26 meeting of the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission. And uh thank you for your patience. We're getting started 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 9th, 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 Musey, Commissioner Estrris Tucker, Commissioner Roger Sheel, Commissioner Corey Malone, Commissioner Brian Katchchum, Commissioner Tim Halden, Commissioner Brezendine, and
Commissioner Thomas Oliver. Staff present today are Laura Li Willlet, Anna Alvarez, Jefferson Praau, Andres Hernandez, Trey Walls, Haiwan Kim, and myself, Laura Young. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fward
texas.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 7 minutes to speak. Opposition may then speak for 7 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 in 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 HDLC 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 8173928000. Thank you for your attention. Um Chair Herring, will you please call the meeting to order? >> Yes, we are called to order and thank you for that. Uh do we have
announcements from staff? Hello, commissioners. Um, I did want to note that um, Commissioner Oliver had to leave, so it's just nine of us here. Um, happy Women's History Month is my announcement today. Um, and also uh, if you are interested, um, the Chalk
Chalkaw Code Talker state marker ceremony is scheduled, I believe, for April 1st at Veterans Memorial Park. Um, again, I will send that information out as um I get more. 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 Oralai Willlet 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. [applause] 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 second that. All right, we have a motion and a second.
>> Uh, sorry. First was Commissioner Kelly. >> Vice Chair Kelly Gardner. >> There was a second. >> Motion and a second by Commissioner Kes. >> There we go. Thank you. [laughter] We have a motion and a second. Chair Herring, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Um, Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you
vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Musey, >> yay. Commissioner Halden, >> Commissioner Malone, Commissioner Ketchum, >> yay. >> Commissioner Shuffalo, >> yay. >> Commissioner Brisendine, >> yay. >> And Commissioner Tucker, >> yay. >> Thank you. Motion passes 90.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the first case, please. The first case on your docket is the um applicant requesting a recommendation to city council to add the highly significant endangered HSSE overlay to
the object/site of the World War I aerial gunnery target. The target is a remnant of the World War I airfield known as Talia Pharaoh Field number one. Talia Pharaohfield was established in April 1917 following the US entering World War I. When it was founded, the
airfield was the largest [clears throat] of three airfields built around Fort Worth during the early 20th century. Each of these three airfields initially fell under the name Camp Taloparoh and were subsequently called Telopro 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 field number three became Kurthers. Field number one retained the name Taliaohero, but was frequently associated with the nearby Hicks station and colloquially colloquially was
referred to as Hicks even during World War I. This target is consistent with descriptions from the time that described a basin of water the exact size of a plane attributed as a design by Major George EA Reinberg who was the commanding officer of Camp Talia. 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 US
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 HSSE designation. The subject object is distinctive is a distinctive object related to Talia field and the military training exercises done at the airfield both as a military installation
and as a civilian airport. Talophero Hicks field served as a significant presence in Tarant 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 US 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 Talia/Hicksfield. The object is an important example of as the only known extent 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 Oh, I'm sorry that was one and two six. Um the site has yielded significant archaeological data pertaining to training practices, materials and life
of those stationed at Talophero field during World War I. The structure itself has also yielded information about the various dimensions and forms that were used in the targets design. As a unique structure, this demonstrates valuable information about tactical training dur during World War I. 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 I. Although many of the places associated with the conflict are overseas, the training exercises
completed at Talio Faroh Field played a significant role in the US and allied forces efforts in Europe. The efforts from the homeront remain an important aspect of this time in history and the events of Tally Pharaoh Field reflect the important role the US played in a global conflict. It also meets five of
seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The object meets the criteria to be considered under threat of irrovable 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 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 I gunnery target at Talia Field number one 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 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 [laughter] in 2005ish, 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 in a second. >> I second. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Prisonendine and a second by Commissioner Halden
>> to approve the recommendation. >> Chair hearing, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, >> Commissioner Musey, >> Commissioner Halden, >> Yay. >> Commissioner Malone, >> yay. >> Commissioner Ketchum, >> yay. >> Commissioner Shuffalo, >> yay. >> Commissioner Brisend, >> yay. >> And Commissioner Tucker,
>> yay. >> Thank you. Motion passes 90. >> All right. Thank you. Next case, please. Your next case is an appeal case for 2301 Fleming Drive, HCLC26049. 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 a certificate of appropriateness and pro
um 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. Ellen 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 Pella Windows, which has provided wows in Fairmont Historic District. On June 27th, 2025, Mr. Ellen provided the window estimates that Pella 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. Ellen 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 uh 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 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 by 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 side 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 carbor heights guidelines and the secretary of the interior 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. And please give us your name and address for the record if you don't mind. >> Dwayne Allen, 2301 Fleman Drive, Fort Worth, Texas. Yes, sir. >> I'm the owner of the home
I grew up and not raised in that particular home where I was born and raised and uh I'm 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 is there any way that I could get the same
thing cuz I've been praying like mad over there. Hopefully that y'all would go on my side to where I try to get what I like to have. Uh, as you can see them wood 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 anything you need to ask me, I'd be more happy. I said the best I can, but I sure would like to have some windows that my mother and father I know should enjoy
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 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 and 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 one thing that I may have forgotten
and maybe the other commissioners can remind me or did we see or hear any of the estimates that Mr. Allan 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. >> Yeah. >> During the work session. >> No, this these pictures you pro 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 Miss uh Chelsea White
and uh gave me some information. She help me find >> Okay. >> She talked to me. >> Okay. >> All I could get, >> right? >> Matter of fact, we live on the same street. >> Okay. >> And and Ms. White did provide a letter
on behalf of the uh neighborhood association saying that they are supportive of of the staff's recommendation that we deny it 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 going to 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 it 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. So, something to look into. It's a really easy thing to apply, that'll help a little bit, but I mean, obviously, you have some really bad
windows here on the side and the front, but um if you go to rehab them, that might be a a good thing to look into. But, >> I got a question. Uh you all have the last say and I understand that just
come across my mind. She said you all know how the votes going to go. How is it that someone else on my same street 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 just to be doing it. at least I come across try to do it the correct way. >> Right. >> Well, let's uh that's a very good question and I'm going to ask the staff to address that when they come back up.
>> Um but we'll see >> we'll try to answer your question as best we can. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate >> 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 continue talk. Oh, yes. No.
>> Yes. I did have a a a 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. You grew up in the home. >> So, um, uh, we are the historic landmark
commission. So, um, 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 going to 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 Anna, 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 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 go out there and you know search for those um to site them to let them know that they need to
come in for a certificate of appropriateness to follow the correct process. 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 um
and doing the same thing that he wants to do but haven't followed the proper procedures. Um, one thing 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. U, so that that's kind of where I am. you
know, we've had others that we've insisted that that, you know, we have not granted their exception request or their waiver. Um, so anyway, other thoughts or comments? Yes, sir. >> I believe it was 2006 or 2007. Okay.
>> I would say we've seen We'd have to do the research. >> We do >> 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 essentially get the approval. >> Can um >> that's what >> Can I Can a copy it? 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
>> Okay. Yes. >> A question later. >> A question that I had [clears throat] was based on that that line was does he have an opportunity to file a waiver for financial reasons? >> Yes. Correct. >> 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. 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. >> Yeah.
>> 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 how does that happen? >> 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 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 >> I just want to I'm going to 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 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. Thank you. Um the um so we have to look at that. It could have happened before say 2007. Um we see
this again. And I'll just kind of repeat my earlier comment of cases that we see over and over and I 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'd vote on that on different issu a different set of criteria. >> Yes, >> that that is correct. >> Yes, that is correct. >> And you understand that, Mr. Allen?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Come on back. >> Right. I understand. That's my >> Yes, sir. >> It's tough to keep the energy in. And I
know these houses these windows put in. >> 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. Just thought I would >> No, thank you. Thank you. >> Any other comments, commissioners?
>> My question is what is the cost and then can we get Pella to give us a price on they would what we would propose to happen? >> I believe Mr. Carolyn 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. And then and then do we have a source at Pella that can give us um 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 I guess I can say this. I' I've already texted Jack at Pella um between the meeting between our uh meeting sessions. Um, so I mean it can be done.
Yeah. >> Great. >> All right, commissioners, before we move on to a motion, any other discussion? >> 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. No, I didn't take a look at the sighting, so maybe it would be appropriate. And >> yeah, it's it looks like it's been there
a while, but it is it is it aluminum or is it a vinyl sighting? Doesn't look like it's wood. There's no proper >> He believes it's vinyl if he's not mistaken. >> Just curious. Keep that in perspective, too.
>> Good point. All right, let's uh close the discussion and commissioners, we're open for a motion, a second. Now, one thing I do want to say before this uh before we move on, it 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 lie of him in lie of Anna assisting him with Habitat for Humanity to see if he can get the wood windows. I'm just going to step out there and
make that motion. So your motion basically is to approve the certificate of appropriateness that 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 going to he's then he can apply for the waiver and we're going to be back here again
and we're going to approve the waiver 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 Musey. And
>> that is a motion to approve the COA as requested. Yes, as requested and not to deny with prejudice. >> Okay. Chair Harper, Chair Herring, how do you vote? >> Yay.
>> Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Misy, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner uh Tucker, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Chef, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Malone, how do you vote?
Commissioner Ketchum, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Bryendine, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Halden, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Motion passes 90 to approve the COA as requested. >> All right. Thank you very much.
>> And thank you again, Mr. Allen, for being here and your comments. We appreciate 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 2650. 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. On January 15,
2026, the applicant began the process to request a certificate of appropriateness for the de the demolition and removal of non-historic structures, i.e. the carport and auxiliary structure and replacement of falling concrete flat work. The application was submitted but not accepted because additional
documentation was deemed necessary. On January 20th, 2026, preservation staff reached out to the applicant by email to request additional information and plans. The applicant responded to staff the same day. On January 21st, 2026, preservation staff advised the applicant that some of the work could not be
approved administratively and HCLC review would be necessary. The applicant responded the following day and provided additional information. On January 26th, 2026, preservation staff notified the applicant that documents were received and if anything else were needed, it would be communicated. On February 13th,
2026, preservation staff approved a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the contributing garage uh due to structural issues. On February 16, 2026, preservation staff placed the request for the addition of shutters and the new accessory garage on the agenda
for the March HLC hearing. 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 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,
such as the addition of conjectural features should not be undertaken. The addition of shutters where non-historically existed would introduce a conjectural element and alter the historic facade composition. Show you that facade. uh under new construction of the accessory structure.
The analysis is it is proposed that an approximately 40.6x 26 ft 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 lab sighting 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 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 lot 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 ft in front of the rear property line. So the lot coverage ratio for accessory buildings is 5% coverage. Teran appraisal district information lists the property square footage including the portion of lot 3
as 14,250 square feet total. The calculated allowed lot coverage is um 712.5 ft. The garage accessory structure footprint square footage has been calculated using the survey information provided under the scale drawings and is
approximately 1542 ft. The total lot coverage calculated for the proposed garage accessory is 10.82 82% which exceeds the 5% limit by 829.5 ft. Garage accessory structure would
need to be reduced to approximately 712 ft 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 ft of lot 3. 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 uh of lot 2. 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 accessories should be reduced to meet the standard uh of 20 ft. 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 8 foot high constructed in solid masonry. The district standards and guidelines stipulate that the sideyard 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 uh 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 lot coverage, setback, 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. 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 in the district standards and the design is consistent with the spirit and intent of requirements for walls and enclosures constructed within side the sideyard. Therefore, the proposed mechanical enclosure is considered appropriate as designed. Staff consider that areas of
non-compliance 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 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 u just to address a few things, I was at the
the meeting prior to this where the staff was uh doing the 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 owner who's a real estate
agent. uh 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 going to 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 capriccious uh comment kind of threw the entire neighborhood off.
So, they don't have the u 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 a 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 repling required as per a letter they've received from the
city. uh 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 um 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 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 asked 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 had been approved. Uh the mayor at the time, Mayor Monree, actually apologized to us for all the trouble and uh so I
worked on a number of other projects since then. I 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 nonoriginal 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 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 original. >> One minute. >> Okay, 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 sits farther than 20 foot 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, not good. Uh no, no, no, that one will work. That one will work. So, um >> hold on just one second. Uh Lauren, 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, leanto 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 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 1188
square feet for the structure location that we would site the new structure with the new structure being 1183 square ft. So smaller than what exists. The extension away from the property line
into the lot for the existing structure is 36 feet 8 in. As staff pointed out, it's they call it 37 ft, but it's 36t 8 in. 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 inind.
Um, so I don't see that we're in violation of anything. If you combine all of the other structures nobody wants, which are carports and leanto buildings, uh that comes to 2,48 ft. Again, we're
at 1183. And um you know so I would recommend either we you vote to address the inind 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 ft. 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. >> 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 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 Sheff who um yes because he is is when it comes to measurements and 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 ft below the grade of the main house.
And with the new construction, it's going to 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 Let me ask you. 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 uh shutters could be placed there. Where did that come from? >> Guideline doc.
>> 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. >> They're current guidelines. what's current I pulled up fresh copy of that as well as the criteria and going
through this entire process which >> well that's why 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 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 and 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. And 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.
I do. Um, so quick, oh my gosh, I just lost the agenda. Um, the carport, so on the site plan, I think it's figure two if I remember correctly, if we can pull it up, when you were when you were quoting um the total square footage of existing structures, um, in 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 >> Yeah. So the black outlines, the heavy black outlines are um existing
non-conforming structures. >> Okay. So that carport which spans both lots. >> There's actually three carports, two of which are associated with the one-story frame that you see in the northwest corner. >> But in your in your math um on the
square footage, you're including that carport. the example included that entire structure including the carports. It's not clear where the carport stops and the building starts. It was done many
years ago. So, >> and and and I'm talking the one that says existing, the one to the east, the one on the east, >> that one's is that attached to something? >> Uh they're attached to each other. Uh there's an existing leanto wooden
structure and then a larger carport uh that will support four cars that's uh built out of metal. >> Okay. Okay. So, 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 2,400
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. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bzendai.
>> Welcome. >> And thank you, Mr. Logan. Um, I think I mean obviously you're well verssed 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 and been 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 u 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 you know it it was uh
they planned on spending probably threequarters 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. Thank you, Mr. Logan. We might call you back if we have additional questions or Whatever. Okay. I'm sure you will. Um, commissioners, do we have questions
for staff or comments? >> No, I I Well, for me, well, Cheva, go ahead. >> Well, I think um my comments would be in support of what they want to do with
this house. I would say you 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 just looked at those drawings and certainly what they're wanting to do is a dramatic improvement over what was there and in terms of if you slice of the different elements. I think the shutters
are per perfectly appropriate for that style and that era of house. >> 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 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. 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
sideyard for use, which apparently they want to put a pool in. I understand that. So, I don't 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 the
with that neighborhood. It's it'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 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 Sheff 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 then where will we be then? >> Well, we may be in the same place. I I
don't feel comfortable making a decision either. 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 living, you know,
letting everybody have time to figure this out. >> And they only met on Thursday for whatever reason that was. Uh it'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
continuence to next month's meeting. >> 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 Ketchum.
>> Yeah. I just think the scale is 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 it just 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 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. I'd want to live there, too, if it looked like that. But, uh, you know, these rules are in place and you got to, you know, obey them. So,
>> Oh, and thank you for clarifying. So 2007, you know, >> by the way, 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 it was in here. I just saw it. I should have noted it what page it was on before. I moved it. >> It was I think that I don't have a problem with the shutters. 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 were not original. So this house didn't originally have them. So that would not really apply in this case. If it had went 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. >> I agree with that. >> Yes, Commissioner Musi. >> I'm just curious. So, they have the
house on the market. Are they going to still they're wanting to do this renovation or new build 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, >> 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, uh, I think they'd sell the house. >> Okay. >> Otherwise, their intention is to live here long time. Long time. >> Okay. So, they Okay. Gotcha. That was the intention when they purchased the house and 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 Well, I Okay. I I've um to kind of not it's going to 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. >> Goes with the landsense.
>> 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 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 >> continuence? >> Continuence. Is that a better way to phrase that one? >> Yeah, >> Anna, let's I'm going to defer to you.
What if if we want to allow more time, what would be the preference? Uh a continuence or to go to staff recommendation to deny without prejudice? Well, denial without prejudice, of course, you know, will not put a time frame for for this. I think that um Mr. Logan would like a time
frame on it. So, it might be better to do the continuence. Um >> do 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. >> Would Laura? >> 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 serious uh constraint and burden >> on. >> I just want to make a note. You could, this is Trey, you could also um continue
for beyond just next month's meeting. Okay, >> you can 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 continuence 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 is there another filing fee or anything like that? >> We don't charge for our application, so they can just >> 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. [snorts] >> Who was the second? >> Me. >> Okay. >> Which number is in there? >> All right. On HCLC-26-050. We have a motion to deny without
prejudice by Commissioner Ketchum, seconded by Commissioner Brisendy. >> Thank you, Chair Herring. How do you vote? >> Yay. Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Tra um Commissioner Musey, how do you vote? >> Commissioner Tucker, how do you vote?
>> Yay. >> Commissioner Chef, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Malone, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Ketchum, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Bzendine, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Halden, how do you vote? >> Okay. >> Motion passes 90. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Uh let's move on to the next case. Right. Next case is 20 22396 Avenue HLC 26 051 and the applicant request a certificate of a popularness to apply a
painted coding to the historic brick. The proposal includes the application of coding to the original historic brick on the contributing structure located at 22 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 296 Avenue. The brick masonry is an original exterior material and and
defined feature of the structure history character within the Fermont district. Section 8 of the Fairmont Historic District standard citing citing a masonry states the original brick and the decorative element shall be
maintained and shall not be changed by the introduction of a different material. Also, the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties requires that historic character be retained and preserved and that distinctive materials, finishes and construction
techniques be maintained. Greek masonry that has remained unpainted since construction is considered a distinctive historic material. Altering its natural appearance through the application of a coating is not consistent with the standards as this change the material
historic finish and may impair his long-term preservation performance because the structure is a contributing structure with the firm history. history maintaining the integrity of his original masonry is essential to preserving both individual building and
the district as a whole. Having regard of the forgoing staff recommend the following that the request for a certificate of of appropriateness to apply a coding to the historic on painting brick at 22396 Avenue be denied without prejudice. This completes staff report.
>> 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. >> How my name is Eric Busy. Um, address 22396th Avenue.
Um, right. So, we worked with a mason. Uh, we evaluated the condition of the brick with our mason. And 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 the intention. What we were
looking to pursue um was a a lime wash which is unlike a a modern paint or synthetic clear sealant. It bonds with a masonry 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 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 something to protect protect and and preserve uh that brick that we we can't uh actually seek to replace. Um so yeah that is our it'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 white to off-white. A traditional. >> All right. Gotcha. It's like a slurry.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, we actually have a photo. >> There's two different pictures and but they were significantly different amount of textures on them. >> Yeah, that can be that can be adjusted. Just the mason can work to apply it thicker or less thick. Um, the one additional [snorts] benefit that I didn't mention is that it is it's easily
reversed. Like it's a you can use general materials to pull it off if that was something that a future homeowner wanted to do. >> Okay. Uh, any other questions for Mr. Busy right now? [snorts] >> 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 sound 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, and my and and it sounds like he's had the same situation. I couldn't replace the brick because it wasn't made anymore. So, um, I also had this 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 Ridgewood Road. And um my solution to that was I 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 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 going to 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 masonary type material. It's almost like a hybrid stucco,
whatever you want to call it. Um, and it and 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 house 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 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 that's being used, does it is there a more comparable color that match >> you can you can select your color it the you can put color into the the 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 a work session was that color was that whitewashed looking color that was that >> 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 that 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. It it is very helpful. Just a couple of question or a couple of things that come to mind.
>> Uh one, and this is a staff question, >> 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 coding be specified >> or is that just get in the way much? >> Well, he could certainly do examples. He could do he could lay up some examples and
And then another question before you answer that is that the brick there are some bricks that are like for example missing and broken >> the solvent or I don't know if I'm using the correct verbiage >> mortar
>> mortar >> y >> is is that going to solve >> you can match mort as well >> you can match mortar >> okay >> the question is whether he can get enough brick >> um to fix this and 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 going to be a question of whether he can find the brick and all this can be put together. >> Does staff does does st
>> 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. They don't have um >> 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 um
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 a 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 going to 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 [gasps] I I don't I think while this can be a
treatment, I don't think that according to our guidelines and according to what Fairmont has told us um 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've approved that on different buildings before. That doesn't change the look so much. Um, but ultimately that's why we brought it to you because we say no and they they want it to happen. So, [laughter]
>> 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 Sheff'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 I realize it's not painted. >> Yeah. >> But uh >> 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 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 in along the trim of the
windows and the doors. This job this needs some new trim. It needs caulking and that's going to 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 Fairmont 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 going to save as much as they can. Um and if you know and then match with new as close as they as possibly can.
>> Yeah. 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 piran 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 stem wall and then re-brickked my entire house. And um and I'm looking at these
pictures and looks a lot like what I had on my house. And that might be the the simplest and may most straightforward solution to this. Well, it's tough uh because these if you have a 100-y old house, you're going to 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 all right. Any 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 certainly come back to work with the city and bring this back with a different or an alternate solution. But having said that, we're ready. >> Have a motion in a second. Chair Herring, how do you vote? >> Yay.
>> Vice Chair Kelly Gardner. >> Yay. >> Commissioner Musey, how do you vote? >> Commissioner Tucker, how do you vote? >> Yay. Commissioner Chef. >> Yay. >> Commissioner Malone.
Commissioner Ketchum. Hi vote. >> And Commissioner Halden, how do you vote? >> Okay. >> Commissioner Bryson. >> Motion passes 90. >> All right. Thank you for that. And we're ready for the next case.
The next case is HLC 26037 is 6 and the address is 1601 lips comry and the applicant request certificate of appropriate an addition to the contributing structure. The proposal includes the demolition of
the non-historic inash gym addition and construction for new approximately 18,000 square foot addition along the south and east elevations of the historic fire station number eight. The addition will provide spended community programming space
including gym lobby, teaching kitchen, fitness center and multi-purpose rooms. The project also includes site improvements such a parking reconfiguration, playground enhancement enhancement and service areas. Fire station number A is a contributing structure with the defa district and was
designate was designed by the architect Charles all in in 1923. The building has served as a community center since 1979. The proposed addition is located on secondary elevation and is designed to be compatible in scale and massing while
remaining differentiated from the historic building. Serial work to the historic building primarily includes repair in kind replacement of existing materials along with removal of non-story security bars and treatment of previously altered openings. However,
the proposed storefront system on the second floor of the south elevation is not appropriate and must be removed from the proposal. The existing historic windows must be retained and repaired or replaced in Kai if in kind is necessary without altering
their dimensions or profile. I'm regarded for going staff recommend the following that the request for certificate appropriateness of for demolition of the addition and construction of the new spending addition associated with some improvement in serial alterations the
historic fire station be approved subject to the following conditions. The proposed storefront system on the second floor of the south elevation be removed from the proposal. Existing windows shall be retained and repaired or replaced in kite if necessary
matching the original materials, design, dimensions and profiles of the historic windows. That all windows and door repairs and replacement of the historic structure be performed in kind match matching as well the original materials design and profiles and the any adjustments made to
the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of certificate of appropriateness. This concludes that report. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh, is there anyone in the chamber to speak on this case? No one. 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. >> My name is Jim Tharp with William Tharp Architects. So, we're the architect for the city for this project. >> Okay. Great. Um, I understand that uh
there's set to approve the COE or COE except for the windows that are on the second floor. What I would just wanted to point out before we decide on that is has anyone here been to the existing rec center. >> Uh I have I don't know about others.
>> So if if you'll remember when you go in that's a a really small lobby with a really low ceiling. Uh, so one of the things this being a much bigger project, we have a much bigger lobby for more people to circulate through here and an 8 foot ceiling just did not seem
appropriate for the size of lobby that we've got. So to to raise the ceiling height in there, we're going to have to raise the structure where it attaches to the old building. 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 could get a taller structure and a taller ceiling in that lobby. 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 visually. So, from the street, I don't think you're really going to see much of a difference as far as the windows themselves. We've proposed storefront. Doesn't have to be storefront. There's all kinds of I guess
more appropriate type windows we could replace them with modern but that just want to get that out there that I don't you're not going to see the entire window that you see >> on the existing building >> now. In fact, if you're in those rooms and
you look out onto that when you stand there and look out of those windows, you can see what you're looking at rooftop units and roof things like that. So, 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 a much larger lobby space than what is existing there now. >> Okay. Well, that's helpful to know. So, [clears throat] excuse me. Thank you. And I was going to I've got a question for you. I was going to 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 Fairmont 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? Do you recall that being asked at that? Um, at this point, my answer is I it's not part of the project. We not at >> I get it. >> To restore the front porch.
>> Um, that that would uh cut down on the usable square footage what we have in the plans currently. That's a sort of the teen room, game room area. And if uh if that happened, that that would get reduced quite a bit restoring that porch. >> Okay.
>> It is not currently part of the project that we've been asked to to restore. >> All right. All right. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you. [cough] >> Excuse me. Uh do we have questions for staff? I'm just going to 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 recck department or and you know that may be going back a
long time and maybe there's no good answer, but I'm just curious. >> 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 the main structure. Um, you know, they're going to paint and um repair some of the 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 >> and I get it 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 Fairmont 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 >> Sure. >> fabric. So, all right. Well, I'm not going to 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 from porch. That helps. >> Absolutely. >> 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 you know [snorts] conditions the staff is uh recommending that it be approved with three conditions and the first condition has to do with those seconds 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 Musei 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. Before
we move on, Mr. >> 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. when 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 parapit wall on a patio sort of view. I mean, you you you aren't going to 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, 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 the historic nature
of the structure and I think that that this um this [snorts] architectural work helps to do that. Um and but I just I don't want to kill that entrance. I mean I have gone into this into this space. I've voted in here before and I've been
in here before. I've been in that gym. Um, and so I just I don't want to kill this great new entrance to this great new addition to this historic building on this site just for the sake of
foot two feet of window. >> So [snorts] 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 Brzodine 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 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 wanted to do a mo motion, >> we have an amended motion by the first
by Vice Chair 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. You our goal here is to protect the horse historic structures in Fort Worth, not the new development. So, uh I'm all about keeping the windows in place.
>> Good perspective. One one question I I would have that in in this situation is and maybe city staff can answer this. So, in this image that we see here right now, we have a very short 8-in tall parapit 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 parapit
wall that that wall is actually higher. Y >> 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. >> Uh yeah,
>> to see. Again, we believe as a preservation staff there's suctions options to keep the size and still have that kind of um [clears throat] 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 expansion and kind of demolish this expansion like at least the fire station looks going to be the same.
So that's where stuff is coming from. Like we believe there's options to keep the current 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 this 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 bird or a plane flying over to me I just don't sacrif 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 Fairmont and for the neighborhood over there. Um you know the people using it feel right and appropriate scale-wise. So >> well and that's you know what we're here
for is to sometime make some tough >> what are these windows >> pragmatic decisions. What do these windows look out onto a wall? And >> so like why they're I mean >> why do you need windows? >> I mean I I I would say if they were facing a public if they're facing the
rightway invisible then I would certainly say they've got to stay. But at this point they're literally facing another >> or if they were facing something pretty to look out onto. 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 a 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
HTLC-26-037 um with the removal of um >> number one. number one and everything else remain the same per staff
>> and I'll second that. >> Okay. Do we have a second on the alternate motion? >> Yeah, Jim. >> Okay. All right. But we need to act on the first motion. >> No, you vote on the alter 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 Brzendine with a second by Commissioner Ketchum. All right. Chair Herring, how you vote? >> Yay. >> Vice Chair Kelly Garner, how do you
vote? >> Come back to me. >> Um, Commissioner, you will come back to you as well. >> Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Tucker, are you voter
Sheff? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Malone, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Ketchum, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Halden, how do you vote? >> Commissioner Bryson D. Okay.
>> And back to Vice Chair Kelly Garner. >> I'm gonna go with uh nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. >> And Commissioner Music. >> I got to say yay. >> Yay. >> Okay. >> So, motion passes.
>> It's going to pass. >> We have uh eight yays and two nays. >> So, motion passes, right? I believe it's seven to two. So the motion passes. Passes. >> Yes. >> Seven.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. U Good discussion, Commissioner. >> Good. Yeah. >> All right. Next case, please. >> Yeah. All right, your next case. HLC 26-052 uh 1227 Verbina Street. The applicant
requests COA to construct multif family residents. 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 multif family residence that is consistent with the block in the design guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends the following. That the request for a COA to construct a new
multif family residence at 1227 Verbina Avenue be approved with the following conditions. that the front door configur 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 fenistration style in the district i.e. inset 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, we'll close the public portion and commissioners are open for a motion in 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 Halden. >> Yay. >> Commissioner Malone. >> Yay. >> Commissioner Ketchum. >> Yay. >> Commissioner Shuffalo. >> Yay. >> Commissioner Brisendine. >> Yay. >> And Commissioner Tucker. >> Yay. >> Thank you. Motion passes 90.
>> Great. Uh, next case, please. >> Right. This one is not going to be so quick, but I'll try. uh 90199 Evans Avenue, HCLC 26-022. The applicant requests a COA to construct multif family residences.
The proposed design for both two-story multif family 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. The predominantly contains
one and twostory commercial structures that are primarily located at 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 multif family structure will echo that anchor on the north end. The contextual elevation demonstrates a
building form, 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 allbrick facade, a consistent
cantalvered awning where possible, and a clear separation with some sort of brick coursing or stone belly band treatment. Sighting is typ is typically reserved for rear facades of commercial structures. The mix of siding and faux stuckle 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 stash on the second floors are reminiscent 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 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 ad west side of Evans that is reviewed under the near southside formbbased 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 southside, Inc. having regard to the foregoing staff recommends the following. That the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct new multif family residences
at 901 and 909 Evans Avenue be approved with the following conditions. That the materials used on the front and side facads be all brick to reflect a consistent material on the streetscape in the guidelines. That a consistent cantal leader bird 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 twostory 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 Britney Young Blood and address is 4,400 State Highway 800. I am uh with McAdams, so we're actually the civil on this project with Evans
Rosedale, so I am not the architect, but I can read whatever plans they presented to me to 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. We're really excited to get this project going to actually see this project come to life and working with staff has been great as far as the coordination pieces and they the architect the 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 really got >> great and you're in agreement or uh with all the staff the conditions for approval. >> Yes. >> Great. All right. Thank you. and thank you for your patience as well.
>> This has actually been very entertaining. So, I thank you guys. >> Thanks a [laughter] lot and it's exciting to see something starting to happen. So, absolutely 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 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. >> Second. >> Second. Was you Commissioner Tucker? Okay. I wasn't sure who it was. Um All right. 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 Halden, >> yay. >> Commissioner Malone, >> yay. >> Commissioner Ketchum, >> yay. >> Commissioner Shuffalo, >> yay. >> Commissioner Bzendine, >> yay. >> Commissioner Tucker,
>> yay. >> Thank you. Motion passes 90. >> Thank you. And do we need to take any action on the case that was withdrawn? >> No, I'm just going to say it for the the record once I get there. >> Too far. Um, the next case on the
docket, number six, HCLC 26-041 has been administratively withdrawn. Um, 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.