Sep 04, 2024 Historic and Design Review Commission

MAY I HAVE SOMEONE IN TRANSLATION SERVICES, PLEASE? GOOD EVENING, GRA.

THE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

I AM JAY MAURICE GIBBS CHAIRMAN AND THE VICE CHAIR IS JEFFREY FETZER.

IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER IN ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY, IN A RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY, AND FOR DEMOLITIONS.

AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION.

AND FOR CERTIFICATE OF REP 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.

IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO ANY ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA, PLEASE SIGN UP IN A PUBLIC ON A PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SIGN UP.

IF YOU ARE THE OWNER OF OR REPRESENTATIVE FOR A PROJECT ON THE AGENDA, YOU WILL BE CALLED UPON AS THE CASE IS CALLED.

CASE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE GIVEN NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE WITH ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.

SPEAKERS FOUR OR OPPOSED TO A CASE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

EACH SPEAKERS MAY ALSO SIGN UP TO YIELD THEIR THREE MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER WHO HAS SIGNED UP.

ANYONE WHO IS YIELDING THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AT THE TIME THE SPEAKER IS CALLED UPON.

SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY'RE SIGNED UP FOLLOWING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

ANY COMMISSIONER MAY CALL UPON ANY SPEAKER TO RESPOND TO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

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 TYPE 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, PLEASE SILENCE YOURSELF OFFICE.

WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

UM, I'LL NOTE THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COMMISSIONER GRU, UM, AND UH, NO ANNOUNCEMENTS.

WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 21ST.

NOW WE CAN JOIN, UH, DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY.

SECOND.

MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? SAVINO? AYE.

[CONSENT AGENDA Items are placed on the consent agenda when staff recommends approval or recommends approval with stipulations that the applicant agrees to. Any member of the public desiring to speak on a consent agenda item may sign up and be heard prior to voting on the consent agenda. Commissioners may request to remove any item from the consent agenda and have it placed on the individual consideration agenda. All items on the consent agenda will be considered for approval by one motion adopting the items with staff findings and recommendations.]

UM, WE HAVE NINE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY.

UM, ITEMS NUMBER SEVEN HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY.

UM, AND THEN FURTHER DOWN ON THE AGENDA, ITEM 11 HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY THE APPLICANT THAT'S 26 19 MCCULLOUGH AND ALSO WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY.

UM, AT THIS TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PLAY VOICEMAILS RECEIVED FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT AND WE HAVE NO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.

HELLO, MY NAME IS LULU FRANCOISE, CALLING IN ON BEHALF OF CONCERNED CITIZENS OF D WAY HILL FOR 1510 EAST HOUSTON STREET, HGRC, CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 3 0 5.

WE AGREE WITH ALL OF O P'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND STIPULATIONS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CALLED OUT THAT THE SIX INCH SQUARE COLUMNS WITH CAPITAL AND BASE TRIM BE INSTALLED WITHOUT THE BRICK BASES.

WE DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN'T SAY HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE BRICK BASE WAS NOT APPROVED FOR THE ENTIRE HOUSE, NOT JUST THE SKIRTING.

WE DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION DRAWING.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A DOOR THAT'S NOT REFLECTED ON THE DRAWING.

ON PAGE 11, CAN THE APPLICANT CONFIRM WHETHER A DOOR IS PLANNED FOR THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE AS WELL OR IS THAT JUST A MISTAKE? AND ONE SUGGESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IN CASE HE PLANS ON USING THIS HOUSE AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

PLEASE VERIFY WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO STR DEPARTMENT WHETHER THIS HOUSE CAN LEGALLY BE USED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL BECAUSE WE THINK THERE'S ONE ALREADY LOCATED

[00:05:01]

ON THIS BLOCK.

HELLO, MY NAME IS LULU FRANCOIS WITH CONCERNED CITIZENS OF DIGNITY HILL.

CALLING IN ON CASE 5 0 2 NORTH CHERRY HDRC, CASE NUMBER 2 7 6.

SINCE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS ARE NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE AND CAN BE REPLACED WITH NEW WOOD WINDOWS, CAN WE CONFIRM THAT THE NEW WOOD WOOD WINDOWS WILL FIT INTO THE EXISTING ORIGINAL FENESTRATION OPENINGS? IF THE ORIGINAL FENESTRATIONS WERE REDUCED IN SIZE TO FIT WHAT HAD BEEN THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY BE TAKEN BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL OPENING SIZE.

WE ALSO APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS BE DONATED SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN USE THEM POSSIBLY TO THE HABIT AT HOME CENTER.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR VOICEMAILS COMMISSIONERS.

THERE ARE ALSO LETTERS IN YOUR PACKETS.

UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONS WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES, I'D LIKE TO PULL, UH, HOUSTON STREET 1510 EAST HOUSTON, NUMBER ONE.

ANY OTHER ITEMS? IF NOT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. CHAIR? I MAKE A MOTION, UH, OF FOR THE, TO APPROVE THE, THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, MINUS ITEM 1 15 10 EAST HOUSTON STREET AND RECOGNIZING THAT, UH, SIX 20 DEWEY PLACE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

THANK YOU SIR.

IS THAT WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS? WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS? YES SIR.

WITH ALL STAFF STIPULATIONS.

SECOND.

THANK YOU SIR.

MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND.

MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? SAV? AYE.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

I'LL PUT, UH, WELL, EXCUSE ME.

UM, IF YOU'RE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND YOUR ADDRESS IS 1 22 WEST AGARITA 1314 EAST COMMERCE 5 0 2 NORTH CHERRY FIVE 16 EASTS MULBERRY 4 0 1 VITA 1902 WEST MISSILE TOE AND 360 2 EAST ATCH.

YOUR CASE HAS BEEN APPROVED.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO STAY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS HEARING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT A MEMBER OF STAFF.

YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR COMMISSION ACTION LETTER WILL BE PREPARED AND EMAILED

[INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION]

TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS.

AND COMMISSIONERS, I'LL PUT ITEM NUMBER, UH, 1 15 10 EAST HOUSTON STREET ON THE SCREEN.

NOW.

THE APPLICANT IS MR. FELIPE NAVARRO, WHO I BELIEVE IS HERE IN PERSON.

UH, AND THE DESIGNER MARIO HERRERA SHOULD BE AVAILABLE VIRTUALLY.

ITEM ONE, UH, 1510 EAST HOUSTON WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.

CAN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM PLEASE? YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE MARIO.

UH, WELL, UH, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THOSE.

UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, HAS AGREED TO ALL OF OUR STIPULATIONS.

OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, UH, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO UPDATE THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE POSTED WITH THE AGENDA, UH, AND SUBMIT THOSE BACK TO STAFF FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR FINAL APPROVAL.

UH, SO THIS ITEM, THIS APPLICATION WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU, UM, ADD THE STIPULATIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE SCREEN NOW, UH, AND CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SURE.

MY ONLY QUESTION, AND I JUST READ THE STIPULATIONS, I DIDN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE END, WAS THAT THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE, UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE WINDOW AT A QUESTIONABLE DOOR AND THE FRONT PART OF THE BUILDING IS THE LIVING ROOM.

THE BATHROOMS ARE IN THE BACK.

I CAN SEE AND THE KITCHEN AND I CAN SEE IS WHY WINDOWS MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC THERE, BUT FOR ME, THE LIVING ROOM SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH LIGHT AS POSSIBLE AND THAT'S GONNA BE VERY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.

SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN, JUST THAT ONE WINDOW AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE OTHER WINDOWS, BUT CORRECT.

AND THAT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION ON BOTH FACADES, BOTH THE EAST AND THE WEST FACADE.

UH, AND THEN THAT THE ONE DOOR, UM, YOU GO TO THE PLAN, UH, THAT'S A WATER HEATER CLOSET ACCESS DOOR THAT'S ON THE, THE, UH, UH, RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE WEST ELEVATION.

SO IT'S, UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING AND PER THE APPLICANT AGREEING WITH STIPULATIONS THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL WINDOWS ADDED TO BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE THE LEFT FACADE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? NOT MAY I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT

[00:10:01]

SECOND BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY.

SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? SINO? AYE.

HAVE ITEM NUMBER 10 PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 HDRC CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 29 2 9 0 1 NORTH ALAMO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT THE TWO STORY FRONT PORCH.

THIS INCLUDES INCORPORATING AN EXISTING PORTION OF THE ENCLOSED PORCH AND EXTENDING BEYOND THE PORCH FOOTPRINT TO THE SOUTH.

AND TWO, CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY REAR ADDITION RECOMMENDATION ITEM ONE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WRAPAROUND FRONT PORCH BASED ON FINDING B WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE NEW FRONT PORCH SHOULD MATCH THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE WRAPAROUND PORCH.

PER THE 1904 SANDBORN MAP, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWINGS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

TWO, THAT SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS SUCH AS PORCH DECKING COLUMNS AND BEADBOARD SHOULD BE SALVAGED AND REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SUB, A SALVAGE AND REUSE PLAN TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A COA THREE THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS CLASSICAL ROUND OR SQUARE COLUMNS TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE BUILDING IN LOCATIONS SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL COLUMN LOCATIONS.

THE APPLICANT SHOULD SUBMIT UPDATED DRAWINGS AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A COA AND FOUR THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROOFING DECKING COLUMN.

SKIRTING STEPS AND HANDRAILS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A COA AND THAT THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF MEETS STAFF STANDARD STANDING SEA METAL ROOF SPECIFICATIONS.

ITEM TWO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE STORY REAR ADDITION BASED ON FINDINGS D THROUGH E WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROOFING MATERIAL, CLADDING DOORS, RAILING STAIRS, AND HAND RAILING TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A COA BASED ON FINDING D.

UM, AND AS A CASE COMMENT, UH, SINCE THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED UPDATED DRAWINGS SHOWING THE COLUMN SPECIFICATIONS AND HAS CONSENTED TO ALL STAFF STIPULATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STIPULATION ONE, UM, FOR THE FRONT PORCH FOOTPRINT AND THE APPLICANT WEIGHED WHEN IS WITH US IN PERSON TODAY.

THERE ARE NO VOICEMAILS FOR THIS REQUEST.

UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONER.

MY NAME IS WADE WINN.

I'M THE OWNER OF, UH, 9 0 1 NORTH ALAMO.

UH, WE ARE, UH, LOOKING AT, UH, BUILDING ONE.

I'M REQUESTING THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE US TO EXTEND THE PORCH TO WRAP AROUND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

SORRY, WHEN IT WAS FIRST.

UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT WRAPS THROUGH THE EAST OF THE, UH, THE BUILDING.

AND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE FACING IS THAT WE HAVE A, UH, POWER PLANT OR, UM, THAT WE'RE VIEWING INTO.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT BY EXTENDING THE PORCH TO THE SOUTH, IT WOULD ENABLE US A VIEW TO DOWNTOWN AND ENHANCE THE LOOK OF THE, UH, THE ENTIRE BUILDING.

UM, AND THE MARGINAL, UH, WORK THAT WE'RE ADDING ON IS ABOUT 20% MORE, UM, ADDING TO THE FOOTPRINT, UH, UH, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, WE'VE MATCHED ALL THE, UH, UH, I'M SORRY, RACHEL, CAN YOU PULL UP THE UPDATED DRAWINGS? IT HAS ALL THE COLUMNS TO MATCH, UH, THE NEWER ONE.

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE OLD ONE FROM LAST WEEK.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE UPDATED THE COLUMNS TO MATCH WHAT, UH, RACHEL HAS REQUESTED FOR A SQUARE WITH, UM, WITH DETAILS TO THE UPPER AND THE, UH, THE BOTTOM, UH, THE BASE OF EACH COLUMNS.

UM, WE'VE ALSO MATCHED IT TO THE, UH, THE, UH, THE END POINT ON, UH, UM, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE VIEWPOINT ON NUMBER FOUR, UH, IF WE'VE MATCHED IT TO WHAT IS EXISTING, IT IS OFFSET BY 10 INCHES AND THEN ON, AND WE'RE GONNA DO THE SAME THING, UH, ON THE SOUTH END.

UH, WE'VE ALL, WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING THAT WE'RE ADDING THE MIDDLE COLUMN TO, UM, TO SUPPORT, UH, THE STRUCTURE.

UH, WE BELIEVE THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING.

UM, EVERYTHING, UH, ALL THE CEILING, ALL THE PORCH AND THE CEILINGS, UH,

[00:15:01]

ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE, UH, IT IS, UH, UH, THIS IS THE ROOF PLAN RIGHT HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, LAST, UH, TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN, WHEN, UH, THE COMMISSIONER REQUESTED AT THE, UH, THE ROOF PLAN, UH, THERE IS NO, ON NUMBER THREE, THERE IS NO CHANGES TO THE TWO STORY ROOF.

UH, THE EXISTING IS NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO IS THE DEMO.

WE ARE GONNA DEMO THE PORCH, THE EXISTING PORCH, UH, BEFORE THEN IT WRAPPED AROUND TO WHERE THE END CAP IS ON NUMBER TWO.

UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES NOT AFFECT MATERIALLY AFFECT THE, UH, THE BRIDGE, UH, STYLE ROOF.

UM, ON NUMBER TWO, THERE'S ALSO A CONDENSER THAT IS ON THE TOP.

WE'VE ALREADY SPECIFIED IN OUR MEP PLAN TO BRING THAT TO THE FIRST FLOOR SO IT LOOKS BETTER.

UM, WE'RE NOT MAKING, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE ROOF.

UM, ON, UH, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYTHING IS INTACT.

UM, ON PLAN NUMBER FOUR, THIS IS OUR PROPOSED ROOF PLAN, UH, IN WHICH WE'LL WRAP IT, UH, WRAP AROUND THE BUILDING.

THERE IS A AREA, UH, THAT IS, UH, THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT, UH, OF, UH, NINE FEET FOR THE ROOF PLAN.

SO THAT, UH, IS DEALT WITH, UH, SECTION, UH, EIGHT ON PAGE, UH, FIVE, WE'VE ADDED THE DETAILED DRAWINGS.

UM, IT IS A HALF INCH, UH, SLOPE, UH, FOR THAT, UH, WHAT IS IT? 14 BY ROUGHLY? UH, FIVE FEET.

UH, I'M SORRY.

IT IS PAGE, UH, 5 0 5.

UH, THE NEXT ONE? NOPE, THE LAST ONE RIGHT THERE.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE IS NUMBER SEVEN, THE DETAILS FOR NUMBER SEVEN AND EIGHT.

THIS IS HOW WE PLAN ON DO THE FLASHING.

UH, WE HAVE SPECIFIED IT IS A ONE AND, UH, THREE QUARTER STANDING SEAM WITH, UH, 18 INCH, UH, BETWEEN EACH SEAMS. UH, THIS IS THE, UH, THE CUT DETAIL PLAN FOR THE, UH, THE FLASHING, UH, THAT MEETS FROM THE, UH, SECOND STORY TO THE NEW ROOF, ROOF, UH, PATIO ROOF.

AND THEN NUMBER EIGHT IS JUST THE, UH, THE OTHER PERPENDICULAR CROSS SECTION, UH, THAT ADDRESSES, UH, THE EASTERN, UH, SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

YEAH.

UM, RACHEL, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I NEED TO ADDRESS? NO, I THINK, UH, DURING THE LAST HEARING ON AUGUST 21ST, THE COMMISSION HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROOF PLAN AND THE CONNECTION OF THE INFILL TO THE PROPOSED FRONT PORCH, THE WRAPAROUND PORTION.

AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THOSE ROOF DETAILS IN THIS PACKAGE.

UH, I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE CONCERN WAS DID THE INFIELD, UH, MATERIALLY AFFECT THE, THE, UH, THE ROOF LAYOUT FOR THE TWO STORY BUILDING? AND IT DOES IT, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, OR, OR PLAN IS JUST TO, UH, EXTEND THE PATIO.

AND THEN WHERE IT IS, UH, IT DOES NOT MEET THE, THE, UH, THE ROOF, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? THE ROOF DECK FOR THE TWO STORY BUILDING.

SO IS THAT IT, SIR? THAT IS SIR, YES, SIR.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? UM, MR. CHAIR? I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SURE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THIS ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID IT, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IS, SO THE LITTLE GAP BETWEEN THE, UM, IF WE GO TO SLIDE 29, PAGE 29.

THE LITTLE GAP FROM THE NEW ROOF.

UM, WHAT IS THE MATERIAL? UH, THE MATERIAL IS SPECIFIED.

IF YOU GO TO PAGE A, UH, 5 0 7, THE FINISHED DETAIL, OR YOU CAN JUST TELL ME, SORRY, UH, RACHEL, CAN YOU GO TO 5 0 7? IT'S SPECIFIED ON XR, WHICH IS THE ROOFING STANDING SEAM.

THAT IS THE MATERIAL THAT WE'LL USE AND IT HAS ALL THE, UH, HISTORICAL NOTES THAT PRIOR TO US RECEIVING IT.

IT'LL BE INSPECTED BY RACHEL.

AND THEN ONCE WE'RE DONE, WE'LL ALSO GET IT REINSPECTED.

THAT IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR OR REQUESTING.

SO LET'S GO BACK TO 29 BECAUSE IT'S A SECTION THAT IF GO TO PAGE 29.

SO WE HAVE NUMBER ONE EXISTING ROOF PLAN, AND THEN YOU HAVE NUMBER TWO, WHAT YOU'RE DEMOLISHING OR WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, RIGHT? WHICH IS THE SECTION, UH, THAT IS, UH, SORRY, THIS IS THE WRONG, UH, PLANS.

THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT PLAN.

UH, CAN YOU GO TO THE, UH, THE SECOND UPDATED PLANS? THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.

RIGHT THERE.

SO WHAT WE ARE DEMOING IS, UH, SO NUMBER TWO IS THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DEMOING.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT SLIVER.

THAT IS THE PAD EXISTING PATIO.

AND WHERE THE INFIELD IS, THAT'S WHERE

[00:20:01]

IT'S UNDERNEATH THAT.

SO WE REMOVE THAT PORCH AREA, IT'LL EXPOSE THE ROOF FOR THE INFIELD.

AND ALL WE'RE SIMPLY DOING IS, IS, UH, EXTENDING THAT OUT.

SO IT'S PER, SO IT'S, UH, FLUSH WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING, BUT IT WON'T MATERIALLY AFFECT THE, UH, THE ROOF.

COMMISSIONER SABINO? YES, SIR.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MM-HMM.

, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

I HAVE, NOBODY HAS QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A MOTION.

I I'LL ONE MOMENT PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, UH, THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR BRINGING THE ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS.

MY QUESTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER GROUPS, UM, REGARDING THAT INTERSTITIAL SPACE THAT IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PORCH THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED ONTO, UM, MY CONCERN IS ON THE DRAWINGS YOU'RE SHOWING IT, YOU KNOW, ON PAPER IT KIND OF WORKS OUT, BUT WHAT YOU'RE LEFT WITH IS ESSENTIALLY A FLAT ROOF WITH A HALF INCH PITCH OVER FIVE FEET THAT IS ESSENTIALLY FLAT.

MY QUESTION IS THEN, WELL FIRST OF ALL, IF IT WORKS, I MEAN THIS COULD WORK, THIS COULD ABSOLUTELY WORK IF IT CAN BE DONE PHYSICALLY DONE.

BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, UM, CAN YOU PLEASE SPECIFY A, A STANDING SEA MATERIAL THAT IS MEANT FOR A LOW PITCH ROOF OR FLAT ROOF? AND ALSO WITH YOUR ROOF TO WALL DETAIL, CAN YOU PLEASE BRING THAT FLASHING AND THAT COUNTER FLASHING UP AT LEAST 12 INCHES FROM THE TOP OF THE SURFACE OF YOUR ROOFING MATERIAL? BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T WORK YOU, YOU'RE GONNA NEED, YOU'RE GONNA NEED THAT, UH, PROTECTION.

CAN YOU PLEASE ADD THAT TO YOUR DRAWINGS WHEN YOU GO FOR PERMITS? YES, MA'AM.

UH, TO, TO, UH, ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION IS THAT THE, UM, UH, SORRY, UH, I JUST LOST THOUGHT.

THE ELEVATION IS FOR FIVE FEET.

IT IS TWO AND A HALF INCH, UH, OH, TWO AND A HALF.

I JUST HEARD THE ONE HALF INCH.

NO, UH, FOR EVERY FEET.

SO IF YOU GO TO PAGE 5 0 7, YOU CAN SEE THE DETAILS AND YES, WE CAN ADD THAT FOR A MINIMUM OF 12 INCH FLASHING ON, ON WHERE IT, UH, TOUCHES THE WALL.

SO IT GOES UP MM-HMM.

YEAH.

AND WE CAN LY TREATED BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE, BECAUSE OF THE LOW SLOPE, DO TREAT IT AS A FLAT ROOF THAT WILL HELP YOU IN THE LONG RUN.

OKAY? YES.

AND THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

WE CAN DO THAT.

COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ.

Y YES, SIR.

THE, UM, THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED.

THE, THE ONLY THING IS THAT, THAT YOU, YOU, YOU DEFINITELY WANNA TO VERIFY THE SPACE THAT YOU HAVE BETWEEN THAT FLAT FLATTER PART OF THE ROOF AND HOW HIGH YOU CAN GO UP TO, RIGHT? CORRECT.

SO THAT, THAT'S, AND, AND WE'VE ALSO MATCHED THAT WITH THE ELEVATION.

AND WE'VE, UH, DONE IT AND I'VE ALSO, UH, STOOD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AND TOOK A LOOK AT HOW, WHAT TWO AND A HALF INCH LOOKS LIKE.

YOU CAN, YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT.

UH, WE BELIEVE THE EXISTING PATIO, UH, MAY HAVE SOME TPO, UH, BUT I CAN'T SEE IT, UH, FOR SURE.

BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO MATCH IT WITH THE, UH, THE EXISTING, UH, ROOF OR A, A MATERIAL YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFY.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GROUP.

SO I'M GONNA MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM ONE, UH, WITH STIPULATION TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, UM, APPROVING THE FRONT PORCH EXTENSION AS PRESENTED TODAY.

UM, I'LL ADD THE STIPULATION TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH LENGTH OF FLASHING TO ON THE UPPER PART IF THAT MAKES IT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WAY I, I ALSO KEPT STIPULATION FOUR.

SO YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT FINAL YES.

AND THEN APPROVE ITEM TWO WITH STAFF STIPULATION.

SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY.

I MEAN, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK 'CAUSE THIS REALLY HELPED US.

I THINK IT HELPED YOU TOO.

SO THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK WITH US DETAILS.

RECOMMENDATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION WITH MODIFICATIONS BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH R WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.

ALRIGHT, THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? SAVINO? AYE.

OKAY, IS THAT IT? ITEM NUMBER 11 HAS BEEN POSTPONED.

ITEM 12 PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12 HDRC CASE NUMBER 2024 DASH 3 0 7 2 14 LOTUS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO DECONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT TWO 14 LOTUS.

THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION WILL FEATURE A REVISED ROOF FORM AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND A REAR ADDITION WITHIN A ATTACHED GARAGE.

[00:25:01]

ONE THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS STRUCTURE IS DECONSTRUCTED AND THAT ANY SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS SUCH AS FRONT PORCH COLUMNS, PY, PLASTERERS, WOOD SIDING, ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND ORIGINAL DOORS ARE SALVAGED AND REUSED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION.

BASED ON FINDINGS D AND K, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A COMPREHENSIVE SALVAGE AND REUSE PLAN TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC TWO THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THE FRONT SETBACK DIMENSIONS FOR THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE SHOWING THAT THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDR C3 THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FULLY DIMENSION DRAWINGS INCLUDING THE PROPOSED HEIGHT TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THE PROPOSED TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TOTAL LOCK COVERAGE TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC BASED ON FINDING H FIVE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FOUNDATION AND FLOOR HEIGHTS AND DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE ALIGNED WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES FOUNDATION AND FLOOR HEIGHTS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC BASED ON FINDING I APPEAR AND BEAM FOUNDATION WITH A RAISED WOOD FRONT PORCH WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD SUBMIT FOUNDATION AND FLOOR HEIGHTS AND DOCUMENTATION OH, THAT IS REPEATED AND STIPULATION.

SIX.

THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF MUST FEATURE PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE AND MEET STAFF STANDARD STIPULATIONS SEVEN THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS A QUEEN AND STYLE FRONT DOOR IN LIEU OF THE PROPOSED CRAFTSMAN STYLE DOOR.

BASED ON FINDING L THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FRONT DOOR TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC EIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF THAT MEETS STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

WOOD WINDOWS WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE.

NINE.

THAT THE APPLICANTS MODIFIES THE PROPOSED FRONT DOOR CONFIGURATION TO MATCH THE PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION WITH ONE DOOR, ONE SIDE LIGHT AND TWO TRANSOM WINDOWS MODIFIES THE LARGE WINDOW OPENING ON THE FRONT FACADE INSTALLS ADDITIONAL WINDOW OPENINGS ON THE SIDE, ELEVATIONS AND INSTALLS WINDOW OPENINGS OF TRADITIONAL PROPORTIONS ON ALL ELEVATIONS WITH WINDOWS FEATURING SASHES OF EQUAL PROPORTIONS.

BASED ON FINDING M THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWINGS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC 10 THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

IN LIEU OF THE PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED SITE PLAN, ELEVATION, DRAWINGS, AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC BASED ON FINDING N 11, THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS A FRONT PORCH THAT MEETS THE THRESHOLD OF THE DOOR.

BASED ON FINDING O THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT UPDATED DRAWINGS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

12 THAT THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD NOT EXCEED 10 FEET AND WIDTH BASED ON FINDING P THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED MEASURED SITE PLAN TO STAFF REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND 13 THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN INCLUDING THE LOCATION AND HEIGHTS OF ALL PROPOSED FENCING TO STAFF REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE HDRC BASED ON FINDING R UH, SINCE THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED UPDATED ELEVATION, DRAWINGS AND SITE PLANS, UH, THAT I'LL PULL UP NOW THAT ADDRESS THE, UH, STIPULATIONS FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE, THE FRONT DOOR CONFIGURATION, AND ALSO THE DRIVEWAY WITH, AND SO I'LL PULL THOSE UP NOW AND THE APPLICANT, KELSEY RIDDLE IS WITH US IN PERSON.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THIS REQUEST.

PLEASE COME ON TO THE PODIUM.

DID REDUCE THE PITCH OF THE ROOF TO HELP BRING THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR THE HISTORIC, UM, GUIDELINES.

HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M KELSEY RIDDLE.

I'M HERE TO REPRESENT 2 1 4 LOTUS.

AS RACHEL MENTIONED, I DID MAKE SOME UPDATES, UM, BASED UPON THE LAST, UM, SUBMISSION WHEN THE APPLICANT, UM, APPLICATION WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED.

UM, WITH THE DRIVEWAY I'VE DONE, I'VE CHANGED IT FROM, I THINK WE HAD ORIGINALLY IT WAS 18, IT WAS BEYOND THE WIDTH, SO WE CHANGED IT TO THE RIBBON DRIVE.

UM, I DO HAVE THE REASONING FOR ME WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE IS BECAUSE I AM A SINGLE PERSON, SO I AM TRYING TO GAIN A LITTLE BIT OF SECURITY, UM, BEING IN THE LOCATION THAT I AM.

SO AT THIS POINT WE'VE MOVED IT AWAY SIX FOOT AND HAD IT ADDED A CORRIDOR.

UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE WAS THERE SOME OTHER, UM, I DID ADD THE ADDITIONAL, I PUT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OVER ON THE SIDE OVER ON THE SIDE TO GET THAT.

I THINK WE'RE AT 3071.

THE WHOLE LOT IS 15 SEVEN SOMETHING FOR THE ENTIRE LOT.

IT'S ON THE SURVEY, WHICH IS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

I DON'T, I DON'T, UM, UH, AND WE DID REDUCE THE PITCH OF THE ROOF SO THAT IT WOULDN'T, UH, THE INITIAL APPLICATION HAD IT A LITTLE HIGHER.

[00:30:01]

AND THE FRONT, WE'VE ADDED A COUPLE MORE WINDOWS AND I DID CHANGE THE FRONT DOOR CONFIGURATION AS WELL.

UM, LET'S SEE HERE.

IF WE GO THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE, SO I DIDN'T SUBMIT A FLOOR PLAN, SO THERE ARE SOME I CAN, THE THE SPACE HERE IN BETWEEN THAT YOU'RE SEEING IS A CLOSET, SO DESIGNED FOR A CLOSET, ADDING THAT IN THERE, I WASN'T, IT'S IT'S JUST NOT TYPICAL FOR A CLOSET TO HAVE THE WINDOWS.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE IS, UM, THAT'S MY BEDROOM.

AND THEN ON THE BACKSIDE THERE ARE THREE WINDOWS THAT DO GO INTO THE BEDROOM THAT ARE ON THE, UM, REAR ELEVATION AND THEN OVER ON THE SIDE, WELL THE LAST PART OF THAT OBVIOUSLY IS THE, UM, GARAGE AND THEN THE PART BETWEEN THE, UH, MISSING SPACE, THERE'S A PANTRY AT THAT POINT.

SO AGAIN FOR, UM, I WASN'T REAL SURE ABOUT ADDING THE WINDOWS AT THAT POINT, BUT, UH, I REALLY, I THINK THAT'S REALLY EVERYTHING I HAVE.

IF I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.

UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? UM, I HAVE A, JUST A KIND OF FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

IS IT ESSENTIALLY A DI DEMOLITION AND A REBUILD? YES, SIR.

IT WOULD BE A DECONSTRUCTION AND THEN A RECONSTRUCTION OF A SIMILAR FRONT LIKE LOOK OF THE WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.

SORRY, .

I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS.

I HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE.

OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE.

IS IT GOING TO BE REBUILT AS A PEER AND BEAM OR ON A SLAB? IT'LL BE ON A SLAB.

IS IT HIGH ENOUGH TO MATCH THE OTHERS, YOUR NEIGHBORS? UH, WE'LL MAKE SURE TO WITHIN, WITHIN A FOOT, YES.

UM, AS MANY COMMISSIONERS MIGHT REMEMBER, SOME MIGHT NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS REQUEST THAT THE PREVIOUS ROOF WAS A HIP ROOF WITH SOME, UH, ADDITIONS THAT WERE NOT TIED INTO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO MA'AM, YOU ARE GOOD WITH THE, WITH WITH THE STIPULATIONS AS, AS , THE STIPULATIONS, ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS? SO YEAH, I MEAN THERE ARE SOME YES, DO YES.

UM, WHEN IT COMES TO, I MEAN, I HAVE NO ISSUE USING THE WINDOWS, UM, REUSING EVERYTHING AND SUBMITTING ALL OF THE SALVAGE AND REUSE.

I DO, I HAVE KURT FROM PICKER'S PARADISE, SO I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING, UM, I NEED TO GET WITH HIM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, I GUESS FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL.

UM, I THINK WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THOSE HAVE BEEN, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY, NO, I MEAN THE ONLY THING WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL WINDOWS.

I'M NOT REAL SURE WHERE TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL WITH THE CLOSET AND THE PANTRY BEING MY QUESTIONING ON THOSE ITEMS. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE, YEAH.

NOW, NOW STAFF TO WORK OUT WHERE, WHERE ADDITIONAL WINDOWS WOULD GO.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN WORK WITH, UH, WITH HER TO MEET THE STIPULATION IF WE CAN GET A WINDOW IN THERE? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE HASHED OUT RIGHT NOW OR WHAT DO YOU THINK? CERTAINLY.

SO STAFF IS HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE WHERE ADDITIONAL WINDOWS CAN BE PLACED THAT WOULD MEET STAFF STIPULATIONS.

UM, OF COURSE IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO ACCEPT THE FENESTRATION PATTERN ON THE SIDE, ELEVATIONS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.

BUT IF THE, UM, MOTION IS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH THE STIPULATION FOR ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION, WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY MORE WINDOWS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT STIPULATION AND WHERE THEY COULD GO.

MR. CHAIR, I'LL DO A MOTION.

I HAVE ONE MOMENT PLEASE.

UM, COMMISSIONER SABINO? YES.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE SITE VISITS AND, UH, DRC SITE VISIT OR NO, IT WAS THE DRC UH, REMOTE, UH, LOOKING AT THESE DRAWINGS AND WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ROOF DESIGN, THE COMPLEX HIP ROOF DESIGN THAT IS USED TO COVER THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT.

AND, UM, I WAS WONDERING WHY THIS IS BEING, WHY, WHY STAFF IS SUPPORTING THIS PARTICULAR ROOF THAT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT THE ORIGINAL ROOF WOULD'VE LOOKED LIKE, OR EVEN ONE IN A VICTORIAN, A LATE VICTORIAN STYLE WOULD LOOK LIKE.

WHY IS STAFF SUPPORTING THIS PARTICULAR ROOF? CERTAINLY.

SO,

[00:35:01]

AND SO IN ABOUT 2021, OR I THINK IT WAS 2021, THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER DID RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR THE ROOF MODIFICATION FOR A ONE FULL HIP ROOF TO COVER THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

AND IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS ROOF FORM THAT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

UM, SO STAFF FINDS THAT THIS IS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO THAT PREVIOUS, UM, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ROOF THAT IS GENERALLY APPROPRIATE AND I CAN PULL UP THOSE DRAWINGS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS WELL.

THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO DO.

I'D LIKE TO SEE BOTH OF THOSE ROOF PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED.

AND THE, THE REASON I'M CONCERNED IS BECAUSE, UM, I GUESS FROM AN ALS ALSO AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT THAT APPROVAL THAT WAS GIVEN PREVIOUSLY WAS THREE YEARS AGO.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A NEW CASE, ISN'T IT? CORRECT.

THIS IS A NEW REQUEST AND IT'S A NEW CASE AND I THINK IT, I THINK IT WARRANTS A, A, A FRESH LOOK, A NEW LOOK CONSIDERING, UM, WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT, UH, UH, WELL, WE HAVE DIFFERENT APPLICANT AND WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED.

SO, UH, MY, I I GUESS MY CONCERN AND GREAT RESERVATION IS HOW THIS MODERN CONTEMPORARY COMPLEX SET OF HIP ROOFS IS BEING USED ON THIS RECONSTRUCTION AND HOW THAT, HOW THIS IS NOT REALLY REFLECTING WHAT THE GUIDELINES AND UDC SAY ABOUT RECONSTRUCTION.

SO THAT'S WHERE MY RESERVATION IS.

YEAH.

IF WE CAN LOOK AT THE TWO THAT WERE APPROVED THE LAST TIME JUST TO REMIND US WHAT WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS BEING, UM, DISCUSSED WOULD BE HELPFUL.

SO THIS WAS THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ROOF.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE ADDITION WAS NOT TIED INTO THE PRIMARY ROOF STRUCTURE.

UM, THE PREVIOUS REQUEST WAS TO REPAIR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THEN JUST INSTALL A MODIFIED ROOF FORM.

AND SO THAT FIRST APPROVAL, UM, WAS THIS DRAWING HERE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY JUST HERE WE GO, WE ARE, IT'S LABELED EXISTING ELEVATION, UM, THAT WAS A MISLABELING BY THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME.

AND SO THE REQUEST WAS TO REPAIR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BUT THEN MODIFY THE ROOF SO THAT IT WAS ONE ROOF FORM OVER THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE ADDITION.

AND THEN THEY LATER RETURNED TO THE HDRC FOR A, UM, A MODIFIED FORM YET AGAIN FOR A CROSS, UH, HIP ON A SIDE GABLE ROOF.

AND AND TO MY POINT, I THINK THE, THE LOWER ONE, THE LATTER ONE IS MORE REFLECTIVE OF PROBABLY HOW THAT HOUSE WOULD'VE BEEN BUILT OVER YEARS WITH ADDITIONS AND ALSO REFLECTS MORE CONVENTIONAL LATE VICTORIAN ROOF FORMS. UM, SO, UH, THAT IS THE EXTENT OF MY QUESTIONING.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND.

COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, UH, MR. CHAIR, THE, THE, UM, CAN I HAVE A, A QUESTION FOR STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION? SO EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THERE ISN'T CLARIFICATION FOR WHAT IS PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE GARAGE, THE BRIDGING THE IDEA, THE TWO BUILDINGS BEING SEPARATE BUILDINGS AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT IF YOU ALL MEAN THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE SEPARATE GARAGE, THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF THAT AT THIS POINT SO THAT WHATEVER MOTION IS MADE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS IT, THAT IT DOESN'T END UP DOWN THE LINE THAT, WELL, I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROVED WHEN CLEARLY THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE STAFF STIPULATION, RIGHT? A RECOMMENDATION, THE POINT NUMBER ONE, RIGHT? YES.

AND SO, UH, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT STAFF REVIEWED, UH, REQUESTED AN ATTACHED GARAGE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE HERE WITH THE SITE PLAN, UH, THE ROOF PLAN, AND ALSO THE ELEVATIONS THAT I'LL BRING UP ON THE SCREEN.

AND SO STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT THE GARAGE BE DETACHED TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.

AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED UPDATED PLANS THAT AREN'T INCLUDED IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DO FEATURE A DETACHED GARAGE HERE WITH A BREEZEWAY.

UM, THIS WAS A SUGGESTED MODIFICATION FROM ONE OF OUR DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE VISITS.

UM, BUT STAFF HAS NOT REVIEWED THIS, UM, FOR THE HEARING TODAY.

SO, SO THEN THERE'S STILL THE CHANCE THAT, THAT, THAT HAS TO BE FLUSHED OUT, RIGHT? THAT IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A BREEZEWAY OR IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN INTERIOR SPACE, WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I YEAH, I WAS, IT'S A LITTLE DETAIL, BUT YOU KNOW, WELL, BECAUSE TYPICALLY THE GARAGE WOULD BE SEPARATE.

AND I UNDERSTAND IT CAUSES A CERTAIN KIND OF BEHAVIOR.

UH, AND THEN JUST OUT LOUD RIGHT TO THE LAST COMMENTS, UM, IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE PICTURE, THAT'S THE, THE, UH, ROOF INTACT PICTURE.

UH,

[00:40:01]

THE OLD PICTURE, YES.

NOW, NOW THE, THE PREVIOUS DRAWING, I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER, UM, UH, THAT TALKED ABOUT THE, THE THE HIP ROOF AND, AND THE OPEN ROOF.

BUT I THINK IT JUST FOR STAFF TO BE ON THE RECORD THAT THE PITCH OF THIS, SO, UM, FORMALLY ARE, ARE WE GETTING TO DISCUSSING BECAUSE WE WE'RE JUST IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW WE HAVEN'T AH, SO IT MAY, IT MAY BE DISCUSSION.

YES, SIR.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SURE, GO AHEAD.

DO THE MOTION IS, SO I WAS ON SITE VISIT FROM THIS PROPERTY BACK IN 2020 AND THEY WANTED TO DEMOLISH THIS.

SO YOUR CASE HISTORY SAYS THAT WE OF COURSE, YEAH.

WE, WE READ NO DEMOLISH, WE ACTUALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC AND THEN THE, WAS IT THE SAME OWNER THAT SUBMITTED THE REQUEST FOR THE ROOF CHANGES? CORRECT.

UM, SO, SO HE JUST REMOVED THE ROOF, WE APPROVED, YOU KNOW, SOME REDESIGNS AND ALL THAT AND THEN HE REMOVED THE ROOF AND THEN WE'RE NOT ON.

AND THAT'S THE OWNER THAT NOW SOLD IT TO YOU? OR HAS THERE BEEN ANOTHER OWNER? THERE'S BEEN ONE IN BETWEEN.

I DO.

SO THIS PROPERTY HAS DETERIORATED, LIKE HE JUST REMOVED THE ROOF IN HOPES THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD DETERIORATE AND IT WASN'T, IT WAS IN NICE SHAPE INSIDE.

IT WAS, THERE WAS SO MANY ORIGINAL ELEMENTS THAT WERE BEAUTIFUL.

THAT LITTLE SIDE EDITION WAS, YOU KNOW, NOT ORIGINAL, BUT I JUST, IT'S JUST, YEAH.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S ONLY BEEN THAT OWNER AND THEN I BELIEVE A TOTAL OF THREE OWNERS.

UM, SO FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CASE HISTORY, YES.

THIS, THIS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY CAME TO THE HDRC BACK IN 2020 AS A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION.

UM, THAT WAS, UM, AND STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DEMOLITION AND THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED.

AND SO THE STRUCTURE WAS DESIGNATED IN 2020.

UH, THEN WE HAD THAT PROPERTY OWNER, I BELIEVE SOLD TO A NEW, NEW OWNER WHO THEN, UM, REQUESTED THE REPAIR WORK AND THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ROOF.

THEY ULTIMATELY REMOVED THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ROOF AND THEN IT SAT THERE FROM ABOUT LATE 2021, EARLY 2022 WITHOUT THE ROOF UNTIL TODAY.

UM, SO, UH, KELSEY IS THE NEW OWNER AND THE CITY HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT AT ALL FOR UNCOMPLETE WORK AND CORRECT.

CORRECT.

AND SO I THINK THAT, UM, OUR VACANT BUILDING PROGRAM TEAM MAY HAVE BEEN PURSUING, UM, REGISTRATION FOR THE VACANT BUILDING PROGRAM, BUT THEN THE NEW OLD, THE OLD OWNER SOLD TO THE CURRENT OWNER.

I'LL DO A MOTION.

NO, I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I THOUGHT I MIGHT, BUT I ULTIMATELY DON'T.

WELL, AND, AND BECAUSE OF, I REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INTENTIONS TO, YOU KNOW, REDO THIS HOME AS IT WAS.

THERE WAS VERY MUCH A LOT OF DETAILS.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND ALL STAFF STIPULATIONS A SECOND.

WE MOVED AND PROPERTY SECOND DISCUSSION AND I'M GONNA ASK SOME COMMENTS.

UM, THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS STILL TO FINAL.

UM, I DO AGREE.

LOOK AT THE DETACHED GARAGE.

THE BREEZEWAY IS NOT SOMETHING WE NORMALLY SEE IN ANY OF THE PROPERTIES WOULD BE VISIBLE ON THE STREET.

I THINK MOST HISTORIC HOMES DON'T HAVE IT, SO I THINK YOU'D BE FINE.

I AM NORMALLY WOULD NOT EVEN SUPPORT A CONCEPTUAL POOL WHERE THERE'S MANY STIPULATIONS 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS DOESN'T WORK.

BUT I ALSO FEEL LIKE YOU'RE TAKING ON A, A, A BIG PROJECT THAT I AM SORRY TO SEE THIS PROPERTY OF DETERIORATING LIKE THIS, UH, IN A THREE YEAR TIMEFRAME.

SO I APPRECIATE ALSO YOUR, YOU NEED SOMETHING TO MOVE ON, RIGHT.

AND BE ABLE TO START THE PROJECT.

SORRY.

UM, I THINK THE COMMENTS HERE TODAY, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU PROBABLY WILL ALSO NEED ANOTHER DRC MEETING BEFORE COMING IN WITH FINAL AND I LOOK FORWARD TO KEEP WORKING WITH YOU.

UH, AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS.

COMM VELASQUEZ? YES, SIR.

WELL, I, I JUST, UH, WANTED TO TO, TO LET YOU KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE PICTURE IS, THAT BLUE PICTURE THAT HAS THE, THE ROOF AND ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF IT BECAUSE IT, IT, IT IS A GOOD, UM, MAP TO FOLLOW TO IT.

IT, THE HISTORIC LOOK IS SO, UM, RELATED TO THE DIMENSION OF THE WINDOWS.

AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ROOF, THE ROOF COULD COME OUT LOOKING LIKE A REAL SUBURBAN ROOF.

BUT IF YOU FOLLOW THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OVERHANGS AND, AND EVEN THAT FRONT PIECE, WHICH IS VERY EXAGGERATED, YOU'LL GET THE LOOK THAT, THAT YOU NEED.

I THINK AS A CONCEPTUAL PROJECT, YOU MAY, UH, BE BROUGHT, UM, EXPECTATIONS FOR TYPES OF WINDOWS AND, AND IN THAT DIALOGUE I WOULD FOLLOW THIS HOUSE.

IF YOU'RE GONNA GO THAT CLOSE TO WHAT, WHAT IS THERE, USE THAT HOUSE AS A MODEL AND THE CLOSEST THAT YOU CAN GET TO THAT, YOU'RE GONNA COME UP WITH A MORE BEAUTIFUL HOUSE.

UM, COMMISSIONER SAVINO.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

I DO WANT TO, UM,

[00:45:01]

I TOTALLY AGREE.

AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.