2026-10-16 - Historic Preservation Commission Special Meeting

01:59Mhm.

02:05>> Good afternoon. Thank you for your

02:06patience. Uh welcome to the October

02:09Historic Preservation Commission meeting

02:11and thank you all for joining us today.

02:13My name is David Ramey.

02:15Um do we need to vote before we start?

02:19>> Yes, because both our chair and our vice

02:21chair are absent today, we need a motion

02:24and a vote for a another member of the

02:27commission to serve as chair.

02:30>> I'll make a motion for David Ramey to

02:32serve as chair today.

02:34>> Second.

02:40>> Yeah, uh we can just do a voice vote and

02:42then we'll add it in the minutes

02:43afterwards.

02:45>> Uh Pierce.

02:47Your vote.

02:49>> Yes.

02:49>> Wood.

02:51Ramey.

02:51>> Yes.

02:53>> Winner.

02:54>> Yes.

02:54>> McBride.

02:55>> Yes.

02:56>> Okay, motion passes.

03:00Uh like I said, my name is David Ramey.

03:01I will now officially be acting as the

03:04chair of the Historic Preservation

03:06Commission today. As usual, we have a

03:08full agenda and it is our goal to get

03:11everyone out of here as early

03:13uh as possible. So, be

03:15thorough and mindful of the time.

03:18As a reminder, please limit individual

03:20conversations during the meeting. This

03:22ensures commission members and

03:23applicants can hear one another.

03:26Please remain quiet until you are called

03:28upon. When you speak at the podium,

03:30please state your name and address for

03:32the record.

03:34Before the commission votes on each

03:36item, I will ask if any members of the

03:38public wish to speak. Speakers are given

03:413 minutes to relay information to

03:43commission members.

03:45The agenda and documents for today's

03:47meeting are located on the PrimeGov

03:50website.

03:51Uh

03:53I don't need to read that, do I?

03:55>> Uh

03:56you can just if see the agenda for the

03:58>> See the agenda for the link.

04:01Uh if you're following along, select

04:03agenda on the right side of the Historic

04:05Preservation Commission meeting to see

04:07the items being discussed.

04:10Written comments received more than 24

04:13hours before today's meeting are posted

04:15online

04:16and were shared with the commission

04:18members.

04:19At this point, no new materials or new

04:22materials may not be shared with the

04:24commission. So, if you have brought

04:26materials that we do not already have,

04:28please keep them with you at your seat

04:31as we cannot accept them and they cannot

04:33be part of our official review.

04:35I repeat, we cannot accept new

04:37information to review in today's

04:39meeting.

04:40Keith, will you please call roll?

04:44>> Ramey.

04:47>> Sorry.

04:47>> Uh present.

04:48>> Yeah. Lerner.

04:50>> Present.

04:50>> Pickering.

04:51>> Present.

04:51>> Pierce.

04:52>> Here.

04:53>> Wood.

04:54>> Here.

04:54>> Ifcorn.

04:57>> Okay, we have quorum.

05:00Thank you. Uh procedures for today's

05:02meeting are noted in the agenda. For the

05:04sake of time, we ask anyone who is

05:07unfamiliar with the process to please

05:09refer to the procedures section.

05:12There are two items we would like to

05:14note specifically regarding the meeting

05:16process. These items involve certificate

05:18of appropriateness and appeals.

05:22For certificates of appropriateness,

05:25after an application is approved on the

05:2710th

05:29day protest period,

05:32sorry, after an application is approved

05:34and the 10th day protest period has

05:37expired, the Historic Preservation

05:39Office will mail the certificate of

05:41appropriateness to the applicant. City

05:44construction permits cannot be issued

05:46until the certificate of appropriateness

05:48is issued. Please contact historic

05:51preservation staff for the final design

05:53review inspection or to withdraw items

05:57that will not be completed.

06:00Regarding the appeal to the Board of

06:02Adjustments.

06:04Any person aggrieved by a decision

06:05granting or denying a certificate of

06:08appropriateness may appeal to the city

06:10Oklahoma City Board of Adjustments.

06:13All appeals shall be made within 10 days

06:16of the commission decision by filing a

06:18written notice of appeal to the clerk of

06:21the Board of Adjustments.

06:23Angela or I'm sorry, Katie any news from

06:26the office of the historic preservation

06:28officer?

06:29>> I don't have anything to report this

06:31month.

06:36>> Okay.

06:39Acceptance of minutes. Have the

06:40commissioners had a chance to review the

06:42minutes from the September 2nd meeting?

06:46Do I have a motion?

06:48Or do we have any questions or perhaps a

06:50motion to accept or modify?

06:56>> Motion to accept the minutes.

06:58>> So moved. Do we have a second?

07:00>> I'll second.

07:02>> All in favor, please vote in prod or

07:05I'm go.

07:17Okay, that motion has passed.

07:19Katie, anything from code enforcement?

07:21>> Nothing specific to report. You do have

07:23one dilapidated case on your agenda from

07:26code enforcement coming up here in a

07:27minute. Other than that, no specific

07:30items to call out. As always, if you see

07:32something in that report and have

07:33questions, feel free to reach out to HP

07:35staff or contact the Action Center.

07:38>> Right.

07:39Uh item number five on the agenda,

07:42Katie, any continuance announcements or

07:45requests?

07:45>> None on the agenda and we have not had

07:47any new requests for continuance at this

07:50time. Um, I will note, uh, coming up a

07:53little ways down the agenda, item

08:00uh, HPCA 26-00102

08:03at 824 Northwest 15th Street. One of our

08:07commission members in attendance today

08:08will have to recuse on that item and

08:10therefore we will lose quorum for that

08:12item. So, it's not a continuance per se,

08:16but it will automatically get bumped to

08:17the next meeting agenda. So, if you were

08:19here for 824 Northwest 15th Street, that

08:23item's not going to be heard today.

08:24It'll come back at the November, uh,

08:274th meeting.

08:29But, no other continuances.

08:33>> Okay.

08:35Uh, moving along to public hearings,

08:38Katie.

08:39>> Uh, we have one dilapidated structure,

08:40C26-49068

08:43at 421 West Hill Street, Edgemere Park

08:46Ward 2. This is just the detached

08:47garage, not the primary structure. This

08:50is consideration and possible action to

08:52provide comments regarding a structure

08:54in the process of being declared

08:55dilapidated by the City of Oklahoma City

08:57Development Services. This is not

08:59something we've done in quite some time,

09:00so just to

09:02um, refresh everyone, uh, code

09:04enforcement has a process by which they

09:06declare a property to be dilapidated and

09:09that goes through various steps to the

09:10point where either the property owner or

09:12the city demolishes the structure, uh,

09:15if it's not otherwise repaired and

09:17mitigated. Uh, we are making a

09:19recommendation

09:21to City Council on the historic aspects

09:25of the structure and whether the loss of

09:27it would be an adverse effect to the

09:29historic district, whether it

09:30contributes to the integrity of the

09:32historic district. We are not being

09:34asked to comment upon the structural

09:37integrity and condition of the building

09:39and whether or not it should be

09:40demolished. So, it's not like a regular

09:42demolition application. It's just is

09:45this a historic structure? Does it

09:46contribute to the historic district?

09:49So, you have a staff report with a

09:51recommended um comment from staff. Um

09:59My understanding is that this garage was

10:01hit by a car.

10:03Um

10:04Uh and that's why that's at least part

10:07of why it's in the condition that it's

10:09in. It does appear to be the historic

10:11garage, though there's some apparent

10:14modifications. And obviously, it is uh

10:17in a deteriorated state.

10:31So, we would just need a motion and a

10:34vote to recommend

10:37um forwarding either the comments in the

10:39staff report or if you have additional

10:41comments that you'd like to propose

10:42instead.

10:47>> Do we need to ask for comment or

10:50>> Um yes, it's uh if there's anyone that

10:52wants to speak.

10:54>> Okay. Um

10:55is there anybody from the public that

10:57wish to speak on this item?

11:01There being none, can I entertain a

11:03motion?

11:05>> I'll make a motion to approve the staff

11:07recommendations as noted in

11:10C26-49068.

11:16>> Second.

11:22>> Yes.

11:28>> Okay. That motion has passed.

11:33Okay.

11:34Uh um

11:35>> Katie, national registration register

11:37nominations.

11:38>> Yes, on a happier note.

11:40We So, as certified local government, we

11:44get grant funding through the National

11:46Park Service and State Historic

11:47Preservation Office every year, which

11:49among other things we use to prepare

11:50national register nominations. We've

11:52been working with the folks at the

11:54Farmers Market District. The Farmers

11:57Market building itself has been listed

11:59on the national register previously, but

12:00this is a nomination for the entire

12:03surrounding district. So, that

12:05nomination has been prepared by Michael

12:07Hoffner. He was not able to be here

12:09today.

12:10It identifies the district as eligible

12:13under criterion A, which is properties

12:15that are associated with events that

12:16have made a significant contribution to

12:19the broad patterns of our history with

12:20areas of significance in commerce and

12:23community planning and development.

12:24That's a lot of words,

12:27but it's historically significant for

12:29the um

12:30the way in which the district was

12:32developed and the history associated

12:34with the Farmers Market businesses and

12:37commerce and industry in that place and

12:39in that part of our city's history. So,

12:42you are being asked to make a

12:43recommendation to the mayor and city

12:45council, to the State Historic

12:47Preservation Office and the keeper of

12:48the national register on whether this

12:51nomination should be forwarded on and is

12:53eligible. And then there's also a

12:55resolution attached

12:57for you to adopt, so that's

12:59that can be one motion to recommend the

13:01nomination and adopt the resolution. And

13:04Linda Ozanne is here from the State

13:05Historic Preservation Office if you have

13:07any questions.

13:09>> And I would say Joan asked me any. I'm

13:11just here to represent because both

13:13Michael Mays of my staff and Michael

13:15Hoffner could not be here today.

13:16>> Great.

13:17>> [laughter]

13:18>> Well, welcome and if you could state

13:20your name and address for the record,

13:22please.

13:23>> Linda Ozanne, 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive,

13:26Oklahoma City.

13:28>> Um if you haven't, I highly recommend

13:29reading the nomination. Um it is

13:33joyfully written. Uh

13:34it you can tell that Michael just loves

13:37the district. Um the folks who are there

13:39and who worked with us on this just love

13:41the district. Um it's a really well-done

13:44um report. So, excited to see things

13:46come from this. They'll now uh once this

13:48makes it all the way through the

13:49process, these buildings would be

13:50eligible for historic tax credits. Um

13:53so, that's really exciting for Farmers

13:54Market.

13:59>> I did have a question, and this will be

14:02for staff. And I'll be

14:04>> I can answer that.

14:04>> How was it because in looking at the

14:08objection by the property owner uh 1307,

14:12viewing that property, kind of looking

14:15at it,

14:16how was it determined what properties

14:20would be within the district and not?

14:22Because I really couldn't determine any

14:25historic significance to that particular

14:29parcel being in part of the district.

14:33>> Um I think for the boundary, it's Well,

14:36you might be able to

14:37speak to this as well as I am. I mean,

14:39the boundaries are based on being

14:41um

14:43geographically defined and just kind of

14:46logical in a geographic sense that they

14:49line up with property lines, pop plat

14:52lines, streets, etc. And that the um

14:56that they are all related to the

14:58development

15:00period and um

15:02kind of relationship of the district.

15:04Within that, there are properties that

15:06are contributing and non-contributing,

15:09and based on the consultant's research

15:12into each of the buildings, when they

15:14were built, what they originally looked

15:16like versus what they look like now, how

15:18they've been used,

15:19uh determinations are made on whether or

15:21not they're contributing. So.

15:25>> So,

15:26am I hearing you correctly that

15:29within the district, even if the

15:31district is approved, if there is a non-

15:35buildings will be

15:38handled differently within the district?

15:40>> Yes, within the within each National

15:42Register district, there are buildings

15:45that are identified as contributing to

15:47the district or as non-contributing to

15:49the district. Um so, if you had a

15:52historic neighborhood that had a house

15:54in the middle of the neighborhood that

15:56was built in 2006, that six like in the

15:59middle of Crown Heights for instance,

16:00that 2006 house is going to be

16:02non-contributing because it's not of the

16:05era of the development of the

16:06neighborhood. It may not be

16:07architecturally in character with the

16:09neighborhood. Um so, yes, the buildings

16:11that are contributing would be eligible

16:13for tax credits. If they're not

16:15contributing, they would not be eligible

16:16for tax credits among other things.

16:19>> And I would say that once a property

16:21owner objects to listing in the National

16:23Register and formally objects at our

16:26level once we get the nomination, that

16:28property isn't eligible for tax credits

16:30regardless of its status. So, if it's

16:32non-contributing or contributing, if the

16:34property owner objects, it's not

16:36eligible for tax credits. If there's a

16:38change in ownership, they can then

16:40notify us that they agree to the

16:42nomination and want their property be

16:44contributing and then they qualify for

16:46those tax credits.

16:47>> Okay. And then, are there any

16:50restrictions

16:52that apply to the owners of that

16:55property because they are within the

16:57district?

16:58>> Register itself doesn't have any

17:00restrictions.

17:01>> Okay.

17:01>> Um you could paint it pink with purple

17:03polka dots as long as you're not in your

17:05any of your zone neighborhoods.

17:07>> Right.

17:07>> Um we'd only tell you you have bad

17:09taste.

17:09>> Okay.

17:10>> Now, I will say Farmers Market is

17:12already within the Scenic River Overlay

17:14Design District and has been for

17:17two decades. So, they're already under

17:19design review whether this goes anywhere

17:21or not. They're already subject to a

17:22similar process that all of our

17:24districts are. Um demolition review,

17:26review for exterior changes, etc. Um but

17:29the National Register nomination itself

17:31doesn't apply any additional

17:34requirements on top of that and there's

17:35no requirements that come from the state

17:37or federal level.

17:39>> All right.

17:40Thank you.

17:40>> Yeah.

17:42>> I move I'd like to make a motion.

17:45>> Okay. Is there anybody from the public

17:47that wishes to be heard on this case?

17:53We have one.

17:58Welcome, sir. If you'll state your name

17:59and address for the record, please.

18:01>> William McAnally, 311 South Klein,

18:04Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I'm one of the

18:06managing members of the Farmers Market

18:09as well as the president of the Farmers

18:10Market District Association.

18:13I just want to say that the majority of

18:14us, other than this property owner,

18:17um are very excited about this

18:18nomination and really appreciate all the

18:20hard work that you all have put into it.

18:22It means a lot that you find it

18:25historically significant, just as we do,

18:27because it is. It's a very important

18:29part of our history and it needs to be

18:32protected. So, thank you.

18:35>> All right. Thank you.

18:38Any other members from the public that

18:40wish to be heard?

18:43There being none, can I entertain a

18:45motion?

18:46>> Yes, I'd like to make a motion that we

18:49recommend the nomination of this

18:50historic district to the mayor and city

18:52council, to the Historic Preservation

18:54Review Committee, and the State Historic

18:56Preservation Officer, and the Keeper of

18:57the National Register, and adopt the

18:59resolution that was provided as part of

19:00the staff report.

19:03>> I'll second.

19:07>> Okay.

19:14>> Okay, that motion has passed.

19:17Congratulations.

19:21Okay.

19:23Next item on the agenda is the consent

19:25docket.

19:26Katie.

19:27>> Um we have

19:29three items here that were recommended

19:31for approval. Um

19:35require commission review, but either

19:36have already been discussed previously

19:38by the commission or staff had not

19:40identified any outstanding concerns. Um

19:43so, if there's no discussion, you all

19:45can take a motion and a vote to approve

19:47the consent docket.

19:49Um you might confirm that if there are

19:51any in the public that wanted to speak

19:53on any of these.

19:54>> Any questions from the commission?

19:58Okay.

19:58Any comments from the public?

20:03Okay, if there are being none, do we

20:05have a motion?

20:06>> Uh motion to approve the consent docket.

20:10>> Do I have a second?

20:12>> Second.

20:12>> Second.

20:14>> Okay. All those in favor?

20:17Please vote in.

20:19Or I guess opposed, please vote in.

20:23I'm going to go.

20:31Okay, that passes.

20:33Uh if you were here on the consent

20:34docket, congratulations, your project is

20:36approved. You have the option to stick

20:38around for the remainder of the meeting,

20:40or you may

20:42uh be dismissed.

20:55Okay, next item on the agenda is cases

20:58for individual consideration.

21:01>> Item one is HPCA 26-00074

21:05at 200 Northwest 20th Street, Heritage

21:07Hills, Ward 6. Consideration and

21:09possible action on application by Holly

21:11Hunt, HJH Design for Raymond Kazinski

21:14for certificate of appropriateness to

21:15one, construct new two-story house,

21:17elective, two, construct two-story

21:19garage, elective, and three, install

21:20driveway, elective. This is a uh vacant

21:24lot in Heritage Hills at the corner of

21:2620th and Robinson.

21:28Um

21:29uh

21:30house burned down there uh many years

21:32ago and it has since uh then or at least

21:35in most recent years has kind of served

21:37as a backyard for the house located

21:39immediately south of the property.

21:41Um

21:42the uh applicant proposes a two-story or

21:46kind of two and a half-story house.

21:47There's a uh attic that's largely

21:49finished or partially finished um

21:52creating kind of a half-story and then a

21:55two-story three-car garage on the site.

21:58Um there's kind of an unusual driveway

21:59situation that exists now that enters

22:02from the side street and swoops, for

22:04lack of a better word, down to the

22:07property to the south's garage and they

22:09propose um maintaining that access point

22:13for the proposed garage.

22:15Um the staff report outlines um

22:17the description of the house as well as

22:20um

22:21concerns that staff has raised with the

22:23proposal. We don't have a

22:26uh comparison site plan showing this

22:28house in comparison to the other houses

22:31on the block. Uh however, just from uh

22:34reviewing on the county assessor

22:36website, the proposed house is

22:38approximately 10 ft wider than

22:40everything else on the block and

22:41approximately 20 ft longer.

22:44Uh we don't have an elevation drawing

22:46comparing height to surrounding houses.

22:49Um

22:50so that's an important characteristic to

22:52look at, especially when we're looking

22:54at

22:54uh two to two and a half stories.

22:57Um

22:58The proposed garage is three-car garage

23:00and is two stories. There's not a

23:02surrounding There was not a two-story

23:04garage there historically, and there

23:05aren't um

23:07surrounding two-story garages, I don't

23:09believe. So, we or garages of that size,

23:12so we have not identified justification

23:15for those characteristics of the garage.

23:18Um and staff has concerns about

23:20maintaining the current condition of the

23:22driveway when we're building a new

23:26you know, separate

23:27residence for

23:29people to live on this property um

23:32continuing to share that driveway off of

23:34the side street. So, we've recommended a

23:36continuance. We think there are a number

23:37of uh issues and considerations to be

23:40addressed with this before it's at the

23:42point that um

23:43that staff would support approval.

23:47>> Okay, Greg. Uh welcome. If you'll state

23:49your name and address for the record,

23:51please.

23:52>> Hello, Holly Hunt, uh 5913 Northwest

23:5482nd Circle in Oklahoma City.

23:57Um

23:58yes, hello everyone. There's some new

23:59faces um since I spoke uh last, so hello

24:03and welcome. And

24:04um yeah, this is a little bit unusual

24:06than what we typically do, as you know,

24:08new construction. Um

24:10uh what I read in the staff report is a

24:12a lot of support for at least the style,

24:15the materials. And I I hope we can get

24:17some great feedback today, come back um

24:20next maybe in a couple of months um with

24:23some revisions based on that feedback.

24:24So, I really hope that we can bounce a

24:26lot of ideas off of each other. Um first

24:29of all, I just want to state there is no

24:31finished basement. There or sorry, attic

24:33uh proposed. Uh there is a finished

24:35basement, and so maybe that's part of

24:37the confusion. Um we do have no plans

24:40There's no stair to the attic shown on

24:43the plans, and nor do we have any plans

24:45to finish the attic space. So, this is a

24:47true two-story home uh with a basement,

24:50very common in this area. Um every house

24:53on this street is a two-story. Um I will

24:56say while we may be a slightly larger

24:59than the houses on the block that we

25:01have a wider lot. This is a larger lot

25:04than the majority. We're at 60-ft wide

25:07and the rest on the block are 50, as

25:09well as it's a corner lot. And we know

25:11just from our experience in these

25:12districts that corner lots are unique to

25:16their streets often times. Often times

25:18resulting in a bigger lot size as well

25:20as a bigger house. Often times resulting

25:22in a higher perhaps end architecture.

25:26Um, we see primarily

25:29Craftsman style houses, but in this area

25:32of this district we see a ton of

25:34colonial style two-story brick homes.

25:36So, I I have provided uh staff with a

25:40survey. I can add some more information

25:43like they're wanting for heights and

25:45depths and things like that uh when I

25:48see you next, but I can assure you that

25:50that this is very in keeping with the

25:52size uh at the district at large,

25:54especially

25:56um, along this um corridor for Robinson

25:59as and really even my survey, I mean, I

26:02only had to go one street over to find

26:04many two-story brick homes. So, um,

26:07again, instead of a Craftsman, we're

26:10going with the colonial style. So, brick

26:11would be the historic choice for that

26:14type of of house. Of course, we're

26:16willing to work with it. In fact, when I

26:19first met with Katie on this project, it

26:21it was much more boxy, much more

26:23symmetrical and the

26:26I had some feedback uh from staff that

26:28perhaps it was too boxy.

26:30>> [laughter]

26:30>> So, we added a side porch, we added some

26:33bump outs along the sides of the house

26:35just to create a more regular

26:37um

26:38box. I do agree that uh before you see

26:42this project again um for approval, I

26:45will modify that front elevation to

26:47emphasize the symmetry stronger. Um, we

26:50can relocate that door.

26:53We've submitted to staff a single door

26:55with side lights

26:57and

26:58just in the week since I'm not sure if

27:00you've got that in front of you, but

27:01again, that that's our intention is to

27:04really drive home that symmetry.

27:07For me, even readings because there was

27:09a letter from the neighborhood, you

27:12know, we have

27:14shown the appropriate setbacks. As you

27:16can see, even though we're a little

27:19wider, we've got side setbacks that are

27:21much larger than what you experience in

27:23this district. 7 ft on the west and 11

27:26ft on the east. That exceeds I mean, the

27:29house right next door is sitting right

27:31on its property line. So, we feel that

27:33the setbacks and size fits the lot

27:36itself. As well as the lot coverage is

27:41comparable to what we see in the lot and

27:43the district. I will say the driveway,

27:46I'm I'm happy to do what staff feels is

27:48correct. I think here we're thinking

27:51this is an existing curb cut. It

27:53simplified things. As you know, well,

27:55you may not know the property owners,

27:57their family. So, to them it's not a

28:00problem to share a driveway and to share

28:03a gate. I can understand staff's

28:05concerns as the property moves forward,

28:06perhaps that's not ideal. So, that's

28:08something we can work on.

28:10But overall, I just want to open up to

28:12some feedback that you all have and

28:14and go from there.

28:16>> Great. Thank you for the project brief.

28:18Any questions from the commission?

28:20>> I want to clarify real quick. You are

28:22correct. I was looking at the floor plan

28:23for the basement and just registered

28:26that that wasn't it cuz it then went

28:27first floor, second floor,

28:29basement and

28:30so

28:31>> put it kind of in the ink cuz I want you

28:32to see the floor plans that are primary,

28:35that you know, are expressed from the

28:37exterior first. The basement won't we

28:40weren't proposing any basement windows,

28:42no window wells. So, the the basement

28:44will be underground.

28:46As they typically are.

28:47>> [laughter]

28:55>> Uh Holly, I've I've got some and I think

28:57you're already

28:59um

29:01tracking some of the comments from

29:03staff, um but on the elevations

29:06particularly

29:07>> Mhm.

29:08>> um

29:09when you go to cuz it sounds like we're

29:11moving towards a continuance.

29:12>> Of course.

29:13>> Um

29:14but but when you go to look at that, um

29:18I I agree that French doors for a front

29:20entry is uncommon. Um

29:23when you go to a colonial, that symmetry

29:26I think is really important. So, there's

29:28just a couple things that feel like

29:29they're slightly off where it just kind

29:31of uh

29:32catches the eye.

29:33>> Yeah.

29:34And um and I would look at that the the

29:37columns on the front porch. So, right

29:39now they're kind of speaking to the the

29:41width of the porch but not coordinating

29:44with the house. So, I think just some of

29:46those attention to detail might be good.

29:48>> you brought that up. In fact, cuz you

29:50are professional, I I'd love to get your

29:52take on this. My thinking was when we

29:54recenter that door, maybe reduce Right

29:56now, I've got six columns across there,

29:58maybe reduce to like four so we can have

30:01that symmetry about the window and then

30:03the spacing won't be exact because that

30:05side porch, you know, creates a little

30:08bit longer porch on that end. But I

30:10think I can make the symmetry strong

30:12about the front door and then and then

30:15that will create that balance that I

30:17think is missing.

30:19>> Yeah, I think the challenge is cuz your

30:21your columns,

30:23not to say that front porches are never

30:26seen on colonials, but

30:28they're less common. Um

30:30but it's getting that

30:32um

30:34getting those to coordinate I think is

30:36important and I and I think if you look

30:38at some

30:40precedent studies,

30:42uh there's flexibility typically towards

30:43the corners.

30:44>> Mhm.

30:45>> So, I think getting the spacing across

30:47the house is what's important. And then

30:49if you have to have flex with a tighter

30:52column spacing at a corner or a reveal

30:55>> Certainly.

30:55>> Uh I think that I would suggest taking a

30:57look at that.

30:58>> Thank you. I will.

31:01Um does the two-story brick stand out as

31:05a bothersome trait of this house?

31:07Because I know staff mentions it in the

31:08staff report. So, I'd like to discuss

31:10that if if

31:12your opinions on that.

31:18>> I don't think that we're here to give

31:20design advice or to talk about that. I

31:24think we're here to look at what the

31:26professionals our staff is recommending

31:30to us

31:31>> Mhm.

31:31>> regarding what's appropriate under the

31:34guidelines.

31:36That's uh something I've struggled with

31:39here

31:40being on this commission and being the

31:42lawyer on this commission versus an

31:44architect or something else. I think our

31:48role is to look at the guidelines, look

31:52at your proposal, and see if your

31:55proposal

31:57fits within the guidelines, which we

32:00have excellent professionals giving us

32:03advice on whether they do or not. So,

32:08I mean, I ask the people, work with

32:12staff, make staff happy. Now, in regard

32:15to the garage itself, I believe the

32:18garage is way too big, and that

32:20shouldn't come as surprise to you. And

32:23the Sanborn maps indicate that the prior

32:26garage there, the historic structure,

32:29was a one-story garage. Therefore, I

32:33will never vote to approve a two-story

32:36garage when I believe that we do have

32:39documentation that establishes that the

32:42historic garage was a one-story garage

32:46unless staff tells me that the fire or

32:49whatever the total destruction of the

32:52prior in some way goes away from that

32:56because I read that part to be very

32:58clear that if you have photographic or

33:02documentary evidence of what the other

33:05garage is, you never make it past that.

33:08So,

33:09I would just ask that you work with

33:11staff, make staff happy because when

33:15we're dealing with reviewing packet in

33:17this month that was in excess of 700

33:20pages, and this is a volunteer position.

33:24I want I really respect what our staff

33:27has to say.

33:27>> loved to read.

33:28>> [laughter]

33:29>> When we're paid,

33:32it's a lot better, a lot easier.

33:34>> [laughter]

33:35>> I mean,

33:36just to be honest.

33:38>> No, I won't speak for staff, but thank

33:40you. And you're you're absolutely right,

33:42and that is always my goal. But again,

33:44you know, this is a little unique

33:46situation because the house is no longer

33:48there. So, now the garage in my mind, in

33:50my reading of the new construction

33:52guidelines is that the new garage

33:55it should be compatible with the house

33:57being built on its same lot.

33:59Um

34:00I I don't I don't have photographic

34:02evidence um of that garage or that

34:05previous house. Um we have the same

34:08board maps. Yes, that's true, but the

34:10history of this lot to me makes for

34:14unique circumstances in that regard.

34:18Did Did you want to say anything about

34:20his question about

34:22that?

34:22>> Um I think in in all aspects, we've kind

34:25of shown greater flexibility when we are

34:27having when we are doing total new

34:29construction. Um the house is gone, the

34:31garage is gone. I think we do still want

34:33to evaluate against the criteria in the

34:36guidelines that establish what's an

34:38appropriate size and scale and mass for

34:41both the primary structure and the

34:42historic structure.

34:44Um, just like we wouldn't say you need

34:47to dig up photos of the historic house

34:48and replicate it, I wouldn't say you

34:50need to replicate a garage that's no

34:52longer there when it's total new

34:53construction on a vacant lot, but I do

34:55think that parameters for size and

34:57height still are still applicable.

34:59>> Yeah, and and like to that point, um,

35:03again, I've mentioned we're heading to a

35:05continuous,

35:06um, I'll add some more slides in this,

35:08um, the neighborhood survey that will

35:11really take a look in more depth at

35:13corner lots because I think corner lots

35:16tend to share a lot of similar traits,

35:19um, bigger lots, um, usually larger

35:22homes, higher in style, but also larger

35:25garages. So, I think with that in front

35:27of staff and you all, you know, we can

35:29start to see this from a

35:32kind of broader,

35:33uh, light. And and that will help you

35:36all to feel comfortable about the size

35:37of the garage. Not to say that we can't

35:39reduce it some and I certainly

35:40understand the double door. I've spoken

35:43with the owner about creating, um,

35:46three single door look, maybe with trim

35:49and things that we can make that double

35:51door appear from the street as more of a

35:54single door.

35:55As we all know, it's like today's

35:58vehicles and things, 450 square feet is

36:00isn't a lot. Um, so I I look forward to

36:04being able to show you guys that this is

36:05an appropriate size for this district.

36:09>> Yeah. And I would just, uh,

36:13advise or suggest a

36:16look at the guidelines,

36:18um,

36:19existing conditions for other,

36:22um,

36:23previously constructed corner lots. I

36:25don't know that that's in the

36:27guidelines. Um so just

36:29>> Mhm. Yes, sir.

36:30>> might

36:31>> I will.

36:32Certainly.

36:33Um four continuances because our

36:36November meeting is

36:38moments away.

36:40Um we would staff would ask that

36:43anything that's continued today be

36:45continued to the December 2nd meeting.

36:47Um

36:50I don't know if we can technically

36:51continue to

36:52January. Probably not really because

36:55that's

36:56>> What what what would be the deadline for

36:58that December meeting, Katie? Just the

37:00regular first of November first Tuesday

37:02of November?

37:03>> we're shooting for the regular November

37:05meeting deadline and then

37:07>> Okay. And we're like

37:08>> staff can work with you on

37:09>> week and a half away with from that.

37:11>> Yeah.

37:12>> And okay. Um

37:14So you said we can't continue to January

37:17just because of the nature of the

37:19pushback and

37:20>> Well, we can continue

37:23We usually continue either 1 month or 2

37:25months.

37:26>> Yeah.

37:27>> Um

37:28>> December's fine, guys. It it's fine.

37:32We can make it work.

37:32>> Okay.

37:33>> Yeah. We can make it work.

37:33>> Okay.

37:34>> We'll make it work.

37:36>> Okay. Do we have any comments from the

37:39public?

37:41>> Appreciate your time and consideration,

37:43commissioners.

37:56>> Marva Ellard, 1521

37:59North Chartel Avenue. Um

38:02I think you all touched on

38:05most of them that

38:08if if Holly could do some comparisons of

38:11that street and show

38:13like setbacks in relationship to other

38:16houses and heights in relationships to

38:19other houses.

38:20I can tell you that if you go north on

38:22that corner and across the street on

38:2621st Street, those houses become a lot

38:29smaller. There's a lot of one-story

38:31bungalows on those corners. The one

38:34across the street directly is a

38:35two-story, almost kind of semi-airplane

38:38bungalow. They're not big houses. And

38:41so, it's And then

38:44if you cross Robinson, as you all know

38:47what we still call Heritage Hills East,

38:49although

38:50uh we merged a few years ago.

38:54That's a predominantly one-story

38:56bungalow area. So,

38:59um

39:00we just want to make sure that the house

39:03looks correct in its context and its

39:05location.

39:07The uh

39:09It is a bigger lot. It's corner lot. We

39:11understand that we

39:13probably have need to think about some

39:14leeway on some of those things.

39:17I think the garage is going to be a big

39:20sticking issue with the neighborhood.

39:23Um

39:25one-story, two-story

39:27but the three the three-car garage as a

39:30two-story version is

39:35not prevalent that I can think of. And

39:37I'll go drive it, too, but I can't think

39:39of really any versions of that in that

39:42part of the neighborhood. So, uh

39:45we like to help with this. We're excited

39:47that that uh there's going to be a new

39:49residence built there, and it's people

39:52who've lived in the area for a long

39:54time. We just want to help get it right

39:57for the future, and uh

40:00we're happy to work on anything that we

40:01could help with.

40:04>> Okay, thank you.

40:08>> Um I wanted to make one other note while

40:11um another speaker is walking up. This

40:13is kind of just for Holly. We We

40:15received an application from the

40:16property to the south for a fence going

40:19all the way around both properties.

40:22Um that didn't address this application.

40:25So, if we can we and I think Daryl

40:27reached out, but we just want to make

40:29sure that we coordinate.

40:30>> Maybe I can get him in next week or

40:32>> Yeah.

40:33Yeah.

40:35>> Good afternoon.

40:36>> Welcome.

40:37>> My name is Jackie Morris. I live at 200

40:40201 Northwest 19th. I actually own the

40:43lot

40:44and I own [clears throat] the house that

40:45is directly south. So, if when you all

40:48are there's several things I think that

40:50there's some miscommunication.

40:52The curb cut off of Robinson is actually

40:56we put we didn't put the curb cut in it

40:58was there. The people that we bought the

41:00house from were the Faughts. We bought

41:02it in '99.

41:04That that lot went to a tax sale at some

41:08[clears throat] point in the mid-90s, I

41:09think. And they bought the lot. They put

41:12the the little walkway in it and their

41:15curb cut was already there for the

41:18existing or the old house.

41:20From my understanding that house burned

41:22down in the '70s.

41:24Um possibly the early '80s. I'm not 100%

41:27sure.

41:28But

41:29the the way that that those lots are

41:31split,

41:32>> [clears throat]

41:33>> my garage I have a three-car garage.

41:35When I bought the house there was an old

41:36carriage house there.

41:38I came to the to the commission, got

41:41approval to tear the carriage house

41:43down. I put a three-car garage

41:45[clears throat]

41:46with a pool house off to the side. So,

41:49when people say there's no really such

41:50thing as three-car, there are because

41:52I've built it since I think I built it

41:54in 2000.

41:56But the way that those lots are split,

41:59the the driveway that comes off of

42:01Robinson is actually on the back lot's

42:04property. It's not on my property for

42:06the for my house. So, if you look at my

42:09like my garage, from my garage to

42:12Robinson is where the property line

42:14pretty much is. So, if everybody is up,

42:17you know, you want that split, I mean,

42:19we can we can cut the concrete out at

42:21that point and split those the driveway,

42:23which is fine. I don't have a problem

42:25with that. But, that driveway is not on

42:27my lot. Does not It belongs to two 200

42:30Northwest 20th. And so, I I wanted to

42:33clear that up because I think that we

42:35everybody's kind of getting hung up on

42:36that driveway.

42:38Um as far as the two-story garage, we

42:42like I think it's on maybe on it's the

42:45200 block 200 um 20th Street, but it's

42:47down a little bit. They just tore one

42:49down, I think 2 weeks ago. It's a

42:52two-story garage that was demolished.

42:54And I think it's behind my neighbor's

42:56house, actually. I can I could see it

42:58and I watched him tear it down. So,

42:59there are two-story garages in that

43:02area, or there was until it was torn

43:04down. I don't know if they've gone back

43:06to recommend to to put a two-story

43:09garage back. I don't you know, I wasn't

43:10notified of that cuz we're not direct.

43:13But, my house, if you want to talk about

43:14height, my house is extremely tall

43:17because I have probably three Well,

43:20three-foot windows in my basement. So,

43:23my house has got you know, two stories

43:25plus a a tall attic plus windows that

43:28come up about that far from the ground.

43:31So, it it's a very tall house. It's a

43:33very you know, it's it's a big house.

43:36So, I just wanted to like kind of

43:37clarify some of this because I seem it

43:39seems to me that everybody's going to

43:40drill down on this 20th Street. But,

43:43let's go back behind that because I'm a

43:45direct neighbor to this

43:47this property. And so, you know, if

43:49you're going to look at that, you need

43:50to look at my house, too. You need to

43:52not just the house across the street or

43:54on 21st or 22nd. Look at my house and go

43:57go the same direction the opposite

44:00direction, which is south. So, there the

44:03corner lots are big, the garages are

44:05big, um you know, they just are they're

44:08just bigger houses. And And I I agree

44:10that they do start getting smaller when

44:13you get on the 21st Street or whatever.

44:15But it's still you know, you can't go

44:16one direction and not look at look at

44:18the other direction, you know? And you

44:20can't go across you can't look at one

44:22street and go well, that's not the same.

44:24I mean this this this

44:26uh

44:26neighborhood is so unique that if you

44:29know, every house on every block you can

44:31go on the 300 block of 20th. There's one

44:34brick house, solid brick house. You can

44:36go on 400 block. There's one brick house

44:38on that block. This is just a unique

44:41place. Every house is going to look a

44:43little different and that's why we love

44:44it down there. But I've lived there

44:46since '99. I have respected the historic

44:49preservation of the house. I have

44:51actually rehabbed many homes in that

44:53neighborhood and messed up our over the

44:55years. I have you know, you all actually

44:57use one of my apartment buildings as the

45:00way it's supposed to be done in your in

45:03your layouts for windows. So, I I

45:06respect this, but I also think that you

45:09know, nowadays we can't live in a you

45:11know, a six

45:13foot high garage. I mean cars are

45:15bigger. And so, if you look you know,

45:17drive by my house if you all are out

45:19driving around, you'll see the garage

45:21and that was and I built that. So, I

45:24just wanted to make sure that you all

45:25kind of kind of cleared some of these

45:27questions up that seem to be a little

45:29bit of a sticking point with some of

45:31you. But if you have any questions for

45:32me, I'll be more than happy to answer

45:34them.

45:35>> Okay. Thank you. I think those are all

45:38good comments and I and I think that to

45:40your point this these are

45:41three-dimensional spaces that have full

45:44surroundings. So, I think um just

45:46demonstrating how it fits in, that it is

45:49appropriate, that it is contextual. I

45:51think that's all uh really what the

45:53guidelines are after. So,

45:54>> Sure.

45:55>> um and and where you there are specific

45:57guidelines that have specific criteria.

45:59So, if you're deviating from that, then

46:01that's where we would need a unique

46:03circumstance.

46:04>> No, I understand and that's that's what

46:05she's going to to work with staff about,

46:07but I just think that the you know, it

46:10I've read these reports and it seems

46:11like this lot, not just that the prop

46:14not the house, but the lot becomes an

46:16issue for some reason. It's like, you

46:18know, the division of the of the lot,

46:21the driveway and that kind of stuff. So,

46:22I just wanted to clear that up. And

46:24going back to the fence situation, uh

46:27whoever proposed it talked about that.

46:29Yeah, I did I did propose to put a fence

46:32and move it out. And so, I think we're

46:34still up in the air about that. I don't

46:36really know where that even stands at

46:38this point, but we were just trying to

46:40move the fence out currently because I

46:43maintain it and all of these corner

46:45lots, if you drive through the

46:46neighborhood, they have moved their

46:48fence to be on the sidewalk

46:50and which is encompassing the easement.

46:54And so, all of these corner lots are

46:56just they just done that. So, that's why

46:59I have decided to do that.

47:00>> Appreciate that. In the interest of

47:02time, let's since that's not relevant to

47:05this, but appreciate it.

47:07Any other comments from the public?

47:11Okay. Can I entertain a motion?

47:15>> In regard to HPCA-26-0

47:19>> 0074,

47:21I'd make a motion [music] to continue

47:22items 1 through 3.

47:24>> Do I have a second?

47:26>> And that's to the November 4th meeting,

47:28just to

47:29December

47:30>> December. Oh, December, sorry.

47:31>> meeting.

47:32>> December, whatever that day it is.

47:33Sorry.

47:34>> [laughter]

47:36>> Yes.

47:37>> Do we have a second?

47:39>> I thought you did.

47:41>> Mhm. I don't think I can second it.

47:44>> Second.

47:44>> Okay. We have a second. Uh please vote

47:47in

47:48PrimeGov.

47:55Okay. That has passed and that will be

47:57continued to the December 2nd meeting.

48:04Okay.

48:05Next case.

48:07>> Uh HPCA 26-00086

48:11at 817 Northwest 19th Street, Mesta

48:13Park, Ward 6. Consideration and possible

48:15action on application by Mark Auto Auto

48:17House LLC for di-

48:20for Doc Elliott for certificate of

48:21appropriateness to one construct garage

48:23elective. The commission saw this

48:25application once previously, had some

48:27comments about the um orientation of the

48:30garage in relationship to the driveway

48:32and the alley. The applicant has made

48:35changes in response to those comments.

48:37Um we have a few uh kind of

48:40details that uh staff still needs on

48:43this application. Um

48:45we need a site plan that shows the um

48:48approach from the garage to the alley

48:50and some building materials to be

48:53further uh illustrated, but other than

48:56that, staff has recommended approval. We

48:58feel confident that we can work through

48:59those things with the applicant uh as a

49:02condition of the approval.

49:05Okay, is the applicant present?

49:09>> No.

49:13>> Okay.

49:14Um

49:14>> We do actually have the new site plan

49:16for that that illustrates the access to

49:19the alley, and he is working towards

49:22acquisition of some final documentation

49:24for a pedestrian door,

49:27but other than that, I think that we're

49:28in pretty good shape right now.

49:37>> Okay, so I think we could either approve

49:40with conditions to work with staff, or

49:43we could continue to

49:45>> public comment.

49:46>> Uh understood. Um but I Any other

49:50discussions from the commission besides

49:52those two options, continuance or

49:55approval with conditions?

49:57Anything need to be discussed?

49:59Okay.

50:00Any comments from the public?

50:04>> Angela, has the applicant agreed to the

50:06conditions?

50:08I mean, he's he's working toward what

50:10we've asked for. Okay.

50:15>> And if he

50:17wasn't, he doesn't have to accept the

50:19approval.

50:20>> Just bring it back to you all.

50:22>> Okay. Do we have a motion from the

50:24commission?

50:25>> I make a motion to approve HPCA

50:30-26-00086

50:34with the unique circumstance noted by

50:37staff in the report and subject to the

50:40specific findings and two condition

50:43three four conditions noted in the

50:46report.

50:48>> Second.

50:50>> Okay.

50:56Okay. That

50:57motion for approval has passed.

51:00Congratulations.

51:06Next case is HPCA 2600087.

51:12>> This is at 600 Northwest 41st Street,

51:15Crown Heights, Ward 2. Consideration and

51:16possible action on application by Miles

51:18Mixon, Revive Design Build, for John

51:20Curran, for certificate of

51:21appropriateness to one, construct

51:23addition, elective, two, demolish

51:25garage, elective, three, construct

51:27garage, elective, four, install paving,

51:29elective, and five, infill side door and

51:31remove stairs, elective. The commission

51:33has seen this one once previously as

51:36well. It was continued um because we

51:39wanted additional information regarding

51:41justification for the demolition of the

51:43garage. We also noted that the

51:47removal of the door and stairs on the

51:49side of the existing historic dwelling

51:51had not been

51:53included as items for the commission to

51:55review. So, those have been added with

51:59staff discussion in the staff report

52:01about those items. Um we did receive

52:04some additional information on the

52:05demolition of the garage.

52:08Um but still don't feel that it warrants

52:11demolition based on what's been

52:12submitted. Um the removal of the door

52:15and stairs are also not consistent with

52:18what the guidelines support for

52:19modifications of those types on a

52:21historic structure. Um so, we have

52:24recommended continuance again. Um staff

52:26has no real issues with the

52:29uh proposed addition itself, but the

52:32addition

52:33as it's drawn could not be built without

52:35the garage being demolished and then

52:38moved to a different location in the

52:40backyard. So, we've recommended

52:43continuance for all items.

52:45>> Is the applicant present?

52:51Okay.

52:52Uh any comment or discussion from the

52:55commission?

52:57Katie, what was the additional

52:58documentation submitted for the garage

53:00that

53:01we weren't provided?

53:03>> I think we got additional photos of the

53:05garage and photos of the interior of the

53:08garage showing the condition of the the

53:11slab um and other interior elements. Um

53:15Daryl, was there anything else provided

53:17as part of the

53:19additional information?

53:22>> Uh so, again, as Katie has mentioned,

53:26the main part that's focus or stopping

53:28this project um is the documentation of

53:32the current condition of the existing

53:34garage. Um

53:36the applicant did provide some

53:38additional photos as well as some

53:40descriptions of the damage to the

53:42existing garage, Um

53:44but at this point staff

53:47does not feel that the documentation

53:50meets the level of criteria set under

53:52the guidelines for demolition of a

53:54historic structure.

53:57>> [snorts]

53:58>> If I recall correctly, I think this is

54:00one where the applicant felt really

54:02strongly that like you needed to be in

54:04the garage to to feel like it was hard

54:06to document via photograph but would be

54:08evident on a site visit.

54:11Not to volunteer us for a site visit,

54:13but is that something I know it's

54:14something that we have done in the past.

54:16Is it something that we offer

54:17frequently? I don't know.

54:21>> I don't recall doing one for an

54:24accessory building before. We've done it

54:28when someone has proposed demolition of

54:30a a primary structure.

54:32Um

54:34I think um I mean

54:37we have

54:38like a couple of pages of photographs. I

54:41just would expect and I believe in the

54:43meeting previously as well the applicant

54:45talked about issues based on where the

54:47garage is located um on the site and

54:50problems that causes with maintenance

54:52and the adjacency to the neighboring

54:53property. I I think we need

54:57a written report whether that's from the

54:59applicant, whether that's from a

55:00structural engineer, or some other

55:03um consulting party. I I think we need

55:06more information than just photos of

55:09deteriorated building materials in order

55:11to to justify demolition of a structure.

55:20>> I mean it seems to me like the

55:22demolition is more to get the addition

55:25than it is at least from viewing the

55:27photographs and

55:29knowing garages in the neighborhood

55:33um

55:35doesn't appear to be

55:36in

55:37that bad of condition, the current one.

55:40I mean, it doesn't look like it's

55:42leaning or falling over. As Molly knows

55:45good and well that

55:46there are several in the neighborhood

55:48that you can just look at it and know

55:51that there are issues with it. And at

55:53least the 10 photographs that I've

55:55reviewed

55:56uh

55:57looks pretty solid to me.

55:59>> I think there was also some discussion

56:01of its proximity to the property line uh

56:04and perhaps some maintenance issues that

56:06resulted from the access it had on that

56:09side was one of the things that they

56:10were stating. But but I agree with Katie

56:13that that's not really showcased well in

56:15the materials that have been presented.

56:20>> Uh the only comments I would have is

56:22noting

56:23um you know, if this was a repair by

56:25replacement and simply needing to be

56:28shifted um

56:30this design deviates from a hip to a

56:33gable roof

56:35for the garage. Um

56:37my comment, if staff is interested in

56:40passing along

56:42um the addition feels unresolved and

56:45disjointed.

56:47So

56:48um I know it's on the back of the house,

56:50but it just

56:52I think there's some lack of resolution

56:54on how these two

56:57uh

56:58structures are combining. It's like

57:01they're not really combining, they're

57:02just sort of abutting

57:04and kind of having an entrapped

57:06roof area.

57:08Uh you can kind of see that on the

57:10side elevations pretty prevalently.

57:14Those would be my only comments.

57:17>> And this garage design that we're being

57:19presented is um

57:21different from what was shown last time

57:23as well. The gable is shorter, they've

57:26removed windows from the back, and there

57:28was also a brick uh a half brick

57:32wainscot.

57:33So they have updated that garage design

57:36based on comments.

57:38Yes.

57:42>> Okay. Any comments from the public?

57:46Please come up and state your name and

57:48address, please.

57:51>> My name is Dorothy Brown.

57:54Excuse me, bad voice.

57:57605 Northwest 40th Street, directly

58:01adjacent to the applicant's

58:03property.

58:05Um but based upon what it sounds like

58:07you're saying today, Mr. Chairman

58:09members, you're not going to really

58:11going to consider it. You're going to

58:12continue it.

58:14>> I think so.

58:15>> So I can hold my comments to then

58:18or

58:19I don't want to waste

58:21the time, but if the issue was the same

58:23when we were here before about the

58:25setback toward the property line and the

58:28problems it creates for us with water.

58:31>> Well,

58:32>> flooding. It's massive in our backyard.

58:36>> And I I hate to have you come in again,

58:39but there might be a different makeup

58:40especially with us being short-handed up

58:42here today for next for the voting time.

58:45So while you're welcome to give them,

58:47I can't guarantee that they would cross

58:48over in

58:50to the next set of people that will be

58:51voting.

58:52>> I'll I'll come back. I'm happy to come

58:53back.

58:54>> Okay. Thank you.

58:55>> Sounds like we're heading towards the

58:56December 2nd.

58:59meeting.

59:01Uh

59:02thank you and thank you for coming.

59:04>> Thank you.

59:04>> Any other comments from the public?

59:08Okay. Can I entertain a motion from the

59:10commission?

59:15>> Okay. I'll make a motion to continue

59:18items 1 through 5 of HPCA

59:2226-00087

59:26to the December 2nd meeting.

59:30>> I'll give it a second.

59:33>> I'll second.

59:35>> Motion and second. Please vote in

59:37PrimeGov.

59:43Okay, that item is continued to the

59:44December 2nd meeting.

59:48Okay, next case is HPCA-2600090.

59:54>> This is at 215 Northwest 19th Street,

59:57Heritage Hills, Ward 6. Consideration

59:59and possible action on application by

1:00:00Larry Hersel, HSE Architects, for Emily

1:00:03Boozy Templeton for certificate of

1:00:05appropriateness to one, demolish garage

1:00:07elective, two, construct garage

1:00:09elective, and three, install paving

1:00:11elective.

1:00:12And [snorts] I have to pull up the staff

1:00:14report and refresh my garage memory

1:00:17um before I

1:00:19summarize.

1:00:20Um

1:00:40I think this one was similarly one where

1:00:42we felt we needed more information in

1:00:44order to recommend demolition of the

1:00:46existing garage. And without that being

1:00:50approved, uh we would have to continue

1:00:52the construction of the

1:00:55new garage. Um we do need some

1:00:57additional documentation on materials

1:00:59for the proposed new garage

1:01:01uh if that were to go forward. Uh this

1:01:04also has a proposed um kind of attached

1:01:06carport to the new garage, which is not

1:01:10a a typical garage configuration.

1:01:14Um and needed additional dimensions on

1:01:17that, and then just consideration from

1:01:19the commission on whether or not that

1:01:20was appropriate.

1:01:24>> Okay. Is the applicant present?

1:01:31Okay. Any comments from the commission?

1:01:40Any comments from the public?

1:01:55>> Marva Ellard, 1521 North Chartres

1:01:57Avenue.

1:02:00That one on the left should have never

1:02:02been there.

1:02:04You know, so to re- replicate it on the

1:02:06right, to put the carport on and

1:02:08everything, is something I think we

1:02:10should discourage strongly from even

1:02:13entertaining, uh,

1:02:16that the current garage from the

1:02:18pictures that

1:02:20you just showed,

1:02:22it's painted, it's not leaning, it's I

1:02:25mean, it I don't get it. And so, I don't

1:02:28know how to

1:02:29uh, I know we're working on garages, but

1:02:32it's it's just a little garage, but it's

1:02:36in good shape, and

1:02:41I don't know a suitable solution, but

1:02:45other than it's got metal garage doors

1:02:47on it, and I don't know where those came

1:02:48from. But anyway, um,

1:02:51I guess we'll hear it again, but

1:02:54can we, uh,

1:02:57discourage going

1:03:00forward with this design, and ask for a

1:03:02different option?

1:03:05I don't know what it would be, but

1:03:07>> Yeah, I think, um,

1:03:09the I mean, the commission can certainly

1:03:12comment on what's before you, and staff

1:03:14will communicate that to the applicant,

1:03:16since they're not here.

1:03:19>> You know, and we need to do a better

1:03:22job, too, but

1:03:23neither one of these two cases so far,

1:03:25and probably not the third one, either,

1:03:29uh

1:03:29even bothered to come to the our

1:03:31neighborhood design review committee.

1:03:33So, today's like the first day that

1:03:37I've even seen them.

1:03:39And so, um

1:03:41it seems like we need to do a better job

1:03:43educating them, but it and I know it

1:03:45puts you all in an awkward position to

1:03:47say,

1:03:48uh

1:03:49you probably don't even want to submit

1:03:50that, but, you know, some of these just

1:03:53are

1:03:54not even within the realm of the

1:03:56regulations, it seems.

1:03:58So,

1:03:59we'll wait till next time.

1:04:04>> Thank you. Any Any other comments from

1:04:05the public?

1:04:11Do we have a motion from the commission?

1:04:14>> I'd make a motion to continue items 1,

1:04:182, and 3 of HPCA-26-00090

1:04:25to the December 2nd meeting.

1:04:28>> Do we have a second?

1:04:30>> Second.

1:04:32>> Okay.

1:04:33Please vote in PrimeGov.

1:04:38Okay, that item has passed and will be

1:04:40continued.

1:04:43Next case is HPCA-26-00092.

1:04:50>> This is at 240 Northwest 34th Street,

1:04:53Edgemere Park, Ward 2. Consideration and

1:04:55possible action on application by James

1:04:58Edwards Martin for certificate of

1:05:00appropriateness to one, widen and

1:05:02replace the driveway, elective. Two,

1:05:03replace sidewalk, elective. Three,

1:05:05infill brick pavers with concrete,

1:05:07elective. And four, install fence at

1:05:09retaining wall, elective. Um the this is

1:05:13a number of just site improvements to

1:05:15the property.

1:05:17Um, I believe staff has recommended

1:05:19approval for most items. The one um,

1:05:23thing that we did have a concern with

1:05:25was infilling the brick pavers in the

1:05:27front yard with concrete. Um,

1:05:30the uh, and it might be

1:05:33Yes, so you can see there on the

1:05:35driveway where there's

1:05:37um, kind of a curving sidewalk and then

1:05:39a curving landscape bed and then brick

1:05:41pavers that have been added in between.

1:05:44Um, the applicant has asked to just pave

1:05:46that entire area.

1:05:48Um, this kind of

1:05:50separation um, or definition between the

1:05:54driveway and then landscaped area and

1:05:56then the curvilinear sidewalk is very

1:05:59typical of properties in this district.

1:06:02So, staff was not uh, supportive of just

1:06:05filling in that entire area with

1:06:07continuous concrete. Um,

1:06:09certainly if the sidewalk needs to be

1:06:11modified to be more

1:06:13um,

1:06:15pedestrian friendly. Uh, it's quite

1:06:17narrow. Um, that might not have any

1:06:20noticeable effect on the um, character

1:06:23of the the property as perceived from

1:06:25the street, but we felt like um, filling

1:06:28in that entire area to make it just one

1:06:31continuous path of concrete was not an

1:06:34appropriate route to go.

1:06:37Um,

1:06:38I think uh,

1:06:40Oh, I'm in the wrong staff report. I

1:06:41think everything else was pretty well

1:06:43recommended for approval and then just

1:06:46approval of this with the condition that

1:06:48the brick paver area not be infilled.

1:06:54>> Okay, and the applicant is present. Uh,

1:06:56sir, could you state your name and

1:06:58address for the record, please?

1:06:59>> Yes, thank you. James Martin, 240

1:07:02Northwest 34th Street.

1:07:04>> Welcome.

1:07:08Um, so it sounds like staff is generally

1:07:10supportive. There's a couple conditions.

1:07:12Uh, do you have any thoughts on the

1:07:15conditions Katie spoke of?

1:07:17>> Or that are in the staff report?

1:07:19>> Um,

1:07:20when we widen the driveway, we're going

1:07:21to add 108 square feet to the driveway.

1:07:25That's the addition. What I'm asking is

1:07:27to fill in that little triangle and

1:07:31one of the drawings you should have it

1:07:33in

1:07:34in the packet. It's a It will leave a

1:07:37very small triangle,

1:07:39which is about 18 square feet. So, it

1:07:42makes better sense

1:07:44rather than something that's uh

1:07:48outside of the flower bed between the

1:07:51sidewalk. Uh,

1:07:54when this sidewalk was put in, it's not

1:07:56a consistent width.

1:07:58It starts out at about 5 feet and it

1:08:00goes less than 30 inches as it comes out

1:08:03from the house. So,

1:08:05uh

1:08:07since you all don't want to move

1:08:09sidewalks,

1:08:10the logical thing is to fill that little

1:08:12square in uh triangle in. Uh,

1:08:16the more logical thing would be just to

1:08:18rotate the sidewalk over on the flower

1:08:21bed, but that would mean moving the

1:08:24sidewalk, so this is a a better option.

1:08:27What I'm offering is really what matches

1:08:30uh both of my neighbors.

1:08:33There's a house

1:08:35uh

1:08:35the one to the uh west of me

1:08:38and there's a house to the east of me

1:08:40and the sidewalks uh flow around the

1:08:43flower beds. So, it makes more sense to

1:08:46fill it in than to leave it.

1:08:50Uh we're uh

1:08:51>> [clears throat]

1:08:51>> presently

1:08:53uh we're in the process of um

1:08:55healing my wife's uh

1:08:57front tooth because she's uh tripped on

1:09:00that area. And uh

1:09:02we've got about another 6 months to go

1:09:05for that uh

1:09:06replacement of a tooth, so

1:09:08it just makes more sense to make it uh

1:09:11one smooth area.

1:09:23>> Katie, I have a question or for whoever

1:09:26has been out there, do we believe the

1:09:29angle of that existing sidewalk is the

1:09:32original, how that sidewalk looked

1:09:36originally? Uh go back

1:09:38Do we believe that that is the original?

1:09:41Because I noticed that one small piece

1:09:44there of

1:09:46um concrete before the brick starts. I

1:09:49mean, it it doesn't look to me like It

1:09:52looks like there's been some type of

1:09:54modification at some point with that

1:09:58sidewalk.

1:09:59>> So, I think that what you see there at

1:10:01the bottom is that the driveway has been

1:10:03widened with kind of pavers over the

1:10:05years.

1:10:06>> No, I'm talking about up right right

1:10:08beside the brick. That that piece right

1:10:11there.

1:10:12>> So, my

1:10:13guess would be that the sidewalk came

1:10:16down and that there was lawn, grass

1:10:20between the sidewalk and the flower bed

1:10:22originally, and then those the brick was

1:10:24added on the far side of the sidewalk

1:10:28from where we are looking, and then the

1:10:30pavers were added on the other side. So,

1:10:32it's just kind of piecemeal been filled

1:10:34in. I would assume that little corner

1:10:35there was added at some point as well. I

1:10:38don't think that would have been the

1:10:39original, but um

1:10:42that's just kind of based on

1:10:44>> Okay.

1:10:44>> the seams that you can see where the

1:10:46concrete's been poured over time.

1:10:52>> I mean, it seems to me

1:10:54um

1:10:57putting what a

1:10:59a worker in 1932 did on placing a

1:11:03sidewalk

1:11:04over and above what's

1:11:07common sense

1:11:09and uh

1:11:12and

1:11:13and a safety measure it just doesn't

1:11:15make any sense other than filling

1:11:18filling that in.

1:11:21>> My thing is is I'm not I

1:11:24I do think filling it in would create a

1:11:28create too much concrete. I've seen a

1:11:32house in Crown Heights on I believe 41st

1:11:37in between Chartwell and Walker where

1:11:39they did fill in that and it really

1:11:42creates kind of a I mean it just stands

1:11:45out as something that's not historic.

1:11:48I guess what the reason I was asking the

1:11:51question and I think it was based upon

1:11:53what you said is actually maybe rather

1:11:56than doing that if if there was some

1:11:59type of way to just kind of direct the

1:12:02sidewalk more in the direction of where

1:12:06the brick is

1:12:09rather than that current angle there. I

1:12:11mean to me that makes more sense with

1:12:14what I know having lived in Edgemere

1:12:17Park for a period of time and Crown

1:12:20Heights of something rather than that

1:12:22kind of angle up something that just

1:12:25comes and does more of a direct into the

1:12:28driveway without

1:12:29>> That was my initial offer.

1:12:31>> Yeah. I mean was is there a problem with

1:12:34that, Katie? Tell me what the staff's

1:12:37thought was on that.

1:12:39>> Well, I think our our you know, starting

1:12:42point is always when we've got what

1:12:43looks like it's an original sidewalk is

1:12:45to keep it as close to the existing

1:12:48condition as possible. I hear what

1:12:49you're saying about if

1:12:52instead of that entire area becoming

1:12:54concrete if the sidewalk came further up

1:12:56toward the landscape bed so that it

1:12:59maintained more of like the width of a

1:13:01typical sidewalk but you just filled in

1:13:04that gap. I think that would be a

1:13:08consideration for the commission if you

1:13:09feel like that's a

1:13:12you know, minimal enough change that

1:13:13you're still keeping the curvilinear

1:13:15sidewalk

1:13:16and not having

1:13:19you know, a visible

1:13:21kind of adverse change to the appearance

1:13:23of the property.

1:13:25Um

1:13:25>> I have no neighbor that's going to

1:13:27complain about

1:13:31fixing this problem.

1:13:34Either filling it in or rotating the

1:13:37sidewalk a little closer to the flower

1:13:39bed would match

1:13:42both neighbors on either side.

1:13:44>> I and and I agree with that and is that

1:13:47something if

1:13:49rather than the condition, can the

1:13:52condition be modified

1:13:56that

1:13:57he works with staff on on repositioning

1:14:01the sidewalk? Can we make that a

1:14:04condition of the approval, Katie?

1:14:07>> Yeah, I think you can could say um

1:14:10approved with the condition that the

1:14:12applicant work with staff to provide

1:14:16an appropriate

1:14:19pedestrian path adjacent to the

1:14:21driveway.

1:14:22>> Okay.

1:14:24>> That retains the the look and character

1:14:26of the sidewalk. Something like that.

1:14:29Yeah, I think our our biggest concern

1:14:32was getting just a large swath of

1:14:34concrete there that starts to look like

1:14:37you're adding a parking pad in the front

1:14:39yard, that kind of thing. I know it's

1:14:40not actually that yard that large but

1:14:43but I think

1:14:44modifying it slightly to to be more

1:14:47functional and not be a trip hazard. Um

1:14:50but also not be a large paved area in

1:14:52the front yard is maybe a good

1:14:54compromise.

1:14:55>> Is that something you would be agreeable

1:14:57with?

1:14:57>> I didn't understand all of it.

1:15:00>> Essentially work with staff on

1:15:02repositioning. We had put in there that

1:15:05um there would be a condition that you

1:15:07would work with staff on repositioning

1:15:09the sidewalk so that Okay.

1:15:12>> I mean we've we've approved the

1:15:15commission has approved circular

1:15:17driveways in Edgemere Park. I mean we're

1:15:20talking such a small area. It it's

1:15:23really

1:15:24immaterial which way it goes.

1:15:26>> Okay.

1:15:27>> Yeah, I think what what we're saying or

1:15:28hearing is uh we need to find the right

1:15:31balance between maintaining the

1:15:33character,

1:15:35uh give you the safety that you need,

1:15:37but not have so much concrete. So find

1:15:41that right balance.

1:15:42>> I can I can it can be modified to become

1:15:46the width of the stairs and just wrap

1:15:48around the the uh

1:15:51the flower bed

1:15:52and it will draw it back a little bit.

1:15:55It'd be basically the same amount of

1:15:57concrete.

1:15:59So

1:16:00>> So so if that's what the commission

1:16:03wants, I'll just need an updated site

1:16:04plan showing that condition.

1:16:07Uh so if you're what we're talking about

1:16:09modifying, I'll just need the site plan

1:16:11showing what it's going to find the the

1:16:13final product will look like.

1:16:15>> Okay.

1:16:15>> And and that should be all the

1:16:17documentation that we should need from

1:16:18you.

1:16:20>> Okay. Great. Uh

1:16:22any comments from the public?

1:16:28Okay. Do we have a motion?

1:16:29>> Is this something we're we're able to

1:16:30approve with the condition that the

1:16:32staff is Oh, please. Great.

1:16:35>> I would like Gary had a motion already

1:16:37to go.

1:16:39>> I'd make a motion to approve

1:16:43items one through four of HPCA

1:16:4726-92

1:16:52with the specific findings regarding

1:16:55items one through three and item four in

1:16:58a modified condition as to item four

1:17:03that

1:17:06the applicant work with staff to provide

1:17:08a path from the driveway to the front

1:17:14door that is consistent with

1:17:18other properties in the neighborhood. I

1:17:20don't know if that's exactly what you

1:17:22were saying. I was making notes as I was

1:17:24going here. So, that would be my motion.

1:17:27>> And we have a motion. Do we have a

1:17:28second?

1:17:29>> I thought that item three though, item

1:17:31three is the path, not

1:17:33Item three is the path, not item four?

1:17:36>> Item four, let's see, the existing brick

1:17:39pavers or let's see, let me get here.

1:17:42paving

1:17:45Items one through three, widen

1:17:51Let me get back down here.

1:17:52Yeah.

1:17:54You're right, item three. I believe Is

1:17:57that right?

1:17:58Okay.

1:18:05>> And are there any questions about the

1:18:07fence?

1:18:08>> Yeah, I I guess what we

1:18:10Let me Let me back up here.

1:18:13I would move to

1:18:15approve items one, two, and four of

1:18:21HPCA-26-92

1:18:26at 240 Northwest 34th Street. Um

1:18:31with a with the specific findings of

1:18:34staff and that a condition the applicant

1:18:38work with

1:18:40staff in replacement of the sidewalk

1:18:44item two

1:18:46um in a different location

1:18:50so that item three um is not required of

1:18:55the infill pavers with concrete but yeah

1:18:59approve one, two, and four with the

1:19:02repositioning of the sidewalk.

1:19:05That would be thank you for pointing

1:19:07that out.

1:19:09So that would be my first motion.

1:19:11>> Okay, we have a motion.

1:19:13A second?

1:19:14>> Second.

1:19:15>> Okay, we have a motion and a second.

1:19:17Please vote in PrimeGov.

1:19:22That motion has passed and it is

1:19:24approved.

1:19:25>> And then I think we need to

1:19:29um

1:19:32make a motion now to deny item three of

1:19:38HPCA 26-92

1:19:42in regard to infill brick pavers with

1:19:45concrete.

1:19:47Or is or how do you how does how do you

1:19:49want that done?

1:19:51>> I think

1:19:53um I think denying that is

1:19:57fine because you're essentially

1:19:59absorbing it into

1:20:02item two.

1:20:03>> Correct, it would throw out

1:20:06>> Or does it which what's easier

1:20:08administratively?

1:20:10>> How about we continue it?

1:20:11>> Okay.

1:20:12>> And we can work with the applicant and

1:20:13it may be something that we can just

1:20:15have him withdraw.

1:20:16>> Withdraw, okay. Perfect. Then I'll make

1:20:18a motion as to item three in

1:20:23HPCA-26-00092

1:20:27to continue that item to the December

1:20:312nd meeting.

1:20:33>> We have a motion? Do we have a second?

1:20:35>> Second.

1:20:36>> Okay. Please vote in Prime Gov.

1:20:38>> Can we get an approval on the

1:20:40uh sidewalk I'm I'm needing to pour a

1:20:43driveway in a episode

1:20:45>> The you're going to work with staff to

1:20:48to reposition the sidewalk so that it

1:20:51can be poured when the driveway's

1:20:53poured. And then after that's done, we

1:20:56continue just infilling that. And once

1:21:00you get staff to approve all of your

1:21:02plans regarding the driveway and the

1:21:04sidewalk thing, you'll withdraw that

1:21:07request to

1:21:09to infill the bridge.

1:21:11>> approve it

1:21:13so that I can pour it. Okay.

1:21:14>> Yeah. It's just an administrative

1:21:18>> If Jerry wasn't here, it wouldn't have

1:21:19come up.

1:21:20>> Right.

1:21:21>> [laughter]

1:21:22>> Okay. That motion uh has passed.

1:21:27Okay.

1:21:28And then

1:21:30Okay. We will uh

1:21:32apologize for any inconvenience, but we

1:21:34will take a 5-minute break and reconvene

1:21:36at 2:26.

1:24:24>> Mhm.

1:26:47>> Okay, thank you. Uh we will reconvene.

1:26:50Do we need to call

1:26:52roll again?

1:26:54Okay, Keith, please.

1:27:05>> Here.

1:27:05>> Learner?

1:27:06>> Here.

1:27:07>> McBride?

1:27:08>> Here.

1:27:08>> Hears?

1:27:09>> Here.

1:27:09>> Wood?

1:27:10>> Here.

1:27:12>> Okay, thank you.

1:27:13Uh the next item, uh next

1:27:17case for consideration, individual

1:27:18consideration is

1:27:20uh HPCA 2600098

1:27:25at 2109 North Broadway Avenue.

1:27:29>> This is

1:27:32This is in Heritage Hills East, Ward 6,

1:27:35consideration and possible action on

1:27:36application by Quak Realty Estate, uh

1:27:39real estate one LLC for certificate of

1:27:42appropriateness to one construct

1:27:44addition elective and two construct

1:27:46garage elective. This is a project that

1:27:48the commission approved several years

1:27:51ago. It was never completed, although um

1:27:54some of the work was initiated. They uh

1:27:57the CA has long since expired. Uh they

1:28:00would like to complete the project now,

1:28:01so this is back in front of you for

1:28:04new review, um

1:28:06even though it was previously approved,

1:28:08we have to review it as if it were a new

1:28:10case. Uh we were not able to

1:28:12administratively approve it. Staff is

1:28:14recommending a continuance at this time

1:28:16because we are lacking

1:28:18some information. We don't have

1:28:20a

1:28:21fully dimensioned site plan on many of

1:28:24the building materials. We either are

1:28:26missing the materials, missing details

1:28:28about the materials, or the materials

1:28:31that were provided do not meet the

1:28:33applicable guidelines for materials at

1:28:36new construction of an addition.

1:28:38We also uh

1:28:40And in part this is due to not having

1:28:42kind of an existing and proposed site

1:28:44plan, but

1:28:45we want to confirm that

1:28:48the work that is proposed now is

1:28:50consistent with the work that has been

1:28:52initiated up to this point, that no

1:28:54change has been made to the proposed

1:28:58work, to the partially completed work

1:29:01from the time the commission saw it

1:29:02previously to what you are seeing in

1:29:04front of you today. Obviously, if

1:29:06they've decided to make changes and

1:29:08those still meet the guidelines, you can

1:29:10certainly approve that even if it's

1:29:11different from what was approved the

1:29:13first time around. We just want to make

1:29:15sure that what we have and that what

1:29:16gets approved is an accurate reflection

1:29:18of the work that's being done.

1:29:20So, we have a recommendation to

1:29:22continuance and

1:29:23I think the applicant is present if you

1:29:25have questions.

1:29:27>> Okay, please state your name and address

1:29:29for the record.

1:29:33>> Zenith Law. Can you hear me?

1:29:35Okay, sorry.

1:29:37I

1:29:38had submitted a letter of representation

1:29:42on September 11th, 2026.

1:29:45Just letting staff know that I'm

1:29:48representing Quack Realty Real Estate

1:29:50One.

1:29:52I did receive back an email response

1:29:55that copied clients on that

1:29:58letter, that email stating

1:30:01she needed staff member needed

1:30:03confirmation from client, which he

1:30:05provided. Since that time, I've been

1:30:08excluded from all communications. I just

1:30:11found out yesterday that this hearing

1:30:13had been moved to today.

1:30:15Um but I am also here to confirm that no

1:30:19plans have changed. The All the site

1:30:22maps, site plans, everything that was

1:30:25submitted into and approved in 2022

1:30:28remain the same.

1:30:36And I've also, just for the record, I've

1:30:38called, emailed, left messages, and I

1:30:42haven't received any responses

1:30:45from staff.

1:30:51So, I'm just now aware.

1:30:53>> Thank you.

1:30:56Do you have any questions?

1:30:58>> Yeah, I'll Staff will certainly make

1:30:59sure that we're included you on all

1:31:01future communications.

1:31:03Um

1:31:04I I will say we do not have a site plan.

1:31:07What was submitted this time around does

1:31:09not include us any version of a site

1:31:11plan. We have floor plans, but not an

1:31:13actual site plan with property lines,

1:31:16setbacks, um lot coverage calculations,

1:31:19fencing, driveways. Okay.

1:31:20>> Okay. Uh and then what the the materials

1:31:23that were material selections that were

1:31:26provided are are lacking information

1:31:29that we need. Now, it may be that those

1:31:31were included when it was approved

1:31:32previously, and either they were

1:31:34discussed verbally and marked up later,

1:31:37or

1:31:39didn't get caught the last time around,

1:31:41but in reviewing it as a new case, we

1:31:43need to clarify those things and make

1:31:45sure materials meet the guidelines. Or

1:31:47if they were approved previously as not

1:31:49meeting the guidelines based on some

1:31:51sort of unique circumstance, we need to

1:31:53work through that again to identify what

1:31:55those were.

1:31:56>> And we have all that, and we have had

1:31:58all of that since September 11th, when I

1:32:02sent the email, but because I've been

1:32:04excluded from communications, I haven't

1:32:07been able

1:32:08to reach anyone or

1:32:10submit any anything to you.

1:32:12>> Okay.

1:32:13>> So, I mean, I'm happy to schedule a

1:32:15meeting or

1:32:17whatever we need to do to move this

1:32:19forward.

1:32:20>> Yeah. Yeah, we can absolutely schedule a

1:32:22time to meet with with you all and

1:32:24whoever from your team needs to be

1:32:26included to go through what you've what

1:32:28you have and what else we might need.

1:32:30>> If I send an email, will someone

1:32:33respond? Okay.

1:32:37I did resubmit the letter today.

1:32:40>> Okay. So, I know that we received your

1:32:41letter, so I know we have your email

1:32:43address. So, we will reach back out.

1:32:45Today's Friday, so it'll probably be

1:32:47Monday, but we will reach out first

1:32:48thing Monday to set up a time to talk.

1:32:51>> Thank you so much.

1:32:52>> And for if we're going towards a

1:32:55continuance, would that be the December

1:32:572nd meeting to give an appropriate time

1:32:59or do we is there time for the November

1:33:022nd meeting?

1:33:02>> If if it sounds like they have

1:33:04essentially everything that we're asking

1:33:06for and it's consistent with what was

1:33:08approved previously, then I would think

1:33:10December 2nd would be would be fine.

1:33:12>> November

1:33:12>> Or oh, um

1:33:14well,

1:33:16um

1:33:18we could continue this one to November

1:33:214th. It would be a very short turnaround

1:33:24if we did need something else from you

1:33:26that you don't already have or we could

1:33:28continue it to the December 2nd meeting.

1:33:30>> I think

1:33:31uh November 4th would be good as long as

1:33:34we can communicate.

1:33:36>> Yeah.

1:33:36>> The clients have received emails, but I

1:33:40haven't, so I just found out yesterday.

1:33:43Excuse me.

1:33:44>> Yeah, I think we can do November 4th.

1:33:49>> Okay, is there anybody from there there

1:33:51are neighborhood comments um that concur

1:33:54essentially, not uh paraphrase, but with

1:33:57staff recommendation.

1:33:59Any additional comments from the public?

1:34:04Welcome, and come on up and state your

1:34:06name and address for the record, please.

1:34:08>> Yeah, hello.

1:34:10Do I need to sign in here?

1:34:12Um Alicia Sullivan, 104 Northwest 21st

1:34:15Street. I've been there 24 years. And

1:34:17this is is she's saying that this was

1:34:20the same plans as 4 years ago, which

1:34:23means the garage is being built on top

1:34:25of my property.

1:34:26The lot the lines back there the

1:34:28property lines back there are very odd.

1:34:31Their driveway is even in on my property

1:34:34line. You know, and I'm not going to

1:34:35make anybody tear up their driveway or

1:34:37anything, but this definitely needs to

1:34:39be continued because of the property

1:34:42line situation. That there's just no way

1:34:45a garage can go back there on what

1:34:47appears to be their backyard is actually

1:34:49part of my backyard.

1:34:51So,

1:34:52there's that. I'm not sure if that's

1:34:54been shared with you or not

1:34:56about the property line situations back

1:34:58there. It's quite a mess.

1:35:01Definitely.

1:35:03And I'm I'm pretty sure you guys I don't

1:35:05know that should be on the record from 4

1:35:07years ago about the property lines. So,

1:35:09I'm not sure when you guys are talking

1:35:10about something being approved, I you

1:35:13know,

1:35:14it was continued, and then they dropped

1:35:16the ball, and here we are 4 years later

1:35:18having the same conversation.

1:35:22So, I I don't want a garage on my

1:35:24property line.

1:35:26It's also too close to my shed. So,

1:35:28there could be a um

1:35:30water issue with a garage next to my

1:35:34shed and the water coming off that roof

1:35:37onto my shed.

1:35:39So, those things need to be cleared up,

1:35:41definitely. Thank you.

1:35:43>> Okay. Thank you for the comments.

1:35:56>> I know we're not I know we're not really

1:35:58here to argue this case, but um

1:36:01survey was performed and submitted the

1:36:04first time

1:36:06pursuant to your approval. So, I think

1:36:10that information is incorrect. We can we

1:36:12can resubmit the survey.

1:36:15>> Okay.

1:36:16Okay.

1:36:17Thank you.

1:36:20Any other members from the public wish

1:36:22to be heard?

1:36:24There being none, do we have a motion?

1:36:27>> I'll make a motion to

1:36:29continue items one and two of

1:36:32HPCA-26-00098

1:36:38to the November

1:36:404th

1:36:42>> I'll second.

1:36:45>> Okay.

1:36:45Please vote in prodge.

1:36:48I'm good.

1:37:01Motion has passed and will be continued.

1:37:04Thank you.

1:37:06Uh the next

1:37:09uh case for individual consideration is

1:37:12item seven.

1:37:15That is HPCA-26-00100

1:37:19at 631 Northwest 16th Street in Mesta

1:37:23Park Ward 6.

1:37:25>> This is consideration of possible action

1:37:27on application by Susan Key for replace

1:37:29for a certificate of appropriateness to

1:37:31one replace garage door elected. This is

1:37:34a um

1:37:35existing non-historic garage door that

1:37:38is a a metal door. The applicant

1:37:40indicated that their contractor thought

1:37:41it might be 10 to 15 years old. They um

1:37:45have requested to replace it with a

1:37:47comparable um steel garage door of a

1:37:50similar design. The guidelines support

1:37:55garage doors that are um

1:37:57wood,

1:37:59wood veneer with a concealed metal

1:38:00frame, composite such as fiberglass, but

1:38:03do not support metal steel doors in

1:38:06Mesta Park. So, this application is

1:38:08before the commission because the

1:38:11staff does not have the authority to

1:38:13approve a garage door that doesn't meet

1:38:15those guidelines.

1:38:19And we did recommend a continuance

1:38:21essentially because if the applicant

1:38:22chose to switch to a garage door

1:38:24material that could be administratively

1:38:26approved, then we could

1:38:28do that following a continuance of the

1:38:30item.

1:38:32>> Okay, great. Is the applicant present?

1:38:35Would you like to come up and state your

1:38:37name and address for the record, please?

1:38:43>> My name is Susan Key. I live at 631

1:38:46Northwest 16th Street.

1:38:49And um

1:38:51I assumed that this would not be

1:38:53approved, but I just thought I would

1:38:54check because of

1:38:56my garage is so old and terrible. The

1:38:59less I spend on the door, I'd prefer. I

1:39:01mean, even a new steel door will look so

1:39:04much better than what it is now.

1:39:07But

1:39:08it was just a personal reason for

1:39:10wanting to

1:39:11It is a steel door now.

1:39:13Um

1:39:14but

1:39:15if if you all do not approve a

1:39:18replacement with another steel door,

1:39:21could [snorts] I please get a COA for

1:39:23approval

1:39:24to install wooden door

1:39:27because I can't open the garage door at

1:39:29all right now, and it's very

1:39:31inconvenient for me.

1:39:33And it presents a safety issue cuz I had

1:39:35to park in the street. But if you all do

1:39:38not want me to replace the door with a

1:39:40steel,

1:39:42could I get an approval now rather than

1:39:44a continuance because

1:39:46um you know I put it this request in in

1:39:49August

1:39:50and in the meantime I just have to park

1:39:52in the street and that's

1:39:55you know it's not convenient for me.

1:39:57>> I believe that is all something that can

1:39:59be

1:40:01I'm sorry. I believe that is all

1:40:02something that can be staff approved if

1:40:04it it's the wood to steel issue is the

1:40:07only reason you're here.

1:40:08>> Yes, you all could approve the

1:40:11application to replace the garage door

1:40:13with a condition that a door meeting the

1:40:16guidelines for garage doors be submitted

1:40:18to staff.

1:40:20And we can do we could do that

1:40:21administratively if you did not feel

1:40:23um like it was appropriate to approve

1:40:25the metal door.

1:40:31I will say the metal door has been there

1:40:34I mean I guess it doesn't matter but

1:40:35that door has been there for 10 to 15

1:40:37years.

1:40:38And

1:40:39the area I live in is extremely

1:40:42visually eclectic

1:40:45in that it's at the corner of 16th and

1:40:47Lee

1:40:48and behind me there's

1:40:50a home that was once beautiful two-story

1:40:52brick that is just dilapidated now. It's

1:40:54just a looks like it belongs in a

1:40:56ghetto.

1:40:57And across the street from that is an

1:40:59apartment building. And across from my

1:41:02garage is a

1:41:05a nice home. I'm forgetting a craftsman

1:41:08two-story craftsman and then in front of

1:41:10my house it's like there's a mansion. So

1:41:11it's just an incredibly eclectic area

1:41:15and I don't think anyone's ever

1:41:17noticed my door. It's just there's so

1:41:19much going on there.

1:41:20Um

1:41:22so I thought you all might approve just

1:41:24replacing it with a steel door but

1:41:29I just want to see what you all might

1:41:30say about it.

1:41:31>> Yeah, we're

1:41:34according to the guidelines we wouldn't

1:41:36approve um replacing it with a steel or

1:41:39metal door.

1:41:41And

1:41:42we are happy to approve

1:41:45as long as

1:41:47the door that is put there is approved

1:41:52by staff. You submit documentation. But

1:41:55also what um staff originally said was

1:41:59if we continue this and you provide them

1:42:02with the documentation,

1:42:04they can administratively approve that.

1:42:07It's not even something that needed to

1:42:09come before the board. So, let's say

1:42:12your original application would have

1:42:14been with an appropriate door, then

1:42:16staff would have already um have

1:42:18approved that. They can do that without

1:42:21uh us actually issuing the the

1:42:24commission doing an approval of it.

1:42:28>> So, am I hearing if I install replace it

1:42:30with a wooden door, I'm good to go?

1:42:34>> Uh

1:42:34>> So, I mean I just have to get the permit

1:42:36first, but you're saying it needs to be

1:42:38a wooden door. Is that what I'm hearing?

1:42:40>> I mean I'm saying that staff whatever

1:42:43door is put up there needs to be

1:42:45approved by staff. I know that there

1:42:48there are doors that are not solid wood

1:42:52doors that have to go up there. There

1:42:55are different types of doors that can be

1:42:58approved by staff to go in.

1:43:01Um

1:43:01>> Well,

1:43:02>> cuz cuz getting solid wood doors these

1:43:07days, I know, takes a significant amount

1:43:10of time and is incredibly expensive to

1:43:14do. Uh at mine, I had a just a single

1:43:18panel of my wood that needed to be

1:43:21redone, and it took like ni- took like

1:43:2590 days and cost me $3,000 for just a

1:43:29single panel to go across there cuz it

1:43:33had to be custom made. So,

1:43:34all I'm saying is I would prefer that

1:43:37the motion be to continue this matter

1:43:41and then you talk with staff about

1:43:45finding a door that they can't that they

1:43:48can approve and then once that's

1:43:50approved, you go on

1:43:53and administrative approval and don't

1:43:55even have to come back.

1:43:59>> Okay, well, I don't if I

1:44:02am not allowed to replace it with a

1:44:04steel door, then I do want to pursue a

1:44:06wooden door. Because

1:44:09I did check with probably a half a dozen

1:44:12companies and they all offer either a

1:44:15steel or wooden door and there's a big

1:44:17difference in the price range. That's

1:44:18why I just wanted to replace that garage

1:44:20with a steel door.

1:44:22But um everything in between the

1:44:24composites that you're speaking of and

1:44:27the wood veneers, every single person I

1:44:30spoke with or had come to my home,

1:44:33they all

1:44:35do not recommend getting the the the

1:44:37laminated the the wood veneer because

1:44:40they say, you know, the door takes a lot

1:44:43of abuse up and down and all that weight

1:44:45and they say it always separates

1:44:47ultimately.

1:44:49And so, I really don't want anything

1:44:51like that

1:44:53that I have to, you know,

1:44:55in several years have to repair it. So,

1:44:59is it possible for me to get approval

1:45:01like now so I don't have to wait so I

1:45:03can move forward and I'll just get a

1:45:05wooden door because I also found cuz I

1:45:07did make a lot of calls like the first

1:45:10uh

1:45:10company I asked about a wooden door,

1:45:13their estimate was for $41,000.

1:45:16Well,

1:45:17my garage is not much more than a shack.

1:45:20And so, but down the road, I did

1:45:22discover um overhead doors and they're

1:45:25located

1:45:27in town. I haven't driven to their

1:45:28warehouse cuz I didn't know how this was

1:45:30going to go, but you can get a wooden

1:45:33door, solid wooden door for 6,000.

1:45:37Which is still more than a steel door. A

1:45:39steel door would cost 2 to 3,000, but

1:45:41you know, the main thing now is like I

1:45:43just would like to replace the door, but

1:45:46I want to do it properly. I mean, I

1:45:48don't want to break any rules. Um

1:45:51but you can get a wood door. I mean,

1:45:54it's probably going to be replaced

1:45:55probably, you know,

1:45:57pretty soon

1:45:59cuz I don't imagine wooden door for

1:46:006,000 is going to be that great, but it

1:46:02would meet your guidelines. So, could I

1:46:05have approval to go that route?

1:46:07>> So, what I would recommend is that we

1:46:09approve with the condition that the

1:46:11applicant submit a wood door or other

1:46:15type of door that meets the guidelines

1:46:17to staff. And that way

1:46:20if it takes her longer than expected to

1:46:22find the door she wants, she doesn't

1:46:23have to come back here in a month and we

1:46:25put it back on the, you know, um that

1:46:27way she has all the time

1:46:29she needs to find the door that she

1:46:30wants and we'll work just work with

1:46:33staff to get what you need turned in and

1:46:34then you're good to go.

1:46:35>> Okay.

1:46:36>> All right.

1:46:37>> Thank you.

1:46:40>> Okay, are there any um members of the

1:46:42public that would like to be heard?

1:46:46Okay, there being none, do we have a

1:46:48motion?

1:46:50>> I'll make a motion to approve

1:46:54HPCA-26-00100

1:47:01with the condition that the replacement

1:47:03garage door be approved by staff

1:47:07and be of a material supported by the

1:47:10guidelines.

1:47:14>> Do we have a second?

1:47:15>> Second.

1:47:17>> Okay, please vote in PrimeGov.

1:47:23Okay, that motion has passed and is

1:47:25approved. Congratulations.

1:47:30Okay, the next item

1:47:32uh is the item that was previously

1:47:34mentioned that will be continued to the

1:47:37November 2nd?

1:47:38>> The 4th.

1:47:39>> 4th meeting.

1:47:39>> The 4th meeting.

1:47:42Okay, which

1:47:44Do we need to vote on that?

1:47:45>> So, we cannot vote because we we

1:47:48technically would not have quorum if we

1:47:50were to try to take action on that item.

1:47:51So, it just automatically

1:47:53rolls over to November.

1:47:55>> Automatic skip.

1:47:56Okay, that takes us to our final uh

1:48:01case for individual consideration, which

1:48:03is HPCA 2600103

1:48:07at 529 Northwest 40th Street in Crown

1:48:11Heights, Ward 2.

1:48:12>> This is consideration and possible

1:48:14action on application by Sarah Hannah

1:48:16Parallel Design for JAAC Property LLC

1:48:20for certificate of appropriateness to

1:48:22one remove existing front porch and

1:48:23entry surround elective, two construct

1:48:25new covered front porch and entry

1:48:27surround elective, three remove existing

1:48:30concrete sidewalk and portion of

1:48:31driveway and replace and extend as

1:48:33needed elective, four remove existing

1:48:36rear awning and concrete steps, five

1:48:38demolish carport elective, six demolish

1:48:41historic detached garage structure

1:48:43elective, seven construct garage

1:48:45elective, eight construct new wood

1:48:48deck at rear entry elective, nine

1:48:50install new cedar wood fencing along

1:48:52rear sides of property, and 10 complete

1:48:55associated site grading, drainage,

1:48:57landscaping, et cetera,

1:48:58um all elective.

1:49:00So, this is some uh items in the rear

1:49:02yard with decks and carports and such.

1:49:05It is a proposal to demolish and

1:49:07construct a garage and to modify the

1:49:11existing uh front entry of the house. Um

1:49:16we have reason to believe based on the

1:49:19existing conditions that are there

1:49:21that the existing front entry is not the

1:49:24original

1:49:25condition. We don't know what that

1:49:28original condition might have looked

1:49:30like. But did recommend approval for

1:49:33what's proposed more additional um

1:49:36detailed dimension drawings may be

1:49:39necessary as part of that to make sure

1:49:42we have everything we need on that

1:49:43design. Let me scroll down to what we

1:49:46said on all the other items here.

1:49:49Um

1:49:50We recommended approval for demolition

1:49:53of the carport which is a non-historic

1:49:55feature.

1:49:56And for removing and replacing the front

1:49:59landing and porch. We recommended

1:50:02approval of construction of the new

1:50:05garage with

1:50:07unique circumstances.

1:50:08And agreed upon conditions. Um

1:50:13Related to some of the documentation and

1:50:15details to be provided.

1:50:17We recommended approval of the

1:50:19demolition of the garage based on the

1:50:22documentation submitted by the

1:50:24applicant. And construction of the rear

1:50:27deck back landing.

1:50:30Um

1:50:31So I believe we recommended approval of

1:50:33all

1:50:34items just with some conditions and

1:50:36unique circumstances.

1:50:37Sprinkled throughout. So

1:50:43>> Okay and is the applicant present?

1:50:48>> I think this is our applicant.

1:50:52Do you want to come up? Sorry.

1:50:54>> [laughter]

1:50:54>> State your name and address for the

1:50:55record please.

1:50:56>> Yes, I'm Sarah Hannah. I'm with Parallel

1:50:58Design. I'm here to represent

1:51:01my clients who purchased the property

1:51:03here at 529 Northwest 40th Street. It's

1:51:07a long list of requests. So I don't want

1:51:09to go into too much depth, but

1:51:12essentially, as Katie suggested, we've

1:51:15got um,

1:51:17the rear carport and detached garage.

1:51:20Carport is non-historic. Garage is in

1:51:23poor condition. We've seen a lot of

1:51:25garages today, but I can confirm this

1:51:27one has termites. I have photos of

1:51:29inside and outside. It's also really

1:51:32small,

1:51:33um, and modern-day vehicles do not fit

1:51:36within it. Um, so we've proposed to come

1:51:39back with a detached two-car garage. Um,

1:51:43we're uh, looking to match the same

1:51:46pitch of the roof of the historic

1:51:48garage, but obviously it is a slightly

1:51:50different overall dimension.

1:51:52Um,

1:51:54and the carport would go away. In

1:51:55regards to the front of the house, um,

1:51:58there is that existing concrete and

1:52:00masonry landing, um, and then the kind

1:52:03of wood detail surround at the front

1:52:06entry door. Um,

1:52:08initially, I couldn't find evidence of

1:52:11what had been there, and also that this

1:52:14wouldn't have been historic, but upon

1:52:16some further investigation,

1:52:18um, I can tell that there are some

1:52:19things behind the wood that we see, and

1:52:22so I do feel confident that that is not

1:52:25original. What it was, I I don't know.

1:52:27So, the intent with what we are coming

1:52:30back with is to try to make it feel

1:52:33appropriate to the scale of the front

1:52:35elevation. We're not looking to come any

1:52:37farther forward in terms of the depth of

1:52:41the porch, but have proposed something

1:52:43slightly wider that we felt was, again,

1:52:46proportional to the overall elevation.

1:52:49In addition, um,

1:52:51kind of the proposed detail of this, uh,

1:52:54covered entry would try to replicate,

1:52:58uh, some of the details that we see

1:53:00here. While they may not be, um,

1:53:02historic or original, we feel like they

1:53:05are appropriate. Um, so the columns,

1:53:08their spacing, some of the smaller

1:53:10details are intended to to replicate

1:53:13what we see. Um,

1:53:15there's also mention of of removing a

1:53:18portion of the driveway and the sidewalk

1:53:20to meet up with this new porch. All of

1:53:23that is intended to um,

1:53:25you know, just kind of maintain all the

1:53:27connections that are there. The the

1:53:29driveway itself was in kind of poor

1:53:30condition for a certain stretch. So, the

1:53:33intent would be to to replace that and

1:53:35and leave it in good shape.

1:53:37Um,

1:53:39and then I think there were just a few

1:53:40small mentions of some improvements on

1:53:42the rear. Uh, we've got the the wood

1:53:46deck that would come off of the back

1:53:47entry door, fencing around the property.

1:53:51Um, and then

1:53:53there's kind of a general note of like

1:53:55addressing site grading and and

1:53:57drainage. I mean, that's just intended

1:53:59to um, communicate that

1:54:02as we make improvements, we want to

1:54:04leave that property kind of in good

1:54:05condition and not disrupt the adjacent

1:54:08property. So, we're not proposing that

1:54:10anything extreme is happening, but

1:54:12rather um, we can leave it in in good

1:54:15shape. Um,

1:54:18so is there anything else I can answer?

1:54:20It's probably more information than you

1:54:22wanted.

1:54:23>> Uh, no, that's great. Um,

1:54:25any comments from the commission or

1:54:27questions?

1:54:29>> I I noticed there were conditions listed

1:54:32by staff as to items 1 2 3 4 and 7. Were

1:54:38you good with those conditions

1:54:39recommended by staff?

1:54:41>> Yeah, I think our our request, if we

1:54:43could walk away with a solution today,

1:54:45is that um,

1:54:47you know, we get approval from you, but

1:54:49we can work with staff to address any

1:54:50concerns that they might have

1:54:52administratively.

1:54:54Um, and make modifications as needed if

1:54:57they feel there's a different approach

1:54:58we should take.

1:55:02>> Uh, the the comment that I would have

1:55:04and and generally looking at the the

1:55:06case, a lot of the you're fixing a lot

1:55:09of the disrepair, you're

1:55:11attempting to stay within the character.

1:55:13Um,

1:55:15I

1:55:17am finding it I'm finding a couple

1:55:19issues with the entry porch.

1:55:21>> Mhm.

1:55:22>> Um,

1:55:23one is

1:55:25uh

1:55:27I'm concerned with an asphalt shingle

1:55:29roof.

1:55:29>> Mhm.

1:55:30>> Uh, being a little bit underwhelming for

1:55:33that level of detail.

1:55:35Um, to me

1:55:37it kind of

1:55:39leans more like maybe a TPO roof or

1:55:41something that's low pitch. Um, the

1:55:43other concern that I have is I think

1:55:45you're going to have to put a gutter

1:55:46across the front of that if you're

1:55:48shedding all the water

1:55:49basically over the walkway.

1:55:51>> Fair.

1:55:52>> So, um

1:55:54I know we're not supposed to design, um,

1:55:57but I might suggest if it were exactly

1:56:00what you have,

1:56:02but with a

1:56:05cap and a low slope roof diverting water

1:56:08to the sides,

1:56:10I think that might be more appropriate.

1:56:12>> Understood.

1:56:15>> I don't think you want to hide your

1:56:17>> Definitely not.

1:56:18>> dental molding with a gutter.

1:56:35>> Does anyone have any comments on any of

1:56:36the other

1:56:37items other than the porch? Like cuz it

1:56:39sounds like that would be something

1:56:40that, you know, would need to come back

1:56:42before the commission if they were going

1:56:43to

1:56:44make a change like that. I presume,

1:56:47Katie, is that correct?

1:56:49>> Um,

1:56:51I mean that's fairly clear to me, but

1:56:53certainly you all could get started with

1:56:55lots of other things and still come back

1:56:57with the porch if the commission feels

1:56:58more comfortable seeing that again if

1:57:00we're asking for a design change to the

1:57:03the roof of the porch.

1:57:05>> Um

1:57:07I think

1:57:08I think that's clear. The The only

1:57:10nuance that maybe is in there is the the

1:57:12current

1:57:14roof form has a very

1:57:17slim trim piece above the dental molding

1:57:21before it transitions.

1:57:22And I think the original is maybe a

1:57:24little bit larger and I think you're

1:57:26going to have to do that anyway if you

1:57:27go to a low slope roof.

1:57:29Um but just that detailing as long as

1:57:31it's

1:57:33consistent with what is there, obviously

1:57:35proportions are going to change, but

1:57:38in keeping with the character of what's

1:57:40there, I I think

1:57:41I would feel comfortable with staff

1:57:43approving that as a condition.

1:57:47If you all are.

1:57:48>> I I think that's clear.

1:57:50>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:57:53>> This is more of a comment. I just want

1:57:54to say that's a garage that's well

1:57:56documented as clearly being in needed to

1:57:59be, in my opinion, clearly need needing

1:58:01to be demolished and you they're coming

1:58:03back with a garage design that is

1:58:05incredibly reasonable and appropriate.

1:58:07And so I just wanted to give you a good

1:58:09job on that.

1:58:10>> Thank you.

1:58:12>> [laughter]

1:58:13>> It's a team effort here.

1:58:14>> I I thought the same thing. I live at

1:58:16612 Northwest 40th. So

1:58:20very same same color brick house

1:58:23two-story with columns. So I mean I

1:58:26think you've done a good job. I was

1:58:28impressed to see

1:58:30and I'm curious how much um

1:58:33vegetation came out of that backyard.

1:58:36>> [laughter]

1:58:36>> Yeah, there were some trees really I

1:58:39mean you can kind of see the

1:58:41uh yeah.

1:58:43That happened before I was really in

1:58:44there. So um

1:58:47>> I'm not sure you could even walk through

1:58:48that backyard with the amount of

1:58:50vegetation that was coming out of it.

1:58:53>> Yeah, there um

1:58:54it was hard initially to get photos of

1:58:57the garage when they hadn't touched the

1:58:59east half, but when I got there the west

1:59:02half the big ones were gone and yeah,

1:59:03it's a it was a jungle, so.

1:59:07>> Um I will note that they've proposed a

1:59:10single two-car width garage door. We

1:59:13often encourage people to use two

1:59:16single-width garage doors. I do think

1:59:18that given the

1:59:19proximity of this garage to the rear of

1:59:21the house and the tight driveway, it

1:59:25may be um

1:59:27pretty difficult to navigate uh with you

1:59:30know, this is the situation where we

1:59:32usually say it's okay to have one door.

1:59:34Um but if you have a center post, it's

1:59:35going to be difficult for somebody to

1:59:37get in and out um and down the driveway

1:59:39from the backyard and then along those

1:59:41same lines,

1:59:42we wouldn't be able to see whether there

1:59:44was a center post or not from the street

1:59:46anyway. Um but just wanted to kind of

1:59:48put that on the record since the

1:59:50two-door, one-door thing is something

1:59:52that we do always look at with these.

1:59:55>> And I'll also add to that um we

1:59:57considered pushing it for pushing the

2:00:00new garage further back from what its

2:00:03original location to try and accommodate

2:00:07the two separate entries, but there is a

2:00:09gas meter location kind of directly

2:00:12behind and we would like to avoid that.

2:00:15Um in which case we're sort of limited

2:00:17to have where we can position the new

2:00:19garage, so

2:00:21and navigating into that becomes a

2:00:23challenge.

2:00:26>> Uh so there's a lot of conditions on a

2:00:28lot of these items. Um have you reviewed

2:00:32all of those uh

2:00:34uh and with the client and are you guys

2:00:35amenable to the conditions as they were

2:00:37listed by staff?

2:00:38>> Yeah, we're familiar with what's been in

2:00:40there and it was kind of just whispering

2:00:42a little bit on one of them, so I think

2:00:44that we feel comfortable at least

2:00:46working through it,

2:00:48um, and finding solutions there. So,

2:00:50nothing seems unreasonable.

2:00:52>> And do you think your client would be

2:00:54amenable to the porch design change that

2:00:57was kind of suggested today?

2:00:58>> Yes, um, I think that if we feel good

2:01:02with the general direction, that's what

2:01:03they're looking for at this time. And if

2:01:05we need to make some of those details

2:01:07then detail changes, then I think that

2:01:10they'll be perfectly okay with that.

2:01:16>> Okay. Any other questions for the

2:01:18applicant?

2:01:20Any comments from the public?

2:01:27Okay. Do we have a motion?

2:01:31>> Well, my mic's not coming out. There we

2:01:33go.

2:01:33Um, I'll make a motion

2:01:38to approve

2:01:41items 1 through 10 of HPCA-26-00103

2:01:52with the specific findings noted by

2:01:55staff, the unique circumstance as to

2:01:59item number seven,

2:02:02and the conditions noted

2:02:05by staff on items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.

2:02:13And

2:02:15with an added condition that the

2:02:19applicant work with staff

2:02:23in regard to a redesign of the front

2:02:27porch roofline and material in regard to

2:02:32item number two.

2:02:35>> Great motion. Do we have a second?

2:02:37>> I'll second that.

2:02:40>> Okay, please vote in Prime Gov.

2:02:47Motion has passed and you have an

2:02:49approval.

2:02:50>> Thank you.

2:02:51>> Congratulations.

2:02:57Okay, that concludes cases for

2:02:59individual consideration. The next item

2:03:01on the agenda is other business.

2:03:04Uh there are

2:03:07Looks like

2:03:09four and do we need to discuss these,

2:03:11Katie?

2:03:12>> Um yes, so we need we all we will need a

2:03:15motion and a vote on each of these. Um

2:03:17the first one is BOA 16359 at 218

2:03:21Northwest 28th Street. This is a request

2:03:23for a recommendation to the Board of

2:03:26Adjustment regarding an application for

2:03:28home sharing. This property is in

2:03:30Jefferson Park, so historic landmark

2:03:32overlay.

2:03:34Uh they are required to get a special

2:03:35exception because it is not the

2:03:38applicant's primary residence, but the

2:03:40provisions for

2:03:42the historic preservation base zoning

2:03:44district regarding it being uh the owner

2:03:47being on site at time of rental, etc. do

2:03:50not apply cuz we're in an HL uh landmark

2:03:53district. Uh staff has not identified

2:03:55any concerns with this application and

2:03:58has provided a recommendation

2:04:00uh for approval. So just a motion and a

2:04:02vote to

2:04:03recommend approval to Board of

2:04:05Adjustment if the commission agrees.

2:04:07Okay, we have no applicant and no

2:04:09public.

2:04:10>> [laughter]

2:04:10>> So uh

2:04:12we entertain a motion or discussion.

2:04:16>> I'll make a motion

2:04:19to

2:04:20um recommend approval of BOA

2:04:24-16359

2:04:27to the Board of Adjustment.

2:04:29>> We have a second.

2:04:30>> Second.

2:04:32>> Please vote in

2:04:33Prime Gov.

2:04:38Okay, that has passed.

2:04:40The next item is item B under other

2:04:43business, and that is for SPUD-01827

2:04:49at 624 Northwest 25th Street in the

2:04:53Paseo District, Ward 2.

2:04:55>> This is a request for recommendation to

2:04:58Planning Commission regarding a request

2:04:59to rezone the property to a simplified

2:05:01planned unit development in accordance

2:05:03with regulations of the R3

2:05:06residential district in Paseo Historic

2:05:08Landmark Overlay District, um except

2:05:11with restrictions in uses called out

2:05:12within the SPUD. The commission saw this

2:05:14previously. The this was this SPUD

2:05:16application was before the commission

2:05:18earlier this year. They um after that

2:05:21meeting and in preparing for Planning

2:05:23Commission and City Council realized

2:05:25that they were going to need to make

2:05:26some pretty significant changes to their

2:05:28site design. Um there was an alley that

2:05:31they were planning to use to access

2:05:33parking that they will not be able to

2:05:35use in that way. And so in looking at

2:05:37what they came back with, uh we did feel

2:05:39like it needed to come back to the

2:05:41commission again. Um they have reduced

2:05:44the uh number of dwellings that they're

2:05:46requesting from four down to three. This

2:05:49is a site where there is an existing

2:05:51duplex. They'd asked for the SPUD to

2:05:53allow them to build a second duplex.

2:05:56They're now asking just to be able to

2:05:57build one additional dwelling on the

2:05:59rear of the lot. Um

2:06:02house facing the street, second dwelling

2:06:04at the rear of the property facing the

2:06:06side street is not uh

2:06:09not a unique condition in this area of

2:06:11Paseo. The house directly south of them

2:06:13is actually configured like that. Um

2:06:16there's a mixture of single-family and

2:06:18duplexes in the area. So staff was not

2:06:21um concerned with adding an additional

2:06:24dwelling. We did still include uh a

2:06:27recommendation with the condition that

2:06:30they

2:06:31further reduce the lot coverage.

2:06:34They're um

2:06:35asking for

2:06:37I think they're proposing 35% open space

2:06:40and we were asking for them to get to

2:06:4240, uh which is more in keeping with

2:06:44what the surrounding neighborhood is

2:06:46like. And um the applicant is not

2:06:48present, so um this

2:06:51goes forward to planning commission

2:06:52regardless of

2:06:54um

2:06:55kind of the outcome today, but you all

2:06:57are welcome to

2:06:58you know, add any additional comments or

2:07:01requests, and those will be forwarded on

2:07:03to planning commission.

2:07:06>> So, my

2:07:07my comment or question

2:07:10is

2:07:14the use of SPDs.

2:07:18Do we really want to get in a habit of

2:07:20doing a spud for every single family

2:07:25lot

2:07:26in the city?

2:07:28I I don't I guess I don't understand.

2:07:31This is not an

2:07:32a

2:07:33a lot that's appropriate for a

2:07:36high-density development.

2:07:39Surely this can be achieved.

2:07:42I don't object to what they're

2:07:44proposing, but is is it really needed to

2:07:46become a spud to

2:07:49add a detached single-family dwelling?

2:07:52>> The So, couple of reasons. The his any

2:07:56um

2:07:57We We passed the accessory dwelling

2:08:00ordinance, but the historic districts

2:08:02are specifically excluded from that. In

2:08:05other parts of the city, uh well, and

2:08:07that would not apply here anyway because

2:08:08you can't do an ADU with a duplex. You

2:08:11can only add an ADU where there's a

2:08:12single-family home, but the ADUs are not

2:08:14an option in our historic districts

2:08:17regardless. Um Otherwise, our

2:08:21base zones that are available don't

2:08:24really allow for

2:08:26detached

2:08:28dwellings in this configuration unless

2:08:30you're going more full-scale

2:08:32multi-family. So, when people have come

2:08:34in to ask to do these kinds of

2:08:37developments,

2:08:38the SPUD has really been the only path.

2:08:41I mean, other than

2:08:43the alternative to that would to be to

2:08:45attempt to seek,

2:08:47you know, a whole host of variances, but

2:08:49then you have to document a hardship,

2:08:52which there's not necessarily a hardship

2:08:54here. It's just

2:08:55we think this development's compatible

2:08:57with the area, our zoning doesn't allow

2:08:59it. So, I don't disagree with you. I I

2:09:02wish we, you know, we are hoping with

2:09:04the update to the zoning code that there

2:09:06will be some more

2:09:07um

2:09:08paths to compatible infill development

2:09:12that don't involve having a SPUD for

2:09:14every single site, but right now, this

2:09:17is kind of what their option is to

2:09:19accomplish this.

2:09:19>> Was the original proposal to split the

2:09:22lot?

2:09:24>> Um

2:09:25yes, and I think they are still

2:09:27intending to split the lot. They've got

2:09:29a reduced um

2:09:31minimum lot size

2:09:33uh and minimum Yeah, they reduced the

2:09:36minimum lot size

2:09:37>> [music]

2:09:37>> to allow for the property to be split so

2:09:40that they could sell off

2:09:42the duplex and the new single-family

2:09:44dwelling at the rear of the lot.

2:09:46>> And and my recollection was the

2:09:49from the previous time we saw this,

2:09:53issues with the garage location.

2:09:56>> Yes, and I believe

2:09:59that since that time,

2:10:02the commission has approved the

2:10:03demolition of the garage.

2:10:06So, they plan to rebuild a garage in a

2:10:10similar location and size.

2:10:13>> Okay.

2:10:16Those are all my questions. Thank you.

2:10:33>> Well, I wish I could say I understood

2:10:36all of that, but I didn't.

2:10:38>> [laughter]

2:10:39>> But I'm I

2:10:41I would make a motion for approval with

2:10:45conditions to the planning commission

2:10:47for SPUD-01827

2:10:52with the following with the specific

2:10:54finding and conditions noted by staff in

2:10:58the staff report.

2:11:01>> And do we have a second?

2:11:04>> Second.

2:11:05>> Please vote and I'm going to vote.

2:11:13Okay.

2:11:14That motion has passed.

2:11:16Uh

2:11:17next item is the schedule of regular

2:11:212027 historic preservation commission

2:11:23meetings.

2:11:24>> Um these are Let me remember if we had

2:11:27to move any of them around. I think all

2:11:28of them meetings

2:11:30fall on our regular meeting dates. We

2:11:34always look to see if we have a conflict

2:11:36with a holiday.

2:11:38Um we have a few, so all of our meetings

2:11:40are the normal first Wednesday of the

2:11:42month for next year. Um we have a few

2:11:45deadlines that are not the first Tuesday

2:11:48of the month, but it's always

2:11:50the Tuesday before the previous month's

2:11:53meeting.

2:11:55Um

2:11:56so uh

2:11:59John asked I think John asked me our

2:12:01other attorney,

2:12:02"Why do we vote on this?" I said, "I

2:12:05don't know. We always vote on it." So,

2:12:07we're asking you to vote on your on the

2:12:09meeting schedule for next year.

2:12:12>> Okay, do we have a motion to approve the

2:12:15meeting schedule

2:12:16for 2027.

2:12:17>> To approve the regular 2027 HP

2:12:20Commission meeting schedule.

2:12:22It's an easy one. We'll do that one.

2:12:25>> Do I hear a second?

2:12:26>> I'll second.

2:12:33>> Okay, the meeting schedule is approved.

2:12:36The next item is the

2:12:37>> Yep, next is the um commission workshop

2:12:40schedule and um we try to kind of stay

2:12:43away from summer and stay away from

2:12:45holidays. We shifted these to the

2:12:47morning based on some previous feedback

2:12:50from the commission that earlier in the

2:12:51day seemed to be better. Um we've got a

2:12:55spot held at the Embark large conference

2:12:58room already for these.

2:13:00Um so open to

2:13:02um modifications to this if people think

2:13:04this is not uh

2:13:06you know, something that will work for

2:13:08them, but this is what we kind of landed

2:13:10on as far as dates and times of day.

2:13:15>> Okay, do we have a motion?

2:13:20>> Motion to approve the regular 2027

2:13:23Historic Preservation Workshop schedule.

2:13:26>> A second.

2:13:27>> Second.

2:13:29>> Okay, please vote in PrimeGov.

2:13:33Okay.

2:13:34Motion is approved.

2:13:37Okay, the next uh item on the agenda is

2:13:39communication and reports,

2:13:41administrative approvals. There are

2:13:44five.

2:13:45>> So no action needed on those. Please

2:13:47reach out to staff anytime if you have

2:13:49questions about something that you see

2:13:50there.

2:13:52Um no withdrawals to report, two

2:13:54administrative closings, items that just

2:13:57didn't get

2:13:58uh either ended up not needing to be

2:14:00reviewed or were withdrawn. Um

2:14:03and we had one item go to City Council.

2:14:05I think this was mentioned at the

2:14:08previous meeting. There was an ordinance

2:14:09amendment introduced from the office of

2:14:11the mayor to modify the membership of

2:14:14this body.

2:14:15Um

2:14:16it will reduce our membership to seven

2:14:18members instead of nine and will

2:14:20reconfigure some of the membership

2:14:22requirements.

2:14:23Um I don't have that attached here. Um I

2:14:26can send you all a link to what that

2:14:29ended up being. Uh this will not take

2:14:31effect until March of next year and that

2:14:34was done intentionally to coincide with

2:14:36people's terms expiring so that nobody

2:14:39has to

2:14:40>> be like

2:14:41>> kicked off in the middle of the the the

2:14:43cycle. Um

2:14:45but that was voted on earlier this week

2:14:47and was approved so that'll take effect

2:14:49in March.

2:14:53Um nothing from

2:14:55Board of Adjustment, Planning

2:14:56Commission.

2:14:58Anything from Municipal Council's

2:14:59office?

2:15:04>> Next meeting date. The next regularly

2:15:06scheduled meeting for the Historic

2:15:08Preservation Commission is Wednesday,

2:15:09November 4th at 2:00 p.m. at the

2:15:12Municipal Building, City Council

2:15:14Chamber. New applications for this

2:15:16meeting

2:15:17uh

2:15:18will be received by October 6th,

2:15:212026. New information on projects

2:15:23continued from today's meeting to the

2:15:26upcoming meeting must be submitted to

2:15:27staff by 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, October

2:15:2913th.

2:15:31Which is past.

2:15:32>> that.

2:15:33>> Uh

2:15:35Next regularly scheduled workshop for

2:15:36the Historic Preservation Commission is

2:15:38Wednesday, November 18th at 2026 from

2:15:418:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in the Embark

2:15:44Large Conference Room, Suite B at 431

2:15:48West Main Street.

2:15:51Any items from commissioners?

2:15:55There being none, any citizens that wish

2:15:57to be heard?

2:15:59There being none,

2:16:01we are adjourned.

2:16:04>> Good job, David.