Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-9-00 HLC MinutesHISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION October 9, 2000 City Council Chambers - 3:30 p.m. The October 9, 2000, Historic Landmark Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Dale Hallmark. Commission members present: Vice Chairman Dale Hallmark Commissioner Leonie Bodin Commissioner Denise Shelton Commissioner Shaheen Farah Commissioner Ralph Jordan Commissioner Marie Broussard Commissioner Philip Long Commission members absent: Chairman Tracy Richardson Commissioner Terrence Holmes Commissioner Cathy Belt Commissioner Julia Levy Councilmembers present: Councilmember Andrew Cokinos Councilmember Lulu Smith Staffpresent: Stephen Richardson, Planning Manager, Nancy Nicholas, Recording Secretary; Cheryl Robinson, Senior Planner, Adina Abshire, Planning Technician. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Vice Chairman Dale Hallmark asked if there were any changes or additions to the minutes of the September 11, 2000 meeting. There being none, Commissioner Farah made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Shelton and motion carried TO. REGULAR MEETING 1. CA-514: Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to build an addition to a residence. Location: 2615 Liberty @ 10th Street Applicant: Gary Wallace for Pat and Keith Carter. Mr. Steve Richardson presented the staff report. He recommended approval of this request subject to all the materials and colors on the addition matching or complimenting the existing structure. Historic Landmark Conunission Meeting Minutes October 9, 2000 Pat and Keith Caner wish to construct a new master bedroom/office wing to their home at 2615 Liberty. The existing house is of stone construction with both single pane and multi -pane windows painted a bluish -gray color. Previous modifications to the house include a carport on the I Oth Street side. At some point, a studio structure has also been constructed in the rear yard. At the September i I th meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission allowed Gary Wallace, the contractor, to start the construction of the addition subject to him receiving a certificate of appropriateness in October. Slides were presented of the subject property. Mr. Richardson stated that Mr. Wallace, nor Mr. and Mrs. Carter were in the audience. Commissioner Farah asked if a list of materials had been submitted. Mr. Richardson replied that no list had been fiunished. Commissioner Jordan stated that the older part of the roof was "gabled" and the newer part of the roof was "hipped." Therefore, this constitutes a combination of architectural roof styles. Other discussion included the types of windows being used and must conform to the existing ones. Vice Chairman Hallmark stated that he was not comfortable giving carte blanche to a certificate of appropriateness. Other discussion included the consequences of not obtaining the proper authorization to proceed with the construction. With no further discussion, Vice -Chairman Hallmark asked for a motion on CA-514. Commissioner Jordan made a motion to place a stop work order on the project until the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Commissioner Shelton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. M. George Bullington addressed the Commission. He applauded the action of the Commission 2. CA-515: Request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness to construct lattice -work around a front porch. Location: 2234 Evalon Applicant: Nick Haynes Mr. Richardson presented the staff report. He recommended that the two large panels on the south and west sides of the front porch be removed. He also stated that the two large panels detract from the appearance of the house. The applicant installed two -lattice work panels on the south and west sides of the front porch of his home. He also installed lattice -work trim at the top of the front porch. The lattice -work was installed without a certificate of appropriateness. Mr. Haynes was notified on September 15, 2000, that he was violating the Beaumont Zoning Ordinance. On September 20, Mr. Haynes applied for the certificate of appropriateness. Slides were presented of the subject property. Mr. Haynes was in the audience to answer questions. Discussion between Commission members included the reasons for lattice -work and whether or not it was offensive. 2 Historic Landmark Conunission Meeting Minuses October 9, 2000 Commissioner Broussard asked Mr. Haynes what was the purpose of the lattice work. Mr. Haynes stated he installed the lattice -work for health reasons, i.e., staying out of the sun, wind protection. He also stated that the lattice -work had been installed for a number of years and was not aware of the need for a certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner Long asked why the violation was just now being noticed. Mr. Richardson staled that someone had complained about the lattice -work. Vice -Chairman Hallmark noted the cleanliness and neatness of the property. Other discussion revolved around the notification of persons regarding the guidelines for the district. Vice -Chairman Hallmark asked for a motion on CA-515. Commissioner Long made a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness which would allow the lattice work to remain. Commissioner Shelton seconded the motion. The motion to approve CA-515 carried 7:0. 3. Revolving Loan Fund Mr. Richardson stated that $56,000 was available in the loan fund. Signs and Parking Lots Discussion centered around the initial causes of concern which include setbacks and the enormous amount of cases that would have to go through the variance procedure. Also, noted was the financial burden put upon the property owner. It was decided that a committee be formed to review the sign ordinance. This committee will include Commissioners Shelton, Jordan and Long. It was also suggested that several members from the Old Town Neighborhood Association also serve on the committee. Mr. Phil Dunlap, President, will present the idea to the members of the association. The committee was asked to present a report at the next meeting. CLG Report Mr. Richardson reported that everything is in readiness for the conference. 6. Chairman's Repoli No report Ms. Robinson, Senior Planner, stated that at the July 10, 2000, Historical Landmark Commission meeting, CA-495 was approved for the replacement of a concrete roof with architectural shingles. The certificate of appropriateness was approved with the stipulation that the existing trim pieces or like kind be used on the ridge caps and the eave trim. On September 19, 2000, staff members noticed the work to be substantially complete. However, there were no trim pieces on the ridge caps or the eave trim. The roofing workers stated that the original trim pieces had been taken to the dump. A representative of the roofing company reported that he had informed the owner that he could not guarantee the roofing job using the existing pieces. He stated that the original pieces had crumbled and broken upon being removed from the original roof. The representative also stated that he had not been told to replace the original trim pieces with like kind. Hisloric Landmark Conmsission Mccling Minutee October 9, 2000 Ms. Robinson said that the original request had been brought to the Commission by Phil and Georgia Dunlap, for Tim McCreash, who is Mrs. Dunlap's brother. Mrs. Dunlap told Ms. Robinson that she had apprised her brother of all the specifics of the certificate of appropriateness. Mr. McCreash arranged for the roofing job from Colorado. Ms. Robinson added that she had spoken with Mr. McCreash and he reiterated what the roofing contractor had told him concerning the feasibility of reusing pieces from the original roof. He also told Ms. Robinson that he had not been able to find a contractor in the area to fabricate like kind trim pieces to replace the originals. Mr. McCreash told Ms. Robinson he is open to suggcstions to obtain a solution to the problem. It was explained to Mr. McCreash that by proceeding with the roof replacement and not meeting the stipulated terms of the certificate of appropriateness, he was technically violating the Historic District ordinance. This action justifies the filing of charges in Municipal Court because of the violation. Slides were presented of the subject property Commissioner Farah stated that he had spoken with the a representative of Best Roofing and was told that he could not reproduce the trim pieces. Commissioner Long stated that he was disappointed in the process as a lengthy discussion and a compromise had already occurred. He also felt that proper care had not been taken in removing the eave and trim pieces. Mr. George Bullington , 1822 Broadway, addressed the Commission. He slated that prior to the new roof being installed, the house was one of the most magnificent homes in the neighborhood, for the style and the roof. He also stated that he had observed the roof being removed and precautions were not taken when the contractor removed the roof tiles. Mr. Dunlap addressed the Commission. He stated that he felt a miscommunication had occurred between Mrs. Dunlap and her brother regarding the stipulations of the certificate of appropriateness. However, he also felt that it was not an intentional attempt to ignore the conditions for approval. Commissioner Hallmark asked if the roofing contractor was aware of the conditions stipulated for the replacement of the roof. Ms. Robinson explained that the representative that she talked to was not aware of any special conditions. Mr. Richardson staled that the reason for bringing this matter back to the Commission was for informational purposes and suggestions. Mr. Richardson also said that charges were ready to be filed, if necessary. Commissioner Long stated that he had names of businesses that handled these types of roofing pieces and would forward them to Ms. Robinson. This information will be furnished to Mr. McCreash. Ms. Robinson asked if there were a time limit on when this project should be finished. Commissioner Hallmark stated that he would rather see a commitment than to have to go to court. Ms. Robinson will follow up with the property owner. ADJOURN With no further business, the meeting adjourned.