISIBLE FROM THE MAIN STREET, BUT IT'S KIND OF BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
PLANS SUBMITTED ONCE AGAIN INDICATE WOOD CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH EXISTING COMPOSITION OF ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING AND WOOD WINDOWS TWO OF A SIX OVER SIX CONFIGURATION. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE DESIGN STANDARDS RECOMMEND ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO DIFFERENTIATE NEW ADDITIONS FROM HISTORIC AND STAFF IS MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION IN THIS REQUEST AS WELL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS, AND AS THE NEW WINDOW SHALL COMPLEMENT THE SCALE OF THE WINDOWS LOCATED IN HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND SHALL BE IN A ONE OVER ONE LIGHT CONFIGURATION PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS 2 THROUGH 6.
ALL RIGHT, JUST GIVE ME ONE MINUTE.
THERE WE GO. SO HERE WE HAVE THE THE FRONT VIEW OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
AND IN THIS VIEW, IF YOU LOOK JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE KIND OF THE MAIN PORCH, YOU'LL SEE A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTENSION THERE THAT WOULD BE ON THE VIEWER'S LEFT HAND SIDE.
AND THAT IS THE AREA TO BE EXTENDED AND ENCLOSED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE ALSO THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE ARCHITECT AND THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS SHOWING THE ADDITIONS FROM ITS LOCATION ON THE SITE AND PLUS VIEWS FROM ALL THREE OF THE SIDES THAT APPLY.
AREA OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANKS, DANIEL. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER, CRAIG OR ANGELA BROWN ARE PRESENT.
HELLO. I'M HERE REPRESENTING BRAX.
WE'RE PROPOSING A SIMPLE ONE STORY ADDITION TO UNDERNEATH.
WE'RE TAKING IN PART OF THE EXISTING PORCH.
ADDING AN ADDITION WITH THE INTENT OF CREATING A DINING ROOM.
THE PORCH ABOVE, IT'S GOING TO REMAIN.
AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WOULD YOU MIND SIGNING IN, PLEASE? THANKS. MY NAME IS SHELBY.
OKAY, SHELBY, WE KNEW BECAUSE WE SAW YOU LAST.
I THINK WE DID SOMETHING ELSE TO THIS PORCH A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
WAS IT PUTTING A DOOR IN OR CLOSING A WINDOW OR MAYBE.
YEAH, THAT WAS THE OTHER SIDE. IT WAS ON THIS SIDE WE DID SOMETHING.
IT WAS A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS, BUT.
NO? I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING ON THAT SIDE.
ANYWAYS, THAT'S YOUR PRETTY HOUSE.
I THINK IT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
SUCH A PRETTY HOUSE. YOU ALL HAVE JUST BEEN INCREDIBLE STEWARDS OF THIS PROPERTY.
ANGELA BROWN, OWNER, AND WE APPLIED FIVE YEARS AGO.
AND THEN LIFE CHANGES HAPPEN AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THE PROJECT.
AND NOW THAT THINGS ARE QUIETER, WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT DOING THIS.
OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER? NO. OKAY.
[00:35:02]
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE? NO. NO. OKAY.ON CASE 22LC-040 2019 AVENUE N 1/2.
SARAH. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22LC-040 WITH STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS AND I HAVE A SECOND.
STEPHANIE IS GOING TO SECOND IT.
DISCUSSION. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? NO, I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING I DIDN'T LIKE ON THIS HOUSE THAT THEY'VE DONE SO.
AND OF COURSE IT'S AN INCREDIBLE DRAWING.
SO ANYWAYS, NOBODY HAS ANY ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY.
I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED. THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS.
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CASE 22LC-041 1301 MARKET AVENUE D BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE AND CONNECTION TO THE MAIN HOUSE.
EIGHT PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT AND ZERO RETURNED.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CONFORMANCE STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE EXISTING GARAGE, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO HAVE THE ADDITION, IS NOT OF HISTORIC AGE.
WITH THE ADDITION, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY.
STAFF FINDS THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE CONNECTION TO THE MAIN HOUSE APPROPRIATE PROPOSED MATERIALS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS PERMITTED FOR NON HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
STAFF DOES HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE WINDOW DESIGN SHOWN ON THE APPLICANT'S ELEVATIONS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
A THE WINDOWS SHALL BE ONE OVER ONE CONFIGURATION.
ITEMS 2 THROUGH 6 ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
OKAY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE ALLEY.
THIS IS THE STRUCTURE THAT IS HAVING THE ADDITION.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S DRAWINGS.
AND A FLOORPLAN SHOWING WHERE THE CONNECTION TAKES PLACE.
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WEST AND EAST.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OK I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.
HI, I'M DAVID WATSON, THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT.
AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THERE ARE ONE SINGLE LIGHT CASEMENT WINDOWS.
SO WE'VE GOT EVERY WINDOW IN THE BOOK THAT YOU CAN THROW AT THIS BUILDING.
SO IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SIZE, WHAT KIND OF WINDOW WE PUT ON THAT THE ADDITION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS BROUGHT TO LANDMARK BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER MAYBE FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO.
AND THE NEW OWNERS ARE BRINGING IT BACK.
THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT AT THIS POINT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OK.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROPERTY? NO. I'M GOING TO BRING IT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22LC-041 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
[00:40:02]
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CASE 22LC-043 1910 AVENUE M ½ REQUESTS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A NEW CURB CUT AND DRIVEWAY.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE 6, 0 RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL A NEW CURB CUT IN DRIVEWAY.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WORK STARTED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ALLEY ACCESS.
THIS TYPE OF CONFIGURATION IS COMMON ON CORNER PROPERTIES BUT IS UNUSUAL IN MID-BLOCK PROPERTIES.
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 DRIVEWAY PORTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BE CONFIGURED AS A RIBBON OR STRIP DRIVE WITH TWO CONCRETE STRIPS SEPARATED BY A GRASSY AREA.
ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX ARE STANDARD AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
OK. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED, IT'S A REALLY TINY LOT.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT IS YES, THE ONLY OPTION.
OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE PROPERTY OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE? NO. OKAY.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE? NO. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ASK FOR A MOTION ON CASE 22LC-043.
SARAH. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22LC-043 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
DISCUSSION. I SEE THAT THE WORK STARTED.
RIGHT. BUT I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ONE MORE CAR OFF THE STREET AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER OPTION UNLESS THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON THE ROOF. THEY DON'T HAVE ALLEY ACCESS.
IF THEY HAD ALLEY ACCESS I WOULD SAY NO.
IT'S UNUSUAL FOR THAT IN A MID-BLOCK PROPERTY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CASE? NO. OKAY, ALL THOSE.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED. THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS.
WONDERFUL. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.
WE ARE GOING ON TO CASE 22LC-037 3727 BERNARDO DE GALVEZ OUR AVENUE P REQUEST FOR A DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THANK YOU. AS STATED, THERE WERE 28 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THE APPLICANT IS AGAIN REQUESTING DESIGNATION ABOVE REFERENCE ADDRESS AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THE STUBBS GARRISON HOUSE IS A CRAFTSMAN STYLE BUNGALOW BUILT IN 1922 AT A TIME WHEN CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSES WERE QUITE POPULAR, WAS BUILT BY LOCAL BUILDER CHARLES FRANKS FOR SIDNEY AND THELMA STUBBS, THEY WERE THE FIRST OWNERS.
HISTORIC RECORDS INDICATE THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS, AT A COST OF $4,100.
SYDNEY STUBBS WAS BORN IN GALVESTON IN 1897, WAS EMPLOYED AS A CLERK FOR SOME LOCAL BUSINESSES, INCLUDING A D, STUART GODWIN'S OCEAN FREIGHT AND COTTON BROKERING BUSINESS. ORIGINALLY BORN IN AUSTIN, THELMA [INAUDIBLE] ALSO WORKED AS A CLERK, AS A STENOGRAPHER, [INAUDIBLE] CONTRACTING COMPANY AND LATER THE MALORY STEAMSHIP LINE.
BY 1941, OWEN AND CORA GARRIGAN PURCHASED THE HOUSE.
AT THE TIME, OWEN GARRIGAN WORKED AS A BOOKKEEPER FOR THE HOUSTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.
HE WAS AN AVID SPORTSMAN, A MEMBER OF THE TEXAS FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, AND LATER HE OWNED HIS OWN SPORTING GOODS STORE, ORIGINALLY CALLED THE GALVESTON APPLIANCE AND TACKLE COMPANY. AFTER HE PASSED HIS WIFE CHANGED NAME, GARRIGAN SPORTING GOODS, AND IN 1963 ENDED UP SELLING THE BUSINESS TO LEROY NASHKE.
[00:45:03]
BILL OR CHARLES ANN FRANKS WAS BORN IN GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS, AND HE AND HIS FAMILY RELOCATED GALVESTON BY 1900.HIS FIRST NOTED PROJECT WAS ROAD GRADING FOR GALVESTON COUNTY, BUT HE BUILT A NUMBER OF HOUSES IN GALVESTON AND IN ADDITION TO THE CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCHES, AMONG HIS OTHER KNOWN PROJECTS.
THERE'S A LIST PROVIDED ATTACHMENT A OF THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE PROVIDE NOTES.
THIS INCLUDES WOODEN CORBELS AND OTHER PROMINENT ROOF OVERHANGS, LARGE BRICK PORCH COLUMNS WITH CAST CONCRETE HEADERS SUPPORTING A SOMEWHAT ARCHED FRONT PORCH TRIPARTITE FRONT ATTIC WINDOW WITH BRACKETED EYEBROW ROOF ABOVE A PRAIRIE STYLE UPPER WINDOW SASHES, WOODEN WINDOW SCREENS AND A GLASS TRANSOM BY THE FRONT DOOR.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THEIR OCTOBER 18TH, 2022 MEETING.
CITY COUNCIL, OF COURSE, HAS A FINAL DECISION ON LANDMARKS.
THEY WILL HEAR THE REQUEST AT NOVEMBER 17, 2022.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITION NUMBER ONE.
SO HERE WE HAVE THESE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFFS REPORT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. I GUESS I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS CASE? NO. OKAY.
ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE, SARAH.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVED CASE 22LC-037 TO BE A REGISTERED LANDMARK.
I HAVE A SECOND. STEPHANIE WILL SECOND IT DISCUSSION.
I JUST LIKE TO SAY I LOVE CRAFTSMAN.
I LOVE ME SOME CRAFTSMAN HOUSES.
AND THAT'S A REALLY PRETTY ONE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? NO, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
NEXT, WE HAVE A LICENSE TO USE CASE 22LC-042 ADJACENT TO 2420 MECHANIC AVENUE C REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A LICENSE TO USE TO INSTALL A TURTLE ABOUT TOWN.
SIX RETURNED, ALL SIX OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
YOU LEARN A BIT ABOUT THAT AT THE PREVIOUS MURAL REQUEST.
TURTLE STATUE IS 48 INCHES HIGH AND 62 INCHES WIDE FROM END TO END OF THE WIDEST POINT.
THE APPLICANT, ALSO IN THE CASE OF THE TURTLE, WILL BE PROTECTED BY A FLOWERBED PLANTER SIMILAR TO THAT IN PLACE AT 2427 MARKET, WHICH WAS APPROVED UNDER CASE, 21P-042 AND LANDMARK COMMISSION DID ALSO RECOMMEND AN APPROVAL ON THAT.
THE FLOWER BED PLANTER WILL BE APPROXIMATELY SIX FOOT ACROSS AND APPROXIMATELY EIGHT INCHES HIGH, WITH THE TURTLE STATUE CENTERED ON THE FLOWER BED WITH FLOWER BED PLANTER INCLUDED. THE CLEAR DISTANCE TO THE CURB WAS APPROXIMATELY 9 TO 10 FOOT.
THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY IS JUST SOUTH OF THE SPONSOR'S BUSINESS AND NORTH SIDE OF MECHANIC AVENUE C BETWEEN 25TH STREET AND THE CLARK AND COURTS BUILDING AND THE CORNER OF MECHANIC AND 24TH STREET.
I BELIEVE IT WAS NOTED THAT IT'S KNOWN AS A SERGEANT BUILDING.
THE [INAUDIBLE] MECHANIC ROW CONDOS OR THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF THE PROPOSED TURTLE STATUE.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
THE ADJACENT BUILDING IS A RATHER PLAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDING FAÇADE WITH NO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS WHICH WILL BE OBSTRUCTED INTERPRETATION OF THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT OR THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS IS LIKELY UNAFFECTED.
[00:50:04]
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH THREE IN THE STAFF REPORT PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS 5 THROUGH 9.SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING WHERE THE TURTLE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED WOULD BE, I BELIEVE, TO THE RIGHT OF THIS PHOTO, KIND OF BEHIND THAT LIGHT POLE, BUT WELL AWAY FROM IT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE TURTLE IN RELATION TO THE DOORWAY, THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE EXISTING GARAGE DOOR AND THE ACCESS RAMP TO THE GARAGE DOOR.
YOU CAN SEE THE BOLD BLACK SPOT THERE IS WHERE THE LIGHT POLE WOULD BE.
THEY HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFFS REPORT.
THANKS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THAT THE APPLICANT, MELODY OR DOUG VAN KAY, WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THIS CASE.
LOVELY. CATHERINE PAINTED IT AND THE SIDEWALKS NICE AND WIDE AND LEVEL.
OKAY, SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY, THANKS.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE? NO. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22LC-042 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
GREAT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SHARON SECONDED IT.
DISCUSSION. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BRING A LOT OF PRESENCE TO THAT AREA.
BUT THIS TRULY IS AN INSTALLATION OF ARTWORK IN AN AREA THAT REALLY COULD USE SUCH A THING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED. VOTE IS UNANIMOUS.
ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ITEMS THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING? NO. OKAY.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.