March 9th, 2026 meeting of the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission.

And uh thank you for your patience.

We're gonna start it a few minutes late today, but thank you.

So uh statement regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act Thank you so much, Chair.

Welcome to the March 9, 2026 Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission.

Our commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting.

The following board members are present today.

Chair Rick Herring, Vice Chairwoman Anna Katrina Kelly Gardner, Commissioner Stephanie Muse, Commissioner Estrus Tucker, Commissioner Roger Sheffalo, Commissioner Corey Malone, Commissioner Brian Ketchum, Commissioner Tim Haldin, Commissioner Bresendine, and Commissioner Thomas Oliver.

Staff present today are Laura Lie Willett, Anna Alvarez, Jefferson Prado, Andres Hernandez, Trey Quaz, Hi Wan Kim, and myself, Laura Young.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at WWW.gov.

Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting.

Today's public hearing is being documented by video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website.

To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the HCLC requests that the following rules of procedure be respected.

Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair.

All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the HCLC only.

After each staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak.

Opposition may then speak for seven minutes.

Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval.

All other meeting procedures will adhere to HCLC adopted rules of procedure to the extent practicable.

Following the official close of each case hearing, the HCLC will remain an open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question.

During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair.

A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the HCLC to receive advice from legal staff.

For additional information on any case in today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department by calling 817-3928000.

Thank you for your attention.

Chair Herring, will you please call the meeting to order?

Yes, we are called to order, and thank you for that.

Do we have announcements from staff?

Hello, Commissioners.

Happy Women's History Month is my announcement today.

And also if you are interested, the Choctaw Code Talker State Marker Ceremony is scheduled, I believe, for April 1st at Veterans Memorial Park.

Again, I will send that information out as I get more.

And that's all my announcements.

All right.

Any announcements from Commissioners?

All right, I just want to make one quick announcement.

Today we received from staff the annual report of activities of the Historic Preservation Office and the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission over the past year.

And I just want to give a shout out and a very sincere thank you to Laura Eye Willett and all of the staff of the Historic Preservation Office for their diligent and outstanding and very thorough work for every uh case they review and every case they bring before the commission.

So thank you.

All right, and with that, if there's no further announcements, we'll move on to approval of the February 9th meeting minutes.

I make a motion to approve the February 9th meeting minutes.

I'll segment that.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Sorry, first was Commissioner.

Oh, Kelly Gardner and Vice Chair Kelly Gardner.

And it was a second.

Motion and a second by Commissioner Ketchum.

I'll be back.

There we go.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Okay.

Um Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Muse.

Yay.

Commissioner Haldin.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Yay.

Commissioner Shufflow.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

And Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 9-0.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the first case, please.

The first case on your docket is the applicant requesting a recommendation to city council to add the highly significant endangered HSE overlay to the object/slash site of the World War One aerial gunnery target.

The target is a remnant of the World War One airfield known as Talia Faroe Field No.

Tallioferro Field was established in April 1917 following the US and during World War One.

When it was founded, the airfield was the largest of three airfields built around Fort Worth during the early 20th century.

Each of these three airfields initially fell under the name Camp Taliaferro and were subsequently called Taliofero, field number one, field number two, and field number three.

Later, each of these fields developed their own identities, and field number two was renamed Baron and Field Number Three became Carethers.

Field number one retained the name Taliaferro, but was frequently associated with the nearby Hicks station and colloquially colloquially was referred to as Hicks even during World War One.

This target is consistent with descriptions from the time that describe a basin of water, the exact size of a plane attributed as a design by Major George E.

A.

Reinberg, who was the commanding officer of Camp Taliaferro.

This description also mentions that the Silhouette Water Basin would have been surrounded by lime powder, indicating to the pilot a direct hit by splashing water and a close hit with a puff of lime.

The site was initially recorded in 2002 as part of the Chapel Hill Development Project regulated by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, Section 404.

The site was investigated again in 2023 in compliance with Section 106, which resulted in a historic resources survey and a memorandum of agreement to list the object as a local highly significant endangered landmark.

The target meets four of the eight criteria for significance.

Three are needed for HSE designation.

The subject object is distinctive, is a distinctive object related to Talia Farro Field, and the military training exercises done at the airfield.

Both as a military installation and as a civilian airport, Tallioferro Hicks field served as a significant presence in Tarrant County and the city of Fort Worth.

For its function as a base and training facility through two world wars, the airfield has demonstrated relevant importance to the heritage of the U.S.

as a larger context.

Though it is only a single feature from historically extensive landscape, the aerial gunnery target represents the events that occurred at the founding of Tallioferro slash Hicks field.

The object is an important example of as the only known extant object of its type and as a unique feature that was not widely used.

It is noted for its unique innovation, design and craftsmanship of a build resource.

The site has yielded I'm sorry, that was one and two.

Six.

As a unique structure, this demonstrates valuable information about tactical training during World War One.

There is also potential for further information to be uncovered as well, should further archaeological or archival studies be completed on the site.

And seven, the subject object is related to the specialized training of aviators during World War One.

Although many of the places associated with the conflict are overseas, the training exercises completed at Tallio Faro Field played a significant role in the U.S.

and Allied forces efforts in Europe.

The efforts from the home front remain an important aspect of this time in history and the events of Talliafarrow Field reflect the important role the U.S.

played in a global conflict.

It also meets five of seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling.

The object meets a criteria to be considered under threat of irretrievable loss due to the development pressures, damage caused by elements, and possible vandalism.

The applicant is working to mitigate these threats.

Staff have found evidence that the object meets four of the eight criteria for designation.

The object also retains five five aspects of integrity and the identity for which it is significant.

And lastly, the property is considered endangered.

This is consistent with the requirements of the ordinance for highly significant endangered properties.

Therefore, staff recommends the following motion that the HCLC recommend that City Council consider designating the object, outline of the target known as the World War One gunnery target at Talia Farrow Field No.

As highly significant endangered, and that the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties be used when evaluating any proposed future change to the property.

This concludes the staff report.

Thank you very much for that information.

Is there anyone in the chamber to speak on this case?

All right, seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.

And commissioners, any questions or uh discussion with staff?

No.

I do have one question that I did not bring up in the staff report, and it's just a matter of curiosity.

But do we know who placed the bar fence around the site?

Um we don't actually.

It um kind of appeared in 2005 ish, I think.

Oh, that's great that it's there.

I was just uh wondering if the property owner had done that or uh anyone else.

That was my only question.

Anything from commissioners?

If not, we're open uh for a motion and a second.

A second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Rosende and a second by Commissioner Haldinks to approve the recommendation.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, Commissioner Muse.

Yay.

Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Yay.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Yay.

Commissioner Shevalo.

Yeah.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

And Commissioner Tucker.

Okay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh, next case, please.

Your next case is an appeal case for 2301 Fleming Drive, HCLC 26049.

Applicant appeals the decision of the historic preservation officer and requests a certificate of appropriateness to replace three historic wood windows with vinyl windows and to replace the two paired windows in the front with a vinyl picture window on the contributing structure.

So just some background information.

On March 21st, 2025, the property owner, Mr.

Allen contract contacted the preservation office regarding process for replacing existing windows.

Preservation staff emailed the property owner on an application for certificate of appropriateness and the process for submittal.

On May 22nd, 2025, the property owner contacted preservation staff to inform staff that the window companies he had been contacting were not willing to process the window conditions assessment or fill out the paperwork to begin the certificate of appropriateness process.

He requested assistance with the application.

Preservation staff called and left Mr.

Allen a voicemail the next day.

On May 30th, 2025, preservation staff performed a site visit to assist Mr.

Allen with the certificate of appropriateness application and took pictures of the windows proposed for replacement.

Staff provided contact information for three wood window replacement companies, which uh work in Fort Worth's historic districts.

Mr.

Allen reported to staff that none of these companies responded to his calls.

On June 24th, 2025, preservation staff communicated via email to Mr.

Allen an option for a window company called Pellawood Windows, which has provided wood windows in Fairmount Historic District.

On June 27, 2025, Mr.

Allen provided the window estimates that Pelo Windows provided.

The estimate is for wood windows with the same profiles of the existing windows for approximately 20,000.

On July 1st, 2025, Mr.

Allen forwarded the contact information for two window companies he contacted to consider for the work.

Staff called to inquire for Mr.

Allen whether they would be able to provide wood replacements.

On July 2nd, 2025, Mr.

Allen forwarded via email an estimate from Best Buy Windows and Sighting LLC for approximately $22,000.

The details of the window replacements were not described in the contract.

On February 18th, 2026, Mr.

Allen called to follow up on the application for certificate of appropriateness and requested to proceed with the appeal process for the replacement vinyl windows.

On February 24th, 2026, preservation staff performed a site visit to assess the condition of the windows and take additional photos.

Preservation staff issued the following decision regarding the COA application to deny the request for a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of three existing wood windows with vinyl windows and to replace the two paired windows with a vinyl picture window.

On February 24th, the applicant uh appealed the decision of the historic preservation officer to deny the request for COA for the replacement of those three existing wood windows with vinyl windows and to replace the two paired windows with the vinyl picture window.

And so just findings and recommendations from staff.

The replacement of three existing wood windows with vinyl windows and the replacement of two paired wood wood windows in front in the front porch area with a vinyl picture window at 2301 Fleming Drive is inconsistent with the historic Carver Heights District guidelines.

The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Windows.

First, the replacement of existing materials without a conditions assessment prepared by an experienced wood window specialist is not appropriate.

A conditions assessment documenting the condition of each window is necessary to inform a proposed scope of work.

Unfortunately, Mr.

Allen was unsuccessful in securing a window company that was willing and able to perform this work for his windows.

And it's it is now nearing a year from since he first inquired about getting his windows replaced.

Preservation staff went to the property and performed a site visit in May of 2025 for an assessment of the windows and found several of the windows showing signs of deterioration, most notably the single window on the front facade.

The window and several other windows contained dark stains and discoloration, which can signal water intrusion, mold, and early stage decay.

Several areas of wood were found to have cracks and splits, which is likely due to the age of the windows and UV exposure.

Showing you some of the windows with damage.

During a more recent site visit in February of this year, staff found an increase in the level of deterioration among the windows.

The single window on the front facade is far beyond repair and is recommended for replacement.

If the remaining windows are determined to be too deteriorated to repair, the wood windows should be replaced in kind with new wood windows that match the style profile and dimension of the original wood windows.

Additionally, any replacement of a wood window should accurately replicate the original wood windows using the existing physical evidence to guide the design of the new units.

The existing window configuration features a two, a two over two style rather than a one over one style, which is proposed with the vinyl windows.

The paired windows are proposed to be replaced with a picture window, which will increase the proportion of this opening and change the style, which is not recommended.

Finally, the replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows are highly visible alterations given that the work is proposed on the front facade and site elevation.

The high visibility magnifies the adverse impact of the work not only on the contributing structure, but on the character and integrity of the district setting as well.

Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to replace three historic wood windows with vinyl windows and to replace the two paired windows in the front with a vinyl picture window on the contributing structure be denied without prejudice because the request is inconsistent with the historic carver heights guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties.

Just to show you some additional photos of the deterioration.

And then also I'll get to the very last.

So this is the picture window on the left, and then the one over one windows on the right, which are also vinyl.

We did receive a letter from Carver Heights, which you have in your packet.

Um the letter is uh in opposition of the request.

That concludes the staff report.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that staff report.

All right, is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on this case?

If so, just please uh come forward.

And just come on up, sir, and and tell us anything you would like us to know or give us any information, then please give us your name and address for the record if you don't mind.

Here we doane Allen 2301 Fleming Drive Fort Worth, Texas.

Yes, sir.

I'm the owner of the home.

I grew up in a raise in a particular home while one raise.

And uh I'm gonna I'm just I'm by myself, and I would like to be able to beautify my home and keep my energy in the best I can.

But I'm on a fixed income, and I can't afford anything like that at that particular price.

Uh I have pictures that you will be able to see of people on my same street on Fleming has those type of homes.

And I was wondering if there's any way that I could get the same thing.

Hopefully, the y'all would go on my side to where I can try to get what I like to have.

Uh as you can see, don't I can't get out there and paint them and replace them and all that kind of stuff anymore.

And I just like to have some help if I could.

But I sure would like to have these windows that my mother and father I know sure and George will have better than what it is.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Allen, for that information, and I can assure you that we are on your side.

Uh we are bound, though, by the guidelines of the historic district, but we certainly appreciate the serious financial burden it would be for anyone to uh replace these with the estimates that you've received so far.

Um we're hopeful there may be some solution, but for the moment I'll leave it there.

Um, see if others have questions or comments for you.

But commissioners, any other questions for Mr.

Allen at this time?

We did hear a significant amount of information in the work session we had prior to this meeting about the various uh contractors you've reached out to and so forth, and maybe some possible solutions for you so it's not so uh cost prohibitive.

Um I may have forgotten, and maybe the other commissioners can remind me, or did we see or hear any of the estimates that Mr.

Allen had received about the vinyl windows?

We did have a Anna provided a cost analysis that um she did, but what we did not see were these pictures of the surrounding houses in the neighborhood during the work session.

So this these pictures you probably provided are helpful.

Um, you know, things happen at different times.

But just one question for you.

Have you had any communication with the Carver Heights Neighborhood Association about any of this?

It doesn't matter one way or another.

I'm just curious.

Oh, I talked to Mr.

Chelsea White.

And uh giving me some information she wanted to hit me fine.

Okay.

She would talk to them and everything.

Okay.

I was trying to do all I could and she was trying to hit me all she could.

Right.

Matter of fact, we live on the same street.

Okay.

Yes.

And and Ms.

White did provide a letter on behalf of the uh neighborhood association saying that they are supportive of the staff's recommendation that we denied at this time to give you some additional time to work out something that may be feasible.

Um but again, we do certainly appreciate the hardship that this places on you, and we all want to take care of our homes and uh older homes have older windows and they present a lot of problems.

Um commissioners, any other comments for Mr.

Allen at this time?

I don't know how the vote's gonna go, but one thing I'll recommend to you on any of your wood windows, especially when they start you know failing.

Um there's a product called wood hardener.

Minwax makes it a few other companies do, and it literally is a liquid you brush on, and it really helps stop the cells in the wood from decaying and hardens them back up to a more solid piece of wood.

So if you have some of that, that could help prevent some of the other damage on other windows perhaps or something to look into.

It's a really easy thing to apply.

That'll help a little bit.

But I mean, it's obviously you have some really bad windows here on the side in the front.

But um, if you go to rehab them, that might be a good thing to look into.

But I I got a question.

Uh you all have a last say, and I understand that.

But it's just coming across my mind since you said you all know how to vote is going to go.

How is it that someone else on my same street could have that?

And I can't, and I don't have the money to do that, and I'm trying to do it the right way.

And a lot of people just doing it just to be doing it.

At least I come across and try to do it the correct way.

Right.

I mean well, let's uh that's a very good question, and I'm gonna ask the staff to address that when they come back up.

Okay.

Um but we'll see.

We'll try to answer your question as best we can.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Oh, absolutely.

It's a very valid question and concern.

Um we may call you back up in a moment for some questions, but I think for right now, we're ready to move to talk.

Oh, yes, no.

Yes, I did have a uh uh comment that I wanted to share as well.

Yes.

Um, thank you for being here and fighting for your history of your home.

You are the history of the neighborhood.

You've been there so you grew up in the home.

So um, we are the historic landmark commission.

So in my opinion, uh you would take that into consideration that you are part of the history of your house.

And I am we did not, again, we did not have these photos during our work session that blatantly shows other houses in the neighborhood with the same type of windows that you are requesting.

Yes.

So, yes, and during our uh conversation amongst each other, that will be a topic.

Um, and as far as um the why, um staff, we have been here before, so I don't I don't really think that the answer to that question is necessary as it's already been answered several times before.

So thank you again for coming.

Right.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Allen.

Uh, is there anyone else in the chamber to speak on this case?

All right, seeing none, we're gonna close the public portion of the hearing and commissioners, we can address any questions or concerns to the staff.

And as you say, Vice Chair, I mean, we've been here before with these, you know, somebody down the street has done the same thing.

But on it, it may be helpful just to you know repeat how that may happen and circumstances.

Sure.

Um sometimes they'll do the work without a certificate of appropriateness or uh without a permit, and it just kind of gets left to uh staff or our code uh officer, and we only have one for all of our historic districts to to go out there and you know search for those um to cite them to let them know that they need to come in for a certificate of appropriateness to follow the correct process.

Uh so with each of those, I will take a look into to see how they were uh allowed or how they got to be there.

Um, but essentially that they would follow the same process.

And it's always uh difficult and disturbing for us because when we have someone like Mr.

Allen who is comes forward and to do follow the right process, and then you know, others that haven't done that just are doing it and doing the same thing that he wants to do, but haven't followed the proper procedures.

Um that makes this a little difficult for me is that uh we've seen many of these cases, not only in Carver Heights, but other neighborhoods with windows, and we've held them to the standards of whatever historic district they were in, regardless of how much we empathize with the homeowner.

Um that that's kind of where I am.

You know, we've had others that we've insisted that that are you know, we have not granted their exception request or their waiver.

Um so anyway, other thoughts or comments, yes, sir.

I mean another another point I guess I've made our hand as a question.

Uh Harbor Heights was established in as a I believe it was 2006 or 2007.

Okay.

I mean, that's that's one thing I would say we've seen from time to time as people have made alterations and then the district was established, and then people later want to try to make similar alterations, but that's actually one that you don't like against that.

We'd have to do the research.

So that's that's a challenge.

Uh the other question I've got for staff do you all have a copy of like the tell what did that?

We do have a appella so it is part of his file.

I didn't include it, it just mentioned it in the report because he still has the option to do a waiver um to come in for a waiver request.

So then with the waiver, it would be more looking at those financial documents and consideration of how much it would cost him.

So there's still another process that he could follow to uh essentially get the approval.

And um that's what I was can I can a copy it uh I assume it includes all the measurements of the windows.

Of the windows, so this is all I got for this one for the pella.

It's it has very specific details for dimensions, yes.

Could I get a copy of that?

Could you get a copy?

Um, I'm assuming so.

I'm curious.

Okay, yes.

A question later.

Uh question that I had was based on that that line was does he have an opportunity to file a waiver for financial reasons?

Yes, correct.

Okay, and that that has not taken place as of yet.

No, this is the first, so it's essentially the COA application first.

Once it it gets denied, he can appeal it and it comes in for an appeal, and then if that gets denied, then he can come in for the waiver.

Okay, and then you can consider the financial hardship.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sorry.

So we we talked about a little bit about habitat about contacting habitat.

Is that something we could do as or he could do as well or yes, I guess that happened.

So habitat is an organization outside of the city, right?

Um, any organization that the or any program that the city offers, we've kind of gone through that an exhaustive, you know, look at those.

Um, I can help him with the habitat for humanity to see if they offer a program like that for him.

Yeah.

I'm just not sure yet.

I think it would be a great resource to check out for sure.

Yeah.

Because it, you know, not to mention the financial burden it costs to change the windows.

We I'm also thinking about the financial burden that is going on right now with those windows, like the electricity, keeping the house warm or cold, you know, um, with those windows in the house.

So to know that he still has an opportunity to file the waiver um is is a good thing.

So yeah.

Yeah, well, that it is an option.

So it's a good one.

All right, commissioners.

Any other thoughts, comments, or questions for on it?

Any other thoughts, comments, or questions for on a just wanna I I'm gonna reiterate that you know, when we get cases like this, and the same the people on the same street have the same thing, you know what I mean?

Um, as Anna stated, she's going to research uh about those other houses.

Um, however, um, as a city that that uh seeks to walk in integrity, right?

The integrity needs to unfold across the board.

There has to be some sense of responsibility and accountability.

This we have to we have to come into orchestrate a method where this stops happening.

Well, and I agree, but to the question that was posed earlier, when did the historic district guidelines go into effect?

And it was either 2006 or 2007, and some of these other examples we've seen could have taken place before that, and they wouldn't be subject to thank you.

Um the um so we have to look at that.

It could have happened before, say 2007.

Um we see this again.

I'll just kind of repeat my earlier comment of cases that we see over and over.

And I'll I'll use you know, we see a lot of front yard fence cases in Morningside, especially, I believe, morningside historic district, and it's always well, how long has it been there?

You know, how did this happen?

That sort of thing, but obviously your point is well taken.

Thank you.

Um, all right, commissioners, any other comments, questions before we go to make a decision.

So just to verbalize, we would if we'll vote on this, and then if it's denied without prejudice, he could apply for a waiver the next month, and then we vote on that on different issues, a different set of criteria.

Yes, correct.

That that is correct.

Yes, that is correct.

And you understand that, Mr.

Allen?

Yes, I okay.

Come on back.

Right, I understand.

That's my thought.

It's a dangerous situation.

It's getting away as tough.

Yes, sir.

And uh I know these houses put in is they've been putting half of 2000 set.

Okay.

Well, that's helpful to for us to know.

But uh, thank you.

Sorry, we had to get you back up, but appreciate the information for sure.

Thank you.

Chairman, yes, I just have one other thing I'd like to say.

Um, when looking at this with the timeline and how it's been going on, like you said for a year, those windows look like they don't provide a lot of physical security either.

And he lives alone and he lives, you know, and that's to me the danger.

There's a danger aspect to this whole thing as well when it comes to personal and property security.

I don't know if he has an alarm system or an animal or whatever, but they just don't look very stable to me.

So along with the energy and the bills and the expense, I'm seeing it from a standpoint of safety as well.

So just thought I would no, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other uh comments, commissioners?

I have a question that is my question is what is the cost of the windows that he's proposed to put in, and then can we get Pella to give us a price on what they would propose, what we would propose to have him do?

I believe Mr.

Allen quoted um about 4,000 for these windows here, uh, because they're they're coming to him from a contractor who is essentially buying them from um a window um warehouse uh to put them in and install.

So 4,000 each or 4,000 total.

I think total.

Total.

And then do we have a source of Pella that can give us um a comparable?

I think Pella can give uh another estimate.

I mean, you just reach out to the company and then you know, ask them to either meet you or they say no, right?

So yeah.

I guess I can say this.

I've I've already texted Jack Apella um between the meeting between our uh meeting sessions.

Um so I mean it can be done, yeah.

Yeah, great.

All right, commissioners, before we move on to a motion, any other discussion.

Maybe what can we do?

Get the pricing.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, no.

I I well no, no.

And I did have a question though.

Um, is this how and it could be staff or applicant?

Um, the siding on this house, vinyl siding, it appears.

Uh no, I didn't take a look at the sighting, so maybe it would be appropriate.

Yeah, it's it looks like it's been there a while.

But it is it is it aluminum or is it a vinyl siding?

Doesn't look like it's wood.

There's no proper roof.

He believes it's vinyl, if he's not mistaken.

Just curious.

Keep that in perspective too.

Putting would uh good point.

All right, let's uh close the discussion and commissioners were open for a motion a second.

Now, one thing I do want to say before this, uh, before we move on, AT ask that we all leave our microphones on.

You should have a little green button there, and this will be important for the motion, second and vote and and future discussion.

So please make sure that your mics are on at all time.

Okay.

Uh we've heard the comments and discussion.

Uh, we're open for a motion.

I want to make a motion to approve him changing the windows.

Um in lieu of him in lieu of Anna assisting him with Habitat for Humanity to see if he can get the wood windows.

I'm just gonna step out there and make the motion.

So your motion basically is to approve the certificate of appropriateness that uh Mr.

Allen has requested.

Yes.

I second that motion.

All right, Commissioners.

We have a motion and a second, and I'll say the names in just a minute, but any other uh discussion before we take a vote Well, because if we deny him, he's gonna he's he can apply for the waiver, and we're gonna be back here again, and we're gonna approve the waiver be based on the financial burden that is causing Mr.

Allen.

Understand.

All right, we have a motion on the floor by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner and a second by Commissioner Muse.

And that is a motion to approve the COA as requested.

Yes, as requested and not to deny with prejudice.

Okay.

Chair Harper, uh Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Muse, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Egg uh Tucker, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Sheffalo, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone, how do you vote?

Commissioner Ketchum, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Haldin, how do you vote?

Yay.

Motion passes nine zero to approve the COA as requested.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And thank you again, Mr.

Allen, for being here and your comments.

We appreciate you.

Thank you.

And I know staff will continue to work with you on resolution.

Um all right, let's move on to the next case, please.

Your next case is for 1112 Elizabeth Boulevard for HCLC 26050.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new two-story garage and install shutters on the front windows of the contributing structure.

Just some background.

Under staff's findings and recommendations.

For the new shutters, the applicant proposes the addition of shutters to the first residence built in Elizabeth Boulevard's historic district.

Based on available documentation and review of the building, shutters are not considered to be an original feature of the structure.

While the design guidelines state that non-original shutters may be added when they are consistent with the architectural style of the house, the proposed shutters would introduce a new material, new architectural element that was not historically present on the building.

The standards for a rehabilitation state that each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use, and that alterations creating a false sense of historic development historical development, such as the addition of conjectural features should not be undertaken.

The addition of shutters where none historically existed would introduce a conjectural element and alter the historic facade composition.

Under new construction of the accessory structure, the analysis is it is proposed that an approximately 40.6 by 26 foot two-story garage with a porch overlooking the pool area on the ground floor on the east side, garage entry on the west side, the second floor will have a home office and exercise space, an elevated covered walkway with will extend from the second floor to the first floor kitchen area of the main house.

Building materials proposed are wooden ship lap siding and uh with a roof material and similar roof design consistent with the existing house.

Having regard to the district standards and design guidelines, the proposed accessory structure is consistent with the district standards and guidelines in relation to massing because the structure is compatible with the heights and number of stories of the existing residents.

Under setbacks and the lot coverage analysis.

So in relation to site coverage and the main front line setback.

However, so the proposed design is inconsistent with the district standards and design guidelines because it exceeds the lock coverage for the accessory structure and the main front line of the garage, whereas the district standards and design guidelines stipulate that the main front line of the garage shall extend no more than 20 feet in front of the rear property line.

So the lot coverage ratio for accessory buildings is 5% coverage.

Terran appraisal district information lists the property square footage, including the portion of lot three as 14,250 square feet total.

The calculated allowed lot coverage is 712.5 square feet.

The garage accessory structure footprint square footage has been calculated using the survey information provided under the scale drawings and is approximately 1,542 square feet.

The total lot coverage calculated for the proposed garage accessory is 10.82%, which exceeds the 5% limit by 829.5 square feet.

Garage accessory structure would need to be reduced to approximately 712 square feet for compliance with the 5% standard in the district.

The legal description for the property describes it as block 6 lot 2 with the west 27.6 feet of lot three.

The location and position of the garage accessory does well to keep minimum minimum visibility from Elizabeth Boulevard and also complies with the standard which requires that the rear wall be at the rear property line and the sidewall on the rear on the right property line of lot two.

However, the main front line of the garage extends to 32 feet in front of the rear property line, which is not compliant with the standard that a garage extend no more than 20 feet in front of the rear property line.

The garage accessory should be reduced to meet the standard of 20 feet.

The connecting covered walkway is compatible with the heights and number of stories of the existing residence building.

However, in relation to site coverage and the main front line setback, the proposed design is inconsistent with the district standards and design guidelines because it exceeds the lot coverage for the accessory structure.

For the screening wall, the proposed screening wall is proposed to be eight foot high, constructed in solid masonry.

The district standards and guidelines stipulate that the side yard shall be reserved for grass, trees, shrubbery, ground ground cover, and border flowers.

However, the district standards and design guidelines also make provision for locating walls inside yards.

The district standards and guidelines show what appears to be an acceptable location for a wall.

However, they do not address the height and density of the wall.

The zoning regulations, however, do establish maximum heights and densities for walls and must be met.

So the proposed location meets the district standard, which requires that fences, walls, and enclosures be set back 90 feet from the front curb.

In conclusion, staff have discussed the addition of shutters, the lock coverage that back and wall design matters with the applicant.

The proposed development includes aspects of compliance and non-compliance with zoning regulations, preservation principles, and district guidelines.

For the shutters, the proposed shutters are inconsistent with the applicable Elizabeth Boulevard Historic Standards and Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

For the garage accessory structure, the size of the structure is considered substantial and is its location is expected to have a dominating effect on the overall streetscape of the property, which in turn impacts the character and appearance of the district.

As an accessory structure, it should be more subordinate in scale and placement.

Therefore, it is it is recommended that conditions related to lot coverage in compliance with the required 20-foot front wall setback be applied.

And for the screening enclosure, the proposed design is considered to be in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations and the district standards, and the design is consistent with the spirit and intent of requirements for walls and enclosures constructed within the side yard.

Therefore, the proposed mechanical enclosure is considered appropriate as designed.

Staff consider that areas of noncompliance cannot be addressed without substantial revision to the plans, and therefore recommend the following motion that the applicant, sorry, that the application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new two-story garage and install shutters on the front windows of the contributing structure be denied without prejudice because the request is inconsistent with the Elizabeth Boulevard Historic District and Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

This concludes the staff report.

All right, thank you for that extensive report and that information.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on this case?

Yes, sir.

Please uh come forward and give us any information you'd like to share.

As well as your name and address for the record, please.

And please uh adjust the microphone so we'd be able to have it recorded.

So my name is Shannon Logan.

I actually prepared this application for the owners, Jamie and Pam Packer.

And uh just to address a few things.

I was at the meeting prior to this, where the staff was uh doing their work session with you.

The these particular owners are well aware of what the guidelines are, uh, had a copy of them before they purchased the house, uh, as did the previous owners, a real estate agent, uh, that sold them the house, uh, owned it previously, actually got a COA to replace the front door that had a number of issues that was erroneous.

But uh nevertheless, they were aware of the situation and relied heavily on the guideline document to guide them through the process.

Unfortunately, that's where the problem started.

Uh, number one, the guidelines specifically state that uh there's a neighborhood group that you would uh ordinarily meet with that would be able to assist you, advise you, support you, throw out anything that might be a problem.

Unfortunately, uh several years back, the code enforcement uh folks decided that they didn't want any neighborhood contact or any neighborhood participation in the process and said, No, we're not gonna do that.

Now, given that the document was actually codified by the full city council and is a replacement document for one that existed long prior to 2007.

Um that sort of helter skelter unilateral capricious uh comment kind of threw the entire neighborhood off.

So they don't have the um the group in place to actually assist.

Second thing that the guidelines call for is to try and do coordination meetings with the um HCLC group here at the city.

I reached out on seven occasions via phone and two times in person coming down here to try and set up preliminary meetings to go over what the preliminary plans were going to be, what the owners wanted to do, uh, which was improve the property in keeping with the guidelines that they had reviewed.

And they had hired an architect at considerable expense, and designers at considerable expense already reached out to contractors, uh, had run into another uh wall because the property is a lot and a half, and even though taxes have been paid that way since the early 1930s, um, and there is no replatting required as per a letter they've received from the city, um, it became an issue at that time also.

So the first meeting that I had to try and coordinate a design was this past Thursday directly with staff and tried to address these issues and see what their concerns were, what their problems were, etc.

So the other thing that might be helpful to know is that I've lived on Elizabeth Boulevard for 20 plus years.

My wife's lived here for almost 40 years.

Um I've worked on nine separate projects on Elizabeth Boulevard in various capacities, including the one that I'm living in, which required seven COAs and eight separate building permits to do the work that we did.

And so after five and a half years of work, and we were doing the final walkthrough with the city inspectors.

Um, I just ask them why has this been so difficult?

Why require us to jump through all these hoops?

We wanted to do the right thing, we've tried to do the right thing, done it all along.

And the lead inspector that signed off on the certificate of occupancy had one word response for me.

Sport is what he said.

Sport.

We had had two meetings in front of full city council going through appeals that have been approved.

Uh the mayor at the time, Mayor Moncrief actually apologized to us for all the trouble.

And uh so I worked on a number of other projects since then.

I'd become somewhat of a go-to guy for people in the neighborhood.

And so I've assisted the Packers with this.

And so here we are with um two issues that are remaining.

One that's been withdrawn, but it may come back up because apparently there's a miscommunication on how that occurred.

But with respect to the shutters, there's only one sentence in the entire document that these owners have relied on to buy the house, do the design to improve the house, try and do the right thing here.

And that one sentence says non-original shutters may be added, if in keeping with the architectural design of the house.

Staff asked for some sort of evidence that shutters were present in the neighborhood.

I provided photographic uh evidence of a number of homes.

Uh, I believe there were six that were submitted.

Um houses that had original shutters, as far as I can tell from photographs dating back to the 20s, and a couple of houses that the shutters were not original.

And uh one is in the the next block from us, and I know when they put the shutters in.

I saw it.

Um, so I don't see that there's any conflict.

The only conflict I see is with this issue is that uh, you know, there may be another interpretation, but I don't get it.

I don't know what it might be.

It's clear it says non-original shutters may be added.

Uh these are not original.

Okay, uh, Mr.

Logan, yeah, we're gonna we want to hear your information, but try to bring it to a okay.

So that's issue number one.

Issue number two regard to the uh the garage structure.

Uh I guess the concern is that it sets farther than 20 feet back from the property line.

There are four existing structures on the house.

If the site plan can be pulled up if it can't, I have the originals here, but um yeah, I'm not good at okay.

Uh no, no, no, no.

That one'll work.

That one will work.

So um hold on just one second.

Uh Laura, let's extend his time for a couple more minutes.

So there are three major structures that exist right now, and those structures have existed since uh 1928, 1933, 1934.

So carports, lean to structures, and an apartment building.

None of which are original to the house.

And I we provided tax records and photographic evidence from the 20s to demonstrate that, even though one of the structures has been determined that it was.

I don't understand that either.

But the coverage on the existing structures, which in this case are definitely grandfathered or great-great-grandfathered in, are um 1,188 square feet for the structure location that we would cite the new structure, with the new structure being 1,183 square feet, so smaller than what exist.

The extension away from the property line into the lot for the existing structure is 36 feet eight inches, as staff pointed out.

Our proposed new structure, 32 feet, less than that.

So in the document, again, the go-to document, it says we're uh that it could be replaced in kind.

In this case, in kind, it's the same type of structure, um, located essentially the same place with less coverage, less incursion into that lot.

Now, there seems to be a different interpretation with staff on what that in kind in that particular paragraph means.

Um I'm the guy that actually wrote this paragraph.

I was put on that committee after uh the other one was deemed.

And so this is one that I had responsibility for.

So I know what it means.

Uh, and it meets the definition of in kind.

Um, so I don't see that we're in violation of anything.

If you combine all of the other structures that nobody wants, which are carports and lean to buildings, uh, that comes to 2,408 feet.

Again, we're at 1183.

And um, yeah, so I would recommend either we you vote to address the in kind and the grandfathered buildings that were there that were non-conforming that we want to replace, or vote to allow a waiver uh as a number of other houses on Elizabeth Boulevard have for a much larger uh garage than the 20 feet.

Well, let me ask you this, and there may be other questions for you.

I'm sure there are, but uh you just were able to meet with the staff this past Thursday, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Would additional time help with discussions with staff on some of the interpretation issues?

Well, uh I thought it might, but I wasn't encouraged by that meeting, to be honest with you.

Uh I mean, I I really didn't understand.

I came away um a bit more perplexed than I was when I went into the meeting, to be honest with you.

Let's see, other questions.

Yeah, well, we definitely don't want you to be perplexed.

Oh, yeah.

Well, it happens all the time.

And we definitely are confident in the communication style of the staff and do believe that if I given the opportunity to go back and discuss it further, you all may be able to come up with a viable agreement based on the ramifications of the measurements of the house.

And I will refer to our commissioner Roger Sheffelow, who um, yes, because he is when it comes to measurements and that sort of thing, he's very breast.

So there you have it.

So you might be interested to hear that this house actually, the proposed structure and the existing structure actually sit 4.7 feet below the grade of the main house.

And with the new construction, it's gonna probably be a foot lower than that to try and get the uh the grade correct to shed the water because of a situation with the house next door being in violation of just about every rule possible.

We did let me ask you another, I'm sorry.

Let me ask you another question.

You stated that um I I want to be clear on what letter, who stated that um the non original show uh shutters could be placed there.

Where did that come from?

The guideline.

I think it was the Elizabeth Boulevard Historic District guidelines.

Okay, and are those guidelines current guidelines or have they been altered?

No, they're current guidelines.

The current guidelines.

That's what's current.

I I pulled up fresh copy of that as well as the criteria and going through this entire process, which well, that's why I I realize you did you said you didn't feel encouraged coming out of the Thursday meeting.

Uh for me, it just seems like some more time might be appropriate.

Um, you know, the to make sure the guidelines are the most current, whatever the case may be.

Just further discussions, and I did take note of some of the issues you brought up, how the guidelines stated there should be a committee of Elizabeth Boulevard residents or whatever in code said no, we're taking that away, or whatever the case was.

Um, you weren't able to communicate as much as you would like previously with the staff after some attempts to contact them.

Um, and then just some interpretation issues with the guidelines, but that's kind of what I'm feeling at the moment.

I think there's I don't know if they're misunderstandings, but just differences of opinion, interpretation, whatever you want to call it.

And I don't feel like for me personally, uh there's been some conflicting information, and I don't want to make a decision on conflicting information.

Um, and I apologize, Mr.

Logan.

I should have closed, I should have asked commissioners.

Do you have any other questions for Mr.

Logan before we get into our discussion?

Mr.

Brisner.

I do.

So quick, oh my gosh, I just lost the agenda.

Um the carport, so on the site plan, I think it's figure, if I remember correctly, if we can pull it up.

When you were when you were quoting uh the total square footage of existing structures, um, and kind of drawing your comparison between what's existing and what's proposed.

Yeah, the carport, um, which I guess is on the east side of the property, um, northeast side.

That car.

Yeah, so the black outlines, the heavy black outlines are um existing non-conforming structures.

Right.

Okay, so that carport, which spans both lots.

There's actually three car ports, two of which are associated with the one-story frame that you see in the northwest corner.

So in your in your math um on the square footage, you're including that carport.

The example you gave included that entire structure, including the car ports.

It's not clear where the carport stops and the building starts.

It was done many years ago.

So I'm talking the one that says existing the one to the to the east.

One on the east.

That one's is that attached to something?

Uh they're attached to each other.

Uh, there's an existing lean to wooden structure, and then a larger carport uh that will support four cars that's uh built out of metal.

Okay, okay.

So it but that that was in your math, and just the example you were giving in terms of the square footage.

Only in the larger math, the two thousand four hundred square foot total.

The uh the math where the buildings are actually very close, 1188 versus 1183, only considers the building on the west side.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Brisendai.

You're welcome.

And thank you, Mr.

Logan.

Um I think, I mean, obviously you're well versed in how this works, and you heard the comments in the work session, and you know that's just based on what we're reading in the staff report and off the cuff comments and so forth, but that's why we have a public hearing so that obviously we can hear all the testimony and other information that we may not have known before.

I do have one more question.

Is the house currently for sale or has it been recently purchased?

Uh both actually.

It's for sale in the recently purchased by the Packers uh within the past two years, but it is also currently on the market, and part of that reason is the frustration um regarding this particular issue.

I haven't been working on it for two years.

I've been working on it since uh December.

Um but the reason that it's on the market is because of the frustration not being able to get done what they wanted to get done.

Um it was uh they planned on spill spending probably three quarters of a million dollars, if not more, um to do something that they felt was entirely compliant, and I concur.

Well, and thank you for answering the question about if they were aware of the historic district, and obviously they were, but you can understand that's always a question that comes, you know, comes up.

Did you know about it?

They did, and they've tried to do the right thing.

So uh we'll close the public hearing at this time.

Is there anyone else in the chamber to speak on this particular case?

Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.

And thank you, Mr.

Logan.

We might call you back if we have additional questions or whatever.

Okay, I'm sure you will.

Uh commissioners, do we have questions for staff or comments?

No, I I well for me.

Well, Chevrolet.

Well, I think um my comments would be in support of what they want to do with this house.

I would say my primary focus on all these properties is are the improvements to the property.

Do they enhance the property and uh make the property more uh fitting to the community?

And uh just looked at those drawings, and certainly what they're wanting to do is a dramatic improvement over what was there.

So that box is to me is I don't see any issue with that.

The addition of this second building, um, the thing that I look at uh that has been brought up is the scale of the building as it um as it corresponds with the main house.

And the one of the things I only noticed as we got in here, and he and the gentleman brought up, is that that garage and apartment are at a lower elevation.

Uh first of all, the overall height of the building is lower, but then second, it's a lower elevation, so it doesn't look like some giant tail wagging a small dog.

It it looks appropriate in scale to uh the the building in front of it.

Um so I don't have any problem with that, and the the details of the architecture look great.

Uh I see that they're essentially they're freeing up the a side yard for use, which uh apparently they want to put a pool in.

I understand that.

So I honestly I don't really have any problems with this design, even though there are issues related to setbacks or sizing or whatever.

Um that's why I asked the question about if it was attached to the house, what bearing would any of this have on anything?

But I you know, if you look at the side elevation, you know, the neighbor, I think the house next door is a one-story house.

It's not I never associate that house with uh with that neighborhood.

It's that's not even appropriate to that neighborhood.

But this house looks beautiful, and I think what they want to add to it only helps to embellish the architecture and adds to the the value of the property.

So um, you know, my vote would be to let them do whatever they want to do because these drawings look good to me.

Um you know, I might, if it was me, I might lay it out differently and use the this existing driveway.

But otherwise, you know, I think it I think it looks good.

All right, other comments from commissioners.

Well, based on uh what Commissioner Shefflow stated, and I and what you stated, Chair Herring, is that conversation, further conversation needs to be had um to come to an agreement about the sizes and the measurements and the ramifications and what have you, but again, when that comes back, then where will we be then?

Well, we may be in the same place.

I I don't feel comfortable making a decision either way.

I just feel like more time may be appropriate to alleviate some of the staff concerns and maybe not, but uh I would agree with uh you know letting everybody have time to figure this out.

I mean they only met on Thursday for whatever reason that was.

Uh that's just not a whole lot of time.

But uh obviously I I uh can't make a motion, but I would be in favor of uh you know a continuance to next month's meeting.

Yeah, I I would too, but I would encourage the applicant to sit down with our staff and kind of go through these details and see what could be worked out.

But I personally I think it looks fine, but I agree with what you're asking.

And Anna, one uh thing that concerns me, and of course, the the historic district guidelines, I don't know how many decades old they are, but it seems like uh they may need, and this isn't necessarily well, I'm not sure, but anyway, it seems like they may need to be reviewed, revised, something.

There's not there's some disconnect with what's actually happening on the ground and the guidelines themselves.

Uh just food for thought.

Sure.

Commissioner Kitchen.

Yeah, I just think the scale in the proximity to the line, the property line is is a concern.

Uh I think the design is nice.

I don't have an issue with the shutters.

And also, I I mean, we live in a historic district, but people live differently than they did in 1920, so there's some need for some of that, but uh yeah, I think it's too close to the property line and in the scale of this I like that it's lower, but yeah, I think that's something they can work with staff on and find a happy medium for that.

Okay, I'd like to uh note that the uh guidelines for Elizabeth Boulevard were updated on August 9th, 2007.

I too have concerns about the scale of the house.

I think the design is absolutely beautiful, and I'd want to live there too if it looked like that.

But uh, you know, these rules are in place, and you've got to you know obey them.

So no, and thank you for clarifying.

So 2007.

So you know by the way, uh I would also like to go on record saying it does say in here in the guidelines that uh non-existing shutters could be used on page eight.

Uh let's see.

It was in here.

I just saw it.

I should have noted it what page it was on for it moved it.

But it was there.

I think that I don't have a problem with the shutters.

Okay, that I do want to say though that that is a guideline and where it clearly states non-original shutters may be added if in keeping with the architectural style of the house.

Uh staff does consider that they are not original.

So they this house didn't originally have them, so that would not really apply in this case.

If it had when uh shutters before they were deteriorated and they want to replace them, that's kind of the interpretation that we made.

It would be a different situation.

All right.

Well, I'll just reiterate that I think some more time for discussion would be helpful.

Perhaps not, but that's how I see it.

Uh yes, Commissioner Muse.

I'm just curious.

So they have the house on the market.

Are they gonna still they're they're wanting to do this renovation or new bill while it's on the market?

Well, let's ask Mr.

Logan to come back to the podium.

So we'll reopen the public hearing for this question or clarification.

So are they are they going to take it off the market if they get approved to do this?

What I don't understand.

Well, uh if someone steps forward and buys the house for their asking price, um, I think they'd sell the house.

Okay.

Otherwise, their intention is to live here long time.

Okay, so they okay, gotcha.

That was the intention when they purchased the house.

Right.

They have since become extremely frustrated and are uh now considering what their options are.

Thank you for that information.

And that's it's you know, uh we all can ask whatever questions we want to and for our own edification, but that particular question would probably be out outside of the scope of our decision making.

But I get I understand it.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Well, I okay, I I've um kind of get not it's gonna be for staff, yeah.

More process this is just in broad terms, not specific to this.

But if a COA is approved and issued and a property is sold, that COA can then be used to construct whatever is approved by whoever the purchaser is of the property, correct?

Correct.

Okay, it goes with the land.

Okay, and again, not related to this specific case, but an issue that I've seen in the past has been when that COA has been handed to the purchaser of the property, the purchaser of the property is not really fully aware of all the discussions that went on, and they just go do what they think they should be doing.

So that's just something to be conscious of in terms of the way that the city COA process works.

That's what I was going on.

No, the very good point.

Absolutely for both of you.

So thank you.

All right.

Uh any other discussion, if not, we're open for a motion.

Would this be a motion that we'd want to uh deny without prejudice so they can bring it back, or do we need would it be a continuance?

Is that a better way to phrase that one?

Yeah, Anna, let's I'm gonna defer to you.

What if we want to allow more time?

What would be the preference?

Uh a continuance or to go to staff recommendation to deny without prejudice.

Well, a denial without prejudice, of course, you know, we'll not put a time frame for it for this.

I think that um Mr.

Logan would like a time frame on it, so it might be better to do the continuance.

Um we want to ask him if he would prefer a time frame.

Uh let's don't let's don't do that right now.

With Lorley.

Yes, okay.

Hey, y'all.

No, I just wanted to jump in.

So if you do do a continuance, we would need all of the updated stuff by next Monday in order to get it on the next agenda.

Just throwing that out there.

Okay, with that being said, I think it's better that we go with staff recommendations to give them ample time to communicate, make alterations and do what needs to be done.

Without putting that pretty pretty serious uh constraint and burden on I just want to make a note.

You could this tray, you could also um continue for beyond just next month's meeting.

You could make it the following month, but again, the ultimate effect is the same as a denial without prejudice.

That means they can bring it back anytime a continuance just kind of keeps it on the on the recurring schedule.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

And one more question for staff.

If it's if the staff recommendation is followed, denial without prejudice, and the applicant wants to come back.

Do they have to is there another filing fee or anything like that?

We don't charge for our application, so they can just submit that.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I just wanted to make make sure that was clear.

Sure.

All right.

All right.

Then I, Commissioner Ketchum, make a motion that we deny without prejudice.

Prejudice.

Second.

Who was the second?

Me.

Okay.

Which number is in that.

All right.

On HCLC-26-050, we have a motion to deny without prejudice by Commissioner Ketchum.

Second and by Commissioner Brisendine.

Thank you, Chair Herring.

How do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Carly Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner.

Um Commissioner Muse, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Sheffalo, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Ketchum, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Haldin, how do you vote?

Okay.

Motion passes 9-0.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next case.

All right.

Next case is 20 22 396th Avenue.

HCLC 26051.

And the applicant requests a certificate of popularness to apply a painted coating to the historic brick.

The proposal includes the application of coding to the original historic brick on the contributing structure.

And the fine feature of the structure, history, character within the pheromone district.

Section eight of the pheromone historic district standard, setting in masonry stays the original brick and the decorative element shall be maintained and shall not be changed by the introduction of a different material.

So the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the three main historic properties requires that historic character be retained and preserved.

And that the distinte materials finishes and construction techniques be maintained.

Brick mainstream that has remain unpainted since construction is considered a distinct historic material.

Altering heat's natural appearance through the application of a coding is not consistent with the standards as he's changed the material history finish and may impair his long-term preservation.

Performance.

Because the structure is like contributing structure within framework history, this remaintaining the integrity of his regional mainstream is essential to preserving both the individual building and the district as a whole.

Having regard to the foregoing start recommended the following the request for a certificate of appropriateness to apply a coding to the historical paint and break at 22 or 296th Avenue be denied without prejudice.

All right, thank you very much for that information.

Is there anyone in the chamber to speak on this account?

I mean, in this case, uh please come forward, sir and give us your name and address for the record.

Howdy.

My name is Eric Bussey.

Um address 2239 Sixth Avenue.

Um we worked with the Mason.

Uh we evaluated the condition of the brick with our mason.

We noted several signs of age-related wear, including uneven moisture absorption across the brick surface, recessed and stressed mortar joints and areas of uh straining as well as moisture tracking along exposed elevations.

While the masonry remains structurally sound, these conditions indicate that the brick has become more porous after a century of environmental exposure.

Um we are not looking to do a modern paint.

That was never the in the intention.

What we were looking to pursue was a a lime wash, which is unlike a modern paint or synthetic clear sealant.

It bonds with the masonry uh remains vapor permeable, allowing the brick to breathe rather than trapping moisture inside the wall.

Uh this treatment acts as a sacrificial protective layer, meaning that the lime wash gradually weathers over time instead of the brick face uh itself.

In other words, it's it's a protective layer, right?

Um, and given the fact that our brick uh according to our mason uh is not something that is readily available to find, and we're already seeing a lot of cracks and missing bricks and certain things.

Uh we feel that it's within the interest of the property to apply uh something to predict protect and and preserve uh that brick that we we can't uh actually seek to replace.

Um yeah, that is our that's our case.

Okay, thank you for that information and a question or a clarification.

So the coating that you referred to just now, is it um would it be clear?

I guess that's my question.

It would it would not be clear, it would likely be wiped off white, uh a traditional slurry.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, we actually have a photo of the.

There's two different pictures, and but they were significantly different amount of textures on it.

Yeah, that can be that can be adjusted.

Just the mason can work to apply a thicker or less thick.

Um the one additional benefit that I didn't mention is that it is it's easily reversed.

Like it's uh you can use general materials to pull it off if that was something that a future homeowner would do.

Okay.

Uh any other questions for Mr.

Bussey?

Right now.

All right.

Thank you very much, sir.

Anyone else in the chamber who wants to speak on this case?

All right.

Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.

And just one comment.

Yes, I was aware of the pictures, the illustrations that we saw, but the way he was describing it sounded a little different to me, but that it's clarified, so that's fine.

Um Commissioners, comments, discussion?

Um I've actually had a situation like this years ago.

I had a house in similar condition, and um I had one of two choices either remove all the brick from the house and re-brick the house, or do exactly this.

Um it sounds like he's had the same situation.

I couldn't replace the brick because it wasn't made anymore.

So I also had the situation, let me think here, 20 years ago I bought a house in Crestwood, same exact situation.

It was a red brick two-story house on Bridgewood Road, and um my solution to that was I uh I went out and found brick, replacement brick, it was not easy, hired a mason, fixed all the holes, it was very expensive.

That's solution, I guess, number two.

Um, and then solution number three is what he's talking about.

And the from my perspective, um, I would look to what was what was what would have been appropriate at the time for this house, you know, in terms of fixing it.

Well, these bricks don't exist anymore, unless you go to some rare brickyard in Missouri or somewhere and find the replacement bricks.

Um new bricks aren't gonna look the same as this.

So, you know, the the practical solution is doing what he's talking about doing, which that material it is a masonry type material.

It's almost like a hybrid stucco, whatever you want to call it.

Um it's been it's what's been used in places like Louisiana for years.

So when we came up early and we talked about this, um, I realize it's not the original brick.

Once again, you got these restrictions to our code here, but it's the practical um uh solution to the problem that this has house faces and probably lots of other houses that will come before us in the future.

That material that's being used is is there it's not paint.

It's not paint.

So it breathes like brick.

And I just had a conversation the other day with a contractor about these kind of issues with painting brick.

And you paint brick, you seal it, water gets behind it, and it starts creating fungus and mold and all this stuff behind the the brick wall and your house suddenly has black mold.

This material is a breathable material that becomes like the brick.

And I I don't remember the line you used, but it was pretty it was pretty accurate.

So my question is is that as far as the color of the material that's being used, does it is there a more comparable color that maybe you can you can select your color.

It the you can put color into the the slurry and it you can get it close to the color of the house.

So I believe one of the things that we discussed during uh work session was that color, was that white wash looking color that was that was the same.

Those pictures you see are just those are just pictures of other examples, but they can you can color the slurry essentially what you want to try to do is something that that looks good with your brick, and that becomes you know, it becomes like a whatever your taste is, but um the the slurry can be colored and it it could be anything a lot of I just make this more complicated.

No, that's that's very helpful and it is very helpful.

Just a couple of questions or a couple of things that come to mind.

One, and this is a staff question, uh Jefferson.

If uh if we follow the staff recommendation, deny without prejudice, and the applicant continues to work with uh you and other staff.

Uh I can't remember for certain if we've done this before or not, but can the can the color of the coating be specified?

Um or is that just get in the weed too much?

Well, he could certainly do examples.

He could do he could lay up some examples and then another question before you answer that is that the brick, there's some bricks that are like, for example, missing and broken, the solvent or I'm not if I'm using the correct verbiage, mortar.

Yep, yeah.

Is is that going to solve as well?

You can match mortar.

Okay.

The question is whether he can get enough brick um to fix this, and uh to what extent all this damage is.

But you can re you can where you had that mortar that was broken, that can be patched exactly so you can't tell where it was.

It's gonna be a question of whether he can find the brick and all this can be put together just all that or staff just the staff.

We got one more, hold on, yes.

Staff have information on I mean, how many bricks are missing?

Like how I mean I see a picture of it.

No, I don't think so.

Um, well, I mean, when we see stuff like this, we tell our applicants get as close as you can for matching brick.

I mean, obviously, you're not probably not going to find exactly the thing.

Um, but you know, depending on how many you have, you can probably get fairly close.

And that's it's okay.

It's okay for it to mismatch.

I know people don't really like that from like an aesthetics point, but for historic preservation point, it's fine to see where those patches have taken place.

Another um another thing is uh they are going to have to address you know some of the structural issues that are there.

I would also encourage them to look at what exactly is their mortar right now.

If it is cement-based or Portland cement based, that is already going to cause a suffocation, and they were gonna they would need to redo all that anyway, because the sacrificial part that um they're referring to whenever they're talking about you know putting a lime like wash over this is that sacrificial part in traditional masonry, the sacrificial part is the mortar, and that is supposed to be lime-based so that the water moves through and dries out the bricks and all of that.

So I don't think while this can be a treatment, I don't think that according to our guidelines and according to what Fairmount has told us in their letters that this is um a treatment that can be looked at for right now.

It's possible that it might they might get the same kind of protection with some sort of like clear sealant.

Um we approved that on different buildings before that doesn't change the look so much.

Um but uh ultimately that's why we brought it to you because we say no and they they want it to happen.

So no, that's that's helpful, and you know, we get into a whole lot of technicalities, even in our first case today, just with the windows and all of that, and there can be solutions as Commissioner Sheffalo's alluded to and others and whatever, but you know, kind of a basic principle of historic preservation is you don't paint brick.

And I realize it's not really paint, yeah.

But um so just I mean that keeps coming into my head, you know.

When we first looked at this when I first looked at it, and when we discussed it earlier, that's just kind of historic preservation 101.

Well, and what I don't see brick failing.

I see a missing brick, and then I see a lot of wood failing.

Yeah, and that's where the water is getting it's getting it along the trim of the windows and the doors.

This job this needs some new trim, it needs caulking, and that's gonna solve 90% of your moisture problems.

And then yeah, bricks have to be repointed every so often in that mortar, and I think that's the fix.

Um, yeah, you can slap that on there and it helps blend it in.

And if you're trying to patch a lot of bricks, it can kind of mask it a little bit, but I don't see a lot of bricks missing.

I see just a lot of delayed maintenance on this.

I I have a question.

Do we could would it could they replace all could they take all the brick off and this wood rot and replace it with new brick that's appropriate to the house, or how does that what are the limitations of that?

Sure.

So um there's actually another uh property in Fairmount that um is having some of this same sort of issue, and what we have worked out with them is that um they are going to take off um the brick entirely, they're gonna save as much as they can.

Um, and if you know, and then match with new as close as they as possibly can.

Yeah, uh I hate to say this again, but I just finished remodeling a house that had all of these problems.

I just don't want anybody coming by my house to look at it, but it's not in the historic district, and I had a um it's a peering beam house, and the lower part of the house had been covered with some sort of slath, some sort of wood covering, and I tore all of that off and built a masonary uh stem wall, and then rebricked my entire house.

And um, and I'm looking at these pictures, and it looks a lot like what I had on my house, and that might be the simplest and most straightforward solution to this.

Well, it's tough uh because these if you have a hundred-year-old house, you're gonna have these issues.

Um but when you are in a historic district, it is what it is as far as the guidelines and so forth.

Um other discussion before we're open for a motion.

Hearing none, uh, we're open for a motion.

I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice, and they can work with the city staff.

Second, all right.

We have a motion uh by Commissioner Ketchum and a second by Commissioner Tucker.

And if this motion passes, the applicant, you can certainly come back to work with the city and bring this back with uh a different or an alternate solution.

But having said that, we're ready.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Okay.

Commissioner Muse, how you vote?

Okay, Commissioner Tucker, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Sheffalo, who are you both?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone, how you catch him, hi.

And Commissioner Haldin, how do you vote?

Okay.

Commissioner Brycindine, how do you motion passes 90?

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that, and we're ready for the next case.

Okay, next cases ACLC 26037.

And the applicant request certificate of appropriateness to construct an addition to the contributing structure.

The proposal includes the demolition of the non-historic in national gym addition and construction funding.

Approximately 18,000 square foot addition along the south and east.

The addition will provide expanded community programming space, including gym, lobby, teaching, kitchen, and fitness center, and multi-purpose runs.

The project also includes site improvements, such as parking configuration, pay ground enhancement and service areas.

Was designed by the architect Charles Allen in 1923.

The building has a community center since 1979.

The proposed condition is located as on secondary elevation and is designed to be compatible in scale and massing while remaining differentiated from the historic building.

However, the proposed storefront system on the second floor of the self-elevation is not appropriate, must be removed from the proposal.

The existing historic windows must be retained and repair or replaced in in time is necessary without altering their dimensions or profile.

I'm regarded for going to recommend the following.

All right, thank you very much.

No one oh well, please come forward, sir, and give us your comments and your name and address for the record.

Okay, sorry about that.

That's good.

You're good.

Um my name is Jim Tharp.

I'm with William Starp Architects, so we're the architect for the city for this project.

Okay, great.

I understand that uh there's set to approve the COE or COA, except for the when the windows that are on the second floor.

What I would just wanted to point out before we decide on that is anyone here been to the existing rec center.

Uh I have.

I don't know about others.

So if you'll remember when you go in, it's a really small lobby with a really low ceiling.

Um so one of the things, this being a much bigger project, we have a much bigger lobby uh for more people to circulate through here, and an eight-foot ceiling just did not seem appropriate for the size of lobby that we've got.

So to raise the ceiling height in there, we're going to have to raise the structure where it attaches to the old building.

Um so what we have proposed is we're keeping the windows.

We're just going to basically essentially cut them in half.

We're going to take out the old windows, reduce them to about half so we can get a taller structure and a taller ceiling in that lobby.

Uh, the other thing I wanted to point out is with the new design, you really can't see those windows from the street.

I mean, you can see the top of them, which is what we're going to maintain uh visually.

So from the street, I don't think you're really gonna see much of a difference as far as the windows themselves.

We've proposed storefront, it doesn't have to be storefront.

There's all kinds of uh I guess more appropriate type windows we could replace them with that are modern.

Um but that just wanted to get that out there that I don't you're not gonna see the entire window that you see on the existing building now.

Um and in fact, if you're in those rooms and you look out onto that, and you stand there and look out of those windows, you can see what you're looking at.

Rooftop units and the roof and things like that.

So you know, we want to keep that daylight in there.

We just want to reduce those windows, still get the light into those spaces, but again, that helps us get the ceiling up in the a lot much larger lobby space than what is existing there now.

Okay, well, that's helpful to know.

So excuse me, thank you.

And I was gonna I've got a question for you.

I was gonna address this to the staff, and I may still do that, but since you're here and you're the architect, I'll ask you when the city when we saw the I guess I'll say the concept plan about a year ago, whenever it was, and I don't recall if you were at that meeting, but whoever did the presentation told us this was coming and all that.

Okay, so I asked at that time about the original front porch being restored, and I can't remember what what the response was.

Pardon me, but um the Fairmount Neighborhood Association has raised that issue again, you know, about restoring the front porch.

Is there any uh reason that could not be done?

I mean, it would reduce the usable square footage of the interior.

I get that, but it's not much, and I'm looking at an original picture of the station.

Is there any feasible reason or a reasonable reason that couldn't be done?

I do recall that being asked at that.

Um at this point, my answer is I it's not part of the project.

We are not at to restore the front porch.

Um that would uh cut down on the usable square footage, what we have in the plans currently.

That's a sort of the team room, game room area, and if uh if that happened, that that would get reduced quite a bit by reduced uh restoring that porch.

But okay, uh it is not currently part of the project that we've been asked to to restore.

So all right, thank you very much.

Any commissioners, any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Uh, do we have questions for staff?

I'm just gonna repeat that question and be a thorn in the city side, but when knowing our historic preservation office staff, was that ever raised with the parks and rec department or you know that may be going back a long time and maybe there's no good answer, but I'm just curious.

Yeah.

Sure.

Um, and as I mentioned in work session, um, I was part of some of the meetings um probably about a year ago, and um we talked a little bit about just restoration in general of the of the property.

Um, and you know, at that time, like budgets and there were budget constraints.

Um, and then of course the space, um, it is an enclosed um portion, but it's also usable space that they are um working out of right now.

Um I will point out that they are doing some other restoration bits on the main structure.

Um, you know, they're gonna paint and um repair some masonry and um all of that kind of stuff, but um, but yeah, mostly it was budget constraints and that it's still it's a usable space was the usable space and everything else, and quite frankly, there's a this this picture that I was referring to came from the our letter from Fairmount neighborhood association, but um the um the picture that was in the staff report, the historic picture was probably maybe from the 50s or something, yeah, like that.

And you know, at some point alterations to buildings also become part of the historic fabric.

So all right.

Well, I'm not gonna press the issue, but I just wanted to ask the question.

It's a good question, yes.

All right, we could also we can always try to encourage, but we cannot enforce restoring that front porch.

No, that helps uh everybody's fighting for every dollar they can get their hand on for sure.

Okay, commissioners, other questions for staff or discussion?

All right, hearing none, we're open for a motion.

Oh, and keep in mind that um conditions the staff is uh recommending that it be approved with three conditions, and the first condition has to do with those second story windows that were addressed.

So if you want to, you know, just keep that in mind in whatever motion you're contemplating.

Uh I'll like to make a motion to approve based based on staff recommendations for the windows.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, we've got a motion by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner with a second by Commissioner Muse that uh does include uh staff condition number one, that the proposed storefront system on the second floor, the south elevation uh be removed from the proposal and the existing windows retained.

Get that correct?

Okay, all right.

We've got a motion and a second.

Okay.

Please.

Yeah, before we vote, I want to confirm your motion is to with all staff conditions.

Is that right?

That is correct.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, so we have time for I mean, now now that now that that that motion is made, um I mean I would say I wouldn't approve.

I mean, I I I um those windows from the explanation, I mean, those are on the south elevation, those are facing the new um structure that's being built.

So they are effectively, I mean, I don't have exact measurements, but they're you know, within 20 feet or 15 feet of the new, I mean they're attached, they're the new structures immediately below those windows, and then there's a higher wall directly horizontal across from those windows.

That's the new structure.

Um as was uh mentioned by the architect in this design work.

Um I mean, okay, so here here's here we can see in the top um elevation picture the windows we're talking about are the ones that are um barely visible.

Um right in the middle to the left of the steps up on the second floor.

Yeah.

Um I mean, to me, it just appears as if that's a parapet wall on a patio sort of view.

I mean, you you're you aren't gonna have perspective.

Um, and and my my fear is with this is that if we um require that those windows maintain that height that for the sake of a few square feet of glass on one side of a wall, we are literally cutting the roof, uh the ceiling height down dramatically by a few feet in the what will be sort of the grand foyer entrance to this space.

And I I mean, for that reason, I would say I I won't support the motion because I feel like um it's something that I mean, obviously we want to preserve the historic nature of the structure, and I think that that this um this architectural work helps to do that.

So what would you what would you do because I see also Commissioner Ketchum.

Well I'll I'll add to uh what Commissioner Brisendon said I uh also feel that the uh requirement number one you know would impact the design of the building and as he said and as Commissioner Brisadan said uh really affect the you know the lobby and the main entrance to to the building so that's kind of where I am too so Trey can we if if if someone was to make a motion we could approve with staff conditions except for number one wherever the window one is is that how you'd phrase that sure yeah now we have a motion and a second so we can have an alternate motion at this time um if you want to do a motion motion we have an amended motion by the first by Voscher Kelly Gardner or you could also yeah if if the if the uh movement would like to amend her motion you can do that or if she does not wish to you could have an alternate motion you would vote on the alternate motion second and it could be approved subject to one or not one or not two or not three whichever you know I'd like to chime in real quick yeah our goal here is to protect the horse storage structures in Fort Worth not the new development so uh I'm all about keeping the windows in place.

Okay.

Good perspective.

One one question I I would have that in in this situation is maybe city staff can answer this.

So in this image that we see here right now we have a very short eight inch tall parapet um wall adjacent to this flat roof in the new design based on the um height of that wall that wall is higher it appears at least from the renderings that what we see right there as a three or five or so inch um parapet wall that that wall is actually higher on the new design in other words it's hiding from any viewpoint other than an aerial it's hiding the view of those windows yeah to see again we believe as a preservation stuff there's suction to keep the size and still have that kind of um feeling that they want to project with the entrance without damaging the size of the windows because maybe in the future if they would like to do another spansion and kind of demolish these expansion at least the fire station looks gonna be the same so that's where stuff is coming from like we believe there's options to keep the Korean size and look of the original windows.

And I would I'll just reiterate I think I while I certainly understand and respect that that you know comment I think given the addition that is being done to the structure and given the fact that it these the height of these windows is not going to be visible to uh I mean anyone except a bird or a plane flying over to me I just don't sacrificing that in order to make the entrance because this will be the main entrance to this community center I I mean it's a community center like I want it to be as grand as possible for Fairmount and for the neighborhood over there um you know the people using it and feel right and appropriate scale wise.

So well and that's you know what we're here for is to sometimes make some tough what are these pragmatic decisions.

What are these windows look out onto a wall and look onto so like why they're I mean I do need windows I mean I I I would say if they were facing a public if they're facing the right of way invisible then I would certainly say they've got to stay but at this point they're literally facing another or if they're facing something pretty to look out on to well but the I mean the underlying you know theory or uh yeah preservation theory is to preserve what was originally built.

But you're I get your point for sure.

All right uh we have a motion and a second on the floor.

So we need to we would vote on that motion first, correct?

So if you if you don't have an alternative motion at this time, you would vote on it's time to vote on the motion on the floor if there's no other discussion.

Okay, but there could be an alternative motion, right I can make it now.

Correct.

Um so I'll make a motion to approve HCLC-26-037.

Um with the removal of um number one, and everything else remained the same per staff.

And I'll second that.

Okay, do we have a second on the alternate motion?

We did.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Okay, all right.

But we need to act on the first motion.

No, you vote on the alternate alternate motion first.

All right, thank you for keeping me in line.

All right, all right.

We have a motion, an alternate motion by Commissioner Brisendine with a second by Commissioner Ketchum.

All right, Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Come back to me.

I have to think about it.

Umerzy, how do you vote?

Come back to you, as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Tucker, how do you vote?

Yay, okay.

Commissioner Sheffalo, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Ketchum, how do you buy Commissioner Haldin, how do you vote?

Okay.

Commissioner Bryson Dying.

Yay.

And back to Vice Chair Kelly Gardner.

I'm gonna go with uh nay.

Nay.

Okay.

And Commissioner.

I gotta say yay.

Yay.

Okay.

So motion passes.

Yeah, let's go pay.

We have uh eight yays and two nays.

Yeah.

I believe it's seven to two, so the motion passes.

Yeah, yes, seven.

Okay, all right.

Well, thank you.

Um good discussion, Commissioner.

Good, yeah.

All right, next case, please.

Yeah, maintain this.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, your next case, HCLC 26-052, uh 1227 Verbena Street.

The applicant requests COA to construct multifamily residence on December 8th, 2025 and February 9th, 2026.

The HCLC denied without prejudice for the applicant to continue working on the scale and masking of the previous designs.

Since then, the applicant and staff have worked continuously to update the design to be more in line with the historic district design guidelines and have achieved a multifamily residence that is consistent with the block and the design guidelines.

Therefore, staff recommends the following that the request for a COA to construct a new multifamily residence at 1227 Verbena Avenue be approved with the following conditions that the front door configuration excuse me, that the front door configuration reflect a typical front door style and configuration that is compatible and consistent with the historic district, that the windows be installed in a way that is compatible with the fenestration style in the district, i.e.

in set with appropriate projecting sills, header, and trim, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

This concludes the staff report.

All right, thank you very much for that.

Uh anyone in the chamber to speak on this case.

Seeing none will close the public portion and commissioners are open for a motion and a second or discussion.

I'll make a motion to approve based on staff recommendations.

I'll second that.

All right, we have a motion to approve with staff conditions by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner and a second by Commissioner Ketchum.

Thank you.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, yay.

Commissioner Musey.

Yay.

Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Commissioner Shuffleau.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

And Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Great.

Next case, please.

All right.

This one is not going to be so quick, but I'll try.

Uh 901 slash 909 Evans Avenue, HCLC 26-022.

The applicant requests a COA to construct multifamily residences.

The proposed design for both two-story multifamily residences, 901 Evans Avenue, aka Building F and 909 Evans Avenue, aka Building G reflects an orientation and setback and massing that is consistent with the commercial character of the Evans Avenue streetscape that predominantly contains one and two story commercial structures that are primarily located at the zero lot line.

The historic Mount Zion Baptist Church at the end of Evans serves as an anchor for the south end of Evans, and a two-story multifamily structure will echo that anchor on the north end.

The contextual elevation demonstrates a building floor massing and design that is mostly consistent with traditional commercial structures along the streetscape.

While the use is residential, the design should take elements from the commercial buildings in order to fit in with the established historic streetscape.

These include an all-brick facade, a consistent cantilevered awning where possible, and a clear separation with some sort of brick coursing or stone belly band treatment.

Sighting is a tip is typically reserved for rear facades of commercial structures.

The mix of sighting and faux stuck panels are not consistent with the district district guidelines.

The vinyl windows with a casement style on the first floors and the multi-divided light with a single operating sash on the second floors are reminiscents of the typical storefront and upper floor residential configurations and consistent with the guidelines.

The parking lot located at the rear of 901 Evans Avenue, aka Building F is consistent with the recommended locations for parking lots and is screened on the Terrell Avenue side.

The front streetscape in front of both buildings will reflect the consistent walkable configuration for that corridor and mirror the condition on the west side of Advent west side of Evans that is reviewed under the near Southside form based code.

It is also important to note that there is a state historical marker for the Terrell Heights neighborhood located at the corner of Evans and Terrell that will need to be protected during construction and if removed be stored securely with the county and reinstalled once the project is complete.

Oh uh and then also um we did receive a um letter of support from the near South Side Inc.

Having regard to the foregoing staff recommends the following that the request for certificate of appropriateness to construct new multifamily residences at 901 and 909 Evans Avenue be approved with the following conditions that the materials used on the front and side facades be all brick to reflect a consistent material on the streetscape in the guidelines, that a consistent cantilevered awning be placed over the first floor where possible to reflect a typical storefront configuration, that a treatment of either brick coursing or stone or similar be placed between the first and second floors be installed to reflect a consistent look of a typical two-story commercial building, that the state historical marker located at the corner of Evans and Terrell be protected during construction, or if it needs to be removed, stored and reinstalled after the project is complete, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

This concludes the staff report.

All right, thank you for that.

Is there anyone in the chamber to speak on this case?

If so, please come forward and give us your comments and your name, please.

Hello, my name is Brittany Ann Blood and address is 4400 State Highway Suite 800.

I am uh with Meg Adams, so we're actually the civil on this project with Evans and Rosedale.

So I am not the architect, but I can read whatever plans they presented to me too for any questions I may answer.

Um this project has I don't know if you guys are maybe probably familiar with the the old Evans and Rosedale and how that went, and we're now um with the client uh World Capital Dool.

We're really excited to get this project going to actually see this project come to life and working with staff has been great and as far as the coordination pieces and they architect, a client and staff have been very open and making sure that we're following all our guidelines as well as uh making sure that the project is feasible on all sides as well.

So that will be great.

And you're in agreement or uh with uh all the staff, the conditions for approval.

Yes, great, all right.

Thank you.

And thank you for your patience as yeah, this is actually very entertaining, so I think you guys are a lot and it's exciting to see something starting to happen.

So that's good news.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

Okay, thank you very much.

Um just one question or not a question, just comment to staff.

I had it asked about the historical marker and because and I had neglected to see you had that as a condition.

So thank you very much uh for having that in there.

Any questions for staff?

And if not, we're open to a motion and a second.

I make a motion to approve based on the staff recommendations.

And a second was you.

Oh, Commissioner Tucker.

Okay, I wasn't sure who it was.

Um, we have a motion by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner and a second by Commissioner Tucker to um approve the COA with the staff conditions noted.

Thank you.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner.

Yay.

Commissioner Musey.

Yay.

Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Yay.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Commissioner Shuffle.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisend.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Thank you.

And do we need to take any action on the case it was withdrawn?

No, I'm just going to say it for the record once I get there.

Too far.

The next case on the docket number six, HCLC 26-041 has been administratively withdrawn.

You will see it next month, likely after it has gone through zoning commission first.

All right.

Thank you very much to the staff and commissioners.

And we are at 4 08 p.m.

officially adjourned.

Well done.

Thank you.