[00:00:08]
[Roll Call]
CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 7TH, 2021.MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. FERNANDEZ? FISH GIBBS.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR THE MEETING.
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT?
[Chairman’s Statement]
THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.I'M JEFFREY FETZER, CHAIRMAN, AND THE VICE CHAIR IS SCOTT CARPENTER.
IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY IN THE CITY, ON THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY, AND FOR DEMOLITIONS.
AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVESTREAM.
THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH.
THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.
FOR THOSE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRE TRANSLATION SERVICES, THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY IN AN EFFORT TO HEAR ALL CASES ON THE AGENDA, AS WELL AS TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING, APPLICANTS WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EACH HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS, AND EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING EACH APPLICATION.
APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF ANY TYPE OF PERMIT.
PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS.
NO WORK OF ANY TYP IS TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
UM, THIS IS OUR CASE LIST FOR TODAY'S AGENDA.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE 12 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, JUST A QUICK NOTE REGARDING ITEM 23.
THAT APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT, WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY.
UM, WE DID RECEIVE COMMENTS, UM, BUT, UH, JUST NOTE THAT THE CASE WILL NOT BE HEARD, SO THE COMMENTS WILL NOT BE READ.
[Public Comments]
TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND READ COMMENTS RECEIVED.FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT, UM, WE HAVE, UH, ONE LIVE COLLAR FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT AS WELL.
UM, SO THE FIRST IS ITEM 1 1 0 3 EAST SATCH.
THIS COMES FROM PAUL KENNISON FOUR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE.
UM, RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
ONE, SETBACK ON SOUTH ELEVATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET BUILDING CODE FOR BOTH SECOND FLOOR, WALL AND ROOF OVERHANG THAT EXTENDS OVER THE PROPERTY.
LINE TWO SCALE, A SECOND FLOOR EDITION.
OVERPOWERS EXISTING FIRST FLOOR GARAGE, MAKES GARAGE LOOK TOP HEAVY.
THREE SECOND FLOOR EDITION AT THIS LOCATION CHANGES THE HISTORIC STREETSCAPE CONTEXT IN A NEGATIVE WAY.
AND FOUR, THE CITY'S HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SECOND STORY EDITIONS THAT OBSCURE THE FORM OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THESE REASONS.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATION.
THIS COMES FROM DREA GARZA, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE M P N A APPRECIATES HOMEOWNERS WHO INVEST IN THEIR PRO HISTORIC PROPERTY AND HOME.
WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS COMES FROM PAUL KENNISON FOR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE.
THE MHAS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BASICALLY CON, BASICALLY CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, UM, WITH THE STIPULATIONS NOTED.
IN ADDITION, WE WOULD OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
ONE, WE AGREE WITH O H P THAT THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST CORNER SUNROOM EXTERIOR WALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST FOUR INCHES IN ORDER THAT THE NEW WALL AND EXISTING WALL
[00:05:01]
WOULD BE ON DIFFERENT PLANES.TWO, THE NEW CURVED WALL CONNECTION AT THE SOUTH ELEVATION SHOULD BE FINESSED SO THAT THE CONNECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A FEATHER EDGE.
THREE, THE NEW SUNROOM WALL SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES THICK AND PROVIDE SCALE TO THE WALL TOPS AND DOOR OF THE WINDOW OPENINGS.
AND FOUR NEW ARCH WINDOWS SHOULD BE SET BACK IN THE OPENINGS AT LEAST SIX INCHES FROM THE EXTERIOR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE NEXT IS ITEM 8 3 11 MUNCIE.
UM, THIS COMES FROM, UH, SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIG DINU HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, THIS IS YET ANOTHER FACT AFTER THE FACT, C O A REQUEST, THE RAILINGS ARE, EXCUSE ME, THE RAILINGS AS INSTALLED ARE NOT WITHIN CODE AND WERE NOT APPROVED.
RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT, REMOVE THEM.
HAVE THE REPLACEMENT RAILINGS DESIGNED, APPROVED BY O H B PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AND PAY THE LATE APPLICATION FEE.
ALSO RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT DESIGN THE RAILINGS SO AS TO INCLUDE THE BRICK LOWER POSTS.
UM, WITHIN THE RAILINGS FOOTPRINT.
THE CURRENT DESIGN COMPLETELY DISREGARDS THIS IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ZION ELEMENT.
UM, ITEM TEN FOUR SIXTEEN WILLOW.
UM, THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT.
ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE DO NOT SUPPORT STAFF.
REPLACEMENT WINDOWS IN A HISTORIC HOME SHOULD MATCH THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND MATERIAL.
WHEN POSSIBLE, THESE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED OUT FROM THEIR ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS.
IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED WITH WINDOWS THAT MATCH A MATERIAL TO WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY.
PLASTIC WINDOWS SHOULD NEVER BE INSTALLED IN A HISTORIC HOME.
WE, WE ENCOURAGE STAFF TO CONSISTENTLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES, AS THEY ALMOST DID WITH EIGHT 20 NOLAN STREET.
TODAY, FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT, WE RECOMMEND THE NEW WINDOWS BE WOOD.
AND FOR ITEM 11, 8 37 EAST GUNTHER, UM, WE HAVE A LETTER IN YOUR PACKETS AS WELL AS A LIVE CALLER FROM LISA LIND.
RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE WITH LISA? HI.
DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND CONCURS WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND WITH STIPULATIONS 1, 3, 5, AND SIX.
WE TAKE EXCEPTION TO STIPULATION NUMBER TWO.
ASPHALT SHINGLES ARE TECHNICALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE LOW SLOPED ROOF.
NO MANUFACTURER OR ROOFER WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A WATERPROOF WARRANTY WITH SHINGLES ON THIS LOW-PITCHED ROOF.
WE RECOMMEND THE T P O ROOF BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
THE ROOFING MATERIAL WILL NOT BE SEEN FROM THE RIVER.
WE ALSO TAKE EXCEPTION TO STIPULATION FOUR CHAMFORD WOOD COLUMNS WITH A CABIN BASE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN MID-CENTURY MODERN VERNACULAR.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE SQUARE SIX BY SIX COLUMNS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
WE WANT TO APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR SIMPLE APPROACH TO THE DESIGN AND SCALE OF THIS MODEST RESERVATION AND ADDITION.
[Consent Agenda]
OKAY.UM, THOSE ARE ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT.
AFTER HEARING THOSE, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION? CORY, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 10 PLEASE.
AND I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 11 AND ITEM ONE.
I, IF THERE'S NO OTHER CASES TO BE PULLED FOR REVIEW, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH NINE AND ITEMS 12 WITH THE ADDED STIPULATIONS, UH, BY THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE, COMMISSIONER AND WITH STAFF AND WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
COMMISSIONER GI I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY, YOU SAID ITEM THREE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS? YES.
THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, REQUESTED THAT THE MATERIAL BETWEEN THE RIBBON DRIVES BE SPECIFIED AS GRASS.
SO THE, THE MOTION WA THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE ITEMS TWO THROUGH NINE AND ITEMS 12 WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS, UH, FOR ITEM THREE BY THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
SO 2 0 6 EAST ELLWOOD IS NOT IN MONTICELLO PARK AND WE DON'T HAVE COMMENTS FROM MONTICELLO PARK FOR ITEM THREE, DISREGARD, SORRY, ITEMS TWO THROUGH NINE AND ITEMS 12 OF STAFF STIPULATIONS.
I THINK I WAS LOOKING AT OR ADD AN OLDER COMMENTS LIST.
Y YES, I THINK THAT SOUNDS, IT SOUNDS
[00:10:01]
FAMILIAR.WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? GIBBS? AYE.
ZOOMER ON AYE, CARPENTER? AYE.
[1. 21-4647 Address/Description: 103 E HUISACHE AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-315 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Joseph Cotton Request: Construction of a second story addition on rear accessory structure City Council Dist.: 1]
ITEM 1, 1 0 3 EAST RESEARCH.I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR STEPH TO CONNECT.
I'M HERE WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER.
I WAS THE, UM, MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT SENT IN A LETTER WITH COMMENTS ABOUT THE, THE SETBACK, THE SCALE, THE CHANGES TO THE STREET SCAPE FOR THIS SECOND STORY EDITION.
AND JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR, UH, COMMENTS OR REBUTTAL ON THOSE COMMENTS.
THIS IS GEORGE KLEIN WITH M S A ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS, AND I'M HERE WITH
SO LOOKING AT THOSE COMMENTS, UM, FIRST ONE OF THOSE, NUMBER ONE, UM, THE SOUTH SIDE IS PROB IS THE SIDE THAT WOULD BE FACING THE HOUSE.
SO I ASSUME THAT THE, THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WEST SIDE THAT ARE BUT, UH, MAIN STREET AND THAT SIDE OF THE LOT, UM, THE, THE SECOND FLOOR IS SET BACK FROM THE FIRST FLOOR.
UM, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT OR IF THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OVERHANG ON THE FIRST FLOOR, BUT YES, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY'S NOT GONNA LET US PUT AN OVERHANG OR ANY PART OF THE BUILDING OVER THIS, THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE.
SO, UH, UH, DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, YOU KNOW, PER LETTER C IN THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS OR THE FINDINGS FROM THE STAFF, UM, WE DID SET THE SECOND FLOOR BACK TO DIMINISH THE SIZE AND BREAK UP A TWO STORY WALL.
UM, THE SECOND FLOOR EDITION IS A SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN THE FIRST FLOOR, UH, FOR THAT VERY REASON TO DIMINISH THE, UH, PRESENCE OF THAT, UH, LEANING OVER THE STREET.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S, UH, KIND OF GOES ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, UM, LEAVING A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION OR CHANGES THE STREETSCAPE.
THE ADDITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STYLE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AND THE HISTORIC SETBACKS OF OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES ALONG THE BLOCK.
UM, SO I'M NOT SURE YOU KNOW WHERE, WHERE THAT COMMENT COMES FROM.
UM, NUMBER FOUR, SECOND FLOOR.
OKAY, SO THE SECOND FLOOR, NO PART OF THE, THE WEST FACADE ALONG MAIN IS BEING COVERED BY ANY PART OF THE ADDITION.
UM, AND, AND IT IS BEHIND THE MAIN HOUSE AND SO IT DOESN'T OBSCURING PART OF IT, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY, THEY MEAN THAT'S, THAT IT'S BEING OBSCURED.
UM, QUESTION ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE PARAPET, WHETHER I, I SEE YOU'VE GOT THE, UH, A PITCHED TILE ROOF AROUND THE BALCONY AND THEN, UH, SEVERAL FEET MORE OF A PARAPET ABOVE THAT, WHICH ON THE WEST ELEVATION REALLY MAKES THAT ADDITION, UH, VERY TALL.
AND, UH, THE SECOND FLOOR ALMOST OUT OF SCALE WITH THE FIRST FLOOR.
DO YOU WANNA GO DOWN? WELL, THE, THE PARAPET DOES NEED TO BE THAT HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF, UM, TO HAVE ENOUGH FLOAT TO DRAIN.
UM, NOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD, WE COULD RUN A, UM, A ROOF ALONG THAT SIDE OF IT IF WE WANTED TO BREAK UP THAT, UH, ELEVATION SUM KIND OF LIKE WE HAVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE COULD, WE COULD TURN THAT ROOF AND RUN IT ALONG THAT EDGE
[00:15:01]
IF YOU, IF, IF IT WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO, WE'D RATHER NOT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD CREATE SOME COMPLEXITY IN THE ROOF DESIGN.BUT, UM, IF IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT.
UM, WE INCREASE IT, MAYBE TAKE IT DOWN.
THAT MAY ACTUALLY HELP THE SCALE OF THAT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THIS.
SO YOU HAVE NINE FEET, UH, FLOOR TO CEILING EACH FLOOR, AND THEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE ADDITIONAL THREE, OR JUST TO GIVE IT THE, THE ROOF, THE FLAT ROOF, OR WHAT'S THE TOTAL HEIGHT? IS THERE ANY WAY TO MINIMIZE THAT DIFFERENCE? WELL, WE MADE THAT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, UM, BUT STILL WHAT NEEDED TO BE HIGH ENOUGH TO BE AT LEAST ONE FOOT ABOVE THE SLOPING ROOF BEHIND IT.
UM, SO WE, WE CAN'T REALLY LOWER IT ANY FOR THAT REASON.
UM, WE COULD, WE COULD, WE MAY, LIKE I SAY, MAYBE RUN A SLOPE, UH, TILE ROOF ALONG THE EDGE OF IT.
UM, DO YOU MIND, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO THE STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF HAS SUBMITTED? I AM SORRY.
ARE YOU ASKING ME, ARE YOU ASKING ONE FELLOW, UH, BOARD MEMBERS? YOU, THE STAFF HAS THREE STIPULATIONS? ARE YOU AGREEING TO THOSE? YES, I BELIEVE, YEAH, I BELIEVE WE AGREED TO ALL THREE OF THOSE.
THOSE, THOSE WINDOWS, I'LL COMMENT ON THOSE, UH, WINDOWS THAT ARE SINGLE PANE WINDOWS, WE CAN EASILY PUT A MO IN, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE TO HAVE THE SAME TYPE, UH, OR LOOK OF WINDOWS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER WINDOWS.
THEY HAVE TO, THEY DO HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER BECAUSE OF THE FUNCTION OF THE ROOMS ON THE INTERIOR.
UM, BUT THEY ARE, UH, A SIMILAR IN THE PROPORTIONS.
THEY'RE JUST, UH, SMALLER WINDOWS.
UH, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN BREAK THOSE UP WITH A MILLION AND HAVE A ONE-ON-ONE APPEARANCE.
OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? I GUESS ANOTHER OPTION TO LOWER THE SCALE OF THAT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WOULD BE TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT CEILING HEIGHT IN THAT SECOND STORY AS OPPOSED TO NINE FEET.
I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WOULD BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT.
WE, WE CONSIDER THAT BIG DEAL THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BRING IT DOWN A FOOT.
IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UM, A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF STIPULATION AND ADD ANOTHER STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT COME BACK TO STAFF WITH A REVISED DRAWING OF WITH THE EIGHT FOOT FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER ZUMA.
ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[00:20:01]
SIR? AYE[10. 21-4643 Address/Description: 416 WILLOW ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-301 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Fernando Fernandez Request: Aluminum window and siding replacement, wood window sill repair City Council Dist.: 2]
I BELIEVE WE HAVE ITEM 10 NEXT.EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? AYE, YES.
UH, I'M HERE WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, MR. FERNANDO FERNANDEZ.
UH, MR. FERNANDEZ, ARE YOU THERE? UH, YES, I'M HERE.
UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS.
UM, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UM, THERE WERE, UM, COMMENTS MADE, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WHAT DID YOU, ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ 'EM TO YOU? I WANTED TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON THOSE, PLEASE.
UM, THIS COMES FROM THE, UM, SO SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DICK HILL DISTRICT, UM, AND THEY STATE THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT STAFF REPLACING WINDOWS IN A HISTORIC HOME SHOULD MATCH THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND MATERIAL WHEN POSSIBLE.
THESE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED OUT FROM THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS.
IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED WITH WINDOWS THAT MATCH A MATERIAL TO WHAT WAS THERE, WAS THERE ORIGINALLY PLASTIC WINDOWS SHOULD NEVER BE INSTALLED IN A STORAGE HOME, AND THAT'S BASICALLY
SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON THOSE.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE NOW ARE ALUMINUM IN PLACE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
UH, THE, THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE ALL, ALL ALUMINUM SINGLE PANE WINDOWS.
I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND ANY PHOTOS OF WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKED LIKE WITH THE, UH, ORIGINAL WINDOWS WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
SO I HAVE NO IDEA AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THOSE WINDOWS HAD.
SO I WAS JUST WANTING TO REPLACE WITH, UM, UM, A SIMILAR LOOKING WINDOW TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
AND, UM, LOOKING AT STAFF'S COMMENTS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS GENERALLY IN, UM, AGREEMENT WITH YOU.
UM, DO YOU AGREE TO ALL THE STAFF STIPULATIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE? UH, YES, I DO AGREE TO THE STIPULATIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I ASSUME THAT THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WINDOWS MEET THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR, UH, OF OUR STANDARD WINDOW SPECIFICATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IF YOU, UH, TAKE A LOOK AT STAFF STIPULATIONS, ONE OF THE PRIMARY STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF HAD WAS IN REGARDS TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE, UH, BUILT-IN WINDOW SCREEN THAT COMES WITH THE PRODUCT, UH, IN REGARDS THAT SCREEN RIGHT THERE.
IN REGARDS TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM RAIL HEIGHTS, MEETING RAIL HEIGHTS AND THE ABILITY FOR THE WINDOW TO BE RECESSED WITHIN THE OPENING, THIS WINDOW DOES GENERALLY MEET THOSE SPECIFICATIONS.
UH, HOWEVER, STAFF DID ASK THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE, UH, THE PHOTO AUDIT LIGHTS AS WELL AS THE BUILT-IN WINDOW SCREEN, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
ZOOMER ON AYE, CARPENTER? AYE.
[11. 21-4691 Address/Description: 837 E GUENTHER ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-236 Historic District Name: King William RIO District: RIO-4 Applicant: Sergio Bravo/BAM Studios Request: Exterior modifications, roof modifications, window replacement, construction of a rear addition City Council Dist.: 1]
OKAY.ITEM 11, UM, 8 37 EAST GUNTHER.
UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE STEPHANIE.
SERGIO, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? HI, THIS IS SERGIO BRAVO.
YES, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I JUST WANTED TO BASICALLY COMMENT ON THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION, UH, LETTER.
AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THE ASSOCIATION THAT, UH, THE PROPOSED T P O ROOF IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS VERY LOW SLOPED, UM, MID-CENTURY HOUSE AS WELL AS THE SQUARE
[00:25:02]
COLUMNS AS OPPOSED TO CHAMFORD COLUMNS.UM, THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE ON THOSE COLUMNS, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY A SIX BY SIX WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WOULD WANT THERE, BUT I GUESS UNDERNEATH THAT IT COULD BE A FOUR BY FOUR WITH A, A FINISHED WOOD SO THAT IT MAINTAINS THAT DIMENSION.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS HARD TO GET A SIX BY SIX, THAT, THAT KEEPS IT, YOU KNOW, THAT DIMENSIONALLY STABLE.
OTHER COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION? I, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CONCUR WITH YOUR, UH, OPINIONS ABOUT THOSE TWO, UM, STIPULATIONS AND WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS 1, 3, 5, AND SIX AND, UH, WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOAD T P O, UH, ROOFING AS SUBMITTED AND, UH, BUILT UP SQUARE COLUMNS SIX BY SIX AS THE APPLICANT HAS UH, STATED TODAY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER GIBBS? I SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
[13. 21-4683 Address/Description: 101 PASO HONDO HDRC Case No.: 2021-271 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: George Torres III/George Torres Architect Request: Construction of two, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2]
UM, WE HAVE ITEM 13 1 0 1 PA EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM AHEAD.ITEM NUMBER 13, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 22 71 1 0 1 PASO HONDO.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 2 2 3 RESIDENTIAL TRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LOT AT 1 0 1 PA HONDO LOCATED WITHIN DE WOODY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THIS LOT IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PASO HONDO IN NORTH MESQUITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH T WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT INCREASE THE FRONT SETBACK ON PASO HONDO TO RESULT IN A SETBACK THAT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATES STREET FACING ENTRANCE ELEMENTS ON NORTH MESQUITE FOR THE NORTHERN STRUCTURE.
AS NOTED IN FINDING H THREE THAT SQUARE FIXED WINDOWS BE ELIMINATED FROM THE DESIGN ON FACADES VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
FOUR, THAT THE PROPOSED MATERIALS ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS NOTED IN FINDING N AND THAT WINDOW MATERIALS ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS NOTED IN NOTED IN FINDING O AND IN THE APPLICABLE CITATION.
FIVE, THAT INTERNAL PARKING BE ELIMINATED IS NOTED IN FINDING R SIX THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND SEVEN, DID THE APPLICANT CONTINUE TO DEVELOP PORCH ELEMENTS THAT REFLECT PORCH MASK AND FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT? I HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE, MR. GEORGE TORRES.
GEORGE, ARE YOU THERE? I'M HERE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS STAFF'S COMMENTS.
SO ON THE STAFF COMMENTS, UM, I GUESS WE CAN START WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE THAT, UH, WE ARE TO INCREASE THE FRONT SETBACK ON HONDO, UH, TO BE GREATER THAN THAT OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
UM, SO, UM, WHEN WE INITIALLY STARTED OR PROPOSED THE PROJECT, UH, WE WERE AT A 12 FOOT SETBACK, UM, WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE ALLOWABLE RMM FOUR, UH, 10 FOOT SETBACK.
SO WE FEEL THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, MATCHING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS APPROPRIATE AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, SEVERAL, UH, HOUSES OVER, UM, THEY KIND OF AVERAGE OUT TO, TO BE AT LIKE 14 FOOT SIX.
SO, UM, SO WE WERE, WE WERE HOPING THAT IF, IF, IF NOT NECESSARY, THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THAT 15 FOOT SETBACK.
UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, I FEEL LIKE I KNOW UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT THAT'S ASKING.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S, UH, REFERRING TO THE, THE DOORS ON THE NORTHERN MOST UNIT.
UM, AND IF, I MEAN, IF THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, WE CAN MOST CERTAINLY, UH, LOOK AT AT, UM, FACING THE, THE FRONT DOORS TOWARDS THE, THE STREET.
UM, AND THEN, LET'S SEE, ITEMS NUMBER, NUMBER THREE.
UM, WE CAN REVIEW THOSE FIXED WINDOWS.
UM, AND, AND I CAN, I CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH THE, THE PROJECT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW.
UH, BUT I BELIEVE ALL THE OTHER STIPULATIONS
[00:30:01]
WE ARE ABLE TO MEET AND THAT'S, UH, PROPOSED MATERIALS, UM, AND THE WINDOWS.UH, AND THEN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INTERNAL PARKING TO BE ELIMINATED, UH, THAT'S JUST NOT, NOT GONNA BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS, UH, THIS PROJECT.
AND I CAN, I CAN GO OVER THAT, UH, AS WELL ON THE, ON THIS PRESENTATION.
SO, UM, THIS CAN START WITH THE PROJECT SUMMARY.
UM, WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE TO DEVELOP TWO, UM, TWO PLEXES, TWO NEW DEFECTS AT 1 0 1 PAA HONDO.
AND, UH, AS ED MENTIONED THAT A LOT IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PAA HONDO AND NORTH MESQUITE.
UM, IT IS BORDERED BY A HOLIDAY INTO THE WEST, A COMMERCIAL U-HAUL NEIGHBORHOOD DEALER TO THE SOUTH, AN EXISTING HOUSE TO THE EAST, AND ANOTHER, ANOTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO THE NORTH.
UH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCES, UH, NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA.
UH, THE TWO PROPOSED DUPLEXES ARE TWO STORIES AND HEIGHTS AND ARE APPROXIMATELY, UM, ABOUT 3,300 SQUARE FEET, UH, WHICH IS THE, UM, 1600 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT FOR OUR TOTAL FOUR UNITS.
UM, AS YOU WILL SEE THE, THE NEXT, UH, SLIDE, WHICH IS THE CONTEXT BY PAGE 15, UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UH, THIS STRETCH OF, OF HONDO, UM, IS RESIDENTIAL, BUT THEN KIND OF EVERYTHING ELSE IS, IS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE.
UM, YOU KNOW, UH, AGAIN, THERE'S A, A FIVE STORY HOLIDAY INTO THE WEST, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD U-HAUL TO THE SOUTH AND, UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH OF THAT.
THIS SHOWS THE, THE PROPOSED LOT LOCATION AND, UH, AGAIN, ESTABLISHING THE 15 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH WE FEEL IS APPROPRIATE, UM, FOR, FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE FOLLOWING SLIDE IS A VIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS.
THE LEFT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE EXISTING ALLEYWAY THAT, UM, SERVES THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE THE RIGHT PHOTOGRAPH IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PAPA HONDA AND NORTH MESQUITE LOOKING NORTH FIVE, NUMBER 18.
UM, THIS IS, UH, SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT OF, OF THE BUILDING, UH, STRUCTURES ALONG NORTH, UH, MESQUITE STREET, UH, STARTING WITH THE MAY FALLS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY A COUPLE OF, UH, ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH, UH, SURFACE PARKING AND THEN THE, UH, THE PROPOSED LOT APOSTLE HONDO, UH, AND THEN THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD JHA.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDE SHOWS THE FIVE STORY HOLIDAY INN, UH, AGAIN, 1 0 1 PA HONDO.
AND, UH, FOLLOWING THE, UH, NEIGHBORING HOUSES, THERE IS A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE AT 1 25 PA HONDO.
UH, AND THAT IS THE, THE TWO STORIES, AND I'M NOT, NOT REALLY SURE HOW MANY UNITS, BUT, UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT, IT A MULTIFAMILY, UH, STRUCTURE.
SO THE FOLLOWING SLIDES, UM, SHOWS EXAMPLES OF EXISTING DUPLEXES AND GARAGE STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND THIS IS JUST ME, YOU KNOW, DOING SOME RESEARCH AND DRIVING AROUND AND, AND JUST IDENTIFYING, UH, STRUCTURES THAT ARE EITHER MULTI-FAMILY OR, UM, YOU KNOW, APPARENT DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THE, UM, YOU KNOW, GARAGES THAT, THAT OFTEN FACE THE ALLEYWAYS WHERE WE, AS YOU WILL SEE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR, UH, WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SLIDE NUMBER 21, UH, SHOWS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT WE HAD PROPOSED, AND THAT SHOWS, UM, THE FOUR INDIVIDUAL TOWNHOUSE STRUCTURES WITH SIDE, UH, DRIVEWAYS AND CARPORTS.
UM, THEY HAD THREE CURB ALONG NORTH MESQUITE AND THEN AN ENTRANCE, UH, UH, ALONG THE ALLEYWAY FOLLOWING SLIDE SHOWS THE, THE PROPOSED
[00:35:01]
DEVELOPMENT.AND YOU WILL SEE THAT, UH, NOW WE, WE REDUCED THE, THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES FROM FOUR TO TWO.
WE ALSO REDUCED THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS ON NORTH MESQUITE FROM THREE TO ONE, AND THAT THAT ONE DRIVE SERVES THREE UNITS, UNIT ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
AND THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY FROM ALLEYWAY THAT SERVES UNIT FOUR.
UM, AS I MENTIONED, WE INCREASED THE BUILDING SETBACK, UH, TO 15 FEET, WHICH IS, UM, WE FEEL THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
UH, WE ALSO MADE IT A POINT TO, TO TRY TO HIDE THE GARAGES FROM THE STREET VIEW.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WAS A, A BIG CONCERN, UH, THE FIRST TIME WAS HAVING, UH, NOT ONLY THE NUMBER OF OF CURB CUTS, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, HAVING, HAVING, UH, SEVERAL DRIVEWAYS THAT REPEATED.
SO, UH, WE, IN ORDER TO, TO SOLVE THAT, WE, WE INCLUDED SOME KIND OF INTERNAL PARKING, UM, WHICH WE, WE FEEL IS, UH, KIND OF ACCOMPLISHES EVERYTHING THAT, UH, STAFF WAS RECOMMEND COMMENDING TO DO.
UM, COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL NOTES, THE INCREASE SUPPORT STEPS ALONG HONDO, UM, AND I BELIEVE WE, WE INCLUDED THE, WE SET THOSE BACK, UM, TO BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT 7, 6, 6, ALMOST EIGHT FEET IN DEPTH.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO ORIENTED THOSE TO, TO KIND OF ENGAGE THROUGH THE STREET CORNER THERE.
UM, AND LASTLY, WE, WE ARE, UH, LESS THAN 50% OF BUILDING A LOT RATIO, UM, AND WE FEEL THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE PER R FOUR.
UM, THE FOLLOWING SLIDE SHOWS THE ORIGINAL AREA PERSPECTIVE.
UH, AGAIN, IT'S THE FOUR INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES, UH, WITH THE SIDE DRIVEWAYS AND CARPORTS AND THE, THE GRAY MATCHING, UH, JUST BEHIND THEM IS THE EXISTING HOUSE.
JUST FOR, FOR REFERENCE, THE FOLLOWING SLIDE IS THE UPDATED, UH, PROPOSED MATCHING STUDY, WHICH, UH, AS YOU WILL SEE AGAIN, IT HAS TWO DUPLEXES.
THE, THE PORCHES, UH, ENGAGE THE, THE CORNER OF, UH, NORTH MESQUITE AND PAA CONDO, AND WE TRY TO MAKE THOSE AS DEEP AS POSSIBLE JUST TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE 'EM MUSICAL SPACE, UM, TO BE ABLE TO PUT A COUPLE CHAIRS OUT THERE AND, AND ENJOY THE PERCENTAGE.
UM, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO, TO, WELL, WE'VE ALSO REDUCED THE, THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY 16 FEET, AND WE REDUCED THAT TO 12 FEET.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE DRIVE, UH, FROM POSSIBLE OR FROM NORTH MESQUITE THAT SERVES UNITS 1, 2, 3.
SO WE ALSO DID THAT AND ARE, UH, ARE LOOKING TO DO SOME, UH, RIBBON CONCRETE WITH, UH, SOME DECOMPOSED GRAN OR GRAVEL, UM, FOR THAT.
SO, UM, ONE THING TO NOTE ON THE SOUTHERN DUPLEX, UH, WE DID TRY TO KIND OF, UM, BURY THE ROOT FORMS JUST BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS THAT TO MAKE IT, UH, APPEAR AS, AS ONE, ONE STRUCTURE AND, AND NOT, UM, A REPETITION OF, UH, YOU KNOW, TWO, TWO OF THE SAME UNIT.
SO, UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID.
AND THEN THE UNIT DOES, UH, VARY IN, IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS KIND OF BECOMING MORE REPETITIVE.
HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE, UM, SIDE PORCHES AND SECOND STORY PORCHES THAT, THAT, UH, OVERLOOK THE STREET.
UM, YES, IF WE COULD GO TO DRAWING 27, WHICH SHOWS THE HONDO AND, AND, UH, MESQUITE ELEVATIONS.
UM, NOT TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT WE HAVE A MAYBE HAVING A QUORUM ISSUE TOWARDS THE END OF THE MEETING, SO I'M JUST GONNA
[00:40:01]
MOVE THIS ONE AND ALONG IF YOU DON'T MIND.I WAS IN SEVERAL DRCS WITH MR. TORRES AND HE HAS, I BELIEVE, RESPONDED TO COMMENTS FROM THE EARLIER COMMISSION AND FROM THE D R C IN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SOUTH UNIT, UH, THAT FACES HONDO MAKING MORE OF A STATEMENT OR, UM, ADDRESSING THE CORNER WITH THAT, UH, DUPLEX BY VARYING THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND HAVING SOMEWHAT OF A, AND, UM, I, THE FACT THAT HE HAS CUT DOWN THE DRIVEWAYS FROM THREE TO ONE, I THINK IS, IS A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, I BELIEVE THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS, UH, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER STRUCTURES OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON HONDO.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF GRANTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
UM, I CONCUR WITH, UH, THE CHAIRMAN'S, UH, COMMENTS THERE.
I THINK ONE, ONE, UM, THING I WOULD NOTE THAT NORMALLY I WOULD, UH, BE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE OF THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING IN THE REAR.
AND, UH, USUALLY WE TRY TO ENCOURAGE THOSE TO SOMEWHAT CAPTURE THE SPIRIT OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, UM, RATHER THAN BEING SOMETHING AS NEARLY AS LARGE AS THE, THE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THAT THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A TRANSITIONAL, UM, SITE ADJACENT TO SOME COMMERCIAL, UH, PROPERTIES AS WELL, THAT I THINK, UH, IS JUSTIFIABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO, TO, UH, PERMIT THAT TO BE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE AND, AND BE OF ALMOST EQUAL AMASSING AND HEIGHT IS THE, UH, THE FRONT STRUCTURE.
UM, I TOO AM, AM IN AGREEMENT.
UM, I, UH, APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR MAKING CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
UM, AND I, I THINK THAT THIS, THESE STRUCTURES NOW ARE DEFINITELY MORE ALIGNED WITH WHAT, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOOTPRINT IS.
AND SO I WOULD, UH, ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.
BEFORE WE GO TOO FAR WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UM, YES, THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL STORE DISTRICT.
UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF AND ARE HAPPY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MORE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THAN HIS PREVIOUS REQUESTS.
ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER OPEN CARPORTS, REPORT THE SHARES INSTEAD OF THE INTEGRAL GARAGES.
NOW, OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? UM, I'LL DO A MOTION.
MOTION FOR MOVE FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF STAFF STIPULATIONS.
COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT REQUEST.
YES, ACCEPT, SORRY, QUESTION GIBBS ACCEPTS AS WELL.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[14. 21-4699 Address/Description: 324 GARFIELD ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-198 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Rodrigo Rivera/ Open Studio Architecture PLLC Request: Demolition of primary structure with new construction of a 3-story residential structure City Council Dist.: 1]
GARFIELD? UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER LFO IS RECUSING FROM THIS ITEM, SO HE'LL TURN HIS CAMERA OFF AT THIS TIME.UM, AND THEN STEPH, YOU CAN BEGIN WITH THE CASE.
ITEM NUMBER 14, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 98 ADDRESS, 3 24 GARFIELD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO ONE
[00:45:01]
DEMOLISH THE ONE STORY PRIMARY STRUCTURE, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 3 24 GARFIELD AND TWO, CONSTRUCTING NEW THREE STORY PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.ITEM ONE, STAFF HAS APPROVAL OF REQUEST ITEM ONE, THE DEMOLITION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH B AND ONE A THROUGH ONE D.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THIS TIME BASED ON FINDINGS TWO A THROUGH TWO K.
IF THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FINDS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUEST APPROPRIATE AND RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS APPLY, ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT ALIGNS THE FRONT PORCH STEP BACK WITH THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK AS NOTED IN FINDING TWO B TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCES THE HEIGHT TO TWO STORIES TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING SCALE OF ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND THE HISTORIC BLOCK FACE AS NOTED IN FINDING TWO D THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT EXPLORES WAYS TO REDUCE THE PLATE HEIGHTS TO FURTHER MINIMIZE THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A STREET ELEVATION OF THE BLOCK FACE TO THE IN CON PLACE THE HISTORIC OR NEW STRUCTURE IN CONTEXT WITH THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK FACE AS NOTED IN BINDING TWO D FIVE THAT THE APPLICANT FURTHER DEVELOPS THE GABLE ROOF FORM IN DETAILING TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRECEDENCE IN THE DISTRICT.
IS NOTED IN BIND TWO F SIX THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFIES THE PROPOSED PORCH DESIGN AND SHED ROOF DETAILING TO REDUCE THE FASCIA HEIGHT AND VISUAL BULK OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS AS NOTED IN BINDING TWO F SEVEN, THAT THE WINDOWS FEATURE A TRUE GANG CONDITION AND MEET OUR STANDARD STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND SEVEN THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS A STANDING SCENE METAL ROOF THAT ALIGNS WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT, RODRIGO RIVERA, AS WELL AS THE OWNER, CHRIS COKER ON THE LINE.
RODRIGO AND CHRIS, IF YOU WANTED TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SUMMARIZE YOUR REQUEST.
HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER AND STAFF.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS BEING WITH US TODAY.
IT'S BEEN KIND OF A LONG ROAD, MANY, MANY MONTHS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, TRYING TO GET TO THIS POINT.
UM, VERY, VERY HAPPY THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN HERE.
UH, DEFINITELY, UH, THANK THE D R C MEETINGS AND SEVERAL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS, UH, FETZER AND QUEZ FOR A LOT OF THE INPUT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE GIVEN, BUT ALSO, UM, A LOT OF THE INPUT THAT THE LACA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS GIVEN US AS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE ONSET OF STARTING THIS PROJECT, I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE AND, AND, UH, IT HAS DEFINITELY LIVED UP TO THAT.
UM, BUT I MUST SAY, AND I WANT ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ALL STAFF TO KNOW THAT, UH, AND I THINK I HAVE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR, UM, ESPECIALLY IN OUR LAST MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER FETZER THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MY INTENT HERE IS TO, UH, TO BRING BASICALLY A, A NEW STRUCTURE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OLD A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT HAS JUST BEEN REHABBED TO, UM, TO THE AREA NOW, YOU KNOW, DRIVING IN ON CHAVEZ, THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST STREETS YOU SEE.
AND I WANT IT TO BE INDICATIVE OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY IS.
AND I THINK CURRENTLY IT IS NOT, IT DOES NOT PRESENT, UM, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A GOOD, A GOOD LIGHT IN MY OPINION.
UM, THESE STRUCTURES ON GARFIELD ALLEY ARE DILAPIDATED.
UM, AND, UH, OTHERWISE I WOULD, I WOULD GLADLY, GLADLY RESTORE BECAUSE I, I HAVE A, A PASSION FOR HISTORIC, AND I KNOW SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS HAVE HEARD ME SAY THAT ON OTHER PROJECTS.
UM, BUT I DO WANT TO, TO SET A PRECEDENT ON THIS MAIN ROAD THAT EVERYONE SEES WHEN THEY COME INTO DOWNTOWN.
UM, THAT, UH, THAT THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOT OF HISTORIC AND RICH TRADITION, AND HOPEFULLY TO FOLLOW THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE MORE OF THE DESIGNS THAT MY TEAM AND RODRIGO AT OPEN STUDIO HAVE COME UP WITH.
I MADE IT CLEAR SINCE DAY ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO GET THIS DONE AND HAVE IT LOOK AS HISTORIC AS POSSIBLE.
WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB AND I THINK, UH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SINGLE THING THAT, UM, UH, SINGLE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THAT WE HAVE NOT TAKEN AND APPLIED TOWARDS, UM, TOWARDS THE, THE, THE PROJECT AND THE, THE, UH, STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO SHOW YOU ALL.
UM, I, I SERIOUSLY, I, I KNOW WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SOME OF THE D R C MEETINGS, UM, AND I KIND OF FEEL LIKE A, A, A PINGING PONG AT SOME, SOME POINTS BECAUSE I'M JUST LIKE, HEY, I WANT TO DO WHAT THE COMMISSION, WHAT THE HISTORIC, THE, OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WANTS US TO DO AND COMPLYING WITH EVERYTHING.
WE JUST WANT TO PUT A GREAT PRODUCT THERE AND, UM, IT'S A PROPERTY THAT, THAT I'M GONNA HAVE FOR MY LIFETIME AND, AND MY KIDS AS WELL.
SO, UM, I THINK WE'VE COME UP WITH SOMETHING GREAT.
UH, UH, L AND A HAS GIVEN US THE GREEN LIGHT ON IT, AND I HOPE THAT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN, UH, RODRIGO PRESENTS
[00:50:01]
THE, THE CASE FOR THIS TODAY.SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND HAND OVER TO RODRIGO AND LET HIM KIND OF GO THROUGH EVERYTHING WITH YOU GUYS.
UH, THANKS FOR, UM, ALLOWING US TO PRESENT THIS, UH, FOR EVERYONE.
UM, I BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD BE, UM, SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH IT, SO I WON'T, UM, LINGER WITH THE INTRODUCTION.
BUT, UM, LIKE CHRIS WAS SAID, IT'S, IT'S BEEN A CHALLENGING PROJECT, UM, SMALL SITE, UH, TRYING TO FIT, UH, QUITE A BIT OF THE PROGRAM IN IT.
UH, BUT I THINK WE HAVE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT FITS VERY, VERY WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IT'S RESPECTFUL OF, UH, THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, GEOMETRY AND MASS AND SHAPE AND, UM, AND AGAIN, JUST AN OVERALL SIZE AND FEEL.
UH, WHILE IT MAY BE, UM, ONE OF THE NEWER BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK, ON OUR BLOCK PHASE, WE, WE DO STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT, UM, IT DOES FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LANGUAGE VERY WELL.
UM, SOME OF THE MAJOR ELEMENTS THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED OVER THE LAST FEW MEETINGS WERE, UH, OVERALL HEIGHTS AND PLATE HEIGHTS.
WE, UH, ARE MAINTAINING THE DIFFERENT, UM, FLOOR HEIGHTS BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE PRIME, THE SEC, THE SECOND FLOOR, WHICH IS OUR PRIMARY LIVING UNIT.
UM, SO WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT, UH, BUT WE EXPLORED, UH, USING DIFFERENT MATERIALS.
IT DIDN'T LEND ITSELF FOR THIS, UH, BUILDING IN THIS DESIGN.
UM, BUT WE WANTED TO EMPHASIZE, UM, UH, SORT OF THE, THE, THE OVERALL SCALE, UH, WAS NOT MET VERY WELL WITH THE PREVIOUS, UM, PROPOSED WINDOWS.
SO WE EXPLORED MAKING ALL THE WINDOWS THE SAME SIZE, BUT BY HAVING THE DIFFERENT PLATE HEIGHTS, IT LOOKED A LITTLE BIT STRANGE OR IT WAS INEFFICIENT TO HAVE SOME WINDOWS WITH, UH, ONE FOOT STILL HEIGHT.
SO WE WENT BACK AND, UM, UH, REINTRODUCED THE, THE SECOND, UM, UH, SIZE OF WINDOWS.
BUT WE BELIEVE THAT BASED ON THE PROPOSED, UH, OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND THE INCREASED HEIGHT AND PLATE, UH, FLOOR BETWEEN FLOORS, IT, IT IS MORE, UM, IT, IT, IT SCALES BETTER AND IT, IT, IT DOES FIT BETTER IN THE, IN THE OVERALL SCALE OF THE BUILDING.
UH, AND CERTAINLY WE, UH, DEVELOPED THE FRONT, UM, GI ROOF AND THE, UM, UH, OPEN PATIO.
UH, IT HAS A COVERED TRELLIS, A COVERED PERGOLA.
IT TIES THE TWO ROOTS TOGETHER WHILE STILL BEING SHIELDED BY FROM THE STREET VIEW.
UM, THE DEVELOPMENT GOING AROUND THE, UM, OUR PROPERTY, UM, THEY ORIGINALLY, THEY HAD, UM, A SERIES OF, UH, GARAGE, UM, UNITS, THE COVER GARAGE UNITS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.
BUT THOSE HAD BEEN, UH, REMOVED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, BUT THE MAIN APARTMENT BUILDING IT IS NOW COMING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO GARFIELD.
SO THAT BRINGS UP A MUCH HIGHER SCALE, UH, INTO GARFIELD ALLEY.
BUT, UH, AGAIN, THE, UM, SLIGHTLY WE HAVE UP FRONT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A PROPERTY RIGHT ALMOST RIGHT BEHIND US ON LAVACCA STREET.
IT IS THE ONE TO THE LEFT ON THAT LITTLE CLUSTER OF THREE, UH, THAT IS THE UNIT THAT WE USED AS OUR BASIS OF DESIGN.
AGAIN, AS CHRIS MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, OUR DIRECTIVE WAS TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT, UH, ALTHOUGH NEW IT DOES HAVE FEEL, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER.
UH, SO WE USED THAT UNIT AND IT'S ALMOST BEHIND US, UH, FOR BOTH, UH, OVERALL SHAPE, UH, DESIGN LANGUAGE AND HEIGHTS.
AND, UM, IF YOU RECALL, IF YOU ALL RECALL, WE WANTED TO HOLD THE, THE, THE SAME, UM, HEIGHT THAT WE, UH, WE HAD ESTIMATED FOR THAT BUILDING TO BE THAT AGAIN.
UH, THE RESPONSE WAS, UM, ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, IT, IT, UM, AGAIN, JUST TO RE UM, BRING SOME OF THE COMMENTS BACK, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS DESCRIBED AS STUMPY.
UH, WE TRIED TO MAKE IT, UM, TOO SHORT AND I THINK THE DESIGNS, UH, PAID FOR IT.
SO, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, WE ARE NOW, UH, JUST ROUGHLY OVER THREE AND A HALF FEET ABOVE WHAT WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT UNIT TO BE.
SO IT'S STILL NOT, UM, NOT MUCH TALLER WHAT YOU WOULD IMAGINE A THIRD, THIRD FLOOR UNIT TO BE.
UM, WE REDUCED THE OVERALL, UH, WIDTH OF THE FRONT PORCH, UM, THE FRONT PORCH, UH, BOTH IN, UM, OVERALL SHAPE AND, UM, IN LANGUAGE.
IT'S NOT TO THE EXISTING PORCH, UH, EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTING UNIT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, UM, LEFT OR HISTORICAL
[00:55:01]
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT.WE WANTED TO SAVE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE AND THAT'S OUR PROPOSED, UM, DESIGN.
NOW, IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF MY SCREEN FROZE UP.
UM, CAN YOU SEE, HEY, MEMBER RODRIGUEZ, YOU'RE ON A SLIGHT DELAY, SO IF YOU WANNA GIVE US A PAGE NUMBER, WE CAN GO TO THAT FOR YOU.
IT SHOULD BE SLIDE NUMBER FOUR.
UH, I CAN'T SEE THE PAGE NUMBER, BUT IT SHOULD BE OUR SLIDE NUMBER FOUR WITH ALL THE PRECEDENTS.
UM, AGAIN, UM, ALL THOSE ARE WITHIN A BLOCK OR TWO FROM OUR, UH, PROPERTY.
UH, SO THEY'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE.
UM, THE ONE, THE THREE ON, UM, LAVACCA STREET.
UM, SO AGAIN, UH, ALL OF THESE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OVERALL MASSING, UH, OVERALL SHAPE.
UM, AND, UM, THE TWO ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT ARE, UH, CLOSER TO OUR STREET FRONT MASSING AND, UM, DESIGN.
SO AGAIN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE FITS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AGAIN, ALL OF THESE UNITS ARE FAIRLY CLOSED.
UM, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, I WANNA SEE IF I CAN DO IT BY MEMORY 'CAUSE YEAH, I, I HAVE A REALLY BIG DELAY NOW.
UM, YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE LABOR STREET APARTMENT UNIT GOING IN.
IT KIND OF LHAS BACK TOWARDS, UM, GARFIELD STREET AND ON OUR, UM, UM, MASSING COMPARISON TOP RIGHT CORNER, YOU CAN SEE, UM, HOW IT, UM, IF THEY WERE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER WITH TOWER OVER IT.
AND SO IF ANYONE IS COMING IN THROUGH LABOR STREET COMING IN, THAT IS GONNA BE THE NEW FRAME FOR GARFIELD ALLEY AND GARFIELD ALLEY BEING SO, UM, SO SHORT, IF SOMEBODY'S, UM, STANDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF IT, LOOKING DOWN, UM, THAT UNIT, THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX IS NOW SETTING UP THE SCALE FOR THAT ENTIRE VIEW OF GARFIELD ALLEY.
SO AGAIN, UM, WHILE THE GARAGE UNITS ARE NOW GONNA GO DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE WITHIN THREE LOTS FROM, UM, LINEAR APARTMENT COMPLEX.
SO WE ARE IN PROXIMITY WITH IT.
UM, THE SCALE, UM, AGAIN, WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT, IT IS, IT IS, UM, IT FITS WITHIN THE BLOCK.
UM, AND, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.
UM, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MAJOR ELEMENTS THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED ON THE LAST, UH, OUR LAST DESIGN.
AND, UH, I'LL JUST LET YOU, UM, SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY CO ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS RATHER THAN, UM, ME TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE WHOLE THING AGAIN.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS.
UM, THIS COMES FROM KATHY RHODES, PRESIDENT OF THE, UM, CONSERVATION SOCIETY.
THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO OPPOSES THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT 3 24 GARFIELD.
A THREE STORY STRUCTURE INTRODUCED IN THE CENTER OF A BLOCK, CHARACTERIZED BY ONE STORY STRUCTURES IS VISUALLY AND CONTEXTUALLY OVERWHELMING AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE DIS FOR THIS DISTRICT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, MR. GROUP? YES, MA'AM.
I, UM, ALSO REMEMBER SEEING THIS IN THE D R C WHERE I GUESS WE WERE DISCUSSING PRIMARILY THE DEMOLITION AND NOT SO MUCH THERE WAS SOME DESIGN IDEAS.
I, I REALLY AGREE WITH STAFF AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS, UH, STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR FIVE, UH, YOU'RE MENTIONING THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS A TWO STORY, AND, AND, AND IT, I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S A ONE STORY THAT THEN GROWS TO A TWO STORY IN THE BACK IF YOU CAN, UH, MAYBE PULL UP A PICTURE STUFF AND I, I THINK THAT, YEAH, EXACTLY.
SO I MEAN, THE PROPERTY RIGHT THERE, IT'S A, IT'S A ONE STORY IN THE FRONT AND THEN IT GROWS TO A TWO STORY, WHICH ALSO ALIGNS WITH THE OTHER TWO STORIES THAT IT'S ON THE BACK LOT.
AND, AND I THINK THAT WAS A BETTER WAY OF, OF PORTRAYING WHAT'S FOUND ON THE BLOCK, WHICH ARE MOSTLY ONE STORIES, AND THEN YOU ALIGN WITH THE TWO STORIES THAT ARE BEHIND ON LAVACCA STREET.
AND, AND I, I MEAN, I DO AGREE.
I THINK, UH, SIZE, I MEAN, IT'S, THERE'S A LOT, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF, LOT COVERAGE.
OF COURSE, IT'S A VERY SMALL LOT AND THERE'S NOT ANOTHER OPTION, BUT I MEAN, I AGREE THAT I THINK THAT, UM, I WOULD NOT BE
[01:00:01]
READY TO, UH, FOR STIPULATIONS, YES, IF YOU GO TO, UH, SLIDE 14, YOU CAN SEE THAT RELATIONSHIP BETTER WITH THE ONE STORY NEXT DOOR WITH THE TWO STORY EDITION ON THE REAR AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE, UH, TALLER STRUCTURES BACK ON LAVACCA STREET.MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
A QUESTION FOR RODRIGO OR THE OWNER, UM, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT, UH, SOME OF THE WORK YOU DID WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UH, JUST GIVE US SOME CONTEXT.
I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A LETTER OR I DON'T SEE A LETTER IN THE PACKET FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YEAH, AND, AND, AND TO CLARIFY, WE, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A OFFICIAL, UM, GREEN LINE ON IT, BUT, UM, I KNOW I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, UM, UH, NICK MILDY AND HE HASN'T IN IN TURN, UM, YOU KNOW, FORWARD EVERYTHING TO, UM, UH, WHAT'S HIS NAME? UM, UH, HIS NAME ESCAPES ME RIGHT NOW.
BUT, UH, I, AFTER EVERY HEARING THAT WE'VE HAD, UM, I, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKE ALL OUR COMMENTS AND ISSUES AND, AND EVERYTHING AND, AND, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE OUR SOLUTION AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH THEM, WE'VE PRESENTED TO THEM, UM, BEFORE WE COME BACK TO D R C, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST TO KIND OF COVER ALL THE BASES.
AND THERE WERE THE ONES WHO, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THERE IN THE N D R C MEETING BEFORE, WE HAD, UM, TWO ROOF OPTIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID THEY WOULD OPPOSE, UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL OPTION.
WE, UM, UH, WE STEERED BACK TOWARDS OUR ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL, UM, TO, TO GO BACK TO THIS, UM, THIS, THIS STREET FRONT SHAPE.
UH, SO THOSE ARE THE SORT OF, UH, COORDINATION AND A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN BACK AND FORTH THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THEM.
UM, UH, ON THIS, ON THIS SUBJECT, UH, WE, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE STUDIED THE PLATE HIDE WITH THEM EXTENSIVELY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM THEM THAT IN FACT, IT WAS PROBABLY BETTER TO INCREASE THE PLATE HIDE RATHER THAN, UH, TRYING TO FIT LARGER WINDOWS IN, UM, SUCH AN ODD SCALE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE PROCEEDED WITH, WITH THAT AND WE INCREASED THE PLATE HIDE TO, TO MAKE THE, THE SPACE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE.
THEY MADE US, UH, THEY MADE US AWARE THAT, UH, WE WERE, THEY FELT AS THOUGH WE WERE GETTING TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, WHICH THEY, ESPECIALLY ON SITE, UM, THEY WERE PRETTY IN FAVOR OF, THERE WAS ONLY A COUPLE REALLY SMALL MODIFICATIONS MANY MONTHS AGO THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR.
AND AFTER MULTIPLE D R C MEETINGS, I BELIEVE, UM, HE REACHED OUT TO RODRIGO AND SAID, HEY, THIS IS, AND EVEN PROVIDED LIKE A, A VERY SKETCHY, UM, OR A SKETCH ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTURAL SKETCH OF HOW HE WANTED US TO KIND OF GET BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN.
AND THEY, THEY MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING, IF WE CAN GET BACK TOWARDS THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT LEVOA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD SUPPORT.
UM, SO EVEN THOUGH RODRIGO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD BACK FROM HIM RECENTLY, UH, I FEEL AS THOUGH PER HIS COMMENTS, THEY WERE VERY POSITIVE AND, UM, AND, AND ALSO ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LACK OF ANY OPPOSITION TODAY FROM THEM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS IN OUR FAVOR.
I KNOW THAT, I KNOW THAT, UM, REPRESENTATIVES HAD BEEN AT THE SITE VISIT FOR SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS WERE DISCUSSED, AND I, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST ADD, UH, ADD THAT THE, THESE, THESE PARTICULAR LOTS ALONG GARFIELD ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANDARD IN THEIR DIMENSIONAL WIDTH.
AND THIS IS AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE DISTRICT UP AGAINST COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL BITS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLOCK, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF, LOTS ALONG THIS BLOCK THAT ARE, UM, UNDER OR UNUTILIZED.
UH, AND THERE'S, WHILE THERE'S SOME, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF, UM, THE SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE REALLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE CHARACTER WHEN WE ARE, WHEN WE'RE REFERENCING THE SINGLE STORY TO THE EAST, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS, IS NECESSARILY CONTRIBUTING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ONE TO THE WEST, UH, OF THIS STRUCTURE COULD BE IN.
[01:05:01]
UH, HAVE SOME LOSS.SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT PARTICULARLY GARFIELD ALLEY, THE WIDTH OF THE PARCELS THAT REMAIN AND THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THERE UP AGAINST THE LARGE MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION ALONG CESAR CHAVEZ, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOME REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES HERE IN REFERENCING THE, UH, HEIGHT OF THE TWO STORIES ON, UH, THE STREET TO THE SOUTH KIND OF AS A GUIDE, I SEE THAT AS GENERALLY APPROPRIATE IN MASSING.
SO, UM, I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE MASSING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE PLATE HEIGHTS.
I, I KNOW THE PUZZLE OF THE ELEVATION, THE STREET'S PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT.
I THINK THE NARROWING OF THE PORCH ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO PASS BY IS A NICE RESOLUTION OF THE FRONT PORCH ELEMENT.
GOT SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE BITS THAT ARE HAPPENING ALONG THE TOP.
I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE, UH, GENERALLY OF THE PROJECT WITH AT LEAST STIPULATION 6, 7, 8.
BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND, UM, I WAS ON SITE FOR THE FIRST D R C AND THEN HAVE BEEN IN A COUPLE OF OTHER DRCS WITH THE APPLICANT AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS, AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
I THINK IT IS LOST ITS STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.
UM, I THINK THE, THE REFERENCES THAT THE, UH, DESIGN AND AND OWNER ARE MAKING TO THE FRONT PORCH AND THE, THE SHED ROOFS ON THE FRONT PORCH TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS A NICE, UH, REFERENCE.
BUT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERALL HEIGHT ON THIS BLOCK, GIVEN THE, UM, OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THERE.
OTHER COMMENTS? IF I COULD ADD SOMETHING ABOUT THE, THE HEIGHT OF IT AS WELL, YOU KNOW, YES SIR.
PART OF IT IS, IS WE WANTED TO ACCENTUATE THE BEAUTY OF THE DOWNTOWN SKYLINE.
UM, HAVING HAD THAT DEVELOPMENT BEGIN SUBSEQUENT TO MY PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, IT SEEMED IMPERATIVE THAT IN ORDER TO SALVAGE ANY SORT OF, UM, SKYLINE VIEWS, ET CETERA, AND, AND, UM, REALLY TAKE IN THE BEAUTY OF THAT AREA OF SAN ANTONIO THAT, UH, THAT WE HAD TO GET SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT, UH, TALLER.
NOW WE, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS RODRIGO POINTED OUT EARLIER, UM, YOU KNOW, IN COMPARISON TO THE TWO STORIES BEHIND US, WHERE THIS ONE IS ONLY ABOUT THREE FEET, UM, HIGHER, UH, TO ME, AND I, I DEFINITELY TOOK WHAT COMMISSIONER FETZER SAID IN OUR LAST MEETING, YOU KNOW, TO ME, TRYING TO HOLD TRUE TO AT LEAST SOME ASPECTS OF MY ORIGINAL REQUEST TO MY ARCHITECTURE FIRM.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, YOU GUYS, AND I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO TO GET BASHED FOR THIS, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TOO MUCH TO ASK, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE NATURE OF SOME OF THE VERY MODERN STRUCTURES AROUND US THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT.
NOW, I KNOW IT'S NOT STUFF ON THE BLOCK BASE, AND EVEN COMMISSIONER FETZER DID MENTION IN THE LAST MEETING, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT, UH, STANDARD TO THE BLOCK.
HOWEVER, I'VE GONE THROUGH PERSONALLY, UM, YESTERDAY AND LOOKED AT MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ON MULTIPLE STREETS WHERE YOU HAVE A TWO STORY, TONS OF GLASS, VERY MODERN STRUCTURE SANDWICH IN BETWEEN 200 YEAR OLD SINGLE, UH, SINGLE STORY HOUSES.
AND TO ME, I'M JUST SITTING HERE GOING, WHY DO I, WHY CAN'T I GET THIS ONE THAT LOOKS VERY HISTORIC IN OUR OPINION, AND VERY TRUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I UNDERSTAND THE HEIGHT PORTION OF IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS, THIS ONE SHOULDN'T BE, UM, SO DIFFICULT COMPARED TO THE OTHER ULTRAMODERN ONES THAT I KNOW LE BACA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS NOT KEEN ON.
UM, THAT'S JUST A, A SIDE NOTE TO WHAT THE COMMISSIONER JUST SAID.
UH, COMM CHAIRMAN FISH, UH, SORRY, THAT CHAIRMAN FETZER.
UM, JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT COMMENT, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, IN GENERAL YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HEARING A LOT OF STYLISTIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS
[01:10:01]
BEYOND MAYBE PROPORTIONS OF WINDOWS OR APPROPRIATENESS AND THAT SORT OF THING.SO I DON'T THINK THE POINTS OF CRITICISM THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HOLD AND THAT I ALSO HOLD WITH THEM ARE, ARE STYLISTICALLY BASED.
I THINK THEY'RE PRIMARILY MASSING A SCALE BASE, AND, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER FISH MAKES A COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS THIS SORT OF INCREASING DEVELOPMENT GRADIENT AS YOU'RE GOING TOWARDS CESAR CHAVEZ.
UH, THAT MAY MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO GO FROM TWO STORIES ON LAVACCA, THREE STORIES ON THIS OR SOMETHING THAT'S IN, IN BETWEEN TWO AND A HALF, UM, AND THEN UP TO THREE FOR THE MULTIFAMILY THAT FACE ONTO CESAR CHAVEZ.
UM, BUT IN GENERAL, I, I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN JUST A HEIGHT ISSUE.
I THINK THERE'S JUST A LOT OF PROGRAM BEING PRES, YOU KNOW, PRESENTED HERE, AND THAT'S, THAT'S DRIVING SOME DECISIONS, UH, THAT I THINK ARE RESULTING IN, IN A, IN A SCALE MASSING THAT I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME SUPPORTING.
I DO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S, UM, ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO NOT ONLY THIS COMMISSION'S COMMENTS, BUT ALSO, UH, THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ASSOCIATION'S COMMENTS.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANT IN TRYING TO, UH, ARE ARE RESPONSIVE TO TRY TO, TO FIND A, A SOLUTION HERE.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET.
I, IT JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT REAL QUICKLY IS, UH, IN REGARD AND I DEFINITELY, YOUR POINT IS NOTED ON, UH, THE STYLISTIC PORTION OF THE HOUSE, SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THAT.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS THE MASSING IS CONCERNED, I, YOU KNOW, THROUGH EACH OF THE D R C MEETINGS, WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH ON THE MASSING WE'RE WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER IT IS THAT, THAT, THAT WILL GET THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, APPROVED BY Y'ALL.
AND, BUT WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THE MASSING AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE APPROVE ONE SIDE AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T LIKE IT, AND THEN ONE SIDE LIKE IT, THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T LIKE IT.
SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID IN THE ONSET, WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO APPROVE THIS AND, AND GET IT THROUGH BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HAPPY WITH EVERY VERSION THAT WE'VE HAD.
NO, IT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL VERSION THAT I LIKED AND IT'S, IT'S COSTING ME A TON OF MONEY AND TIME IF WE REALLY WANT TO GET THIS THING GOING.
BUT WE ARE MORE THAN OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF DIRECTION IF, UM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSIONERS INSTEAD OF, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GO FROM HERE, I GUESS IS THE POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN EVERY SINGLE BIT OF COMMENT ON THIS AND WE HAVE RUN WITH IT.
WE HAVE APPLIED IT TOWARDS THIS.
AND SO IT MAKES IT REALLY TOUGH WHEN YOU GET ONE SET OF COMMISSIONERS IN ONE D R C MEETING AND THEN A, A DIFFERENT ONE IN ANOTHER D R C MEETING.
AND IT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LAST SET OF COMMISSIONERS ASKED US TO DO.
UM, SO I JUST NEED A LITTLE HELP FROM, FROM ALL OF Y'ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED TO GO WITH THIS THING.
'CAUSE WE ARE, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'RE SCRATCHING OUR HEAD AND WE'RE A LITTLE BIT, UM, CONFUSED ON WHAT OUR NEXT MOVE IS.
THAT'S, THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH OF A CONSENSUS TO GIVE CONCEPTUAL DEPRO APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS.
UM, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR.
YOU KNOW, I, THERE, THERE, THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS TO THIS THAT I BELIEVE ARE, ARE, ARE A STUMBLING BLOCK AND, AND OVER THE LAST WEEKS IT'S, IT'S REALLY BEEN ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT PROGRAM THAT'S BEING SHOVED UP INTO THE ROOF.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S OBJECTION TO THE A TO A TWO STORY MASSING.
THERE'S TWO STORY MASSING ON THE STREET BEYOND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TWO STORY MASSING.
I MEAN, TECHNICALLY THIS IS THREE STORY.
A LOT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT ATTIC LEVEL WITH THE POP-OUT IS INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE MASS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE SITE.
YOU'VE GOT THE, THE PERGOLA ISSUE THERE.
I DON'T THINK IF, IF, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT PROGRAM STICKING OUT OF THE ROOF OF THIS THING, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD'VE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS.
THIS WOULD BE REALLY, THIS WOULD BE RELATIVELY EASY.
THAT PLATE ON THE SECOND STORY COULD SINK A LITTLE BIT.
THE GABLE ROOF, UH, THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING REFLECTS THE ROOF FORMS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THE RIDGE HEIGHT, UH, THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS, I, I I THINK YOU'VE SAID IT IS PROBABLY THREE FOOT HIGHER THAN THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.
AND I THINK THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS PROBABLY CLOSE.
IT'S THIS EXTRA MASS THAT'S BULKING OUT THAT I THINK IS GIVING PEOPLE SOME HEARTBURN.
AND A LOT OF WHAT I BELIEVE YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON, BUT I ARE RESPONDING TO IS REALLY HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT MASS THAT IS SITUATED HIGHEST UP IN, IN THE BULK OF THIS BUILDING.
[01:15:01]
MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, IF YOU CONCUR WITH THOSE SENTIMENTS.IF YOU DO, MAYBE WE CAN TRY TO FIND A WAY FORWARD, UH, THROUGH STIPULATION TO DEAL WITH THAT.
WELL, I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH STIPULATIONS.
I AM TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A STIPULATION THAT'LL BOTH, YOU KNOW, MOVE THE BALL AND DEAL WITH A VARIETY OF CONCERNS HERE.
I DUNNO IF THE VICE CHAIRMAN HAS ANY IDEAS.
YEAH, I'LL MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT THAT.
UM, 'CAUSE I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH, YOU KNOW, NAILED IT FOR ME EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS HERE IS, IS THAT EXTRA PROGRAM THAT IS PUSHING US BEYOND THE, THE WHAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, UH, TWO STORY IS CERTAINLY ACCEPTABLE EVEN WITH ONE STORY STRUCTURES AROUND IT, UM, THAT IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES.
SO I THINK, UH, TO REALLY KIND OF NARROW IN ON THIS, THEN I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE, UH, WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, AND I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND WITH, UH, STIPULATION NUMBER TWO READING THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCES THE HEIGHT TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING SCALE OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND THE HISTORIC BLOCK FACE AS NOTED IN FINDINGS TWO D.
AND WHY I'M MAKING THAT STIPULATION OR CHANGING THAT STIPULATION IS TO SAY THAT THERE MAY STILL BE A WAY IN WHICH THEY CAN INCORPORATE THAT PROGRAM UP INTO KIND OF A, A, UH, CLAIMED ATTIC SPACE.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S STILL READING VERY MUCH AS, AS A, AS A THIRD STORY.
AND IF I COULD OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I KNOW THERE HAD BEEN FOR, FOR STIPULATION NUMBER ONE REGARDING THIS SETBACK, UM, I THINK THE SETBACK THAT IS PROPOSED, I THINK IT'S BACK A LITTLE FURTHER FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE, UH, DIMENSIONAL NARROW NARROWNESS THAT'S AVAILABLE THERE.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD, YEAH, OFFER THAT, THAT ALSO BE REMOVED.
I, I CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I THINK, UM, THESE, THESE LOTS ARE VERY SUBSTANDARD AND I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT EXCEPTION HERE.
SO STRIKING, UH, STAFF STIPULATION NUMBER ONE AND MODIFYING STAFF STIPULATION TWO AS ALREADY COMMENTED.
AND THEN STAFF STIPULATIONS THREE THROUGH EIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU.
I'LL SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
[15. 21-4667 Address/Description: 1038 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-273 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: ricardo mccullough Request: Construction of two, 1-story residential structures and two, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2]
EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? YES.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 15 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 2 73, 10 38, 10 42, 10 46 AND 10 50.
DAWSON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO ONE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND TWO, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LIVE PICK 10 38 THROUGH 10 50 DAWSON STREET, LOCATED WITHIN THE ITY HILL.
HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE C O A AT THIS TIME BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH U WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
ONE THAT ALL FOUNDATION HEIGHTS ALL THE GUIDELINES AND FEATURE AT LEAST ONE FOOT IN HEIGHT.
TWO, THAT EACH STRUCTURE FEATURE A FRONT PORCH WITH MASSING THAT IS INTEGRAL TO THAT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION STAFF RECOMMENDS PORCH DEPTHS OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET THREE THAT ALL SIDING FEATURE FOUR INCH EXPOSURE THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH MITER CORNERS AND A SMOOTH FINISH COLUMN SHOULD BE SIX INCHES SQUARE WINDOW MATERIAL SHOULD MEET STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THEN THE PROPOSED STANDING SEA METAL ROOF SHOULD FEATURE SMOOTH PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE.
SEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT, CRI RIDGE SEAM, AND A STANDARD GAL BALLOON FINISH BELOW PROFILE RIDGE CAP MAY BE USED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
HOWEVER, IT MUST BE APPROVED THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM YOU IS NOTED IN FINDING
[01:20:01]
V THAT ONLY ONE WALKWAY FROM THE FRONT LEAD FROM THE FRONT PORCH TO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR EACH DUPLEX IS NOTED IN FINDING U THAT WOULD OR ALUMINUM PLAID WOOD WINDOWS BE INSTALLED THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS.AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDING P THAT ALTERNATIVE ROOF FORMS SHOULD BE EXPLORED TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSED ROOF MASS IN SUCH AS HIP ROOF FORMS AND SHORTER GABLES AND PLACES A CURRENT SHALLOW GABLE THAT STRETCHES THE EXPANSE OF THE SIDE ELEVATION AND FENESTRATION BE ADDED TO THE SIDE FACADE OF EACH STRUCTURE AS THERE ARE EXPANSES OF WALL PLANES THAT ARE, THAT CURRENTLY FEATURE NO SEPARATION OR FENESTRATION.
IT'S ALSO A CASE COMMENT IN REGARDS TO A FOUNDATION INSPECTION UPON THE ISSUANCE OF THE C L A AS WELL AS THE STAINING AND METAL ROOF INSPECTION ON THE ISSUANCE OF A C L A FOR METAL ROOFING.
I HAVE THE APP, THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. ALINI ON THE LINE NOW.
THIS IS MY, MY TURN STOP, SIR.
UH, WITH RESPECT TO ROOF, SIR, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPTION TO DO SHINGLES, UM, EITHER OR IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE STAFF.
IN THE CASE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF OR A SHINGLE ROOF WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
SO THAT ONE ITEM IS OUT OF THE WAY.
UM, THERE'S BEEN, UH, JUST SO THE STAFF KNOWS, WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR THREE YEARS.
THE LAST YEAR WE'VE HIRED ANOTHER ARCHITECT TO WORK WITH, UH, UH, WITH THE HISTORIC DEPARTMENT TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.
AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE WANTS TO QUIT, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH MAJOR CHANGES AGAIN BECAUSE IT SAYS EVERY TIME THEY HAVE A MEETING, THEY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE AND THEY WERE, I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WERE TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, IT WILL BE APPROVED AND NOW THEY KEEP COMING BACK.
SO I'VE BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THEM.
NOW, WITH ALL THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST ONE ITEM FROM THE COMMISSION AND THAT IS, UH, WE WILL HIRE SOMEONE ELSE FOR HIMSELF TO INCORPORATE ALL THESE CHANGES ARE REQUESTED BY, BY YOU.
I JUST HOPE THAT I CAN GET, UH, AN APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON US PROVIDING THE CHANGES THAT IS REQUESTED HERE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
CAN I COMMENT ON THIS? UH, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST.
UM, YEAH, WE DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM SCOTT ALBERT.
UM, I WILL NOTE THEY SEEM TO BE A COPY AND PASTE ERROR FROM ANOTHER COMMENT THEY SUBMITTED FOR ITEM 13.
UM, SO I'VE EMAILED SCOTT AND ASKED IF HE HAS A REVISED COMMENT TO PROVIDE AND IF WE GET THAT DURING DISCUSSION, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE IT, BUT, BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T.
UM, MR. MEANY, I THINK, UM, YOU'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AS US.
I DO FEEL THAT, UM, I'VE BEEN ON A D R C FOR THIS CASE AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE ARCHITECT WAS ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE STILL ON STIPULATIONS.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S AS MUCH AS, UM, MAYBE IT'S COMMUNICATION OR, UH, SO I WOULD BE, UH, PLEASED IF YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE AN ARCHITECT THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO A REVISED SET OF DRAWINGS WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF HAS DATE, YOU ALREADY HAVE A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, SO YOU WOULD STILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYWAY, BUT AT LEAST THEY WOULD MOVE YOU FORWARD.
AND I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST MAYBE WE HAVE A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH YOUR NEW ARCHITECT SO YOU CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THESE STIPULATIONS ARE BEING ASKED.
AND, AND I THINK THE STIPULATIONS ARE FAIR ENOUGH THAT THAT COULD BE DONE, UH, ON YOUR PROJECT.
NOW, UH, WE WILL, I WILL SPEAK TO, UH, THE SAME ARCHITECT WHO IS INTENDING TO QUIT, BUT IF HE DOESN'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD WORK LEGALLY SINCE WE PAY THEM TO DO THIS DESIGN.
NOW WE TAKE THE DESIGN TO ANOTHER ARCHITECT TO MAKE THE MODIFICATIONS SUBMIT UNDER HIS NAME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE WILL HAVE TO FACE.
HOWEVER, I WILL FIND A WAY TO INCORPORATE ALL THESE CHANGES REQUESTED BY, UH, BY YOU ALL AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS LONG AS I KNOW THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND WE, WE WILL BE DONE SO THAT, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN GO TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, HAVE
[01:25:01]
AN ENGINEERING GROUP THAT IS WORKING ON DOING ALL ENGINEERING WORK.I MIGHT HAVE TO USE THEM AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SORT OF MEETING AND BRING THE ARCHITECT OVER.
ONCE EVERYTHING IS DONE, WE CAN COME OVER, PRESENT IT TO YOU AND YOUR STAFF.
UM, THE STIPULATIONS THAT I'M SEEING HERE ARE, SEEM TO BE EASILY ACHIEVABLE.
UM, IF THEY'RE CONSIDERED AND JUST INCORPORATED INTO THE DRAWINGS.
I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A C O A TODAY GIVEN THE STIPULATIONS ABOUT THE ROOF FORM.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE EIGHT STIPULATIONS THERE, MANY OF THEM ARE, UH, JUST SPECIFICATION RELATED.
SO, UM, I WOULD CONCUR THAT, UH, THAT, THAT THOSE, THAT THOSE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE DRAWINGS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE DRAWINGS AND THEN I DON'T, I DON'T ANTICIPATE SO LONG AS THOSE WE'RE ADDRESSING THE ISSUES THAT YOU'LL HAVE ANY, ANY ISSUES AT THAT TIME.
SO I THINK, I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TIMEFRAME IS, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO NECESSARILY RE RESET THIS.
SO I THINK WE COULD, UH, CONTINUE THIS CASE AND GIVE YOU SOME TIME.
IS THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE INTERESTED IN? ARE YOU REFERRING TO ME, SIR? YES.
WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO THE CASE SO YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES? I WOULD RESOLVE THE ISSUES, SIR.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHETHER WE'RE, WE KNOW THAT WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, WE GET THE APPROVAL, THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
I WILL SUBMIT THAT AS SOON AS I FIND EITHER CURRENT ARCHITECT OR NEW ARCHITECT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES TO SUBMIT.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MOVE TO CONTINUE.
I'LL SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? I DO HAVE A COMMENT FOR THIS CASE.
UM, SO THIS DOES COME FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL STORE DISTRICT.
UM, AND IT IS, WE SUPPORT STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THE SIDING HALF MITRE CORNERS, A TRADITIONAL INDIGNITY HILL SIDING FEATURES CORNER BOARDS.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS NEW BUILD HOME USES WOOD OR ALUMINUM PLAID WINDOWS, BUT RECOMMENDS PLASTIC WINDOWS FOR THE HISTORIC HOME AT FOUR 16 WILLOW A CASE ALSO HEARD TODAY.
UM, SO I BELIEVE THAT IS IN, UH, RELATION TO FINDING, UM, UH, SORRY, I'M NOT SEEING IT NOW.
STIPULATION THREE REGARDING THE MI CORNERS.
AND MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I KNOW WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON ITEM THREE TODAY, BUT I SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S POSITION AND, UH, AND WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON THAT.
I, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF STIPULATION THREE.
ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
[16. 21-4655 Address/Description: 134 W MISTLETOE HDRC Case No.: 2021-279 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Lyndsay Thorn/Thorn Architects PLLC Request: Replace concrete walkway with brick City Council Dist.: 1]
WEST MISSILE TOE.RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16 H H C R C CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 42 ADDRESS, 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE DEMOLISH A CONTRIBUTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
TWO, CONSTRUCT A REAR CARPORT AND THREE, REPLACE THE EXISTING FRONT CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH A NEW RED BRICK WALKWAY.
THE WALKWAY FOOTPRINT IS REQUESTED TO BE MODIFIED WHILE THE WIDTH IS REQUESTED TO BE RETAINED AT SIX FEET.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST.
ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BASED ON FINDINGS ONE A THROUGH ONE C.
IF THE H D R C FINDS THERE IS UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR FAILING THAT FINDS A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE HAS OCCURRED AND APPROVES THE REQUESTED DEMOLITION, THEN STAFF MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REQUESTED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF REQUEST.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR CARPORT STRUCTURE BASED ON FINDING TWO A THROUGH TWO F WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT MATERIALS FROM THE HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE INCLUDING SALVAGEABLE WOOD SIDING AND WOOD DOORS BE SALVAGED AND STORED ON SITE FOR USE IN FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.
AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT EXPLORES A SETBACK IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT REMAINS IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE AT 1712 HOWARD STREET.
AN UPDATED SITE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
[01:30:01]
THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCES THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT TO MORE CLOSELY REFLECT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE REAR, THE EXISTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND UPDATED SITE PLAN AND UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND THREE, ITEM THREE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, BASED ON FINDING THREE A, THE RE REPORTING OF THE WALKWAY IN KIND IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT WOULD THORN IS ON THE LINE.
LINDSAY, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME.
HELLO? HELLO, BOARD, HOW ARE YOU? UM, I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS ACTUALLY.
UM, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME AND VISIT ME ON SITE.
UM, QUESTION I'VE GOT, I GUESS IS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH THE DENIAL OF THE, UH, DEMOLITION, HOWEVER, THE APPROVAL OF THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A OR OR RENOVATE THE PARKING STRUCTURE.
SO IT ACTUALLY IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ACTUALLY PARK TWO VEHICLES THERE FOR A CHANGE.
IS THAT, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED OVER THAT.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU WANT TO KEEP THE FRONT FACADE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE PART OF THE ISSUE? UM, AS IS OR, OR I, I'M, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY OVER WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY, UH, ALLOWING ME TO, TO, TO PRESENT SURE.
LINDSAY, THAT CAN CLARIFY THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS WRITTEN THAT STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, IF THE H D R C UH, FINDS THAT, UM, THERE IS A UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND THEY APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THEN STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE CARPORT INSTALLATION.
UM, SO THAT IS ITEM NUMBER TWO? YES.
ALRIGHT, SO FROM THE STAFF, WHEN HE SAW THAT THE, THE GARAGE CANNOT BE USED FOR INTENDED USE, WE, WE WANT, WITH TWO BIG CONCERNS WE HAVE IS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET THE, UH, VEHICLES OFF THE STREET AND COVERED.
UH, WE WANT TO CREATE THAT EXTENDED AREA SO WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE FOUR CARS THERE THAT WE COVERED THAT, THAT THE STRUCTURE CAN THEN BE USED, UH, DOUBLE UP AS A, AS A, UH, AN OPEN COVERED STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE USED, THE CARS COULD BE REMOVED AND USED AS A COVERED AREA FOR THE BACKYARD.
UM, BUT ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CONCERNS IS IF THE FRONT TO SIDE IS KEPT, WHERE IS CURRENTLY FOR THE GARAGE? UH, I, I UNDERSTAND YOU JUST ON MY, WELL, MY FAMILY SIZE VEHICLE, UM, ANY VEHICLE IS PARKED ON THAT HARD STANDING CONCRETE IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, ACTUALLY STICKS OUT AND BLOCKS THE DRIVEWAY.
SO PEOPLE, IT'S A MASSIVE SAFETY HAZARD.
PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE TO WALK OUT INTO THE STREET TO CONNECT THE SIDEWALK, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO I, I'M, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TWO DOORS YOU HAVE CURRENTLY, YOU, YOU, THEY, YOU CANNOT GET TWO CARS IN THERE.
THAT'S BARELY BIG ENOUGH I TO EVEN GET A, A ONE CAR THROUGH ONE OF THOSE CARS, ONE OF THE SLIDING GARAGE DOORS WITH THE CENTER POST.
SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT LATITUDE WE HAVE.
DOES THAT MEAN WE JUST KEEP THE VERTICAL FACADE AND WE'RE ABLE TO THEN WIDEN IT BEYOND THE VERTICAL FACADE? I, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE, FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE WITHOUT DEMOLISHING IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY ACHIEVE WHAT WE NEED TO ACHIEVE OR WITHOUT SEVERELY CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE.
I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS.
UM, I MEAN, WE HAVE THREE, UM,
THE FIRST COMES FROM KATHY RHODES, UM, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY.
THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO OPPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE.
UH, DEMONSTRATION OF THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN MET SINCE THE APPLICANT ATTENDS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CARDBOARD THAT IS TWICE THE SIZE OF THE ORIGINAL.
AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT INCLUDED.
THERE'S NOT AN EV ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE BASED ON THE PHOTOS AND SANBORN MAPS INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
UM, THESE SHOW A STRUCTURE RETAINING ITS FORMAL LOCATION FOR OVER 50 YEARS IN NEED OF REPAIRS TYPICAL FOR ITS AGE.
UM, THE NEXT FROM PAUL KINISON, UM, FOUR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE, THE MHAS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GARAGE AT 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
ONE, THE GARAGE CON CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE MANIFESTA HISTORICAL DISTRICT TWO.
IN OUR RESEARCH, WE FOUND A 1938 SANBORN MAP, WHICH SHOWS THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT.
WE BELIEVE THE GARAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 85 YEARS OLD.
WE THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND GARAGES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1920S AND THIRTIES.
THREE, THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS USED ARE HISTORIC IN THEMSELVES.
THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT MUCH FRAMING OR INTERIOR STUDS.
SOME OF THE MATERIALS IN THE GARAGE APPEAR TO BE HAND HUED WOOD MEMBERS.
IT IS AMAZING HOW THEY WERE BUILT AND HOW LONG THE REMAINING ONES HAVE LASTED.
AT ONE POINT IN HISTORY, THERE WERE A NUMBER, WERE A NUMBER OF THESE GARAGES IN MONTE VISTA.
LET'S HOPE THIS ONE WILL NOT BE LOST AS WELL BY
[01:35:01]
WE RECOMMEND THIS HISTORIC GARAGE BE RESTORED AND SAVED IN OUR OPINION.BASED ON OUR PAST EXPERIENCE AND OUR LAST WEEK'S SITE VISIT, THIS HISTORIC GARAGE CAN BE RESTORED WITH A MINIMUM EXPENSE BASED ON OUR VISUAL OBSERVATIONS AT THE SITE VISIT LAST WEEK.
UM, THIS GARAGE IS AN EXTREMELY GOOD CONDITION.
AN ADDED HISTORICAL BEN HISTORICAL BENEFIT TO SAVING THIS GARAGE.
HISTORIC GARAGE IS ITS LOCATION IN THAT IT PROVIDES CLEAR VISIBILITY TO THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THIS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SEVEN, THE M V H A RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THEN WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL WE'RE GOING TO PLAY NEXT.
ONE MOMENT WHILE WE GET THAT QUEUED UP.
DEAR COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA, THE MONTH OF EAST HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE.
OUR STATEMENT IS FOR ITEM 16, 1 34 WEST MISSILE TONE.
IN OUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUNE 16TH, WE MADE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT A OF THE STAND BOARD MAPS FROM 1911 THROUGH 1970, WHERE THESE MAPS CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF THE AUTO GARAGE AS EARLY AS 1938.
THIS GARAGE IS 83 YEARS OLD AND THE APPLICANT HAS YET TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
FURTHERMORE, DURING A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE VISIT ON JUNE 29TH, WE FOUND THE INTERIOR TO BE IN VERY GOOD CONDITION.
EXHIBIT B IS A PHOTO OF THE GARAGE'S FRAME CONSTRUCTION HAND H LUMBER WAS THE FRAME CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS GARAGE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S ALL IN VERY FINE CONDITION.
EXHIBIT C SHOWS A BOX RAIL FOR THE SLIDING GARAGE DOORS, WHICH SHOWS THE EXTENT BY WHICH ONE INVESTED TO PRESERVE THESE HISTORIC WOODEN DOORS.
THESE GARAGE DOORS WERE ALSO IN VERY GOOD CONDITION.
WE CONTINUE TO CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NO LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE WITH THIS STRUCTURE.
FURTHERMORE, AS OF TODAY, THERE IS STILL NO CLEARER AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
BUT THERE DOES EXIST A REASONABLE AND BENEFICIAL USE AS A GARAGE IF IT WAS FULLY RESTORED.
THIS IS A VERY SOUND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT MEETS HISTORIC INTEGRITY AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL TRUST AND THE SIMULATION OF AN IRREPLACEABLE LOSS TO THE CHARACTER OF MONTE VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT.
CONTRARY TO THE PRESERVATION IDEALS OF THE H D R C, THIS MUST HAVE BEING SAVED RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
UM, AND THAT'S ALL OF THE COMMENTS.
UH, CAN I, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT, UH, THOSE COMMENTS? UM, YES SIR.
I, WE UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT WITHOUT CLAIMING A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, UH, IN ANY WHICH WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
UM, IT WAS APPARENT THAT ALL PEOPLE SAW WHEN YOU WENT ON THE JOB SITE, YOU CAN'T EVEN PUT A TRUCK IN THERE BECAUSE YOU'D HIT THE ROOF, THE EXISTING GARAGE, WHATEVER IT IS, WAS EXTENDED ON.
I IMAGINE EXISTING GARAGE IS PROBABLY FROM THE, THE FIFTIES WE HAD THAT EXTENDED BACK TO IT.
YOU CAN'T PHYSICALLY PUT TWO VEHICLES IN THE GARAGE TOWARDS INTENDED USE.
TWO, IF YOU HAVE ANY VEHICLES OF TODAY'S SIZE GOING INSIDE THE GARAGE, ANY TRUCK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THEY'RE GONNA HIT THE ROOF.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOF CLEARANCE.
YOU CAN'T GET THE VEHICLE IN FAR ENOUGH.
SO I I I MEAN THE DETERMINATION ON BEING A HARDSHIP INTO FINANCIAL, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE ITEM.
BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, SAFETY OF, OF, OF NEIGHBORS WHICH WALK ALONG THAT SIDEWALK ALL THE TIME.
AND ALSO JUST HAVING A PRACTICAL USE FOR A, A GARAGE FOR ITS INTENDED USE.
YOU CANNOT FIT MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE IN THERE.
IT'S TOTALLY IMPRACTICAL FOR A, FOR A, FOR A HOME.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE GET A REPORT FROM THE SITE VISIT? YES.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS THERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO REPORT? SURE.
UH, CHAIRMAN, FOR, FOR BREVITY'S SAKE, I WOULD, UH, JUST HAVE TO SAY I CAN CONCUR WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE, UH, MONTE VISTA, UH, HISTORICAL, UH, OR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, THAT IT, IT, THE GARAGE DOES APPEAR TO BE IN, IN VERY GOOD, UH,
[01:40:01]
CONDITION.IT HAS SOME, UM, EXCEPTIONAL ELEMENTS THAT, UH, CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS THAT STILL REMAIN.
IT IS A, UM, A NICE COMPLIMENT TO THE HISTORIC BUILDING, UH, TO THE, THE MAIN HOUSE IN THAT, THE MAIN HOUSE IS FAIRLY ELABORATE AND HIGH STYLE.
AND, AND THIS GARAGE IS VERY UTILITARIAN AND REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS TIME AND PERIOD IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT FROM THOSE STANDPOINTS, UH, FOR ME TO SUPPORT DEMOLITION OF IT.
I DO UNDERSTAND AND, AND EMPATHY FOR THE ISSUES ABOUT THE OBSOLESCENCE AND USEFULNESS OF THIS STRUCTURE GIVEN, UH, THE SIZE OF MODERN VEHICLES.
AND SO I, I'M, IT'S SOMETHING, UNFORTUNATELY, THE GUIDELINES DON'T GIVE US A LOT OF, UM, INFORMATION ABOUT, UH, A LOT OF DIRECTION AND THAT THAT'S DIRECTION AND THAT THAT'S WHY THESE THINGS FALL TO US TO DECIDE WHETHER THE OBSOLESCENCE REPRESENTS A, UH, THE UNDUE HARDSHIP.
BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ITS CONDITION, I DON'T THINK IT'S HAD A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
I THINK IT'S IN, UH, SUPERB CONDITION.
AND, UM, UH, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.
YES, I WAS ALSO AT THE SITE VISIT AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SAYS.
UM, AGAIN, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT, UM, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH WITH CURRENT SIZE OF VEHICLES, BUT IT, UH, IS IN, IT'S STILL IN GOOD CONDITION, UH, SOUND STRUCTURAL CONDITION AND HAS ALL THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IT IS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. COMMISSIONER FISH? YES, SIR.
I MEAN, I THINK THE GUIDELINES, THE GUIDELINES THAT, UH, HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND APPLIED HERE REALLY ONLY DIRECT US TO ONE ANSWER.
AND I KNOW WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS LAST TIME AND, UH, CONSIDERED A SITE VISIT, IT WAS REALLY TO VERIFY THAT ALL THOSE PIECES WERE IN PLACE.
AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY'RE, THEY SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S POSITION ON THE OTHER COMMENTS HERE.
SO I WOULD MOVE FOR DENIAL OF ITEM ONE AND THREE.
WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? IS THIS COMMISSIONER GROUP? CAN I, CAN I TALK ABOUT THAT REAL QUICK? LET ME GET A SECOND.
SO I, I'M STILL, I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE DEMOLITION THING.
DO I, AM I ABLE TO REMOVE THE WALL ON ONE SIDE TO ENABLE TO ACTUALLY GET AT LEAST TRY AND GET A VEHICLE IN THERE? CAN I REMOVE THE CENTER POST TO TRY AND PUT KEEP CARRIAGE DOORS OR SOMETHING TO IT? I, I, IT'S, IT'S VERY GRAY WHAT AM ALLOWED AND WHAT I CAN AND WHAT I CAN'T DO, BUT I'VE GOTTA BE ABLE TO HAVE A GARAGE THERE THAT, AGAIN, IS NOT A SAFETY HAZARD.
IF THE FOLKS WALK ALONG THE STREET, I CAN GET VEHICLES OFF THE SIDEWALK.
AND ACTUALLY, IT, IT SAYS STATES THERE THAT I WILL ALLOW, UH, TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE TO COMPENSATE FOR SUCH VEHICLES.
BUT I, I CAN'T GET TWO VEHICLES THROUGH THOSE EXISTING DOORS.
WELL, IF THE MOTION TO DENY DEMOLITION IS APPROVED, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR MODIFYING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WE WOULD, UH, CONSIDER.
UH, BUT YOU GIMME NO GUIDANCE OVER WHAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT.
I MEAN, I CAN KEEP COMING BACK AND BACK.
I MEAN, CAN, WELL I HAVE YOU GUYS THERE NOW, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT, WOULD YOU ACCEPT HAVING TAKEN, SENT THE POST AWAY? WELL, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE PROCEED WITH THIS VOTE AND THEN YOU COME BACK TO THE, UH, D R C WITH YOUR, UH, DESIGN MODIFICATION PROPOSALS.
SO THAT, I'M GONNA CALL FOR A, A, UH, ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
[17. 21-4651 Address/Description: 130 WICKES HDRC Case No.: 2021-280 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Sean Ferguson/VHS Landscaping Request: Walkway modifications City Council Dist.: 1]
WIX.STEPHANIE, ARE YOU THERE, STEPHANIE? YEP, I'M HERE.
[01:45:02]
H D R C CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH TWO 80.THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING POOR CONCRETE CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH A NEW PAVER WALKWAY.
THE WIDTH AND CONFIGURATION WILL BE RETAIN STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WALKWAY MATERIAL REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING B APPEARANCE, STABILIZATION OR REPORTING OF THE WALKWAY IN KIND IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, SEAN, ON THE LINE.
SEAN, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SUMMARIZE YOUR REQUEST? HEY, HOW YOU DOING? SEAN FERGUSON HERE.
SO BASICALLY WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO UPGRADE THE APPEARANCE ANESTHETICS OUTSIDE OF THE HOME, AND WE DECIDED TO GO WITH THE PAPERS HERE BECAUSE THEY KIND OF HAVE A CLASSIC HISTORICAL LOOK.
ALSO, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CENTER WALKWAY COMING OFF OF CITY SIDEWALK, IT HAS TWO DIFFERENT ELEVATION CHANGES INITIALLY COMING OFF OF THE STEPS.
AND THEN IT HAS A RAMP DOWN WHERE THE SCORED CONCRETE IS AT.
I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE LOOKING TO KEEP THAT PORTION IN, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE IT JUST TO MAKE THAT ONE GRADUAL GRADE CHANGE IF THERE IS AN ELDERLY WOMAN LIVING IN THE HOUSEHOLD.
AND WE WOULD THINK THAT WOULD MAKE A BETTER EASE OF ACCESS FOR HER.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, WE DO NOT.
QUESTION FOR STAFF AND I GUESS THE APPLICANT, THE DRAWING ON SHEET 12 SHOWS A NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN AND IT LOOKS LIKE NEW PAVERS ACROSS THE FRONT AND BETWEEN THE RIBBON DRIVEWAY, IS THAT ALL PART OF THE APPLICATION OR IS IT JUST NO, SO, UM, IT'S JUST THE WALKWAY FROM THE STREET TO THE HOUSE.
THE ONE THAT'S PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET, I BELIEVE FINDING C WHATEVER THE LAST FINDING IS, UM, ADDRESSES THE ITEMS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, GIVEN THE DEFLECTION IN THE WALK AND THE STEEPNESS ON THE END, SO THERE ARE TWO PARTS OF THIS, THIS WALKWAY, THE GUIDE, JUST FOR THE APPLICANT'S GUESS EDIFICATION, YOU KNOW, THE GUIDELINES DIRECT US THAT WHEN THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED, THAT THEY'RE REPLACED IN KIND.
WE HAVE TWO, TWO SEGMENTS OF WALKWAY.
WE'VE GOT A TOOLED AREA THAT WE CAN SEE, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, AN UNTO AREA GOING UP TO THE HOUSE.
UM, I THINK THE APPLICANT IS CITING THE STEEPNESS OF THE SLOPE ON THE TOOLED AREA, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT WALKWAY COULD, COULD BE, UH, RECONSTRUCTED IN KIND ENTIRELY AND DEAL WITH THAT SLOPE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR STAFF.
IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION INCLUDE INCLUDING THAT, THAT THE REPLACEMENT OF THIS SIDEWALK INCLUDE THE TOOLING THAT IS HISTORICALLY PRESENT, UH, THROUGHOUT THE NEW SIDEWALK? OR IS WOULD THAT BE LIMITED TO WHERE WE SEE THE EXISTING TOOLING? UM, I'LL BE HONEST, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE ENTIRE WALKWAY THAT HAD THE SCORING OR TOOLING AS YOU CALL IT.
BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S JUST THE ONE SQUARE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE GUIDELINES, THAT WOULD JUST BE THE ONE SQUARE WHERE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED POTENTIALLY.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE, THE HISTORIC CONTEXT THAT'S THERE.
IT PROBABLY, IT WOULD'VE BEEN, THERE PROBABLY MAKES SENSE THAT, THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE THROUGHOUT THE REPLACEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHAIRMAN OR ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT TO ME THAT'S THE, THE LITTLE PART OF THIS THAT'S A LITTLE TRICKY.
SO GIVEN THE DEFLECTION IN THE SIDEWALK, IT'S RECONSTRUCTION IS PERMITTED, UH, BY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
AND THE QUESTION IS WHAT FINISH DOES IT TAKE? RIGHT? BEFORE WE GET INTO FURTHER DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS? CORY? WE DON'T.
AND THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP? YES, MA'AM.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PICTURES ON THIS, RIGHT? I MEAN, ARE WE SURE IT'S NOT, IS THAT THE ORIGINAL WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH CALLS THE TOOLING? DO WE KNOW IF THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL PAVERS? IS IT ONE BIG PAVER? THERE'S JUST MAYBE, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE MOST OF THESE HOMES, UM, ON THE BLOCK, I MEAN, I DON'T, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT AS BEING MY COMMON FOR THE KING WILLIAM AREA.
UM, I WOULD SAY KING WILLIAMS, ONE OF THE FEW DISTRICTS WE ACTUALLY DO SEE SCORED CONCRETE, WHICH IS KIND OF
[01:50:01]
WHAT MAKES IT SIGNIFICANT.IT'S, IT'S AN OLDER KIND OF TREATMENT.
THERE IS A LETTER IN THE FOLDER FROM KING WILLIAM THAT'S ASKING THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING IT.
YEAH, MAYBE WE COULD DO A D R C VISIT TO LOOK AT THIS, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE OUR COMMISSIONER FISH HAS A POINT.
I MEAN, WHICH ONE ARE WE REALLY CONSIDERING BEING THE HISTORIC AND WHICH ONE WOULD BE THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATION? CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER LUNE.
UH, MY IMPRESSION OF THIS IS THAT THIS ENTRY WALK WAS PROBABLY ORIGINALLY CONCRETE WITH A STEP AND THAT AT SOME POINT, UH, SOMEONE WANTED TO ELIMINATE THAT STEP AND INTRODUCE THIS, UH, RAMP.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SCORED CONCRETE OR IF THEY'RE PAVERS OR WHATEVER, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT SECTION OF THE, OF THE WALK IS, IS MORE RECENT THAN THE REST OF IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I, I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSIONER LFO'S COMMENTS AND YOU KNOW IT, WHILE, WHILE THIS KIND OF PATTERN IS FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I, I THINK THIS IS A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE AND I THINK THAT, UH, I DON'T THINK THIS REQUIRES A D R C, BUT PERHAPS STAFF CAN DO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE INVESTIGATION AND, UH, APPLY THE GUIDELINES A AS IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON WHAT'S HISTORICALLY THERE, UH, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN FIND.
SO, UH, GIVEN THAT THIS IS, GIVEN THAT THIS IS, UH, ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND THAT THE REQUEST IS FOR PAVERS, I'D MOVE TO DENY THE PAVERS AND ASK STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE FINISH.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I SECOND, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
[18. 21-4607 Address/Description: 914 N PINE ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-295 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: David Ericsson/PINE 14 LLC Request: Amendment to a previous approval for new construction City Council Dist.: 2]
ITEM 18, 9 14 NORTH PINE.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 18 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021, UH, 2 9 5 9 14 NORTH PINE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AT NINE 14 NORTH PINE LOCATED WITHIN THE DIGNITY HILL.
HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL I SUBMITTED BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT USED AN ALTERNATIVE ROOFING MATERIAL IN PLACE OF THE CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT DAVID ERICKSON ON THE LINE NOW.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR REQUEST? OH, YEAH.
UM, SO, UH, THE GIST BEING THAT THESE TWO REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY LABELED LIKE WORKSHOP AND STUDIO, AND NOW THAT WE HAVE, UM, APPLIED FOR PERMITS, THE REAR STRUCTURES ARE IN SOME WAYS RESPONDING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE INDUSTRIAL NATURE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT NINE 18, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY A LAUNDROMAT.
AND GIVEN THAT IT'S A MASONRY AND CONCRETE STRUCTURE THAT HAD A A FEW CORRUGATED METAL DETAILS IN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, WE JUST FOUND THAT THE NEW STRUCTURES THAT WE'RE PUTTING BEHIND THE, THE FULL VICTORIAN STRUCTURE AT NINE 14 SHOULD RESPOND A LITTLE BIT MORE IN KIND WITH THE LAUNDROMAT STRUCTURE AT NINE 18 AND
UM, AND THE WAY THAT THESE STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED WOULD JUST MAKE THINGS LOOK A LITTLE MORE MODERN THAN WE ARE HOPING FOR, AND WE'RE TRYING TO LEAN IN A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE INDUSTRIAL NATURE OF OTHER STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER DOWN BY THE RAIL YARDS AND, UM, A FEW OTHER STRUCTURES ON CHERRY STREET.
IT JUST SEEMS TO FIT THIS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, UM, THAN GOING DOWN THE STANDING THEME METAL ROOF.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, IF THAT SUMMARY MAKES SENSE? YES, IT DOES.
UM, DO WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS? UM, YES.
JUST FROM S SCOTT ALBERT AND, UM, HIS GROUP JUST THEY SUPPORT
[01:55:01]
STAFF IS THE ONLY COMMENT WE HAVE.QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE COMMISSION? I, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU.
UM, I MEAN THIS IS A VERY, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB.
I THINK, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS CASE FOR A LONG TIME AND HE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE, UM, UM, VERY THOUGHTFUL IN, IN THE CHOICES THAT HE MAKES FOR THE PROJECTS.
UM, I, IF, IF YOU REMIND ME, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT I MEAN? THE ROOF MATERIAL ON PHASE THREE, WASN'T THAT ALSO CORRUGATED METAL? I MEAN, I THINK I, I WOULD AGREE THAT ONE WAS APPROVED ON THE FRONT STRUCTURE WAS APPROVED CORRUGATED, BUT THE REAR STRUCTURE WITH THE STEEPER ROOF PITCH HAD STANDING STEAM.
UM, AND SO THAT'S THE CHANGE THAT YEAH, I MEAN, AND BASED ON THAT, I, I WOULD'VE, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE, I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT THE CHANGE.
AND THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT.
SO TO CLARIFY, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REQUESTING THE CORRUGATED AS AS OPPOSED TO THE STANDING SEAM, CORRECT? YES.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, I I CONCUR WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER GRU AND, UH, THE CHAIRMAN.
I THINK THIS IS A, HAS BEEN A THOUGHTFUL AND DELIBERATE, UH, APPROACH ALL ALONG.
UH, FOR THESE BUILDINGS THAT ARE KIND OF MORE ACCESSORY TYPE STRUCTURES, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD AS FANCY A ROOF STRUCTURE, UH, ROOF FINISH AS SAY A STANDING SEAM ON A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
AND SO FOR THE REASONS THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN AS WELL AS MY OWN, I WOULD, UH, MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH.
[19. 21-4623 Address/Description: 318 W MISTLETOE HDRC Case No.: 2021-289 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Precision Contracting Request: Fenestration modifications City Council Dist.: 1]
THREE 18 WEST MISSILE TOE.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 89 3 18 WEST MISTLETOE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, RELOCATE THE EXISTING WINDOWS ON THE WEST ELEVATION TO THE EAST AND REAR ELEVATION, AND TWO, INSTALL TWO NEW WINDOW OPENINGS WITH FINAL WINDOWS ON THE WEST ELEVATION.
ITEM ONE, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WINDOW REMOVAL AND RELOCATION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D STAFF RECOMMENDS THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND WINDOW OPENINGS ARE RETAINED ANY NECESSARY WINDOW REPAIRS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
ITEM TWO, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW WINDOW INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDING E IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
STAFF RECOMMEND RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS FULLY WOOD REPLACEMENT WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND THE APPLICANT, CODY MARSHALL IS ON THE LINE.
CODY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME? YES, MA'AM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
UM, SO THIS PROJECT IS PRIMARILY AN INTERIOR RENOVATION AND WHEN WE WERE BEGINNING TO DO THE DEMOLITION AND CHANGE THE WEST SIDE UPSTAIRS ELEVATION TO A MASTER BATHROOM SUITE, UM, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE REQUESTED TO MOVE THE TWO WINDOWS SO WE CAN PROPERLY CLOSE IT OFF FOR SOME PRIVACY, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TWO SMALLER WINDOWS ABOVE THAT FOR SOME NATURAL LIGHT.
AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THE REST OF THE HOUSE, WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY, INSTEAD OF COVERING UP SOME VERY PRETTY HISTORIC WINDOWS, WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE MOVE THEM INTO SOME NEW AREAS THAT MIGHT MAKE THE DESIGN A LITTLE MORE COHESIVE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT ARE ATTACHED IN THE REPORT, THERE'S SOME LARGE UNSIGHTLY ALUMINUM WINDOWS AND WHERE WE
[02:00:01]
ALSO HAVE SOME UNMATCHING CEDAR SHINGLES WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING A NEW CLOSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO REUSE THE WINDOWS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY COVERED UP IN THOSE SPACES.UM, SO AS THEY DON'T JUST NOT GO TO USE, BE COVERED UP, UM, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
UH, DO WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS? WE DO NOT.
SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE, UM, THAT THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS WERE ENCLOSING A A HISTORIC PORCH AREA.
UM, IS THERE SOME SENSE THAT THOSE WERE ADDED? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT HISTORIC TO THIS STRUCTURE, BUT, UH, WHERE ARE ARE THE INDICATIVE OF A, OF A CAPTURED, UH, SLEEPING PORCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? DO, DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE OF HISTORY ON THOSE? THE ONLY THING I CAN SURMISE BY LOOKING, AND IT WOULD BE PICTURES AFTER WHAT IS IN THIS REPORT AFTER OUR DEMOLITION, THE FRAMING SUGGESTS THAT THOSE ALUMINUM WINDOWS WERE DONE MUCH LATER TO ENCLOSE A, UM, AN OLDER PORCH AREA AND MAKE IT AN OFFICE.
UM, THAT WAS DONE SOMETIME WHAT WE'RE GUESSING IN THE SIXTIES OR SEVENTIES, JUST JUDGING BY THE WINDOWS AND THE TYPE OF FRAMING AND MATERIALS THAT THEY USED THERE.
SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
I THINK GIVEN THAT, UM, THOSE SORTS OF MODIFICATIONS OVER TIME HAVE SIGNIFICANCE THEMSELVES, I DON'T THINK THE HISTORIC WINDOWS, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS DO, BUT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SOME MODIFICATIONS TO CAPTURE SPACE THAT STILL RECOGNIZABLE AS A, AS A PREVIOUS PORCH, UH, WOULD MAKE ME TEND NOT TO SUPPORT THE IDEA OF RELOCATING, REUSING, UH, THE WINDOWS, THOUGH I, I DO LIKE THAT THINKING ABOUT NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, THROWING OUT HISTORICAL WINDOWS, UH, BUT FINDING OTHER USES FOR THEM.
SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO KEEP THOSE HISTORIC WINDOWS IN PLACE AND ENCLOSE THEM FROM, UH, THE INTERIOR IN SOME WAY.
AND SO YOU CAN STILL REPURPOSE THAT INTERIOR SPACE FOR THE, THE MASTER BATH AND THEN, UM, LOOK AT A, PERHAPS A REPLACEMENT WINDOW FOR THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, THAT WOULD STILL TELL THE STORY, UH, THAT THAT WAS A, A, A PORCH THAT HAS BEEN REPURPOSED RATHER THAN CLUNKY IN A, A, A WINDOW THAT WAS NOT THERE ORIGINALLY.
BUT WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE AMENABLE TO? YEAH.
UM, OUR, OUR ULTIMATE GOAL, UM, IS TO KEEP, TRY AND TIE THE EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURE TOGETHER AS BEST AS POSSIBLE WHILE WITH SOME OF THE NEW PROPOSED OPENINGS ACHIEVING NATURAL LIGHT IN TYPICALLY DARK SPACES LIKE A BATHROOM, LIKE A NEW CLOSET AREA.
UM, AND WE ARE DEFINITELY OKAY WITH DOING THAT, AND I WILL PRESENT IT TO THE HOMEOWNERS TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
IT WAS REALLY MORE OF A, WE HAVE ACCESS TO GET THESE, PUT 'EM TO BETTER USE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY OPEN TO GOING THAT FAR SINCE THERE'S NO NEED TO AT THIS POINT.
UM, IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE US TO KEEP THEM THERE, THERE WAS NEVER AN INITIAL PLAN TO, UM, TO REDO THOSE WINDOWS.
UM, THE INITIAL PLAN WAS TO ADD ONE MORE WINDOW ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION NEXT TO, IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BETWEEN THE SMALLER HISTORIC WINDOW AND THAT OTHER LARGER ALUMINUM WINDOW.
THERE WILL BE A NEW MASTER CLOSET THERE AND SOME OF THOSE SHINGLES DO NOT MATCH, AND WE WANTED TO REPAIR THEM AS BEST AS POSSIBLE WHILE WE WERE ALREADY THERE.
UM, ONE THING I WAS KIND OF, I I, MAYBE WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE IF WE DO MOVE THE OLD WINDOWS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO USE THEM.
[02:05:01]
IF WE LEFT THE TRIM AND THE SHINGLES, UH, THE SHUTTERS THERE? SO FROM THE EXTERIOR WE STILL HAVE THAT LOOK WHILE ALLOWING US TO TIE IN THE REST OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE.WHAT IS Y'ALL'S OPINION ON THAT? AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WINDOWS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION.
SO I THINK WE HAVE AN IMAGE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW OF WHAT WE SEE.
AND YOUR REQUEST IS PRETTY WELL EXPLAINED IN THE DRAWING OF THE NORTH ELEVATION.
COULD STAFF SHIFT TO THE NORTH ELEVATION DRAWING? SO THERE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.
I THINK THOSE TWO UPPER WINDOWS WERE PREVIOUSLY CLOSED IN ON THE INTERIOR.
YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE GUIDELINES WOULD DIRECT, WOULD DIRECT ONE TO DO HERE.
AND THERE'S TWO REASONS FOR PRINCIPALLY, IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE ELEVATION, THE CURRENT, UH, WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE SIT IN A RHYTHM ABOVE THE, UH, WINDOW, THE SAME PROPORTION WINDOWS, AND THE SAME RHYTHM AS THE WINDOWS BELOW.
SO THE, THE PROPORTION OF THOSE WINDOWS THAT'S CAPTURED ON THE EXTERIOR, UH, IS IMPORTANT.
SO THAT, THAT CREATES A PROBLEM WITH BOTH CLOSING, CLOSING THEM OR REMOVING THEM AND THEN PUTTING IN NEW WINDOWS THAT DON'T CONFORM TO THE HISTORIC PROPORTIONAL WINDOWS IN AN OFFSET WAY LIKE WE CAN SEE HERE, BECAUSE THAT IS A MUCH MORE DRAMATIC CHANGE, UH, TO THE FRAMING, THE FENESTRATION, THE CLADDING.
THERE'S SOME BIG CHANGES THAT HAPPEN THERE.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU NEED TO MODIFY THOSE WINDOWS FROM THE INTERIOR, YOU CAN DO SO IN A WAY THAT STILL BRINGS IN LIGHT.
FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD COVER UP THE BOTTOM HALF OF THOSE WINDOWS, BUT, BUT REMOVING THEM AND SHIFTING THEM AROUND THE NEW WINDOWS IS PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, THINK CHAIRMAN, UH, NOT THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER NOT TO, UH, CUT OFF, UH, THE DISCUSSION TOO PROMPTLY.
BUT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MORE EXPLORATION HERE WITH THIS CLIENT, WITH THE, THE, UH, THE APPLICANT'S CLIENT AND PERHAPS A D R C TO HAVE A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM.
SO FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY, I, I MOVE THIS TO A D R C COMMISSIONER, WOULD THAT BE A D R C SITE VISIT? UH, YEAH, THIS, THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL FOR US TO SEE THE CONDITIONS.
SO A, A MOVE FOR A D R C SITE VISIT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
THIS COMMISSIONER FISH I SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO A D R C SIDE VISIT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
[20. 21-4639 Address/Description: 820 NOLAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-288 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Eric Estopinal Request: Exterior modifications to rear addition, roofing modifications to rear addition, window replacement, roof replacement City Council Dist.: 2]
H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 2 88 8 20.NOLAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL COMPOSITE SIDING ON THE EXISTING ADDITION TO MATCH THE PROFILE OF THAT ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ASBESTOS SIDING.
TWO, TO MODIFY THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING ADDITION SHED ROOF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INTERIOR HEIGHT.
THREE, TO REPLACE THE ROOF ON THE REAR ADDITION WITH THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF TO MATCH THAT OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND FORWARD REPLACE ALL EXISTING WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, SIDING REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING D WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE PROPOSED SIDING FEATURE IS SMOOTH FINISH AND AN EXPOSURE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE ORIGINAL SIDING.
TWO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, MODIFICATIONS TO THE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITIONS ROOF BASED ON FINDING C WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE MODIFICATIONS DO NOT IMPACT THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES ROOF FORM OR PROFILE THREE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE INSTALLATION OF A STANDING CEILING, METAL ROOF BASED ON FINDING D WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT THE PROPOSED
SEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT, A CRAMPED BRIDGE SEAM AND THE STANDARD G WOUND FINISH.
AND NUMBER FOUR SHAFT DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVED OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDINGS E THROUGH G RECOMMENDS THAT ALL EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS BE REPAIRED, NON-ORIGINAL WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED.
HOWEVER, THEY SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE WOOD WINDOW THAT MATCHES THE PROFILE OF THE ORIGINAL WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES FOOTPRINT WINDOWS IN THE ADDITIONS MAY BE REPLACED WITH AN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD OR WOOD WINDOW THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH F STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, THE WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT ERIC, ON THE LINE NOW.
ERIC, ARE YOU THERE? YES, SIR, I'M HERE.
HOW'S EVERYBODY DOING TODAY? UH,
[02:10:01]
I'M THE HOMEOWNER ON THIS HOUSE.UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES HERE, UM, I'LL START WITH THE, THE ROOF HEIGHT OF MOVING UP AND THE ROOF MATERIAL WE WANT TO PLATE LIKE FOR LIKE, AND WE JUST WANNA MOVE THAT ADDITION IF SOMEBODY, UH, MADE, YOU KNOW, UP A FOOT AND A HALF OR SO TO, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THE SPACE MORE LIVABLE OR ACTUALLY LIVABLE.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU CAN SEE ABOUT 200 SQUARE FEET ON THIS REAR ADDITION THAT IS SIMPLY PLYWOOD.
UM, AND WHAT I'M WANTING TO DO IS MATCH THE CURRENT SIDING TO WRAP AROUND THE PART OF THE HOUSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE SIDING ON IT RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND I THINK THAT IS ITEM TWO, THE SIDING.
UH, AND THEN FOR THE WINDOWS WE HAVE CORRECTED THE FOUNDATION, WHICH HAVE LEFT SOME OF THE WINDOWS FITMENT OFF.
UH, I'M NOT, NOT TRYING TO DISAGREE THAT IT, SOME, SOME CAN BE REPAIRED, BUT SOME, UH, CANNOT.
AND ALSO THERE'S GONNA BE GAPS IN SEALS AND STUFF THAT I'M SPENDING A GOOD AMOUNT ON THIS HOME THAT I'M CONCERNED THAT, UH, THE INEFFICIENCY WAS GONNA LET MOISTURE IN MAY AFFECT MY H V A C, UH, FINISHING MATERIALS BOOKWORK AROUND THE WINDOW AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? UM, YES.
THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DICK RESORT DISTRICT.
WE SUPPORT STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS BE WOOD ONLY.
WE ENCOURAGE STAFF TO CONSISTENTLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR GUIDELINES.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I HAVE YOUR QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, HAVE Y'ALL HAD A CHANCE TO VISIT THE SITE AND INSPECT THE WINDOWS AND DETERMINE IF THEY'RE ALL REPAIRABLE? UH, YES.
UH, STAFF'S ACTUALLY BEEN OUT ON SITE TWICE.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S NOTED IN, UH, FINDING F UH, STAFF MADE A SITE VISIT ON JUNE THE 25TH, AND THAT'S AFTER THE FOUNDATION WAS RELEVELED.
UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE FOUNDATION WAS RELEVELED, BUT THIS WAS AFTER WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THIS.
UM, GENERALLY FOR THE MOST PART, UH, ALL OF THE, UH, WINDOW, UH, PROFILE OF THE WINDOWS ARE THERE.
UH, TOP AND BOTTOM SASHES ARE THERE.
THERE ARE SOME MEETING RAILS THAT, UM, HAVE, UH, BROUGHT TO 'EM, BUT, UH, THE WORKING PARTS OF THE WINDOWS ARE THERE.
UH, FOR THE MOST PART, THE SEALS ARE STILL INTACT AS WELL.
UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING REPAIR AND NOT REPLACEMENT OF WOOD WINDOWS.
IN SAYING THAT WE WITH WOOD IS ROTTEN, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THOSE WINDOWS WILL SEAL CORRECT.
SO WHEN THE WOOD IS ROTTEN, IT CAN BE THE, THE ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED IN KIND OF THAT WINDOW CAN BE RE REPLACED.
SO BY REPAIR WE MEAN A REPLACEMENT OF THAT ELEMENT OF THE WINDOW VERSUS A WHOLESALE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT OUT OF THESE, I THINK THERE'S 14 WINDOWS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S GONNA BE A REPAIR ON EVERY WINDOW, WHICH IS IN, AND THEN STILL AFTER I, YOU KNOW, THE COST THAT THAT'S GONNA COST ME, I'M STILL GONNA HAVE TO SPEND MORE ON MAINTENANCE AND REGULAR SERVICING OF THESE WOODEN WINDOWS, UH, IN THE HOUSE I'M TRYING TO LIVE IN.
SO THE, THE WINDOWS ARE CONSIDERED A, A KIND OF A KEY CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE, AND THE GUIDELINES ARE PRETTY SPECIFIC IN THE WAY THEY DIRECT US HOW, HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE.
UM, AND YOU ALSO HEARD THE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IN THE INSTANCE THAT THE WINDOWS ARE BEYOND REPAIR, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY BE REPLACED IN KIND IN FULL WINDOWS, IN FULL WOOD WINDOWS AND MATCHING PROFILE.
IN THIS INSTANCE, STAFF HAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADDITION BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HISTORIC FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
UM, IN THE EVENT THAT A WINDOW IS BEYOND REPAIR, WE WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR, FOR REPLACEMENT AND KIND FOLD WINDOWS.
SO THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
SO, SO IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WE HAVE A VINYL INSET WINDOW THAT THE FRAME OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS SET TO BE SMALLER.
YOU CAN SEE, I BELIEVE IT IS, IF YOU GET TO THE PICTURE PART OF THINGS, IT IS THE 1, 2, 3, 4 FIFTH PICTURE DOWN OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
THE WINDOW THAT IS UNDERNEATH THE CIRCLE, UH, ATTIC VENT, UH, THAT IS A FINAL INSET WINDOW.
[02:15:01]
COMPLETE WOODEN WINDOW TO REPLACE THAT WINDOW, WHICH IS GONNA COST ABOUT THREE TO FOUR REGULAR WINDOWS.THAT THAT'S WHAT THE GUIDELINES WOULD, WOULD, UH, DIRECT US, UH, TO DO HERE IN THOSE CASES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER THAT CARES TO ADD ANY, ANY COMMENT OR HAS A DIFFERENT THOUGHT.
I ALSO HAVE NEIGHBORS TO THE SIDE OF ME WITH VINYL WINDOWS THAT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY PUT IN, WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
AND I HAVE HOUSES, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR DOWN THAT ALSO HAVE, UH, WOODEN AND ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS.
SO I, I'M CONFUSED OF WHY I DON'T GET THE SAME ACCEPTANCE.
THIS IS CHAIRMAN
UH, MR CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES SIR.
CAN I GET SOMETHING THAT FROM Y'ALL THAT WILL STATE THAT THERE, THAT ANY, ANY INEFFICIENCIES WILL BE COVERED BY Y'ALL AND Y'ALL ARE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, SO THAT, SO, SO I CAN FOLLOW YOUR, YOUR BUILDING CODES AND NOT INTERNATIONAL BUILDING STANDARDS.
LET'S KEEP, UH, THIS KIND OF A REASONABLE AND RATIONAL DISCUSSION.
LET'S STOP, LET'S STEP AWAY FROM ITEM FOUR FOR A SECOND.
LEMME ASK YOU WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE OTHER THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, ITEMS ONE THROUGH THREE FOR, UM, I'M FINE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, THE SIDING ONE, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON.
UH, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I CAN'T MATCH THE CURRENT SIDING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE ORIGINAL PROFILE TO BE MATCHED.
UH, STAFF DOES NOT WANT, UM, A MATCHING OF A NON-ORIGINAL, NON-CONFORMING PROFILE.
SO, AND THAT'S UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET THAT I AM TRYING TO GET ON THERE TO MATCH THE REST OF MY HOUSE.
SO WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA HAVE A HOUSE THAT HAS 95% OF ONE SIDING AND 5% OF ANOTHER ON THE REAR OF THE HOUSE ON A CORNER THAT NOBODY CAN SEE.
MR. CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS.
UM, THIS IS DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK, UM, WELL I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER FISH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THEY, THEY HIT THIS RIGHT ON THE HEAD AND, AND I BELIEVE, I KNOW STAFF HAS THIS RIGHT, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION WHEN IT COMES TO THE WINDOWS, BUT I MEAN, THIS, THIS IS A HISTORIC HOME AND A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO, UM, WITH THE WOOD WINDOWS, THAT IS WHAT THE GUIDELINES CALL FOR.
AND AS FAR AS THE ADDITION GOES, THE ADDITION, UM, CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, A DIFFERENT TYPE THERE BASED ON WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE.
SO I, UM, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE, ARE WE SPEAKING, ARE YOU SPEAKING ON THE WINDOWS CURRENTLY? YES, I'M SPEAKING ON THE WINDOWS, THAT'S CORRECT.
WE WERE ON SIDING, CORRECT? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET TRACK OF THE CONVERSATION.
WILL, I WAS JUST, UM, PUTTING MY COMMENTS IN THERE.
SO I MEAN SO IF WE WANNA, OKAY.
JUST SAY WE DON'T FOCUS ON THE SIGNING.
SO, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THE WINDOWS, THAT'S THIS, WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY FOCUSED ON THERE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE ON THE SIGNING NOW, SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH THAT.
I'M DONE WITH MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR.
AND THEN IF, SO, IF I CAN DO DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT WINDOWS ON AN ADDITION, ON THE ADDITION, WHY CAN'T I DO THE SIDING THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE? MR. CHAIRMAN? UM, YES SIR.
MAY I ASK, UH, MR. HALL, COULD YOU KIND OF CLARIFY YOUR RECOMMENDATION ONCE MORE ON THE SIDING? UM, BECAUSE I THINK THE APPLICANT DOES POSE A, A GOOD QUESTION THERE.
IF, UH, IF THE ADDITION COULD BE DISTINGUISHED, UH, WITH A DIFFERENT SIDING PROFILE, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN KEEPING WITH THE, WITH THE STANDARDS.
UH, SO IN REGARDS TO THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS, YOU MAY KNOW THAT STAFF CONSISTENTLY RECOMMENDS AN ADDITION FEATURE A HARDY OR COMPOSITE SIDING OF FOUR INCHES UNLESS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MATCH THE SIDING THAT'S FOUND ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
UH, SO IN REGARDS TO THIS, STAFF IS TREATING THIS ADDITION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S CONSTRUCTED, THERE'S MODIFICATIONS BEING PRO PROPOSED.
WE'RE TREATING THIS ADDITION AS WE WOULD, IF THERE'S AN ADDITION THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED FROM THE GROUND UP.
UH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING WINDOWS THAT MEET OUR STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PROFILE OF THE ADDITION SIDING MATCH THAT OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, UH, BRINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY TO
[02:20:01]
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR NOT, BUT IF NOT, I CAN, UM, ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS.UM, SO MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I THINK STAFF HAS A PRETTY SOUND RECOMMENDATION HERE.
UM, I, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE THOUGH, WITH THE APPLICANT'S REGARDING THE CITING PROFILE FOR THE, FOR THE ADDITION COULD BE, UH, DISTINGUISHED AS, UH, SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE, UH, REST OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
UH, SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS, UH, ONE TWO M FOUR AND WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS, LET'S SEE, LEMME MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT, SORRY.
UM, RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR AND WITH STAFF STIPULATION ONE BEING AMENDED TO, TO PERMIT, UM, UH, CITING OF A DIFFERENT PROFILE TO BE USED ON THE ADDITION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER GIBBS? I'LL SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION OR SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
[21. 21-4679 Address/Description: 2223 W SUMMIT AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-281 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Jonathan Bohmann Request: Retaining wall City Council Dist.: 7]
WEST SUMMIT.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 81 22 23 WEST SUMMIT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A SECOND TIER OF LIMESTONE EDGING ALONG THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH B AND THE APPLICANT AND OWNER JONATHAN BOWMAN IS ON THE LINE.
JONATHAN BOWMAN? YEAH, UHHUH
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME? OH, YEAH, SURE.
THE INTENT IS TO, UM, MANAGE A RISK THAT DEVELOPED, UH, RECENTLY OR WAS ACCELERATED OR MADE WORSE, UM, BY A COUPLE OF RECENT EVENTS.
SO, UH, WE HAD A WATER MAIN BREAK NEARBY, WHICH WASHED AWAY, UH, SOIL FROM A LARGE PORTION OF THE, UH, YARD IN QUESTION.
THE SOIL WENT DOWN THE STREET.
SO BASICALLY I HAD, UH, EXPOSED MORE OR LESS MUD, UM, ALONG THAT PART OF THE YARD WHERE THE WALL IS.
AND, UH, LOOKING FOR WAYS TO MANAGE THE, THE, UH, EROSION THERE.
UM, THE, THE, UM, THE, UH, UH, I REPLACED THE TOP SOIL WITH, UM, NEW TOP SOIL.
IT WAS QUITE A, A COUPLE, UH, SEVERAL YARDS.
AND, UM, I TYPICALLY, EMMA, IT HAS FOR YEARS, BUT IT'S BEEN MADE WORSE.
UM, MUD HAS WASHED ONTO THE SIDEWALK, THE, UH, RIGHT THERE ON THE BOARD OF THE YARD, SOME MUCH THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE HAD, UH, NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE FALL RISK OF THE MUD AND I HAVE TRIED PLANTING.
BUT, UH, LIKE OTHER, UH, YOU KNOW, PROPERTIES AROUND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE ARE WALLS INSTALLED, UH, TO, UM, TO, UH, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, MANAGE EROSION, I THOUGHT I WOULD, UH, JUST TAKE A SIMPLER APPROACH.
SO WHAT I, UH, INTEND TO DO IS JUST A SINGLE, UH, HEIGHT CURB, UH, AROUND THE EDGE OF THE YARD AND JUST ADD ANOTHER HEIGHT OF CURB.
SO JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, SINGLE THICKNESS, SINGLE HEIGHT, UH, LIMESTONE BLOCKS, UH, AROUND THAT CORNER OF THE YARD.
UH, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? UM, YES WE DO.
MR. CREA GARZA, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, THE M P N A APPRECIATES HOMEOWNERS WHO INVEST IN THEIR HISTORIC PROPERTY AND HOME.
WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE NOTE THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS CONSISTENTLY MADE, MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER DEFINING LANDSCAPE EARTH AND BERMS PRESENT THROUGHOUT, UM, MONTICELLO PARK SOAR DISTRICT FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS EXECUTED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS IN THE COMMUNITY ON FUR DRIVE LAKE BOULEVARD, UH, MISSILE TO MAGNOLIA ATCH AND CLUB DRIVE.
ALL OF THESE PROJECTS IN THE MONTICELLO PARK IS SEW DISTRICT ADDED AND REPAIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FRONT OF OR ON THE SIDE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES.
ALL PROJECTS MAINTAINED THE EARTH AND BERM SLOPE AND
[02:25:01]
DID NOT ADD ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE OR STAIR STEP HARDSCAPING INTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.THESE PROPERTIES RESTORED THE CHARACTER FIN THESE PROJECTS RESTORED THE CHARACTER DEFINING LANDSCAPE BERMS IN THE COMMUNITY BY REGARDING THE AREAS RECREATING THE AREAS, EXCUSE ME.
UM, FOR INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, O H P HAS ALSO RECOMMENDED RETENTION OF LANDSCAPE FIRMS AND WE RESPECTFULLY WISH H G R C FOR CONSISTENCY IN SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CHAIRMAN? COMMISSIONER LUNE? YES, SIR.
UH, IT SEEMS TO ME A MORE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION TO THIS, UH, ISSUE WOULD BE SOME SLIGHT REGRADING OF THE SLOPE DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK AND THEN INSTALLATION OF NEW SOLID SOD AND ESTABLISHMENT.
UH, ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT SOD SHOULD, UH, PREVENT, UH, FUTURE EROSION ONTO THE SIDEWALK.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP? YES.
I, I AGREE WITH HIS COMMENTS AND I WOULD SAY MAYBE EVEN PLANTING SOME BUSHES RIGHT.
COULD ALSO HELP SOME OF THAT, UH, WATER FLOW.
UM, I LIVED DOWN THE STREET, IT'S A STREET THAT GETS A LOT OF WATER WHEN IT RAINS 'CAUSE THERE'S A HILL RIGHT THERE ON SUMMIT.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE WATER, BUT I ALSO FEEL LIKE STAFF HAS HAD IT CORRECT WHEN THEY, UM, WITH THEIR COMMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW.
IF YOU WANNA LIKE TO DO A MOTION, JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE STONE, THE LOWEST STONE WALL AT THE SIDEWALK HAS RECEIVED.
THIS WOULD BE FOR THE SECOND TIER, CORRECT? WE HAVE RECEIVED AND THE SECOND HERE'S THE, THE SAME APPROVAL? YEAH.
IT'S JUST, UH, THE SECOND TIER IS THE SAME MATERIAL, SAME HEIGHT, JUST OFFSET BY A COUPLE OF FEET, UH, SET BACK JUST TO, UH, MANAGE THE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, JUST THE STEEPNESS OF THE SLOPE RIGHT THERE IN THAT AREA.
JUST TO STAFF, WOULD THIS, UM, IF THIS APPLICANT WITHDRAWS, HE JUST, HE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE SECOND TIER AND JUST LEAVE THE FIRST TIER AS IS OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE? AND IS THIS A COMPLIANCE CASE? IT IS NOT A COMPLIANCE CASE.
SO I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT JUST PLACED THAT TIER AS AN EXAMPLE.
UM, AND IT REQUESTED THAT THAT WOULD BE A LONGER, UM, A LONGER TIER THAN WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO.
I JUST NEEDED TO MAKE A MOCK-UP, UH, JUST TO TAKE A PICTURE.
I HAVEN'T DONE ANY MORE WITH IT.
UM, BUT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE COMMENTED THAT THEY'RE MUCH HAPPIER WITH AT LEAST THE, UM, THE IMPROVEMENT THAT THAT SECTION ALONE HAD MADE.
SO YEAH, THAT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE, THE INTENTION WAS THAT TO COMPLETE THAT WALL, UH, AROUND THE PERIMETER IS NOT THE PERIMETER, BUT AROUND THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON THE MAP.
THAT WAS JUST A, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR FEET.
MI MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I CAN APPRECIATE, I CAN APPRECIATE THE ISSUE HERE AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT WALKING US THROUGH THIS.
I DO SUPPORT STAFF'S FINDINGS AND THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD STATEMENT.
SO, UM, I, I CAN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE SECOND TIER.
UH, IF, IF SOME REGRADING NEEDS TO BE DONE, UH, IN SOLID SOD TO STABILIZE IT, I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY FORWARD.
THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND FOR DENIAL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[22. 21-4671 Address/Description: 1438 NAPIER AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-277 Historic District Name: Mission RIO District: RIO-5 Applicant: Armando Santiago Request: Second driveway, approach and apron installation City Council Dist.: 3]
H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 2 77 14 38[02:30:02]
NAPIER.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A SECOND DRIVEWAY AP AND APPROACH IN DRIVEWAY AT 1438 NAPIER LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO INSTALL A NEW DRIVEWAY GATE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A AND B WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE PROPOSED APRON WIDTH TO 12 FEET, THAT THE DRIVEWAY DOES NOT EXCEED 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND THAT THE PROPOSED GATE MATCHED THE EXISTING FENCE AND MATERIAL HEIGHT AND PROFILE.
I HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT, MS. SANTIAGO ON THE LINE NOW, MS. SANTIAGO? YES SIR.
UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED, GO AHEAD.
UH, WE, UM, AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF HAS MADE FOR OUR REQUEST.
UM, A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY MISUNDERSTANDING OR, OR NON CONCURRENCE WITH, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION OR, OR CAN WE MOVE THIS FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF? RECOMMENDATION, UH, THIS CAN GO FORWARD WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THE APPLICANT HAD PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED THE WATER WITH UH, AND THEN, UM, I BELIEVE, UH, MONDAY OR TUESDAY, UH, NOTED THAT THEY COULD INDEED MEET STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER GIBBS SECOND IT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
I NOTE THAT ITEM 23 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
[24. 21-4631 Address/Description: 225 W WILDWOOD HDRC Case No.: 2021-311 Historic District Name: Olmos Park Terrace Applicant: Ana Mahrou Request: Fenestration modification City Council Dist.: 1]
WEST WILDWOOD.UH, RACHEL, ARE YOU READY? THAT MIGHT HAVE SNUCK UP ON HER, SO LET'S GIVE HER A SECOND TO GET THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 24 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 3 11 2 25 WEST WILDWOOD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE A REAR DOOR WITH A WOOD WINDOW.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATION BASED ON FINDING B.
THE INSTALLATION OF A WINDOW WITHIN THE FRAME OF THE EXISTING DOOR OPENING IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS A FULLY WOOD WINDOW THAT MEETS STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND SUBMITS UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
AND THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ON A SWALLOW IS ON THE LINE.
ANA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME? YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, OR I GUESS CLOSER TO EVENING.
UM, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FINISHING OUT OUR GARAGE INTO MORE SPACE AND THERE IS A DOOR THAT WAS THERE FACING THE REAR THAT'S INSIDE THE GARAGE THAT WAS THERE WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOME IN 2007.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE.
UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE DOOR IS ABOUT FIVE EIGHT.
I CAN PASS THROUGH IT EASILY, BUT ANYONE OVER THAT HEIGHT HAS TO DUCK OR ELSE THEY'LL HIT THEIR HEAD.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT THE, UM, MOST IF NOT ALL FORMAN, COTTAGES OF THE STONE HAVE A KEYSTONE ABOVE EVERY, UM, WINDOW AND DOOR OPENING FOR WHICH THIS OPENING DOES NOT.
UM, AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS TO TURN THAT OPENING INTO A WINDOW, WHICH WOULD THEN BE ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE ARE REMODELING INTO, UM, LIVING SPACE.
AND WE'RE IN DEFINITE AGREEMENT TO DO THE WOOD.
WE WANT THE PROPORTION TO BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE HOUSE.
THE ELEVATION WOULD BE AROUND, UM, IT WOULD GO UP ABOUT A FOOT, UM, A FOOT TWO INCHES.
AND THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, ABOUT TWO, UM, TWO BY TWO FEET, SIX INCHES FOLLOWING YOUR STIPULATIONS.
UM, THE FLOOR HEIGHT IN THE GARAGE ADDITION IS GOING TO MATCH THE FLOOR HEIGHT OF THE ALREADY EXISTING LIVING SPACE OF THE HOME.
AND SO THAT OPENING, IF WE WERE TO USE THE OPENING AS IT EXISTS, UM, IT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD PUT THE WINDOW, YOU KNOW, MY, MY
[02:35:01]
HEAD WOULD BE SEVERAL FEET ABOVE THE WINDOW.IT JUST ACTUALLY WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO DO.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO NOT.
SO CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES SIR.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE UTILITY, THE, THE REASON, THE RATIONALE BEHIND, UH, WHY YOU'RE WANTING TO DO THE WINDOW.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PLAN THEN FOR INFILLING THE AREA BELOW THE WINDOW, UH, THAT THE DOOR CURRENTLY OCCUPIES? 'CAUSE THERE SEEMS LIKE, UH, THAT WAS, I I CONCUR WITH YOU.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS A LATER, UH, ADDITION, UH, CUT INTO THE STONE.
NOT IN A VERY CRAFTY WAY, BUT, UH, DO, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL STONE TO COME BACK AND, AND REPAIR THAT WALL OR, BECAUSE THERE SEEMS LIKE THIS, THERE'S MORE COMPLEXITY TO THIS REQUEST THAN WHAT MIGHT MEET THE EYE.
AND SO WE DO HAVE, UM, ORIGINAL STONE THAT WE WOULD USE, UH, WITH A, YOU KNOW, PROPER MASONRY TO TIE IT ALL BACK TOGETHER.
AND WHERE ARE YOU, WHERE ARE YOU SOURCING THAT STONE? IS IT FROM UH, SO SOMEWHERE ON THIS PROPERTY OR ARE YOU FINDING IT SOMEPLACE ELSE? NO, IT'S HERE.
MY HUSBAND, YEARS AGO WE GRADED THE YARD AND THERE WAS A LOT OF THE STONE BURIED.
UM, I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE STAFF'S REQUEST GIVEN THE, THE WAY THAT THAT STONE WAS CUT IN FOR THE DOOR.
UM, IF THERE'S A LOCATION WHERE, UH, A WINDOW MODIFICATION MAKES SENSE, THIS WOULD WOULD BE A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE GIVEN THAT THEY'RE, UH, AGREEING TO THE WINDOW SPECIFICATION.
UM, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT AND I WOULD MOVE, UH, FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATION ONE THAT STIPULATES THE WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? SECOND MOTION AND SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAKE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[25. 21-4687 Address/Description: 306 W MARKET ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-319 RIO District: RIO-3 Applicant: Katherine Sullon/ ACM Hub LLC Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 1]
SIX WEST MARKET.EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? AGENDA ITEM? YES, GO AHEAD.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 3 19 3 0 6 WEST MARKET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL SIGNAGE AT THE RIVER LEVEL AT 3 0 6 WEST MARKET.
THEN THIS REQUESTS THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED NUMBER ONE TO INSTALL ONE DOUBLE-SIDED BLADE SIGN TO READ AMBLER FEATURE AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF FIVE FEET AND AN OVERALL WIDTH OF ONE FOOT, ONE INCH FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 10.8 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING BOTH SIDES.
AND TWO, THEN INSTALL A RIVER LEVEL SIGN AND MENU BOARD ON A STONE COLUMN TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SIGN.
THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL FEATURE TWO SEPARATE SIGNAGE PANELS, BOTH FEATURING A RESTAURANT LOGO, A AND A MENU.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THE PROPOSED BLADE SIGN AS PROPOSED STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ONE, THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE BE REDUCED TO NO MORE THAN EIGHT SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING BOTH SIDES.
AND TWO, THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE FEATURE INDIRECT ILLUMINATION STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE PROPOSED SIGN COLUMN.
THE MENU BOARD AS PROPOSED STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT INSTALL A MENU BOARD THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE U V C SECTION 35 6 81 C EIGHT.
IT DOES NOT EXCEED TWO SQUARE FEET.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. UH, MS. CATHERINE SUEN ON THE LINE NOW.
UM, MS. SULLEN, ARE YOU THERE? YES.
HI EVERYONE, HOW ARE YOU? JUST FINE, THANK YOU.
OKAY, SO BASICALLY, UM, AMBLER IS AN EATERY LOCATED AT HOTEL CONTESSA.
AND, UM, EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF, UM, THE HOTELS HAD DIFFICULT TIMES, UM, THEY'VE, UM, OPENED UP, UM, AN EATERY OVER HERE.
AND WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE SIGNAGE, THE BLADE SIGN WHEN WE DO, WHEN WE APPLY FOR A SIGN PERMIT OR, UM, IN GENERAL, WE CONSIDER THE STRUCTURE OF THE SIGNAGE TO BE THE ACTUAL, UM, ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
[02:40:01]
AT THE SIGN ITSELF, IT'S BELOW THE H SHEET AS A, UM, AS A SIGN THEY'RE CONSIDERING THE, UM, UH, I GUESS BOTH LOCATIONS AND, AND FOR, UM, THIS LOCATION SYSTEM, IT'S INSIDE OF THE HOTEL, ANY TYPE OF BRANDING LOGO IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO, UM, TO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE IT'S, WE, WE CONSIDER IT TO BE THE FIRST IMPRESSION, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE RESTAURANT.AND SO WE ARE REQUESTING THAT, UM, UH, IF THE CLIENT COULD GET THE, UM, UH, EIGHT FOOT, BUT THAT WOULD BE COUNTED THE SIGNAGE AND THAT'S HOW WE WOULD ACTUALLY SUBMIT FOR PERMIT AS WELL THROUGH THE PERMIT DEPARTMENT, UM, AND NOT BE COUNTED AS A SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE LOCATION.
UM, REGARDING THE ILLUMINATION ON THE SECOND PART OF IT, UM, THE, THE WAY THE SIGNAGE IS BUILT IS THAT WITH THE DESIGN, UM, OH, AND THEN ALSO FOR THE, FOR THE SIZING, UM, WHEN, WHEN THE, UH, THE, THE, THE CLIENT WENT THROUGH A LOT OF DESIGN PHASES AND THE LOGO ITSELF, IT'S, UM, IT DOESN'T LOOK AS AESTHETICALLY NICE AS IT IS CURRENTLY AT THE SIZE.
AND SO THAT'S WHY, UM, THIS SIZE WAS PROPOSED.
UM, AND FOR THE ILLUMINATION, UM, THE WAY THE SIGN IS, UM, BUILT, UM, THERE IS THE, UM, THERE IS A TOP LAYER ON TOP OF A MATURE THAT'S ACRYLIC.
AND SO IT COVERS A LOT OF THE LIGHTING THAT WILL REFLECT OUTSIDE OF THE SIGNAGE, UM, TO OUTSIDE OF THE SIGNAGE.
SO WE CAN TAKE SOME OF THE LEDS OUT POSSIBLY, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT, UM, YOU WOULD ALLOW, UM, THAT THE CLIENT KEEP THE BRANDING, UM, THE SIZE, UM, AND THAT THE STRUCTURE WILL BE COUNTED AS THE, UM, THE A FEE FOR THE ITEM NUMBER ONE.
LET'S DEAL WITH THIS FIRST SIGN FIRST.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? YES, CHAIRMAN? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, SIR.
UM, I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN THE, AS THE SIGN, AS THE BLADE SIGN IS PROPOSED, HOW TALL OR HIGH, HOW HIGH OFF OF THE IMMEDIATE GRADE WILL THIS SIGN BE MOUNTED? THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN WE SEE IS FOUR, FIVE FEET.
THERE IS A, UH, PHOTOGRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION SHOWING THE HEIGHT OF THAT WALL BEING 134 INCHES.
UH, WHERE ON THAT 134 INCHES WILL THAT BE PLACED IN? SORRY, 137 INCHES.
SO, UH, SO WHERE, UM, I CAN GIVE YOU THE DETAILS ON THAT ONE.
AS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT ACTUAL BOTTOM AREA IS UHHUH
SO
AND SO IT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY, UH, ABOUT 77 INCHES, UH, FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE BLADE SIGN WE CAN ACTUALLY INSTALL THE SIGNAGE HIGHER.
UM, AND, AND THERE IS A, YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL IN THIS PICTURE, BUT THERE IS A TOP AREA WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY MOVE THE SIGNAGE UP HIGHER ON THE, UM, ON THE BUILDING.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ABOUT THE CLEARANCE.
I WAS ASSUMING I CALCULATED VERY QUICKLY THAT YOU WERE DOING HERE, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD JUST REMIND OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT SIGNAGE AND DECISIONS ABOUT THE RIVERWALK WERE THE VERY FORMATION, THE REASON WHY THE HISTORIC, UH, WHY THE HISTORIC DESIGNER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS FORMED.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE PREVENT HERE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AS TO OUR BEST ABILITY FIT WITHIN THE GUIDELINES.
I, I THINK, UM, UH, THEY HAVE THIS RIGHT, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THINK.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH? YES, SIR.
UM, FOR, FOR THE BLADE SIGN, THE DIMENSIONS OF IT, THE GUIDELINES SUGGEST THAT THAT SHOULD BE FOUR SQUARE FEET ON EACH SIDE, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN FIVE ON EACH SIDE GIVEN ITS ITS HEIGHT RELATIVE TO THE GROUND.
UM, I DEFINITELY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SIZE AS PROPOSED BECAUSE OF THE CLEARANCE.
I THINK JACKING IT UP ABOVE THAT STONE LEDGE TO TRY TO GET GREATER CLEARANCE UNDERNEATH PROBABLY ISN'T APPROPRIATE.
AND I DON'T SEE A COMPELLING REASON WHY THAT BLADE SIGN CANNOT BE REDUCED IN SCALE, UH,
[02:45:02]
A A LITTLE BIT TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE GUIDELINES, NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE, UH, SIGNBOARD MASS ALONG THE RIVER, THE RIVER'S EDGE AS PROPOSED AND SUPPORT STAFF'S POSITION HERE.UH, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE ILLUMINATION AS WELL, AND I DON'T THINK, UH, I'VE HEARD ANYBODY ELSE SPEAK TO THAT YET.
SO I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING SOME COMMENTS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THE ILLUMINATION METHOD.
UH, ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, IF WE, UH, IS THERE A, UM, FOR US TO, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY DID THE SURVEY OUT THERE AT THIS LOCATION, UM, WOULD THAT BE A PROBLEM, UH, TO GO UP HIGHER BY A, UM, UH, ACCORDING, UM, AND JUST GO MAYBE A FOOT HIGHER AT THIS LOCATION OR MAYBE EVEN TWO FEET HIGHER? RIGHT.
MR. MR. CHAIRMAN ARE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE BLADE SIGN? YES, THE BLADE SIGN? MM-HMM.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SIGNAGE, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE LOCATION, UM, ON THE ELEVATION.
ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A BLADE BLADE SIGN IN THIS LOCATION, ONE THAT IS, UH, STICKING UP ABOVE THIS REALLY ARTICULATED LINE, I THINK WOULD, WOULD, WOULD STAND OUT.
SO I KNOW WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THAT SPECIFICALLY IS WHICH, WHICH IS WHY I MENTIONED IT, YOU KNOW, THE OVERALL HEIGHT, HAVING IT STICK UP ABOVE THAT LEDGE MAKES IT STAND OUT IN A, IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAY.
AND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PACKAGES ON ELEVATIONS, THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT.
I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO WE, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY THOUGHTS ON ELEVATING IT ABOVE THAT LEDGE? UH, NO, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE VERY REASON WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT ITS MOUNTING HEIGHT, BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSION.
AND I WAS CONCERNED IF IT WAS PROJECTING ABOVE THAT, THAT SORT OF, UH, ARTICULATED BAND AND ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT IF IT'S FIVE FEET TALL AND KIND OF WHAT KIND OF HEADROOM YOU HAVE UNDERNEATH IT.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD WANT TO BE, UH, HIGHER, UH, IN, ITS FROM THE BOTTOM, UH, SO THAT YOU HAVE MORE HEADROOM.
I MEAN, TYPICALLY BY CODE YOU WANNA HAVE SEVEN FEET OF CLEARANCE.
UM, SO, UH, THAT, THAT IS CONCERNING.
I THINK THAT COULD BE SOLVED BY REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE, THE BLADE SIGN, OBVIOUSLY.
YES, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I WOULD AGREE THAT IF A BLADE SIGN GOES HERE, IT SHOULD BE BELOW THAT, UH, PROJECTING BELT COURSE, BUT IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE SIZED SO THAT IT MEETS, UH, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR HEAD CLEARANCE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A MINIMUM OF 80 INCHES CLEAR.
BECAUSE I THINK THE SIGN, UM, IT'S ABOUT 77 INCHES ON THAT AT THE HEIGHT THAT'S AT THE TOP, BUT THAT ALSO IS ONLY MM-HMM.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE DESIGN ITSELF, THAT'S WHY IT'S ACTUALLY COMING OUT A LITTLE BIT OFF THE WALL.
IT'S BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
UM, AND SO IF THE SIGN DOES GO UP, UM, THAT LEDGE IS PROBABLY THAT EXTRA THREE INCHES THAT WE WOULD NEED AND WE WOULD JUST, UM, THE SIGN WOULD BE INSTALLED RIGHT WHERE THAT LOCATION IS AND IT WOULD HAVE THAT CLEARANCE.
I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FISH THAT THE, THAT THE TOP OF THE SIGN SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE THAT BOTTOM OF THE BELT COURSE.
I MEAN, I AGREE WITH ALL MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS BEEN SPEAKING.
I, I DO AGREE THAT WE SH THE REDUCING OF THE SIGN, I MEAN, EVEN IF WE'RE JUST SHORT OF THE 80 INCHES, UM, THE, AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THIS PART OF THE RIVERWALK, IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE WIDER PARTS MARRIAGE ISLANDS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT SPOT FOR THE RIVERWALK.
WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY, YOU KNOW, VERY DETAILED ORIENTED.
WHAT WOULD WE'RE PROVING HERE, I, UM, IS WHAT IS UP THERE ON THE LEFT CORNER? IS THERE A SIGNAGE? WHAT'S STICKING OUT RIGHT THERE? IS THERE SOME, AN OLD SIGNAGE THAT GOING DOWN? I, I, YEAH, I COULD ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION AS WELL ON SECOND.
UM, AND THEN JUST TO TOUCH ON THE INFORMATION, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT, UH, TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AT THE
UM, SO I, I WOULD, I THINK STAFF HAS A RIGHT ON THE ILLUMINATION THERE, IF I RECALL.
THAT IS A SIGN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS REMAINING OR
[02:50:01]
NOT REMAINING.UM, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY NOT REALLY SURE ON THAT ONE IF IT WAS A PREVIOUS SIGN OR NOT.
SO, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS CASE TO D R C OR IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO GO BACK TO TALK TO THE OWNER, UM, WITH OTHER OPTIONS, IS THAT A MOTION TO SEND IT TO D R C I MOVE THIS CASE TO, CAN YOU? MM-HMM.
'CAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UH, MENU BOARD AS WELL AND THE LOCATION ON SITE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO D R C.
WOULD THAT BE A SITE D R C? I MEAN, UM, I, I, I VERY FAMILIAR SITE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE, I MEAN, I THINK THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW GETS AN IDEA THAT WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT'S AROUND.
I THINK STAFF HAS IT RIGHT ALSO ON THE MENU BOARD.
I I'M SORRY, WAS THERE A SECOND? SO WE COULD GO INTO DISCUSSION? YES, I GAVE A SECOND.
SO FOR THE APPLICANT TO KNOW, I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AND I WOULD LIKE MORE PICTURES OF WHAT'S AROUND SURROUNDING THE BLADE SIGN AND SURROUNDING THIS.
I MEAN, UH, THE MENU BOARD IS JUST, UM, I THINK IT'S, THEY'RE FAIRLY, UM, LARGE, UH, ALL THE NEW RESTAURANTS DOWN ON THE ROAD WALK DON'T HAVE A MENU BOARD ANYMORE.
PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY MOVING AWAY FROM THE MENU BOARDS.
I MEAN, MAYBE WE COULD DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT LESS.
I MEAN, I THINK STAFF HAS A RIGHT ON THE TWO SQUARE FOOT AND MAYBE WE COULD COME INTO, YOU KNOW, A DISCUSSION IN INFORMAL DISCUSSION IN D R C OF WHAT SOLUTIONS THAT COULD BE MADE FOR THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, SECOND, SEND THIS TO D R C.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? I JUST HAVE TWO, TWO COMMENTS.
UM, I THINK STAFF HAS IT RIGHT, RIGHT.
WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED ON, UH, ITEM ONE AND FOR DENIAL ON ITEM TWO, IF THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AND IS WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT, I THINK WE COULD TAKE ACTION ON THAT WITH STAFF'S STIPULATIONS, UH, TODAY, WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH GUIDELINES, UM, FULLY.
UM, I DO HAVE SOME, IF THIS DOES GO TO D R C, UH, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE INDIRECT LIGHTING WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED.
AND, AND I'D LIKE THE APPLICANT, UH, TO, UH, DESCRIBE SOME OF THAT DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE LIGHTING COULD BE ACHIEVED IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY ON THAT CORNER.
SO BASICALLY, UM, THE LIGHTING, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, THE, THE ULAR, UM, SIGNAGE ITSELF, THE, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY USED WITH, UM, A VINYL, A TRANSLUCENT VINYL, AND THAT WILL COVER A LOT OF THE LIGHTING THAT IS PROJECTING, UM, INSIDE THE SIGNAGE.
AND WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN TAKE A LOT OF THE L E D THAT'S INSIDE OF THAT SIGNAGE TO, UM, HAVE IT LESS, UM, I GUESS, UM, LESS BRIGHT.
I I UNDERSTAND THE, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE REQUEST HERE WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
UM, INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS ARE, ARE PRETTY EXPRESSIVELY PROHIBITED.
UH, IF YOU HAVE SOME DETAILS ABOUT HOW THE LIGHT MOVES THROUGH THAT IN A WAY THAT OKAY.
IS SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT THAN AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN, THEN I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT THOSE DETAILS MORE CLOSELY.
BUT, UH, GENERALLY AN INTERNAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN WITH THE TRANSLUCENT VINYL AS AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN IS NOT SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE CAN APPROVE DIRECTLY.
DOES THAT, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? THIS AYE GIBBS AYE.
[26. 21-4611 Address/Description: 320 MADISON ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-293 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Maggie Wilmoth/MM Legacy Holdings LLC Request: Construction of a 1-story rear accessory structure, fenestration modifications, exterior modifications, Historic Tax Certification City Council Dist.: 1]
MADISON, RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES.ITEM NUMBER 26 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 93 3 20 MADISON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
INSTALL FAUX SHUTTERS ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
ENCLOSE A REAR SECOND STORY DOOR OPENING.
REPLACE THREE EXISTING WINDOWS ON THE REAR ELEVATION WITH FULL LIGHT DOORS.
REPLACE THE CENTRAL REAR DOOR WITH FRENCH DOORS.
INSTALL AN APPROXIMATELY 300 SQUARE FOOT REAR WOOD DECK.
SEVEN, COMPLETE DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS.
EIGHT, COMPLETE LANDSCAPING MODIFICATIONS AND NINE, RECEIVE HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION.
[02:55:01]
APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH H WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLED SINGLE CAR GARAGE DOORS IN LIEU OF THE PROPOSED TWO CAR TWO CAR GARAGE DOOR.UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FULLY WOOD GARAGE DOORS AND PEDESTRIAN DOOR TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
ITEM TWO, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SHUTTER INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDING I IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE SHUTTER INSTALLATION ON THE FRONT FACADE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE INSTALLED SHUTTER MATCH THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF THE OPENING AND ARE MOUNTED TO BE OPERATIONAL OR APPEAR TO BE OPERATIONAL.
THE SHUTTERS SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY MOUNTED ONTO ANY HISTORIC WALL MATERIAL.
TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FULLY WOOD SHUTTERS THAT MEET THE STIPULATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
ITEM THREE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ENCLOSING THE REAR SECOND STORY DOOR OPENING BASED ON FINDING J.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REAR WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE RETAINED AND REPAIRED IN PLACE IF THE H T R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FULLY WOOD FRENCH DOORS, AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SALVAGES THE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS AND STORES THEM ON PROPER ON THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE USE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REAR OF THE CENTRAL REAR DOOR REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING L WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FULLY WOOD FRENCH DOORS AND THAT THE APPLICANT SALVAGES THE EXISTING REAR DOOR AND SOURCE IT ON THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE USE.
ITEMS SIX AND SEVEN STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPING MODIFICATION BASED ON FINDING O WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PLANS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT INCLUDES DIMENSIONS FOR PROPOSED HARDSCAPING AND SHOWS THAT THE HISTORIC LAWN AREAS WILL NOT BE REDUCED BY MORE THAN 50%.
AND ITEM NINE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION BASED ON FINDING R.
UM, AS A CASE COMMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSENTED TO ALL STAFF STIPULATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM NUMBER TWO.
UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST FOR SHUTTER INSTALLATION BUT HAS CONSENTED TO INSTALLING A FULLY FUNCTIONAL SHUTTERS.
AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST TO REPLACE THE BANK OF REAR WINDOWS WITH, UH, TWO SETS OF FRENCH DOORS, BUT HAS CONSENTED TO STAFF STIPULATIONS IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THAT REQUEST.
AND, UM, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AND OWNER, MAGGIE WILMA ON THE LINE AS WELL AS GENERAL CONTRACTOR JOSHUA, UH, NER.
SO MAGGIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME? UH, SURE.
UH, WE CAN GO IF WE NEED TO GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS, UH, FULLY FUNCTIONAL SHUTTERS OR SHUTTERS THAT APPEAR TO BE FUNCTIONAL.
UM, AND THAT'S A DECISION THIS IS SO CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
WE CAN HONESTLY, IF WE DON'T WANNA SPEND THE TIME ON SHUTTERS TODAY, WE CAN MOVE ON.
WE COULD DO SHUTTERS IN SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS WHEN WE GET THERE.
UM, BUT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING, IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO RESEARCH FULLY ENOUGH.
UH, YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, RESEARCH FULLY ENOUGH TO, TO, TO MOVE FORWARD ON TODAY.
UM, BECAUSE IT'S A, YOU KNOW, SHUTTERS ARE SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PART OF THE DESIGN, UH, THE FINAL DESIGN.
UM, BUT YES, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE, THE SHUTTERS THAT APPEAR TO BE FUNCTIONAL OR FUNCTIONAL.
YOU KNOW, IT REALLY, IT WILL BE A COST BASED DECISION.
UH, YEAH, I THINK GAME TIME, COST BASED DECISION.
SO, UM, WHO I MIGHT RUN OUTTA MONEY BEFORE WE BUY SHUTTERS, SO WE JUST DON'T, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST NEVER KNOW
UM, I DON'T WANT, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA GET TOO CAUGHT UP IN SHUTTERS JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OTHER THINGS TO ADDRESS.
SO LET ME CONFIRM THAT YOU ARE WITHDRAWING YOUR REQUEST FOR THE SHUTTERS AT THIS TIME.
I MEAN, I, I, I AGREED TO IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO STIPULATE THAT IT SAYS OPERATIONAL OR APPEAR TO BE OPERATIONAL, SO NOT JUST OPERATIONAL, THAT'S ALL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE APPLICANT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, IS TO NOT APPROVE THE SHUTTERS.
THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IF THE COMMISSION AGREES, UH, IF THE COMMISSION BEYOND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT APPROVE THE SHUTTERS.
IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO CONSIDER THOSE, THOSE STIPULATIONS WOULD BE THERE.
UH, TYPICALLY THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF SHUTTERS WHERE THEY WERE NOT HISTORICALLY PRESENT AND THEY WERE NOT HISTORICALLY PRESENT HERE.
SO IT MIGHT BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO WITHDRAW THAT ONE ITEM FOR TODAY IF YOU WANNA COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT A GREATER LENGTH IN THE FUTURE, BUT REQUEST WITHDRAW.
AND ITEM THE REAR ITEM FOUR STAFF.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER ITEM? ITEM FOUR, ITEM FOUR.
[03:00:01]
SO THERE'S A BANK OF WINDOWS ON THE REAR ELEVATION AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO REPLACE THOSE WITH, UH, TWO SETS OF FRENCH DOORS ON THE REAR ELEVATION.THEY'RE ON THE, THE, THE THREE WINDOWS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PHOTO, CORRECT? UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP.
I DON'T HAVE, UH, ANYTHING AGAINST THAT.
I THINK SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT THAT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, IT, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE THE BEST SOLUTION.
THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MEAN, I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT ALTERING THE WINDOWS THAT MATCH ABOVE AND BELOW ON THAT REAR ELEVATION, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF EXACTLY WHAT'S GONNA BE GOING ON THERE.
SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW REAR PORCH ACROSS, UH, THAT FACE.
UM, ARE YOU CONSIDERING ANY AWNING OR COVERING OF THAT PORCH IN THE FUTURE, OR WILL THAT BE OPEN TO THE SKY? IT WILL BE, UH, CLOSED TO DRY E EVENTUALLY, YES.
THAT'S NOT, NOT PART OF PHASE ONE, BUT EVENTUALLY VERY, VERY POSSIBLY, YES.
SO THERE MIGHT BE A FUTURE COVER.
I MEAN, THAT HELPS ANY DISCONTINUITY HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT OF THE PROJECT AND THE NEED TO GET UTILITY AND ACCESS TO A FUTURE BACK PORCH IS PROBABLY SIGNIFICANT.
MY, MY ONE CONCERN IS REALLY, UH, THE, THE WHOLESALE MODIFICATION OF THE BANK OF THE WINDOWS IN TERMS OF ITS WIDTH AND HEIGHT.
I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE ALTERATION OF THE WINDOWS TO DOORS SO LONG AS THEY FIT IN THE ORIGINAL OPENING, WHICH THAT MIGHT MEAN BANK OF TWO, UH, A BANK OF A SINGLE SET OF FRENCH DOOR, FRENCH TYPE DOORS, AND THEN A FIXED OR ANOTHER WINDOW.
BUT I, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WIDENING THAT OPENING SO CLOSE TO THE CORNER OF THE ELEVATION.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SHARE SHARE MY CONCERN WITH THIS, WITH THIS ELEMENT OR NOT.
YES, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, THAT, UH, REPLACING THE WINDOWS, THE EXISTING BANK OF THREE WINDOWS WITH, UH, A SERIES OF FRENCH DOORS AND SIDELIGHT, WHATEVER, THAT WOULD NOT, UM, WIDEN THE OPENING, I THINK WOULD BE, UH, MORE APPROPRIATE HERE.
IF I CAN JUST INTERJECT AND I, I, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT MY, MY CONTRACTOR AS WELL AS THE ENGINEER WOULD, WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO ANSWER FOR YOU.
UM, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT SPACE IS BOARDED UP BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THAT, I MEAN, I I I'M JUST GONNA ASSUME THAT YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY.
UM, YOU COULD WALK THROUGH THE BACK OF THE HOLE IN THAT HOUSE RIGHT NOW.
THERE, THERE ISN'T, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING FOR ME TO DESTROY OR, OR, UH, UM, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKE AS, AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF IT? THAT THAT'S A QUESTION FOR, FOR MY CONTRACTOR AND THE ENGINEER TO DETERMINE AND, AND, AND I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I I THAT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF MY EXPERTISE, BUT THE, UM, THE, THE, THE IDEA OF, OF OF, OF COMPROMISING THE ORIGINAL BANK OR SET OF WINDOWS IS, IS WHOLLY.
I MEAN, YOU, THERE'S A GIANT PIECE OF PLYWOOD THERE BECAUSE IT'S A GIANT PIECE OF PLYWOOD WAS NOT THERE.
YOU COULD JUST WALK RIGHT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
UH, WE DO HAVE A LIVE CALLER, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
LET'S UH, HEAR THAT FIRST BEFORE WE CONTINUE.
STEPHANIE, DO YOU HAVE LISA LEND? I YOU LISA? HI.
THANK YOU AND I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE MY DOG SEEM A LITTLE AGITATED.
THERE ARE HOWEVER, ITEMS OF WORK NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS THAT WE TAKE EXCEPTION TO NUMBER ONE, THE FRONT DORMER IS NOTED TO BE REMOVED.
SINCE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED.
NUMBER TWO, THE DRAWINGS OMITTED THE EXISTING BOX BAY WINDOW.
AT THE SECOND STORY, PLEASE REFER TO SLIDE 30 LEFT VIEW.
THIS IS ALSO A SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED.
NUMBER THREE, SLIDE 26 ELEVATION SS STIPULATES A BLACK STANDING SEAM ROOF OR BLACK SHINGLE ROOF.
THERE IS NO PRECEDENT IN THE KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR BLACK ROOFS.
FROM AN ENERGY CONSERVATION PERSPECTIVE, THEY ARE THE LEAST EFFICIENT AS BLACK ABSORBS THE MOST HEAT.
WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE GALVAO METAL OR LIGHTER COLORED SHINGLE ROOF BE APPROVED.
[03:05:01]
FOUR, ALTHOUGH NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION AND POSSIBLY INADVERTENTLY OMITTED IN, OMITTED IN FINDING P NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THE SITE PLAN ON SLIDE 22 INDICATES AN EIGHT FOOT TALL SIDE YARD PRIVACY FENCE.SIX FOOT FENCES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES.
A MAXIMUM FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE IS ALLOWED FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION IS VERY PLEASED TO SEE THIS SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE PRESERVED AND RETURNED TO ITS FORMER GLORY AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, WE DON'T.
MR. CHAIR? YES, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP.
I, I ACTUALLY GOT CONFUSED WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ITEM FOUR.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SINGLE DOOR, THE TWO DOUBLE FRENCH DOOR.
SO I, I MAY HAVE CONFUSED THERE.
UM, I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE I NUMBER FOUR, UH, REPLACEMENT OF WINDOW.
I DO, UH, AGREE WITH STAFF THAT WE SHOULD, FOR NOW AT LEAST, UH, TRY TO RETAIN THE EXISTING WINDOWS AS THEY ARE.
UM, I THINK THE, THE TWO FRENCH DOORS WILL TAKE CARE OF THE ACCESS TO THE REAR DECK.
I, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE KING WILLIAM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON STAFF ABOUT THE DORMER, SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT COMMENTED ON AND ON ITEM, UH, THE, UH, THE SHUTTERS, I, UH, I MEAN I WAS, OH YEAH, THE APPLICANT AGREED TO REMOVE THAT.
AND STAFF CAN COMMENT ON THE DORM DORMER REMOVAL.
UM, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, UM, THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST ITEMS, UH, FOR THIS HEARING.
SO THEY ARE ITEMS THAT WERE CALLED OUT ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS AND IN THE MATERIALS, BUT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE, UH, PROVIDED THAT DOCUMENTATION TO STAFF, BUT THOSE ITEMS ARE NOT YET INCLUDED ON THIS H D R C HEARING.
AM I PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO EACH OF THOSE ITEMS? YES, MA'AM.
UH, IN RESPONSE TO ITEM ONE, THE FRONT DORMER IS NOTED TO BE REMOVED.
SINCE IT IS SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED.
UH, WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE ENGINEER OR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE ARCHITECT.
NEITHER, NONE OF THEM HAVE FOUND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE DORMER IS AN ORIGINAL FEATURE OF THE HOME AND WAS POSSIBLY ADDED WHEN THE THIRD STORY WAS OPENED UP AND FINISHED OUT.
WE THINK THAT WAS SOMETIME IN THE NINETIES.
UH, POSSIBLY AT THE SAME TIME ALL THE SKYLIGHTS WERE INSTALLED.
UM, THE DORMER AND ITS FRAMING ARE IN SEVERE DISREPAIR.
THEY'RE CAVING IN ON THE INSIDE OR ROTTED FROM THE INSIDE FROM JUST YEARS OF LI LEAK AND NEGLECT.
AND THEY'VE, UH, THEY'VE ACTUALLY CAUSED KIND OF FURTHER DAMAGE TO THAT FRAMING, MA'AM.
UH, AND YES MA'AM, THIS IS STAFF.
THE DORMER IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
UM, IF I UNDERSTAND, YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT NO ACTION IS BEING TAKEN ON THAT ISSUE TODAY.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO FLIP FLOP THE ITEMS YOU WE'VE CHOSEN TO ADDRESS? BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND AND ADDRESSING ARE ITEMS THAT ARE GONNA HAPPEN IN 10 TO 12 MONTHS.
AND THE OTHER ITEMS THAT, THE ITEMS THAT THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATION BROUGHT TO ATTENTION ARE THE MUCH MORE IMMEDIATE ACTION ITEMS. THE, THE, THE GARAGE AND THE SHUTTERS ARE PROBABLY WON'T EVEN BE STARTED TILL MID.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW NEXT YEAR, UM, BUT THE FOUNDATION ROOF OR WE'D WANTED TO START YESTERDAY OR YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE IMMINENT.
WE JUST NEED TO STAY ON TOPIC WITH THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY.
SO MY HEARING IS OVER
JUST, THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE REQUEST TODAY BEING HEARD TODAY, AND WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THE CONVERSATION IS SPECIFIC TO THOSE MR. CHAIR SOMETHING.
AND I THINK IT'S JUST THE APPLICANT MAYBE JUST TO COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE NEXT AGENDA OR MAYBE THEY CAN RECEIVE, GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION.
THERE'S A WINDOW ON THAT BACK PORTION, UH, NEXT TO THE ENCLOSED, THE SUGGESTED ENCLOSED DOOR.
THAT AND THE DRAWING SEEMS, UM, ALIGNED WITH THE WINDOWS.
BUT ON THE PICTURE IT SEEMS LIKE, YEAH, THE ONE TO THE RIGHT, THE SINGLE DOUBLE HUNG ON THE PICTURE SEEMS MUCH, UM, CLOSER TO THE ROOF LINE TO THE YEAH, THE ROOF LINE.
CAN YOU GO TO A PICTURE OF THE BACK SIDE? SO IS THERE SOME LIKE THINGS HERE THAT MAYBE STAFF MAYBE NEEDS TO REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT JUST TO MAKE SURE WE GOT EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA
[03:10:01]
BEFORE WE APPROVE? SO RACHEL IS THE CASE MANAGER.MY UNDERSTANDING IS SHE'S BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE'VE NOTICED SOME ITEMS ON THE DRAWINGS THAT ARE NOT FULLY DOCUMENTED.
AND SO WE ARE NOT ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S ESSENTIALLY INCOMPLETE SOME OF THOSE REQUESTS.
AND SO WHAT IS FOR YOU TODAY ARE ALL THE ITEMS WHERE WE FEEL THERE'S, UM, UH, SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTATION IN ORDER TO TAKE ACTION.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE IF SHE RECEIVES AN APPROVAL TODAY, EVEN WITH THAT STIPULATION THAT THERE'S A CLEAR COMMUNICATION OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I FULLY UNDERSTAND WAS ON THE AGENDA TO, OR OR, UH, FROM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TODAY.
WE ACTUALLY HAD ALL OF THOSE WORKED OUT YESTERDAY BEFORE THE HEARING.
THERE'S, THERE'S EACH OF THESE ITEMS HAS BEEN, UH, AGREED TO AND SUBMITTED THE FI SUBMITTED EXACTLY AS, AS YOU GUYS HAVE ASKED.
UM, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M, I'M VERY CONFUSED.
THIS IS MY, THIS IS MY FIRST HEARING AND I HAVE, THERE'S NOTHING MISSING FROM ANY OF THE ITEMS ANYMORE.
I UNDERSTAND I CAN'T SUBMIT NEW DOCUMENTS AFTER WE'VE BEEN PUT ON THE, THE, THE, UH, THE AGENDA.
UM, AND SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS I, ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE ALREADY WORKED OUT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SHUT SHUTTER CONVERSATION SOLELY BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
AND, YOU KNOW, I IMPORTANT TO THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT.
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE, I UNDERSTAND APPLICANT'S, UH, CONFUSION.
THERE'S JUST A LOT OF ITEMS HERE AND THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THIS AGENDA, BUT MOST THINGS HERE ARE CLEAR.
UM, WHERE, WHERE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A REQUEST IN A DISAGREEMENT WITH STAFF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS IS WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THAT THREE BANK OF WINDOWS THAT, THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING A CONNECTION TO A NEW DECK.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THERE SO LONG AS THE MODIFICATION STAYS WITHIN THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING OPENING.
UM, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT DEALS WITH ALL OF THESE ITEMS EXCEPT FOR ITEM TWO, WHICH WAS THE SHUTTERS, WHICH WE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
THAT ENCAPSULATES WHAT I'VE JUST SAID.
SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 WIST STAFF STIPULATIONS, AND I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS, UH, OF ITEM FOUR, SO LONG AS THE ALTERATION DOES NOT EXPAND THE WIDTH OF THE ORIGINAL OPENING OF THE BANK OF THREE WINDOWS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH.
AYE GIBBS? AYE ZOOMER HONOR, UM, HAS LEFT I BELIEVE.
CARPENTER NAY GRUB AYE BETS? AYE HON.
AND IF THE APPLICANT STILL ON RACHEL WILL GET WITH YOU REGARDING THE NEXT STEPS IN THE, THE NEXT HEARING.
[27. 21-4627 Address/Description: 511 N PALMETTO/515 N PALMETTO, 519 N PALMETTO HDRC Case No.: 2021-309 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Monica Naves/Vergel Construction LLC Request: Landscaping amendments, porch railing installation, fencing, walkway design amendments, front façade and roof form amendments City Council Dist.: 2]
27, UH, FIVE 11 TO FIVE 19 NORTH PALMETTO, EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? AND THEN I BELIEVE WE ALSO HAVE THE TRANSLATORS CALLING IN A ANOTHER PERSON AS WELL.SO LET'S GET ALL CONNECTED HERE.
UH, ACTUALLY I BELIEVE THE, UM, THE TRANSLATION SERVICES CALLING THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UH, SENIOR LOUIS, MS. CHER? HELLO? UH, YES, IS UH, LOUISA THE APPLICANT READY? YES.
GONNA READ THE CASE TO THE RECORD AND THEN, UM, THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND.
[03:15:02]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 27 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21, 3 0 9 5 11 5 15, AND FIVE 19 NORTH PALMETTO.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE INSTALL FRONT PORCH RAILING AT EACH HOUSE TO INSTALL FRONT AND REAR YARD CATTLE PANEL FENCING IN THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS OF EACH PROPERTY.
THREE INSIDE INSTALL SIDE YARDS, SOLID FENCING IN THE FRONT AND REAR OF EACH PROPERTY.
INSTALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS INCLUDING GRAVEL IN THE FRONT YARD OF EACH PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FRONT WALKWAY DESIGN AT FIVE 11 AND FIVE 19 NORTH PALMETTO TO CREATE A CURVE DESIGN.
INSTALL A HOT WATER HEATER, INSTALL HOT WATER HEATER CLOSETS ON THE SIDE TO SIDES OF EACH STRUCTURE.
AND SEVEN, AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STREET FACING FACADE AND ROOF FORM OF BOTH FIVE 11 AND FIVE 19 NORTH PALMETTO TO FEATURE FRONT FACING GABLE ROOF STAFF, REC STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THE INSTALLATION OF FRONT PORCH RAILING AS SUBMITTED STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL PORCH TRAILING WITH AN APPROPRIATE PROFILE.
IS NOTED IN FINDING C A DETAILED DRAWING HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE EXHIBITS FOR REFERENCE STAFF DOES NOT, EXCUSE ME, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, RUNNING REAR YARD CATTLE PANEL FENCING AS SUBMITTED BASED ON FINDING D STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE, SOLID FENCING IN THE FRONT OF REAR YARD BASED ON FINDING D WITH THE STIPULATION THAT SOLID FRONT YARD FENCING DOES NOT EXCEED THREE FEET AND SOLID REAR FENCING DOES NOT EXCEED SIX FEET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR OF LANDSCAPING WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ADDITIONAL NATURAL GROUND COVERING VEGETATION BE ADDED WITHIN THE FRONT YARDS OF EACH PROPERTY.
USE OF ROCK MULCH OR GRAVEL SHOULD BE LIMITED TO SMALL AREAS AND SHOULD INCORPORATE NATURAL COLORS.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FRONT WALKWAY DESIGN BASED ON FINDING G STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDS A STRAIGHT WALKWAY BE INSTALLED AS IS THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SIX.
THE INSTALLATION OF PLASTIC HOT WATER HEATER CLOSETS BASED ON FINDING AGE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT HOT WATER HEATER CLOSETS BE CONSTRUCTED TO MATCH THE MATERIALS AND PROFILES OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND STAFF.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT FACADE AND ROOF FORMS BASED ON FINDING I.
EDWARD, WHO DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR LINE? I, I BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S JUST THE APPLICANT, UH, LUISA, UM, WHO IS ON THE LINE WITH TRANSLATION SERVICES.
UH, MS. NAVE ACTUALLY SPEAKS ENGLISH, SO SHE'S TRYING TO CONNECT DIRECTLY TO THE WEBEX AND SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO TALK TO YOU DIRECTLY AND SHE WANTS US TO STAY BEHIND BY STANDING IN CASE SHE NEEDS OUR HELP.
UM, IF YOU CAN STAY ON THE LINE.
IF MS. LOUISA, IF YOU'LL HANG UP WITH, UM, THE INTERPRETER, UM, EDWARD WILL CALL YOU DIRECTLY.
AND THE INTERPRETER CAN REMAIN MUTED, BUT IF YOU NEED TO CALL ON HER, SHE'S, SHE'S RIGHT HERE.
DO WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS? YES, WE HAVE A COUPLE.
UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM KATHY RHODES, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OWNERS THAT VIOLATE THE AGREED UPON STIPULATIONS PRESENT IN AN ISSUED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH AMENDMENTS ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS FOR WORK COMPLETED.
INSTEAD OF ASKING PERMISSION TO FIRST, THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS ENCOURAGES FURTHER VIOLATIONS.
UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, WE DO NOT SUPPORT STAFF ON ITEM SEVEN AND ALSO ON THE FENESTRATION CHANGES.
RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT PAID A $500 REAPPLICATION FEE PER OCCURRENCE AND REAC ACCOMPLISH THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED ORIGINAL C O A.
THE FACT THAT AN APPLICANT CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS, UNDERLINES, BOLDS AND DEMANDS THAT O H P CONDUCT REGULAR INSPECTIONS OF WORK UNDERWAY.
WHICH PIECE? FAILURE TO CATCH THE APPLICANT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE DOES NOT RELIEVE THE APPLICANT OF THE REQUIREMENT TO ADHERE TO THE APPROVED C O A I HAD THE, UH, APPLICANT LUISA, UM, WHO IS HERE WITH US NOW.
I THINK I MISSED A COUPLE THINGS THAT, UH, IT
[03:20:01]
WAS, THEY WERE SAID BEFORE, UH, I WAS TRYING TO CONNECT THE, THE CALL.WE WERE READING PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UM, AND THEY MOSTLY RELATE TO THE FACT THAT THAT WORK WAS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, AND SO THEY'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO, UM, NOT CONSIDER AMENDMENTS AND TO STICK TO THE APPROVED PLAN.
UM, SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.
UH, WE SOLD THE HOUSES ALREADY, SO I WOULD TRY TO TALK TO THE HOMEOWNERS ABOUT THE SEVEN ITEMS THAT WE HAVE HERE IN FRONT OF US.
BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I CAN, CAN, UM, I, THIS IS, THIS WAS MY FIRST PROJECT AND UH, I WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH EDWARD, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW HOW CONSISTENT THE PLANS HAD TO BE WHERE THE ACTUAL PROJECT, UH, WE DID THE, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE PORCH HANDRAIL, IT IS HORIZONTAL INSTEAD OF VERTICAL.
SO I WILL TRY MY BEST FOR FUTURE PROJECTS.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT I CAN DO NOW.
I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T FOLLOW LIKE THE EXACT GUIDELINES, BUT I DEFINITELY, UH, WILL IN THE FUTURE.
AND, UM, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT, UH, THESE THINGS HAPPEN FROM TIME TO TIME AND I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION THAT THEY MIGHT ALREADY BE SOLD, BUT, UH, THEY DO NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES.
UH, WHILE I AGREE WITH AND SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S POSITION TO NOT ALLOW AMENDMENTS, I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE, UH, IS REASONABLE AND THE MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND EVALUATED AGAINST THE GUIDELINES.
UM, SO I GENERALLY, I SUPPORT STAFF'S POSITION PRECISELY ON ALL SEVEN ITEMS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN, UH, COMMISSIONER LA YES, SIR.
AND I'M SORRY IF COMMENT TO THE, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE LANDSCAPE ISSUE.
UM, WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT OF LAWN FRONT LAWNS WITH INERT MATERIALS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
PLUS THE, UH, BLACK ROCK THAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS IS ALSO UNACCEPTABLE.
UH, MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE FRONT AREA OF THE HOUSE NEEDS TO BE, UM, NATURAL VEGETATION, PREFERABLY TURF MATERIAL.
SO, UM, THE, THE WHOLE FRONT OF THE, OF THESE PROJECTS NEEDS TO BE, UH, RENOVATED.
MS. UH, VEZ, YOU HAVE COMMENTS? YEAH, I JUST WANNA GO OVER, UH, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT, UH, TO EXPLAIN WHY, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WATER HEATER CLOSET ON THE SIDE, UH, IT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE, UH, OF THE SETBACKS FOR THE CITY INSPECTION.
SO WE HAD TO BE A DETACHED AND A PLASTIC LIKE NOT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND THE WALKWAY, UH, WE DID IT ON, ON A DIAGONAL BECAUSE THERE'S THE WATER METER AND THE SEWER LINE RIGHT THERE.
SO, UM, IT WAS ON THE WAY OF BEING THE, A STRAIGHT WALKWAY AND, AND YEAH, I, I'M, WE'RE TRYING TO INCORPORATE MORE VEGETATION TO THE, TO THE HOUSES.
THAT'S ITEM I BELIEVE THREE OR TWO, NO, THREE, NO FOUR ACTION.
SO YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO, TO TO MAN ALL THE MISTAKES THAT WERE DONE.
AND JUST FOR A FIVE AND SIX, WE HAVE LIKE A, A CITY INSPECTION, WE SEND THAT.
NOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT BEFORE I MAKE THE CHANGE, I NEED TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE CIRCLE DISTRICT AND EXPLAIN WHY I NEED TO DO THOSE KIND OF CHANGES.
BUT I'LL DEFINITELY DO IT FOR THE NEXT TIME.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IS THERE ANY, ANY EVIDENCE OF, UH, A WATER METER SIDEWALK ALIGNMENT? I KNOW TYPICALLY EVEN IF WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THESE THINGS DON'T CURVE, THEY KIND OF WIDEN OR THEY STEP TO THE SIDE.
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF, DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT? UH, I DON'T HAVE, THERE'S NOT ANY THAT ARE, THAT'S SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS.
UM, I, TO BE HONEST, I WOULD NEED TO GO ON SITE AND LOOK.
UM, I, I JUST DON'T RECALL IF, IF, IF WHERE THE METERS ARE IN
[03:25:01]
ON, ON THE SITE AND I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.THEY'RE TYPICALLY NOT LOCATED THERE.
THEY'RE TYPICALLY LOCATED ALONG THE, THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ITEMS AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS, EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE SOLD THE HOMES, I MEAN, SOMEBODY WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, RIGHT? I MEAN, MAYBE STAFF CAN CLARIFY ON THAT.
SO, UM, EITHER YOU OR THE NEXT DONORS WILL.
UM, THERE'S THESE CHANGES HAVE, I MEAN, IF CHANGES OR WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE DONE NO MATTER WHAT, UH, IF YOU WORK WITH THEM OR NOT.
UM, I THINK SOME OF THESE ITEMS ARE VERY, VERY MUCH WHAT WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH.
I MEAN, SOME OF THESE ITEMS I WOULD AGREE WITH STAFF.
THE, THE ITEM THAT MR. COMMISSIONER FISH JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE WATER METER, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT, THAT YOU CAN WORK WITH STAFF ON IT TO CHANGE MAYBE THE ACTION TODAY AFTER? OR WOULD YOU RATHER, YOU KNOW, WAIT ON STAFF TO GO VISIT? HOW WOULD THIS, HOW CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? I MEAN, THE WATER HEATER CANNOT BE OUTSIDE.
EVEN IF IT WAS FOR THE INSPECTION.
THERE'S, THERE SHOULD BE A WAY THAT YOU CAN, UH, THAT YOU CAN CONSTRUCT A WATER METER CLOSET.
I MEAN, I DON'T SEE WHY YOU COULDN'T.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I, YES, I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE ITEMS. I THINK STAFF IS, UH, ARTICULATED, UH, WELL THE, THE POSITION AND, AND I THINK, UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, UH, WHILE REGRETFUL I THINK IS SO PROFOUND, IT'D BE DIFFICULT TO, TO, UH, UH, IMPLEMENT, UH, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE.
SO I THINK THIS, THIS, UH, THIS APPLICANT SHOULD, UH, BE THANKFUL THAT, UH, THAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH I SECOND.
AND TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IF THERE ARE, IF THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT THE WATER, UH, UH, METER OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT CAN BE COORDINATED WITH STAFF IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS HERE.
UH, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE.
WE HAVE, UH, THAT WAS THE LAST AGENDA ITEM.
WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 16TH, 2021.
MOTION TO APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 16TH, 2021.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES THEN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO ADJOURN.