2026-09-16 - Historic Preservation Commission

15:39call this meeting uh the Historic

15:43Preservation Commission to order. Good

15:45evening. My name is Alan Cleave and I'm

15:46vice chair sitting in for chairman Chad

15:48Ross today. Um this is the September

15:5316th meeting of Athens Clark County

15:55Historic Preservation Commission. This

15:57meeting is being held at the planning

15:59department auditorium. Copies of the

16:01meeting agenda and a signin sheet are

16:03located on a table by the auditorium

16:05door. We are a volunteer board appointed

16:08by the mayor and commission and a

16:09decision-making body, which means that

16:11all decisions made this evening are

16:13final unless an appeal is made to the

16:15mayor and commission. Also, please note

16:18that all approvals given today are

16:19considered binding. Any further changes

16:22will require additional approval that

16:23must be obtained prior to the change

16:25being made. Our meetings proceed in the

16:28following manner. One, the ACC planning

16:31department will present its report and

16:33recommendation on each request. Two,

16:36public comments will be received from

16:37the petitioner and anyone else that

16:39wishes to speak in favor of request.

16:42Three, public comments are then received

16:44from anyone who wishes to speak in

16:46opposition to this request. Four, the

16:49public hearing will then be closed and

16:51the commission will discuss the request.

16:54Five, the commission will consider a

16:55vote on motions for approval, approval

16:58with conditions, table, or denial of the

17:00request.

17:02We ask all speakers to state their name

17:04and home address and direct comments to

17:07the condition and not to the authority.

17:10Also, please observe these timelines.

17:12The petitioner or representative may

17:14have up to 10 minutes. All other

17:16individuals who wish to speak for or

17:18against your request may have up to

17:20three minutes. At this time, please set

17:23your cell phones to silent or turn them

17:25off to avoid interference with your

17:27audio system, public comments, and

17:30commission deliberation. Please note

17:32that the audio and video sens system is

17:35very sensitive and we will broadcast and

17:37clearly record the softest whispering

17:40within the auditorium. Also, the camera

17:42is audio sensitive and may automatically

17:45follow and zoom into any voice within

17:47range. This meeting is being streamed on

17:50YouTube. So to ensure clarity of the

17:52broadcast, it is important that the

17:53speaker with the floor is the only one

17:56to speak.

17:57>> Taking attendance now, please respond

17:59your name after it's called.

18:02>> Crow here.

18:03>> Man,

18:04>> here

18:06I'm sorry.

18:08>> Rosier,

18:11>> here.

18:11>> Jackson

18:12>> here.

18:14Seeing that we have a quorum, may have a

18:16motion introduced into the official

18:17record of staff reports and other

18:19documents submitted to the commission at

18:21this meeting.

18:23>> Motion by man, second by Olive. All in

18:26favor?

18:30>> That was a unanimous.

18:33Okay. Are there any proposed changes to

18:34the August 19th

18:38agenda review?

18:43We have a motion to adopt the minutes.

18:48All of

18:50second pro. All in favor

18:58changes to the hearing minutes from the

19:00August 19th meetings.

19:06Have a motion to adopt those minutes.

19:09>> Motion by Katie, moved by Lauren. All in

19:13favor?

19:15Minutes pass unanimously.

19:18Has any member of the commission had any

19:19exparte communication regarding the

19:22items on tonight's agenda?

19:28All right, seeing none, we are now ready

19:30for the staff reports.

19:38We are starting with 495 West Rutherford

19:41Street. COA 20265965.

19:47This is for um originally they asked was

19:50to replace an accessory structure. It

19:53had been amended to propose an addition

19:55to the accessory structure. Second and

19:58this is in the Rutherford Historic

20:00District

20:03is Shiloh Penton as agent for Jeffrey

20:06Trap.

20:08The

20:10subject property is located one parcel

20:13east of the southeastern corner of the

20:15intersection of West Rutherford Street

20:17with Fanton Way.

20:23This 2025 aerial view of the property is

20:28reflective of the current conditions of

20:30the parcel.

20:32That's this is the 1947 Sandborn map.

20:37Um, Sandborn maps for this area date to

20:411926, but actually cut off the subject

20:43parcel. Um, aerial photography from

20:471946, though, includes the structure and

20:49an accessory building.

20:52Estimated date of construction for the

20:54dwelling is 1935.

20:56This is a site plan provided by the

20:59applicant showing um in yellow the

21:03accessory structure that we are looking

21:05at today.

21:08These are photos from the applicant as

21:11well showing the accessory structure as

21:13it stands.

21:15This is just some um

21:19notes from a previous or from the

21:22previous

21:25report um submitted from the applicant

21:28showing some of the damage that's been

21:30done over the years to to the accessory

21:34structure.

21:36As the commissioner remember, we saw

21:38this presented in June of this year to

21:41replace the accessory structure

21:44due to these conditions and um

21:47commission and applicant decided to

21:49table. So you know we were taking a look

21:51at um a proposed addition instead. Um so

21:56materials for this review do note

21:59several areas of the port condition

22:02on that screen. So some of those things

22:04are localized sill deterioration

22:06weakened areas of wall framing

22:08deteriorated roof framing members

22:11sighting I'll mention for beer but in

22:14the

22:16newly submitted documents all are noted

22:18as repairable. Oh, the proposal is now

22:21to remove the screen porch.

22:24Remove the screen porch and rear lean

22:26two and then add a 20 foot by 20 foot

22:30wide by 30 foot long covered pavilion at

22:32the west side of the retained structure.

22:36Structure is to have a front gable.

22:39You can see

22:41there on the right picture

22:45just or the side table of the retained

22:47building into the new roof line. These

22:50renderings provided do not show the

22:52existing structure with an addition. The

22:55plans next um do show this intent on the

22:59roof plan and the project description.

23:02So can see how the addition is proposed

23:06to go on that right side there of the

23:07existing structure

23:12and then roof plan showing again 20 by

23:1530 foot or how it would be 20 by 30 foot

23:25again the drawing here I don't believe

23:27it's scale but but does technically the

23:31the numbers there are intended to show

23:33you that it's just again by 30 foot

23:36added on.

23:38And just another um site plan to show

23:42where this is on the property. Um just

23:45some notes about the details.

23:48The addition is to be an open pavilion

23:51with a brick fireplace at the south end.

23:54Building is to be supported by six posts

23:56with brackets and an open truss roof

23:59system visible at the gable ends.

24:02And the structure is to have a shingle

24:04roof construction including 10 inch by

24:0810 in solid pine columns, woodlap siding

24:11and brick taver flooring in a herring

24:13bone pattern

24:16and

24:20the plans provided show that the

24:21existing structure to be retained as 20

24:23by 20 rather than the dimension shown on

24:25the black.

24:29Um staff recommending approval with

24:31conditions. These conditions being that

24:34the applicant submit revised drawings

24:37that are to scale show that the proposed

24:40addition with the retained historic

24:41structure include that the roof line not

24:44exceeding exceeding that retained.

24:47Additionally, revised drawings that

24:49include the proposed condition for the

24:50western side of the retained historic

24:52structure with historic openings being

24:54visually retained evenly functional. And

24:57then uh given the applicant the ability

25:01to work with staff on minor adjustments

25:03to the plan to comply with code

25:05requirements such as setbacks

25:07includes staff work.

25:09>> Thank you. Is the applicant

25:10representative here with us?

25:12>> I am.

25:12>> Great. you can uh if you would like to

25:14come up and address us, you have 10

25:16minutes to speak and please start with

25:17your name or address. And before you

25:19start, since our chair is here, I'm

25:21going to go the floor back to 10.

25:24>> Fair enough. If you want,

25:28thank you.

25:28>> My apologies. I was coming from

25:30Watkinsville and got stuck in traffic.

25:31So,

25:32>> it was meant to be here. It was

25:33>> It was a disaster from Watkinsville.

25:35>> Yeah. Took me a while.

25:36>> Yeah.

25:37>> Um Tom Dimitro, 1341 Suridge Drive,

25:40Watkinsville, Georgia. um here to

25:42represent Shiloh Hutton in this case. Um

25:46so

25:48I did send a new Dropbox with all the

25:50new drawings and scales on it. I don't

25:51know if you guys got there was a link in

25:53the email with the new Dropbox link on

25:55it. So there are new scale drawings, but

25:57I'm completely fine working on staff

25:58level to make sure all those are met.

26:01And

26:02>> what we have here was what was in that

26:05dropbox.

26:07>> I don't know.

26:08>> I don't know. But it seems that with the

26:11approval, yeah, I can work on staff and

26:12give you those and we can go through all

26:13that stuff and have those uh meet the

26:15revised drawings and meet what

26:17everything is

26:19required of us on that. The setbacks uh

26:22we'll follow the setback guidelines

26:24following the um the garage that is

26:27there now. Um I did send in there was

26:30the west wing. I know that was talked

26:32about what was inside there. There are

26:34some old garage doors that aren't

26:36original to the garage. I think they

26:37were replaced about 20 to 30 years ago.

26:41But we are oppos we're not opposed to

26:43keeping those and using those in the U

26:45but we'd like to reframe the inside of

26:47it so we can uh we showed last time all

26:50the rot that was inside just reframing

26:52that and keeping everything else uh to

26:54standard on that. So um that's all I

26:57pretty much have. Um I do have the

27:00revised drawings and stuff so that I can

27:01submit that. That's okay. Sorry.

27:09Right. Um, thank you. Are there any

27:10members of the public wish to speak in

27:11favor of this proposal?

27:14See none any wishes against this

27:16proposal?

27:20All right. [clears throat]

27:22Um,

27:26so, uh, take it from the notes here that

27:29we that we might be in position to have

27:31a motion on the floor right away on this

27:33one. So, is there a motion on the floor?

27:35Is there some discussion from the

27:36commission?

27:37>> I can make a motion.

27:38>> All right. Go ahead.

27:39>> Um, I move that COA-2026-05-0965

27:46be approved with all staff conditions.

27:50>> All right. Motion by mail, second by

27:53Katie. All in favor?

27:55Unanimous. Okay.

28:04That means we

28:06ready to move on to new business. Uh we

28:08have a staff report for 395 Millage

28:10Circle.

28:14Correct. 395 Millage Circle COA 2026

28:19081688

28:22for a rear and side edition in the

28:25Village Circle Historic District.

28:30petitioner for this one is both

28:35subject property located on the south

28:36side of Mill

28:39between Westview Drive and Highland

28:41Avenue.

28:43This property is considered

28:44non-contributing to the Mill Circle

28:47historic district means that the changes

28:49are reviewed for their impact on the

28:50surrounding district, not the specific

28:52property.

28:56This is a 2025 aerial view of the

28:58property and it does remain

29:00representative of the property at this

29:02time.

29:05This is the 1947 sandborn map of the

29:08area. Uh the subject parcel at the time

29:13had a two-story structure located on the

29:17southern end of the parcel which has

29:19since been removed and it now has um

29:22this house built on it which existing

29:25dwelling was built in 2008 just before

29:28the village circle historic district

29:31received it designation.

29:35>> [clears throat]

29:35>> This is the site plan that is submitted

29:38by the applicant showing the full parcel

29:43slide here zoomed in to show the house.

29:47As you can see the full or the extent of

29:51the addition is all on that side. The

29:55top is where millillage Avenue or sorry

29:58Mill is located. So um showing that side

30:06but this is the existing rear elevation

30:09on the top and then proposed rear

30:11elevation on the bottom

30:14of the slide here.

30:18So just point out some of the details

30:20the proposal the existing rear chimney

30:23will be removed as well as one of the

30:25existing four over4 light double hung

30:27windows from the second story.

30:30One story extension on the back of the

30:31home with cable roof will be extended

30:33from 10 feet 8 inches wide to 20 feet n

30:38inches wide. The screen porch will be

30:41redone. It will go from 26 feet 4 in to

30:4616 feet 8 inches in width.

30:49The new screen porch will have a metal

30:51shed roof with 8 by8 8 inch by 8 inch

30:55posts lap siding wood railings and two

30:59screen doors which are each about 2 feet

31:022 and 1/2 ft wide. There be brick steps

31:05that lead down from the new porch and

31:06rear extension area that are 28 and 1/2

31:10ft wide. And um the drawings show eight

31:15light doors with sorry four doors with

31:18eight lights with two light train zones

31:22above each door.

31:25Uh lap sighting is shown on this

31:27elevation.

31:28Two chimneys are proposed on this

31:30elevation. One will be on the very edge

31:32of the lefthand corner of the structure.

31:34The other will be on the right side the

31:36edge of the new extension.

31:38Two of the three roof lines are lower

31:40than the proposed

31:43rear extension.

31:47This is our right elevation. It's facing

31:50the east. The application does not

31:53explicitly say that the existing rear

31:55one-story extension off the rear of the

31:57home will be demolished, but it does

31:58appear that way from uh from these

32:01drawings. The extension will be the new

32:04extension will be 20 ft 6 in in depth

32:07from the rear of the home. There will be

32:09a chimney in the middle between two

32:11slight windows.

32:21And this is our left side. Again,

32:25existing on top, proposed on the bottom.

32:29On the existing structure, two of the

32:31existing windows will be removed from

32:33the first floor. One, the four over four

32:37light double hung windows and one 12

32:39light window. The new four over four

32:42light double hung window will be placed

32:44in the center of the first floor.

32:47The application um shows that the

32:50screened porch depth will be extended

32:53from just about 10 feet to 20 ft with a

32:58brick chimney in the middle of the

32:59screen walls. And the new screen porch

33:01will have a metal shed roof.

33:05And um the brick steps that were shown

33:07on the rear elevation drawing are not

33:09shown here on the left elevation drawing

33:12or on the right elevation drawing.

33:14clear the proposed depth of those brick

33:16stairs.

33:20All roof lines are shown to have gutters

33:24on the eaves except for the new shed

33:26roof over the screen.

33:30No hardscape changes are proposed on the

33:32site plan provided.

33:34This pipeline does show that the HVAC

33:37unit that it sits behind an existing

33:39garage as well as a shed will need to be

33:41recolored

33:45on that section.

33:51Staff recommends approval for this

33:54addition and finds that the addition is

33:56appropriate for the area and would not

33:57fundamentally change the non-historic

33:59home materials or mixing.

34:03Please,

34:04>> right. Is the applicant present?

34:06>> Yes, sir.

34:07>> Please come on up and

34:09[clears throat]

34:10>> tell what you have to say. And you got

34:1110 minutes.

34:12>> Good evening. My name is Bo Terrell. I

34:14live at uh 395 Miller Circle with my

34:17family. Um this is Michael Patat. He's

34:20the proposed builder in Bill Creech. Uh

34:23he's a building consultant. Um we try to

34:27keep it simple. Um if you stand in the

34:31rightway or on Millage Circle, you would

34:33not be able to see any of the proposed

34:36um addition

34:39the side or the back. If you have any

34:41questions, um I'll answer them as best I

34:44can and if I can't answer them,

34:46hopefully one of these guys can.

34:50>> All right. Thank you very much.

34:51>> Thank you.

34:52>> Um are there any members of the public

34:53that wish to speak in favor of this

34:54proposal?

34:57Seeing none, are there any members of

34:59the public that wish to speak against

35:00this proposal?

35:02All right. Seeing none, will there be

35:04discussion or do we have a motion on

35:06this one?

35:07>> Go ahead. I move that COA-2026-08-1688

35:15be approved.

35:17App recommendation. Motion for approval

35:19by Allen. Do we have a second? Second by

35:21May. All in favor? That's unanimous.

35:26Is approved.

35:30Okay, that brings us to number two on

35:32new business, 277 Hywasi Avenue. Can we

35:35have the staff report, please?

35:38>> 277 Hayawasi Avenue, COA 2026-08-1690.

35:45Uh, replacing windows, removing chimneys

35:48in the Boulevard historic district. Jeff

35:50Chrysler is agent for Hillary Reagan and

35:53Kevin Hammon.

35:58The property is located on the western

36:00side of Hayawasi Avenue. It's the second

36:03parcel south of uh the intersection with

36:06Nah Hala Avenue.

36:10This 2025 aerial photo uh predates the

36:13January 2026 approval of a rear edition

36:17uh for which construction is currently

36:20underway.

36:23This is the 1947 Sandborn map. We know

36:26from earlier maps that the um structure

36:29was in place by 1913.

36:34These images show the rear edition that

36:36was approved by the HPC at their January

36:38hearing. At that time, the plans denoted

36:41retention of chimneys and retention and

36:44repair of the windows on the retained

36:46historic structure.

36:50The requests before you today for window

36:52replacement and chimney removal have

36:54already occurred without the benefit of

36:56review. The retained structure has four

37:00windows on each side elevation and two

37:03windows at the front for a total of 10

37:06um window openings that have had

37:09replacements put in. Um well, eight have

37:13been put in and then there are two that

37:15are still open because they've been used

37:17for access.

37:19Um

37:21the windows are reported to be all wood

37:24with a simulated light division of 9

37:26over9 except for the rearmost windows on

37:29each side um which are 6 over6. Those

37:34are the windows that um have not yet

37:36been installed. They are on the

37:39property, but they have not yet been

37:40installed. Um, the sills of these

37:44windows appear to be a composite

37:46material.

37:50The removed window sash remain on the

37:53site, though no documentation of their

37:55condition has been provided.

37:58We have some photos from the January

38:01review um that we can look at and

38:05compare to the current conditions.

38:08Uh this is the front elevation at the

38:10top of the screen is um from that

38:13January review and the bottom the

38:16current

38:18a couple of closer images of the two

38:21windows on the front elevation.

38:25looking at the right side elevation

38:30and some closer photos of um two windows

38:35from the previous conditions that do

38:37show rot at the sills. Uh but nothing

38:39distinct from the sash uh that's um

38:44detected at this view.

38:48the left side

38:53um

38:56and the left

38:59the window closest to the front of the

39:01house on that left side elevation

39:03looking at the um previous conditions in

39:06the current.

39:10In regard to the chimneys, two are seen

39:13on the January photos with the left

39:15being taller than the right.

39:22Some um before and current images zoomed

39:26in to the chimney locations, the um left

39:32side photos being previous and the right

39:36current.

39:40Staff's recommending this request be

39:42tabled to allow the applicant an

39:44opportunity to submit documentation and

39:46necessary information to fully review

39:48the window replacement and and chimney

39:51removal requested. This completes the

39:54staff.

39:55>> All right. Is the applicant present?

39:56>> Yep.

39:56>> All right. Come on up. You got 10

39:58minutes.

40:00>> Hey, I'm Jeff Chrysler. I'm the builder

40:02uh on the project. My address is 1040

40:06Thornon Will Court. Um, a couple of the

40:09things uh that I did notice after this

40:11came out um as far as the six over

40:14sixes. Uh the two on the rear, they are

40:16they were originally 6 over sixes. Um

40:19the plans that were approved with the in

40:22the permit department showed a 9 over9,

40:25but I didn't catch it to be honest with

40:27you in the beginning. Um, it also, so

40:31that's regarding the six over sixes on

40:33the chimneys. The floor plan shows the

40:36one on the left side being salvaged and

40:39the one on the right, it doesn't show it

40:41on the new floor plan. And when you go

40:43to the exterior elevations, it also

40:47doesn't show the chimneys. So, it's a

40:50little bit confusing in that regard. I

40:53didn't make the original submission for

40:54the HPC that came from the designer. So,

40:59you know, from the beginning, it was

41:00always the one just the one chimney was

41:02coming out on the right. Uh when we

41:05started to take uh take everything down,

41:08the the foundations were in really poor

41:10condition. They were stack brick. You

41:13could you could take your finger and

41:15just clear the mortar out of a joint out

41:18of the joint. So, when we started to

41:20take the surrounding structure around

41:23the chimney started to list, I did send

41:25in a picture or emailed a picture in and

41:27I can get the printed copies to, but um

41:30that shows the left hand side of the

41:32bottom of the chimney foundation,

41:35the bricks were rolling,

41:37for the lack of better words. So, it was

41:41as we were working it was it had a

41:43little list to it and plain and simple,

41:47it was just a dangerous situation. and I

41:49took it down immediately. Um, so that's

41:51kind of the explanation on that second

41:52chimney. I will say too, the the house

41:55on the left of of the house, if you

41:58stand on the street and look, they they

42:00do have one chimney, but the reveal is

42:02significantly it's just not a lot, I

42:05guess you would say, like the the

42:09depth that you see or the height that

42:11you see in the chimney.

42:13Um,

42:15other than that, um, is there any

42:19questions I can answer that y'all have?

42:22>> Um, go ahead and have a seat. We'll let

42:24the se commission has any questions,

42:26I'll ask you. Okay.

42:28[clears throat] Uh, are there any

42:29members of the public that wish to speak

42:30in favor of this proposal? Okay, seeing

42:33none, is there anyone that wishes to

42:34speak against this proposal?

42:37All right. Seeing none there. This one I

42:39think we probably should at least get

42:41the sense of the commission on where

42:43we're at.

42:44>> An applicant cons would you consent to

42:46being tabled?

42:48>> Sure. If if it gives you guys more time.

42:50I just want

42:51>> you want to vote or do you want to table

42:52it?

42:53>> Uh

42:56yeah, we can't table unless you say it's

42:57okay.

42:59>> Well, should we give a little bit more

43:02information about what that means?

43:04>> Yeah. I I think a little bit more

43:06discussion than what you're looking for

43:08from them before they decide you're

43:11okay.

43:13Um I'll start talking. Um I think

43:18our job is that we have to review this

43:21as if it has not yet happened. If this

43:25had not yet happened, we would need more

43:28documentation of condition issues for

43:30both items in my opinion. Um, I'm

43:35personally

43:38the the chimney is not as bothersome to

43:41me, but I think our guidelines are

43:43pretty clear

43:45about uh the windows specifically.

43:49So, more documentation would be needed.

43:54>> I think the guidelines are clear about

43:55churnneys also that you can't just take

43:57them down because they're falling down.

43:59You have to fix them because they're

44:00character defining features. So, I would

44:03be inclined to say to approve this, the

44:06condition would be yet to rebuild the

44:07exterior portion like it was. Um, you

44:12know, frame it up at the roof line and

44:15structurally supported and build a fake

44:17chimney. That's what the guidelines say.

44:20The windows, um, based on the photos we

44:23saw in the previous COA application,

44:25which I can't remember approving. I

44:27think I was on the commission, but we

44:30would not have approved in my opinion

44:32demoing those windows. Um,

44:35the replacement looks okay. It's missing

44:38the interior divider between the lights,

44:41the light units, and um, that would be

44:43the only thing I'd probably ask to

44:46add to a proposed replacement if it was

44:49justified, but I don't see it as being

44:51justified. And I kind of doubt an

44:54applicant could supply information that

44:57would make me feel that way based on the

44:58guidelines, but

45:01that's where my head is. We didn't get

45:03the benefit of reviewing it. Um,

45:06it doesn't feel like tableabling it

45:07would get us anything

45:10that would help us

45:13>> I do have a question. Um,

45:16the

45:18historic windows that were removed,

45:20they've not been disposed of. They're

45:23still on the property.

45:26>> All of them. Can I say too that on the

45:28right hand side of the of the house, and

45:31you can see it in the in those photos,

45:34three of them are six over sixes, but I

45:38would say they were six or seven year

45:40old windows. So, this was a duplex

45:42before we started and a rental and

45:45somebody had already there were three

45:47windows that had already been replaced

45:50on the right hand side.

45:51>> Three out of how many on the whole

45:53house?

45:53>> Yeah.

45:54>> So, that may be something that would be

45:58something that the applicant could bring

45:59back to us and justify three

46:01replacements out of 10. Keep the sash

46:04you have and rebuild with wood

46:07frames and put the old sash back in.

46:10That's a reason to table potentially.

46:14Or we could approve this with the

46:15condition that that happens.

46:19>> That's tricky though because we're

46:20pretending it didn't happen.

46:23>> I know that's what we have to do.

46:24>> Yeah.

46:25>> Right. [clears throat]

46:26>> So, you know, I I just pulled the

46:29guidelines. I've never come in here to

46:31do this, but I pulled the guidelines and

46:32based on what it says for the windows as

46:34far as the match. Like we had the window

46:37shop built specifically to fit. We

46:40didn't change a header height. We didn't

46:42shift it one way or the other. We were

46:44extremely careful to put it exactly

46:46where it was.

46:47>> But you So you knew about But you knew

46:49about the guidelines and didn't come in

46:52to

46:53>> Well, that's my and I'll be accountable

46:55for that. It it really wasn't intended

46:57to be any sort of way to be honest with

46:59you. But I mean there's nothing really I

47:01can say to to kind of convince you there

47:03and that's understandable. Like I said,

47:06I just what I want to do is make it

47:08right and you know make it to where you

47:10guys are happy and you know because

47:14just figure out a way to move forward. I

47:15would think that if we tabled it, you

47:17would have you would have to come back

47:18with a condition report on the windows

47:22that

47:22>> before they were demoed

47:23>> before they were demoed and tell us make

47:27an argument that they're unsalvageable.

47:30>> Uh I was late sending a couple photos

47:32today to Amber. Um you can kind of tell

47:36in you can tell in the picture at the

47:38bottom of the sashes if you'll notice

47:40the the old pictures that had the air

47:42conditioners in them. the the whole

47:44wall, everything was underneath it and

47:47it had come started to seep up the side

47:50jams as well. You could take a handful

47:52of of the side jam at the bottoms.

47:56Uh the pictures I sent today, I mean,

47:59they were last minute. I just found

48:01them. So, but you can tell that they are

48:04there was something wrong with them. And

48:06something else too, there was uh when I

48:08came in after the stop work order was

48:10issued and I signed the citation, I met

48:13with the code enforcement officer,

48:14Lenel, and she mentioned that some

48:17whoever had come out had put in the

48:19notes that the windows were in rough

48:23shape. It was something to the it was

48:25acknowledged, I guess, from somebody on

48:27the county side. Now, that came from my

48:28superintendent and I have not spoken to

48:31the code officer about it. So maybe

48:34whoever

48:36made that note could be an unbiased

48:37opinion on the shape of the wind

48:39windows. I don't know who it would have

48:41been, but

48:46but I'm if there's evidence that the

48:48three windows were not historic, I I'd

48:50be fine with with proving those. I'm not

48:53fine with approving the seven without

48:55further documentation and I would be

48:57fine with just put false chimney back.

49:00That would be mine. So I didn't hear

49:01that request

49:03just rebuild the false chimney at the

49:05top because that is character defining.

49:07Other than that I probably would

49:09replacement seven.

49:12>> Thank you.

49:14>> I'm in agreement with that too.

49:16>> So it sounds like a motion to table may

49:18be the right move. Applicant seems

49:21agreeable to it to provide more

49:22information maybe justify three windows

49:25being replaced as is replaced. I think

49:28my caveat to that when you come back

49:29would be

49:31um that you propose matching the trim

49:34details around the windows, especially

49:36those that you've already replaced that

49:39you're going to get to keep and all well

49:41actually all of them. Um you have some

49:43decent photographs of those. Make sure

49:45all those details are correct and and

49:47perfect matches to the previous version.

49:50And then it sounds like you might be

49:52able to come back with a proposal to

49:57rebuild wood frames and use old sashes

50:02>> and materials that you're proposing for

50:06uh the sashes, not the sashes, the

50:08>> frame

50:08>> sills. I'm the fiber the the composite

50:12frame uh sills. That's not a problem for

50:15me.

50:15>> That could be worked out by staff

50:16anyway.

50:18those those things.

50:19>> It's a thing that he could add to his

50:21proposal though.

50:22>> You need to document the condition of

50:24the sash that you have, whether it's

50:26acceptable to replace, repair, restore,

50:31what you would have in mind for that.

50:33>> Okay. Sash.

50:34>> So, this would be I just want to make

50:36sure I'm clear. So, can you say again

50:39what I need to come back with in the

50:42response? Just the three windows. We

50:44We're talking about 10

50:47I think we're talking about you're

50:50getting your consent to table this so

50:52that you can bring back to us proof of

50:54the three windows were not historic and

50:56proof that the other seven were in such

50:59terrible condition they needed to be

51:01replaced

51:03chimney or if you can't have that proof

51:05you can submit to staff a change to to

51:10repair the windows. I

51:11>> I would say instead of proof that

51:12they're bad documentation of their

51:14current condition.

51:17You're essentially I mean what I'm

51:18suggesting and this will be on record.

51:20You can go back and listen to the

51:22meeting for all these points but what

51:24I'm suggesting is you are repairing the

51:26windows that you have replaced. Instead

51:28of replacing them you're going back to

51:29repair and you're replacing the parts

51:31that you threw in the dumpster with new

51:34things that match them.

51:36>> So re rebuild the jams and use your old

51:40fashion

51:41>> as if you had repaired them in place at

51:44the time. That's what I'm suggesting

51:46would be something I would approve. I'm

51:48giving you some leeway there if you can

51:50justify demolition of them to us, you

51:53know, and that's not that easy to do,

51:55but if you look at the guidelines, they

51:57say what you have to do. I mean, they

52:00don't say exactly clear, but you got to

52:02demonstrate that they couldn't be saved

52:06um

52:06>> for each window,

52:08>> for every window.

52:10And if if you can demonstrate that they

52:12were not the historic window, then

52:14that's a check mark. You can replace

52:16that one.

52:18So I can move to table this.

52:21>> Please do.

52:24>> Okay. I move that COA-2026-08-1690

52:33be tabled um so that the applicant can

52:37provide more information regarding the

52:41justification for replacement

52:44andor to change the proposed

52:48um

52:50change the proposed.

52:52Is there a time frame?

52:57>> How they need to return within

52:58>> six months?

52:59>> Six months.

53:01>> Within six months,

53:02>> but you can return as soon as

53:04>> Yeah. As soon as you're ready right

53:06away.

53:09>> All right. Got a motion on the floor. Do

53:10we have a second?

53:11>> Second. All right. Second by

53:13>> Let's get him to sign before we vote.

53:16>> Oh, okay.

53:18You go to

53:20sign consent, too.

53:21>> Yeah. This is a Yeah, we can't do

53:36[laughter]

53:36this here.

53:43>> All right. So, we have motion Chris

53:45second James to table return in six

53:48months or less.

53:50is uh just go ahead and put all those in

53:53favor.

53:55Okay, unanimous. All right,

53:59there item is table.

54:06All right, that uh concludes the the uh

54:09new business. We now move on to the

54:11conceptual design reviews of which we

54:14have two. So these are non-decision

54:16making

54:18um presentations just to give advice.

54:22So we'll begin with 399 Buen a Vista.

54:24Can we have the staff report on that one

54:25please?

54:26>> 399 Bu a Vista Avenue COA 2026-09-1835

54:33concept of dormer expansion and material

54:36changes. Bu a Vista Heights Historic

54:38District. Lane Seagull is agent for

54:41Allison and Daniel Miller.

54:46This property is located on the

54:47southwest corner of the intersection of

54:50Bu Vista and Nantala Extension.

54:57This 2025 aerial is reflective of the

55:00current conditions including um a garage

55:03structure that was approved back in

55:052022.

55:09Um,

55:12the way the computer is set up is a

55:15little bit offkilter from the lot, but

55:18this 1947 Sanborn map includes the

55:21dwelling on the property as does the

55:231926 map. Uh, the house appearing to

55:26have been constructed between 1918 and

55:291926.

55:34This request is for the expansion of the

55:36rear dormer

55:39as well as material changes related to

55:41window replacement and siding, removal

55:45of one window and installation of wood

55:47brackets. Um where each of these changes

55:51are clear on the plans. Um some more

55:54details will follow.

55:57Um

56:00on the left side of the screen you can

56:02see the expanded dormer

56:07that is proposed. Um on the right side

56:11um of the screen you can see the right

56:14elevation and um the awning style window

56:18that's proposed to be removed is what is

56:20um circled in yellow.

56:27the dormer expansion um

56:33is a little bit more clearly shown in

56:36this image. Being able to see how

56:37there's a little bit of expansion to um

56:43the the left side, more expansion to the

56:46right side when looking at this rear

56:48elevation.

56:51Um also have uh an image of the view

56:54from Manta Extension.

56:59Some photographs from the applicant.

57:04We have a 1946 aerial image showing the

57:08front and rear dormers in place at that

57:12time as well as a 1995 photograph of the

57:16front of the structure. Um

57:19just for your reference in this review

57:22uh just reminding you this is a concept

57:24review. No decisions are to be made at

57:28this meeting

57:31completes the staff report.

57:32>> All right. Is the petitioner present?

57:35>> Yes.

57:37[clears throat]

57:41>> Howdy. My name is Lane Seabolt. I live

57:43at 112 Prospect Church Road. Um, and

57:48I'm here to talk about this. Um,

57:51as always, when I stand up here, I

57:53realize it's confusing to me even what

57:56we're talking about. So, rear dormer,

57:59um, is the thing that we're proposing

58:02expanding. Front dormer, we're not

58:04talking about. There's there's

58:05essentially three things that we're

58:07talking about here, I think. Um, and I

58:10may request permission to add a fourth.

58:12uh expanding the width of the dormer on

58:15the rear of the house. Um

58:18you can see in the top image up there,

58:21oh sorry, the second image down on the

58:23left. Uh it's a weird offset dormer up

58:27there and it looks nuts um on the back

58:30of the house honestly. Um the second

58:33issue or the second thing that we're

58:35proposing is the windows in that dormer

58:38and if everybody's on board uh the

58:41windows upstairs are all vinyl windows

58:44that have been put in the house. I can

58:49confirm post 2001 because that was the

58:52year I left that house when I rented it

58:55in college. Um and there were definitely

58:58not vinyl windows in that house when I

58:59lived there. Um, our proposal would be

59:03to replace the windows upstairs with

59:06solid wood windows that match the

59:08historic ones downstairs. Um,

59:11uh, if that's okay, then we'd love to do

59:13that. And then Amber pointed out there

59:16was a picture. It's hard to see. Oh,

59:18yeah. On the bottom. So, the asbuilts

59:21are on the left, proposed is on the

59:23right. Um, if you cannot read anything,

59:27uh, as I can no longer read anything,

59:31uh, that tiny little window that's

59:32floating there that is, uh, sits right

59:36above a toilet and is in the weirdest

59:38place in the world, um, you know, we'd

59:41love to take it out if we need to leave

59:44it in there. We're that's not a hill

59:45that anybody any of us on our side care

59:48to die on. So, um, uh, we're not

59:52proposing any changes to the footprint,

59:54no porches, we're not touching anything

59:57that's visible from the front of the

59:59house. We're actually not touching

1:00:00anything visible from a historic

1:00:02district. Uh, behind this house is

1:00:06uh, the CNC plumbing and pipe fitting

1:00:07warehouse that is now an abandoned,

1:00:10demolished, industrial site. Uh behind

1:00:12that is the

1:00:14abandoned mobile home and all of the

1:00:17school buses or the city buses that park

1:00:19over there. So um as far as you know

1:00:22impact to the historic district visually

1:00:25I think it's non-existent. Um and uh

1:00:31questions I'll sit down. Is that I'll

1:00:33sit down?

1:00:34>> Yeah. run up and then I'll

1:00:37>> um are there any me any members of the

1:00:39public wishing to speak in favor of this

1:00:41proposal?

1:00:44Anyone who wishes to speak against the

1:00:46proposal?

1:00:48All right. Any So, this is a design

1:00:51review. So, let's have the commission's

1:00:53discussion. Who wants to start the

1:00:56little uh awning window that's

1:00:59positioned over the toilet? Is there any

1:01:01evidence that that was uh added at a

1:01:04later date or something to have a

1:01:07bathroom in the window I mean a window

1:01:08in the bathroom?

1:01:09>> I would love to tell I can I can tell

1:01:11you it was there in 2001. Um but I I

1:01:14honestly don't know. It is a very old

1:01:17window. Um

1:01:19I can't I really can't imagine why

1:01:22somebody put it there, but I'm not going

1:01:23to tell you that I know because I don't.

1:01:25>> Obviously to facilitate ventilation in

1:01:27the bathroom. Yeah, I assumed that

1:01:29that's what happened honestly because

1:01:31this is one of those houses that um it's

1:01:33been remodeled maybe twice since I lived

1:01:35there. Um and

1:01:37>> when you lived there there wasn't a

1:01:39window when that was there.

1:01:40>> No, that window was there in 2001. I can

1:01:42confirm that it's at least 25 years old.

1:01:44>> Okay.

1:01:44>> Um and uh golly 25 years. Um but uh

1:01:49yeah, it's just a you know, it's a

1:01:51crappy old wood window. Um

1:01:53>> does look a little awkward there. I was

1:01:55just wondering why. Yeah, it's that's a

1:01:58great question.

1:01:58>> It was added later.

1:01:59>> I'd love to know. I mean, it's the kind

1:02:01of crazy thing that, you know, this

1:02:03house has been there for over hundred

1:02:04years and uh um I have no idea. And

1:02:07that's Look, we can we can deal with

1:02:10those things if we need to cover it up

1:02:11from the inside and leave it there and

1:02:12make sure it's sealed so that it doesn't

1:02:15change things. We're we understand that

1:02:18it

1:02:20I don't think it really hurts. It

1:02:22actually makes the house look nicer in

1:02:24my opinion. Um, if it take the window

1:02:26out if it does go away, but

1:02:28>> yeah, I agree with that.

1:02:29>> We're not we're not worried about it.

1:02:33>> You can stay blame.

1:02:34>> Okay.

1:02:35>> This is concept review.

1:02:37>> Oh, yeah. Okay, great. [laughter]

1:02:38>> Yeah, you can stay.

1:02:42>> You know the you know the we know a

1:02:45window schedule be great.

1:02:46>> Yeah, sure.

1:02:47>> You come with proposal if you're

1:02:48changing windows.

1:02:49>> Oh, yeah.

1:02:50>> Specification that it's

1:02:51>> Let me a spreadsheet. I'll get you guys

1:02:52all

1:02:53>> if you know that it's not old, then

1:02:55propose something to replace it with,

1:02:56but do it by window so we could

1:02:58>> tell. I mean, in general, as far as uh

1:03:01at this stage, the the idea of replacing

1:03:04a, you know, a vinyl window that has

1:03:06been replaced in the last 10 years and

1:03:09putting it to

1:03:10>> This speaks so well to the guidelines,

1:03:12like tell us to keep old things that are

1:03:15more than 100 years old.

1:03:16>> Yeah.

1:03:17>> But windows, new windows don't last more

1:03:19than 10 years. Yep.

1:03:20>> Windows wear out really fast. So,

1:03:23>> sure. How you what you want to replace

1:03:24and what you want to replace it with in

1:03:26your proposal. I think the dormer

1:03:28>> looks fine. It's on the back. The little

1:03:31window I think is probably old and

1:03:33character defining just because it's

1:03:34>> sure

1:03:35>> quirky. It's probably

1:03:37>> Yeah.

1:03:37>> You know, so but if you have any other

1:03:40evidence of it and you want to get rid

1:03:41of it, just make the case.

1:03:44>> Do you all have any

1:03:44>> sighting? Are you changing all the

1:03:46sighting? Uh I mean the reference to

1:03:48siding is the fact that if we do expand

1:03:50the dormer, we're going to have to put

1:03:51siding on the dormer.

1:03:53>> So the whole uh both dormers actually

1:03:55are not are sided with not or

1:03:58>> I will call it as a carpenter

1:04:00non-historical sighting.

1:04:02>> Um who knows if it's defined that way

1:04:06somewhere, but um it's random lap

1:04:09sighting. I don't know. Some of the

1:04:10stuff might be that George Pacific junk

1:04:12on the front of the house, but uh down

1:04:14below it's a I think it's a Dutch lap,

1:04:18honestly. But um which

1:04:21>> are you going to have to replace the

1:04:22sighting on the house?

1:04:24>> No, no, just we're talking about the

1:04:26just the dormer expansion. We have to

1:04:27put something on there and our plan

1:04:29would be to,

1:04:31>> you know, match the reveal and use a

1:04:34either I mean we always do solid wood or

1:04:37fiber cement. Um, and if y'all approve

1:04:40fiber cement, homeowners are always

1:04:42going to want that because it's cheaper.

1:04:45Solid wood looks better. Um, but then

1:04:48they got to replace it or paint it. So,

1:04:50um, that's all we're talking about.

1:04:54>> If this were to if this weren't concept

1:04:57come before us, I'd be in favor of

1:04:58approving the dormer. Cool.

1:05:00>> Always excited about getting rid of

1:05:01vinyl windows. Um, I would recommend

1:05:04using wood, not fiber cement to match

1:05:06the direct core of the house.

1:05:08And I'm in favor of keeping the forky

1:05:10little window. I think it maintains

1:05:12penistration unless you have some proof

1:05:13that it's not historic.

1:05:15>> Cool. I I I don't anticipate it, but

1:05:19I'll find any Instagram post from the

1:05:2130s. [laughter]

1:05:24>> Bring them back.

1:05:25>> No window.

1:05:26>> Awesome.

1:05:27>> It's not symmetrical even that little

1:05:29window.

1:05:30>> Yeah. I mean,

1:05:31>> so it's not as if it's throwing off the

1:05:32symmetry. I know. I like I I totally

1:05:36understand and I know I've sat here and

1:05:38argued a lot over particularly Windows

1:05:42uh with you guys. I mean, this one

1:05:44actually does tell a story. I don't know

1:05:45what the story is, but there is a story.

1:05:47And so I I re I appreciate and recognize

1:05:49that from a store perspective that

1:05:52window means something. So

1:05:54>> maybe

1:05:56>> Well, if you want to make a case,

1:05:57>> it's still alive. We're still talking

1:05:58about it today. So, good job, window.

1:06:02I'm good with the dorma way you

1:06:04submitted it. I I'm ambivalent about the

1:06:07window. If it's I mean I could you want

1:06:10it gone I would probably support it but

1:06:12I'd probably want to leave some evidence

1:06:14of it existence there somehow on the

1:06:16outside

1:06:18boxed in or something but closed up. And

1:06:20then same with the windows on here. If

1:06:22you if you got proof the bulbs they're

1:06:24not old historic place.

1:06:26>> Oh yeah they're clearly not. We'll bring

1:06:28out pictures and all that stuff. So yeah

1:06:29that's no problem

1:06:30>> that. And then you talked about adding

1:06:32details. Maybe you just need to look at

1:06:34the guidelines about the details.

1:06:36>> We did we're not adding details. Sorry.

1:06:38It's just there are there are currently

1:06:40brackets that exist and our proposal

1:06:42would be to just as the dormer expands

1:06:44those brackets go with it. If we're a I

1:06:47would and I'm sure Todd the builder

1:06:49would much prefer to just reuse rebuild

1:06:51the ones that are there because they're

1:06:53going to look better and those are a

1:06:54pain in the butt. Um, so but essentially

1:06:57to make uh those brackets stay within

1:07:00the dormer.

1:07:04>> Anything else you need for Oh,

1:07:06>> yep. Oh, I was just gonna say I agree

1:07:08with Lauren.

1:07:09>> Great.

1:07:09>> Or a little window. Love the brackets.

1:07:12>> Cool.

1:07:13I'm starting to fall in love with this

1:07:15window. You guys are

1:07:17>> they for

1:07:20option. You know what I mean?

1:07:22>> All right. Any other?

1:07:22>> We should put one on the other side,

1:07:23too. Yeah, sure.

1:07:26>> Nuts, [laughter] man. Um, all right. Any

1:07:28other comments from the commission for

1:07:30the applicant?

1:07:32>> Right. That's it. Thank you very much.

1:07:34>> Go.

1:07:35>> Okay. Uh, that moves us to our second

1:07:39design review. That's 710 South Village.

1:07:41Can we make a staff report on that one,

1:07:43please?

1:07:44>> 710 South Village, COA 2026-9-1836.

1:07:50concept of demolition and new

1:07:51construction in the Mill Avenue Historic

1:07:53District. David Mthinky with AMT is

1:07:56agent for Hodgees Village LLC.

1:08:02This property is located on the

1:08:04southwest corner of Millage Avenue and

1:08:06Springdale Street.

1:08:09This 2025 aerial image remains

1:08:12reflective of its current condition.

1:08:15The existing structure was not in place

1:08:18at the time of this 1947 Sanborn map.

1:08:22We know from later maps the structure

1:08:24was built between 1950 and 1960.

1:08:28The city directories suggest 1952

1:08:32was when it was constructed. Um

1:08:37the structure is considered

1:08:38non-contributing out of character. It's

1:08:40a singlestory brick duplex structure

1:08:43with a horizontal form and a low hipped

1:08:45roof.

1:08:49We have a street view from Millage

1:08:51Avenue as well as an oblique overhead

1:08:54view. Um looking to the south,

1:09:00another overhead view.

1:09:04Uh 1957

1:09:07aerial view,

1:09:101953, sorry.

1:09:13Um the applicant has provided an oblique

1:09:16rendering of a concept for a new

1:09:19structure on the site. Um it would be

1:09:21three stories, a side gable form, a

1:09:24threetory front porch under a front

1:09:27gable roof. Um and I just want to remind

1:09:30you this is a concept review. Uh, no

1:09:32decisions being made with this hearing

1:09:34tonight. This completes the staff

1:09:36report.

1:09:37>> All right, Mr. Matheni, you have the

1:09:39forer.

1:09:39>> Thank you.

1:09:43>> Once again, I got here just

1:09:47uh David Matheni. I live at 200 Mount

1:09:49Vernon Place. Um,

1:09:53the owner of this property wants to take

1:09:55advantage of its location and would

1:09:59propose that we have an office on the

1:10:03ground floor and then two levels of two

1:10:08bedroomedroom condos

1:10:10on the second and third floor.

1:10:15So, yeah, we were just playing around

1:10:18with that and

1:10:22thinking that the um existing building

1:10:25is not particularly great. It doesn't

1:10:28particularly have much presence on

1:10:30Millig Avenue. Um we think that this

1:10:35could be something that might work there

1:10:39and

1:10:41it is not as tall as the sorarity to the

1:10:46to the left.

1:10:49Is that the KDs? I'm not sure. Is it?

1:10:51Okay, thank you.

1:10:52>> Um, and then of course it's on

1:10:54Springdale on the right hand side.

1:10:58Um,

1:11:00and I really have much more to say about

1:11:04that. Obviously, we're going to be

1:11:06working within the constraints of the

1:11:08site and any um guidelines that go with

1:11:14this site.

1:11:15>> [clears throat]

1:11:16>> I will tell you that we are

1:11:19in the process of actually reszoning

1:11:22this site from CO to RM2

1:11:26for one reason only and that is that as

1:11:30a CO which of course it would be

1:11:32allowed. We can only get 3.5 bedrooms

1:11:36and we really wanted four. And so at the

1:11:40recommendation of the planning

1:11:42department,

1:11:44um if we go to we're actually we'd be

1:11:47downgrading the the zoning. Um it would

1:11:50allow us to have our fourth bedroom.

1:11:55Unfortunately, there's not a process

1:11:57that's any easier than that. It would be

1:11:59nice if staff had the ability to go up

1:12:03uh uh half a point, so to [laughter]

1:12:06speak. Um but anyway, so that's uh just

1:12:10wanted to let you know about that

1:12:13and

1:12:16we can discuss once we ask anybody else.

1:12:20>> All right. Thank you.

1:12:21>> Are there any members of the public who

1:12:22want to speak in favor of the proposal?

1:12:25>> Seeing none, anyone who wants to speak

1:12:26against the proposal.

1:12:28>> All right. Seeing none, turn over to the

1:12:30commission for um discussion and banter.

1:12:34Anything else we get?

1:12:36>> I have a couple questions. Um, so would

1:12:39it be one room deep? Is that just based

1:12:41on leak? It kind of looks like it's one

1:12:44bay.

1:12:45>> It's basically Well,

1:12:48yes, there's two bedrooms on each side

1:12:50of a open area living room where the

1:12:53porches are in the center. But yeah,

1:12:56it's 20. Well, I mean, it's it'd be a

1:12:59bedroom and a bath behind that.

1:13:01It's It's about 26 ft deep.

1:13:05>> How many units?

1:13:06>> Two. Two units. So, one one floor is a

1:13:09unit.

1:13:10>> Correct.

1:13:11>> How does the [clears throat] foot of the

1:13:12office?

1:13:13>> How's the footprint compare to what's

1:13:15already there?

1:13:16>> How the footprint the [clears throat]

1:13:17same.

1:13:19>> We're basically replacing footprint for

1:13:21for foot. Be pretty tall and skinny.

1:13:27Very very small site.

1:13:32I think this would be a welcome addition

1:13:34to that corner.

1:13:38>> Not your best desire.

1:13:43>> I mean I I mean I opposed the idea to

1:13:45that

1:13:47>> little day snow.

1:13:51>> Well, you think it's fun or something?

1:13:53>> No, I just think it's I just think it's

1:13:55just I mean I don't know. It is going to

1:13:57be a tall, skinny, milk carton like

1:14:00building.

1:14:01Two milk cartons.

1:14:04[clears throat]

1:14:04>> Yeah. Well, I mean, we probably can

1:14:06improve on it some, but I mean obviously

1:14:08the whole idea of the threetory porch is

1:14:10that each of the condos would have an

1:14:12outdoor space that faces millillage. And

1:14:16>> that's great. I just don't like the

1:14:20>> said it because that's where my head is.

1:14:22>> It's creepy looking.

1:14:23>> Creepy looking. I don't like it, but

1:14:25that's my opinion that we should talk

1:14:27about not in this room. Um,

1:14:30I think you have a a toolkit though with

1:14:33the guidelines. If you look at the new

1:14:34construction portion, maybe you could

1:14:36use some details of make it more in

1:14:38keeping with millillage. It's Millage

1:14:41and Springdale.

1:14:42>> What Greek like?

1:14:43>> It's a pretty pretty great corner.

1:14:46be it could be a really like a a

1:14:48signature look too.

1:14:53>> I mean I think something you know even

1:14:55simple changes like a hipped roof or if

1:14:58you have three porches using thinking

1:15:00about using giant order instead of those

1:15:02like three distinct smaller columns. I

1:15:07mean, just all things to play around

1:15:08with that I think would help it fit a

1:15:11little bit more with the neocclassical

1:15:13architectures that's on the street

1:15:15without tricking anybody that

1:15:16>> two big columns and then just really and

1:15:21to be consistent with the Katy house and

1:15:23the ATL former house has columns in

1:15:27front

1:15:29house was an apartment complex before

1:15:35So that's one that [laughter]

1:15:39>> I do want to

1:15:44>> um yeah I think visually

1:15:47well one uh when you come back for COA

1:15:50would definitely want a streetscape view

1:15:53of this compared to the KD house and the

1:15:58points optical um you know potentially

1:16:02cross street comparison if that's

1:16:04beneficial for you. Um I feel like

1:16:07visually three stories is pushing it for

1:16:10me. I think it's I don't think the

1:16:13height is necessary necessarily an issue

1:16:16in that context especially with KD kind

1:16:19of up on the hill right next door and

1:16:22you know generally ceiling heights in

1:16:24the old houses with the steeper roofs.

1:16:27Um, but I'm a little worried about the

1:16:29massing.

1:16:31And I think visually the the front

1:16:35porch,

1:16:37>> it just it really emphasizes the the

1:16:40tallness, the height

1:16:43that for me, which you know, the three

1:16:46stories is a little um out of character

1:16:49for the district.

1:16:53>> Yes. Something two story, right? And

1:16:56then of course across the street I

1:16:58realized that that's not a contributing

1:17:01uh structure across Springdale the

1:17:05but you're still going to have that

1:17:07dichotomy there.

1:17:09I don't want this to also feel like it's

1:17:12overshadowing that corner because it's

1:17:14both closer to the street than any of

1:17:16the other structures and taller.

1:17:19>> And and you said the lot is really small

1:17:21so there's not an option to give this

1:17:23more depth.

1:17:26get these porches on the back. So, not

1:17:27get support. No, I'm barely able to get

1:17:30stairs on the because all the stair

1:17:33access is going to be on the back of the

1:17:34unit and

1:17:37there's hardly room for parking as it

1:17:40is. So, in fact,

1:17:43we will most likely be

1:17:47having to get off-site parking

1:17:52very tight. I mean the new construction

1:17:54the new construction guidelines are the

1:17:56green ones starting on page 83. I once

1:17:59again it's a toolkit. Hopefully you can

1:18:01come up with something that works for

1:18:03your client that fits millage better

1:18:07from all these points that

1:18:10>> I guess part of what I was doing the

1:18:12concept review for is that there's not

1:18:14going to be any push back about

1:18:15demolishing what's there.

1:18:17>> I think that's safe to say.

1:18:19>> Nobody's concerned about that.

1:18:22Well, I hadn't heard of that, but it's

1:18:24actually

1:18:24>> wanted to be clear.

1:18:26>> Yeah, demo is fine.

1:18:33>> Any other questions from us?

1:18:36>> Do you have what you need for us?

1:18:38>> I think I think that pretty weird.

1:18:43[laughter]

1:18:44>> They don't like it. Yeah, I think it's

1:18:46like

1:18:46>> that's that would be refreshing.

1:18:48>> No perview.

1:18:51But since

1:18:54>> approved with a smile on my face, give

1:18:57me that option.

1:18:59>> Okay. I'll try to bring that back that's

1:19:01not creepy for Allen.

1:19:03>> Yeah. Otherwise, he'll just bring a sign

1:19:05that says your design sucks.

1:19:07>> That is not. But I think three stories

1:19:09we we were discussing.

1:19:12Just for clarity, if um Lauren posed the

1:19:15question, if you come back with a

1:19:16three-story option, is there any

1:19:18three-story option that we would

1:19:19approve?

1:19:21>> I was saying I think it can be, but it's

1:19:25it shouldn't be so prominent is my

1:19:27thought because it's just hard with how

1:19:30narrow it is to make it not look

1:19:33>> Yeah.

1:19:34>> Well, because of the size of it, but it

1:19:36I mean it does it does meet the

1:19:38guidelines with regards to height and

1:19:40all that sort of thing. I would approve

1:19:42this, but it bothers me. It is It is

1:19:45It's busy on the front with There's 12

1:19:47columns on the front. It's busy.

1:19:50>> Very good.

1:19:54[laughter]

1:19:54>> It's creepy.

1:19:55>> Yeah.

1:19:57>> All right. That's why we come here.

1:20:00>> Exactly.

1:20:01>> I love concept.

1:20:06>> Would it be an HBC meeting if it wasn't

1:20:08here? No.

1:20:09>> It's a requirement, huh? All right. Um,

1:20:12I am going to go ahead and

1:20:15uh before we proceed the demolition

1:20:17relocation review, I'd like to call a

1:20:19recess. Uh, so let's go ahead and we're

1:20:21going to be in recess for let's come

1:20:24back at a quarter till seven, please.

1:20:30>> 10 minutes.

1:20:31>> 10 minute recess.

1:29:56Our

1:30:05last discussion item which is uh

1:30:07demolition and relocation.

1:30:10Can we please have the staff report for

1:30:13140 Rose Street?

1:30:14>> Sure.

1:30:15>> 140 Rose Street, DR-2026-07-1465.

1:30:22full demolition of the Magnolia Street

1:30:25building. Um, Marvin Bland with Greater

1:30:29Bethl AM Church is the applicant.

1:30:38We go. The property overall is located

1:30:42on the northern side of Rose Street,

1:30:44midblock between Magnolia and Kima

1:30:48Avenue. um with a portion of the lot

1:30:51extending to the northwest and including

1:30:54a structure that faces uh Magnolia

1:30:57Street and that is the building that is

1:30:59proposed for demolition. The church

1:31:01building is not proposed for demolition.

1:31:07This 2025 aerial remains representative

1:31:10of the conditions of the property.

1:31:15Uh we have some exterior photos of the

1:31:18structure,

1:31:23some interior photos that the applicant

1:31:26has provided.

1:31:31This 1951 aerial photo appears to show

1:31:35the foundation of the building in place.

1:31:39Um just based on the shadow lines, it

1:31:42does not look like the whole two-story

1:31:44structure was in place at that time.

1:31:48Um we have a historic photo that

1:31:51Historic Athens um has shared uh and a

1:31:551955

1:31:57newspaper ad for a BB King performance

1:32:00at this location.

1:32:04Um, so overall the building was built

1:32:08about 1951 is the Howell Cheney Post 535

1:32:13of the American Legion. It was a post

1:32:15that was organized for black veterans to

1:32:18provide social engagement and

1:32:20philanthropic opportunities. The

1:32:22building later became a daycare center

1:32:24and was the first licensed daycare

1:32:27center in um, Athens to serve black

1:32:31children. Um, again, the request is for

1:32:34the full demolition of this structure on

1:32:37the property only.

1:32:40This completes the staff report. All

1:32:42>> right. Is the applicant present?

1:32:43>> Yes.

1:32:44>> All right. Please state your name and

1:32:46address, sir. And you have 10 minutes.

1:32:47>> Yeah. This is I'm Arvin Bland, uh,

1:32:49pastor of Greater Beth, 140 World Street

1:32:52in Athens. So, you've heard of the term

1:32:55no room in the end. And no matter what

1:32:58faith tradition is or non-faith

1:32:59tradition is, you've heard of that.

1:33:02And with this particular building, there

1:33:05is a lot of ends about this particular

1:33:08building. But one of the things I want

1:33:10to tell you about is a quick story about

1:33:12a young lady and her two children who

1:33:16are living right now in a place called

1:33:18the Bulldog.

1:33:20She also works at the Hampton in making

1:33:24beds. We want to get her out of there.

1:33:28That building has sat for 40 years

1:33:31vacant and deteriorating.

1:33:33Many people have tried to have a

1:33:37renovation campaign. The building we

1:33:39call it the Maddox Center is named after

1:33:42one of my predecessors as a pastor. He

1:33:44was an entrepreneur. He built houses. He

1:33:48actually had that building as a joke

1:33:51joint. Had that building as a daycare

1:33:53center. had that building also as a

1:33:56temporary home for our church when it

1:33:57built down burnt down.

1:34:00We believe that there's no better

1:34:02memorial to him than to start the

1:34:06gateway of providing affordable housing

1:34:08for people in our community. One of our

1:34:11members right now and her two children

1:34:15are living in the Bulldog in.

1:34:19they could be living on a structure on

1:34:22that site where that area was. That's

1:34:26why we want to take this step of tearing

1:34:29down the building. And also we've done

1:34:33lots of surveys, talked to the public.

1:34:36We have not discerned any attachment to

1:34:40the building in terms of support of

1:34:43renovating the building and also quite

1:34:45frankly the building is a hazard right

1:34:47now. We can't insure it. If someone is

1:34:51injured in that building, we are fully

1:34:53liable for that. And there's no support

1:34:56to raise the type of money to renovate

1:34:59the building. So, we believe that the

1:35:01best use of that building right now is

1:35:04being a gateway of providing affordable

1:35:07housing not only for that family who's

1:35:10living in the Bulldog in, but for other

1:35:12families in Athens.

1:35:16>> Thank you very much. Are there any

1:35:18members of the public who wish to speak

1:35:19in favor of this proposal?

1:35:21>> Go ahead. Let's get your name and

1:35:22address. You have three minutes.

1:35:23>> Uh my name is Jared York. I live at uh

1:35:26595 Woodlon Avenue in Athens. Uh I'm a

1:35:30licensed contractor and I believe uh the

1:35:33mayor put Marvin and I in touch uh

1:35:36several several months ago. Um, I was

1:35:39engaged to look at the property for

1:35:41opportunities uh to build affordable

1:35:43housing and also look at the the Maddox

1:35:46Center. Um, I'm not here to u talk about

1:35:50the historic nature of the building. I

1:35:52think that's out of my lane. Um, just

1:35:54want to tell you the condition of the

1:35:56building and and the stuff uh in terms

1:36:00of of the site itself. Um, currently the

1:36:03structure is obvious, you can tell from

1:36:04the pictures, in a a dangerous and

1:36:06unsafe condition. Much of the roof, the

1:36:09second floor floor system, basically all

1:36:12the wood structure inside the house is

1:36:13collapsed inside of the building. Um, it

1:36:16has been there for so long, most of the

1:36:19uh wood part of the structure is

1:36:21decomposed, turned into soil, and there

1:36:24are now plants growing the building. It

1:36:26when you walk inside, it looks like it's

1:36:27a something out of a video game or

1:36:29something. Um it's it's it's one of the

1:36:32worst buildings I've I've walked into in

1:36:34terms of that also full of mold and and

1:36:38things like that. Um I I I know being in

1:36:42front of this council a lot in my

1:36:45history, one of the questions uh that

1:36:47you might have is can this building be

1:36:48restored? I would say yes in the terms

1:36:51of unlimited resources and we now launch

1:36:55rockets into space and have them come

1:36:57back down and you catch them. um you

1:36:59know with uh uh unlimited resources

1:37:02maybe practically um it would be very

1:37:05difficult um you would essentially have

1:37:08to demolish 100% of the uh inside floor

1:37:12system roof uh wall structure shore up

1:37:15the um exterior walls engineer to uh

1:37:20figure out how to drill footings through

1:37:22footings uh and and you know um

1:37:26basically build a new building from

1:37:27scratch one piece from from there.

1:37:30Essentially the uh you would build a new

1:37:34addict center in a very very um u

1:37:39difficult and unsafe way if that makes

1:37:42sense. Um it would just be unjust

1:37:45justifiable

1:37:46uh uh to a community institution

1:37:49um that doesn't have the resources to do

1:37:51that. So um from a structural

1:37:55engineering standpoint, life uh safety

1:37:57perspective, the building is a is a

1:37:59hazard. And um I would say from that

1:38:02practical standpoint, I think um the

1:38:05building needs to be uh torn down. Even

1:38:07if you were to say that a Maddox center

1:38:11has to stay there in its exact method

1:38:14and in its exact way it used to be, it

1:38:17would be safer and less costly to tear

1:38:21it down and rebuild it than it would be

1:38:23to

1:38:25um try to save the existing building in

1:38:28its current condition. Like I said, I'm

1:38:30just here on the kind of feasibility and

1:38:34condition of the building. Um, if

1:38:36anybody has any questions on that time,

1:38:39happy to answer. All right. Are there

1:38:42any members of the public wish to speak

1:38:43in favor of this proposal?

1:38:45Does anyone wish to speak against this

1:38:47proposal?

1:38:49>> All right. Seeing none,

1:38:52we'll turn it over to the commission for

1:38:53discussion.

1:38:59Um

1:39:01I think

1:39:04this building is very in my mind very

1:39:06clearly eligible for a landmark

1:39:09designation.

1:39:10Um just looking at our worksheet there

1:39:13are a lot of different things we are

1:39:15considering here. I think the condition

1:39:17is also a valid concern.

1:39:21um there wasn't a whole ton of um

1:39:26documentation

1:39:28and I I'll say perhaps I'm a little

1:39:30biased because this is my job. I walk

1:39:32into buildings like this every day and

1:39:34restore them. Um so I don't necessarily

1:39:37think it's not restorable. Um there are

1:39:40also a lot of financial

1:39:43resources out there, grants that the

1:39:45church would be um

1:39:48one second that the church would be

1:39:51available for.

1:39:53On the other hand, I recognize that that

1:39:56requires time and and effort um whatot.

1:39:59So, I guess I

1:40:02I would vote for to initiate the 180day

1:40:07stay for documentation and research

1:40:09purposes. Um, but ultimately could see

1:40:13approving demolition at the end of that

1:40:15stay. Well, and like

1:40:18>> right

1:40:20um the applicant had a question.

1:40:23>> No, I I just had a comment. Um

1:40:25>> what?

1:40:26>> Yeah. I've been the pastor of five years

1:40:28and I tried everything I could to save

1:40:31that building. I've looked at as you

1:40:34said grants opportunities

1:40:37that there are few and none. Our

1:40:41congregants are about the average age of

1:40:44our congregant is about 79 years old. Uh

1:40:48it is and we only have 44 people to

1:40:52raise the type of money even if we got

1:40:55grants and other things and we did an

1:40:57exhausted study for this. I would not be

1:41:00coming to you if if to tear down this

1:41:02building if I could say if if I could

1:41:05save it if we could save it. We've done

1:41:07the due diligence and the only reason

1:41:09we're here is because what we don't want

1:41:12to have happen is number one, people who

1:41:14are experiencing homelessness have

1:41:17camped out in that building and we don't

1:41:20want anybody to be injured or killed in

1:41:22that building because we didn't tear it

1:41:25down.

1:41:28And it's tough. I would love to save it

1:41:33and I've worked to try to save it for

1:41:35the last five years.

1:41:37But at the same time, I got a family

1:41:38living in the Bulldog

1:41:42who's paying $1,600 a month to stay

1:41:45there. We could build a structure, put

1:41:49them in it, save them some money,

1:41:53change the life of a family.

1:41:57>> I I appreciate that. Um like

1:42:00>> and I appreciate you.

1:42:02>> Can I ask you a question while you're up

1:42:04here? Um, so as you're talking about

1:42:06building a a home for this family and

1:42:09possibly others, would this be happening

1:42:12on this site? I'm I'm trying to see if

1:42:14this is is this a one for one like there

1:42:16will be no house affordable housing if

1:42:18the center

1:42:20>> this is a this is quite frankly a

1:42:22gateway for our congregation to get into

1:42:25the affordable housing game.

1:42:28Uh we believe that there are other

1:42:30things that we can do. will probably

1:42:31come before you with some other

1:42:32opportunities for affordable housing in

1:42:35Athens that may involve uh tearing down

1:42:38structures once again. But this will be

1:42:42this will be the first four-way. So it

1:42:44won't be a onetoone, but this will give

1:42:46our congregation confidence that number

1:42:48one, we can actually do this. Again, I I

1:42:53spoke about the age of our congregants

1:42:56and and this has been gut-reaching for

1:42:58them. We put together a whole report and

1:43:01studied this uh for for for

1:43:04many a year. And again, I've been pastor

1:43:07five years and we've been trying to get

1:43:08this to get to this moment. It's been a

1:43:11whole lot of whole lot of angst to get

1:43:13to this moment and a lot of prayer.

1:43:16>> So there won't be housing going on the

1:43:18site. Will the site remain vacant once

1:43:20you

1:43:20>> There is a possibility that housing will

1:43:22come on online in that site. Uh and

1:43:25that's part of a larger plan uh for the

1:43:28footprint of of where the church and

1:43:30everything is right now, but this has to

1:43:33be done first for the other things in

1:43:35the plan to happen.

1:43:38>> I have a a question kind of tying as to

1:43:41if it's been considered and I get that a

1:43:43lot of this would probably need to be

1:43:44reconstructed and not you know you you'd

1:43:46need to sell some of it would be

1:43:48salvageable but some of it would have to

1:43:49be totally new material. But could this

1:43:52building be rebuilt as the affordable

1:43:54housing like as a two-story complex?

1:43:56>> No, I don't think so. I think we're

1:43:59we're better off and and we certainly

1:44:01are going to honor again if if if you

1:44:04I've done a lot of research on Frank

1:44:06Mats.

1:44:07This guy was a This guy was an

1:44:10entrepreneur. And I would believe from

1:44:13from everything I've read about him and

1:44:15and and been told about him, he would

1:44:18have said, "I would have torn that

1:44:19building down 40 years ago and built

1:44:22something else on it."

1:44:25We've just let this building languish

1:44:27for 40 years.

1:44:30That's why it's in the condition that

1:44:31it's in. If it if if people were so

1:44:34intent about the building, it would have

1:44:37been restored

1:44:3910 15 years ago. But it hasn't been.

1:44:45And again, my worst fear is that as

1:44:49temperatures drop,

1:44:51and it's already happened, folks

1:44:54experiencing homelessness have have

1:44:56camped out in that building. We can't

1:44:59even get the building insured.

1:45:01We have tried to also secure the

1:45:04building. Somebody's going to spend a

1:45:06night there, two or three nights there.

1:45:09The building is pretty unstable.

1:45:12Something's going to happen. And then

1:45:14and then this church will be liable for

1:45:17what happened there.

1:45:21So the so the sooner we can act to get

1:45:24the building down,

1:45:27it makes everything safer. Besides, this

1:45:30building is in a in a regular

1:45:31neighborhood. There are houses across

1:45:34the street from it. Houses next door to

1:45:36it with residents there. This community

1:45:40was a community in which black soldiers

1:45:43moved back into after World War I and

1:45:45two.

1:45:47They are living with that eyesore every

1:45:50day,

1:45:51lowering their property values.

1:45:58Thank you.

1:46:00>> Any questions for the pastor was up

1:46:02there? Okay.

1:46:04>> Well, we haven't heard from you. Alan,

1:46:05what do you think? Um,

1:46:08we've seen a lot of buildings that

1:46:11demolition by neglect, which I hate to

1:46:14say it, but that that building's super

1:46:15historic. It's it's been a major part of

1:46:18the black community for a long time. I'm

1:46:20sympathetic to the to the needs and the

1:46:22resources, but that's our charge is we

1:46:27got to decide if this building can be

1:46:28saved. And

1:46:31I'm I'm a little puzzled by not having

1:46:34the resource to rebuild, but we're going

1:46:35to have resources to do affordable

1:46:37housing on that site or somewhere else.

1:46:39So, I I don't I'm a little confused by

1:46:41that. That doesn't change what

1:46:44I feel like we need to do today to see

1:46:46if there's a way to save the building or

1:46:48relocate it. that's come around that

1:46:51the criteria.

1:46:53>> James,

1:46:54>> I I think you have a very compelling

1:46:57argument and I I think uh the notion of

1:47:01uh helping someone find a home is

1:47:04certainly a very noble idea. I

1:47:07appreciate those concept. My opinion

1:47:11after looking at the building there, the

1:47:13walls appear to be standing plum. I

1:47:16think you could probably stabilize

1:47:18what's there and mothball it for close

1:47:21to the cost of demolition and thereby

1:47:24save this piece of history that in my

1:47:28mind would be important to the community

1:47:32everything that's gone on there

1:47:34>> we solicited

1:47:36>> what point of order that yeah applicant

1:47:40>> can't just step up and talk I apologize

1:47:43I as you can see

1:47:45>> we we just have a process

1:47:46>> I I apologize I apologize And then more

1:47:48information from you the last.

1:47:51Thank you, Chris.

1:47:52>> Thank you. I apologize.

1:47:56>> Okay. So, um, who haven't we heard from?

1:47:59I I think this is a really really hard

1:48:02delicate

1:48:03situation.

1:48:05The the criteria that we have to look at

1:48:08here

1:48:10imposed on us as a body by our mayor

1:48:12commission. I think if you ask the

1:48:15honest question does it is an

1:48:17outstanding example of something

1:48:18important potentially significant all of

1:48:20those are yes history of the site's

1:48:23pretty clear it relates to the community

1:48:26I think that the applicant is associated

1:48:29with in terms of its significance so

1:48:32that's what's so hard for me about this

1:48:34is that

1:48:36we pretty much know why it's significant

1:48:38already and the community that's asking

1:48:40to demolish it is a part of what that

1:48:43significance

1:48:44relates to. And so this is hard. If it

1:48:47was already a designated property,

1:48:49you're asking to demo it. It's a

1:48:51straight no because it doesn't make

1:48:53sense. Yes, it's structurally bad, but

1:48:57we rebuilt stuff like this all the time.

1:48:59So, if it was already protected would be

1:49:01a no. The demo.

1:49:05If you're not actually coming to a to

1:49:07the table with a proposal to put

1:49:09something else in its place, that's also

1:49:11part of the criteria, I think.

1:49:14And there's no real demonstration. Maybe

1:49:16it's not

1:49:16>> not not for this only one with

1:49:18designated

1:49:19>> designated. Okay.

1:49:22And

1:49:23we do consider reasonable financial

1:49:26costs for stabilization, repair,

1:49:30demolition.

1:49:31We haven't seen any of that in this

1:49:33application. Um, but I feel the

1:49:36applicant. I've been there. you know, my

1:49:39business is restoring buildings and

1:49:42finding ways to fund that. And so I I

1:49:45understand it's not easy. Um, and I'll

1:49:48leave it there. I think it's a really

1:49:51hard one for me and I don't know what I

1:49:52will vote tonight.

1:49:55>> Yeah. And and I can, you know, contrary

1:49:57I think um to what Alan to what you were

1:50:00saying, I completely see how you do have

1:50:02money to build affordable housing and

1:50:05that's a real priority and that it would

1:50:07be more you can build more of that than

1:50:11and it will cost more to restore this

1:50:13building, right? And it would be great.

1:50:14It's historic, but then at the end of

1:50:17the day,

1:50:18what will it do for those individuals?

1:50:22So, it's it's a matter of, you know,

1:50:24priorities for like the your current

1:50:26congregation and and needs. Um, so I I

1:50:30understand how you have that money and

1:50:32and not this money. Um, and I'm with

1:50:35Chris as well. I think this is a really

1:50:36difficult

1:50:38um

1:50:40really difficult case. And I'm sorry

1:50:42that you inherited it in I have such a

1:50:45tough time saying that word, you know,

1:50:46because 20 years ago, this even 10 years

1:50:49ago, it was a different situation. and

1:50:52the fact that it's been, you know, left

1:50:55open to the elements

1:50:57um has has done nothing in its favor.

1:51:04>> Any other comments,

1:51:06suggestions? I guess I circle back to

1:51:09what Amel said earlier and I agree that

1:51:12um it might be found that it's you we

1:51:14would approve demolition just based on

1:51:15the condition but I do think there

1:51:17should be time to fully document um to

1:51:20the have standard and just make sure

1:51:22that everything that we would want to

1:51:24know about the building is documented

1:51:26before it comes down and potentially

1:51:28salvage some of the elements like the

1:51:30sign if you can keep that and reuse it

1:51:32somehow. um you know so that you're not

1:51:34totally losing everything that's there.

1:51:37>> I think that really sums up my thoughts

1:51:40is that totally understand why it needs

1:51:43to come down. The condition is a huge

1:51:45issue. The financial cost is also a huge

1:51:47issue. But since we currently have it,

1:51:51we have the ability to take a pause and

1:51:54collect all of the information that we

1:51:56can from this existing structure. That's

1:51:59that's what I would propose.

1:52:02Well, do we have a motion?

1:52:04[clears throat]

1:52:07>> I will move.

1:52:13Based on our review of the criteria

1:52:16established in section 9-4-15C8,

1:52:20the finding of potential historic

1:52:22certificates, I move that lookup item

1:52:26DR-2026-07-1465

1:52:32have [clears throat]

1:52:33the

1:52:35180day state initiated initiated

1:52:39um to allow for additional resource

1:52:41research All

1:52:43right. Make a motion for me to

1:52:46institute a 180day stay of demolition.

1:52:49Do we have a second? Second, Katie. Uh,

1:52:52all in favor? Why don't unanimous?

1:52:56>> Lee. Then do we have to give any kind of

1:52:58directives or suggestions for this

1:53:00period? So, it's not just like a six

1:53:01month spar around period. Um,

1:53:05>> we make a motion.

1:53:08It will come back to the designation

1:53:11committee to kind of look at those steps

1:53:15and make a more concrete

1:53:19>> specific recommendation that he just

1:53:20doesn't leave and have to wait six

1:53:22months and wonder what's going on.

1:53:26>> There's more like direction.

1:53:28>> This is a up to 180 days, right? Just

1:53:31like tableabling. So if if the committee

1:53:36or the HBC determines that the

1:53:40information has been collected then we

1:53:43could potentially recommend that the the

1:53:45stay be

1:53:47>> lifted early earlier than 180 days.

1:53:51>> Yeah.

1:53:52>> Yeah. I think a report back on the

1:53:53designation committee would then trigger

1:53:55that.

1:53:56>> Right. And so designation committee will

1:53:59look into things and they would come

1:54:00back to they would come back to you all

1:54:02as a whole board kind of like we looked

1:54:05at last week with or last month with

1:54:07Phillips and study area and that sort of

1:54:10thing. it would be kind of coming back

1:54:12with their recommendation for whatever

1:54:14that next step would be. Whether that's

1:54:16initiating designation, whether that is

1:54:19releasing um the

1:54:22demolition

1:54:23review.

1:54:25>> Okay. So, we have time to put this on

1:54:27the agenda for the next designation

1:54:28committee meeting.

1:54:30>> Yes.

1:54:30>> Okay.

1:54:31>> We have a question.

1:54:33>> Um yeah, I was curious. I guess I'm not

1:54:37familiar. I'm familiar with the HPC

1:54:39process and the demolition process, but

1:54:41I am not fully understanding what is

1:54:44going on. So at the end of the 180 days

1:54:52like so there's no input from us

1:54:54anymore. You guys go to a designation

1:54:57committee and determine

1:55:01what you are going to do or not going to

1:55:03do. And at the end of that, you can do

1:55:06what a options

1:55:07>> you can still tear down the building.

1:55:10>> We because you're build I mean

1:55:12>> what?

1:55:13>> What?

1:55:14>> Wait,

1:55:14>> no, we just at the end of the end of 180

1:55:17days. Yeah, I was I thought you were

1:55:19like going

1:55:19>> Yeah. So that's what my confusing at the

1:55:21end of 180 days

1:55:23>> if nothing has happened there's no

1:55:26further

1:55:26>> Well, no matter what happens at the end

1:55:28of 180 days, if you want to demo your

1:55:30building, you still can. Okay. It's not

1:55:32>> in the meantime. If you have

1:55:34documentation that you want to turn in

1:55:36for the designation committee to review

1:55:39>> about that condition and all of those

1:55:41things, you can do that.

1:55:43>> Okay.

1:55:43>> Um structural engineer report,

1:55:45>> right? That sort of thing. Whatever. I I

1:55:48thought this was an initial talk about

1:55:50this or else I would have had AMT and

1:55:53already have done the structural

1:55:54engineering and all of that and we would

1:55:57have had a much more comprehensive

1:55:59report putting up to you guys today. But

1:56:02>> this was like you asked to knock it down

1:56:04and

1:56:04>> yeah. So,

1:56:05>> wait. Well, okay.

1:56:06>> If I'm wrong, y'all are welcome to

1:56:08attend the designation committee meeting

1:56:12>> and and can we submit

1:56:16information to you to get to them prior

1:56:18to that? Is that

1:56:20>> We would love that.

1:56:21>> Okay. And Amber Amber, I'll just contact

1:56:23Amber and get she can send me that

1:56:26information offline and and we can go

1:56:30from there. Now, it does sound like what

1:56:32happens if you decide it is going that

1:56:37you recommend it to be a local

1:56:41historic designation or landmark or

1:56:43whatever. What happens if that is

1:56:45decided?

1:56:46>> Can you talk to staff about this?

1:56:48>> Oh, sorry.

1:56:49>> Yeah. This not like

1:56:51>> Okay.

1:56:51>> the venue for that.

1:56:53>> Staff can give you the information.

1:56:54>> Okay. Perfect. That makes sense.

1:57:00Okay. Uh, that ends our um agenda as far

1:57:04as COAs and other things go. We're now

1:57:06on to other business. Strategic plan

1:57:09update.

1:57:11>> Um, I do not have any specific strategic

1:57:15plan update.

1:57:17Um,

1:57:23the biggest thing I have strategic plan

1:57:25update is just that the strategic plan

1:57:27is set up to expire next year. So, at

1:57:30some point we [laughter] should probably

1:57:31think about updating the strategic plan.

1:57:34Um, before too long. Um, but as far as

1:57:38the specific items in here, I don't have

1:57:41anything

1:57:44directly in place as you know that

1:57:46addresses those items unless somebody

1:57:48else has something they want to share.

1:57:54Um,

1:57:56designation committee report. Uh,

1:57:59designation committee did not meet this

1:58:01month. Um, we are looking at setting up

1:58:05a new meeting that the designation

1:58:07committee, a special called meeting

1:58:09before the end of the month. We're also

1:58:11looking at changing

1:58:15when they meet to no longer be at noon

1:58:19on the second Tuesdays because the mayor

1:58:21and commission have a work session.

1:58:24Um, and they insist on using both the

1:58:26auditorium and the conference room. So,

1:58:29we don't have a place to meet at that

1:58:31time. So, um we're still working out

1:58:35what will be the best um time to meet

1:58:38moving forward, but we do want to do a

1:58:40special called meeting um

1:58:44before the end of the of September. Um

1:58:47we need to look at the um

1:58:52expansion of the Mill Circle District to

1:58:55include four parcels on Highland

1:58:56Terrace. um that proposal that Dorothy

1:58:59O'Neal has um brought forward and we

1:59:03need to look at the lay park

1:59:06designation. That report is also almost

1:59:11wrapped up. Um

1:59:14and so hoping to get ideally both of

1:59:17those things before designation

1:59:19committee by the end of the month at

1:59:21least circle for sure. the other were we

1:59:24have a couple more people who want to

1:59:26talk to us about the history of the

1:59:28building and their experiences there and

1:59:30so we want that to happen before we say

1:59:32we say we we're done you know they may

1:59:34have something interesting that you know

1:59:36would add to the report

1:59:39um

1:59:41education committee

1:59:44education committee did not meet this

1:59:46month either um we didn't have enough

1:59:48people available to meet

1:59:52um Um, what's the status of the window

1:59:56checklist that the education committee

1:59:58was making?

1:59:58>> Um, still looking at getting drawings of

2:00:02window types done. I didn't have any

2:00:06>> and so the the body of that is done at

2:00:11this point. Um, it's not it's not quite

2:00:15where we want to like put it up on a

2:00:16website and tell people to use it. Um,

2:00:20it is at a point where if somebody

2:00:21actually came and talked to me about

2:00:23wanting to replace windows, I would, you

2:00:25know, give that to them as an example of

2:00:27what we're looking for with information.

2:00:31Um, but

2:00:34drawing windows has been on my to-do

2:00:36list for some time now.

2:00:40um

2:00:43education committee is also going to

2:00:46have to start looking at the annual

2:00:49report for 2026. It's about that time.

2:00:53Um I have emailed

2:00:55over a list of some suggestions and

2:00:58things to look at in lie of our meeting

2:01:01this past month and we will talk about

2:01:03that more the next meeting. you have the

2:01:06date of our next one. So I can just

2:01:19>> Oh, I can I

2:01:22Tuesday the 29th. It's

2:01:32>> Tuesday the 29th.

2:01:35>> Mhm.

2:01:36the fourth Tuesday at 4 pm.

2:01:47And as far as miscellaneous

2:01:49announcements,

2:01:51as of now, there's one application

2:01:54turned in for the October meeting, but

2:01:56since the deadline's not until Monday,

2:01:57I'm sure there will be.

2:02:00>> Seven.

2:02:01>> Ma'am, do you have any concept reviews?

2:02:04Uh, I don't know because the concept

2:02:06review deadline is always two weeks

2:02:08before the meeting. It's not even coming

2:02:11up on Monday. So, I'm not going to know

2:02:13about that for a while.

2:02:18>> Anybody else have anything?

2:02:23>> Not the man. Chair will entertain a

2:02:24motion to adjurnn.

2:02:26>> Motion by Lauren.

2:02:28>> Second mail. All in favor? Okay.

2:02:33See y'all next month.

2:02:35>> Too short.

2:02:37There has never been opposition to the

2:02:39journey. [laughter]

2:02:41[clears throat]

2:02:41>> Yeah, it's too early. We have to stay

2:02:43later.

2:02:44>> Yeah, right. What am I going to do with

2:02:45all this time?

```*