[00:00:05]
GOOD AFTERNOON. I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
[Landmark Commission on February 19, 2024.]
TODAY IS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19TH, AND THE TIME IS 4:00.SO WE WILL START OUT WITH ATTENDANCE.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BAKER WILL BE ABSENT TODAY.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS IS ABSENT.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
PRESENT. CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON.
THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF OF EITHER THE TWO CASES WE'RE SEEING TODAY? NO. OKAY.
MOVING ON. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES.
DO YOU SEE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE? NO. WE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM.
MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? I BELIEVE WE DO.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BRENDA [INAUDIBLE] LEE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME AND TAKING YOUR TIME TO BE ON LANDMARK FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
ALSO, DAVID COLLINS WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR VOLUNTEERING TO BE ON COUNCIL.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK CATHERINE GORMAN FOR HER ASSISTANCE DURING THE TAX RE-INVESTMENT PROCESS.
SINCE I HAVE THE FLOOR, I'LL MAKE THIS VERY BRIEF.
I WANT TO TELL A LITTLE STORY ABOUT.
I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD LOTS OF RENOVATION STORIES.
THIS ONE'S ABOUT INSURANCE AND CAD.
I YEAH, I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE AN ODD THING TO PUT TOGETHER.
AS YOU KNOW, PROPERTY VALUATIONS HAVE ESCALATED RAPIDLY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND IN THE COURSE OF PLANNING FOR THE RENOVATION ON MY PROPERTY, TO MAKE THE 50% THRESHOLD, THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING BECAME SO POOR THAT MY INSURER WOULD NOT INSURE THE BUILDING ANYMORE.
I DIDN'T INTEND TO DO THAT, BUT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
I KNOW THAT FROM TIME TO TIME YOU REVIEW YOUR REGULATIONS.
YOU MIGHT, GIVE THAT LITTLE STORY SOME THOUGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR VOLUNTEERING, I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. DID YOU SIGN IN? I WILL OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR, TAKING SUCH AN INTEREST IN HISTORIC HOME AND REDOING IT.
THEY ALL COME BACK ONE BY ONE AND WE COULDN'T BE MORE GRATEFUL.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW, CASE 24 LC-001-2202 BERNARD DE GALVEZ OR AVENUE P, THIS IS A CONSENT FOR VERIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE TAX BENEFITS.
DOES ANYBODY SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT OFF THE CONSENT AND PUT IT ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION? NO. OKAY.
DOES SOMEBODY LIKE TO GIVE ME A MOTION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ADVANCE THIS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL? I WILL. SHARON IS GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? SARAH SECONDED.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARING.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THIS IS 1828 AVENUE M AND A HALF.
ALRIGHTY. SO AS STATED, THIS IS 1828 AVENUE M AND A HALF.
THERE WERE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
SO THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THE TYPICAL WOOD LATTICE THAT IS NORMALLY APPROVED AT A STAFF LEVEL.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE, DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
[00:05:06]
THESE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY RELEVANT AS THE HOUSE SITS ON A CORNER LOT AND THE PROPOSED FENCES WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY VISIBLE FROM TWO STREET RIGHT OF WAYS.BECAUSE PROPOSED FENCES DO NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SIX IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND YOU CAN SEE ALSO THE SITE PLAN SHOWING ITS LOCATION ON THE CORNER OF TWO, MAIN STREETS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN IN THE UPPER LEFT SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE EXTENTS OF THE SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE WITH THE TWO FOOT OF ALTERNATIVE ON TOP.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE YOU HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AGAIN.
AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
IT'S PRETTY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. OKAY.
SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF MRS. BECKERMAN IS HERE.
HI. CAN I HAVE A PARTNER? OH, OKAY. IS THIS.
ARE YOU MR. BELTRAN? OKAY. WELCOME.
THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
AND I'LL LET HIM DO MOST OF THE TALKING BECAUSE HE'S MORE ARTICULATE.
WELL, WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WE FOUND OUT THAT THE PROPERTY IS 1901, 1902.
THE DESIGN, [INAUDIBLE] THE DESIGN THAT RAILING WAS AT THAT TIME.
SO WHERE WE WANT TO DO IS THE SAME GRILL IN THE FRONT PART.
YEAH. SO WE WENT TO CREATE THE SAME GRADIENT IN THE FRONT BUT IN THE FRONT YARD.
SAME IDEA WITH THE GUY THAT BUILT THE HOUSE.
HAVE THAT RAILING IN THE FRONT.
LIKE THE FENCE THAT WILL POP UP THE.
WE'VE BEEN MAKING A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS.
AND WE'RE STILL WORKING. THAT'S WHY IT LOOKS BRAND NEW RAILING, HUH.
YEAH. WE DIDN'T REPLACE THAT, BUT DEFINITELY BEEN PAINTED.
OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS BEAUTIFUL HOUSE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE EITHER HERE OR ONLINE? NO. OKAY.
AND. ASK FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE CAREFULLY CONSIDER YOUR CASE, WHICH IS WHAT IT DESERVES.
I WAS UNCLEAR ON READING THIS IS THE FENCE CONSIDERED ONE ITEM ON THIS, OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT THE BACK SEPARATELY, OR IS IT BECAUSE IT'S ON A CORNER LOT? YOU'RE CONSIDERING BOTH FRONT AND BACK.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED TWO DIFFERENT, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, PROPOSALS FOR THE FRONT FENCE, WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT STANDARD IN OUR DESIGN STANDARDS AS IT IS, AND THEN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, SIDE AND REAR FENCE AS WELL.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO INSTEAD OF DOING JUST THE SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD PICKET THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN THE FRONT YARD, NO MORE THAN FOUR FOOT TALL, THEY WANT TO DO A FOUR FOOT TALL PICKET PATTERN THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING FRONT HANDRAILS.
THEY WANT TO DO THAT SAME KIND OF PATTERN.
[00:10:02]
SO IT'S REALLY TWO DIFFERENT PROPOSALS FOR SIDE REAR FENCES AND THEN FOR FRONT YARD FENCE ON THE SAME PROPERTY.YEAH. BECAUSE WE HAD WE HAD SOME SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THAT A FEW YEARS AGO THAT I THINK CAUSED THIS TO BE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF FENCES THAT DON'T HAVE THE LATTICE. BUT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES ON, SOME NEW BUILD FENCES THAT CAUSED COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER WHAT THE TOP TWO FEET OF A FENCE LOOKS LIKE, WHICH IS WHERE THE LATTICE GOT INTO THE CODE.
BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE FRONT AND THE REAR FENCES SEPARATELY? IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION, THEY CAN BREAK IT OUT.
THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS FOR BOTH THE FRONT AND THE BACK AS IT COMPARES TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH IS THE STANDARD FOR EVERYONE.
SO ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? RIGHT. YEAH.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 24 LC-002.
OKAY. AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND.
CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSION? NOW, WHAT IS BEFORE US IS THAT THEY WANT TO DO A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT LOOKS LIKE THE RAILING THAT IS ON THE PORCHES, CORRECT? OKAY. AND THEN ON THE BACK OF IT, THEY WANT TO DO A STANDARD SIX FOOT FENCE, WHICH WE THEN ALLOW TWO FOOT FRAMED LATTICE.
BUT INSTEAD OF THE TYPICAL OPEN PATTERN LATTICE, YOU WANT TO DO A MODIFIED PATTERN THAT MATCHES THE RAILING BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT WILL LEND ITSELF TO THE STYLE OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND BRING CONTINUITY.
I JUST HAVE VERIFICATION, THAT'S ALL.
NOT HAVING A DIALOG. JUST WANT HER TO TELL ME IF I'VE MISREPRESENTED WHAT THIS IS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I HAD A QUESTION.
SO THE FRONT FENCE, THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO MIMICKING THAT RAIL FOR THE FRONT FENCE.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S IN QUESTION IS USING THAT INSTEAD OF LATTICE ON THE BACK.
NO, IT'S BOTH BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THAT PARTICULAR FENCE PATTERN DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO IT'S TWO THAT THAT FENCE USED IN THE FRONT IS NOT IN THE DESIRED DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND THEN USING THAT DESIGN ON THE BACK.
COPPER IS NOT IN THE DESIGN OKAY OKAY.
BUT OF COURSE IT'S UP TO US TO DETERMINE WHICH I THINK IS.
AND. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD LOOK GOOD ON THE FRONT OF THAT, ON THE FRONT OF THAT YARD. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MATCH THAT INSTEAD OF LATTICE.
I THINK LATTICE WOULD BE YEAH, WOULD BE CONTRADICTORY.
I THINK THAT'D BE NICER TO HAVE.
YEAH. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS WE HAVE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO WHEN WE KIND OF OPEN THAT DOOR FOR ONE, THEN WE OPEN THE DOOR FOR ALL.
AND AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY, OKAY, WE LIKE THIS AND WE DON'T LIKE THAT.
RIGHT. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT PUTS US IN A REAL DIFFICULT POSITION WHEN WE MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR SOMEBODY BASED ON STYLE, FOR INSTANCE, THEN THAT I TOTALLY GET IT.
I CERTAINLY LIKE BETTER THAN THE CHAIN.
BUT IF OUR OBJECTIVE IS PRESERVATION AND TRYING TO PRESERVE THE ESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS NOT JUST THE ARCHITECTURE, IT'S THE FENCES, IT'S THE CURBS, IT'S ALL OF THAT.
I THINK A COMPELLING ARGUMENT IS IF YOU CAN FIND ME A FENCE THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT, THAT WAS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS BEFORE OF ANY MATERIAL, THEN I WOULD BE MORE PRONE TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD RECONSIDER THIS, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SAID ALL ALONG WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO REQUEST FOR SOMETHING THAT IS A DEVIATION FROM THE NORMAL, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT THIS THING WAS TWO STORIES ON TOP OF THE HOUSE.
[00:15:02]
AND THAT'S KIND OF A COMPELLING REASON.IT DOES A I WOULDN'T SAY DANGEROUS.
THAT'S KIND OF A WELL, BUT IT'S RISKY BECAUSE HOW DO WE TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHO COMES IN WHO WANTS TREFOILS OR PEACOCKS, AS WE HAD ONE OF THOSE, HOW DO WE TELL THEM, NO? YEAH. WHEN WE TELL SOMEBODY ELSE, YES.
THEN YOU KNOW, WE CONTRADICT OURSELVES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, EVERYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE US IS IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS A GOOD IDEA, IF WE OFTEN HAVE GONE OPPOSING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE, IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.
BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE.
MIC] THERE'S MY I JUST I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT, MY PARENTS HAVE A HOUSE ON 1209 WINNIE, AND THEY HAVE AN IRON FENCE ON THE FRONT THAT MATCHES THE RAILING OF THEIR HOUSE.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW HISTORIC IT IS, BUT IT'S BEEN THERE A REALLY LONG TIME, AND IT MATCHES.
SO IT'S NOT THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT WITHOUT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF IT HOW CAN WE? WE EITHER HAVE TO GO BACK AND WORKSHOP THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SAY WE NEED TO MAKE SOME MORE EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THIS IS TOO NARROW A FIELD, OR WE NEED SOME OTHER COMPELLING REASON WHY WE WOULD, IN EFFECT, AND JUST MY OPINION, WEAKEN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BY MAKING ALLOWANCES BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.
BUT THE GUY WITH THE PEACOCKS, WE HAD A GUY WHO HAD PEACOCKS, AND WE HAD TO TURN HIM DOWN.
IT IS BEYOND WHAT WE CAN SOMETIMES DO FOR PEOPLE.
IN MY OPINION, THAT RAILING IS SO CLOSE TO THE STAFF APPROVED RAILING, WHICH IS JUST SQUARE RAILS.
I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO BE DUPLICATED ON THE FENCE AND AS THE LATTICE.
OKAY, BUT YOU MADE THE MOTION.
YEAH. OKAY, WELL, YOU WOULD NEED TO AMEND YOUR MOTION.
YES. THE MOTION WAS FOR APPROVAL.
FOR THE MATCHING FENCE ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? YES. AND THE LATTICE ON THE SIDES.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
RIGHT. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL.
BUT WE HAVE PROVIDED WHAT WE CALL HOWEVER CONDITIONS.
SO TO BE MORE ACCURATE YOU COULD SAY YOU MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF.
ARE THERE ANY HISTORIC STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
NO, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING WHAT'S BEFORE US IS APPROVING A FENCE THAT MATCHES THAT RAILING, WHICH IS SETTING A VERY SPECIFIC PRECEDENCE.
THAT FENCE IS NOT IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND YET WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT.
AND SO SOMEONE ELSE COULD COME IN AND MAKE THE SAME REQUEST.
ARE WE PREPARED TO, WORKSHOP THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT ALLOWANCES WE CAN AND CAN'T DO? AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION.
ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME JUST MAKE SURE, SARAH, DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT YOUR MOTION? AND THEN, JANE, DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT YOUR SECOND OF IT? BECAUSE I THINK WE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THE MOTION THAT SHE MADE AND THE INTENT THAT SHE HAD.
[00:20:01]
SO IF THAT'S OKAY, CAN SHE RESTATE HER MOTION? OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE 24 LC- 002 WITH THE CONDITIONS BY STAFF OF THE HEIGHT OF BOTH THE SIDE AND THE FRONT.INCLUDING THE STYLE OF THE FENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO IN QUESTION.
YES, INCLUDING THE STYLE OF THE FENCE.
IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE MOTION IS? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I'LL SECOND IT. YOU'LL SECOND IT.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT? I LIKE IT.
I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE OF WHAT IT DOES TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
I THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSIDERATIONS.
AND THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THAT.
IS IT PRETTY? YEAH, IT IS PRETTY.
WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF PRETTY THINGS I'D LIKE TO HAVE APPROVED.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT WE WORK OFF OF IS THE STRENGTH OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AND WE NEED TO PROTECT THAT AS WE CAN FOR EVERYBODY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? I FEEL LIKE THE WHOLE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE IS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE THINGS.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN TO MATCH ANYTHING ELSE ON THERE.
SO IF YOU SAID WHERE YOU CAN ONLY DO IT WITH LATTICE.
I WOULD REJECT IT AND SAY THAT'S JUST TOO BUSY.
YOU KNOW, YOU GOT POLKA DOTS AND PLAID.
SO ONLY BECAUSE THAT'S AN APPROVED ALTERNATIVE.
BUT I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF LATITUDE AND LEEWAY THAT'S GIVEN IN DISCUSSION THAT ALLOWS FOR OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU THINK PEACOCKS LOOK GOOD, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE UP HERE.
SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO SAY? NO. OKAY.
WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL NOT IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT. SO, AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR REGULAR BUSINESS.
SO IF Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE OFF, YOU CAN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE CASES.
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROPERTY.
ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PIECES OF GOOD NEWS.
THE WE APPLIED FOR A TRAVEL STIPEND TO THE NAPC AND APC CONFERENCE, BACK IN THE FALL, AND WE WERE RECENTLY AWARDED TWO POSITIONS. SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO FUND TWO POSITIONS TO GO TO THE CONFERENCE.
SO IT WILL LIKELY BE DANIEL FROM STAFF AND THEN EITHER CONNIE OR CHRISTIAN FROM THE COMMISSION.
OKAY. AND SO THAT'S NOT UNTIL JULY.
WE SUBMITTED THAT FOR A SURVEY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE SITES, WITH THE GOAL OF EITHER DESIGNATION OF NEW DISTRICTS OR NEW GALVESTON LANDMARKS.
THE HIGHEST SCORE IN THE STATE.
WE LIKE THAT. SO, TWO PIECES OF GOOD NEWS.
OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE, SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION NEXT TIME.
AND THIS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE WANT TO TAKE THIS TO A WORKSHOP.
BUT IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION AND TO CATHERINE'S ATTENTION THAT THERE ARE SOME FOLKS OUT THERE THAT HAVE AN OPPOSITION TO ARTIFICIAL GRASS BEING USED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT'S ARTIFICIAL GRASS TURF TURF, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY RULE
[00:25:03]
AGAINST IT. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WHATEVER WE COME, THERE'S GOING TO BE A GRANDFATHER COMPONENT TO IT AS WELL.SO ANYWAYS, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT ON THE DISCUSSION, FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
AND THEN WE'LL DETERMINE, BASED ON WHAT THIS COMMISSION DECIDES, WHETHER WE WANT TO TAKE THAT TO A WORKSHOP OR NOT BASED ON THE FRONT YARD OR JUST WHAT YOU CAN SEE OR CAN THE BACKYARD BOTH.
WELL, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE DISCUSS NEXT.
I DON'T KNOW IF CATHERINE WANTS TO SHARE SOME OF THE PICTURES THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
I'VE GOT PICTURES THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO ME.
SO YEAH, WE CAN PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING FOR NEXT TIME.
LOOK FORWARD IF HE WANTS TO COME AND TALK.
ANYWAYS, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE NEXT MEETING? NO. OKAY, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
OKAY, I WANT FIVE MINUTES OVER.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.