2026-10-06 - Historic Preservation Commission

00:04Hi, good evening. Welcome. This is a

00:06meeting of the Somerville Historic

00:07Preservation Commission. It is October

00:106, 2026, 6:45 p.m. I'm calling this

00:14meeting to order. Pursuant to chapter 2

00:17of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the

00:19Historic Preservation Commission will be

00:21conducted via remote participation.

00:25recording of these proceedings can be

00:26found online at the city's agendas,

00:29minutes, and more link on their website.

00:33And um as is our custom before we

00:37proceed, we'll do our introductions of

00:38who we are tonight so people know our

00:41faces. Um right across my screen, we'll

00:44start with Mr. Bower. Hi,

00:46>> I'm Dick Bower and I'm an attorney and

00:49was trained as a city planner. I live in

00:51the Spring Hill neighborhood.

00:53Thank you. Vice Chair Kelly.

00:55>> Hi, I'm Robin Kelly. I am the realtor

00:59member of the commission and a historic

01:01homeowner in Union Square.

01:04>> Thank you. And we have Miss Price.

01:06>> Hello. My name is Denise Price and I

01:08live in a local historic district.

01:12>> And then you have um me. I'm Eric Parks

01:16um resident of W three architect

01:19historic homeowner.

01:21And we have um several members of staff.

01:24I think I'll just introduce uh Miss

01:26Anthony and she can take it from there.

01:29>> Yep. It's just me tonight. Um I'm

01:31Madison Anthony and I'm a planner with

01:33the planning department.

01:37>> Thanks. Um tonight we have a fairly

01:41streamlined meeting. We have one item of

01:43business

01:44and um that is a preferably preserved

01:48case hearing for a project that came

01:50before us some point earlier than today

01:53for the deter determination of

01:55significance. Sorry, I can't really

01:56speak tonight. Um and we'll introduce

01:59this is HP26-000029.

02:03The address is 23 Hley Street. The

02:05applicant is WOM Construction. The owner

02:08is 23 Hley Street, Somerville LLC. Is

02:11the applicant here tonight for this?

02:14>> Um, if you are here to represent this

02:16case, will you please raise your hand so

02:18I can promote you?

02:21>> All right.

02:23Uh, just give me one moment to promote

02:26the team.

02:36[clears throat]

02:48Hello.

02:50>> Good evening.

02:52>> Hey, good evening. It's It's me

02:54Wellington modem.

02:56>> Hi there.

02:58>> Good. How are you?

02:59>> Welcome.

03:01>> Thank you.

03:02>> So, um

03:04let's give a little update. let us you

03:06know the reason we're here. Just tell us

03:08anything more about the project we want

03:09to know any other information.

03:12>> Yes.

03:13>> Yes. I will I will if you guys don't

03:15mind I will let James uh to talk about

03:18it. He's taking care of the projects.

03:20He's the architect taking care for the

03:23whole project.

03:24>> Okay.

03:26>> Hi. Hi. Good evening members of the

03:27commission. My name is James Rristley.

03:30I'm an architect of LR Designs

03:32Incorporated out of Cambridge. Um and uh

03:36I just want to add a little bit to the

03:39project uh description. Uh what we're

03:42trying to accomplish here is to expand

03:44the building to create uh two dwelling

03:46units at this you know currently single

03:49family home and um and we we we respect

03:53the fact that this has been identified

03:55as an early structure and um that

03:58there's some desire to preserve the

04:00current roof line. However, this this

04:03presents some difficulty with um the

04:05city's current zoning for us to be able

04:08to expand the building to to make it

04:10make it make the redevelopment of the

04:12structure work. Um I don't know if

04:15members have been by the building, but

04:17it it definitely shows its age. Um you

04:21know, it will need a structural

04:23retrofit, etc. But um what we

04:27[clears throat] find difficult is is the

04:28possibility of retaining existing roof

04:31line and and being able to work within

04:35the current zoning is is just it's it's

04:38difficult to then expand the building.

04:41Um the the property it sits in the

04:44neighborhood uh residence zone and as as

04:47you're probably well aware of but it's

04:49it's based on form type B uh form based

04:52typologies

04:54and um we're working towards a you know

04:58a detached

05:00uh

05:02house and um we're leaning on the

05:05concept of a a mansard roof to give us

05:08the additional space in the attic um

05:11which which we very much need to do the

05:14two units.

05:16Um we understand um

05:22well I I mean I I guess we the manard

05:26[clears throat] roof seems to work

05:27perfectly with uh the existing footprint

05:30and expanded the expanded footprint as

05:33well as the existing footprint and um it

05:36fits into the neighborhood. Um there are

05:38other mansard historic and new um in the

05:42neighborhood and uh we feel that it it

05:44provides a [snorts] you know a compact

05:47reasonable solution to increasing the

05:50building mass and uh providing

05:53additional an additional dwelling unit

05:55on the site.

05:59Um, I I guess I would open it open back

06:03to you for any questions or or start the

06:07discussion in some way.

06:10[clears throat]

06:12>> Very good. Thank you. Um, yeah, you'll

06:14have a chance to bounce back in if we

06:16need. Um, the next step for us is

06:18typically to solicit public comment,

06:20which we'll do now. Uh, if there are any

06:23members of the public who'd like to

06:24speak about this case, please raise your

06:25hand and the staff will unmute you.

06:38>> Uh, Chair Parks, this is Madison

06:40speaking. I'm not seeing anyone raising

06:42their hands.

06:44All right, then we'll close the public

06:46comment

06:47part of this hearing and we will I will

06:51invite the commission to weigh in on

06:52what they think

06:58or ask questions.

07:05I have a without

07:08giving any opinions if you could weigh

07:10in just elaborate a little bit on what

07:12in what sense the current the zoning

07:14does not allow you to alter the roof

07:16line just because I'd be interested to

07:18know.

07:19>> Yes. Yes. Currently, um the roof form is

07:22is a gable and it's actually running

07:25parallel to the street um that basically

07:31covers, you know, a footprint that's two

07:34rooms wide with with uh well, the house

07:37has a side staircase, but it it's it's

07:39basically two rooms wide. and

07:43[clears throat] the existing rear

07:44edition

07:46as it stands right now, it alone would,

07:50you know, could possibly meet the

07:52zoning. Um, some little things would be

07:55difficult. Maybe the the the little

07:57front gable uh dormer might be um

08:01problematic. However, in order to expand

08:04the house, which which we need to do to

08:06get to two units, um

08:10there would be no way to like replace

08:11the rear edition and and then expand it

08:14because the the rear edition would have

08:16to be have a certain ratio to the main

08:20mass and the main mass is so small at

08:22the moment. Our our strategy is to

08:24increase the main mass um and then have

08:28a new rear edition and then the main

08:30mass would be covered with this new

08:31mansard roof which gives us you know a a

08:34larger halfstory um that makes makes the

08:38um upper unit more viable.

08:41>> Okay. So just hypothetically let's say

08:44you for whatever reason didn't want to

08:47change the upper roof line. you would

08:49still run into trouble with needing to

08:51add more mass behind than the building

08:54type would allow to be considered.

08:57>> Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I don't mean to

08:59talk over you. That that is correct. And

09:00then that would open us up to, you know,

09:03seeking variances and and sort of and

09:07it'd be hard to, you know, I guess maybe

09:09the hardship would be that's a historic

09:10building. I I'm not sure. Um

09:13>> we'd have to give that some thought.

09:15>> Okay. [clears throat] So your proposal

09:17then is to essentially replace this into

09:20a a maned roof and then add on uh well

09:25not add on because you can't add on

09:27replace it with a new building with the

09:30manard.

09:31>> Yes. But but the the front portion of

09:33the building is is the exact same

09:36footprint. So, I don't know if if people

09:38saw the documents, but it it does, as a

09:43result, there's sort of these elegant

09:45like side wings that come up that are

09:47are only one room deep. And um and it

09:50really uh I think it would it'd be a

09:53very articulated building. It would

09:55rather than just, you know, like a large

09:57rectangle, you know, it it'd be rather

10:00articulated in its form and its shape

10:02because of the existing building. the

10:04existing footprint is is is driving

10:08um how the front of the the main mass

10:11meets the street.

10:13>> Oh, are you are you staying within the

10:15existing footprint?

10:17>> Sounds like you're enlarging.

10:18>> We are enlarging to the rear and outside

10:21the setback. We are holding the existing

10:24footprint in the front

10:27>> and in the side setback.

10:30[clears throat]

10:32>> Okay. So that that mass will still be

10:36legible um you know when the building

10:38goes up.

10:41>> So you've found this just comes up

10:43sometimes so I'm I'm picking your brain

10:44a little bit that the um so you you've

10:48found a way to keep the mass as it is

10:52but add on behind it in a way that does

10:55comply with our formbbased zoning

10:58whereas adding a one solid mass behind

11:00it wouldn't. Is that what I'm hearing?

11:02That that's correct. And and what it

11:04comes down to is is you know what it

11:07what what the commission appears to like

11:09about the building is the roof form.

11:11Again, it's that gable that runs, you

11:14know, parallel to the street. And then

11:17currently there is a rear edition which

11:19is two stories which is correct for the

11:21zoning and it has a gable on it. But it

11:24it I couldn't we we it's not possible to

11:28add on to that again or or to um

11:34basically uh what is it? So, sort of

11:39make the the main mass to sort of

11:41maximize the possibility of the main

11:43mass. And that's what we're doing with

11:44the new roof form

11:46is we're maximizing what's allowed for

11:49the main mass within the zoning. And

11:51then we would add on a new rear addition

11:53which would have a flat roof.

11:57>> Okay. There would be flat a twotory

12:00then.

12:01>> Yes. Yes. And that's that's what it's

12:02it's restricted to a twotory rear

12:04edition.

12:06Okay. And narrower than the front

12:08building?

12:09>> Yes. Yes.

12:10>> Okay.

12:12Um and that that solution wouldn't

12:15hypothetically if there were no need to

12:17keep to change the roof that solution

12:20would that work on the existing building

12:22as it is or would that become

12:24nonconforming?

12:25I think that's what you said originally

12:27that

12:27>> Yes. it it it

12:30in order to do create the same amount of

12:33of area for the two units. I I'm I'm

12:36hardressed to find like a form or a

12:39component that's allowed that would

12:41allow me to do that because the the main

12:43mass would be restricted to what's in

12:45front of the house currently and and it

12:48would limit how much rear edition and

12:50and and the volume of the rear edition.

12:56>> Okay. I think I follow you, but let me

13:00uh get out of the way and see if anybody

13:01else has questions and things like that.

13:05Thank you.

13:07So, the so the problem

13:11for you

13:13if you have to keep the existing roof

13:15line then is um it's just it's a

13:19question of usable square footage within

13:21the building.

13:23>> Correct. Correct. I mean, right now it's

13:26it's maybe a modest single family, maybe

13:29a little more comfortable. Um,

13:32you know, to make the project work, it

13:36we we have to have two units on the

13:38site. And I think that's in line with,

13:41you know, the city, the state,

13:43everyone's, you know, urgency to to add

13:45more housing. So, it it it it seems like

13:48a a good fit. and the the manarded form

13:51that we came up with, it's native to the

13:54zoning. It it works with the zoning.

13:57There's some some um

14:00uh you know recollection of the existing

14:03form because of the the way the front

14:05meets the street. Um yes, it's it's a

14:09different house, but that that there

14:11sort of is like these slender wings that

14:12will be a result of of the existing

14:14house will still be there. And I think I

14:16think it's it's kind of an exciting

14:18project. I think I think it's well

14:19articulated.

14:21>> So say more about where the flat roof

14:24would be in the back just at the the top

14:26of the second floor, the top of the

14:28third floor.

14:29>> The the it would be two stories with a

14:33flat roof and it's it's almost like a

14:35kitchen L. So if you can imagine, you

14:37know, the main massing

14:40often is is um done as a a big

14:43rectangle, right, of a certain size. And

14:46then the rear edition can be up to 50%

14:49of that floor plate, but it can only be

14:52two stories. And so one of the most

14:54efficient things to do and and one of

14:56the most one of the desirable things to

14:57do is do a flat roof because then people

15:00can get an outside space, a roof deck or

15:02something like that off of the third

15:03floor

15:04>> of the main mass.

15:06>> So right now the the L in the back is

15:08two and a half stories. It looks like

15:10>> that. That's correct. Well, no, it's

15:11it's two stories with a gable roof. It's

15:13it's it's attic. It's it's there's like,

15:16you know, little crawling in attic.

15:18>> Okay.

15:19>> So, you would actually be lowering that

15:20to put a flat roof.

15:24>> Um, we we would be eliminating a gable

15:27roof to do a flat roof. Yes. It would go

15:29without a flat roof

15:33>> because it' be in effect a wider rear L

15:36which makes the gable

15:38>> very tall. I guess if you were to

15:40>> Yeah. Yeah. and and you know, you

15:42wouldn't be allowed to go over the main

15:44gable, which yeah,

15:45>> with with this house would be possible

15:47pretty quickly.

15:48>> Are there any actual drawings or

15:50elevations that could be shared to um

15:55>> maybe clarify some of these questions

15:57for

15:58>> Yeah, I thought I thought every Sure. Um

16:00I could pull things up. I thought

16:01everything had been submitted with the

16:03application, but I'm I'm more than happy

16:05to pull them back up.

16:07>> Sure. That'll be helpful to see.

16:08>> Yes, I understand. I'm sure you

16:10submitted the meta. I think we haven't

16:12seen them or at least I have not.

16:14>> Okay. Okay.

16:24Let's get to this.

16:28I'm sorry. I should have planned ahead

16:29with that. I I I guess I just assumed

16:32everyone had

16:40Let me do a quick search.

16:46This is This is where the meeting goes

16:47off,

16:49>> right? You're the only case, so there's

16:52no one in line.

16:53>> Well, I want to respect everyone's time.

16:56Well, we appreciate that. Um,

17:02see if this is the final

17:08Yes.

17:09>> Until Dim can can find out. I don't know

17:11if you guys can see.

17:13>> Yep. I'm getting ready to I'm going to

17:15request to share as soon as I can.

17:18>> You guys can start in before Jim sharing

17:20anything.

17:21>> I see.

17:23Virtual.

17:24That's a side view, I take it.

17:26>> Yes, that's the driveway side. The

17:28little driveway.

17:32>> Okay.

17:33>> Oh, Jimmy got it. Yeah, perfect.

17:35>> Yeah. So, these are

17:37these are the direct comparisons. Uh the

17:40building the building department loves

17:42these because they get to see everything

17:44before and after.

17:47So, this this is the current front

17:49elevation.

17:51Um so, we're we're virtually keeping

17:53this with a new roof.

17:57And um I'm going to zoom in a touch

18:00more.

18:04So this is the proposal and the the

18:06manser form remove the enclosed porch.

18:09Uh a box bay comes out uh a a stoop and

18:14canopy for the entrances.

18:18Um and then the mansard includes these

18:21um these dormers.

18:25And then if we go along this side, how

18:27do I where's my bar? There we go.

18:32So this this is you know the main the

18:35existing mass on the side of the house

18:38and that's what I was talking about

18:39these these sort of narrow wings that

18:41will come off the main mass. This is

18:42considered the main mass

18:45um the whole the whole rectangle and

18:47then this is the rear edition.

18:50So this is the uh left hand elevation uh

18:54the driveway side of the property

18:58and then this would be the rear. So you

19:00see the the rear edition coming out and

19:03then the the main mass manered roof is

19:06sort of telescoping back into the site.

19:09So the building sort of you know in

19:12almost a historical fashion it it

19:14telescopes down.

19:18Um and then this is this this is on the

19:20property line. So that's why this

19:21elevation is is fairly blank. we have to

19:24preserve a or or provide a you know a

19:27fire rated u partition on both sides.

19:35>> So this makes it look like the

19:38um the main part of the building will

19:41more than double from its existing size.

19:45Am I reading this correctly?

19:47>> Yes. Yes. Yep.

19:51and and then with an L sticking out

19:53behind that.

19:54>> That's correct.

19:55>> But that the main

19:58part of the building will actually go

20:01back at least as far maybe farther than

20:03the existing L goes now.

20:07>> Yes.

20:08>> Okay. And then with a new L behind that.

20:11>> That's right. That's correct. Yes.

20:16Again,

20:21we have I'm going to go to a

20:25um you know, we have a nice beautiful

20:28landscape plan. You know, it sort of

20:30shows the building playing out. So,

20:32it'll telescope into the site like this.

20:35And and this this is not an easy site

20:37because we are surrounded on two sides

20:40by DPW yard. [laughter]

20:42>> Yeah. So, so this house has to bring a

20:45lot a lot of character and a lot of uh a

20:48lot of bells and whistles to it.

20:49[laughter]

20:51[clears throat]

20:51>> But um Oh, here. So, this is Mr. Bower.

20:55This is this sort of addresses your your

20:57question there um about the size of the

21:00house. And I I just I want to show it

21:03just to be clear. I don't want to scare

21:06anyone about it, but this is the

21:08existing footprint. And then this is in

21:10the pink is the new footprint. So it

21:14you know it's

21:16>> very helpful for for having this to see

21:18the comparison. Thank you.

21:20>> Okay.

21:23Yeah.

21:26Um

21:30>> well Robin and Denise, what do you you

21:32have any questions?

21:36>> Sorry. Did we open it up to public

21:38comment yet?

21:40>> We did that.

21:41>> We did. Okay. And there's no one. Okay.

21:43Um yeah, I'm Thank you for sharing the

21:47elevations because that helps me a lot.

21:51I am far less concerned about this um

21:56just in terms of the kind of proportion

21:59and scale from the street. Um

22:02understanding that you know there will

22:04be greater mass but the

22:09you know it's maintaining similar

22:12height and width and and those kinds of

22:17things and with some of the

22:21um

22:22it's not just a a monolith. You know

22:25there it has

22:28it's not just a big rectangle. It has

22:30different shapes and textures going on,

22:31which I think is going to help um keep

22:34it feeling a little more neighborhood

22:38scale um and friendlier to its

22:41surrounding

22:43properties um

22:46which is helpful. I mean, I do hate to

22:49lose the the little

22:53gables. They're very sweet. Um

22:57but

23:00Yeah,

23:04I appreciate this design and the thought

23:07that's gone into it.

23:11I would agree with Vice Chair Kelly. Um,

23:16I like the design, which is nice. Um,

23:19it's hard to let an 1869ish

23:25house go, especially with the cute

23:27little um, front gable on it. So, um,

23:33but seeing this design makes me feel a

23:36lot better and, um, there was a lot of

23:39thought put to it and it wasn't just

23:41thrown together. So, I appreciate that.

23:43So, thank you.

23:45>> Thank you.

23:47sort of that same mindset there. The

23:51street, it's not exactly like there's a

23:53continuous that this is a pattern that's

23:56repeated. So, it's that the street has a

23:58collection of some pretty uh diverse

24:01building type. There's some sing onetory

24:03manser across the street, couple houses

24:05over a house that had a very unfortunate

24:07set of shed dormers added to it. So, uh

24:10I don't think it's so much a matter of

24:12maintaining a a street line that's been

24:14there. Um the building that's there I

24:18agree it's you know retains its original

24:20massing and forming and all that kind of

24:21stuff. Um this seems like a if this

24:26design were to become the final product

24:28here something that we'd probably

24:30ultimately accept I think as as the

24:33result of an MOA or something like that.

24:35So I think this just looking at what's

24:37drawn here at least is

24:40something that would work in that

24:41street.

24:46though I appreciate also the the thought

24:50that has gone into this and and it would

24:52in a sense work on this street and that

24:55um the mansard is not inappropriate for

24:59that period. Um but it's not like the

25:04house that's currently there. And it is

25:07true that we don't have a a streetscape

25:09of repeating houses, but we have is a

25:12streetscape of varied houses of which

25:15this is the only one that is like that.

25:18So I'm reluctant to say it's okay to

25:22lose that Italian front and replace it

25:25with a 21st century mansard.

25:31Okay.

25:34Um, and

25:37you know, the idea of historic

25:38preservation is to actually retain

25:41character of of what's there now where

25:46it's possible to do that. um

25:50and and a 21st century version um even

25:56if it's well done is still sort of like

25:59a Disneyland version of um of old

26:03America

26:09and its function here essentially is to

26:13uh enable more square footage so the

26:15developers can make more money. um on

26:18the development by taking away the

26:20existing

26:22um front of the house.

26:28>> Thank you.

26:37>> So, it's I understand it's you know it's

26:40additional square footage. it's

26:42maximizing or attempting to maximize the

26:44lot so that the the numbers work for the

26:50development to happen. Um but it would

26:53be providing an additional unit um

26:59which currently the just the size of the

27:03current space even if they were to

27:04finish out the basement you'd be

27:07hardressed to get I mean you'd end up

27:09with still two very small units. Um,

27:19so in terms of the possibility of

27:23housing more people um or families,

27:28this design um allows them to do it. I'm

27:32annoyed that the zoning is such that um

27:37you know that it's requiring this as

27:39opposed to just being able to create a

27:42design that allows for the retention of

27:44the Italian8 front and maximizing

27:49the the buildout on the lot. That's

27:52frustrating. Um

27:57so I don't know

28:00whether there's any possibility of

28:07allowing you know variances more quickly

28:10and easily when there's a historic

28:13preservation

28:15consideration.

28:17Um

28:19but absent that,

28:23you know, we're left with

28:26a 1300 ft² house, you know, which is

28:28what it is now. It's very small. Um

28:36so,

28:39and just so that I understand, um

28:43because I feel like I should have the

28:44hang of this by now, but I don't. Um, we

28:47have

28:50we have the option to put a demolition

28:52delay on it of 18 months tonight

28:55and in front and then in 18 months they

28:58can take it down and build whatever they

28:59want and it could be ugly and I mean

29:04ugly in in my opinion. Um, and

29:11now we have an opportunity to, and

29:14please correct me if I'm wrong, to

29:18possibly still protect it, but put

29:21together a memorandum of agreement that

29:24it'll look like this and it won't look

29:25like some boxy thing out of California.

29:28Um, so we have an opportunity. We're

29:30going to probably lose it anyway, right?

29:34if they just wait 18 months.

29:37>> Yep.

29:37>> And I don't mean to minimize it to that,

29:39but I just kind of feel like it's do do

29:43we have the option to say, "Hey, we'd

29:45like it to look like this." Um,

29:48or we just say, "Forget it." And wait 18

29:52months and then they'll just box it all

29:53out.

29:55I think the demolition delays are a

29:58little bit more murky like that because

30:01it's not um the goals are often just to

30:06help guide what replaces it to something

30:08that looks better. And I think as I look

30:12at the proposal here, I can see why well

30:14the two things one this is like the

30:16third project now in my memory where

30:18this issue with what zoning allows has

30:19come up. So, we definitely need to do

30:20some sort of postmortem on that kind of

30:22situation here and talk to planning and

30:25seeing what's going on. But also, as as

30:27a designer myself, I could see why if

30:30you kept that front roof line, there

30:32would be no workable way to expand

30:34backwards on that because it's a it's

30:36gable parallel to the street. So, I

30:38guess you could put some kind of cross

30:39gable, but it gets kind of wonky there.

30:42Um, with a whole bunch of shed dormers

30:45and things. I think that really doing

30:48anything with the third floor

30:50necessitates removing the the front

30:53gable

30:55um

30:57because you need to increase it to the

30:59rear and a cross gable that's narrower

31:03would be just about useless.

31:06Um so anyway, I I digress a little bit

31:08there. I think that in this particular

31:11case, what's interesting about this

31:13building isn't really precious enough to

31:16kind of dig in to that level given that

31:18it abuts a DPWR in the side in the back

31:22and that two houses down is a place that

31:23got ridiculous shed dormers added to it

31:26and things like that. I I sort of see

31:28this as being the outcome of what a

31:30demolition delay would come with

31:32something like this. I don't think if I

31:34were the applicant that I would give up

31:36the third floor. um for that. So to me I

31:42know we have a um

31:44a new classification not uh was it not

31:48preferably preserved with conditions or

31:50something like that if we um Madison

31:52have you blown the dust off that one

31:55because we don't use that very often

31:57what that allows us to do. So we can do

31:59that to like a certain extent, but it

32:01has to be like enforceable conditions

32:03and we can't like

32:06make a condition that they have to go

32:07with this exact design. That's more for

32:10something for like adding historic

32:12plaques and stuff like that.

32:13>> Okay. For smaller detail stuff.

32:16>> That's the only I mean we like this. I

32:19see a stamp on it. I presume this has

32:20gotten pretty far along with the city.

32:22Um yeah,

32:24>> could I just it it it has basically gone

32:27through all reviews in the city and upon

32:31you know looking at the the the amount

32:33of demolition correctly so it was it was

32:36sent over. So um I I can't I can only

32:41speak for Mr. Moto as far as he's my

32:44client and I know this is what he wants

32:45to do, but we'd be ready to go with this

32:49design.

32:52So, it's conforming. Doesn't need any

32:53more discretionary permits or things

32:55like that.

32:56>> That's correct. Is yes.

32:58>> I guess I'm not clear as to why we

33:01wouldn't be able to say

33:03um not preferably preserved with the

33:07condition because I feel like we've done

33:08this before. Not preferably preserved

33:11with the condition that the

33:14construction conform to the

33:18plans presented.

33:21um and that any

33:24anything more than a very minor

33:26adjustment would trigger coming back.

33:32So ISD has told us that we can't do that

33:35because it's technically not enforcable

33:38and also there's like during the design

33:42process like every now and then there's

33:44like a bunch of very minor changes that

33:46come up and ISD doesn't know how to

33:49determine like what's a minor change and

33:51what's a substantial change.

33:54>> So how does that work with a memorandum

33:56of agreement though?

33:59So for memorandum of agreements, they um

34:02like submit that over to historic staff

34:06because there's like an actual

34:07memorandum of agreement. If there's not

34:10like an MOA, then it's really up to like

34:12ISD to determine it themselves.

34:16Um,

34:18so we wouldn't be able to say not

34:21preferably preserved with the condition

34:23that staff

34:26produce an MOA based on the

34:29design that was presented.

34:32>> Um, I don't believe so based off of what

34:35I've heard from

34:38uh the enforcement authorities.

34:41So that practically speaking we have

34:45well among the four of us I know Mr.

34:47Bower would rather be rather preserved

34:49which I respect. Um if we wanted to

34:54condition okaying this on this getting

34:57built options are one or just trust that

35:00this is what would get built. Option two

35:01is to call it probably reserved and then

35:04move right into the MOA that codifies

35:06this which is sort of just an

35:08administrative

35:10add-on there means someone's got to

35:12draft the thing. Um, those seem to be

35:16the two options that I'm hearing.

35:20>> [clears throat]

35:26>> And so from a practical standpoint, if

35:28we were to find this um preferably

35:31preserved and then it shifts into the

35:36MOA

35:38process,

35:40um

35:43would that effectively that would

35:45effectively be the same amount of time

35:48Well, I guess we can't do anything other

35:50than that to ensure that this would be

35:54the design moving forward.

36:00>> Yeah. And you know, practically I am

36:04almost of the mindset where I would be

36:05willing to call it not preferably

36:07preserved anyway

36:09just because of its setting and its

36:11position in the street. It's budding.

36:13>> It It's just I I totally get what Mr.

36:16Barra said, but I feel like in this case

36:17it's sort of nominal.

36:20It's contribution there.

36:23>> But if we if we do that, I'm sorry to

36:25interrupt.

36:26>> Sure.

36:27>> Um,

36:31hypothetically, the developer could then

36:34we've let the building go and

36:37>> he's gone through a major hurdle. gone

36:39through a major hurdle and he could

36:41decide not to build this and sell it off

36:43and it's already been approved to be

36:45removed

36:47>> and

36:49>> they could it's an expensive hurdle but

36:51they could do that

36:54to come up with this level of design but

36:55yeah

36:57>> I mean there's a lot of properties

36:59there's a lot of um developments on the

37:02market right now so

37:05>> well then if people feel more

37:07comfortable then we

37:09do that route. I mean, the applicant

37:12here's our general okayness with this

37:14and this would become the design upon

37:16which an MOA would be based. So, it

37:19would slide into that the next day kind

37:21of thing. It's not the kind of thing

37:22where it would be 18 months. Well,

37:25obviously I can't speak for the ultimate

37:29negotiations with staff, but I think we

37:31had a case like this last meeting,

37:33didn't we, where we um

37:36understood that it was or two meetings

37:38ago was going to go go directly to an

37:40MOA that

37:42basically codified the design we're

37:44seeing.

37:56So

37:58I guess um

38:07>> yeah. Okay. I think that I traditionally

38:10what we would do is since we are

38:13prior to this part of our discussion we

38:16were all becoming okay with this because

38:18it was going to replace by something

38:19that seemed relatively synthetic. The

38:21only way to move forward is to call it

38:24probably preserved and then make it

38:27resolve with this.

38:29That's what we've done in the past.

38:30That's it's always been a route. if if

38:33that's what I'm hearing. And I know it's

38:36like a little bit of bureaucratic thing

38:37for anyone who's just tuning in to their

38:38to our show, but that's that's kind of

38:41the typical thing where we if we're okay

38:44with losing it because of what's as Mr.

38:46Bar would say because it's prefable

38:49something else happened there. Um I

38:50think we kind of have to call it prey

38:52preserved and then follow up with an

38:54immediate MOA if there if time is of the

38:56essence.

38:58>> Yeah.

38:59>> Which is simply just another Sorry,

39:00Robin. Go ahead. Mhm. I was just going

39:03to say which I would,

39:06you know, obviously staff has priorities

39:08and whatnot, but I would hope that this

39:12could move along as quickly as possible

39:15sort of with an appreciation for

39:19um the applicant team

39:23putting together a thoughtful design and

39:26not just doing, you know, wanting to

39:29knock it down and put

39:31a

39:33blank rectangle. Um,

39:36so

39:38you know, trying to make sure that

39:39things move as quickly as possible,

39:41understanding that

39:43we need to do this in order to ensure

39:48that something very close to this is the

39:51final product. Um, and unfortunately

39:55that adds time to the process for the

39:59for the development team. Um,

40:02but hopefully that can be moved along as

40:05quickly as possible

40:07with staff.

40:10>> If I could clarify a little bit for Mr.

40:12Moda and Mr. Whistling. So, what you're

40:16hearing is that a majority of the

40:17commission um is okay uh with what

40:21you're proposing, but they want to nail

40:23it down. Um and technically the only way

40:27to nail it down is to have a formal

40:29agreement, which is beyond what we could

40:31do with you tonight. So, what we would

40:35do is to say as of this minute, it's

40:38preferably preserved.

40:40um which then still keeps it under the

40:43jurisdiction of the Historic

40:45Preservation Commission. And then to

40:48negotiate a written agreement that would

40:51um formalize just on what terms u the

40:55commission would give its oh go ahead

40:57which could be essentially um it's

41:00lifted on the condition that what

41:03replaces it is what essentially what

41:05we've seen here.

41:08Then it would come back to the

41:11commission to approve the MOA. So it

41:13would be necessary to come to another

41:15one of these meetings for commissioners

41:18to review the MOA and agree that it

41:22looks good. Um so we'll add another

41:27um

41:29meeting to the process.

41:33>> Thank you for clarifying that, Mr.

41:35Bower.

41:36>> Yeah. Yeah. Um,

41:37>> and can I just say uh to the applicant

41:40staff will send you a message about the

41:42MOA process sometime this week to give

41:44you more guidance for how to approach

41:47that.

41:48>> All right.

41:50>> Um, we do need to vote. Um, so I will I

41:54will move that we vote to find the

41:57property preferably preserved.

42:01>> I second that.

42:02>> Okay. Motion by VR Kelly, seconded by

42:04Miss Price. All in favor?

42:06>> I

42:06>> I opposed. We'll do our roll call. Miss

42:10Price,

42:10>> yes.

42:11>> Mr. Bower,

42:12>> yes.

42:13>> Vice Chair Kelly,

42:14>> yes.

42:15>> And I'll vote yes. And we need to follow

42:16up with findings. And I think we're

42:19focusing most on it retains its original

42:20form and massing. It's a good

42:23representation

42:25of of a we call it Italian like a 1860s

42:29event time period style. I'm probably

42:33missing something. think anybody want to

42:34infill with other

42:37aspects?

42:40>> I think that

42:44that captures

42:45>> I would just add um that it appears to

42:48be one of the earliest houses on the

42:50street.

42:51>> Oh, that's true.

42:52>> Um and that its former massing is is

42:55typical of that period.

42:58>> And as such, it serves as something of a

43:00little more interest to the street

43:01because it's of that history. Okay.

43:05Um, those all sound good to me. And I

43:07would like to make a motion to accept

43:08the findings.

43:10So move.

43:11>> So moved.

43:12>> I think Robin, you were first. So

43:15>> I'll second that.

43:17>> Motion by Vice Chair Kelly, seconded by

43:19Mr. Bower. All in favor?

43:22>> I

43:23[clears throat] opposed.

43:25We'll do the roll call again. Miss

43:26Price.

43:27>> Yes.

43:27>> Vice Chair Kelly.

43:29>> Yes.

43:29>> Mr. Bower.

43:31>> Yes. and I'll vote yes. So, there you

43:33have it, folks. Thank you for um

43:37joining us tonight. Um

43:40it looks like it might be an interesting

43:42project when you're done. So, thanks for

43:44working on this.

43:45>> Yeah, we're excited to to move

43:48>> and we we appreciate your thought your

43:50thoughtful discussion.

43:53>> Oh, me too. Um cool. And we'll see you.

43:57And then I think for agenda wise, moving

43:59along, we only have some minutes to

44:02review, right?

44:03>> Yes.

44:04>> And then CPC updates. The minutes we

44:06have September 1st, 15th.

44:10[clears throat]

44:14Go back to those.

44:18I read through both of them. I didn't

44:20have any issues.

44:25>> I scanned them. I didn't look in great

44:27detail, but honestly, they've been so

44:29well lately that

44:32you could put anything in there.

44:35[clears throat]

44:35Anybody else need more time?

45:09I actually wasn't at the first meeting

45:10of these

45:13[clears throat]

45:30>> [clears throat]

45:52[clears throat]

45:54>> Um, it was this meeting the

45:5815th of September that is the same

46:01comment about inability to add on to a

46:03building.

46:05And so that plus I think that came up

46:07during the um when we're hashing out the

46:10building that's now totally gone on

46:13broad on Broadway up

46:17they they demolished when they weren't

46:18supposed to and it sat empty for four

46:20years or something. I think that that

46:22was also brought up as an inability. I

46:24think that staff later said they were

46:26incorrect in that conclusion. But in any

46:28case, I think we do need to find a time

46:30to really fine-tune how our current

46:32formbbased zoning

46:34um can facilitate keeping old structures

46:38if if that means creating a new

46:42principal structure with additions that

46:44violates the standard.

46:47>> Yeah.

46:48>> Yeah. I just I just drove by that

46:50property up on Broadway today and it

46:54sits so far forward of the

46:57>> the historic houses on either side. It's

47:00like it's pushing through them. It's

47:02this very like look at me, I

47:08>> really terrible. It's very unfortunate.

47:12Um but yeah, I mean the fact that this

47:15is sort of like keeps coming up and the

47:18property on um was it Alders or

47:21somewhere around there where like they

47:24were going to have to lop off a bay in

47:27order to

47:28>> Oh yeah,

47:29>> you know get the setbacks or in order to

47:33build another structure or whatever and

47:36it just Yeah. I mean

47:38>> that was over that was an advisory thing

47:40wasn't it for the um national they're

47:43going to subdivide a lot and it was over

47:45by Nick kind of on on um Oxford Street

47:48or one of those

47:49>> Avon.

47:51>> Yeah. So I feel like and I keep saying

47:53this and then I don't do anything about

47:54it but we do need to have a little get

47:57together and really pour over the

47:58zoning. Maybe meet with um the new

48:01director there. Eric, we already sort of

48:04discussed this this morning, but in the

48:08over the next year or so, we're going

48:11through all the ordinances and board

48:13regulations and trying to figure out

48:14like how to make the way we do things

48:17make more sense and easier for

48:20applicants. Um, we're going to be doing

48:23hopefully the HPC sometime next year in

48:272027.

48:28So whenever that happens, I will reach

48:32out to all of you for like input on

48:35reoccurring problems that we keep

48:37having, anything that you think needs to

48:39be better organized. And then um I think

48:43probably

48:45we'll want to Dan or Fiona who are the

48:50director and deputy director will

48:51probably want to like meet with at least

48:53some of you to discuss any problems that

48:56we've been having and things you think

48:58need to be changed in either the demo

49:01ordinance or the LHD alteration

49:04guidelines.

49:07So I think that is when all of this

49:10information is going to be useful. So

49:12hopefully soon it's addressed.

49:13>> So it's really more about the zoning

49:15though and so that the zoning is so

49:20>> like clumsy, you know, it's not very um

49:27agile um to be able to accommodate

49:32considerations of historic significance.

49:35And so these kind of like

49:39dumb design decisions are having to be

49:42made um simply to comply with this, you

49:47know, prefab thing, which is kind of

49:51silly in a city that is every it's just

49:54all exceptions. You know, there isn't

49:56anything that's uniform. Um, and so

50:00that's the piece that's it's not the

50:03LHDs or, you know, I'm sure that there

50:06is stuff with those that will need, you

50:08know, could be improved upon, but this

50:10specifically has to do with um allowing

50:15for

50:16modifications to accommodate historic

50:19preservation.

50:22>> Yeah.

50:23And also, we haven't had any of these,

50:25but I had a friend with a project that

50:27had a building that was outright not

50:28conforming for its neighborhood. It was

50:30an old industrial building. And adding

50:33on to that, adding

50:36a kit of parts that's functionally stuff

50:38that belongs on a two and a half story

50:40woodframe building on a brick industrial

50:43building became kind of absurd in a way.

50:45So, there needs to be a way to sort of

50:48like allow for extensions or additions

50:51of non-conforming buildings in a way

50:53that is sympathetic to their original

50:55design. And

50:58um yeah,

51:00>> my god,

51:02sorry about that. My computer died with

51:04no warning.

51:05>> Oh, wait. Is gone. I did see. Yeah, I

51:08like I got kicked out of the meeting and

51:10my computer shut down, but my battery is

51:13not dead, so I don't know what that was

51:14about,

51:17but um

51:19>> yes, Robin, the zoning um it's a

51:23problem. We're constantly

51:26like working on amendments to the zoning

51:28ordinance. So, I think this is useful

51:31feedback and I can talk to um the

51:35planning department about

51:38uh potential zoning ordinances changes

51:40to where that can be addressed.

51:43>> That would be great.

51:45>> It's a curse. I know the one of the

51:46goals was to get rid of the need to go

51:48so much discretionary permitting,

51:50>> but the flip side of that is

51:52discretionary permitting is really that

51:54the vehicle for which you navigate some

51:56of these inconsistencies. So, it's sort

51:57of like a two sides of the same coin

51:59there about yes, a lot of projects

52:02became simpler where if you just agree

52:03to do this or that or that kind of

52:04thing, you can bypass all that.

52:08But we'll stay tuned then and then when

52:10it comes closer maybe we'll have a

52:11little sub another meeting or something

52:13that's dedicated to just going over the

52:15stuff or whatever.

52:18Um I I totally sidetracked us. We were

52:20in the middle of looking at minutes and

52:23I digressed. But did anybody need more

52:25time or do we want to proceed with a

52:26vote on those?

52:29>> Move that we vote to approve the um the

52:32two sets of meeting minutes on the

52:35agenda.

52:36that being September 1st and September

52:3815th of

52:39>> 2020.

52:41>> Okay. Um just the obvious

52:45>> seconded. Um all in favor?

52:47>> I

52:47>> I opposed.

52:50And we'll do our roll call. Miss Price.

52:52>> Yes.

52:53>> Mr. Bower,

52:54>> I'm abstaining. I was not present.

52:56>> Okay. Um Vice Chair Kelly.

52:58>> Yes.

52:59>> And I will vote yes on the 15th. I

53:04should abstain on the first since I

53:05don't think I attended that one as well.

53:10Oh, wait. I went and made these a single

53:12vote, didn't I? So, I can't do that. Um,

53:14I'll just vote yes. I think someone said

53:16I'm allowed to vote yes.

53:17>> You're allowed to vote yes whether you

53:18know or not.

53:19>> I'm voting yes just to avoid having to

53:21go and do another vote.

53:27>> I will accept those minutes.

53:29>> Right.

53:30>> And then I

53:32>> Oh, yeah. Oh, CPC, you need to

53:34>> CPC. Um, we are in the middle of

53:38reviewing

53:40applications for funding.

53:43Um, and we had a lot, Mr. Bower might

53:47remember because you were on this

53:49commission, we have this time requests

53:51for about twice, not quite twice, 50%

53:54more money than we have available. So,

53:56we're having to to sharpen a pencil a

53:58little bit. What's really gobbling up

54:00the a lot of it, the historic

54:02preservation categories are actually

54:03pretty close to what we have available,

54:05it's the um open space where the art

54:07farm is needing. I I forgot how much, $5

54:11million or something like that from the

54:12fund

54:14>> and

54:15>> art farm, you know, you know,

54:17>> they that's finally come back alive

54:20since they finished all the tank work

54:21and stuff beneath it. And okay,

54:24>> they're looking to fund that entire I

54:26think except for and if they can get any

54:28grants from the CPA, CPC CPA. So that

54:32that's an expensive one. It's about $5

54:33million.

54:35And um so there'll be a discussion about

54:38whether we want to partially fund it or

54:41uh as sometimes happens

54:43borrow against it. So, Uband,

54:47which it's like an easier way to quick

54:49get some money, but then you're

54:50obligating us to to spend that for 20

54:53years or whatever. It's carving out our

54:55that we did that with the West Branch

54:56Library and a few other cases.

54:59So, that's what'll get hashed out. But,

55:01I think what's notable, we've um funded,

55:04as as always, the Somerville Museum has

55:06the restoration of a few paintings and

55:08things like that. request for that a um

55:12preservation study for the beautiful

55:13church across from the Masonic Hall

55:15there that the stone building on

55:17Highland A.

55:20Um

55:21[clears throat]

55:22what else in historic preservation? Um

55:26I'm completely blanking on the other

55:27projects.

55:29Anyway, that's where we are.

55:33[clears throat]

55:33>> So Eric, say again, which church on

55:36Halab? Oh, it's the one there's a a food

55:39bank that operates out of it. I guess

55:41that's not

55:42>> Okay, that's mission

55:43>> mission street. Yeah, the Baptist. It's

55:45the nice slate roof stone. It's right at

55:48the It's a corner of your of Troll, I

55:50think.

55:50>> Right. Right. And we have funded that

55:52before. It's a The building is a

55:54Heartwell in Richardson.

55:57>> Yeah. It's a big It's a nice thing. So

56:00they I think one of the beauties of the

56:02of our funding is that people will often

56:05seek funding just to get a a real

56:07consultant in there and tell them what

56:08they really need to do, which is a

56:10perfect step for one because it they

56:12have some sudden expertise. They're not

56:14>> project managers and all that

56:17>> and um

56:18>> and and I like that considerations of um

56:22of community need

56:25>> enter into it. to the fact that um the

56:28food bank becomes one of the reasons to

56:30fund the roof. Technically, one has

56:32nothing to do with the other, but I

56:34think it it then becomes a twofer of

56:37getting some historic preservation and

56:38also supporting um the good work that

56:41they're doing.

56:42>> Yeah, there there. Oh, I know what the

56:45other ones were. The Armory is look was

56:47looking for some money to get a new uh

56:49building needs assessment done. They did

56:52one five or six years ago, but

56:53apparently it only focused on certain

56:55areas. And so this is a new one. Um,

57:01and uh, the other one that just popped

57:03into my mind was uh, oh, the grace like

57:05the um, what do you call it? Not the

57:08Grace, the

57:08>> Grace Baptist.

57:09>> Uh, no, they're this time they're not

57:11actually seeking money. It's the

57:12Elizabeth Peab body house.

57:13>> Okay. They are looking for money to

57:15basically restore the clock tower,

57:17restore the side of the shingles and

57:19bring the clocks back to life and things

57:21like that, which I think we were we

57:24voted to advance that one because it's,

57:27you know, it there aren't a whole lot of

57:28projects in that area there that are

57:30getting funded. And that that's sort of

57:32like a very iconic part of that

57:33structure. It's the clock tower. Since

57:35nobody has anything else in their

57:36possession anymore that keeps time, we

57:39need those clocks.

57:42>> [laughter]

57:43>> What's this?

57:44>> What's happening with city hall? When is

57:46that poor building going to be?

57:52>> It got a new roof and a redone tower.

57:55That much we have.

57:56>> How about the rest a few years ago?

57:59>> Is there a rest of it? That's the only

58:00part that's

58:02>> I think

58:02>> like the the poor thing needs paint.

58:04Like can we just can't someone paint it?

58:08didn't I think we funded it the very

58:10first year that there was CPA really

58:12must be like a dozen years ago now.

58:15>> We're actually not Yeah, we're not in

58:17city hall anymore. So, I don't even know

58:20what's going on over there.

58:21>> It is nice. The tower got done and you

58:23can you can actually the clocks are

58:25accurate. You could tell time.

58:26>> Yeah.

58:26>> Looking up at the city hall tower. Where

58:28are you located now?

58:29>> We're at um 167 Holland Street over in

58:32Teal Square, the Texas Administration

58:35Building.

58:36>> Okay. Um they stuck like everyone who

58:38was on the third floor over there um

58:41after they finished the roof which is

58:43weird timing.

58:45>> So is it empty now up there? Who's who's

58:47in the third floor?

58:47>> I don't think it's empty anymore. I know

58:50there was a couple divisions who were

58:52still over there and then there's a

58:54bunch of storage on the top floor. Um,

58:59I think some of the divisions might have

59:01been moved up there when they hired a

59:03little bit more staff

59:05>> after the newer administration.

59:09>> Interesting.

59:10>> Yeah.

59:11>> I think just in the big picture, the

59:13city has so much for a while. We were

59:15kind of leaning on that the um what do

59:18you call that? The COVID relief money

59:20that was coming in to fund ARPA. ARPA

59:23and we have to do there's what do we do

59:26with the old school there next?

59:28>> Yes, I was going to ask whether there

59:30was any discussion of that which is

59:33really where a lot of a lot of

59:36departments like HBC probably ought to

59:38end up when when it's finally done. I

59:40assume it will like more than double the

59:43administrative

59:44uh staff space uh around city hall.

59:49Yeah, I don't think they have they've

59:50done like anything with the school since

59:53co um I know there was talk about like

59:56us moving over there for like the past

59:5810 years or something, but I don't think

1:00:01it's going to happen now that we're in

1:00:02the tab to be honest.

1:00:06>> It's such a logical next step though if

1:00:09we had magic funding to to create that

1:00:11as more of a civic campus there and have

1:00:13that be the rest of stuff and totally

1:00:17pull it in.

1:00:19Yeah. And then there's the there a bunch

1:00:22of

1:00:24>> Sorry. Wouldn't it make sense to have

1:00:25ISD planning and all that everybody

1:00:29together?

1:00:30>> That would make too much sense, Robin.

1:00:32>> Yeah. I mean, cuz it's like people are

1:00:35spread all over the place and

1:00:38>> Yeah. ISD is still in I forget the name

1:00:42of the building, but it's the one over

1:00:43near Meon Square near that part

1:00:45>> on Freddy Road.

1:00:47>> Yeah. Yep.

1:00:49>> Does that a building have a name other

1:00:50than just the DPW building?

1:00:52>> They do. I just don't remember it off

1:00:53the top of my head to be honest.

1:00:57>> There's that and then there's the old um

1:00:59parks wreck building down the court.

1:01:03>> Walnut that that's a city building that

1:01:05needs some care. And then

1:01:07>> Yeah. And then the the little one on the

1:01:09corner Paulina.

1:01:11>> Yeah. Is that the Rex [clears throat]

1:01:13building maybe?

1:01:14>> I think traffic and parking is there.

1:01:15>> Oh, right. Yeah.

1:01:16>> Um, and then there's the old um I think

1:01:20it must be like an old nursing home on

1:01:21Evergreen.

1:01:23>> Yes.

1:01:24>> There's a tiny little archives building

1:01:26somewhere too that's separate from like

1:01:29the archives that are in city hall.

1:01:33But for historic stuff that what gets

1:01:35tossed around is those the old district

1:01:38court building, city hall, there's the

1:01:40school, the fire station down in

1:01:42Broadway there where the I forgot who's

1:01:45in that building but by Cross Street. Um

1:01:49that's an old building that

1:01:50>> Elder Commission I think

1:01:52>> Elder Okay. So, there's a lot of stuff.

1:01:54And then with Winter Hill and I think

1:01:56the city, whenever I brought this up

1:01:58with people when they're on my doorstep

1:01:59or whatever, they say, "Well, we're

1:02:00running out of borrowing ability

1:02:04to do all this." So, I I know a lot of

1:02:08this is going to lean on the CPA a lot.

1:02:10that there's going to be a sooner or

1:02:11later there's going to be some big asks

1:02:13from I think from the city for some of

1:02:14those things

1:02:18which kind of gets into a a in my view a

1:02:21bit of a philosophical discussion of

1:02:23just what the purpose of the CPA is

1:02:25because if it's a city building it's

1:02:28nice to work on civic buildings but I

1:02:30sort of view that money as

1:02:32>> that should be coming from

1:02:34>> budget. Yeah.

1:02:35>> Yeah. It's it's capital improvements.

1:02:37It's like keep our own buildings up. We

1:02:39To me, the CPIA funding is really meant

1:02:41to be more targeted towards interesting

1:02:43stuff, these nonprofits with buildings

1:02:46that serve the community or I I still

1:02:48would like um and I think we might still

1:02:50follow this. Remember, Dick, we had a um

1:02:52little fund set up to Yes. give

1:02:55homeowners

1:02:56>> that

1:02:57>> also goes back to like the first year or

1:03:00two of the

1:03:02>> Well, that floundered and finally got

1:03:03swept back into our main budget because

1:03:05they had never given any of that away.

1:03:07>> Uhhuh. And the reason was the city

1:03:09didn't have the staff to the resources

1:03:11to dish that out to to decide or a set

1:03:14of guidelines for that. So I think it's

1:03:16going to come back to life again.

1:03:18Um, we hired a consultant last year to

1:03:21go and and um revise how we approach

1:03:27preservation easements or or not having

1:03:28those and things because typically when

1:03:30we give money to a private me say I want

1:03:34win money for my windows or something if

1:03:36they happen to give it to me that the

1:03:38end result is I have to give a

1:03:39preservation easement on the house so

1:03:42that the city isn't in a position of

1:03:43giving money out that could be turned

1:03:45around and sold to a developer the next

1:03:48or or junked or something. Those have

1:03:50become unwieldly and the city doesn't

1:03:52have the resources to manage those. So

1:03:53they have instead they're working on

1:03:56other alternate system that provides

1:03:59protection that has a daylight clause on

1:04:02it. After 10 or 15 years or something it

1:04:04goes away. Um also the problem with

1:04:07those easements is is a lot of

1:04:09mortgagers wouldn't agree to them. Um we

1:04:13had projects like the the church near

1:04:16Udict that we mentioned that they that

1:04:18roof money they had they never entered a

1:04:20preservation easement with that. So and

1:04:23that was a condition for it. So people

1:04:25were just receiving the money doing the

1:04:26work and not following through with the

1:04:27ements.

1:04:28>> So um anyway there's been some movement

1:04:31there.

1:04:33[clears throat]

1:04:36>> That's the long answer to the CPC.

1:04:39I think that's everything.

1:04:40>> Well, thank you for all of your work on

1:04:42that and for the report.

1:04:43>> Oh, sure. Thanks for coming visiting us.

1:04:47>> Um, quick Robin, before when we go, do

1:04:51you have like five minutes to talk about

1:04:53a problem case that you chaired that I

1:04:57don't think I'm allowed to talk to Eric

1:04:58about?

1:04:59>> Okay.

1:05:00>> I think you can imagine the one

1:05:03>> I I'm thinking I might know, but Yeah.

1:05:06>> Yeah. I just Yeah. Proceed, we have a

1:05:09procedural question and we were

1:05:11wondering Yeah. your input.

1:05:16>> Yes, I can stick around.

1:05:18>> Thank you.

1:05:20>> All right. I think I know. Yes.

1:05:24All right. Say no more. Thank you all.

1:05:28>> I move that we vote to adjurnn.

1:05:31>> I second that.

1:05:33>> Okay. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor?

1:05:36I

1:05:36>> I

1:05:37>> opposed.

1:05:38Do our roll call. Mr. Bower,

1:05:41>> yes.

1:05:41>> Vice Chair Kelly,

1:05:43>> yes.

1:05:43>> Miss Price,

1:05:44>> yes.

1:05:45>> And I vote yes. So, we're adjourned.

1:05:48[snorts]

1:05:48>> Thank you.

1:05:49>> Have a good autumn, folks. We'll see

1:05:50you.

1:05:50>> Good to see you all.

1:05:52>> Good night, everyone. Thanks for coming.

1:05:59>> All right.

1:06:00>> Oh, are you still there?

1:06:04>> I think I don't know. You could stay if

1:06:06you want. I don't I just don't think you

1:06:07can give any input.

1:06:08>> I No, I closed the window. That was not

1:06:10the right window. You You disappeared on

1:06:12my screen. Then I heard noises. Now I'm

1:06:14going to check out.

1:06:16>> Okay. [laughter]

1:06:17>> Bye.

1:06:18>> Bye.

1:06:23You still here?

1:06:24>> He's frozen.

1:06:26>> Oh no.

1:06:28Maybe it's just the webinar. It says

1:06:31he's still a panelist though.

1:06:33>> Yeah. Eric, are you still there?

1:06:36>> Yeah.

1:06:38>> Well, he can listen.

1:06:39>> He can listen. He just can't give any

1:06:41input.

1:06:42>> So,

1:06:44uh, let me stop recording.