Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME EVERYONE TO THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. TODAY IS MONDAY, MAY 5TH AND THE TIME IS 4:00 AND WE WILL START OUR MEETING OFF WITH

[Landmark Commission on May 5, 2025.]

ATTENDANCE. COMMISSIONER ALLEN. VICE CHAIRPERSON BOURGEOIS.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CHASTAIN. PRESENT. CHAIRPERSON CLICK.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FITZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LANGDALE.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER. SMITH. COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER THIERRY PRESENT. EX-OFFICIO COUNCIL MEMBER SHARON LEWIS WILL BE ABSENT TODAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH ANY OF OUR CASES TODAY? NO. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS. NO. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.

OUR FIRST CASE IS 25LC-017 A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT 2400 MECHANIC.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING A CHANGE OF MATERIAL ON THE REAR FACADE OF THE GARAGE.

51 NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED. BACKGROUND.

ON JANUARY 6TH, 2025, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF THE ETERNAL GARAGE STRUCTURE, NEW SURFACE PARKING LOT, STORAGE AREA AND ROOF TERRACE THAT WAS UNDER CASE 24LC-036.

ON THE REAR OF THE BUILDING THE FOLLOWING ALTERATIONS WERE APPROVED. SEVERAL GARAGE DOOR OPENINGS WERE TO BE INFILLED WITH NEW CMU, WITH BRICK VENEER TO MATCH THE EXISTING, AND TWO NEW DOORS TO BE INSTALLED FOR FIRE EXITS.

SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE IN MATERIALS ON THE REAR FACADE OF THE GARAGE.

THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THE BRICK VENEER IS SEPARATING FROM THE CMU WALL BECAUSE THE BRICK TIES ARE FAILING.

THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE BRICK VENEER AND PAINT THE CMU WALL.

PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

CONFORMANCE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

ACCORDING TO THE LOCATING FACADE IMPROVEMENTS CHART ON PAGE 29 OF THE STANDARDS.

THE LOCATION OF THE WORK IS IN LOCATION D, NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE.

MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.

WHILE MORE FLEXIBILITY MAY BE CONSIDERED IN LOCATION D, THE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT, AND NOTE THAT THE PREDOMINANT BUILDING MATERIALS IN THE STRAND MECHANIC HISTORIC DISTRICT ARE BRICK, STONE, AND STUCCO. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BRICK VENEER BE REPAIRED AND RETAINED.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DUE TO THE NONCONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE DENIED.

HOWEVER, SHOULD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FIND THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE.

YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE PHOTOS. SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE WEST ANNEX, THAT TWO STORY PORTION TO THE WEST OF THE MAIN BUILDING.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED PHOTOS. THESE WERE ALL IN YOUR STAFF REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF THE BRICK VENEER ON THE REAR.

AND WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THOSE.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE PHOTO, ANOTHER EXAMPLE PHOTO AND THEN THE PROPOSAL, THEN AGAIN THAT'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU CATHERINE, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25C-017.

IT'S THE APPLICANT HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND TELL US ABOUT THE OH, MR. WATSON.

THANK YOU. HI. I BROUGHT TEN COPIES OF THE ALLEY PHOTOS SHOWING YOU ACTUALLY THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE OWNER HAS REQUESTED. THE BRICK WAS LITERALLY FALLING OFF WHEN WE STARTED WORK.

THIS ADDITION OR THIS WALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS BUILT IN 1995 WHEN RANDALL DAVIS RENOVATED THE BUILDING FOR THE CONDOS.

SO IT'S NOT EVEN AN HISTORIC WALL. THE OWNERS WERE ASKING IF WE COULD SAVE SOME MONEY AND JUST NOT PUT THE BRICK BACK AND JUST PAINT THE CMU. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE ONE DIRECTLY TO THE WEST IS PAINTED MASONRY.

DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM THIS IS A CMU WALL THAT'S PAINTED.

ADJACENT TO THAT IS A HODGEPODGE OF BRICK THAT IS PAINTED.

AND THEN TO THE EAST OF THAT IS A CMU WALL WITH METAL SIDING.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE I'M WORKING WITH A REALLY HISTORIC ALLEY.

THAT'S PRETTY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS TO JUST GO BACK WITH THE CMU.

ALL THE OPENINGS WOULD BE PUT BACK AND RETAINED.

[00:05:01]

IT'S JUST WE WON'T HAVE A BRICK VENEER AND WE'LL PAINT IT.

CAN I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO WHEN DID YOU SAY IT WAS BUILT? 1995. OKAY.

AND WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE? I'M NOT SURE. IT WAS PART OF THE CLERK IN COURTS PRINTING OFFICES, BUT WHEN THEY PUT IN THE PARKING GARAGE, THEY TORE DOWN THE PRINTING OFFICES AND PUT IN THE GARAGE ENTRY AND THE RAMPS AND EVERYTHING IN THERE.

SO PRETTY MUCH THE BUILDING WAS TORN DOWN IN 95 TO, TO DO THE PARKING GARAGE AT THAT TIME.

AND WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE 30 YEARS SINCE STEEL IS FAILING.

IT WAS ALL RED IRON THAT WAS SUPPORTING THE OLD GARAGE.

SO IT WAS ALL RUSTING AND FAILING. THERE WERE SOME CONCRETE SUPPORTS IN THE OLD GARAGE THAT ONCE IT WENT UNDER WATER AND IKE ALL THE REBAR IS EXPLODING AND RUST JACKING. SO THAT'S WHEN WE CAME BACK OR CAME TO Y'ALL BACK IN JANUARY.

WAS THAT IT, JANUARY? TO TEAR DOWN THE INSIDE OF IT AND REWORK THE WHOLE INSIDE, KEEPING THE FRONT FACADE AND THE ALLEY FACADE.

BUT THIS TIME, AFTER WE STARTED INTO IT, THE BRICK IS JUST FALLING OFF.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO REWORK THE CMU AND ELIMINATE THE BRICK AND JUST PAINT IT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.

ANYBODY? I'LL MAKE ONE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. THAT'S IT. ANYBODY SECOND? SINCE IT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN HOW IT CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

OKAY. SINCE THE WALL IS NOT ORIGINAL IN THE THE BRICK IS FALLING OFF AND ALL OF THAT WALL IS NOT ORIGINAL MAINLY IS MY THING, 1995. I'D LIKE TO SAY IS NOT REALLY THAT LONG AGO.

I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT. SO THAT'S MY MOTION.

I'LL SECOND. SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. OKAY. Y'ALL READY FOR A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION PASSES.

OKAY. MOVING ON. WE HAVE CASE 25LC-018, A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT 1407 BALL.

ALRIGHTY. SO THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A GARAGE APARTMENT IN THE REAR YARD IN THE ALLEY.

THERE ARE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT ONE RETURNED AND ONE IN FAVOR.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE PHOTO IN THE STAFF REPORT ON THE COVER PAGE IS INCORRECT.

BUT WE DO HAVE A CORRECT SITES INVENTORY PHOTO YOU CAN REFERENCE.

THIS HAS A DIFFERENT PAINT SCHEME NOW. SO ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A GARAGE MODIFICATION TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

WILL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY. THERE'S AN EXISTING GARAGE THERE.

NOW. IT'S NOT HISTORIC. IT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED TO MAKE WAY FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT IS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE ZONING, LAND USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH MAY BE APPROPRIATE.

SO STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED PROPOSED WORK GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS REGARDING MATERIAL SIZE, PLACEMENT AND MASSING. AS WE NOTE IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND AS USUAL, STAFF'S ONLY CONCERN WAS WITH THE PROPOSED NEW TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS THAT THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT IS PROPOSING.

THAT MAY BE TO MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. HOWEVER, OUR DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, STRICTLY ASKED FOR A ONE OVER ONE CONFIGURATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WHICH THAT'S SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE A BEING THE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENT, PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH FIVE.

NORMALLY WE WOULD HAVE SOME PHOTOS NUT I BELIEVE WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES RIGHT NOW. SO THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

[00:10:06]

DANIEL, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO, YOU SAID THAT'S THE INCORRECT PHOTO HERE? YEAH. ON THE STAFF BEING ME DID NOT CATCH THAT.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. YEAH. THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT PHOTO.

HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT B, WHICH IS THE EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY, THAT IS THE CORRECT PHOTO. OH, OKAY. OH, THERE IT IS.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? THERE IS A GARAGE APARTMENT GOING UP AT THIS ADDRESS, TOO.

I'M SORRY. THERE IS A GARAGE APARTMENT GOING UP AT THIS ADDRESS, TOO.

OH, YES. IT'S RIGHT BY MY HOUSE. THIS ONE'S RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE.

YEAH. WHAT WE YEAH, WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO WHEN WE START A STAFF REPORT IS WE LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SIMILAR.

SO THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT THAT PHOTO HAS.

EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NO. OKAY. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LC-018.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT? I'M BRAX EASTERWOOD I'M THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT.

AND THANK YOU FOR STAFF REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATION, DANIEL AND STAFF AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS ALWAYS, AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO COMMISSIONER CLICK.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THE DRAWINGS, I THINK, ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COPIES OF A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.

I DIDN'T BRING ONE FOR EVERYONE, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE WE WERE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IF YOU LOOK TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE EXISTING GARAGE IS.

AND THIS THIS GARAGE WOULD BASICALLY BE REPLACING THAT.

AND BUT ADDING ANOTHER STORY TO THE TOP. AND IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE SHORT TERM RENTAL.

IT'S JUST FOR THE FAMILY THAT'S MOVING IN THERE.

IT'S KIND OF TUCKED IN THERE AS CLOSE AS WE COULD GET IT TO THE POOL.

ON THE SITE PLAN. AND WE WOULD REQUEST THE TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS THAT'S WHAT JUST WHAT THE OWNER HAD ASKED TO DO. AND THOSE WOULD BE SURFACE APPLIED MULLIONS RATHER THAN SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS THAT THEY WOULD.

SO THEY WOULD BE PROUD OF THE GLASS, WE'VE WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. THANK YOU. YEAH. NO PROBLEM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TODAY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 25LC-018.

NO. OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 25LC -018 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

I SECOND. SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SO THAT'S WITH THE ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS.

CORRECT? YES. WITH CONDITION ONE A I'M ASSUMING.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE RECOMMENDATION OF. OKAY OKAY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. WE'LL VOTE ON THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES.

NEXT, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT 25LC-019 AT 1711 POST OFFICE.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL.

SIX NOTICES WERE SENT TWO RETURNED THOSE TWO IN FAVOR.

PLEASE NOTE THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THERE'S A NOTE HERE THAT DESCRIBES THE CURRENT DETERMINATION OF THE STRUCTURE AS BEING CONTRIBUTING.

AT THE TIME OF THE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY IN 2015 THE PROPERTY WAS RATED AS LOW AND NONCONTRIBUTING TO THE DISTRICT.

STARTING IN 2016, THE HOUSE WAS RENOVATED. THE WORK INCLUDED REMOVING NON-HISTORIC ADDITIONS AND RESTORING THE FRONT FACADE TO ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE.

BECAUSE OF THIS RESTORATION WORK, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN RECLASSIFIED AS MEDIUM AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISTRICT.

THE 2015 SURVEY INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT B.

SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING WITH SMOOTH, SMOOTH CEMENT SIDING.

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE, THE EAST AND WEST FACADES WERE COVERED WITH VINYL SIDING THAT WAS DAMAGED IN HURRICANE BERYL IN THE SUMMER OF 2024.

[00:15:07]

THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS ARE ON THE EAST SIDE, REMOVE SIDING AND A SMALL REAR PORTION OF NON-ORIGINAL WOOD AND REPLACE IT WITH HARDIE, PRESERVE AND PAINT THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING WOOD, WHICH IS IN GOOD CONDITION. ON THE WEST SIDE, AT THE BACK PORTION, ONLY REMOVE THE EXISTING PLYWOOD AND REPLACE IT WITH HARDIE, AND THEN THE SOUTH SIDE WHICH IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE REPLACE THE ENTIRE SURFACE WITH HARDIE DUE TO THE POOR CONDITION OF THE MIXED AND ROTTEN MATERIALS AND THE HARSH WEATHER EXPOSURE.

PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

CONFORMANCE STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

ACCORDING TO THE LOCATING FACADE IMPROVEMENT CHART ON PAGE 29 OF THE STANDARDS, THE LOCATION OF THE WORKS ARE ARE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS.

THE EAST AND WEST FACADES ARE LOCATION C LESS VISIBLE SECONDARY WALL PRESERVATION IS STILL PREFERRED, BUT ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY EXISTS FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION, AND THEN THE SOUTH FACADE IS LOCATION D NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE.

MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.

WHILE MORE FLEXIBILITY MAY BE CONSIDERED IN LOCATION C AND D, THE DESIGN STANDARDS CALL SPECIFICALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. WHILE THE SIDE AND REAR FACADES ARE NOT EASILY VISIBLE FOR ANY RIGHT OF WAY, THE USE OF CEMENT HARDIE SIDING ON A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IS NOT CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS USING WOOD SIDING OF THE SAME DIMENSION AND VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING, AND THE USE OF WOOD CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION, DUE TO NONCONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE DENIED.

HOWEVER, SHOULD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FIND THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE. THEN WE HAVE CONDITIONS LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU CATHERINE, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES. GO AHEAD.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE PHOTOS, AND THE APPLICANT DIDN'T INDICATE THERE WAS ANY.

BUT THEY ARE IN THE AUDIENCE AND MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT BETTER.

AND LOOK, WE HAVE THE SCREEN RESTORED. SO THANK YOU TO OUR IT TEAM IN THE BACK.

THANK YOU. WELL DONE. SO THIS IS I'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THE PHOTOS.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT APPEARS TODAY.

AND THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE AREAS TO BE REPLACED WELL OR INFILLED.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SLIDES OF THESE PHOTOS OF THE CONDITION.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH EAST AND WEST.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LC-019.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT? YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE, AND SIGN IN.

HI, I'M SHANNON GRABER. I'LL SIGN IN. SO I WANTED TO FIRST ADDRESS THE EAST SIDE AND STATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE. OH, SURE. ADDRESS THE EAST SIDE AND STATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE DISCUSSION.

THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME THAT HAD THE GAPS HAS BEEN LOOKED AT FURTHER AND HAS BEEN INFILLED WITH SOME WOOD, AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT THEY HAVE REPAINTED AND THEY FELT LIKE THE SECTION TOWARDS THE BACK COULD BE REHABILITATED.

IT IS NOT HISTORIC WOOD THAT WAS AN ENCLOSED BALCONY PORCH TOWARDS THE BACK IS WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING FOR THE HARDIE.

BUT THEY WENT AHEAD AND DID THEIR WORK IN TERMS OF SCRAPING AND PAINTING AND DOING ALL OF THAT.

AND SO THEY KEPT THAT. SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE ALL VISIBLE SIDES OF THE HOUSE THAT ARE RESTORED WITH WOOD.

SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME FOR THE COMMISSION IS THE REAR OF THE HOME, AND APPROXIMATELY, BUT NOT QUITE A THIRD OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOME.

THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOME IS ONLY VISIBLE TO OUR NEIGHBOR AT 1711 POST OFFICE.

I'VE GOT UP THERE ON THEIR BALCONY TO TAKE THESE PHOTOS AND IN THEIR WINDOWS AND THEN THE REAR SIDE OF THE HOUSE AS WELL.

SO I WANTED TO NOTE ALSO THAT WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH SOMEONE THAT HAS VERIFIED TO THIS IS NOT HISTORIC WOOD.

SO THIS IS PLACED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN.

BUT IT'S NOT HISTORIC WOOD. IT'S A ESSENTIALLY A MISH MASH IN SOME SOME PLYWOOD.

SO MY HUSBAND AND I FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, CONSIDER THE HARDIE SIDING FOR THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF WEATHER AND

[00:20:03]

MOISTURE RESISTANCE RESILIENCE WITH THE STORMS PAST RESISTANCE.

THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WITH SOME TERMITE DAMAGE IN THE PAST, BUT THAT IS NOT ACTIVE RIGHT NOW.

TO ADDRESS THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION. WE ARE ALSO DOING A LOT OF THINGS IN CONSIDERATION OF SOME FIRE RESISTANT PROJECTS, GIVEN WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE DO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HARDIE SIDING OFFERS A LOT MORE RESISTANCE TO FIRES.

THERE'S LESS MAINTENANCE INVOLVED. WITH THIS PARTICULAR SIDING IN THE BACK.

I KNOW FROM DISCUSSING WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER THAT IT WAS PAINTED BY HIM TWO TIMES SINCE 2016, AND WE REPAINTED THE HOUSE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN 2023.

IT DID NOT HOLD UP TO THE SCORCHING SUN ON THAT SURFACE OF THE HOUSE, IT DID NOT HOLD UP TO HURRICANE BERYL.

SO THAT WAS A LOT OF MONEY. IT WAS ABOUT $23,000 IN TOTAL.

THAT DOESN'T FEEL VERY SUSTAINABLE TO US TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT ON AN EVERY COUPLE YEAR BASIS.

WE KNOW THAT IF WE PAINT HARDIE, IT'S ABOUT ABOUT TEN YEARS IS WHAT IT'S EXPECTED TO LAST.

FROM A SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDPOINT THIS PART OF THE HOUSE JUST GETS BOMBARDED EVERY DAY BY RAISE.

THERE IS NO SHADE. THERE'S REALLY NOT A REALISTIC PLACE, EVEN FOR US TO PUT TREES, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE SMALL YARDS AND THINGS UNDERNEATH AND FOUNDATION ISSUES THAT COULD OCCUR. SO WE KNOW THAT INSULATING AND PUTTING HARDIE ON THIS ASPECT OF THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE VERY VALUABLE TO US IN TERMS OF CONSUMING LESS ENERGY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT AS WELL.

AND ESTHETICALLY, I THINK WE CAN MAKE IT LOOK REASONABLE BY USING THE APPROPRIATE MATERIALS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED.

WE HAVE HAD NEIGHBORS NEARBY US AND ON THE SAME STREET WHO HAVE HARDIE IN THE BACK OF THEIR HOMES OR, YOU KNOW, ELSEWHERE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND HAVE HEARD FROM A MULTITUDE OF PEOPLE THAT IT'S WORKED OUT VERY WELL FOR THEM FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE MAKING THAT REQUEST, TRYING TO TAKE REALLY GOOD CARE OF THE HOUSE AS BEST WE CAN.

AND I DO VALUE THE PROCESS OF HISTORIC RESTORATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

WE'VE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO RESTORE EVERYTHING THAT WE THINK IS YOU KNOW, REASONABLE AND MAKES SENSE TO DO.

AND THAT'S BASICALLY ABOUT IT. THANK YOU. YEAH.

ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE.

SO YOU'RE REPLACING THE ENTIRE REAR FACADE WITH HARDIE, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH HARDIE? YES. WE WOULD LIKE TO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 25LC-019.

YOU COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR US, PLEASE.

I'M DOUG COOP. SIGNING IN. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF.

LOVE THE HOUSE. LOVE WHAT'S BEEN DONE TO IT. THESE GUYS ARE GREAT NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW YOU COULDN'T ASK FOR BETTER NEIGHBORS.

THE UPKEEP OF THE HOUSE IS FIVE STAR. THEIR LANDSCAPING IS WONDERFUL.

I WAS ONE OF THE APPROVALS THAT YOU NOTED AT THE START OF THIS MEETING.

I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THESE CHANGES TO THE BACK PART OF THE HOUSE.

REAL QUICK, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT ON APRIL 9TH, LESS THAN A MONTH AGO THERE WAS AN APPEAL THAT WAS SUCCESSFUL FOR HARDIE ON THE REAR SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 1721 POST OFFICE.

THAT'S TWO DOORS DOWN FROM THE HOUSE IN QUESTION.

NOT ONLY WAS THE HARDIE APPROVED, BUT THEY WERE ALSO APPROVED FOR 11 VINYL WINDOWS.

SO I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE IS A PRECEDENT SET HERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE HERE TODAY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 25LC-019? NO. OKAY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.

[00:25:09]

ANYBODY? I MOVE WE REJECT 25-LC 019 BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCUSSION ITEMS. SIX A APPEAL OF CASE 25LC-002. THESE DISCUSSION ITEMS WERE PLACED ON BY VICE CHAIRPERSON BOURGEOIS.

I THINK HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOME RECENT ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE SEEN.

SO WE HAD AN APPEAL OF THIS CASE AND IT WAS HEARD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND IT WAS OVERTURNED.

SO I THINK CHRISTIAN JUST WANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT.

SO I'LL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO HIM. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO IT OR HEARD IT, BUT BASICALLY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WERE OVERRULED BECAUSE THEY CLAIMED WE DIDN'T FOLLOW OUR OWN RULES, AND THAT DIDN'T SEEM ACCURATE TO ME SO I WANTED TO BRING IT UP AND MAYBE GET STAFF'S ADVICE ON IT AND WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

I WILL NOTE THAT WE WERE NOT OVERRULED ON THE SITING OF THAT GENTLEMAN SAID EARLIER.

IT WAS JUST THE WINDOWS BECAUSE WE GAVE LEEWAY TO THEM FOR THE SIDING, ANYWAY.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING BOARD IS TASKED TO DO.

THERE ARE THE APPEAL BODY FOR YOU ALL FOR YOUR DECISIONS AND ALSO STAFF'S DECISIONS.

SO WE ALSO ARE APPEALABLE TO THE ZONING BOARD.

AND THEY THEIR TASK IS TO DETERMINE IF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS FOLLOWED THEIR REGULATIONS AND THEIR PROCESSES IN CONSIDERING THE APPEAL.

ANYTIME YOU'RE MAKING ANY MOTION, YOU KNOW, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO SPELL OUT YOUR REASONS WHY.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON THE RECORD, AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING THEN CONVEYED TO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ENTITY LIKE THE ZONING BOARD. SO IT'S JUST REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND I THINK IT'S THE SAME WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT THAT IT'S JUST REALLY CLEAR TO BE PUT ON THE RECORD WHY YOU'RE MAKING THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE MAKING. AND THEN ANYTIME YOU CAN TIE YOUR DECISION BACK TO SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS, MAKES YOUR DECISION THAT MUCH STRONGER. YOU KNOW, WHEN STAFF IS MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE LOOKING AT EACH SECTION OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S BEING FOLLOWED. SO IF YOU CAN YOU KNOW, CITE A SPECIFIC SECTION THAT MAKES YOUR YOUR MOTION STRONGER.

SO I GUESS I'M STILL UNCLEAR IF WE GOT OVERRULED ON THE WINDOWS, IF THAT WAS STILL BY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

WHAT DID THEY CITE OR HOW DID THAT THE OVERRULE THAT WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO THE THE DECISION, THE APPEAL WAS ONLY ON THE WINDOWS BECAUSE THE THE DECISION WAS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT, IN THAT CASE TO RETAIN THE HARDIE THAT THEY PUT ON THE HOUSE AND APPROVED TO PUT ON THE PORCH THAT THEY HAD CONSTRUCTED.

SO THOSE TWO WERE APPROVED AND THE APPLICANT WAS HAPPY WITH THOSE TWO PORTIONS OF THE DECISION.

SO THEY APPEALED REALLY JUST THE ONLY THING THAT WAS AGAINST WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING, WHICH WAS THE WINDOWS.

AND YOU KNOW, I RECOMMEND LIKE CHRISTIAN DID TO GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE MEETING.

ALL OF OUR MEETINGS ARE RECORDED AND AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, SO YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS YOU KNOW DELIBERATION.

YEAH. BUT LIKE WHAT AARON SAID, THAT WAS WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WERE OVERRULED, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS THE RULE.

THAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE OTHER BOARD. SO IS THERE AN ADVOCATE FOR US OVER THERE TO SAY THAT WE GO? HOW'S THAT WORK? SO WHAT WE DO WHEN WE OUR PRESENTATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE TO TO YOU ALL INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OUR OTHER TWO BOARDS. AND THAT IS, IN YOUR CASES, WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS LIKE A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY.

SO WE ARE JUST PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE TO THEM.

SO WE PRESENT THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE THAT GIVES THEIR BASIS FOR THE APPEAL, WE PRESENT THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT, AND THEN WE ALSO GIVE THEM A TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.

SO THEY ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO IT ON THE WEBSITE, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A DETAILED TRANSCRIPT OF EVERYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE MEETING.

[00:30:03]

SO WE'RE NOT ADVOCATES, WE ARE PRESENTERS. IT COULD BE THAT IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL, YOU COULD AS A BODY ASK THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR TO GO TO THE MEETING AND REPRESENT YOURSELVES.

APPEALS ARE RARE YOU KNOW, BEFORE THIS ONE, IT HAD BEEN COULDN'T EVEN TELL YOU ABOUT FIVE YEARS SINCE THEIR LAST ONE.

SO THEY ARE, THEY ARE A RARE OCCURRENCE. STAFF IS HAVING A STAFF DETERMINATION APPEAL THAT THE LAST ONE WE HAD WAS PROBABLY 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO.

SO IT DOES HAPPEN, BUT IT IS NOT COMMON. YOU WOULD GO AS.

I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. ARE THERE ANY INSTANCES WHERE STAFF WILL RECOMMEND THE USE OF HARDIE MATERIAL IN HISTORIC HOMES THAT COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION? STAFF CONSISTENTLY DOES NOT. WE RECOMMEND THE USE OF WOOD ON A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

THEY THE COMMISSION HAS IN THE PAST APPROVED SOME HARDIE ESPECIALLY FOR THE USE OF ON ADDITIONS BECAUSE IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THEN IN NEW CONSTRUCTION FROM THE GROUND UP HARDIE IS ALMOST 100% OF WHAT PEOPLE REQUEST.

AND IT'S A IT'S A APPROVED MATERIAL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

WHEN YOU SAID THAT SOMEBODY FROM THE COMMISSION COULD GO AND, LIKE, REPRESENT US.

IS THAT LIKE A PUBLIC COMMENT THING? RIGHT. YOU COULD COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT THE THE COMMISSION THE BOARD COULD ASK YOU QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD ABOUT THE DELIBERATION. OKAY. SO WHAT KIND OF TRAINING DOES THE BOARD GET ON OUR RULES AND EVERYTHING? LIKE, I DON'T I STILL DON'T SEE THE LOGIC OF HOW THEY JUMP TO THAT WE WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE RULES.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION. YEAH, EXACTLY.

SO THAT WAS WHAT THREW ME. YEAH. I'M TRYING TO BE NICE.

THEY DIDN'T REALLY SEEM TO KNOW WHAT MUCH ABOUT IT.

AND THAT'S NOT THEIR SPECIALTY. WHAT THEY DO, WHAT THEIR, THEIR BREAD AND BUTTER IS VARIANCES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

THEY SEE THINGS ABOUT LOT SIZES AND SETBACKS AND CONFORMING AND NON-CONFORMING USES.

SO THEY DON'T SEE IT VERY OFTEN. SO THEY'RE NOT EXPERTS IN REGULATIONS.

THEY'RE GIVEN THE SAME KIND OF TRAINING THAT YOU ALL GET WHEN THEY COME ONTO THE BOARD ABOUT WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE.

AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT THEY'RE THE APPEALS BODY.

AND THEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, WE GAVE THEM A PRIMER OVER WHAT THEIR THEIR ROLE IS WHEN THEY'RE DOING AN APPEAL.

I JUST WANT TO JUST I GUESS IT'S A STATEMENT THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING AND SOMETHING MAYBE I DON'T KNOW IF THE WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM OR TRAINING OR OVERLAP AT SOME POINT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY THE NEXT MEETING HAVING PRECEDENT STATEMENTS BY OTHER PEOPLE REPRESENTING PEOPLE OR, OR SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THEIR CASE. SO IT'S CONCERNING AND THAT IT WILL CONTINUE POTENTIALLY AND MORE APPEALS MAY COME.

I THINK THAT'S GREAT. WE CAN TALK TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE ZONING BOARD AND SEE IF THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE A TRAINING SESSION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY DO, SO THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT FEELING VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT. SO I THINK THEY'D BE RECEPTIVE TO THAT. OKAY.

ALSO HAD A QUESTION ABOUT PRECEDENTS AS WELL.

SO EVERY COMMISSION DECISION IS A STAND, IT'S A STANDALONE DECISION, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S EVERYTHING'S ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND HOW THE REQUEST AFFECTS THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY.

SO THE LAST CASE WHERE I MADE THE MOTION AND I SAID BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, SHOULD I HAVE SAID MORE ON THAT? I DON'T THINK SO. SO WHEN YOU'RE AGREEING WITH STAFF, WE'VE ALREADY OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT WHY WE'RE MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO WE'VE ALREADY DEFENDED IT IN THE STAFF REPORT.

IT'S WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDED, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION OF HOW THE REQUEST CONFORMS OR DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS. SO WHEN IN THE EARLIER CASE WHEN CHAIRPERSON CLICK MADE A MOTION, WE NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO WHY THAT'S BEING MADE AND THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS APPROPRIATE.

BUT YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T SAY TOO MUCH WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION THE MORE IS BETTER.

THEN MIC]. SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW. I RECOMMEND ANY OF YOU ALL WATCH IT, BECAUSE ALSO THE PERSON SPEAKING AND ASKING FOR THE OVERRULING WAS MAKING STATEMENTS THAT DID NOT SEEM TO BE ACCURATE EITHER,

[00:35:05]

SAYING HOW ABOUT PERMITTING AND STUFF, AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE THROWN STAFF UNDER THE BUS AND MADE THEM SEEM LIKE THINGS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY SAID.

SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S NO ONE BRINGING IT UP COUNTERING THEM. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS, SO.

AND I SORRY, I DID NOT, I MEANT TO WATCH IT TODAY AND JUST DIDN'T HAVE TIME.

BUT THE IS OFFICE OF COUNSEL IN THOSE MEETINGS AS WELL, AND GUIDING BECAUSE I KNOW, AT LEAST AT THIS ONE, I'VE BEEN TOLD ABOUT WHAT OUR ROLE IS AND REMINDED THROUGHOUT THAT IS THAT YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE SAME FORMAT. IT'S THE THREE OF US DOWN HERE.

IT'S TYPICALLY LEGAL, IS ALWAYS REPRESENTED. TYPICALLY IT'S DONNA, MORAN IS DONNA'S BACKUP AND IS OFTEN IN THESE MEETINGS AS WELL.

SO IT'S THE THE SAME LEVEL OF SUPPORT THAT HAPPENS AT THESE MEETINGS HAPPENS AT THE ZONING BOARD.

AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND STAFF ISN'T I KNOW Y'ALL ARE I GUESS NEUTRAL, BUT Y'ALL CAN'T TELL THEM OH, THEY DID FOLLOW THE RULES. HERE'S WHERE IT REFERENCES REFERENCES THESE PROCEDURES.

WE WE'RE NEUTRAL. SO IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE NARRATIVE THAT SAYS WHAT THEIR BASIS FOR THE DENIAL, THE THE APPEAL IS. BUT THEIR LOGIC WAS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT.

THE LOGIC WAS THEY CHANGED INTERIOR WALLS, THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THE WINDOWS IS THEIR LOGIC, WHICH MY READING IS. THAT'S NOT THAT IS NOT TRUE BY THE RULES.

IS THAT CORRECT? STAFF DIDN'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

YEAH OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I'M STILL KIND OF CONFUSED AS HELL, YOU KNOW, YOU SAY THAT OH, WE STAFF RECOMMEND WE GO BY STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

BUT WE DID THAT LAST TIME FOR THAT ONE PART AND WE STILL GOT OVERRIDDEN.

SO I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET SOME KIND OF JOINT MEETING WITH THEM OR TRAINING OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN A LOT MORE. WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S THE LAST DECISION WAS FIVE YEARS AGO.

SO IT'S IT'S IT COULD HAPPEN. CERTAINLY. BUT IT'S NOT NOT THAT COMMON.

BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING OR SOME KIND OF TRAINING SESSION WITH THEM, SO I'LL TALK TO THE CHAIR ABOUT IT. MR. ALLEN HAS A QUESTION.

CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? OKAY. SO BEING MY THIRD OR FOURTH MEETING JUST GOING BACK OVER THIS.

SO WHEN YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY HAS A PUBLIC COMMENT TO WHAT CHRISTIAN WAS SAYING, IF THEY ARE SAYING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT WE KNOW IT, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. WE CAN'T RESPOND OR YOU CAN'T RESPOND TO SAY NO, THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.

RIGHT. WE JUST HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT. AND THEN IN THIS CASE, IT WENT TO ANOTHER BOARD AND THEY OVERRULED IT.

RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WAS SAID WAS NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT IN THAT CASE.

RIGHT. YEAH. SO WHEN THERE'S BEING THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT, IT IT IS JUST COMMENT.

OKAY. AND SO IT'S NOT REALLY OUR ROLE TO, TO MAKE CORRECTIONS.

SO WHEN THERE'S AN APPEAL THEY ONLY APPEALED LIKE THE SPECIFICALLY THE WINDOWS.

YES. BECAUSE THAT WAS, YES. SO WHEN THEY SAID THAT THEY OVERTURNED OUR DECISION, THAT MEANT JUST ON THE WINDOWS.

JUST ON THE WINDOWS. OKAY. I PROMISE. SO IF I, IF I GO TO A MEETING OR SARAH DOES OR SOMEONE ELSE, ARE WE ALLOWED TO TALK TO THE THE BOARD AND THEY TALK US BACK, OR IS IT JUST LIKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? WE CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. HOW DOES THAT WORK? IT'S PUBLIC COMMENT. SO YOU WOULD BE PRESENTING YOUR COMMENT TO THE BOARD. THEY CAN ASK YOU QUESTIONS THE WAY YOU ALL CAN ASK QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A NOT A BACK AND FORTH.

IT'S NOT AN INTERROGATION. OKAY. BUT THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, CALL YOU UP SPECIFICALLY TO, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

IS IT PUBLIC COMMENT OR COMMENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING? IT'S COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ONLY THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR IN HER ABSENCE CAN SPEAK FOR THE BOARD.

SO ANYBODY CAN GO TO THE MEETING AS A PUBLIC CITIZEN AND GIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AS A CITIZEN THAT YOU'D LIKE, BUT ONLY THE CHAIR, THE OF THE VICE CHAIR CAN SAY, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.

ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE APPEAL CASE? NO. OKAY.

WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM. OKAY.

SO THIS IS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT'S ALSO PUT ON BY VICE CHAIRPERSON BOURGEOIS.

WE RECENTLY HAD YOU OFTEN SEE THESE, THESE ARE MUCH MORE COMMON THAN APPEALS.

SO OFTEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT CASES THAT ARE BEING DECIDED ON BY ANOTHER BODY.

SO IT'S ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY LICENSED TO USE. AND LICENSED TO USE ARE PLACEMENT OF ITEMS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

OFTEN WHAT WE SEE ARE LIKE ENCROACHMENTS OF OLD HOUSES.

[00:40:02]

STAFF DOES A LOT OF LTUS THAT YOU DON'T SEE THAT ARE LIKE TABLES AND CHAIRS AND THINGS DOWNTOWN.

SO IT'S THE PLACEMENT OF AN ITEM BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CITY WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY.

SO IN THESE CASES, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING BODY, YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE DECISION MAKER. I GUESS ON THIS ONE, THE ONLY THING IS, YOU SAY WE SHOULD BE MORE DETAILED IN WHAT WE SAY IF WE GO AGAINST IT. I GUESS BASICALLY.

RIGHT. IF YEAH SO IF YOU'RE AGREEING WITH STAFF AGAIN WHAT WE'VE WE'VE SUPPORTED OUR DECISION IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

SO IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN STAFF OR IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO PASS ON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S IMPORTANT TO VERBALIZE IT. OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

SO WE'VE BEEN SAYING WE APPROVE SHOULD BE MORE OF WE RECOMMEND INSTEAD OF APPROVAL.

HOW'S THAT? DOES THAT REALLY MATTER? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE PUT IN YOUR MINUTES.

IS YOU RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, BUT YEAH, THAT TO BE TECHNICALLY ACCURATE, YOU WOULD, IT'S BETTER TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

BECAUSE YOU'RE RECOMMENDING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. RIGHT. GOT IT. OKAY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? NO. OKAY. STAFF HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? NO, DON'T. JUST HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ADD TO THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING? I WOULD EVENTUALLY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WINDOWS AND ONE OVER ONE VERSUS TWO OVER TWO, ETC., BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S IN THE IN OUR RULES, BUT I DON'T I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

I THINK THERE'S HILLS TO DIE ON AND THAT'S NOT IT.

SO LIKE A WORKSHOP OR DO YOU JUST? MAYBE I DON'T KNOW.

WE HAVE A PRETTY LIGHT AGENDA ON THE NEXT ROUND, DON'T WE? WE SHOULD. OUR BUSINESS SHOULDN'T TAKE US VERY LONG.

RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. OKAY. OUR NEXT MEETING IS MONDAY, MAY 19TH.

THE TIME IS 4:42 AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.