[00:00:10]
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2020.
[Roll Call]
I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? FERNANDEZ HERE.[Additional Item]
GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT FROM TRANSLATION SERVICES.I GET THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT, PLEASE.
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 THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER IN ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS, FOR DEMOLITIONS, FOR PERMITS, EXCUSE ME, ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY, IN 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 THE CITY COUNCIL.
AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
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 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 APPLICATION, 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 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, I WILL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
UM, I DO WANT TO BRIEFLY PROVIDE ONE QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR WE HOST A ANNUAL HISTORIC HOMEOWNER AFFAIR, UM, THAT IS A FREE EVENT TO THE PUBLIC WHERE THEY CAN COME AND LEARN, UM, ABOUT CITY PROCESS, UM, GET TIPS FOR THEIR OWN RENOVATION PROJECTS AND MEET WITH PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD.
UM, SO WE ARE DOING IT AGAIN THIS YEAR.
UM, AND THE DATE IS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18TH.
UM, SO BE SURE TO CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE, SA PRESERVATION.COM FOR DETAILS ABOUT THAT VIRTUAL EVENT, UM, AND ALL THE EDUCATIONAL SESSIONS THAT YOU
UM, SO ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE OUR CASE LIST.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE 13 CASES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[Public Comments]
BY READING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THOSE CASES, BEGINNING WITH NUMBER 6 8 0 2 NORTH OLIVE.UM, THIS COMES FROM MONICA SINO.
UM, ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS, WE SUPPORT H HP STAFF.
RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UM, MULTIPLE LOCATIONS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR DOWNTOWN NETWORK NODES.
UM, THIS COMES FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, 1 1 0 7.
KING WILLIAMS CONSERVATION SOCIETY IS AWARE OF THE STREETLIGHT CELLULAR NODE PILOT PROGRAM BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY PUBLIC SERVICE AND IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NODE'S VISUAL IMPACT.
UPON REVIEW OF THE, OF THE EIGHT POLLS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS.
WE ARE GLAD TO SEE THAT NONE OF THE POLLS ARE WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
THE VISUAL IMPACT OF HISTORIC ASSETS MUST NOT BE LESSENED BY MORE CLUTTER IN THE STREETSCAPE.
WHILE THESE POLES ARE NOT LOCATED IN STORED DISTRICTS, THEY'RE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO LAMOS, WHERE AT LEAST TWO POLE DESIGNS THAT WE HAVE SEEN.
THESE NEW DESIGNS WILL MAKE FOR LESS CONSISTENCY IN THE STREETSCAPE,
[00:05:01]
LESS RADICALLY PLACED AMONG EXISTING POLES.THE POLE DESIGN NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT AND IN CONTEXT WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS.
ALL TRAFFIC RENDERINGS SHOW VARYING AMOUNTS OF EQUIPMENT ON EACH POLE.
ADDING TO THE INCONSISTENCY, UM, THE POLES CARRYING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CELLULAR EQUIPMENT LOOK MORE LIKE A CELLULAR UTILITY POLE WITH AN INCIDENTAL STREETLIGHT SET UP, A WELL-DESIGNED STREETLIGHT WITH INCIDENTAL CELLULAR EQUIPMENT ATTACHED.
WE UNDERSTAND THE LAW ALLOWS THE USE OF CITY RIGHT OF WAY FOR CELLULAR EQUIPMENT.
WE FIND THAT THE EQUIPMENT MOUNTED ON DOWNTOWN BUILDING ROOFTOPS IS LESS EFFUSIVE.
THE STREETLIGHT CELLULAR NODES BRING THE, THE ANTENNA CLUTTER DOWN TO THE VISUAL RANGE IN WHICH WE ALL TRAVERSE.
UM, ITEM NUMBER TEN FIVE ONE FIVE WILLOW, UM, SUBMITTED BY MONTE SINO.
UH, WE SUPPORT O H P SASS RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM NUMBER 11 9 24 DAWSON STREET.
UM, THIS ALSO COMES FROM MONICA SINO.
WE SUPPORT O H P STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
ASIDE FROM THIS SPECIFIC CASE, THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT AN EXAMPLE OF THE RUNAWAY PRECEDENT.
THE RUNAWAY PRECEDENT IS AN ELEMENT THAT IS NON HISTORIC AND NON-COMPATIBLE WITH THE GUIDELINES, YET GETS APPROVED REPEATEDLY.
YES, FENCE CAN BE TEMPORARY, AND WE LOVE OUR TRANSPORT TRANSPARENT FRONT YARD FENCES.
THE ROLL OF THE FENCE IS MINI CLOSURE, AUGMENTING HOUSE STYLE, SECURITY, ET CETERA.
THE TRENDY WOOD AND WIRE METAL PEN PANEL FENCE, ALSO KNOWN AS A DEER FENCE, HAS BEEN APPROVED IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T REALLY CONFORM TO O H B GUIDELINES.
CHAPTER TWO B ONE, NEW FENCES SHOULD APPEAR, SIM AND WALLS SHOULD APPEAR SIMILAR TO THOSE USE HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THEIR SCALE, TRANSPARENCY AND CHARACTER.
THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE SHOULD RESPOND TO THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS OF THE HOUSE OR INFRASTRUCTURE.
WHILE THE SCALE AND TRANSPARENCY MIGHT BE SIMILAR.
CHARACTER OF A RURAL DEER FENCE VISUAL, VISUALLY, VISIBLY APPEARS ODD.
AND WE HAVE HAD TO ASK OURSELVES ARE ARE GUIDELINES BEING MET? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOW IS THIS FENCE TYPE RESPONDING TO THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE? WE HAVE LOTS OF BEAUTIFUL AND CLEVER FRONT YARD FENCES IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT SATISFY THE NEED FOR ENCLOSURE, THE SPIRIT OF THE HOUSE'S CHARACTER.
BUT THE RURAL DEER FENCE IS THE HEAD SCRATCHER.
THAT SEEMS TO BE EVERYONE'S ANSWER.
AND THAT CONCLUDES ACTUALLY NO NUMBER 13, UM, 8 47 EAST ASHBY PLACE.
UM, THIS COMES FROM W KUSHNER, UM, FOR THE TOKEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AND THE ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THE REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE.
UM, AFTER THAT, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ITEMS FROM THE
WE DO HAVE A FEW VOICEMAILS, UM, THAT WE ARE GOING TO PLAY.
WE THINK SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE FOR INDIVIDUAL CASES, AND SO IF WE FIND THAT IT'S FOR ONE OF THE CASES AND AGENDA, WE'LL PAUSE IT WHEN WE ITEM.
SO WE'LL PLAY THROUGH THOSE NOW JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS'S.
HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSEPH GARCIA AND I AM CALLING
[00:10:01]
IN CASE NUMBER 2 0 2 0 DASH 3 6 6 3 2 1 NORTH HACKBERRY STREET.SO THAT ONE WILL BE HEARD LATER.
SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CONFUSION.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS FOR CONSENT.
[Consent Agenda]
APPROVE SENATE AGENDA IS PRESENTED.IS THAT WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS? YES, WITH STAFF IONS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
MOTION PASSES OR JUST REMEMBER TO MUTE, MUTE EVERYBODY WHEN WE DO THAT.
[14. 20-5149 Address/Description: 922 NOLAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-340 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Juan Osorio /VERA CONSUELO U Request: Rehabilitation, addition, window replacement, fenestration and exterior modifications, site elements City Council Dist.: 2]
14.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14, H C R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 49 22.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REPAIR THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING AND INSTALL MATCHING WOOD SIDING WHERE NON-ORIGINAL SIDING HAS BEEN INSTALLED.
TWO, TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF WITH A NEW SHINGLE ROOF.
PAINT THE EXTERIOR OR PERFORM EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ADDING NEW FENESTRATION AND FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST ELEVATIONS.
REPLACE ONE WINDOW ON THE REAR FACADE.
MODIFY THE EXISTING ROOF FORM BY PROTRUDING THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES GABLE ROOF TO THE REAR.
RECONSTRUCT A SIDE ADDITION TO FEATURE MODIFIED ROOF FORM EIGHT CONSTRUCT SIDE CARPORT, ADDITION TO THE EAST ELEVATION, NON-CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE AND REAR ADDITION ON THE WEST ELEVATION BEHIND THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTIVE ADDITION.
REMOVE THE FULL WIDTH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND INSTALL A CONCRETE RIBBON, STRIP DRIVEWAY.
AND 11, REPLACE THE EXISTING FRONT YARD WALKWAY WITH THE NEW WALKWAY FEATURING A MODIFIED PROFILE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE, SIDING, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING B WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT ALL ORIGINAL SIDING BE REPAIRED IN KIND, THAT ALL SIDING THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR BE REPLACED WITH SIDING THAT MATCHES THE HISTORIC SIDING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO ROOF REPLACEMENT AS SUBMITTED.
BASED ON FINDING C THREE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE PAINTING AS SUBMITTED BASED ON FINDING D STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM FOUR.
FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS BASED ON FINDING, E STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL EXISTING WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS REMAIN AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO WARRANT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS BE RESTORED IS NOTED IN FINDING F.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM SIX.
ROOT FORM AND MASSING MODIFICATIONS BASED ON FINDING.
G STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A TRADITIONALLY PROFILED ROOF WITH THE TRADITIONALLY SI WITH TRADITIONALLY SIZED DORMERS BE CONSTRUCTED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM SEVEN, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING ADDITION AS NOTED IN FINDING H WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
ONE THAT THE ADDITION BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH SIDING THAT MATCHES THAT OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
TWO, THE FENESTRATION BE ADDED TO SEPARATE THE EAST THE SIDE, AND THREE, THAT WINDOWS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION BE INSTALLED.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
THE SIDE CARPORT ADDITION BASED ON FINDING I STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT THAT THE ADDITION BE RELOCATED AS TO NOT APPEAR IN LINE WITH THE PRIMARY FACADE PLACE OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER NINE, CONSTRUCTION OF FACADE EDITION BASED ON FINDING J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
ONE THAT THE ADDITION BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH SIDING THAT MATCHES THAT OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
TWO, THAT WINDOWS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION BE INSTALLED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 11 DRIVEWAY BASED ON FINDING K WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
ONE THAT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY DOES NOT EXCEED 10 FEET IN WIDTH.
AND TWO, THAT THE SPACE BETWEEN RIBBON STRIPS BE FILLED WITH NATIVE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.
THE FINAL SELECTION IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE C O A 11 STAFF.
DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 11.
WALK REPLACEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE EXISTING WALKWAY WOULD BE REPAIRED IN PLACE IF THE EXISTING WALKWAY IS DETERIORATED BEYOND
[00:15:01]
REPAIR.THE REPLACEMENT WALKWAY SHOULD MATCH THE EXISTING IMMATERIAL IN PROFILE.
I HAVE THE, I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. JUAN OSORIO HERE ON THE LINE.
YOU, YOU MAY PROCEED, MR. OSORIO.
UH, SO I, I, I WAS GOING OVER THE, UH, THE LIST THAT THAT JUST WENT OVER, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO JUST READ IT THROUGH IT AND I'M, I'M OKAY WITH ALL THE, UH, THINGS THAT THE, UM, UH, THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING AS FAR AS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ROOF, UH, WINDOWS AND SO FORTH.
UM, THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I AM REQUESTING ACTUALLY NOW IS THE, UH, IT'S IN REFERENCE TO THE WINDOWS, UM, THE WINDOWS.
UH, I, I'M DEFINITELY HAVING TO REPLACE THOSE WINDOWS.
UH, THE ONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE, THEY, UM, THEY HAVE BEEN, UH, GLUED CAUGHT, UH, MAIL SCREWED, FOAM INSULATED.
UH, I MEAN, THEY, THEY, THEY'RE JUST, UH, A TOTAL MESS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS SOON AS WE TAKE 'EM OUT, THEY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY TO, UH, RESTORE THEM.
UM, I, I, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20 YEARS, AND THAT WOULD BE ONE ITEM THAT I WOULD NOT WANT TO RESTORE, UH, JUST BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE.
UM, NOW I CAN GO AHEAD AND REPLACE THEM WITH SIMILAR, UM, MATERIAL, WOOD MATERIAL, UH, BUT DEFINITELY NOT, UM, DEFINITELY NOT RE, YOU KNOW, UH, ATTEMPT TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO, UH, RESTORE THOSE WINDOWS.
UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, UH, IN REFERENCE TO THE, UH, THE LOCATION OF THE WINDOWS.
UM, THERE, THERE IS ONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE, OF THE FLOOR PLAN.
UM, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AT THE ELEVATION, UH, PORTION OF IT, UM, THERE'S TWO WINDOWS.
UM, THERE'S A TOTAL OF FOUR WINDOWS.
ACTUALLY TWO OF THEM, UH, ARE IN THE, UH, SECOND ROOM OF THE, OF THE PLANS THAT, UH, I, I NEED TO SPLIT THOSE TWO WINDOWS.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY, UH, BUTTED TO EACH OTHER, OR SISTER TO EACH OTHER, IF YOU WOULD.
AND I NEED, UH, I NEED TO SEPARATE THEM.
UM, UH, THE REASON I'M REQUESTING THAT IS, UM, THAT IS WHERE MY KITCHEN WILL BE LOCATED AT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THE, UH, STOVE WOULD BE LOCATED AT, UH, BY SEPARATING THEM.
THAT WOULD GIMME THE, THE SPACE THAT I NEED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, PUT MY STOVE IN THERE.
UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, OF THE, UH, AT THE END OF THE HOUSE, THE SECOND, THE OTHER SECOND TWO, UH, UH, PAIR OF WINDOWS, THOSE ARE, UM, ACTUALLY RIGHT IN THE BATH, IN THE SHOWER, UH, LOCATION.
UM, SO THOSE WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THOSE IN THERE.
NOW THE REASON I'M REQUESTING THOSE CHANGES IS ONE, WE HAVE A SEVEN FOOT, UH, PLUS, UH, FENCE, UH, UH, ABOUT 19 INCHES AWAY FROM MY, FROM MY WALL.
AND, UM, THERE IS NO VISIBLE, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T SEE THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THERE'S A COMMERCIAL LOT NEXT TO ME.
AND, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S BASICALLY THERE'S, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S THAT SEVEN FOOT FENCE THAT IS BASICALLY COVERING ALL OF THE WEST SIDE OF, OF MY HOUSE.
UM, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M REQUESTING THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE CHANGES ON THE, ON THE WINDOWS, UH, EVERYTHING ELSE, I, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
UM, UH, I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL, AS PER THE DAUGHTER OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THIS HOME.
UH, WE HAD THE ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR, UM, THAT SHE CLAIMS WAS INSTALLED INITIALLY, OR, OR WASN'T PART OF THIS HOUSE SOME, UH, YEARS AGO, MAYBE 20, 30 YEARS AGO WHEN, UH, WHEN, UH, SHE WAS, UH, BORN AND RAISED HERE IN THIS, AT THIS HOME, I, I, I WAS ABLE TO SALVAGE IT AND THEY, THEY HAD INSTALLED IT INSIDE THE, ONE OF THE H UH, ONE OF THE BEDROOMS, AND I WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO UNIFY THAT ONE AS MY FRONT DOOR AS WELL.
UH, IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, THAT WOULD BE LIKE, OKAY.
UH, BEFORE WE GET INTO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UM, THE FIRST IS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, UM, 1 0 7 KING WILLIAM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO BREAKFAST STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE POST WORK, ALL EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS SHOULD BE REUSED IN PLACE.
ALSO, THE ROOF FORM CREATED BY THE REAR ADDITION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THOSE FOUND IN THE ROOF.
A SMALL ADDITION LIKE THIS SHOULD BE ROOFED IN A FORM THAT DOES NOT OVERPOWER THE ADDITION, UM, OR THE PRIMARY HOUSE.
THE SECOND COMES FROM MONICA SAVINO ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS OF
[00:20:01]
THE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD.UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, HOWEVER, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING ADDITION, NOT A NEW ADDITION, BE IT WITH A NEW ROOF FORM THAT IS ALREADY FOUND ON THE HISTORIC HOUSE.
THE EXISTING ADDITION IS BEING MODIFIED, REALLY IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
CHAPTER TWO B TWO SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ITEMS BELOW THE WALL PLATE, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW FORM IS REQUESTED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUESTED CARPORT SHOULD BE SET BACK AWAY FROM THE FRONT FACADE, SHOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE MAINTENANCE.
SO, MR. OSORIO, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF STAFF STIPULATIONS EXCEPT WINDOW REPLACEMENT.
YOU'D LIKE TO REPLACE ALL THE WINDOWS AND YES.
UH, WITH, UH, IN-KIND WINDOWS, WOOD WINDOWS.
AND THEN, UH, REINSTALL THE ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR.
UH, IS THAT THE PAIR OF DOORS THAT WAS ON YOUR DRAWING, OR IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN HERE? NO, THAT IS EXACTLY THE, THE, THE DOORS, UH, ON THE DRAWINGS, THAT IS EXACTLY THE, THE SAME DOOR THAT WE HAVE.
UH, I SUBMITTED SOME PICTURES AS WELL, AND, AND I BELIEVE MR. HALL, UH, HE SNAPPED SOME PICTURES WHILE HE WAS HERE AS WELL, OF THE ORIGINAL DOOR.
BUT YEAH, THE, THE DRAWING, THE EXACT, UH, DESIGN OF THAT DOOR.
THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AGAIN.
HAS STAFF MADE A, UH, SITE INSPECTION OF THE WINDOWS.
STAFF PERFORMED, UH, SITE INSPECTION ON AUGUST THE 13TH.
UH, AND THEN WE VISITED, UH, A WEEK OR SO LATER.
UM, IN REGARDS TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE WINDOWS, THE TOP AND BOTTOM SASHES, UH, STAFFED ON THE WINDOWS TO BE IN A CONDITION, UH, THAT THAT COULD BE REPAIRED.
UM, THIS IS NOTED IN, UH, IN FINDING F UM, THERE WAS, UH, A, A NUMBER OF WINDOWS THAT, UM, HAD FEATURED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PAINTING OR CAULKING AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED.
UH, BUT IN REGARDS TO, UM, THE, THE WINDOWS THEMSELVES, UH, STAFF FOUND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WINDOWS, UM, WERE IN A CONDITION THAT COULD BE REPAIRED OR, UH, WITH MINOR RECONSTRUCTION, UH, COULD BE UTILIZED AND, AND REINSTALLED.
THANK YOU, UH, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A, MR. GOVERNOR HERNANDEZ.
UM, SO MR. OSORIO, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'RE REPLACING, UM, THE FRONT WINDOW WITH THE ORIGINAL, I MEAN, YOUR FRONT DOOR WITH THE ORIGINAL DOOR IN THE PICTURE THAT WE SEE RIGHT NOW.
UM, THEY, IT SHOWS TWO DOORS, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THAT THE, WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY ON THE HOUSE? IS THAT WHAT, THAT'S YOUR QUESTION.
UH, ARE, ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHAT THE CURRENT, UH, DOORS THAT, THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE HOUSE? YES, YES.
THERE'S TWO, TWO DOORS, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THEN YOU'RE PROPOSING TO, UH, REPLACE ONE OF THE DOORS WITH THE EXISTING DOUBLE DOORS AND THEN, UH, CLOSE UP THE FIRST DOOR, THE, THE DOOR ON THE RIGHT? NO, NO, NO.
ACTUALLY, I, I'D DEFINITELY LIKE TO KEEP THAT ONE THERE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT ONE.
I WAS JUST A BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE IN ONE OF YOUR FLOOR PLANS, YOU ONLY SHOW THE DOUBLE DOORS AND DON'T SHOW THE, UH, DOOR ON THE, ON THE RIGHT AS IT IS.
YEAH, I, I, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT, THE EAST SIDE OF IT.
BUT, UH, YEAH, DEFINITELY LIKE TO KEEP THAT, THAT DOOR THERE.
THAT, THAT IS, UH, ALL MY QUESTIONS.
I, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? NO, I WAS JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S, THAT'S ALL FOR, FOR ME.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, YOU SAY THAT, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, WITH STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS AND STIPULATIONS, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF WHAT I'M TAKING,
[00:25:01]
WERE ITEMS NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE, BUT WITH THE ROOF MODIFICATION NUMBER SIX, UH, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION THERE? IF YOU DO NOT DO THE, UH, THE PROPOSED, UH, CONFIGURATION THAT HAS A KIND MORE A CONTEMPORARY ASYMMETRICAL SHAPE TO IT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU DO AND WOULD YOU JUST NOT MAKE THOSE MODIFICATIONS? YEAH, DEFINITELY.I MEAN, THE, UH, THAT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED, UH, UH, SOMETIME BACK, UH, A NEW DESIGN FOR THE ROOF.
UM, SO BASICALLY IT'LL HAVE ANOTHER GABLE, UM, UH, BA UH, OVER OVERLAPPING THE, THE EXISTING, UH, ORIGINAL HOUSE GABLE.
UM, BUT IT'LL KEEP THE SAME PROFILE AND IT'LL HAVE THE STANDARD, UH, DORMERS, UH, INSTALLED TO IT.
SO, YEAH, I, I DID SUBMIT THAT AS WELL, UH, UH, SOMETIME BACK.
SO QUESTION THAT, UM, I, I, I DON'T RECALL RECEIVING THAT UPDATE.
UM, HOWEVER, UM, IF THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THAT STIPULATION, UM, TO FORM A PROFILE IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE THAT ARE FOUND, UH, HISTORICALLY ON THE STRUCTURE, UH, STAFF CAN CERTAINLY VERIFY WITH THE APPLICANT WHEN, WHEN THOSE ARE SUBMITTED.
I, I CAN DEFINITELY RESUBMIT IT AGAIN.
UM, UH, BUT YES, DEFINITELY IF IT, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING PROFILE.
AND THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, AGAIN, FOR THE STIPULATION WHERE A STAFF IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CARPORT EDITION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WON'T DO THE CARPORT EDITION AT THIS POINT? UM, I, I DO.
UM, ACTUALLY, I DISCUSSED THAT WITH, UH, MR. HALL THAT DAY HE WAS HERE.
UM, IN REFERENCE TO THE, UH, CARPORT, UM, UH, I NOTED THERE ON MY PLANS THAT THERE IS A, UM, UH, OAK TREE, UM, ON THAT SIDE.
AND I WAS ADVISED THAT IF WE COULD DO A CARPORT, UM, RATHER THAN THE CAR GARAGE, UH, THAT WOULD BE MORE, UM, I GUESS EASIER TO APPROVE, UH, VERSUS THE, UH, CAR GARAGE.
UH, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS REQUESTING THAT WE KIND OF, UH, ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE SINCE THAT TREE IS RIGHT ON THE WAY WHERE, WHERE THE CARPORT WOULD BE, AND I WOULD HATE TO TEAR DOWN OR HAVE TO CUT DOWN THAT TREE.
WELL, I ASK THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT, SOME OF THESE ARE NOT, UH, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHEN YOU SAY YOU ACCEPT THE STAFF STIPULATIONS EXCEPT THE ONES REGARDING THE WINDOWS, BECAUSE THERE, THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS OF THE OTHERS THAT, UH, AREN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT, UH, IF THEY'RE NOT ACCEPTED, THEN, UM, THEN WHAT'S OUR PATH FORWARD? UH, SO THERE ARE, RIGHT NOW, BY MY COUNT, THERE'S SIX THAT, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
UH, SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE STIPULATIONS PARTICULARLY ABOUT SITING, UH, AND THAT THERE ARE FIVE THAT ARE, ARE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO NOT APPROVE.
AND I THINK THAT THE TWO THAT ARE MOST CONCERNED THEN, UH, THAT YOU'RE WANTING US TO CONSIDER ARE ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE, THE ONE THAT RECONFIGURES ADMINISTRATION AND THE OTHER ONE THAT REPLACES THAT, UH, SUGGESTS FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT.
JUST LOOKING FOR CLARITY AND CONFIRMATION IS INDEED WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE.
ALL, ALTHOUGH, LIKE, LIKE I MENTIONED, UH, JUST WANNA RECAP, ALTHOUGH THE WINDOWS, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT 'EM IN CURRENT CONDITIONS, UH, AND INSTALLED IN THE HOUSE, THEY SEEM TO BE PRETTY STURDY, STRONG AND, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE RESTORABLE.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, ONCE YOU TAKE 'EM APART, THEY'RE NOT, UH, UH, I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY SOME OF THEM ARE MISSING SASHES.
UH, SOME OF THEM HAVE, UH, TERMITE DAMAGE.
UM, UH, ONE OF THEM IS, UH, MISSING THE BOTTOM, UH, PANEL OF THE SASH.
UH, OTHERS ARE LIKE, I, LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE BEING GLUED, NAILED, UM, COUGHED.
UH, IT, IT JUST, WE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR THEM COMPLETELY APART IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THOSE SASHES AND, AND TRY TO RESTORE THEM.
SO IT WOULD JUST NOT BE COST EFFECTIVE.
AND, UM, AND DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BE A SMART MOVE, YOU KNOW, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, NOT, NOT ON MY END AT LEAST.
AND IT'S, LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
OUT OF 124 HOUSES THAT I OWN, 48 ARE HISTORICAL.
AND I HAVE DONE ALL MY HISTORICAL, UH, REHABS, AND THIS IS ONE THING THAT I WOULD DEFINITELY NOT, UH, ATTEMPT TO DO ON THESE WINDOWS.
UH, I DID AGREE TO MR. WITH MR. HALL THE DAY THAT HE, UH, WALKED IN HERE, UH, AND I SHOWED HIM, UH, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA OF HOW I WOULD BE RESTORING THOSE WINDOWS, HOW I WOULD BE MOVING THEM AROUND.
UH, BUT AFTER TAKING SOME OF THEM APART, IT JUST WASN'T POSSIBLE.
UH, CHAIRMAN, I'M, I'M OUT OF TIME, ACCORDING TO THE TIMER, BUT I WAS JUST GONNA FOLLOW UP THAT
[00:30:01]
THERE ARE ALWAYS, UH, IN THE CASE OF WINDOW REPAIRS, COMPONENTS THAT HAVE TO BE REPLACED, UH, BUT THEY WANNA BE REPLACED IN, IN, UH, IN KIND AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE THERE ARE WINDOWS OF VARYING DEGREES OF, UH, OF CONDITION.WE'VE ASKED THE APPLICANT THEN TO KIND OF MAKE A, A SURVEY OF THOSE WINDOWS THAT THEY FEEL LIKE ARE, ARE, UH, UH, ARE BEYOND REPAIR, AND THOSE THAT CAN BE SELECTIVELY REPAIRED OR HAVE COMPONENTS REPLACED ON.
I THINK WHAT THE STAFF IS TRYING TO AVOID HERE IS A WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT OF ALL THE WINDOWS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS.
SO I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION HERE.
UM, UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, ITEM SEVEN, IT STATES THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM SEVEN, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING ADDITION, AS NOTED IN FINDING H WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
ONE THAT THE ADDITION BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH CITING THAT MATCHES THAT OF HISTORIC OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
TWO, THE ADMINISTRATION BE ADDED TO SEPARATE THE EAST FACADE.
AND THREE, THAT WINDOWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION BE INSTALLED.
MY CLARIFICATION COMES FROM, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS, WHAT NEED OF CLARIFICATION, I SHOULD SAY.
UM, THEY MENTIONED, UM, FROM DICK MELODY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT, UM, THEY SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
HOWEVER, ITEM SEVEN IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING EXISTING ADDITION, NOT A NEW ADDITION.
UM, SO I'M, I'M READING THIS HERE, AND I KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S MIND, BUT WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING BEING A NEW ADDITION AS OPPOSED TO A EXISTING ONE? UM, I, I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.
UM, SO IN STAFF'S REQUEST, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AADE EDITION, AND ITEM NUMBER NINE IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW EDITION.
UM, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IN THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE RECONSTRUCTION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RECONSTRUCTION WITH STIPULATIONS.
AND THEN, UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE NEW ADDITION WITH STIPULATIONS.
UM, I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION THOUGH.
EDWARD, EDWARD, I, UM, IN READING THIS BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED AS WELL, SO I, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ONE SUGGESTION ON DEAL DEALING WITH THE WINDOWS MIGHT BE TO, UM, POSSIBLY DEFER ACTION ON THE WINDOWS AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK WITH A SURVEY, UH, IDENTIFYING WHICH WINDOWS CAN BE RESTORED AND WHICH ONES, UH, WHAT HIS REPLACEMENT, UH, WINDOW WOULD, WOULD BE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU, YOU ANTICIPATE WHERE I WAS HEADED WITH, UH, WITH A MOTION, IF I TRY TO CRAFT ONE, AND I'LL MAKE AN ATTEMPT RIGHT NOW WITH PERHAPS AN ASSIST FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IF I, IF I MUFF IT UP.
UH, BUT I MOVE FOR APPROVALS OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, AND 10 WITH THE APPLICABLE STAFF STIPULATIONS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE.
AND A, UM, UH, FURTHER, UH, APPROVAL OF THE, UH, PROPOSED REUSE OF THE EXISTING DOOR THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, SPOKEN OF TODAY.
AND WITH A FURTHER MOTION THAT ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE, WE DEFERRED UNTIL A SURVEY OF THE EXISTING WINDOWS COULD BE.
UH, AND THAT ITEM SIX, THE APPROVED SUBMISSION OF THE REVISED ROOF PLAN FOR STAFF REVIEW APPROVAL.
THIS COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND.
SO FOR CLARIFICATION, ITEMS EIGHT
[00:35:02]
AND 11 ARE NOT APPROVED, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.ITEMS EIGHT AND 11 ARE, ARE DENIED.
SO THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, A CLARIFICATION AMENDMENTS MOTION.
DID STAFF INTERRUPT? UM, I, I MISSED A PART.
I BELIEVE YOU SAID ITEM SIX WAS APPROVED WITH THE STIPULATION, THAT STIPULATION THAT IT'D BE REVIEWED BY STAFF, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED SOMETHING TO Y ALL, UH, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS ON THE, ON THE PATHWAY TOWARDS RESOLUTION.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW THAT, UH, OTHERWISE APPROVAL PENDING STAFF'S.
UH, MR. GIBBS, DO YOU, UM, SECOND THE AMENDED MOTION? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I SECOND THE, UH, AMENDED MOTION? YES.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION, SECOND IS NOTED.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
JEFF, CAN YOU CALL FOR A NAYS? NOW? WE, WE MUTED EVERYBODY AFTER WE GOT THE, OKAY.
[15. 20-5240 Address/Description: 333 SADIE ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-338 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Shawna Walker Request: Fenestration modifications to rear accessory structure, front yard fence installation City Council Dist.: 1]
ITEM 15 IS RACHEL.RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 15, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 3 3 8 3 3 3 SADIE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL TWO GARAGE DOORS TO THE FRONT FACADE OF THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND TWO, INSTALL A FOUR FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINE FACING SADIE AND LABOR STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS TO THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GARAGE DOORS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS AN UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH DRIVEWAY AND CURB PET DIMENSIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND THREE, THE DRIVEWAY AND CURB PET MUST BE PERMITTED AND MEET DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTLINED IN THE U D C SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 15.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FENCE INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDINGS E THROUGH F.
AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SHAUNA, HERE ON THE LINE.
UM, SHAUNA HAS, UM, AGREED TO STAFF STIPULATIONS FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE.
SO SHE WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS THE DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION.
AND SHAUNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? YES, PLEASE.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HEARD SHOUTS OF JOY COMING FROM THE LA BACA NEIGHBORHOOD THAT 3, 3 3 SADIE IS GOING TO BE RESTORED BACK TO HER FULL POTENTIAL.
UH, RACHEL, IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDE 20 AND 21, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A CORNER PROPERTY THAT FACES SADIE AND LABOR.
LABOR STREET IS A HUGE TRAFFIC ISSUES WITH BUSES AND CARS THAT FLY UP AND DOWN THIS ROAD AT EXTREME SPEEDS.
AND WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC ALONG LABOR.
WE ARE ASKING IF WE COULD INSTALL A FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY FOR A FEW REASONS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LARGE WINDOWS THAT SURROUND THE PROPERTY THAT ARE BARRED AND BOARDED, WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THIS AS THIS USED TO BE THE OLD LIVE OAK GROCERY.
AND IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE, UH, CURRENTLY FOOT TRAFFIC IS WITHIN A FEW STEPS THAT THEY CAN PEEK INTO THESE LARGE WINDOWS OR OPEN ALL THE MULTIPLE DOORS THAT SURROUND THE PROPERTY.
NO RESIDENT WOULD EVER FEEL SAFE WITHOUT SOME KIND OF BARRIER BETWEEN THEM AND THE FOOT TRAFFIC.
WE FEEL THE WR ARM BENCH WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO COORDINATE WITH THE BUILDING.
RACHEL, IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDE 22 THROUGH 26, WE FOUND SOMEWHAT OF A SIMILAR EXAMPLE IN THE KING WILLIAM DISTRICT.
IT'S ALSO A CORNER PROPERTY, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FOREFOOT WR
[00:40:01]
IRON FENCE PROVIDES SOME SAFETY FOR THE, FROM THE FOOT TRAFFIC AND THE RESIDENCE.WE REALIZE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE SIDEWALK.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE LEANING TOWARDS THE WROUGHT IRON STYLE THAT WOULD GIVE THE MOST ROOM.
SO WORK CAN BE STILL DONE ON THE PROPERTY.
AND LASTLY, RACHEL, IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDES 28 AND 29.
THIS IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE THAT BEST COULD FIND OF A PROPERTY THAT'S TIED TO THE SIDEWALK LIKE THIS THAT IS NOW RESIDENTIAL.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S BARS AND BOARDS ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE WANT THIS PROPERTY LOOK BEAUTIFUL AND INVITING, AND WE ARE ASKING YOU TO GIVE US APPROVAL FOR THIS FENCE.
UH, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO RESTORE THE BUILDING, UH, TO ITS FORMER GLORY, UM, DOES THAT ALSO MEAN THAT THE LARGE, UH, WINDOWS WOULD BE RESTORED TO WHAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY? YES, SIR.
THAT'S OUR PLAN IS TO KEEP THE LARGE WINDOWS EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE.
SO CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
JUST, UH, A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
DID YOU ALL INVESTIGATE THE IDEA OF, OF MAYBE USING, UH, PLANTINGS AND LANDSCAPE TO PROVIDE SCREENING RATHER BENEFITS? UM, JUST THINKING ABOUT WITH THE ONLY THE TWO FEET THAT STAFF POINTS OUT THAT SEPARATES THE STRUCTURE FROM THE SIDEWALK, IT, IT'S NOT A LOT OF SPACE TO, TO CREATE FENCING AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, TO MAINTAIN BEHIND IT AND MOW IT AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING.
AND, BUT I UNDERSTAND, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA THAT THIS IS A CONVERSION OF USE REALLY FOR THE STRUCTURE AND TO, UH, TO MAKE IT, TO, TO ADAPT IT TO THIS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE THAT YOU'RE NEEDING SOME SCREENING AND SOME BUFFERING.
BUT I'M WONDERING, CAN THAT BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH SOME LANDSCAPING? YES, SIR.
I DID PUT THAT EXAMPLE IN THE PICTURES AS WELL.
UH, THAT ONE ALSO HAS THE ROD IRON FENCE, BUT I DID SEE THE SHRUBBERY AND THAT WOULD BE PLAN B IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE FENCE.
YES, I, I SEE THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING.
AND, AND THAT LOOKS LIKE IT MAY BE ONLY, UH, A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN A THREE FOOT FENCE.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A COMBINATION OF THE TWO THAT'S NOT AN EITHER OR, BUT IT'S REALLY, UM, A COMBINATION TO, TO GIVE YOU THE SENSE OF SEPARATION SCREENING, UM, TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, BUT NOT HAVE THE FENCE BE TOO LOOMING RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK.
I, YOU KNOW, THE THREE OR FOUR, UH, WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO JUST GIVE US SOME BUFFER.
WE'LL TAKE
THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AGAIN.
UH, DO PROPOSE ANY, UH, GATES IN THIS FENCING AROUND THE CORNER? YES, SIR.
WE ARE GOING TO, UH, RESUBMIT A GATE PLAN.
SO CURRENTLY, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE MANY DOORS AROUND THE PROPERTY, SO ONLY ONE WILL BE ACTUALLY ACCESSIBLE AND THE OTHER ONES WILL JUST, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA PUT THE DOORS BACK IN, BUT IT WILL BE, THEY WON'T BE USABLE.
SO THE PROPERTY THAT THE DOOR THAT'S ON THE STADIUM SIDE, UH, THE ONLY DOOR THAT'S ON THE SIDE WHERE SADIE IS, THAT WILL BE A GATE AND AN ENTRANCE.
AND THEN THE OTHER, UH, ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE FROM THE GARAGE, UH, THE BACK AREA, AN EGRESS INTO THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT WE WERE THINKING.
THE OTHER DOORS OBVIOUSLY WOULD REMAIN, BUT WOULD NOT BE OPERABLE.
[00:45:02]
THANK YOU.UM, I, I THINK, UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH MY, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO, UH, USING THE LANDSCAPE AND THE, UM, THE WR IRON FENCE.
I THINK THE WR IRON FENCE COULD WORK FOR THIS LOCATION IF IT'S USED IN JUST THE GATE AREAS, THE AREAS IN FRONT OF THE, THE DOORS AND SOME COMBINATION OF, OF LANDSCAPE AND, UH, LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS.
AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN, EVEN IF IT'S A RAISED BED TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF, UH, PHYSICAL BARRIER, BUT USING THAT, UH, INSTEAD OF A HARD, YOU KNOW, HARD LINE OF THE WROUGHT IRON ALL THE WAY AROUND, I THINK IT'S GONNA CAUSE MORE ISSUES TO HAVE THE WROUGHT IRON ALL THE WAY AROUND THAN IT WOULD TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOME COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
CHAIRMAN, IF THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I, I WANNA JUST SHARE ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS PLAN.
UM, THAT CORNER ENTRY, YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE USE OF THAT, YOU'RE GONNA RETAIN IT, BUT IT'S GONNA BECOME FIXED.
BUT THAT IS A VERY DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THIS BUILDING AND OF THAT, OF THIS BULLET TYPE, UH, BANKS, GROCERY STORES, UH, PHARMACIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE'RE LOCATED ON CORNERS OFTEN, UM, HAD THESE SORT OF CHAFER ENTRIES TO THEM.
UM, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, UH, STOP SHORT OF, OF THE FENCING AND TURN THAT BACK AND STILL RETAIN THAT, THAT KIND OF CHAMPED FACADE, UH, AS IF IT SUGGEST ACCESS TO NOT KIND OF, UM, CUT IT OFF FROM THE CORNER THAT IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S RESPONDING TO, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN? SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CLEARLY, OUR PLAN IS TO PUT THE FENCING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY AROUND FROM THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING, THE MAIN BUILDING ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE CORNER OF THE OTHER SIDE ON SADIE FROM LABOR TO SADIE.
AND THAT, THAT FRONT DOOR THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S THE GRAND ENTRANCE.
UH, WE JUST GOT INTO THE PROPERTY THE OTHER DAY.
I BELIEVE THE DOORS SWING IN, RATHER, NO, MAYBE THEY DO SWING OUT.
SO SWINGING OUT, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING.
I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, CLEARANCE ROOM, WHAT WE WOULD HAVE THERE.
WAS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ASKING? I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
NO, I MEAN, I, I WAS, UH, MAYBE NOT VERY CLEAR MYSELF AS I'M TRYING TO FORMULATE AN APPROACH TO THIS.
WHAT I WAS WONDERING IS IF RATHER THAN HAVING THE FENCE RUNNING CONTINUOUSLY AROUND THE PERIMETER, THAT IT TURNED BACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT CHAMP OR ENTRANCE, SINCE THAT IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE.
OR IS IT, IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT BE A CONTINUOUS YARD FOR YOUR PURPOSES? I SEE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING NOW.
NO, I THINK, HONESTLY, COMMISSIONER, I THINK THE, THE BIGGEST THING OR WHERE THOSE WINDOWS ARE, UH, ALONG THOSE SIDES.
SO EVEN IF WE COULD HAVE THE TWO SIDES, AND I AGREE, UH, THE, THE FRONT ENTRANCE IS EXTREMELY GRAND AND WE ACTUALLY JUST FOUND A PHOTO OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY IN THE WALLS.
AND SO I'LL, I'LL RESUBMIT THAT LATER FOR JUST SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO IT.
SO WE'RE JUST FINDING OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY.
AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT ENTRANCE IS QUITE STUNNING AND VERY APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE TYPE OF BUILDING.
AND I THINK WITH THAT, GOING DOWN THE SIDES AND LEAVING THAT OPEN, THAT FRONT OPEN WOULD BE FINE.
I THINK THE WINDOWS IS OUR LARGEST CONCERN WITH FOOT TRAFFIC.
THANK YOU FOR APPRECIATING THAT CONCERN OF MINE.
'CAUSE I THINK IT, IN THE END, AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS RESTORATION, YOU MAY ACTUALLY DETERMINE THAT YOU WANNA HAVE THAT BE
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER, IF IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS FROM MY FELLOW, UH, SORRY CHAIRMAN, IF THERE ARE ANY, UH, FURTHER COMMENTS FROM MY PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO MAKE MOTION? CERTAINLY.
UM, SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF,
[00:50:02]
OF ITEMS ONE AND TWO WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND WITH THE FENCE BEING LIMITED TO THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND RUNNING DISCONTINUOUSLY TERMINATING AT EITHER SIDE OF THE CHAMFORD FRONT OPENING, BUT OTHERWISE CONFORMING TO THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.THIS, DO WE HAVE THIS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ? I SECOND THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE, BEFORE WE DO THAT THIS TIME, WE SUGGEST EVERYBODY JUST INDIVIDUALLY UNMUTE THEMSELVES.
UM, THAT WAY WE DON'T GET THAT FEEDBACK THAT WE DID FROM UNMUTING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED, RAISE, UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY.
[16. 20-5210 Address/Description: 1414 FULTON AVE HDRC Case No.: 2020-354 Historic District Name: Fulton Applicant: Jose Corpus/CORPUS JOSE & TARA Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1]
ITEM 16.LEE, ARE YOU THERE? OH, HOLD ON.
WE ARE YOU UNMUTED? SORRY, EVERYONE.
I SWITCHED DEVICES AND IT MADE ME THE HOST AND I DON'T, I CAN'T BE THE HOST, SO I'M GOING TO HANG UP.
[00:57:40]
OKAY, WE'RE BACK.UH, WE APOLOGIZE EVERYONE FOR THE DELAY.
UM, WE HAVE A QUORUM AND WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 19.
ITEM NUMBER 16, CASE NUMBER 20 23 54.
AT 1414 FULTON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE 11 WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT WITH THE PROPOSED WINDOW PRODUCT BASED ON FINDINGS B THROUGH D STAFF RECOMMENDS THE EIGHT FRONT MOST WINDOWS IDENTIFIED IN FINDING C ARE RESTORED WITH SALVAGE OR RECONSTRUCTED WOOD WINDOWS.
THE REMAINING THREE WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED WITH NON-WOOD PRODUCTS IF IT ADHERES TO ALL OTHER STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT FOR MISSING OR PREVIOUSLY REPLACED WINDOWS.
ALL WINDOWS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION.
AND AS THE CASE COMMENT, TWO STOP WORK ORDERS WERE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON MAY 7TH AND JULY 13TH WERE DISREGARDED AS WORK CONTINUED ON JULY 20TH, 2020, THE OWNER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AND PAID FOR THE POST WORK ORDER.
AFTER RECEIVING AN OFFICIAL LETTER OF VIOLATION, THE APPLICANT JOSE CORPUS IS ON THE LINE TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
HEY, IS THE APPLICANT THERE? JOSE, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM.
OKAY, WELL, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND THE COMMISSIONERS CAN HEAR YOU.
IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, UM, THAT'S YOUR CHANCE.
IF NOT, WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
I, I CAN BARELY, BARELY HEAR YOU, BUT I, I HAVE MY VOLUME ALL THE WAY UP AND, AND SOUND LIKE YOU'RE VERY FAR AWAY.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BEFORE WE GET INTO, UH, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO 1 0 7 KEY WILLIAM CONSERVATION
[01:00:01]
SOCIETY BELIEVES THAT THE TWO STOP WORK ORDERS ISSUED FOR 1414 FULTON AVENUE ILLUSTRATE THE NEED FOR STIFFER PENALTIES AND HIGHER DAILY FINES FOR VIOLATIONS.SUCH WILLFUL VIOLATIONS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ONGOING FINES.
WE CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED WINDOW REPLACEMENTS.
UH, MR. CORPUS, ARE ANY OF THE WOOD WINDOWS THAT YOU REMOVED OR THAT WERE REMOVED, ARE THEY STILL ON SITE? UH, YES.
UH, LET ME, UH, YES, BUT LET ME FIRST CLASS.
I'VE OWNED THIS, THIS HOUSE, UH, I LIVED IN THAT HOUSE, UH, FOR 10 YEARS AND I ORIGINALLY MOVED IN THERE, UH, BOUGHT IT IN 1989.
AND SINCE THEN, UM, ALL WINDOWS FOR THE EXCEPT OF, UH, I DUNNO IF YOU HAVE A DRAWING THERE, UH, UH, AVAILABLE TO YOU.
BUT 3, 4, 5, AND SIX WERE THE ONLY WINDOWS THAT WERE, UH, ORIGINAL EVERY EVERYTHING ELSE.
UM, EVEN, EVEN SOMEONE, THOSE THAT ARE NOT, UM, UH, LISTED ON THE DRAWING, UH, I MISUNDERSTOOD THE INSTRUCTIONS.
SO I'VE ONLY MARKED THE WINDOWS THAT WE WERE WANTING TO, TO REPLACE.
UM, THERE ARE SOME MORE WINDOWS, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE IT SAYS EAST, THERE'S, UM, A DOUBLE WINDOW THERE THAT IS NOT BEING, UH, UH, UH, UH, UH, THERE'S NO PLANS TO REPLACE THAT ONE.
UM, THE, UH, BACK WHERE IT SAYS REAR THERE'S, UH, FOUR WINDOWS THERE THAT WERE NOT PLANNING TO, TO DO ANYTHING.
BUT ONE, TWO ON THAT, ON THAT GUIDELINE.
WELL, 1, 2, 8, 9, AND 10 HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED WITH, UH, UH, DIFFERENT, UH, IT'S GOT ALUMINUM WINDOWS IN THERE.
UM, UH, YEAH, ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
UM, AND TWO, UH, NEW WOOD WINDOWS.
UM, WINDOW NUMBER SEVEN IS NOT BEING, UM, HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED.
IT'S STILL THE ORIGINAL WINDOW AS TO WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
UM, SO 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN.
UM, UH, WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD NOT BEEN, THIS HAD NOT BEEN DISTURBED EVER SINCE I BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 1989.
UM, THE, UM, WHAT I WAS ONE, WHAT WANTING TO DO WAS TO REPLACE THE SES ONLY, UM, ON ONE, TWO, UH, 3, 4, 5, 6, UH, UH, ONE, TWO, UH, 3, 4, 5, AND SIX.
EVERYTHING ELSE, UH, UH, MY TIME WAS TO LEAVE THE SAME, UM, THE, UM, SO MY, UM, AND OBVIOUSLY I KNOW I, I SEE THAT THIS, UH, WOULD BE A, UH, AN, AN UPHILL, UH, OH, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE, UH, APPROVED.
SO MY REQUEST RIGHT NOW IS I WANT TO, UM, UH, SEE IF, UH, 3, 4, 5, AND SIX, THOSE, UH, THOSE WINDOWS 3, 4, 5, AND SIX CAN BE, UH, UH, RESTORED BACK TO IT, ORIGINAL, UH, WOOD WINDOWS.
UM, I STILL HAVE THE, UH, THE WINDOWS.
WELL, WHAT'S THE, THE WINDOWS WERE ROTTEN, BUT I STILL HAVE WHAT'S LEFT OVER OF THOSE WINDOWS, UH, AVAILABLE WHERE I CAN HIRE SOMEBODY TO DE DUPLICATE THOSE.
UM, AND, AND REINSTALL THEM, UH, ON 3, 4, 5, AND SIX.
UM, AS EVERYTHING ELSE, UH, HAD ALREADY BEEN, UH, REPLACED BY ME IN PREVIOUS, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS 30 SOME 31 YEARS WITH, UM, UH, STEEL AND ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
UM, IF, UM, IF THE, UM, WE WOULD ALLOW ME TO, UM, TO JUST, UH, DO THE FRONT MOST, WHICH WOULD, UH, WINDOWS, WHICH WOULD BE 3, 4, 5, AND SIX TO, UH, UH, TO GO SINCE THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT WERE IN DISTURBED, BUT WITH, UH, WITH WOOD WINDOWS.
'CAUSE UM, ALL THE OTHER WINDOWS HAVE BEEN, UH, PREVIOUSLY REPLACED.
COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU, UH, ALLOW ME TO INTERRUPT, UH, IT SEEMS AS IF THE APPLICANT IS AGREEING TO MOST OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARDING THE FRONT MOSTS WINDOWS.
THE ONLY WINDOWS THAT ARE IN QUESTION NOW WOULD BE WINDOWS ONE AND TWO FOR THE WINDOWS SCHEDULE, UH, ON A SITE VISIT.
STAFF FOUND WINDOWS ONE AND TWO WERE WOOD AND SHOULD BE RESTORED TO WOOD, RATHER WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE HISTORICALLY WOOD WINDOWS AND HAVE BEEN REPLACED IN, YOU KNOW, THE EIGHTIES OR NINETIES.
[01:05:01]
IT SEEMS LIKE AT THIS TIME, WINDOWS ONE AND TWO ARE THE ONLY, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT IS CONTESTING TO KEEP AS, UH, THE NEW VINYL WINDOWS.AND UM, UM, YEAH, THAT, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
AND, UM, UH, I WOULD, UH, REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
UH, ONE, TWO AND WINDOWS ARE, UH, UH, IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO WALK INTO AN ALLEY BETWEEN THE HOUSES, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TOO, BECAUSE SHE IS NOT VISIBLE FOR THE, FROM THE, UH, FROM THE STREET AT ALL.
UH, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AGAIN.
SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR WINDOWS 7, 8, 9, AND 10? HAVE THEY ALREADY BEEN REPLACED WITH VINYL? YEAH, THEY'VE ALREADY ALREADY BEEN REPLACED WITH VINYL.
UH, THEY'VE HAD, UH, I HAD, UM, UH, 7, 8, 9 HAD ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
DOES THE, UH, DO THE VINYL WINDOWS THAT ARE INSTALLED, DO THEY, UH, MEET WITH THE, UH, GUIDELINES FOR PROFILES AND DEPTHS AND ALL, ALL THE, UH, STANDARD STIPULATIONS? UH, TO OUR UNDERSTANDING? THEY MOSTLY DON'T, BUT WE WOULD REEVALUATE EACH ONE IF THEY ARE AN IMPROVEMENT UPON THE CURRENT NON-CONFORMING CONDITION.
AND, UH, WE WOULD, UH, TRIM THEM, UH, WITH, UH, WOOD TO WHERE ONLY THE, THE ACTUAL GLASS WOULD BE VISIBLE.
UH, THERE WOULD BE NO VINYL, UH, UH, UH, UH, EXPOSED OR, UH, THIS, THIS, UH, UM, UH, WHEN YOU SEE THE WINDOW, IT WOULD BE ALL WOOD TRIMMED WITH WOOD WHERE ONLY THE, THAT GLASS WOULD SHOW QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.
SO WINDOWS ONE AND TWO HAVE BEEN REPLACED.
ARE, ARE THEY STILL YET TO BE REPLACED? UH, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE BEEN REPLACED, UH, FROM WOOD TO A VINYL PRODUCT, BUT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT THEY WERE ALREADY REPLACED, UH, FROM WOOD TO WOOD, SAY IN THE EIGHTIES OR NINETIES.
SO THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T REPLACE THOSE WINDOWS? CORRECT.
OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR A MOTION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
UM, I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IF ONE AND TWO WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT, WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES, BUT THE, THE ONLY ONES IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW THAT, THAT WERE WOOD AND ARE, YOU KNOW, REPLACED AS VINYL.
UM, AND THEN WE LOOK AT 7, 8, 9, AND 10, AND THOSE ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, BUT THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED AS WELL.
BUT THOSE WEREN'T ORIGINALLY, I MEAN, THOSE, THOSE WERE REPLACING, UM, UH, INFERIOR PRODUCT FOR A, AN UPGRADE.
SO I THINK I'M OKAY WITH 7, 8, 9, AND 10, BUT I, I'M STILL, I KNOW THAT ONE AND TWO ARE IN AN ALLEY, AND SO I'M KIND OF ON THE, YOU KNOW, ON THE FENCE ABOUT WHAT TO USE THERE.
UM, IT'S, THEY'RE PRETTY WELL HIDDEN, BUT WE'RE GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO A WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS ON THIS WITH AN INFERIOR PRODUCT THAT WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY APPROVE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, BUT I THINK MY CONCERN IS MOSTLY THE ONE AND TWO WINDOWS, UM, UH, BEING REPLACED WOOD TO, IT'S SOMETHING INFERIOR.
AND EVEN THOUGH THAT WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE,
[01:10:06]
THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, ONE AND TWO SINCE THEY ARE, UH, APPEAR TO BE CLOSE TO THE FRONT, EVEN THOUGH THAT, UM, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO LOOK DOWN THE SMALL SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.UM, I WOULD THINK THAT WE'D STILL WANT THOSE TWO BE THE WOOD WINDOWS.
I MEAN, I GUESS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THAT ALLEY, I MEAN, MAYBE THERE ISN'T, UH, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED TRIM OPTION THAT COULD BE APPROVED, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPROVED TO MEET THE PROFILE, UH, AS A TRIM PACKAGE THERE.
I MEAN, THAT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE, I MEAN, IT ISN'T AN ALLEY.
UM, ACTUALLY IT'S, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY, ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT IN AN ALLEY, IT'S IN A SIDE YARD WITH A ADJACENT HOUSE.
SO I CAN'T GET A GOOD, UH, GO GOOGLE VIEW TO SEE IF YOU, YOU CAN SEE THOSE WINDOWS FROM THE SIDE.
THE, UM, I WOULD PRINT THEM WITH THE WEATHER WOOD, UH, SO THAT THEY LOOK, UM, AESTHETICALLY NICE MATCHING THE, THE, THE REST OF THE HOUSE.
AND YET, AND YEAH, THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET UNLESS YOU WALK IN BETWEEN THE TWO, THE TWO PROPERTY.
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN? I, UH, I'D LIKE TO TRY TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS, SORRY IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS A QUESTION.
UM, UH, MR. CARPENTER, I, I WAS, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT I'M, I'M, I'M IN THE SAME BUT WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, UM, THAT I'M ON THE FENCE OF THAT ONE AND TWO, UH, REPLACED JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE HITTING, BUT THEN, UM, MOST OF IT HAS BEEN REPLACED.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, SO THEN THE ONE ON THE FRONT, 3, 4, 5, AND SIX WOULD BE REVERTED BACK TO WOOD? CORRECT.
MR. CORPUS, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU ARE AGREEING TO REPLACING THE FRONT WINDOWS BACK TO WOOD? YES, I WOULD.
UH, THAT SOUNDS, I HEAR A LOT ECHO ECHO ON MY END, BUT YES, UM, I WOULD, UM, UH, BE WILLING TO FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX, UH, WITH WOOD WINDOWS CUSTOM MADE, UH, WINDOWS.
UM, SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME CONSENSUS ON THIS ONE.
UM, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE REPLACEMENT IN TIME.
WE DOS FOR WINDOWS 3, 4, 5, AND SIX, AND WITH WOOD TRIM TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF FOR WINDOWS ONE AND TWO AND APPROVAL OF THE VITAL REPLACEMENT WINDOWS TO WINDOWS SEVEN CLIENT IN REPLACING WERE ALREADY NON-ORIGINAL WINDOWS.
IS THIS COMMISSIONER EZ? I SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL OPPOSED? SAME MOTION PASSES.
[17. 20-5256 Address/Description: 403 MONTANA HDRC Case No.: 2019-736 Applicant: Office of Historic Preservation Request: Finding of historic significance City Council Dist.: 2]
BRINGS US TO ITEM 17.[01:15:01]
CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN.UM, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2 0 1 9 7 3 6 4 0 3 MONTANA.
THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REQUESTING A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 0 3 MONTANA.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND DIRECTION TO PROCESS A REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE H D R C TO CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE DESIGNATION OF 4 0 3 MONTANA BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH H.
UM, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IS HELPING ME, UH, TRY TO REACH THE OWNER SO THAT HE CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE H G R C HEARING.
WELL, WE TRY TO REACH THE OWNER.
WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS CASE THAT I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, IN THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, UM, 1 0 7 KING WILLIAM CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONCURS WITH THE O H P RECOMMENDATION THAT FOUR THREE MONTANA IS WORTHY OF BEING FOUND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
ITS QUEEN AND HOUSE IS A FINE EXAMPLE OF NOTED ARCHITECT FRIEDRICH LIN'S EARLY WORK IN SAN ANTONIO.
WE WENT ON TO DESIGN SOME OF THE CITY'S MOST SIGNIFICANT CHURCHES OF ST.
MOREOVER, HIS CLIENT, NICHOLAS D. PATRICK, PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN DEVELOPING 19 NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE FIND HISTORIC
UM, WE HAVE TRIED MULTIPLE OCCASIONS TO GET THE OWNER ON, ON THE PHONE.
UM, CITY STAFF IS THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO IF THE ITEMS APPROVED, WE WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR RESOLUTION.
UH, I DID MAKE A SITE VISIT TO THE PROPERTY WHENEVER THAT WAS MONTHS AGO, AND FOUND THAT, UM, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC FABRIC STILL INTACT.
UH, IT'S A, UM, RATHER UNUSUAL STRUCTURE, UH, IN TERMS OF ITS DESIGN.
IT'S NOT, UH, TYPICAL, UM, FOR THIS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, I FOUND THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH, UH, HISTORIC FABRIC STILL INTACT AND, UH, RESTORABLE THAT, UH, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF, UH, SUPPORTING THE, UM, HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
UH, I ALSO VISITED THIS PROPERTY AND I I WOULD AGREE, UH, WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH, UH, ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE.
UM, I THINK IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING BUILDING HAS GOT A, A LOT OF DETAILS, UM, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE PORCH FEATURES AND AROUND THE BACK ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE JUST VERY INTERESTING, UM, THAT, UH, NEED I, I THINK TO BE SALVAGEABLE.
SO, UM, YEAH, I, I WOULD AGREE.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, I CONCUR WITH, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, WHAT YOU HAD COMMISSIONER
ECCENTRIC, UH, EXAMPLE OF, OF THIS STYLE.
AND, UM, I THINK IT, IT DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL, UH, FOR DEFINING FEATURES THAT ARE INTACT.
AND SO, UH, BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS I FOR APPLYING HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, THIS IS COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
UM, CHAIRMAN, NOT OPPOSED, JUST ABSTAINING.
[18. 20-5190 Address/Description: 1038 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-360 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: ricardo mccullough Request: Construction of five, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2]
18, EDWARD, WE'RE READY FOR YOU.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 18, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 60 10 38 DAWSON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FIVE TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT 10 38 DAWSON LOCATED WITHIN THE DICK WOODY HILL.
HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.
[01:20:02]
ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MASKING, INCLUDING A STREET ELEVATION FOR BOTH DAWSON STREET AND DAWSON ALLEY TO CONFIRM APPROPRIATE MASSING IS NOTED IN FINDING F TWO THAT THE APPLICANT UTILIZE FOUNDATION HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AT LEAST ONE FEET IN HEIGHT.ONE FOOT IN HEIGHT IS NOTED IN FINDING H THREE THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATES TRADITIONALLY SIZE WINDOW OPENINGS ON EACH FACADE IS NOTED IN FINDING J FOUR THAT EACH STRUCTURE FEATURE FRONT PORCH WITH MASSING THAT IS INTEGRAL TO THE, TO THAT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDINGS K AND O FIVE THAT THE APPLICANT'S SUBMIT INFORMATION REGARDING LOT COVERAGE TO NOTE THAT LOT COVERAGE DOES NOT EXCEED 50% IS NOTED IN FINDING L SIX AT ALL SIDING.
FEATURE OF FOUR INCH EXPOSURE, A THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH, MITER CORNERS IN A SMOOTH FINISH.
COLUMNS SHOULD BE SIX INCHES SQUARE, AND WINDOW MATERIAL SHOULD MEET STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SEVEN, THAT ALL MECHANIC EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM.
VIEW IS NOTED IN FINDING C AND EIGHT THAT A LANDSCAPING PLAN BE DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW IS NOTED IN FINDING R I HAVE, UH, RICARDO MCCULLOUGH, UH, WHO IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? HELLO? I CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, YEAH, THIS IS RICARDO MCCULLOUGH, UH, AND I'M ON, UH, I'M THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND, UH, IT, IT WAS, UH, UM, HE'S IN INSISTENCE TO DO, HE WANTS TO DO, UH, FIVE DWELLINGS.
TWO OF 'EM ARE GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY AND THREE IN THE BACK.
HE, UH, HE'S PROPOSING TO BUILD, UH, DUPLEXES, THREE OF THEM AND, UH, UH, THAT THE LAND HAS ALREADY, UH, REPLANTED INTO FOUR SEPARATE LOTS.
SO ONE WOULD BE USED TO BE THE ACCESS FOR THE, UH, UNITS IN THE BACK, AND THEN THREE IN THE FRONT.
UH, I ALREADY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, UM, WITH THE STAFF ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T NEED TO RESUBMIT AFTER THEY JUST MENTIONED COMMENTS FROM STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GET CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.
WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UM, WE NEED TO PROBABLY MOVE MUTE SOMEBODY.
FIRST COMES FROM, UH, CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, 1 0 7,
CONCURS WITH O H P STAFF COMMENTS THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SEVEN NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THREE LOTS IS TWO DENSE CHARACTER THROUGHOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ACROSS THE STREET IS CHARACTERIZED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, INCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHERE OVER THE SITE PLANS ADJUST THAT MORE, MORE THAN 50% OF THE LOTS WILL HAVE
UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM MONICA SNO ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN ADDITION, UM, AND OUR STAFF HAS OUTLINED THE SCALE AND MASSING ARE EXCESSIVE, UH, CONGRUENT WITH THE CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT IS CHARACTER DEFINED FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT COMMISSIONERS AND THE APPLICANT BE GUIDED BY AND REFERENCE BOTH THE R B GUIDELINES AND THE
I WAS ON A, UH, A D R C REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT LAST WEEK, AND, UH, WHAT WAS PRESENTED THEN WAS INSTEAD OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON DAWSON STREET, THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY THROUGH THE CENTER THAT WENT UP TO A T-SHAPED DRIVE AND HAD, UH, FRONT YARD PARKING ON THE FOUR, UH, UNITS IN THE BACK.
UH, THINGS THAT I, UH, DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT WAS, UH, LOOKING AT POSSIBLY, UH, PARKING FOR THE REAR STRUCTURES COMING OFF THE BACK ALLEY.
UH, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF LOT COVERAGE WITH STRUCTURES AND PARKING.
UM, I WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE REAR STRUCTURES.
THEY WERE MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT'S TYPICAL FOR, OR WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
UM, AND SO, UH, THINGS THAT I HAD REQUESTED FOR, UH, US TO CONSIDER WOULD BE, UM, A STREET ELEVATION SHOWING THE, THE HEIGHT AND MASSING OF THE STRUCTURES
[01:25:01]
IN RELATION TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UM, AS WELL AS PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE FOR, UH, EACH OF THE PROPERTIES.AND, UM, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED IN TIME FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
I WOULD DEFINITELY, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
UH, I WOULD DEFINITELY CONCUR WITH YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE TWO REAR STRUCTURES, UM, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE SCALE OF THEM IN COMPARISON TO THE, THE FRONT STRUCTURES.
IT, IT DEFINITELY FLIPS THE HISTORIC PARADIGM THAT WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, WE SEE WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE ABOUT THE SCALE THERE, AND I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN PICK UP SOME OF THAT LOT COVERAGE, UH, QUOTIENT THAT THEY'RE MISSING.
AND IS, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
SO THE SCHEME YOU, UM, REVIEWED CHAIRMAN ZER, IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE ON THE STREET, CORRECT? THE DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO, UH, REAR PARKING TO THE DUPLEXES.
UH, THEY HAD FRONT YARD PARKING OFF OF THE T-SHAPED DRIVE.
THERE WAS NOT THE, THE CENTER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON DAWSON STREET.
IT WAS A, A DRIVEWAY ENTRY THERE WITH A T SHAPE THAT, UH, ACCESSED ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE PARKING SPOTS.
SO THE SCHEME WE'RE SEEING NOW IS THE ONE THE, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING US TO, TO ACT UPON, CORRECT? I BELIEVE IT IS.
UH, A QUESTION FOR, UH, ALMA, UH, THE AGENDA THAT WAS ISSUED, UH, SAYS CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, BUT THE, UH, ON THE APPLICATION, UH, THAT WAS READ, UM, IT SAYS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FOUR TWO STORY STRUCTURES.
DO WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT CONFLICT BETWEEN FOUR OR FIVE STRUCTURES? YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE ITEM AS POSTED, WHICH WOULD LANGUAGE, WHICH WOULD BE THE AGENDA LANGUAGE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, I, UM, I ALSO CONCUR, UM, NOT ONLY WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID BY OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS BECAUSE I MEAN, THIS, THIS SEEMS REALLY EXCESSIVE, YOU KNOW, HERE, AND HE DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I, I JUST WANT TO STATE THOSE COMMENTS BECAUSE I, I BEEN LOOKING AT THIS, IT JUST DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SIT WELL.
AND SO THAT'S, THOSE ARE MY CONDUCT.
CHAIRMAN
I THINK WHEN I LOOK AT THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED, THE MATERIALITY, THE, THE SCALE EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS, I THINK IT'S PRETTY NICELY, LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON THE RIGHT PATH.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE LITTLE, UM, FRONT DOORS ARE FACING THE STREET WITH PORCHES.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT I THINK ARE WORKING WITH THIS.
IT'S JUST THAT AS YOU BEGIN TO TAKE THIS AS A, UM, A CONSOLIDATED HOLD, IT, IT DOES FEEL TO ME AS, AS, AS AN OVERKILL TO THE SITE AND THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE PROPOSED TO IT.
UM, SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE IF SOME OF THOSE CALCULATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED, UM, UH, FOR SITE COVERAGE ARE BEING OBTAINED.
AND I'M, I'M WONDERING IF, UH, THIS IS REALLY REQUIRES ANOTHER DESIGNER, UH, REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TO HASH THROUGH IT, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY SIGNIFICANT, UH, UH, POINTS OF HESITATION BOTH ON THE STAFF'S COMMENTS AND PUBLIC ERS TO, TO REALLY TAKE ACTION ON THIS.
GUESS, UH, JUST TO, TO POSE THAT BACK TO THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO COME BACK TO ANOTHER DESIGN MEETING? I'M SORRY, UH, MR. UH, ZER, YOU WERE THERE ALONE.
UM, I, I ALLOW TO, TO TRY TO BE THERE AT THAT
[01:30:01]
MEETING TO ASSIST AS WELL.WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, UH, WITHDRAW FROM TODAY AND COME BACK TO US ANOTHER ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING AND PERHAPS BRING SOME OF THOSE CALCULATIONS AND THINGS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOT COVERAGE? WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK, UH, TO MY CLIENT AND, AND SHARE ALL THESE COMMENTS WITH THEM AND, AND PROBABLY START FROM SCRATCH.
SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
I THINK, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE GUIDING THIS, AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE PLATTING THAT YOU HAVE, UH, THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN APPROVED AND EXECUTED HERE.
UM, AND SO MY, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS THAT THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT YOU HAVE DRAWN AND THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I THINK THE, THE, THE REAL ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE SOLVED IS THE SCALE OF THESE COMPONENTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THEM TOGETHER, WHICH IS ALSO, UH, OFF, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S OFF FROM THE AGENDA TODAY.
SO I THINK WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE REALLY HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DO THE D R C JUST TO KIND OF GET THIS TO A PLACE TO WHERE IT MATCHES THE AGENDA, MATCHES YOUR INTENT, AND IS AT A GOOD SCALE.
SO I, I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT'S WHERE THIS NEEDS TO GO.
UM, SO IF THAT'S IN MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UM, I WOULD SECOND IT.
YES, I'LL, I'LL MAKE THAT FORMAL MOTION.
I, UH, REFER THIS TO A D R C COMMITTEE HEARING.
SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C.
AGAIN, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
ITEM 19, WE, ARE YOU THERE? YES.
[19. 20-5154 Address/Description: 526 MISSION HDRC Case No.: 2020-343 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Delia Bara/BARA DELIA Request: New construction of rear accessory structure City Council Dist.: 1]
ITEM 19, CASE NUMBER 20 23 43.AT 5 26 MISSION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 240 SQUARE FOOT REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDING E REGARDING BUILDING SIZE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
IF THE COMMISSION IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE, STAFF RECOMMENDS A REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONS AND WINDOWS THAT ADHERE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UH, AS A CASE COMMON, THIS CASE CAME TO US AS A WORK PRIOR TO APPROVAL VIOLATION.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAD ORIGINALLY DIVIDED THE, UH, WHAT WAS IN ADDITION FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE INTO TWO SEPARATE, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BASED ON STAFF'S INITIAL FEEDBACK.
THEN BEING REFERRED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING LAST WEEK, THE APPLICANT HAS THEN REDUCED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FURTHER TO 240 SQUARE FOOT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU, UH, THE COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING TODAY.
ON PAGE 20, UH, THE 240 SQUARE FOOT IS STILL TECHNICALLY OVER THE 40%, UH, ALLOWANCE FOR REAR ACCESSORY, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, UH, THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CAN COMMENT ON THAT, OR THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ON THE LINE AS WELL.
DELY, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM.
MR. BARROW, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO WHAT, UH, MR. FAM HAS READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, I DO, SIR.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION.
I AM REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE DETACH 240, UH, SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE LAST WEEK.
UM, AND IT WILL, IT IS BEING BUILT IN THE REAR END OF THE HOUSE.
MY REASON FOR REQUESTING THAT THE 240 SQUARE FEET AS OPPOSED TO THE 180 4 IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE SPACE AND THE GABLE ROOF AND THE SHINGLES ROOF SHINGLES DO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE AND THE GARAGE THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY.
THE ADDITIONAL 56 SQUARE FEET THAT I AM REQUESTING IS TO ALLOW FOR THE ADEQUATE SPACE OF THE TWO NEW WINDOWS, UH, THAT WILL BE BUILT AS PER STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AS FAR AS, AS PER WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE H D R C COMMITTEE, I
[01:35:01]
DID RECEIVE AND HAVE SUBMITTED, UH, 10 LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO THE H D R C.HALF OF THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY FROM RESIDENTS AND OWNERS ON MISSION STREET.
UM, SO I AM, I AM HUMBLY REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE ADDITIONAL 56 SQUARE FEET.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ.
UM, I HAVE A FEW THAT I'M GONNA READ.
UH, I OPPOSE ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL AUXILIARY STRUCTURE AT 5.6 MISSION.
I OWN LIVE AT 4 22 ADAMS STREET, 100 BLOCK OF ADAMS, AND THE 500 BLOCK COMMISSION BACK UP TO EACH OTHER ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY.
UNDER REVIEW, THE STREET IS RELATIVELY NARROW AND THERE ARE ALREADY MANY CARS PARKED ON IT AT ALL TIMES.
PURPOSE OF THE STRUCTURE IS NOT STATED, IS IT TO BE AN ADDITIONAL RENTAL UNIT.
THE NEW STRUCTURE ALSO WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET FROM THE SOUTH.
SINCE SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THE OWNER HAS ALREADY CONVERTED THE GARAGE INTO AN AUXILIARY DWELLING UNIT IN 2018 WITHOUT HP APPROVAL OR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
THE NEW STRUCTURE THAT SHE BEGAN WITHOUT PERMITS WAS IN ADDITION TO THE GARAGE CONVERSION, THAT EXISTING CONVERTED STRUCTURE.
ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY, THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED CURRENTLY OCCUPIES VERY NEARLY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF AN AUXILIARY STRUCTURE.
SUCH HIGH DENSITY ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS NOT ALLOWED FOR GOOD REASON.
I URGE THE COMMITTEE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THE KING WILLIAMS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DENIED THE APPLICATION, UM, MARLEY DEAL OPPOSE.
IN 2018, THE OWNER CONVERTED THE ORIGINAL GARAGE INTO AN APARTMENT BY REMOVING THE GARAGE DOOR PO AND POSING IN THE SPACE, CLOSING THE LEFT FRONT PORCH, ADDING A VICTORIAN END STYLE DOOR WITH A WINDOW, TWO PORCH LIGHTS IN A MAILBOX.
DEDICATED C P SS METER FOR THE NEW APARTMENT WAS ALSO ADDED.
LI TENANT HAS BEEN LIVING IN THIS APARTMENT UNTIL RECENTLY.
UM, TWO, AFTER THE TENANT WAS REMOVED, THE PROPERTY OWNER WITHOUT COAS OR PERMITS FILLED THE ADDITION TO THE FORMER GARAGE ACCESSORY APARTMENT.
THIS ADDITION IS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, ACCORDING TO THE OWNER'S PLANS UPDATED ON AUGUST 25TH, EXISTING FOOTPRINT FROM THE FORMER GARAGE.
NOW ACCESSORY APARTMENT IS 300 SQUARE FEET.
THE SURVEY SHOWS 390 SQUARE FEET.
THE OWNER IS NOW REQUESTING ANOTHER 240 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE ACROSS A SMALL DECK FROM THE APARTMENT FOR A TOTAL OF 530 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE, 40% OF THE 970 SQUARE FEET, PRIMARY STRUCTURE, AS PER THE SURVEY, WOULD BE 388 SQUARE FEET.
ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY, THE FORMER GARAGE ACCESSORY APARTMENT IS ALREADY THREE 90 SQUARE FEET.
AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE OF ANY SIZE AND STYLE WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, OR THE PROPERTY OWNER CHOSE TO CONVERT THE GARAGE INTO A SECOND LIVING SPACE OF QUESTIONABLE, OF QUESTIONABLE LEGALITY, UM, WITHOUT C O A OR PERMITS IN 2018 AND 2020, BUILT THIS ADDITION WITHOUT A C O A A HISTORY OF SIGNIFICANT EXTERIOR WORK WITHOUT COAS TO EACH OF THE THREE KING WILLIAM HOMES OWNED BY THIS PERSON.
LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THE HONOR ADDED ON FOR FOLLOW THROUGH IN GOOD FAITH WITH PLANS FOR A THIRD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
PREVIOUS KING WILLIAM CASE REMAINS UNSOLVED FOUR YEARS LATER, HOUSE AND D IN ABANDONED.
UM, IF THIS REQUEST IS DENIED, THE WORK DONE SHOULD BE REMOVED.
UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM MARGARET LEEDS FOR THE KING WILLIAMS ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
UM, PLEASE REFER TO THE LETTER, UM, AND ATTACHED SURVEY IN YOUR FOLDER.
THE KING WILLIAMS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND INFERS WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
UM, ALTHOUGH THE PLAN AND THE APPLICATION STATE, THE REQUEST IS FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING, WHICH WOULD BE THE THIRD RENTAL DWELLING.
THE SMALL PARCEL PHOTOGRAPHS SUPPLIED, UM, WITH THE APPLICATION CLEARLY DEPICT THE IMP PROGRESS STRUCTURE AS AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE ACCESSORY DWELLING STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICATION STATES THAT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS 1059 SQUARE FEET SUPPORTED BY B A, UM, WITH THE SUBMITTED SURVEY, BUT THE SUBMITTED SURVEY DEPICTS A FOOTPRINT OF APPROXIMATELY 1000 SQUARE FEET.
THE APP, THE APPLICATION FURTHER STATES THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING GARAGE OF 2 240 SQUARE FEET.
THE ATTACHED SURVEY INDICATES THE STRUCTURE IS 395 SQUARE FEET.
THE APPLICATION PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL 480 SQUARE FEET SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE.
THE GRAPHIC PLAN INDICATES A 300 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE.
SINCE THIS PROJECT, WHICH CAN BE OBSERVED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
ALTHOUGH A COMPLETED PERMIT REQUESTS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN SEARCHABLE SYSTEMS ONLINE, THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS STILL UNCONFIRMED.
DESIGN GUIDELINES CLEARLY STATE THAT THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY NOT EXCEED 40% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THUS, IN THIS CASE, A TOTAL OF 400 SQUARE FEET IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOW ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA.
SINCE THE EXISTING GARAGE, WHICH HAS BEEN USED AS A DWELLING STRUCTURE IS THREE FIVE SQUARE FEET, ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
WE STRONGLY REQUEST THE H C R C UPHOLD THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BY THIS PRESIDENT SETTING POSITION.
[01:40:01]
VOICEMAIL ONE MOMENT, 23 KKI 6 0 3 MISSION STREET, CALLING REGARDING CASE NUMBER 20 23 4 3, WHICH IS 5 26 MISSION STREET.PLEASE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THIS PROJECT.
THERE IS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE GUIDELINES REGARDING THE SIZE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
DOING SO HERE SETS A BAD PRECEDENT BASED ON B C A D.
THE PRIMARY DWELLING IS 1059 SQUARE FEET.
HOW LARGE IS THE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING FORMALLY A GARAGE? ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY, IT'S 395.53 SQUARE FEET, ALMOST 100 FEET LARGER THAN STATED IN THE APPLICATION.
THAT LEAVES ONLY 28.07 SQUARE FEET FOR AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
ONLY A SMALL SHED COULD FIT BEHIND THE HOUSE.
ANYTHING LARGER WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AS ONE WALKS OR DRIVES UP MISSION STREET FROM MY HOUSE.
ONCE AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR A STRUCTURE OVER 200 FEET LARGER THAN PERMITTED BY THE GUIDELINES, AND THERE IS NO REASON TO SO GROSSLY DEVIATE FROM THEM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR VOTE OF, NO, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.
UM, I WILL ADD, JUST FOR REFERENCE, UM, WE CAN CERTAIN, I MEAN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING ABOUT POTENTIAL HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS FOR THE GARAGE BUILDING, SO WE CAN SEARCH THAT.
UM, ANY SORT OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF LEASE SPACES ON THE PROPERTY, UM, THAT'S TIED TO THE ZONING.
SO WE, WE PUT FROM ZONING STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT
THAT IS A SEPARATE PROCESS, SO JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S A ZONING ISSUE AND NOT A DESIGN ISSUE.
I I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, UH, JUST BASED ON THE NUMBERS, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE, THE LOT HAS ALREADY BEEN MAXED OUT.
AND, UM, I WOULD JUST WANT CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF THAT THE EXISTING GARAGE HAS BEEN RENO RENOVATED AS, UH, A DWELLING UNIT AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
UM, NOT AS A, UM, ZONING ISSUE, BUT MORE JUST AS A BUILT STRUCTURE.
UM, YOU KNOW, YES, SAF CONFIRMED THAT, UH, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE, UH, THE GARAGE STRUCTURE INTO A PEDESTRIAN DOOR, UH, STRUCTURE.
UH, STAFF FINDS THAT NEITHER OF THE FRONT NOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE APPEAR ON THE 1951 SAND BOARD MAP AND BELIEVE THAT IT WAS EITHER RELOCATED OR, UH, CONSTRUCTED IN MAYBE THE SIXTIES.
UH, AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS REVIEWED AS A NON-CONTRIBUTING, UH, STRUCTURE.
SO A FENESTRATION PATTERN THAT IS RELATABLE, UM, WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THEN WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, I BELIEVE, IN 2018.
BUT IN RELATION TO THOSE TWO STRUCTURES, THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, UH, WOULD EFFECTIVELY PUT THE, UH, THE BUILT SQUARE FOOTAGE WELL OVER THE ALLOWABLE BUILT SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? YES.
IF THE, UH, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ACCURATE PER THE SURVEY, UH, BUT STAFF WENT OFF OF ONE OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY VERIFY THAT OR, UH, IF, IF THAT IS AN INSTRUCTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
THE OTHER, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I SAW, WHICH IS,
[01:45:01]
IS MORE JUST A BUILDING CODE ISSUE, IS THE FOUNDATION OF THAT STRUCTURE THAT SEEMS TO BE ALREADY BUILT.IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE NEARLY, UH, ENOUGH FOR RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION.
SO, UM, THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY RE REDONE ANYWAY.
UM, SO THE ADDITION, THIS ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE HERE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT, IS THERE A STOP WORK ORDER ON THIS? IS THIS WHAT? IS THIS THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW? NO.
SO THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THERE WAS TAKEN WHEN THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS, UH, WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO TAKE IT DOWN AND TO REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS NECESSARY IF NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED.
SO, UH, ANY OF THE, THE EXISTING PHOTOS YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, WORK HAS STOPPED ON THAT? YEAH.
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'LL BE LIKELY TAKEN DOWN.
SO I WOULD SAY, UM, THAT IF WE CAN CONFIRM, UH, ADMINISTRATIVELY THE, UH, SURVEY SQUARE FOOTAGES, UM, I THINK THAT MY OPINION WOULD BE, UH, WE CONFIRM THAT AND THEN GO BY, UH, THE STANDARD, UH, BOT COVERAGE, UH, FOR ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE BUILT HERE.
IF IT'S 26 SQUARE OR 28.7 SQUARE FEET, THEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, 200 SQUARE FEET, UM, THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD, UH, CONCEPTUALLY BE, WILL BE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED, UH, ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND MAYBE THEY JUST NEED TO BRING, BRING IT BACK TO US IF THERE IS A STRUCTURE THAT CAN BE BUILT.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT MOTION COULD BE FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF A PERCENTAGE AND THEN WORKING WITH STAFF TO VERIFY WHAT THAT CORRECT, UH, ACTUAL DIMENSION IS AND THAT FINAL WHAT THOSE PLANS? YEAH, BASICALLY, STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL BUILDABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT BUILDABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S ALLOWABLE AND THE CLIENT AND THE, THE, UH, OWNER WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, THEN THEY CAN PRESENT SOMETHING FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BACK TO THE BOARD.
OTHERWISE THEY CAN JUST, UH, WITHDRAWAL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE NOT WANTING ANY ACTION ON THIS ITEM TODAY OR WANTING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION.
Y YES, THAT'S, THAT'S MY OPINION.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I, I APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN'S, UH, FAIRNESS AND OPEN-MINDEDNESS TO TRY TO PURSUE THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, CONSTRUCTION COULD BE DONE ON THE SITE WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE GUIDELINES REQUIREMENTS.
UH, BUT AS IT IS NOW, I REALLY, AND NOT SUPPORTING THAT, I THINK IT'S, UH, I MEAN, NOT SUPPORTIVE, THE VISION OF CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE
I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE
SO I I I, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF AND IN ADDITION, THERE SEEMS TO BE A, UH, A WANTED DISRESPECT FOR THE PROCESS OF OBTAIN, UH, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND THAT MAKES WE DUBIOUS ABOUT ANY PROPOSALS, UH, FOR ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THIS SITE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR EMOTION
THE, UH, THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT IT BEING A LIVABLE STRUCTURE, THE NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING, AND IT IS, UH, REFERENCING TO THE FOUNDATION.
THE FOUNDATION IS ON CONCRETE BLOCKS, SO IT IS NOT, FOR IT BE TO BECOME
[01:50:01]
A LIVABLE STRUCTURE, UH, IT IS FOR STORAGE, UM, TO BE USED, UH, UH, ON THE PROPERTY.THAT'S WHY IT'S ON, ON CONCRETE BLOCKS.
I JUST WANNA, JUST ON THE RECORD, JUST SAY THAT, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION EITHER FOR DENIAL OR CONTINUANCE, OR I WOULD SAY THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I SECOND YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DENIAL.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, UNMUTE AND SAY NAYYY.
[20. 20-5236 Address/Description: 255 BRAHAN HDRC Case No.: 2020-347 Historic District Name: Westfort Applicant: Cy Goudge Request: Construction of two, 2-story, multi-family residential structures City Council Dist.: 2]
UH, DO WE HAVE EDWARD THERE? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 47 2 55 BRAHAM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR THE GENERAL FOOTPRINT, SETBACKS AND MASSING OF TWO, TWO STORY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AT 2 55 HAN LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST FORD HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT REDUCE THE PROPOSED MASSING IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED LIFT OF BOTH STRUCTURES.
WHILE THE PROPOSED SETBACKS IN HEIGHT APPEAR TO BE APPROPRIATE, STAFF DOES NOT FIND THE PROPOSED WIDTH OF BOTH STRUCTURES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES NOR THE WIDTH OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE CONTEXT AND CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED SETBACKS ON BOTH BRAHAM AND HAYWOOD ARE APPROPRIATE.
IS NOTED IN FINDINGS E N F SOON, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE OVERALL WIDTH OF BOTH STRUCTURES.
AS NOTED IN FINDING I THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE ENTRANCE ELEMENTS AND ENTRANCE MASSING TO ADDRESS HAYWOOD FOR THE REAR STRUCTURE IS NOTED IN FINDING JAY.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE ENTRANCE IS BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE BRAHE FACING FACADE FOR THE APPLICANT.
UTILIZE FOUNDATION AND FLOOR HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AS NOTED IN FINDING K, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE OVERALL MASSING OF THE PROPOSED ROOF CONSISTENT WITH THE RE, WITH THE REDUCTION IN WIDTH AS NOTED IN FINDING L SIX, THAT THE APPLICANT ADHERE TO THE MATERIALS AND WINDOWS STANDARDS NOTED IN THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS AND IN THE FIND IN FINDINGS, M AND N AND SEVEN, THE APPLICANT INCLUDED A WALKWAY ON HAYWOOD AND CONNECT THE RECOMMENDED ENTRANCE ELEMENTS TO THE SIDEWALK.
AT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NOTED IN FINDING R I HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LOCK.
HI, MY NAME IS, UH, S G I'M THE APPLICANT FOR, UM, THIS PROJECT.
UM, I WANTED TO, UH, ADDRESS FIRST OFF, UH, ITEMS RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
I'LL JUST SAY ITEMS ONE, UM, THREE, SORRY, 1, 4, 6 TO SEVEN WILL BE, WE WILL COMPLY WITH THOSE, UM, VERY EASILY AS FAR AS WE'LL PROVIDE STAFF, UH, INFORMATION THAT SAYS WE CAN, UH, WE ADHERE TO THEIR FINDINGS ON, ON THOSE.
UM, WE ARE DISCUSSING THE, UH, THE BIGGEST ONE FOR US IS, UH, NUMBER TWO.
UH, THEY'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE REDUCE OVERALL WIDTH OF BOTH STRUCTURES, UM, ON OUR SUBMITTAL, UH, ON OUR SITE PLAN, WE WERE SHOWING THAT THE, UM, THE FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY IS 68 FEET, AND THEN IT'S SLOWLY WITH THE USE OF BUMP OUT MOVES TO 80 FEET, UM, OR JUST SHY OF 80 FEET.
AND, UM, WE, THE REASON WE WERE DOING THAT IS WE WERE TRYING TO GET ENOUGH COVERAGE TO ALLOW THE, TO BUILD THE SIX UNITS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE ONSITE PARKING, PREFERABLY ON THE FRONT UNITS, TWO CAR GARAGES FOR EACH OF THE UNITS.
UH, WE, FOR THAT WE NEED THE, THE WIDTH IN THE BACK TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
UM, ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, UH, WE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND WE ON OUR REVIEW COMMITTEE AS WELL ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS THE BACK.
UM, AND I THINK THE FINAL DETERMINATION WAS TO MAKE THE BACK FACING STRUCTURE OR THE STRUCTURE FACE, UH, ADDRESS MORE TOWARD HAYWOOD.
AND SO WE NEED TO WORK, UH, WITH STAFF ON HOW THEY
[01:55:01]
RECOMMEND AND WITH Y'ALL AND HOW YOU WOULD RECOMMEND INCORPORATING, UH, MAKING THAT STRUCTURE APPEAR TO BE FACING HAYWOOD, UM, WITH, UH, DESIGN ELEMENTS.UH, AND AS FAR AS THE ENTRANCES TO BE INCORPORATED ON BRA HAND, UH, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING THAT WAS THERE, THAT WAS TORN DOWN THE ENTRANCES, AS FAR AS I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PICTURES THAT I CAN TELL, IT'S, YOU KNOW, OLD GRAINY PHOTO.
UH, IT, UH, THE DOORS DID NOT FACE BRA HAND.
THEY FACED EACH OTHER ON THE SIDE.
IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM.
WE CAN MOVE THE FRONT DOORS, NO PROBLEM TO FACE THE FRONT.
THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING WE WERE TRYING TO DO OUR BEST TO MAKE THIS BUILDING MIMIC THE ORIGINAL BUILDING THAT WAS THERE.
SO, AND THAT'S KIND OF ALL OF OUR, THAT'S ALL OF OUR, UM, COMMENTS ON THIS.
THIS IS A, WE HAD SEEN A, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE, UH, LAST YEAR.
AND, UH, UH, MR. GUG, THIS IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT, NEW NEW DEVELOPER.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES, SIR, WE ARE, WE, UH, CURRENTLY PURCHASED A PROPERTY FROM, UH, THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT.
UM, I, UH, THEY DECIDED TO MOVE ON WITH WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
UM, AND SO WE HAVE TAKEN IT ON AS A PROJECT.
UH, NO RELATION TO THE OLD ONE.
THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AGAIN.
UM, I WAS ON A D R C WITH THIS PROJECT AND, UM, SEVERAL CONCERNS.
ONE WAS THE, UM, THE MASSING OF THE REAR STRUCTURE.
UH, TYPICALLY EVEN ON LARGE LOTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE, UH, MAIN STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONE FACING BRAHAM.
SO THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT, UH, THE SIZE AND, AND THE SCALE OF THE, THE REAR STRUCTURE.
UH, WE DID TALK ABOUT ADDRESSING HAVING THE REAR STRUCTURE ADDRESS HAYWOOD, UM, WITH, UM, ENTRY ELEMENTS.
UM, I BELIEVE WE TALKED ABOUT PROVIDING INFORMATION ON, UH, THE FRONT SETBACK IN RELATION TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND I BELIEVE MR. G, YOU SAID THAT THESE, THE FRONT STRUCTURE IS BEHIND OR TO THE NORTH OF THOSE EXISTING PALM TREES, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES, SIR.
THEY ARE, THEY, UM, THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT SAID Y Y'ALL HAVE DEALT WITH BEFORE.
UH, IT WAS DETERMINED DURING THEIR BACK AND FORTH THAT THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK WOULD BE 43 FEET FROM THE CURB.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE USED TO THE FRONT OF OUR FRONT PORCHES IS 43 FEET, UH, FROM THE CURB.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? AND THIS APPLICATION IS FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL? THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
UM, I WOULD AGREE, UH, THAT THE, THE ISSUE SEEMS TO BE THE SCALE OF THE REAR STRUCTURE, UM, IN RELATION TO, UM, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
AND I THINK THAT THE MAIN THING, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT ARE THROWING IT OFF FOR ME, AND I THINK BOTH OF THEM ARE RELATED TO THAT SOUTHERN MOST, UH, UNIT.
UM, WHICH, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE IN THAT SOUTHERN MOST UNIT, THAT'S THE, THE, THE UNIT THAT COMES OUT THE FARTHEST TO THE WEST, WHICH ALSO IMPACTS THE ROOF LINE.
UM, SO NOT ONLY IS THERE NO SETBACK ON THE HAYWOOD AVENUE FRONT, BUT ON IN THE ELEVATION, WHICH IS ON THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACT THAT THAT UNIT HAS ON THE, UH, THE ELEVATION.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT, UH, HIP ROOF, HIP ROOF COMES OUT, UM, AND REALLY CAUSES, UM, THERE TO BE MORE OF A VERTICAL CORRELATION TO THE, UH, PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
I THINK WITHOUT THAT, UM, UNIT, IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[02:00:01]
UH, THE WAY THAT I'M READING THIS.I'D LIKE TO GET MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, INPUT ON THIS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I'M SEEING THE WAY THAT THE, THE MASSING IS WORKING WITH THIS THING.
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER BOWMAN JUST SAID.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, THE, THE, THE APPLICANT'S, UM, ATTEMPTS TO KIND OF CAPTION THE SPIRIT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE THAT, THAT, UH, THAT IS ON THE SITE AS FAR AS ITS PROMINENCE THAT IT KIND OF GRAND YOU'RE LOOKING ONTO ARE.
UM, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THE, THE, UH, THE REAR STRUCTURE IS, IS KIND OF FIGHTING PREDOMINANCE GIVEN ITS ITS OVERALL MASS EVEN SCALE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
DID YOU ALL, UM, INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A CENTRAL MOTOR COURT BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS? UH, RATHER THAN HAVING, UH, AND COMING OFF THE ALLEY, UH, FOR THE, THE, UH, GARAGES THAT SORT OF FLIPPING THE, THE ONE THAT WE SAW THE HAYWARD IN A WAY THAT MIGHT ALLOW IT TO HAVE MORE OF A, A STRAIGHT FACING PRESENCE AND NOT GIVE THAT OVER TO A GARAGE SPACE? I MEAN, I CAN, I CAN SEE WHERE IT'S VERY CONVENIENT TO BE ABLE TO COME RIGHT OFF THAT ALLEY TO, TO SUCK IN THE GARAGES, BUT IT, IT THEN KIND OF KILLS A BIG PART OF THE, THE ELEVATION FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF MAKE IT FEEL LIKE IT'S FRONTING THE STREET IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY.
UM, UM, MR. CARPENTER, I APOLOGIZE.
I CAN ONLY HEAR ABOUT HALF OF WHAT YOU WERE, UM, UM, SAYING.
UH, THE, THE REASON THAT WE, UM, ORIENTED THE, THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK, THE WAY, THE REASON WE DECIDED TO DESIGN THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK THE WAY WE DID, UM, OUR, OUR GOAL WAS WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO STAFF AND WE WERE TALKING TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE, THERE'S A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH ON IF THEY'RE GONNA BE ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
AND SO THE, THE BACK UNIT IS ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE A HAYWOOD ADDRESS.
AND SO WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION, I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THIS, AND THAT IS COMPLETELY FINE, UM, UH, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE, UH, WITH A HAYWOOD ADDRESS ON THAT UNIT, ON THAT BUILDING, UM, WE WANTED IT TO FUNCTION, UH, AS IF IT WAS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ONTO HAYWOOD.
UM, THE OTHER CONCERN THAT WE WANTED TO, UH, NOT HAVE, UM, THE, UH, THE REASON WE CAME OFF THE ALLEY FOR THE GARAGES AND THAT'S ON THAT STRUCTURE WAS THERE'S A VERY LARGE PECAN TREE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON OUR, UM, OVERALL PLAN.
UH, THERE MAY BE EVEN TWO, BUT I KNOW THERE'S DEFINITELY ONE PECAN TREE THERE IN THE COURTYARD THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE AS BEST WE CAN.
AND WE ALSO ARE TRYING TO ADD, UM, FRONT, UH, YARD SPACE THAT'D BE NICER FOR THOSE BACK UNITS.
UM, NOT, SO THEY'RE BASICALLY, SO THE GARAGES COME OFF THE ALLEY AND WE'RE NOT, UH, UTILIZING THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WHEN WE REACHED OUT TO THEM, ONE OF THEIR BIGGEST CONCERNS WAS, UM, THEY DIDN'T WANT, UH, VERY MANY WINDOWS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND THEM DIDN'T WANT TO SEE, UH, OR DIDN'T WANT US TO, OR ANY OF THE TENANTS, OR, SORRY, NOT TENANTS, SORRY, UM, OWNERS IN THIS, UH, UNIT TO BE ABLE TO SEE INTO THEIR PROPERTY.
SO WE PURPOSELY, UM, PUT THE GARAGES BACK THERE SO WE'RE NOT EXPOSING, YOU KNOW, TOO MANY WINDOWS FOR THE PROPERTY BEHIND KIND OF KEEPING THE LIGHT AND ALL THE VIEWS INTERNAL ON THE PROJECT.
UM, AND THEN TO ADDRESS THE ROOF LINE, UH, THE ROOF LINE YOU'RE SEEING ON THE, UM, ON THE FRONT, UH, BRA HAND PROJECT, UH, FROM THE, THE ELEVATION ON THE FRONT, THAT IS ALL FROM THE FRONT, YOU WON'T SEE ANY OF THE BACK UNIT FROM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT ON FROM BRAY HAND, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THAT BUMP OUT ON THE, UH, ON THE, UH, FRONT UNIT, UH, FOR THAT THIRD, UH, FRONT BUILDING, SORRY FOR THAT THIRD UNIT.
AND SO THE, THE, THE BACK UNIT WILL BE ALMOST IDENTICAL IN WIDTH.
IT'S SLIGHTLY NARROWER BY LIKE A FOOT, UM, OFF OF THE HAYWOOD SIDE, AND SO YOU WON'T SEE IT IF YOU WERE LOOKING DIRECTLY IN FRONT AT THE RIGHT HAND BUILDING, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE SECOND BUILDING BEHIND IT.
WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ, UH, BEFORE WE GET TO FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, WE DO.
UM, THE FIRST IS FROM JOE BRAVO.
UM, THE WEST FORD ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THIS CONCEPTUAL.
THE SECOND IS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY.
UM, IN 2016, THE DEMOLITION OF THE LANDMARK WORTHY HOUSE OF 2 55 HAN
[02:05:01]
INSPIRED WEST COURT RESIDENTS TO SEEK DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEW.SINCE THEN, MULTIFAMILY INFILL FOR THE SITE HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND REJECTED TWICE BEFORE BEING REFERRED TO D R C
ALTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM FOUR TO TWO, THEY STILL DO NOT FIT THE HISTORIC PATTERN OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THAT ON SITE OF THE SECTION THREE, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER REMAINS SIGNIFICANT AT 47%.
FURTHERMORE, THE PROPOSED SIX UNIT SIX UNITS CONTRADICT THE GOAL OF THE 2003
WE ARE THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS REQUEST.
FURTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD GET A GOOGLE EARTH OF THIS? UM, I'M LOOKING AT SLIDE, I THINK IT'S SIX AND I I'M TRYING TO CONFIRM WHICH LOT THIS IS.
YEAH, SO I THINK MY, THE, MY QUESTION, I GUESS MY THING THAT I WANTED TO IDENTIFY HERE WAS, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE THIS LOT INTO TWO LOTS WITH A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON HAYWOOD, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MASSING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S STILL A PRIMARY STRUCTURE FACING THE BRAHAM AND THEN AN ACCESSORY, UH, AN ACCESSORY S S SCALE DWELLING, UH, PATTERN, UH, I GUESS ON THAT, AT THAT BACK ALLEY AND W WHAT WOULD BE THE HAYWOOD? SO I'M CURIOUS TO SEE, CAN WE GO FARTHER SOUTH OF THE, UH, THE SOUTH SIDE OF BRAHAM? YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DEVELOPMENT ON BRAHE AND HAYWOOD, THAT'S REALLY DENSE WITH THAT MULTIFAMILY, UM, CONFIGURATION.
BUT THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU DON'T SEE THAT PRIMARY STRUCTURE, UH, SECONDARY STRUCTURE, UM, PATTERN.
AND SO I THINK, UH, I, I THINK I WOULD ACTUALLY FALL BACK TO THE COMMENTS THAT I, I MADE EARLIER THAT THE, THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE THAT IS ON HAYWOOD THAT APPEARS TO BE IN THE BACK, I FEEL LIKE THAT ONE NEEDS TO BE, UH, REDUCED BY AT LEAST A UNIT.
UM, BEFORE I COULD APPROVE THIS CONCEPTUALLY, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I, I CONCUR WITH THAT.
IF THAT IS DONE, THEN THE GARAGES COULD BE SHIFTED TO BE NEST BETWEEN THE, THE TWO UNITS AND GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT UNIT THAT FACES ONTO HAYWARD TO ACTUALLY, UH, ADDRESS THE STREET IN, IN A WAY MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HOPE MY AUDIO IS DOING BETTER NOW, SWITCHED MICROPHONES.
DOES, DOES THE APPLICANT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMENT? I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT COMMENT.
UM, THAT, THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT, UM, DIFFERENT ADVICE THAT WE GOT FROM STAFF.
AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY, UH, WE, WE WERE DEBATING, WE WERE DEBATING WITH STAFF BETWEEN, UM, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THAT COULD BE A PRIMARY AND JUST NEEDED TO TAKE HAYWOOD, OR IF THAT NEEDED TO BE A SECONDARY DWELLING, UH, THAT, UM, APPEARED TO BE A SECONDARY DWELLING TO THE BRAHAM PROPERTY.
UH, AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE MAKE IT A PRIMARY FACING HAYWOOD.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH THAT DESIGN.
UM, AND SO I I DON'T MIND WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS, IT'LL TAKE US, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SETS US BACK A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
UM, I, I WOULD JUST, I JUST WANTED BE, MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANNA BE MISINTERPRETING THIS AGAIN, FOR SURE.
AND I THINK, UM, FOR ME, THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS TO THIS THAT REALLY MAKE, UH, MAKES SENSE.
UM, ONE IS THE EXISTING TREE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT, UH, UM, THIRD UNIT, UH, CLOSEST TO HAYWOOD AND THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS
[02:10:01]
WELL INTO YOUR BOUNDARY LINES FOR THAT TREE.UM, SO I WOULD USE, UM, THAT AS A, UH, KIND OF A, A ANOTHER REASON TO SET THAT PROPERTY BACK FROM THE FACE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
UM, SO THE, THE LINE OF THAT PRIMARY STRUCTURE, SO USING THAT TO SET IT BACK AND THEN, UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE THAT, UH, STRUCTURE.
THAT'S YOU, YOU KNOW, THE GARAGE AND THE, THE UNIT AND THE OTHER GARAGE.
I DON'T THINK THAT HAS TO STAY IN THE SAME PLACE.
I THINK IT CAN MOVE TOWARDS HAYWOOD AND BECOME MORE OF A PRIMARY LOOKING STRUCTURE THAT FACES HAYWOOD.
BUT I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S CONCEPT OF MOVING THOSE GARAGES INWARD, UH, ALLOWS YOU TO, UM, HAVE THAT PRIMARY FEEL FACING HAYWOOD, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, PROTECT THE ROOT SYSTEM OF THE TREE, HAVE THE RIGHT MASSING ON THE SITE.
I THINK IT'S A, A BETTER SOLUTION FOR YOU, AND I THINK YOU'LL KIND OF NAIL DOWN ALL OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REALLY NEEDS TO BE.
UM, AND THEN SO AS FAR AS WIDTH IS CONCERNED, THEN ON THAT, ON THAT SITE, IF IT'S FACING, CAN WE MAKE THE, CAN WE MAKE THE UNITS OR THE HAYWOOD, UM, BACK STRUCTURE, CAN WE MAKE IT A LITTLE WIDER TO, TO APPLY TO OUR, TO GET THE SIX UNITS OUT OF, OUT OF THIS PROJECT? UM, I, I, I WOULD SAY THAT, AND THIS IS JUST ME, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT WIDER AND, AND I GUESS WHAT I WOULD IMAGINE A LITTLE BIT WIDER WOULD BE IS IF YOU MOVE THE LINE, UM, IF YOU ALIGN THE INTERIOR WALL THAT SEPARATES THE TWO SPACES TO THAT, UH, CENTER LINE OF THE TWO GARAGE SPACES, WHICH IS MAYBE THREE FEET, I MEAN, TO ME THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS THAT FOOTPRINT SHOULD GROW TO THE EAST OR I GUESS PLAN EAST.
AND I WOULD NOT GROW IT TO THE SOUTH, UH, ONE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT TREE THERE AND YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK THAT YOU, YOU WOULD START TO, UM, BUILD THAT FOOTPRINT OUT TOO MUCH.
SO JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO WHERE THAT PRIMARY, I MEAN THAT SECONDARY STRUCTURE CAN GROW A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT VERY MUCH IF YOU GET RID OF THE THIRD UNIT.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, UH, WE COULD DO ONE OF TWO THINGS.
WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION AND COME BACK WITH A REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND MASSING, OR WE COULD, UH, SEND THIS BACK TO D R C AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS HAD A CHANCE TO, UH, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE YOU UP ON THAT SECOND SUGGESTION, UH, AND MOVE THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, RETURN TO A FUTURE D R C MEETING, UH, WITH THE REVISED PLAN FOR US REVIEW PRIOR TO COMING BACK TO THE FULL COMMISSION.
I WOULD SECOND THAT THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE UNMUTE AND SAY NAYYY.
[21. 20-5198 Address/Description: 908 S LAREDO ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-359 RIO District: RIO-7 Applicant: Richard De La Cruz Request: Construction of a maintenance facility City Council Dist.: 1]
EDWARD IS THE CASE MANAGER AS WELL, SO HE IS GIVEN THAT, UH, I'LL BE ABOUT 30 SECONDS HERE.[02:15:11]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21 9 0 8 SOUTH LAREDO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SERVICE STRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LOT AT 9 0 8 SOUTH LAREDO AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH LAREDO.AND GUADALUPE, THE LOT CURRENTLY FEATURES ONE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED THAT THE STRUCTURE WILL BE USED FOR VEHICULAR SERVICE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH N WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE PROPOSED CURB CUT ON GUADALUPE STREET BE REDUCED TO A TOTAL OF 25 FEET IN WIDTH.
TWO, THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED AND BUFFERED FROM VIEW FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFIED THE PROPOSED MATERIAL TO INCLUDE STONE OR A MASON MASONRY MATERIAL THAT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FACADE DEBT WHILE SEPARATING THE FACADE IS NOTED IN FINDING J OR THAT THE APPLICANT FENESTRATION INTO THE DESIGN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE U D C TO PROVIDE DEPTH AND DETAILING TO FACADE IS NOTED IN FINDING M FIVE THAT THE PROPOSED FENCING BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT, NO MORE THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT FEATURE CHAIN LENGTH IS NOTED IN FINDING M AND IN REGARDS TO ARCHEOLOGY, THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE LOCAL LAWS RULING REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY AS APPLICABLE.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE'RE HAVING SOME INTERNET ISSUES IN THE BUILDING.
WAS EVERYBODY ABLE TO HEAR THAT WE LOST VIDEO ON MOST OF YOU? I HEARD IT.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? YOU'RE ALL, YOU'RE ALL, YES, THEY'RE HERE.
UM, THIS IS RICHARD DELA CRUZ WITH THE CENTER INTERNAL RIVER AUTHORITY.
UM, WE WANTED TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THESE, UH, STIPULATIONS.
I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND START OUT WITH THE, UH, FENCING, UH, STIPULATION, UH, ROMAN NUMBER OH FIVE, UH, OR, OR, UM, YEAH.
UM, NUMBER FIVE, UM, RIVER AUTHORITY TEAM TAKES EXCEPTION TO THIS, UH, STIPULATION ITEM.
UM, THE SARAH TEAM MET WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BACK IN, UH, SEPTEMBER OF 2019 PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN BEING DONE, AND, UH, ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CHAIN LINK FENCE ON GUADALUPE STREET AND LAREDO STREET, UH, AT WHICH TIME THE, UH, O H P OFFICE IDENTIFIED THAT THIS, UH, PARTICULAR FENCE, UH, WAS GRANDFATHERED AND COULD RETAIN, AND RIVER AUTHORITY COULD RETAIN THAT EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT AND ALSO THE BARBED WIRE THAT'S ON TOP.
I ALSO HAVE A, UM, ANOTHER ITEM, UH, RELATED TO THAT, SINCE THE RIVER AUTHORITY IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, UM, THE FACILITY AT, UM, 9 0 8 SOUTH LADO, UH, IS CONSIDERED A GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY, WHICH IS USED BY OUR WATERSHED AND PREPARATION STAFF, AND THEN THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE DUTIES, UH, AS REQUIRED BY OUR GOVERNING LAWS.
UM, THE RIVER AUTHORITY, UH, HAS THE, I GUESS, UH, RESPONSIBILITY OR, OR, UM, RESPONSIBILITY, UM, TO PERFORM OUR DUTIES AS NEEDED IN THE PERFORMANCE AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WATERSHED OPERATIONS.
UM, THEREFORE, AS SUCH, THE FENCING WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM INITIAL, UH, MUNICIPAL CODES.
UH, IN ADDITION, U D C SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 14 A C UH, SIX C PERMITS A GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY TO USE BARBED WIRE FENCING AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
THEREFORE, THE RIVER AUTHORITY FEELS THAT THE, UM, THE FENCING, UM, THAT WE WOULD TAKE EXCEPTION TO IT AND, AND NOT HAVE TO, UH, COMPLY WITH THAT PORTION OF IT.
REGARDING THE, UM, OTHER ITEMS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START BACK AT NUMBER ONE.
UH, THE PROPOSED CURB CUT ON GUADALUPE STREET, UH, RIVER AUTHORITY WOULD TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS ALSO.
UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, KEEP OR RETAIN THE PROPOSED DESIGN DRIVE OPENING ON GUADALUPE STREET.
UM, THE O H P STIPULATION FOR A MAX CURB CUT OF PROPOSED 25 FEET DRIVE WOULD PROVIDE FOR LESS THAN 20 FEET AT THE NECK OF THE DRIVE, WHICH WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE SAFETY OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, UH, COMING IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY, UH, BY ONLY, UH,
[02:20:01]
BY ONLY ALLOWING LESS THAN 10 FOOT PASSAGE IN EACH DIRECTION OF THE DRIVE.UM, ITEM TWO, THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED AND BUFFERED FROM VIEW, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SARAH TAKES NO EXCEPTION TO MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT.
UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFY THE PROPOSED MATERIALS TO INCLUDE STONE AND MAINSTREAM MATERIAL.
UM, GOING BACK TO THE SEPTEMBER, 2019 MEETING WITH THE O H P, UM, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE O H P THAT ALTERNATIVES TO STONE FACADE TO BE UTILIZED BY ALLOWING OR DESIGNING INTO THE, INTO THE BUILDING, UM, AN ARCHITECTURAL, LET'S SAY, UPGRADED SKIN TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE, OF THE FACILITY.
UH, SARAH TEAM FEELS THAT, UH, WE'VE MET THIS REQUIREMENT, UH, WITH THE PRESENT DESIGN, UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATES FENESTRATION INTO THE DESIGN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE U D C TO PROVIDE DEPTH AND DETAILING TO FACADE.
UH, THE SEARCH TEAM TAKES EXCEPTION, UH, TO THIS STIPULATION ITEM.
ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION AVAILABILITY ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS LIMITED ONLY DUE TO THE, UH, DESIGN OF THE SIX GARAGE DOORS.
UH, THE WINDOWS, UH, THERE ARE WINDOWS INCLUDED IN THE BACK OR THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.
BUT WITH THE, WITH, UH, RESPECT TO THE PROVIDING DEPTH AND DETAILING ON FACADES, UH, WE FEEL THAT, UH, WE'VE MET THIS, UM, REQUIREMENT, UM, AND WOULD TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE FACADE ADDITION OF STONE AND, AND SO FORTH, UH, AS A FACADE.
SO THEREFORE, WE FEEL THAT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WOULD NOT APPLY.
UM, ITEM SIX, ARCHEOLOGY, UH, PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY AS APPLICABLE.
SO IT TAKE, UH, THE RIVER AUTHORITY TAKES NO EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT.
ALSO, I DO WANT TO ADD THAT, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE FACADE ON THE, UM, LOOKING AT THE UPGRADED METAL ARCHITECTURAL SKIN, THE RIVER AUTHORITY IS MAKING CONSIDERABLE, I SHOULD SAY, UM, UH, CONSIDER MAKING CONSIDERABLE DESIGN, UM, ADDITIONS INTO THE BUILDING.
UH, NUMBER ONE, THE, UH, THE LIGHTING COMPONENT.
UH, WE DO HAVE WALL PACKS ON THE EXTERNAL SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT, UH, WERE IDENTIFIED TO US THROUGH THE O H P, UH, TO, UM, ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF THREE FOOT CANDLES, UH, WHICH WE HAVE MET.
ALSO, WE ARE GOING TO ASSURE THAT THERE'S NO BLEED OVER OF LIGHT OR LIGHT POLLUTION INTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OVER THE STREETS.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ITEM, UH, THAT I WANT TO BRING UP IS SITE LANDSCAPING.
UH, THE RIVER AUTHORITIES TAKE GOING OVER AND ABOVE, I THINK, UM, ON THE DESIGN TO INCLUDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, UH, 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON GUADALUPE STREET, AND A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG LAREDO STREET.
THAT INCLUDES, UH, STRAWBERRIES, UH, SHRUBBERY TREES, UH, LID FEATURES, UM, IN GENERAL, JUST MAKING IT MORE APPEALING, MAKING A MORE APPEALING PRESENTATION TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND TO THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WOULD BE INSIDE THE FENCE, INSIDE THE, UM, EIGHT FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
AND THEY, UM, WE DO HAVE A CISTERN THAT WE'RE PUTTING UP FRONT ALSO AS A MID FEATURE.
AND, UM, WE'RE JUST, UM, I JUST, JUST GOING OVER AND ABOVE, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, LANDSCAPING, UH, ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
THAT WOULD BE, UH, THAT WOULD BE CONCLUDING I GUESS MY, UH, MY COMMENTARY REGARDING THE STIPULATION.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UH, THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE, THEY'RE ON GUADALUPE AND THE, THE SIDE STREET, ARE THEY BOTH EIGHT FEET TALL WITH A THREE STRAND BARBED WIRE? THE GUADALUPE STREET, UM, FENCE IS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT HAS A THREE STRAND BARBED WIRE.
THE LAREDO STREET FENCE, UH, GOES DOWN TO THE DRIVE THAT IS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WITH THREE STRAND BARBED WIRE.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EXISTING DRIVE TO THE SOUTH, THAT IS A FOUR FOOT FENCE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, CON, UH, CONSIDER PUTTING A, UH, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THERE WITH, UH, THREE STRAND BARBED WIRE AS WELL.
THE GATES ON THE DRIVE WOULD ALSO HAVE A THREE STRAND BARBED WIRE.
[02:25:03]
OKAY.THE GATE THAT IS ON GUADALUPE, UM, IS YOUR CURB CUT IN THIS EXISTING GATE LOCATION.
UM, THE DRAWING THAT YOU HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THE CURB CUT IS, UM, SHOWN A LITTLE BIT WIDER, ONLY BECAUSE IT ANGLES OUT FROM THE CURB OR FROM THE SIDEWALK.
IT IS AT 25 FEET AT THE NECK OF THE DRIVE AND THEN 30 FEET AT THE, AT THE SIDEWALK.
AND THEN, UM, IT ANGLES OUT A LITTLE BIT, PROBABLY ABOUT ANOTHER FOUR FEET ONLY BECAUSE OF THE, UM, UH, APPROACH, UH, REQUIREMENT, DESIGN REQUIREMENT.
ALSO, AS THE VEHICULAR, UH, TRAFFIC COMES IN AND OUT, UH, WE WANNA ASSURE THAT WE'RE NOT RUNNING OVER THE, OVER THE CURB, UH, WHEN WE EXIT THE FACILITY, LET'S SAY, UH, FOR INSTANCE, TAKING A RIGHT TURN OR COMING IN WITH THE RIGHT TURN WHEN, UH, VEHICULAR, UM, WHEN OUR VEHICLES, UH, MAY HAVE A TRAILER ATTACHED AND SO FORTH.
UH, THE GATE THAT IS ON GUADALUPE STREET NOW, IS THAT THE LOCATION OF SHOWN ON THIS PLAN FOR YOUR, UH, NEW GATE? YES, IT IS.
WE WOULD BE MODIFYING THE WIDTH ON THAT EXISTING EXISTING DRIVE.
UH, RIGHT NOW THE PRESENT DRIVE IS A LITTLE BIT SMALLER AND, UH, ALL WE HAVE IS A SINGLE, BASICALLY AVAILABILITY FOR SINGLE ENTRANCE INTO THAT, INTO THAT DRIVE.
AND THEN ON LAREDO, CURRENTLY THERE IS NO, UH, CURB CUT AND, AND GATE, CORRECT? UH, THERE IS, THERE IS A CURB CUT THERE, UH, ALREADY.
THE CURB IS VERY, UM, LET'S SAY IN IN POOR SHAPE AT THAT LOCATION.
UM, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS REQUESTED THAT WE REBUILD, UH, THE CURB IN THAT AREA, UH, ALONG LAREDO STREET.
UM, AND THE EXISTING FENCE THAT'S THERE, UH, IS IN DISREPAIR ALSO.
UH, I DO WANT TO COMMENT THAT THE, UH, THAT THE FENCE FROM THE EXISTING DRIVE ON LAREDO STREET NORTH TO THE CORNER ON GUADALUPE STREET IS, UM, IS IN SEVERE DISREPAIR, AND WE'D LIKE TO, UH, REPLACE THAT WITH AN EXIT, WITH A BRAND NEW EIGHT FOOT, UH, CHAIN LENGTH FENCE.
UM, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S AN EXISTING TREE THERE THAT HAS HELPED PUSH THAT, THAT FENCE OVER.
THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND FOR O H P, UM, REFERENCING THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS BACK IN 2019, UH, IS THERE A DOCUMENTATION OF THAT? ARE YOU GUYS IN AGREEANCE WITH THE, THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT THE, UH, GRANDFATHERING OF THE CHAIN LINK FENCES AND THE, UH, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE, UH, THROAT ISSUE AND THE, UM, BARB WIRE FENCE? UH, I'LL ANSWER THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS, WE JUST ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS A NEW FENCE TO BE PROPOSED.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE AS, UM, HOW WE GENERALLY IMPLY THE FOLLOWING FOR FENCES IS, CAN BE REPAIRED, THEN IT CAN STAY AS IS INCLUDING BARBED WIRE AND HIGH TISSUES.
UM, IF IT NEEDS TO, IF THE, THE STRUCTURE OF THE FENCE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED IN ORDER TO, FOR THAT REPAIR TO HAPPEN, MEANING IT NEEDS TO COMPLETELY COME DOWN AND MOVE, HOLES GO UP, AND THAT'S A NEW FENCE.
AND SO I GUESS THE, THE QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO REPAIR THE FENCE RESIDENCE, THE, THE ABILITY TO REPAIR THE FENCE ON GUADALUPE IS, UH, IS A POSSIBILITY.
THE FENCE FROM GUADALUPE STREET TO THE EXISTING DRIVE, UH, IS IN TOTAL DISREPAIR.
UH, IT'S, IT'S BARELY STANDING UP.
UH, THOSE, THOSE, UM, MAIN POLES ARE, ARE BENT AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW POLES.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER, YOU KNOW, INTO SOME OF THE, UM, ALLOWANCES THAT THE APPLICANT STATED.
UM, SO I MEAN, AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD JUST WANT A RECOMMENDATION, SEAN, HOW TO PROCEED AND LOOK AT WHAT THE
SO, UH, WITH THIS FACILITY ALSO, UM, I, I KNOW THAT WE REFERENCED THE FENESTRATION, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WINDOWS THAT WERE IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
UM, THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE DIFFICULT DUE TO THE OVERHEAD DOOR REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE.
[02:30:01]
WHAT DID STAFF HAVE IN MIND WHENEVER THEY WERE DISCUSSING THE ELEVATIONAL FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS? ARE THEY LOOKING FOR A WINDOW, UH, THE, THE STANDARD WINDOW DETAIL ON THE WINDOWS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE? ARE THEY LOOKING FOR, UM, ADDITIONAL WINDOWS ADDED TO THE, UH, THE, THE FRONT FACING OF THE BUILDING JUST TO, UH, GIVE IT MORE OF A, UM, RIGHT, I MEAN, THIS WAS REVIEWED, THIS WAS REVIEWED UNDER RIO, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET THATHELLO? HEY, SORRY, I WAS GETTING SOME FEEDBACK IN, UH, FROM ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, SO I HAD TO MUTE MY MIC FOR A MINUTE THERE.
UM, SO I GUESS, UH, I MEAN, MY, MY MAIN QUESTIONS, I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOME POTENTIAL FOR, UH, LEEWAY FOR A GOVERNMENT FACILITY, UH, TO, TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE FENCE REQUIREMENTS AND TO HAVE SOME FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UH, GIVEN SOME LEEWAY, ESPECIALLY LIKE THE, UH, THE THROAT FOR THE CURB CUT.
UM, I, I, I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FENESTRATION PATTERNS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO, TO TAKE A LOOK AT JUST BECAUSE, UM, THIS IS IN RIO AND, AND WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, UH, STAY CONSISTENT WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, FOLLOWING THOSE RULES.
SO IF I, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND ME ASKING, SIR, UM, WHAT WOULD BE THE, UM, I GUESS I WOULD NEED MORE CLARIFICATION THEN ON, ON WHAT THAT FENESTRATION REQUIREMENT WOULD BE.
YEAH, AND I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF IS TRYING TO GET, UM, MORE OF A CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO DO THERE.
AND SO, UM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO GET, UH, APPROVED WINDOW LOCATIONS AND WINDOW DETAILING.
UM, AND THAT, THAT'S BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED HERE TODAY.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE FENCING I, I, I CAN SUPPORT THE FENCING REQUESTS THAT CAN SUPPORT THE, THE NECK OF THE, THE DRIVE BEING WIDENED SLIGHTLY AS YOU PRESENTED BASED ON THE, THE USE OF, UH, UM, WORK TRUCKS AND, AND TRAILERS.
UH, I, I THINK THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A GOVERNMENT FACILITY, IT, IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A, A, UH, RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE TO DO, UM, TO WORK EFFICIENTLY.
UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UH, THAT THAT DESIGN TAKE PLACE.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY MY, UH, MY MAIN COMMENTS THERE IS REALLY THE FENESTRATION.
SO I WOULD SAY WORK WITH STAFF AND I MEAN, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY FLEXIBILITY THERE.
UM, COMMISSIONER ALA, I, I JUST WANT TO ECHO COMMISSIONER BOWMAN'S COMMENTS.
I, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THAT IS THAT IF WE'RE GONNA HOLD, UM, PRIVATE OWNERS AND BUSINESSES TO A CERTAIN STANDARD GOVERNMENT YEAH.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I, I AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THAT.
I THINK, UH, NOT ONLY, UH, BE HELD TO THE STANDARD, BUT TO, TO DEMONSTRATE, YOU KNOW, UH, LEADERSHIP IN THAT STANDARD.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS, UH, GONE TO SOME EXTENT ON CITY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THAT IT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD EXPECT FROM, FROM OUR GOVERNMENT, UH, AGENCIES TO BE SHOWING, UH, LEADERSHIP IN THAT WAY.
SO, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL, UH, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS TWO SIX IN STAFF STIPULATION FOUR, UH, TO BE REVIEWED WITH STAFF IN A FOLLOW UP, UH, COORDINATION MEETING PLENTY APPLICANT AND WHICH BE, UH, FOR THE ADDITION OF SOME FENESTRATION TO THIS BUILDING TO, TO KEEP IT BEING JUST A WINDOW RESPONSE.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
[02:35:02]
FETZER.WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE UNMUTE AND SAY NAYYY.
A, WE'RE GONNA GIVE EDWARD A. LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO RESET FROM 22.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MUTE HIM JUST IN CASE BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE HIM.
[22. 20-5232 Address/Description: 3006 BROADWAY HDRC Case No.: 2020-367 RIO District: RIO-1 Applicant: Mary Gorman/Southwest Texas Sign Service, Inc. Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 2]
NUMBER 22 H C R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 67 30 0 6 BROADWAY.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL SIGNAGE AT 30 0 6 BROADWAY.
WITHIN THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING, ONE, INSTALL AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNED TO FEATURE L E D LIGHTING ON A BACKER PANEL TO READ TO MOBILE TO PROPOSED SIGN.
WILL FEATURE 44 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND APPROXIMATELY 211 INCHES IN WIDTH FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF 65 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION AND WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING SIGN SOON TO INSTALL AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN TO FEATURE L E D LIGHTING ON A BACKER PANEL TO T-MOBILE.
PROPOSED SIGN WILL FEATURE 40 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND APPROXIMATELY 192 INCHES IN WIDTH FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 53 SQUARE FEET.
PROPOSED SIGN WILL BE LOCATED ON THE WEST ELEVATION.
IT WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING SIGN AND THREE TO INSTALL A NEW FACE ON THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN OR REPLACE THE EXISTING FACES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED CHANNEL LETTERS SIGN ON THE NORTH FACE WITH STIPULATION THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING SIGNAGE, APPROXIMATELY 30 SQUARE FEET AND THAT THE BACKER PANEL BE ELIMINATED.
UPDATED SIGNAGE DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFFER REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO.
THE PROPOSED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNED ON THE WEST SIDE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING SIGN, 30 SQUARE FEET AND THE, AND THAT THE PROPOSED BACKER PANEL BE ELIMINATED.
UPDATED SIGNAGE DOCU DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THREE STAFF RESIDENTS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE PROPOSED REPAY OF THE MONUMENT SIGN SUBMITTED BASED ON FINDING E HAVE APPLICANT MS. MARY GORMAN OF SOUTHWEST TEXAS SIGN SERVICE ON THE LINE NOW.
OKAY, SO YES, UM, MY NAME IS MARY GORMAN, I'M WITH SOUTHWEST TEXAS LINE SERVICE AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH OUR CLIENT.
OUR CLIENT IS IN THE PROCESS OF REDESIGNING THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE, UM, TO MEET THE HT C'S STIPULATIONS AND I WILL SUBMIT THEM AS SOON AS I RECEIVE THEM.
DOES THIS, COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THE STIPULATION STATED BY, UH, STAFF? YES MA'AM.
CHAIRMAN FETZER, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND PENDING, UH, THE SUBMITTAL REVIEW BY STAFF OF THE UPDATED
THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
[02:40:01]
AYE.ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE UNMUTE AND SAY NAYYY.
NEXT EDWARD'S GETTING THAT OUT.
[23. 20-5194 Address/Description: 321 N HACKBERRY ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-366 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: John Barr/321 HACKBERRY LLC Request: Amend previously approved windows, amend previously approved roofing materials City Council Dist.: 2]
ITEM NUMBER 23 H D R C CASE NUMBER 20 23 66 3 21 NORTH HACKBERRY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN AND INSTALL AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF AND PLACES THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STANDING SEA METAL ROOF FOR THE FRONT EASTERNMOST STRUCTURE AND TWO, TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WINDOWS.REGARDING MATERIALS AND PROFILE, WE INSTALL AN ALL ALUMINUM WINDOW IN PLACE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WOOD ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS.
STAFF COMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE AND AMENDMENT FROM THE, FROM A STANDING SCENE, METAL ROOF TO AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF AS SUBMITTED.
BASED ON FINDING C FOR ITEM TWO, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO, AN AMENDMENT TO WINDOWS, AMENDMENT TO A WINDOW THAT DOES NOT MEET STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
FURTHERMORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED TWO BY FOUR TRIM BE ELIMINATED AND THAT TRADITIONAL TREND BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AS NOTED IN FINDING E AND IN THE APPLICABLE CITATION.
I WILL NOTE THAT UM, AT THE TIME THE STAFF HAD FINALIZED THIS, THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT TIME SUBMITTED REVISIONS.
THOSE REVISIONS INCLUDED A SEPARATE WINDOW.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE STARTING ON PAGE 13 IN THE PACKAGE AS WELL AS A REVISED WINDOW OR INSTALLATION DETAIL, WHICH NOTES APPROPRIATE TRIM.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, JOHN BARR ON THE LINE.
UM, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UM, FIRST COMES FROM MONICA SAVINO.
UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO REDIRECT SAVINGS FROM THE METAL ROOF TO MAINTAIN THE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED AND APPROVED ALUMINUM WOODLAND BASE.
UM, NEXT WE'RE GONNA PLAY A VOICEMAIL.
HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSEPH GARCIA AND I AM CALLING IN CASE NUMBER 2 0 2 0 3 6 6 3 2 1 NORTH HACKBERRY STREET.
MY NAME IS JOSEPH GARCIA AND I LIVE AT 9 0 6 EAST CROCKETT STREET.
IF I WAS THERE, I WOULD BE HOLDING UP 27 OF THE 36 HOMEOWNERS SIGN PETITIONS THAT HAD SEVEN MEETINGS WITH PRIME HOME SOLUTIONS AND CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES AND ALSO SPOKEN TO THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
WE ALL BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE STICKING TO THE PLANS THAT WERE ALREADY FINALIZED, THAT METAL ROOFING WOULD BE DONE ON THESE HOMES AND THAT WOOD WINDOWS WOULD ALSO BE DONE ON THEIR ON THIS HOME, ON THESE HOMES.
I WOULD LIKE TO AGREE WITH O P'S RECOMMENDATION OF NOT APPROVING THE BRAND NEW SHINGLE ROOFING OR THE METAL OR VINYL WINDOWS.
NOW, ONCE AGAIN, WE WERE ALL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE METAL AND THE WOOD WINDOWS WOULD BE USED ON THIS PROJECT.
WE FEEL THAT THIS WILL CHEAPEN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BY NOT STICKING WITH THE HISTORICAL GUIDELINES
[02:45:01]
THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS ARE.SO ONCE AGAIN, WE DO NOT APPROVE THE NEW AMENDED ROOF AND WE WOULD LIKE TO STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL ALREADY DISCUSSED AND FINALIZED AND APPROVED METAL ROOFING AND WOOD WINDOWS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOSEPH GARCIA.
AND I HAVE, I HAVE CRYSTAL ON THE LINE.
CRYSTAL, DO YOU WANNA SHARE COMMENTS? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A FEW COMMENTS, UH, WITH, ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND A FEW OF MY NEIGHBORS.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING THE TIME OUT TO HEAR ME, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDST OF C OVID 19.
I THINK OUR CONCERNS WERE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY WENT TO, UM, THE NUITY HILL, THE CITY COUNCIL, WE ALL MET SEVEN TIMES AND WE HAD AGREED AND WE ALL CAME TO THE AGREEMENT THAT THE PLANS THAT THEY GAVE GAVE IN US.
AND I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, LIKE WHAT JOSEPH SAID, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, WE NEED TO KEEP OUR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, WE NEED TO KEEP THE THINGS THAT MATTER INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, THE WOODEN WINDOWS, THE SIDINGS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE SMALL, BUT THE LITTLEST DETAILS THAT MAKE SUCH A BIG DIFFERENCE IN OUR HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
I PERSONALLY HAVE REPLACED A FEW OF THESE WINDOWS AND I CAN IMAGINE THAT THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT EXPENSIVE, BUT THESE DEVELOPERS ARE GONNA MAKE $1.2 MILLION ON THESE HOMES THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LIVE IN.
SO IF THEY SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF MORE MONEY FOR THE, FOR AT LEAST THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO MOVE IN WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I UNDERSTAND IN THE MIDST OF COVID, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CUT BACK ON CERTAIN THINGS, BUT THIS IS NOT WHERE WE SHOULD BE CUTTING.
THIS IS NOT WHERE WE SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, HURTING OUR INTEGRITY.
THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THESE WOODEN WINDOWS, THEY THEMSELVES, THE COMPANY HAVE TAKEN A BIG LOSS DUE TO A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS NO LONGER PURCHASING THESE WINDOWS DUE TO, YOU KNOW, LOST REVENUE IN HOUSEHOLDS.
AND I FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD, YOU KNOW, KEEP THEIR COMMITMENT.
THEY PROMISED US THAT THEY WOULD HAVE WOODEN WINDOWS THAT THESE, THAT THE ROOF WOULD BE THE WAY THEY SAID METAL.
AND I FEEL LIKE BY THEM DOING THAT, THEY NOT ALSO, YOU KNOW, LYING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY'RE CHEAPENING OUR HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEY'RE ALSO TAKING A CONTRACT AWAY FROM ACCOMPANY WHO DESPERATELY NEEDS THIS.
INSTEAD OF SOME BIG BOX, HOME DEPOT, LOWE'S COMPANY WHERE YOU CAN ORDER THEM REALLY CHEAP FROM SOME MANUFACTURER MADE IN CHINA, YOU KNOW, AT, IN THE MIDST OF COVID.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THERE WITH YOU, I'M SPEAKING OVER THE PHONE, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS A TESTAMENT TO WHERE WE ARE IN OUR SOCIETY.
SO I ASK YOU AS A HOMEOWNER, AS A BUSINESS OWNER, YOU KNOW, LET'S KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUSINESSES THAT MAKE THESE BEAUTIFUL WINDOWS FOR US AND THESE ROOFS.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I REALLY, AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS HEARING MY CONCERNS AND THE CONSTITUENTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CALLER BEFORE WE HANG UP? OH YES, I DO LIVE AT, UH, 2 22 NORTH MESQUITE, UH, RIGHT ON, ON ARMSTRONG AND MESQUITE, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
AND THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE HAVE.
WERE THE, WHAT WERE THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED WINDOWS? WERE THEY WOOD OR WERE THEY ALUMINUM? CLOUD WOOD STAFF RECOMMENDED THE INSTALLATION OF A WOOD OR AN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW.
THE APPLICANT NEVER SUBMITTED A SPECIFIC PRODUCT, UH, FOR STAFF DURING EV.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I'M GONNA TACKLE THE EASY ONE FIRST.
I HOPE, UM, FOR THE PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF, NOT ALL ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFS ARE GRADE EQUAL.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A NICE DIMENSIONAL SHINGLE ROOF OR WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING FOR THE ROOFING? IN LIEU OF, UH, DOING THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF, A DIMENSIONAL SHINGLE ROOF, IT'LL, IT'LL BE CONGRUENT WITH THE OTHER TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
[02:50:01]
AND THEN WHAT IS THE, IS IT JUST COST SAVINGS? IS THAT, UH, AND I DON'T MEAN TO MINIMIZE COST SAVINGS, BUT IS THAT THE, THE MOTIVATING FACTOR HERE OR, UH, WHY YOU GUYS DEPARTED FROM THE COMMITMENTS THAT YOU MADE, UH, SOUNDS LIKE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO, UH, OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES PUTTING IN NO, NOT NOT JUST COST, BUT UM, TIME.UH, A LOT OF MATERIALS AND, UH, CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BACKED UP.
AND THEN I'LL NOTE THAT, UH, THE ROOF WAS NEVER IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN WE MET THE TWO TIMES, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IT WAS THE SIZING, THE MASSING THAT WAS ALWAYS IN DISPUTE, NOT THE ROOF STRUCTURE.
WE'RE GONNA GO WITH THE ROOF, UH, METAL ROOF IN THE FRONT THING JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE IT LOOK A LITTLE NICER.
BUT NOW IN LIGHT OF ALL THE COVID THINGS, NOT ONLY IS LIKE THE ROOF AND GETTING MATERIALS DELAYED, UM, THE WINDOWS SPLIT WINDOWS ARE 12 TO 16 WEEK LEAD TIMES FOR WOOD WINDOWS FROM THE MANUFACTURERS WE WERE GOING TO.
SO IT'S ALL ABOUT JUST TRYING TO PROGRESS OUR PROJECT TO MOVE ALONG.
TRYING TO MAKE UP SOME OF THE LOST TIME WE'VE HAD FROM WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE SLOWDOWNS OF COVID AND THEN NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF RENEWED WHEN ALL THE COVID STARTED.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
AND SO I JUST WANNA TOUCH ON THE FIRST THING THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT IT WASN'T EVER IN DISPUTE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WAS IT PROPOSED TO THEM? WERE THEY AWARE THAT IT WAS GONNA BE A METAL ROOF AND WOOD WINDOWS? INITIALLY THE LIKE, UH, PROPOSAL MENTIONED, WE NEVER, WE NEVER HAD IT IN AND CLARIFIED WHAT WINDOWS WE WERE GONNA PUT IN THERE.
SO WE NEVER DISCUSSED WINDOWS OR ROOFING MATERIALS.
LIKE, WELL NOW WHEN I, I I WOULD CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WAS ACTUALLY POSTED ORIGINALLY, WAY BACK WHEN, TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS THAT IT WAS ALL GONNA BE METAL ROOFS.
I DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT ROOFS STARTED CHANGING.
UM, I THINK SOME OF IT WAS WHEN WE LOST, 'CAUSE ORIGINALLY THIS WAS, WE HAD FOUR UNITS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT TO UH, CONCEDE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ELIMINATED AN ENTIRE UNIT AND DOWNSIZED BACK TWO UNITS BY 200 FEET.
SO WE'VE LOST OVER 24 OR 2,600 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO THAT COST HAD TO BE MADE UP SOMEWHERE.
UM, SO I WOULD SAY LIKE WE NEVER PROMISED ANYTHING AS FAR AS ROOFING OR WINDING MATERIAL.
IT WAS ALWAYS IN THE SIZING MASSING AND THE QUANTITY OF STRUCTURES THAT WE TALKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN I WILL NOTE THAT, UH, THE REASON WE'RE PROPOSING THE WINDOWS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS WE WERE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO GO CHECK OUT THIS PROFIT RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER ON CROCKETT STREET, WHICH YOU CAN SEE SEVERAL PICTURES OF ON, UM, I CAN'T, THE SLIDES NINE, 10 AND 11.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THE EXACT SAME WINDOWS SO THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I THINK EDWARD SAID THAT HE WOULD BACK ME UP ON THAT, THAT THESE ARE THE EXACT SAME WINDOWS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED IN OTHER PROJECTS.
TO CLARIFY FROM STAFF STANDPOINT, UM, THE APPLICANT REVISED THE SUBMISSION AFTER STAFF HAD FINALIZED THE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, AS NOTED, UM, AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, UH, THESE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN, UH, INSTALLED, UM, ON OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT WITH APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A SECTION HERE, WALL SECTION, NOTING THE INSTALLATION.
UM, THE STAFF'S PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THE STAFF HAD WERE THE LACK WAS THE LACK OF TRADITIONAL TRIM, UH, THE COLOR OF THE WINDOWS, UH, AND THE PROFILE OF THE WINDOWS.
UH, GENERALLY STAFF FINDS THAT THE NEWLY PROPOSED WINDOWS, UH, AS INCLUDED HERE, UM, ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARD.
AND WE DID REVISE FROM THE ORIGINAL THAT WE'RE NO LONGER DOING WHITE, WE'RE DOING THE ANODIZED BRONZE, JUST LIKE THE HOUSE THAT YOU SEE ON PAGES 10 THROUGH 12.
UM, HAVE A, UM, CLARIFICATION WHAT QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, CAN YOU, UM, CONFIRM THE SPEC, UH, SPECIFIC MATERIALS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THE OTHER TWO STRUCTURES? YOU KNOW, UM, 'CAUSE SINCE THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT UM, EDWARD REFERRED HIM TO THESE OTHER TWO ITEMS THAT WERE APPROVED, UM, CAN WE CONFIRM THAT?
[02:55:04]
SO WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS THE STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS.UM, SO THAT'S, THAT IT'S IN A WOOD OR LIN PAD WINDOW DOUBLE HUNG WITH CERTAIN DIMENSIONS, UM, FROM PROFILES.
SO THAT WAS JUST A STIPULATION THAT WAS NEVER DOCUMENTED, UM, TO STAFF.
SO WE NEVER HAD AN ACTUAL SPECIFIC WINDOW PRODUCT THAT WAS EVER PROPOSED UNTIL NOW.
SO THE PROPOSED WINDOW WE FOUND, UM, FOR THE SITE DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS.
SO THAT'S WHY THE REQUEST IS HERE.
UM, AND THIS IS AN UPDATED DETAIL SHOWING THE PROPOSED SOLUTION.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE ROOF MATERIAL? SAME THING.
UM, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE STANDING SCENE.
SO THIS IS A CHANGE TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE, IT WAS NEVER A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE STANDING SCENE.
SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
SO, UH, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CURRENTLY WITH THE, UH, PROPOSAL THAT'S, UM, ON THE TABLE WITH THE REVISIONS THAT HAVE COME IN STAFF IS IN APPROVAL OF, UH, THE WINDOW DETAIL THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND THAT STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ROOF AS SUBMITTED BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT ONE OF THEIR ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS AREA.
THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS BEING PROVIDED BY THE OWNER.
SO I WOULD, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ONE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND UH, APPROVE ITEM NUMBER TWO AS UH, SUBMITTED IN THE REVISION, UM, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY.
I THINK WE NEED A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
THAT'S FIVE TO TWO MOTION FAILS.
AND SO JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, UH, ACCORDING TO STAFF, UM, THE ROOF MEETS STAFF STEP SPEC, UH, STIPULATIONS FOR THIS AND THE REVISION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO STAFF MEETS THEIR STIPULATIONS.
IS THAT CORRECT? FOR THE WINDOWS STAFF? YES.
STAFF THAT IN REGARDS TO THE ROOF, UM, THE OTHER TWO STRUCTURES THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED WERE APPROVED WITH AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF, THE SHINGLE ROOF OR THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF, BOTH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES.
UH, SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ROOF IN REGARDS TO THE LATE THE, THE REVISION BY THE APPLICANT THAT'S DATED AUGUST THE 27TH.
UM, LAUREN, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE, UM, WELL THIS PAGE HERE WITH THE WINDOW SECTION AND THEN, UH, YOU COULD GO TO PAGE NINE, I BELIEVE.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED AN INSTALLATION FOR THIS WINDOW THAT WILL RESET THE WINDOW.
UH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE INSTALLATION, THE SEAL DETAILS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED IN AS WELL AS THE COLOR OF THE WINDOW, THE WINDOW PROFILE AND THE TRIM ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS AND RECONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER I A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
[03:00:01]
THE OTHER TWO STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, UM, WHAT WINDOWS WILL BE INSTALLED IN THOSE IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN? IT'S THE EXACT SAME WINDOW THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE.ALL OF 'EM WILL BE SIMILAR IN MEET STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER THEIR, BASED ON WHAT YOU GUYS SEE HERE, THEY'RE ALL GONNA BE THE SAME 37 10 WINDOWS THAT HAVE APPROVED, BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
BUT IF YOU GO TO PAGE, UH, I BELIEVE 10, YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS EXACTLY FROM THE HOUSE.
IT'S RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER ON CROCKETT AND YOU CAN SEE THE SERIES 37 10 RIGHT THERE IN KIND OF THE TOP RIGHT CORNER.
THIS IS TAKEN OFF OF THAT HOUSE.
I WAS ACTUALLY INSIDE AND TOOK A PICTURE FROM THIS WINDOW AS IT HANGS.
AND THEN IF YOU, UH, WOULD GO DOWN TO PAGE 14, YOU WILL SEE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER RIGHT ABOVE WHERE IT SAYS PLY GYM WINDOWS, THAT THESE ARE THE WINDOWS WE'RE PROPOSING.
THESE ARE THE 37 10 SINGLE HOME WINDOWS THAT ARE IN THAT HOUSE THAT I TOOK THIS PICTURE OFF OF.
THAT STAFF HAS ALREADY CLARIFIED, MEETS ALL THE STIPULATIONS.
SO A QUESTION FOR QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO THIS APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT OF WINDOWS IS FOR ALL THREE STRUCTURES OR FOR JUST THE, UH, ONE FACING HACKBERRY WHAT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE APPLICATION? YEAH, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO AMEND.
THIS IS FOR ALL THREE STRUCTURES.
THIS IS FOR EVERY WINDOW IN ALL THREE STRUCTURES.
AND ALL THREE STRUCTURES ARE AT 3 21 NORTH HACKBERRY? THAT IS CORRECT.
THERE'S NOT NEW ADDRESSES FOR THE OTHER TWO STRUCTURES.
THERE WILL BE, OH, THERE, IT'S ACTUALLY 3 21.
IF YOU LOOK UP LIKE PERMITS AND STUFF, IT'S 3 21 UNIT A 3 21 UNIT B, 3 21 UNIT C.
UH, I GUESS THIS IS THE APPLICANT.
I'M, I'M CONFUSED WHERE I'M HEARING FROM STAFF AND AS, UH, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN STATED, WE'RE FOLLOWING ALL THE STIPULATIONS.
THESE RUMORS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED THROUGHOUT NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE WITHIN ALL THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE DIRECTED AS DEVELOPERS TO FOLLOW, BUT NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING APPROVAL BY FOLLOWING THE STANDARDS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING.
SO I, I GUESS I'M JUST REALLY CONFUSED OF WHAT IT IS THAT I GUESS THE HOLDUP OR CONCERNS ARE.
WELL, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I THINK THE CONCERN IS, UM, WHILE THOSE WERE APPROVED, THEY WERE BEGRUDGINGLY APPROVED.
AND THIS WAS OUR, OUR CONCERN ALL ALONG IS THAT PEOPLE WILL KEEP COMING BACK WITH WINDOWS THAT DON'T REALLY MEET THE GUIDELINES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE MATERIALITY.
UM, SO IT'S NOT MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO WHAT IT IS, MEANING THAT STAFF IS GIVING YOU THE RECOMMENDATION ON IS IT'S GIVING THE DIMENSIONS AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, OF THE, OF THE SES.
BUT, UH, THE MATERIALITY IS NOT, AND THIS IS THE SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WE COMMISSIONERS ALWAYS FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING, UH, SORT OF PUSHED INTO, UH, WHEN PEOPLE COME IN WITH ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES.
UH, I'VE NOT, I I'M JUST VERY, THE WHOLE WINDOW THING HAS GOT ME REALLY CONFUSED.
UM, 'CAUSE WE WE'RE REFERENCED TO GO CHECK OUT THE HOUSE AROUND THE CORNER TO SEE HOW THE ALUMINUM PLUG WINDOWS WERE INSTALLED AND WE WENT AND LOOKED AT THIS HOUSE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE IS THE HOUSE WE TOOK PICTURES OF.
I MEAN THAT'S HALF A BLOCK AWAY FROM OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE WENT AND FOUND THOSE WINDOWS, CHASED 'EM DOWN AND WE FOUND A MANUFACTURER THAT COULD GET 'EM TO US IN A TIMELY MANNER.
'CAUSE I MEAN, THESE WINDOWS ARE STILL FIVE, SIX WEEKS OUT FOR ANY TYPE OF WOOD WINDOW WE WERE LOOKING AT.
WE'RE 12, 14, 16 WEEKS OUT FROM BEING ABLE TO GET THESE.
AND THAT'S JUST ONE OF OUR THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IS LIKE, IT, IT, THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE'RE WORKING ON MEAN, WE'VE BEEN ON THIS PROJECT FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW, FROM BEGINNING TO END.
WE'VE BEEN HELD UP EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY AND WE'VE CONCEDED SO, SO MUCH.
[03:05:01]
UH, WE'RE DEVELOPING ROADS FOR THE CITY.THEY'RE DONATING THESE ROADS AT OUR COST TO THE CITY.
WE'VE LOST AN ENTIRE UNIT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE TO CONCEDE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I MEAN, I, I'M JUST REALLY AT LETS IN WITH A LOT OF THE STUFF, UH, BECAUSE IT'S HERE, IT'S LIKE NOW I'M BEING TOLD TO GO AROUND THE CORNER FOR WINDOWS THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.
AND WE WILL MATCHING THE DETAIL, THE, THE INSTALLATION STYLE, THE WINDOW OF WHAT'S ALREADY CONGRUENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT JUST THIS PROJECT, APPARENTLY IT'S IN OTHER HOMES AROUND THE DISTRICT.
UH, AND, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT WE CAN'T PROCEED ON, ON ANOTHER HANGUP THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S FRUSTRATING.
I GUESS FROM MY SIDE, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
UM, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH TIMELINE BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE TIMELINE IS, IS IS WHAT YOU'RE CITING AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES WITH THE MATERIAL.
UM, WHEN, WHEN WERE THE ORIGINAL, WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION APPROVED? UM, THE ONE THAT WE'RE AMENDING IN REGARDS TO THE ROOFING AND THE, AND THE WINDOWS.
WHEN WAS THAT APPROVED, UH, ENOUGH FOR YOU GUYS COULD HAVE ORDERED? UM, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH H D R C AND AS WELL AS LIKE OUR BUILDER GOING THROUGH IT.
SO WE WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS PROCESS AND LIKE HOW IMPORTANT THESE WINDOWS WERE.
SO WE, THAT'S WHY I WE LEFT IT OPEN AS ALUMINUM CLOUD OR WOULD WE DIDN'T PROPOSE EITHER OR AT THAT TIME.
UM, ORIGINALLY IT WAS, I THINK APPROVED BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 19, BUT THEN WE WENT, HAD THAT, IT EXPIRED THE CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, WE HAD TO COME BACK IN TO DO IT, GET IT REAPPROVED AGAIN.
UM, AND THAT WAS WHEN ALL THE COVID STUFF STARTED HAPPENING AND WE WERE JUST REALLY FOCUSED ON AT THAT POINT TRYING TO GET OFF THE GROUND BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON ACROSS ANYTHING.
AND I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING THIS ACROSS THE BOARD AS MATERIAL GOING THROUGH THE ROOF.
I MEAN, PLYWOOD IS ALREADY DOUBLED IN PRICE IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS AND THEY'RE, WE JUST GOTTA CALL THAT ALL PLYWOODS GOING UP ANOTHER $3.
SO THAT TAKES IT TO 120% AN INCREASE IN PLYWOOD AND ROOF MATERIALS GOING THROUGH THE ROOF, STEEL CONSTRUCTION NAIL, EVERYTHING'S GOING UP IN PRICE AND TIMES ARE JUST GOING FURTHER AND FURTHER OUT WHERE WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT CHECK ON THE WINDOWS OF WHAT PRODUCTS WERE AVAILABLE.
AND THAT'S WHY WHEN IT CAME TO PROPOSING WHAT WE NEEDED TO GET APPROVED FROM THE WINDOWS, WE WENT TO STAFF AND THEY SAID, HEY, GO CHECK THIS HOUSE AROUND THE CORNER.
AND WE WENT TO THAT AND SAW IT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THE EXACT SAME WINDOW.
UM, THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON JUNE THE 24TH, 2019.
WELL, AND I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY WHY THIS HOUSE WAS CITED AS A GOOD EXAMPLE TO LOOK AT.
UM, CAN WE GO TO SLIDE, IS IT EIGHT? YEAH, SLIDE EIGHT.
SO THIS IS THE SITE ON HACKBERRY.
THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN ASSEMBLED.
AND SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE NOTICE IN OUR INVESTIGATION IS THE TRIM DETAIL.
AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS FRAMED OUT IN TWO BY FOURS, THE TRIM.
AND SO, UM, WELL THE, THE HOUSE THAT YOU SEE IN SLIDE NINE ACTUALLY HAD THE SAME ISSUE ORIGINALLY.
THAT WAS NOT THE APPROVED TRIM DETAIL.
AND SO THEY FIGURED OUT HOW TO RESOLVE IT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE REPORTED TO THAT HOUSE IS THAT'S THE CORRECT TRIM DETAIL AND INSTALLATION.
UM, NOW THE ACTUAL STIPULATIONS THAT WE NORMALLY RECOMMEND ARE FOR A WOOD OR ALUMINUM PAD, WOOD WINDOW.
UM, BUT AS I'VE SAID IN THE PAST, IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE MATERIAL, IT'S ABOUT THE
UM, AND THE PLY GYM WINDOW IS AN ALUMINUM ONLY WINDOW.
UM, WE DON'T NORMALLY RECOMMEND ALUMINUM ONLY, BUT FOR THIS WINDOW AND THEN THE INSTALLATION METHOD IS CORRECT, IT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
AND WE'RE PROPOSING DOING THE EXACT SAME THING AS THAT HOUSE THAT HE JUST SAID AS FAR AS THE INSTALLATION METHOD IN STYLE.
SO THIS DOES, HI THIS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
UM, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY YOU ARE COMMITTED TO DO THIS, UM, DETAILING AS, AS COREY EXPLAINED? YES.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE CROSS SECTION REFLECTS IS THAT, I MEAN, WE'RE USING THE ONE BY FOUR, UH, THE SIDING GOING UNDERNEATH WITH THE ONE BY FOUR ON TOP RECESSING THE WINDOW IN TO MAKE IT LOOK.
I MEAN THE PICTURES YOU SEE, UM, ARE MUCH EXACTLY WHAT OURS IS GONNA LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S FINISHED OF THE EXACT, OF THE FINISHED WHITE HOUSE ON SLIDES NINE THROUGH 12.
I MEAN, PRETTY MUCH DISREGARD ALL OF THE MOCKUP THAT WE BUILT.
WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT.
NOTHING IN THOSE PICTURES IS GONNA BE WHAT OUR FINISHED PRODUCT LOOKS LIKE, THAT THAT STAFF INDICATED THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THAT WAY.
AND THEN BEFORE THEY, WE COULD GET THE NEW DETAIL
[03:10:01]
AND NEW WINDOWS AND SPECS TO THEM, THEY'D ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS.SO YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH JUST DISREGARD SLIDES FOUR THROUGH, UH, FOUR THROUGH EIGHT.
THOSE ARE GONNA BE COMPLETELY, AND WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE, WE'RE FOLLOWING WHAT IS DONE AND BASICALLY NINE THROUGH 12.
SO FOR ME, UH, AND FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND, AND UH, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, UH, ABOUT YOUR STRUGGLE WITH MATERIALS AND YOUR TIMELINE AND YOUR URGENCY TO, TO TRY TO GET CATCH AHEAD OF THIS LIMIT ON TIME I AND COST.
UM, MY BIGGEST CONCERN, OR WHAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE IS, IS WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MENTIONED, WE KEEP ON SEEING, UM, THESE, THIS ISSUE WITH, WITH WINDOWS AND WE KEEP ON KINDA LETTING A, A LOOSE ROPE AND, AND ALLOWING FOR SYMPTOMS, THINGS THAT WE WOULD NOT USUALLY NOT ALLOW.
AND THEN WE SEE IT JUST BACKFIRE ON US.
AND SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE IN STRAIN TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE LINE OF, OF, OF THE GUIDELINES.
SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THAT'S JUST MY, MY WHAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MAKING A DECISION.
UM, BUT DIDN'T, UH, MR. EDWARDS SAY WHEN THE ALUMINUM WINDOW IS BUILT IN DETAILED RIGHT, IT MEETS ALL THE SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDELINES, WHICH THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO THIS HOUSE BECAUSE IT WAS TOLD GO MODEL THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS MODELING THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, UM, POST A FEW COMMENTS HERE.
UM, I, I HEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION AND I HEAR, YOU KNOW, YOUR ISSUES WITH YOUR TIMELINE AND COSTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT GOING ON TODAY, YOU KNOW, CONCERNING THIS CASE.
BUT I JUST WANNA POINT BACK TO PRETTY MUCH WHAT STAFF IS SAYING.
AND, AND TO ME THIS IS, THIS IS, IT IS REALLY SIMPLE AND, AND HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT, THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT'S, IS NOT DOABLE.
UM, SO UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF SIMPLY SAYS THAT THEY APPROVE ITEM ONE.
UM, AND THEN STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ITEM TWO, UM, WHICH IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE WINDOW THAT DOES NOT MEET STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS INTO CONSTRUCTION.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL A WINDOW THAT MEETS STAFF'S STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
FURTHERMORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSAL PROPOSED TWO BY FOUR TRIM BE ELIMINATED AND THAT THE, UM, TRADITIONAL TRIM BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN IS NOTED IN FINDING E AND IN THE ETHICAL CITATIONS.
SO HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, IT, IT SEEMS PRETTY, PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS OUR ISSUE WITH THAT? I MEAN, BECAUSE IF UN UNTIL THOSE THINGS ARE MET OR, OR YOU GET A CONSENSUS ON A COMMISSION, THIS IS, THIS IS WHERE WE STAND.
WELL, SO THAT WAS, I I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO GET ACROSS THAT THE DETAIL.
AND WE ARE DOING, I I, EDWARD, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME OUT WITH THIS.
'CAUSE I, THIS WAS MY CONCERN THAT THESE OLD ORIGINAL THINGS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WE KNEW THAT THAT'S WHY WE SENT NEW INFORMATION IN TO THAT DID MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS, BUT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO REMOVE THE WINDOWS.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HEARING THEM SAY THEY DO APPROVE THE NEW WINDOW THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THE NEW DETAIL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WHICH IS PAGE, UH, 13, 14, AND 15 TO, TO CLARIFY, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, THE STAFF MET THE APPLICANT ON SITE, UH, TO VIEW THE MOCKUP.
UH, STAFF COMMUNICATED BACK TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE MOCKUP AND THE PRODUCT INSTALLED IN THE MOCKUP WOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
UH, THE APPLICANT THEN SET OUT TO GO FIND A WINDOW THAT WOULD BE ABLE, THAT STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF, AND THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO FIND THE WINDOW THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED AT THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION ON CROCKETT STAFF HAD ALREADY COMPLETED THE CASE FILE, FINALIZED THE RECOMMENDATION, AND WAS ESSENTIALLY BUILDING THE AGENDA WHEN THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THIS STAFF LEFT THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION AND THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE CASE FILE, BUT INCLUDED THE REVISION SUBMITTED
[03:15:01]
BY THE APPLICANT SO THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PRESENT THOSE TO THE COMMISSION AT THIS HEARING.THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO REFER TO DISREGARD PAGES 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN AND EIGHT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHEN, UH, STAFF CAME OUT AND TOLD US THAT THIS WAS NOT THE RIGHT WINDOW.
SO WE WENT OUT TO GO FIND ONE AND REFERENCE THE HOUSE AROUND THE CORNER THAT ON CROCKETT AND WE WERE, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT PAGES NINE, 10, AND 11, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE EXACTLY MIMICKING ALMOST TO, I MEAN, ALMOST TO A T.
AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU CAN SEE PAGE 13, 14, AND 15 IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF IS SAYING DOES MEET THE GUIDELINES AND DOES MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS.
AND THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF, NOT PAGES, THE, THE, THE MOCK PICTURES OF THE MOCK-UP.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE ARE NOT BEING APPROVED AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE.
WE'RE BASICALLY ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF BASICALLY 13, 14, AND 15, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME WINDOW AS IN NINE, 10 AND 11.
MR. GIBBS, IS THAT KIND OF CLARIFIED WHERE WE'RE AT IN MY, I GUESS CONFUSION? UM, I'M CLEAR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IF NOT, UM, MAY I GET A MOTION? SO THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UM, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE, UH, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE SHINGLES BE SOMETHING THAT'S INTERVENTIONAL SHINGLE WITH A DECENT WARRANTY.
UM, AND THAT, UH, AND FOR DENIAL OF ITEM TWO, YOU
UH, FOR DECENT WARRANTY, UH, DO YOU MIND THROWING A YEAR ON THAT? YEAH, TYPICALLY LIKE A 20 YEAR WARRANTY.
WITH, WITH THIS NEW MOTION, ARE WE DISREGARDING ALL THE WINDOWS IN ENTIRETY? I, 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT MOTION TWO THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED DOESN'T MEET STAFFING.
LIKE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR ANYMORE AT ALL, IS LIKE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T MEET THAT, WE'RE NOT REQUESTING THAT THAT IS, THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF DRAWINGS HERE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
THAT'S WHY I KNEW IT WAS GONNA GET CONFUSING.
IT'S LIKE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR NUMBER TWO TO BE APPROVED.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE APPROVED IS WHAT IS BEING SHOWN IN NINE, 10, AND 11 THAT'S ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, WHICH IS IN RELATION TO PAGES 13, 14, AND 15.
I THINK COMMISSIONER, I THINK TO CLARIFY FOR COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, AND I'LL OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT I THINK THIS IS A DENIAL OF ITEM TWO.
COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS WHAT WE NEED DIRECTION ON IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONCUR THAT THE NEW, LIKE THE PROPOSED REVISED WINDOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THEY PROPOSED TO MEET THE STIPULATIONS, YOU CONCUR THAT THAT DOES INDEED MEET THE STIPULATIONS OR IF NO, YOU THINK IT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, WHICH WAS RAY WOOD OR WOOD TYPE.
SO TO CLARIFY MY MOTION, I MOVE FOR, UH, APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE, WHICH IS GOING FROM THE STANDING SCENE, RUNNING ROOF OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO A DIMENSIONAL SHINGLE ROOF WITH A 20 YEAR OR BETTER WARRANTY, WHICH IS REFLECTIVE OF THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIAL.
I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT AN AESTHETIC ISSUE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT IN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
UM, AND THEN DENIAL OF THE, UH, REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO CHANGE FROM WOOD OR WOOD ALUMINUM, CLOUD WOOD WINDOWS TO ALL WOOD WINDOWS PRESENTD TODAY.
SO WHAT I, I'M CONFUSED AGAIN NOW.
SO LIKE, SO WHAT DOESN'T MEET THIS IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED
[03:20:01]
APPROVED IN MULTIPLE HOUSES IN THE DISTRICT, UH, WHY ARE WE NOW BEING DENIED THE SAME TREATMENT? I'M, I THOUGHT THIS WAS BEING CONGRUENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING FAIR TALKING TO MR. CHAIRMAN.MR. APPLICANT IS OUT OF ORDER AND THAT HE SHOULD LET THE COMMISSION RULE ON THIS CASE.
NOT EVERYONE AGREED TO THAT, UH, EXCEPTION BE MADE ON, AND IT'S NOT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
MR. GIBBS, YOU SECOND THE MOTION.
ARE YOU SECONDING THE MOTION AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, I DO.
UH, ACCEPT THE AMENDED MOTION.
SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED? PLEASE UNMUTE AND SAY NAYYY.
I THINK THAT WAS CLEARLY A FIVE TO TWO.
UM, SO NOTE FOR THE RECORD ITEMS 24 25 26, UM, WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY.
SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN BRINGS THIS TO ITEM 27
[27. 20-5218 Address/Description: 606 KAMPMANN BLVD HDRC Case No.: 2020-371 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Alfred Gomez/GOMEZ ALFRED Request: Modifications to existing front walkway City Council Dist.: 7]
AND I BELIEVE STEPHANIE'S READY.UM, STEPHANIE, WE'RE GOING TO UNMUTE YOU, BUT YOU MIGHT NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEIR REASONS TO LIVESTREAM TO MOVE THAT THAT'S NOT GOOD.
UM, STEPH, IF YOU CAN PUT INTO THE CHAT, UM, THE APPLICANT'S PHONE NUMBER, WE CAN HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE CALL THEM.
GIVE US UH, A COUPLE MINUTES TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
SO STEPH IS GONNA JOIN, UM, THE WEB AUDIO AND WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE CALL YOU OUT.
STEPH, ARE YOU THERE? YEP, I'M HERE.
OKAY, GO AHEAD AND READ THE CASE AND HOPEFULLY, UM, THE APPLICANT CAN JOIN SOON.
ITEM NUMBER 27 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 3 71 ADDRESS, 6 0 6 CANMAN BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING CONTINUOUS CONCRETE FRONT SIDEWALK WITH CONCRETE PAPERS.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDING B THE REPORTING OF THE WALKWAY IN KIND IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
AND THEN RACHEL, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT THERE? CAN THE APPLICANT HEAR EVERYONE? YES.
ALRIGHT, WE CAN HEAR YOU GREAT.
UM, IF YOU WANT, IF YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU, UM, ARE REQUESTING THIS, THE COMMISSIONERS OR IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WELL, IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE IT'S NOT PIECES OF FLAT.
IT'S GONNA BE A PRETTY BIG, IT'S AN 84, I THINK 84 FEET.
UH, THE, THE LENGTH OF IT'S 84 FOOT LONG AND THE REASON I WANT TO REPLACE IT IS THE SIDEWALK IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY ORIGINAL FROM 1955.
I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER BEEN REPLACED.
AND, UH, IT'S UNK IN, UM, MY HOUSE.
THIS IS, IF YOU, IF YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURE,
[03:25:01]
IT'S MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY MODERN RANCH.SO I THINK THIS NEW LOOK, UH, THEY CALL IT THE CALIFORNIA SIDEWALK.
I THINK THIS NEW SIDEWALK THAT I WANT TO PROPOSE IS, UH, IT'LL GO WELL WITH THE HOUSE AND THE, THE SAW, THE HOME AND THE DESIGN TRYING TO DISH.
AND THEY ARE, THERE IS TWO OTHER ONES.
UH, THERE'S ONE RECENTLY THAT WAS PUT IN THAT'S KIND OF THE SAW THAT I WANT ON, UH, KINGS HIGHWAY BY KINGS HIGHWAY.
AND, UH, HAS THE SAME DESIGN THAT I'M LOOKING AT.
UM, IF THERE'S NOT ANY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO GET, UH, COMMISSIONER LFO'S INPUT ON THIS TO SET THE TONE.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CONCRETE PAVERS ARE APPROPRIATE.
THE, UH, CONTINUOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY ORIGINAL, UH, COULD BE REPLACED.
BUT, UH, I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCRETE PAVERS.
AND THE, THE, IF WE GO TO SLIDE NUMBER FOUR, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT SIDEWALK'S IN AMAZING SHAPE.
I MEAN, THAT SIDEWALK LOOKS BETTER THAN ANY SIDEWALK IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IS THAT, UH, AM I, AM I MISSING A CRITICAL ANGLE OF THIS? THE CONCRETE ITSELF LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN VERY GOOD SHAPE.
IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE, HAVE SETTLED SLIGHTLY ON ONE SIDE AND BE AT, BE AT A VERY SLIGHT ANGLE.
I, I CAN'T REALLY TELL FROM THE PHOTOS.
ALFRED, DID YOU WANNA COMMENT ON THAT? WELL, I'M JUST SAYING, I MEAN, WHEN I, WE EAT THE, THE GRASS OFF THE SIDEWALK, IT, I HAVE TROUBLE, UH, WEEDING IT 'CAUSE IT'S SO SS INTO THE GROUND.
I MEAN, Y'ALL ARE WELCOME TO COME LOOK AT IT.
IT'S NOT, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT BETTER.
NOT, UH, I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A STINK, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THOSE OTHER ONES HAVE GOT APPROVED.
OR THERE'S ONE ON SUMMIT THAT DID THE SAME THING.
I THINK IT HAS A THREE, IT MAKES IT, IT'S, IT'S GONNA HAVE LIKE A, I WANT IT TO DO LIKE A 5, 6, 8 INCH GAP IN BETWEEN THE, THE CEMENT.
BUT MY GUY THAT'S BUILDING THAT SAID HE COULD ACTUALLY ATTACH THE SIDE, UH, TO MAKE IT ONE PIECE, A COHESIVE PIECE, BUT IT HAVE LITTLE BREAKS IN THE MIDDLE FOR MORE DECORATE STYLE ROCKS.
SO, UH, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR, UH, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR BASICALLY THE LOOK THAT HE'S GOING FOR.
UM, WE'VE DONE, UM, CONCRETE IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE SANDBLASTED SPECIFIC STRIPS TO GET AGGREGATE EXPOSED.
UH, IT WOULD BE A CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK.
UM, IT WOULD BE KIND OF A REINTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE HAS AS LONG AS HE KEPT IT THE SAME DIMENSION.
UM, IT WOULD JUST BE A CHANGE IN TEXTURE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE TOO FAR OFF, UH, OF, OF WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS? I KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, ONE THING TO BREAK IT UP AND PUT SOMETHING PER PERMEABLE THERE, LIKE A GRAVEL OR A PEA GRAVEL OR SOMETHING.
BUT IF IT WERE AN ACTUAL SURFACE TEXTURE, UM, OF THE CONCRETE IS THAT, UH, IT WOULD GIVE HIM THE EFFECT THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR.
WELL, I ACTUALLY WANTED WIDER.
RIGHT NOW IT'S, APPARENTLY IT'S THREE FEET WIDE.
I LOOKING AT FOUR FEET, UH, EVEN FOUR FEET AND A HALF WIDER THAN IT IS NOW.
PEOPLE DON'T FIT SIDE BY SIDE.
SO THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I ACTUALLY JUST LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM, FROM THIS, UH, PROJECT AND CAN ATTEST THAT, UH, THE SOILS IN THAT AREA, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR THE SIDEWALKS THAT DON'T HAVE, UH, A WHOLE LOT OF, UM, STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY UNDERNEATH THEM HAVE MOVED AROUND QUITE A BIT.
IN FACT, THERE'S, RIGHT NOW A BOND PROJECT WENT ON FOR, BECAUSE THEY BUCKLED AND MOVED AROUND.
SO, UH, EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE THEY REPLACING, I, I CAN SEE EVEN FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SIDEWALKS DO TEND TO SHIFT AROUND QUITE A BIT.
SO I, I THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, UM, THERE'S CERTAIN, UH, CREDIBILITY TO, TO THE NEED TO REPLACE THIS LISTING.
AND, UH, THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM IN THE LONG RUN.
[03:30:01]
WITH THE IDEA OF TRYING TO BREAK UP THE EXTENT OF IT.'CAUSE IT IS 84 FEET OR 86 FEET, HOWEVER LONG, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT SAID IT WAS.
UH, BUT DOING IT MAYBE IN A MORE SUBTLE WAY OR IN A WAY THAT IS, UH, AS, AS, UH, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN HAD SUGGESTED, OR IN A WAY THAT, UH, YOU WOULD'VE SEEN IN 1950, UH, FOUR OR SIX OR WHATEVER THIS WAS BUILT WHERE THEY WOULD'VE, UH, INLAID, UH, STRIPS OF BRICK THAT WOULD RESPOND TO THE, TO THE, THE HOUSE.
UH, RATHER THAN DOING THE SORT OF KIND OF CONTEMPORARY GAPS.
WHICH, UM, YES, I MEAN, IT'S A, IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S TRENDY AND, AND, UH, CURRENT RIGHT NOW.
BUT, UH, IT'S, IT'S NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS HOUSE OR ITS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I COULD SEE, UH, PERHAPS GIVING SOME, UH, SOME RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF THIS, THIS, UH, 84 FOOT LONG SIDEWALK AND HAVING THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE THING TO DO.
BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE SUBTLER AND MORE HEATING OF THE SPIRIT OF THE HOUSE.
AND JUST TO, JUST TO CONCLUDE THAT THOUGHT, THERE ARE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FROM THE SAME VINTAGE, UH, THAT DO HAVE BRICKS, UH, INLAID INTO CONCRETE, AND THEY'RE EVEN BORDERED BY, UH, THE CONCRETE, UH, WALKS ARE BORDERED BY THE BRICKS.
SO IT, IT GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE WIDTH TO THAT.
NOW WAS THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE ORIGINAL HERE, I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS, IS HOW MUCH DO WE WANT TO DEVIATE FROM THAT? UM, AND IF WE DO DEVIATE FROM THAT, SHOULD IT BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE, OF THE, UH, THE HOUSE, OR SHOULD IT BE IN THE SPIRIT OF A, UH, YOU KNOW, CONTEMPORARY INTERVENTION ON THE SITE? WELL, YOU GUYS LET ME KNOW, Y'ALL ARE, UH, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, THIS HOUSE IS BUILT IN 1955.
IT'S NOT ONE OF THE 19, 20, 19 30 HOMES.
SO IT HAS A LITTLE MORE OF A AND TEMPORARY FLARE.
SO HAVE Y'ALL, YOU GUYS APPROVED MY DOOR A COUPLE MONTHS AGO AND I REPLACED THAT.
IT COST ME QUITE A BIT OF MONEY, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE PLACE BETTER.
UM, I THINK I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THE, THE VERY CONTEMPORARY CONCRETE PAVERS WITH THE, UH, THE ROCK IN BETWEEN.
UM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SAYS THAT IS, UH, SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS, UH, STYLE AND AGE OF HOUSE THAT, UH, PERHAPS HAD, UH, BRICK BANDING OR, OR BRICK EDGING, UM, I COULD POSSIBLY, UH, SUPPORT THAT.
UH, BUT ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS, UH, I'D AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, THEN IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, A PRETTY GOOD SIDEWALK TO ME.
IT MAY BE SLOPING A LITTLE BIT.
UM, BUT SO IF, IF I WERE TO MAKE IT A SOLID PIECE, WILL IT BE BETTER? OR BECAUSE I LIKE TO REPLACE IT EITHER WAY.
I MEAN, WILL Y'ALL LET ME MAKE A, JUST A FULL RUN OF CEMENT INSTEAD OF BRAKES IN THE MIDDLE? WELL, IF YOU WERE TO REPLACE IT IN KIND TO DEAL WITH, UH, THE, THERE ARE SOME CRACKS IN IT, AND APPARENTLY IT'S SHIFTING.
IF YOU REPLACE IT IN KIND, WHICH WAS, UH, A CONTINUOUS STRIP OF CONCRETE AND, UH, THE EXISTING WIDTH, UH, WITH THE SCORE JOINTS AS AS ON HERE, THEN THAT COULD BE, UH, APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WELL, WE NEEDED ANOTHER FOOT WIDER.
IT'S REALLY NARROW, AND I MEASURED THE ONES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE ACTUALLY A FOOT WIDER THAN MINE.
SO IF I CAN DO THE SOLID PIECE AND MAKE IT A FOOT WIDER,
[03:35:03]
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION OR A MOTION.SO JUST TO, JUST TO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE LAST, UH, THING THAT THE APPLICANT SAID YOU WOULD, YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO MAKE IT A FOOT WIDER THAN WHAT IS EXISTING? YEAH, RIGHT NOW IT'S THREE FEET WIDE.
I WANT TO MAKE, IF I CAN MAKE IT FOUR FEET, IS THAT BLEND IN WITH THE REST OF MY NEIGHBORS? IS THAT PART OF THE, THE APPLICATION AS WELL? YEAH, IT WAS ACTUALLY FOUR AND A HALF FEET WIDE THAT I WAS PROPOSING.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE THING THAT WOULD REALLY BENEFIT THIS IS IF, IF YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, WENT WITH FOUR FEET, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, AUGMENTED WITH SOME, WITH SOME LANDSCAPING AS WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE IT VISUALLY MORE INTERESTING.
IT COULD STILL BE JUST VERY SIMPLE CONCRETE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY.
UM, SO WITH, WITH THAT, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING, UH, SIDEWALK DUE TO ITS, UH, SLOPING CONDITION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE FORKLIFT WIDE CONCRETE, UH, WALK APPROACH.
WALK IN THE SAME LOCATIONS EXISTED CLARIFI FROM STAFF.
ARE YOU, UM, INCLUDING ANY SORT OF WIC DIMENSION? YES, I SAID FOUR FEET MAYBE.
I SECOND SO I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
[Approval of HDRC Meeting Minutes for August 19, 2020.]
WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 16TH.THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
MEET MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19TH.
COMMISSIONER, CLERK FOR A SECOND.