►
From YouTube: Historic Resources Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
E
Good
evening,
everybody
I
have
a
background
in
archaeology
and
a
couple
decades
in
national
historic
preservation,
act,
type,
work.
F
Hi,
I'm
will
horton
today
at
morrow
a
local
historic
district.
G
Hi
everyone.
I
have
a
background
in
education
in
archaeology
and
anthropology.
H
Hello
again
without
reading
lyft,
I
have
a
doctorate
in
american
history
and
also
have
studied
architecture
before
going
into
history.
I
Hi
we
have
lived
in
asheville
for
a
year
now
and
prior
to
that.
We
lived
in
elizabeth
city,
where
I
was
on
the
historic
preservation
commission
for
13
years
and
my
husband
and
I
also
renovated
a
as
an
historic
house
built
in
1798
and
got
a
preservation
award
for
our
efforts.
J
My
name
is
james
vaughn,
I
have
a
master's
degree
in
public
administration.
I
live
in
a
historic
home
for
which
we
won
a
griffin
award
for
historic
preservation
and
I'm
also
on
the
board
of
the
south
asheville
cemetery,
where
we
just.
I
helped
shepherd
us
through
on
the
national
register
there
as
well.
That
was
just
made
official
just
a
couple
months
ago,
a
month
or
so
ago,.
K
Hi,
my
name
is
stephanie
west,
I'm
a
commercial
broker
and
I
work
on
a
lot
of
historic
commercial
buildings
in
downtown
asheville
and
I've
been
a
part
of
a
lot
of
adaptive,
reuse,
type
projects
on
historic,
commercial
properties.
L
C
C
Second
lucerus:
we
will
conduct
our
volt
vote
by
roll
call
I'll
call
each
commissioner's
name.
This
will
happen
throughout
the
course
of
tonight's
meeting
and
we'll
get
a
verbal
vote
one
at
a
time
vice
chair
spring
aye,
commissioner
lazarus.
I
commissioner
hornaday
aye,
commissioner
gardner.
J
L
B
If
I
could
just
interrupt
for
just
a
moment
just
for
those
of
you
who
have
who
abstained,
I
don't
know
if
it's
been
stated
before,
but
it
is
not
necessary
to
abstain.
If
you
missed
a
meeting,
you
can
vote
on
the
minutes.
B
It
doesn't
matter
it
doesn't
make
a
difference
with
this
vote
because
it
will
still
pass,
but
just
for
future
reference.
A
C
C
The
hrc
hears
and
considers
evidence
presented
and
applies
the
standards
set
forth
in
the
guidelines
and
standards
of
the
specific
historic
district
for
that
application.
The
hrc
must
make
its
decision
on
competent,
material
and
substantial
evidence
to
determine
the
facts
of
the
hearing.
The
hrc
will
use
judgment
and
discretion
to
apply
the
standards
contained
in
the
relevant
guidelines
to
the
facts.
The
commissioners
in
voting
for
an
item
will
not
have
a
fixed
opinion.
That's
not
susceptible
to
change
will
not
have
a
conflict
of
interest
and
will
not
have
engaged
in
ex-parte
communication
regarding
an
application.
C
M
Stacy's,
not
here
she's
doing
pickup,
but
she'll.
C
That's
fine.
We
can
circle
back
around
when
it
comes
to
that
agenda
item
and
or
whenever
she
gets
here
and
we
can
swear
her
in
as
well
barbara.
I
think
I
see
your
name
on
here,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
seeing
everybody-
maybe
not
quite
on
yet
leah.
C
All
right
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
swear
a
few
folks
of
you
in
I'm,
going
to
read
the
oath
and
then
I'll
ask
each
one
of
you
to
verbally,
affirm
I'll,
ask
you
by
name
one
at
a
time.
So
if
you
would
please
raise
your
right
hand
for
those
of
you
that
are
here,
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
information
you
present
during
the
hearing
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
or
preliminary
subdivision
approval
before
the
historic
resources
commission
shall
be
the
truth,
the
full
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
M
B
Okay,
there's
ms
lattimore,
is
she
here
russia
was
704.
She
is,
I
believe,
the
704
number,
oh
ms
latimer,
if
you're
listening
in
you
may
have
to
unmute
yourself.
A
C
We're
going
to
move
to
our
first
public
hearing
item.
Let
me
get
to
this
agenda,
which
is
37
watauga
street.
This
is
in
the
montford
historic
district.
This
is
a
continuation
of
a
project
we
first
looked
at
last
month
and
shannon
I'll.
Let
you
get
started.
B
B
Please
forgive
me
if
I
misstate
or
misreference
something
related
to
historic
preservation.
I've
been
learning
a
little
bit
as
I
go
shepherding
alex
or
shadowing
alex,
but
I
am
still
relatively
new
to
historic
preservation.
So
I
will.
Fortunately,
I
think
tonight's
agenda
is
relatively
straightforward.
So
without
further
ado
I
will
get
started.
So
the
first
item
on
your
agenda
this
evening
is
the
application
for
37
watauga
street
related
to
there's
primarily
two
aspects
to
the
request.
B
One
is
for
a
new
swimming
pool
and
the
the
redevelopment
of
the
courtyard
area
around
the
swimming
pool
and
then
a
accessory
structure
at
the
rear
of
the
primary
residence.
B
B
B
B
B
B
You
can
see
one
of
the
well.
Let
me
zoom
in
just
a
little
bit
more.
The
this
is
that
courtyard
area,
the
terrace
courtyard
area,
the
dashed
lines
represent
the
the
infrastructure
that's
in
place
today,
so
the
retaining
walls
and
the
steps
the
boulder
lines
are
what's
being
proposed.
B
So
you
have
your
seated
area
around
the
swimming
pool.
The
swimming
pool
is
kind
of
oriented
in
a
horizontal
fashion,
and
then
you've
got
some
additional
stair
work,
leading
up
to
another
terraced
area
around
a
hot
tub.
This
particular
design
encroaches
further
into
that
sloped
lawn
that
kind
of
big
backyard.
That
is
somewhat
customary
and
typical
of
some
of
the
larger
lots
in
the
montford
district.
The
there
was
some
concern
about
the
extent
of
this
new
work.
It's
actually
further
encroaching
into
the
lawn
area
and
is
fairly
significant
in
scale.
B
The
accessory
structure
also
located
originally
here,
was
oriented
towards
the
it
it
feels
sort
of
like
an
alley,
but
it's
actually
a
public
right-of-way.
It's
watauga
place,
so
this
property
is
actually
located
on
the
corner
of
of
watauga
and
watauga
place,
so
it
it
has
orientation
and
its
visibility,
and
the
view
of
the
property
from
both
of
those
rights
of
way
is
important.
So
this
accessory
structure
as
it's
related
to
that
right-of-way,
is
something
that
is
of
interest
in
this
review.
So
this
was
the
original
plan.
B
There
was
concern
again
about
the
extent
of
the
work
for
the
pool
area.
You
know
whether
the
pool
air
there
was
some
question
about
the
visibility
of
the
pool
area,
things
of
that
nature.
The
concern
regarding
the
accessory
structure
was
the
two-story
height
that
was
being
proposed.
The
montford
historic
guidelines
limit
the
an
accessory
structure
to
one
and
a
half
stories
which
this
originally
had
exceeded
and
has
now
subsequently
been
redesigned.
B
So
the
applicant
has,
with
his
architect,
have
gone
back
and
made
some
revisions
first
to
the
courtyard
and
pool
area.
I
think
the
first
notable
thing
is
that
the
the
orientation
of
the
pool
has
turned
90
degrees,
so
now,
instead
of
being
kind
of
long
oriented
in
a
long
horizontal
manner,
it's
been
kind
of
turned,
and
so
it
has
a
different.
I
believe
it's
the
same
size
or
close
to
the
same
size,
but
it's
been
oriented
differently
that
allows
the
this.
N
A
M
B
So
a
slightly
smaller
pool,
but
I
think
also
the
orientation
has
allowed
the
the
courtyard
area
around
the
pool
to
shrink.
So
now
the
area
this
reconstructed,
courtyard
pool
area
fits
within
the
area
that
had
previously
been
disturbed.
So
the
the
expanding
of
that
work
is
now
being
revised
to
kind
of
stay
within
the
scope
of
what
had
previously
occurred.
B
The
other
change
is
related
to
the
accessory
structure.
You
may
recall
the
earlier
plan
placed
the
structure
here
and
pulled
the
vehicular
access
from
that
side.
Street
metaga
place,
so
the
structure
with
the
garage
doors
were
oriented
towards
that
that
right-of-way,
that
public
right-of-way,
the
applicant
and
the
architect
have
now
switched
it
again.
It's
tilted
90
degrees
clockwise.
So
now
the
garage
doors
are
facing
south
towards
the
home.
So
this
would
be
the
side
of
the
structure
that
you'd
be
viewing
from
the
right-of-way.
B
So
in
looking
at
the
elevations
that
were
supplied,
one
of
the
one
of
the
the
I
should
say
the
main
concern
as
it
relates
to
the
accessory
structure,
was
that
two-story
height
turning
it
and
reorienting
the
building
allows
the.
Let's
see,
I
believe
it's
the
this
elevation,
the
east
elevation
from
that
right-of-way.
You
are
now
looking
at
a
slope
that
somewhat
disguises
that
first
story,
the
the
structure
you
know
kind
of
sits
up
on
a
hill.
B
It
does
still
sort
of
read
like
a
two-story
structure,
and
certainly
it's
you
know,
being
stacked
on
top
of
this
living
space
being
stacked
on
top
of
the
garage
makes
the
structure
not
much
shorter
than
the
principle
structure,
so
it
has
a
mass
or
a
field
that
is,
is
you
know
not
terribly
subordinate
to
the
principle
structure?
B
We
do
recognize
that
this
is
an
improvement.
I
think
turning
it
like.
This
has
mitigated
that
two-story
effect
to
some
degree
but
from
the
other
elevation
views.
This
is
a
view
from
the
courtyard.
You
can
certainly
see
the
the
two-story
look,
this
south
elevation
clearly
a
two-story
structure,
and
this
elevation
will
be
somewhat
visible.
B
But
in
discussing
this
with
alex
the
pool
area,
she
feels
has
been
largely
mitigated
by
shrinking
that
the
scope
of
the
work
that
hardscape
work,
that
plus
the
the
reconstruction
of
this
wall,
will
effectively
shield
the
view
into
that
courtyard
and
pool
area
so
that
that
will
not
really
be
visible
from
the
public
right
away
and
that
kind
of
largely
addresses
that
one
of
the
earlier
concerns.
So
so
as
it
stands,
we
feel
comfortable
with
the
pool
area
as
currently
designed.
B
It's
really
the
the
accessory
structure.
That
remains
a
question
and
that
concludes
my
introduction.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
to
the
best
of
my
ability,
but
I
think
you
all-
the
commission
probably
can
speak
to
this
better
than
I
can
so,
and
I
know
mr
mcdonough
and
mr
o'neill
are
here
as
well,
and
they
may
want
to
add
more
information.
C
Michael
and
john,
is
there
some
other
stuff
you'd
like
to
share.
N
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
dive
in
good
job,
teaming
it
up
shannon
good
background.
One
thing
I
think
that
was
maybe
shown
in
the
original
application
was
a
sanborn
map
that
showed
an
original
accessory
unit
towards
the
back
of
the
property.
N
Yeah
and
on
sheet
a10
c,
the
overall
site
plan
that
sandboard
map
showed
that
structure
kind
of
directly
behind
the
house
near
the
back
property
line.
N
N
And
another
thing
we've
done
is:
with
this
revision:
we've
attempted
to
repair
the
what
might
have
been
the
natural
grade
by
disconnecting
the
driveway
and
the
in
the
garage
doors
from
the
alleyway,
we're
kind
of
recreating
what
may
have
been
the
natural
grade
between
the
proposed
accessory
structure
and
the
road
right
away,
so
that
the
building
is
appears
less
of
a
two-story
building.
More
and
more
of
a
one-story
accessory
building
on
an
elevated
grade.
M
I
really
don't
I
mean
you
know,
maybe
I
it's
sort
of
probably
a
version
of
what
I
said
last
time,
which
is
you
know,
we're
very
committed
to
the
historic
nature
of
this.
That's
why
we
love
the
house
and,
and
the
pictures
only
captured
a
bit
of
the
yard.
I
mean
you
can
kind
of
see
it
from
scale
here,
it's
a
very,
very
large
yard.
M
So
we
love
that
we
want
to
preserve
that,
and
so
I
I
guess
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
communicate
that
the
spirit
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
very
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
and,
in
fact,
we're
committed
to
like
preserving
this
huge
lot,
and
you
know
we're
trying
to
do
the
home
and
absolutely
the
style
of
the
neighborhoods.
Maybe
I'll
say
that
which
is
more
of
a
just
an
emotional
point
rather
than
a
than
an
analytical
point.
I
appreciate
all
the
time
everybody
is
spent.
C
C
Okay,
we're
going
to
take
a
quick.
F
Quick
question:
maybe
for
the
homeowner,
was
there
a
site-specific
hardship
in
placing
the
structure
where
the
original
structure
was.
M
Well,
good
question
so
if
to
be
honest
with
it's,
not
something
we
originally
contemplated,
partly
because
I
think
we
we
ideally
would
like
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
a
private
garage
and
you
know
have
it
at
least
somewhat
close
eyes.
I
I
do
my
my
recollection
of
the
last
meeting
was
when
we
did
kind
of
look
in
a
little
more
detail
about
exactly
where
the
structure
was
and
so
forth.
M
The
concern
was,
if
you
placed
it
there,
it
would
be.
I
think
it's
kind
of
the
point
michael
made
here
that
it
might
become
even
more
visible
or
just
be
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
an
oddity
back
there
I
mean
the
reality
is
too:
we
love
the
size
of
the
backyard
and
what
we're
doing
here
is
really
kind
of
replacing
this
previous
work.
You
know
we're
trying
to
trying
to
you
know
stay
within
the
footprint
based
on
the
previous
feedback,
so.
M
F
And
that
was
a
one-story
garage
on
the
sandboard
map,
correct.
F
And
let's
see
there
was
one
other
thing,
and
so
this
is
a
one-story
carriage
house
garage.
Is
that
or
is
it
a
two-story
is
not
one
and
a
half
for
sure?
So
it's
a.
B
N
And
we've
we've
added
a
retaining
wall
between
the
right,
the
road
and
the
driveway,
which
also
serves
as
a
a
garbage
can
and
recycling
corral,
which
further
conceals
the
basement
garage
shannon.
Maybe
if
you
go
to
sheet
the
next
sheet,
8
11.
N
Yeah,
there's
a
about
a
12
foot,
long
retaining
wall
that
extends
from
the
front
corner
of
the
proposed
footprint
towards
the
house,
which
further
conceals
the
basement
garage
you
can,
you
can
see
it
right.
B
N
Yeah
we
have,
we
are
proposing
to
remove
an
existing
retaining
wall
that
you
saw
on
the
overhead
pictures
and
basically
repair
what
we
think
the
existing
historic
grade
was
between
the
proposed
footprint
and
the
road
right
away.
M
And
maybe
just
one
one
thing:
I'd
say
about
what
I
got
place
and
I
could
I'll
admit
I've
only
gone
past,
our
house
on
it
probably
two
or
three
times
ever
and
shannon's
description
was
absolutely
accurate
in
terms
of
it.
So
it
is
a
right
away
and
she
described
its
location,
but
it
there.
There
is,
as
you
go
down
there.
First
of
all,
it
does
dead
end
it
that
ends
like
where
our
neighbors
are
and
a
couple
folks
I
mean
I'm
there's
only
probably
two
or
three
houses.
M
I
believe
that
have
access
coming
around
watauga
place
and
I
think
for
all
of
them
it
is
a.
I
think
it's
right
I
want
to.
You
know
my
at
least
my
impression
it's
a
it
is
sort
of
more
of
an
alley
like
entrance
like
like
it
is
in
ours.
I
that
that
said,
I
I'm
not
shannon
described
it
also
very
fairly.
I'm
just
trying
to
provide
a
little
additional
context
about
the
street
itself.
Yeah
I'd
be
interested
to.
If
it's
easy
to
pull
it
up,
I'd
be
interested
to
see
it.
L
M
M
M
It's
a
very
large
backyard
and
all
of
this
as
it
loops
around
you
know,
I
don't
have
a
pointer,
that's
all
our
yards
so
that
you
sort
of
see
the
two
trees
without
leaves,
then
those
trees,
the
yellow,
the
kind
of
fall-colored
trees,
but
that's
still
our
yard.
That's
that's
the
far
end
of
our
yard
there,
and
so
we
have
butt
that
watauga
place
all
the
way
around
and
then
what
I
was
describing
is
you
sort
of
get
to
a
dead
end?
M
There
I've
only
gotten
there
like
when
I
drove
and
didn't
realize
it
went
through
and
that's
kind
of
our
next-door
neighbors
back
of
their
house
and
parking
there
and
they
they
they
have
a
watauga
street
address.
So
I
I
don't
know
if
that's
helpful
context
at
all,
but
that's
there's
very
few
people
really
driving
down
watauga
places
is
the
reality
of
it.
E
C
E
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
I
feel,
like
you
guys,
did
a
great
job
of
incorporating
our
discussion
and
our
thoughts
on
you
know:
alignment
with
the
standards
into
the
revised
plans.
I
think
it
looks
really
decent
and
fits
in.
D
D
That
was
probably
my
my
main
concern
with
the
previous
proposal
and
I
think
they've
really
mitigated
that
I
I
do
see
the
concern
with
the
two-story
look
of
the
accessory
structure,
but
at
the
same
time
it
seems
that
those
the
only
time
that
it'll
really
be
viewed
as
a
two-story
would
be
from
the
house
or
maybe
like
a
very
narrow
window
driving
by
so
I
I
do
think
that
the
repositioning
of
that
structure
has
helped
it
to
read
at
least
to
me
as
more
of
a
first
of
a
single
story,
structure
with
then
I
guess
basement
garage
so
and
I
I
I
don't
think
the
guidelines
say
anything
about
basements
on
accessory
structures
whatsoever.
F
I
have
a
quick
comment.
I
I'm
I'm
struggling.
I
I
find
nothing
unappealing
about
the
building,
but
if
we're
tasked
with
following
the
standards
on
accessory
carriage
houses
and
accessory
structures,
items
five
six
and
seven
kind
of
well
six,
not
as
much
if
we're
not
a
one
and
a
half,
if
this
is
fine,
is
what
it
is,
but
the
location
of
it
is
pretty
specific
to
be
pushed
to
the
rear
of
the
yards
it
doesn't
set
and
to
be
about
the
same
structure
that
was
there
before
and
if
that
grows.
N
F
But
the
standards
are
pretty
clear
on
keeping
it
where
it
is
where
it
was
historically
and
and
that's
and
the
rear
of
the
yard
is
also
encouraged.
And
I
think,
since
we
know
it
was
there,
and
I.
J
I'll
echo,
commissioner
hornaday
I
mean
it
does
say
you
know
one
and
a
half.
I've
watched
the
evolution
of
these
discussions
on
these
accessory
buildings
in
monfort,
specifically
where
we
said
well,
we
want
to
keep
them
this
high.
Well,
it
looks
you
know
it
looks
like
one
and
a
half
if
it's
near
this
to
now,
it's
like
well,
it's
two
stories.
C
I'm
in
a
little
bit
of
agreement-
and
I'm
really
looking
for
some
compelling
reasons
to
approve
it,
because
I
because
I
think
I
I
think
this
is
certainly
a
substantial
improvement
and
and
successful.
I
I
really
like
the
the
way
that
the
grade
sort
of
at
the
road
reads
like
it
was
existing
the
ability
to
sort
of
gradually
slope
the
the
terrain
along
watauga
place
in
front
of
the
accessory
structure.
C
I
it's
hard
to
turn
this
into
anything,
but
a
two-story
structure.
Unless
you
start
to
talk
about
michael,
you
can
probably
appreciate
this
where
my
head
is
going
in
terms
of
you
know
how
basements
are
defined
in
the
residential
building
code
and
other
places
to
help
give
us
some
any
kind
of
foundation.
That
would
help
us
tell
a
story
that
this
isn't
a
two-story
structure.
C
You
know,
75
percent
of
that
lower
floor
is
below
grade
essentially
on
three
of
sides,
but
it
very
clearly
reads
two
stories:
when
you
look
at
it
head-on
at
the
garage
doors,
I
think,
will
I
I,
the
the
standards
seem
pretty
clear
on
placement.
I
wonder,
however,
if
we
create
a
pretty
significant
impact
to
the
property
by
making
the
accessory
structure
so
far
back
on
the
property
with
regards
to
driveway
access
or
even
pedestrian
access
and
navigating
the
terrain.
From
far
back
on
the
property
to
the
main
house.
A
N
C
I
don't
know-
and
so
I
you
know,
I
think,
as
a
commission,
we
need
to
really
ground
our
decision
in
what
we
think
the
standards
are
telling
us
and
how
we
can
interpret
those
in
a
way,
because
I
certainly
think
that
this
iteration
of
the
proposal
is
is
far
more
successful
than
the
previous
version
and
getting
us
closer
to
the
guidelines.
E
I
wanted
to
also
point
out
the
accessory
structure
for
the
next
door
home,
which,
if
my
memory
is
correct,
was
also
on
the
sanborn
and
that
the
location
of
the
new
accessory
structure
in
that
area
is
actually
kind
of
in
keeping
with
that
hyperlocal
pattern
right
in
on
that
block
portion,
and
I
feel
like
it
echoes
that
a
little
bit,
it's
different.
E
Of
course,
it's
still
in
the
rear
yard,
it's
no
closer
to
the
street
than
the
primary
structure
and
I'm
reading
from
number
seven
on
the
carriage
houses
on
page
35
and
and
by
keep
by
street
side
on
what
togga
place,
how
it
is
echoing
the
the
grade
that
goes
up.
It
reads
smaller
because
it's
located
up
higher.
N
Well,
the
the
site
plan
any
any
site
plan
that
shows
the
whole
site.
It
would
be
a.
N
That
one,
yes,
okay,
so
to
follow
up
with
what
gail
said
where
the
property
kind
of
hooks
around
it
shows
the
footprint
of
the
adjacent
property
accessory
structure.
Shannon.
Can
you
follow
your
cursor?
There
there's
a
power
pole
and
it
shows
some
dashed
lines
that
radiate
away
from
the
power
pole.
No.
N
C
N
That
is
the
adjacent
accessory
structure
so
and
following
with
gail's
comment,
it's
certainly
logical
that
an
accessory
structure
would
be
somewhat
relative
in
position.
Yeah,
it's
a
red
roof
thing
there
so
and
then
even
across
the
alleyway.
If
you
look
at
that
brick
building
to
the
right,
we
are
proposing
to
position
our
accessory
structure,
basically
in
line
with
the
red
roof
accessory
structure
and
that
brick
building
with
the
hip
roof
accessory
structure.
N
So
one
could
argue
that
that's
the
historic
pattern
right
there
and
that
putting
a
structure
way
in
the
back
of
the
property
wouldn't
seem
to
have
any
relevance
to
the
house.
N
And
at
some
point
it
appears
that
37,
wood,
togga
property
had
absorbed
the
adjacent
property's
backyard,
to
create
this
bigger
yard.
N
N
N
So
if
we
were
to
basically
not
drive
a
car
into
the
basement
and
instead
continue
the
grade
in
front
of
the
south
elevation
and
go
with
a
one-story
accessory
unit
sitting
on
top
of
the
natural
grade,
the
building
doesn't
get
any
shorter.
We're
just
we're
just
holding
the
grade
back
and
allowing
us
to
use
the
basement.
So
if
the
goal
is
to
is
to
keep
the
structure
from
getting
too
tall,
there's
that
there's
really
no
way
to
shorten
the
height
of
the
building
and
keep
the
natural
grade
without
doing
essentially
a
buried
bunker.
N
So
again,
the
the
height
of
this
building
is
going
to
be
similar
in
heights
to
that
red
roof
accessory
unit
towards
the
west.
The
neighbor.
N
And
and
just
I'm
sure
this
comes
up
a
lot,
but
the
guidelines
really
don't
address
topography
and
you
know
montford.
We
have
a
lot
of
topography
here,
so
you're
gonna
have
to
deal
with
or
you
have
dealt
with
it
that
no
doubt
on
one
side
of
the
building.
It's
going
to
appear
one
story
and
on
the
downhill
side
it's
going
to
appear
one
and
a
half
for
two
stories
so
which
side
are
you
going
to
judge
the
height
of
the
building
from.
J
Michael,
there
were
no
topography
issues
and
it
was
flat
land.
Would
we
allow
a
two-story
building.
J
N
J
C
Michael,
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
and
you
know
in
reading
ordinances
for
others
sort
you
know,
subdivisions
have
different
ordinances
and
design
guidelines
and
things
like
that.
There's
often
those
guidelines
come
with
height
limitations
or
restrictions
and
some
methodology
for
calculating
that
is
more
clear,
right,
picking
an
average
grade.
C
You
know
across
a
particular
elevation
and
measuring
from
that
average
point,
and
certainly
in
a
sloping
situation,
you
have
to
know
how
to
where
to
measure
it
from
and
do
you
measure
it
from
the
lowest
part
of
the
grade
or
the
highest
part
or
some
kind
of
an
average,
and
a
lot
of
subdivision
design
guidelines
will
address
height
in
that
manner.
That's
not
the
way
that
we
don't
have
that
methodology
some
respects.
It
would
be
far
more
clear,
but
it's
you
know
I
I
tend
to
to
think
that.
C
Certainly
this
one's
a
challenge
and
most
of
the
lots
in
in
montford
tend
to
deal
with
some
kinds
of
top
topography.
I
think,
and-
and
michael
maybe
you
can
answer.
This
question
is:
how
does
the
residential
building
code
define
that
floor?
That
story?
Is
it
a
basement
not
that
that
maybe
gives
us
a
path
through
the
guidelines
differently,
because
the
guidelines
don't
reference
basements
basements
in
regards
to
accessory
structures,
but.
C
Right
and
of
course,
all
over
town
we
have
garages
and
basements
in
this
type
of
any
any
city,
with
the
terrain
that
we
have
is
going
to
have
all
kinds
of
garages
and
basements,
you
know,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
that
gets
us
anywhere.
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit.
I
really
wish
that
we
had
the
sanborn
map,
because
I'm
wondering,
as
I
was
looking
at
the
aerial
photograph
and
the
relationship
of
the
accessory
structure
of
the
neighbors
property
and
watauga
place,
that's
sort
of
wrapping
around
behind.
C
When
the
original
accessory
structure
was
on
that
property
was
watauga
place
in
existence
because
it
feels
like,
if
that
were,
if
the
backyards
were
budding,
other
people's
backyards,
that
sort
of
remote
location
for
an
accessory
structure
feels
pretty
predictable,
and
it
seems
like
a
pretty
strong
pattern
in
montford.
We've
certainly
seen
a
lot
of
other
properties
with
this
very
far
back
set
accessory
structure
in
a
corn.
You
know
in
a
corner
of
a
property
where
other
people's
backyards
are
touching.
C
It
we've
got
this
sort
of
weird
back
road
that
sort
of
wraps
around
behind
and
I'm
imagining
that
accessory
structure
if
it
were
to
be
placed
in
its
original
location
in
sort
of
a
weird
way.
That
is
not
characteristic
of
accessory
structures
in
montford
that
are
positioned
so
far
back
they're,
not
usually
up
against
a
public
right-of-way
or
a
road
where
you've
got
this.
C
That
would
have
impacted
and
changed
that
relationship,
and
maybe
it
was
watauga
place
that
made
the
accessory
structure
go
away
in
the
first
place.
Is
it
now
where
the,
where
this
road
kind
of
is,
and
so
that's
I
wish
we
could
see
the
the
sanborn.
C
I
know
I
was
looking
back
in
her
other
stuff
to
see
if
alex
had
sort
of
tucked
it
in
the
folder,
but
it
in
my
mind
and
my
imagining,
and
it
feels
weird
back
there
like
if
we
put
it
back
where
we
think
it
was
possible,
it
could
be
in
the
street
now,
but
also
it
just
feels
weird
as
this
road
sort
of
wraps
around
it.
E
N
It's
not
a
definition
of
a
basement,
it's
the
definition
well
under
basement.
It
says,
see,
story
above
grade
and
story
above
grade.
It
says
any
story
having
its
finished
floor
entirely
above
grade,
except
that
a
basement
shall
be
considered
as
a
story
above
grade
where
the
finished
surface
of
the
floor
above
the
basement
is
more
than
six
foot
above
great
plain,
more
than
six
foot
above
finished
ground
level
for
more
than
50
percent
of
the
total
building
perimeter
more
than
12
foot
above
finished
ground.
C
And
if
it
were
exposed
on
two
sides,
it
would
be
a
story
of
upgrade
right,
so
you've
got
dirt
wrapping
around
three
sides
of
this
structure,
which
is
75
below
grade.
But
if
we
had,
you
pulled
the
dirt
away
from
two
sides,
instead
of
just
one
that
would
meet
that.
Second,
that
50
percent.
N
N
And
also
I'll,
just
reiterate
what
you
said:
I
have
done
projects
in
the
county
where
they
do
define
how
you
measure
a
building
height
and
it's
typically
an
average.
It's
typically
your
your
highest
measurement
and
your
shortest
measurement,
and
you
average.
It.
F
I
have
one
other
thought
that,
as
to
preserve
a
historic
neighborhood,
this
isn't
kennel
worth
and
this
isn't
you
know
there
are
hardships
here:
it's
not
a
free.
There
are
restrictions
and
I
think,
when
the
restrictions
and
shannon
I
sent
you
that
sanborn,
if
you
see
it
in
your
inbox
from
alex
the
the.
F
Sometimes
there's
weird
garages
and
backyards
that
are
really
far
away
from
the
house,
because
that's
where
they
kept
the
horses
or
the
cow.
F
And
maybe
it
wasn't
for
a
carriage-
and
maybe
it
wasn't
for
our
house,
but
that's
where
it
is,
and
the
more
we
get
away
from
that
and
and
bring
all
the
development
closer
to
the
to
the
to
the
main
structure,
and
you
can
see
a
lot
of
those
structures
except
for
that
oddball
red
roof,
one
that
hugs
the
property
line
and
they
are
pushed
to
the
back
of
their
properties.
F
I
think
that
we're
tasked
to-
or
I
feel,
I'm
tasked
with
protecting
original
location
and
that
1x
means
it
was
one
story.
It
was
a
smaller
building
than
what's
designed
and
but
as
a
commission
we're
protecting
what
the
the
pattern
and
the
spacing
and
the
relationship
of
big
expansive
lawn
and
you
have
a
huge,
beautiful
front
lawn
and
a
huge,
beautiful,
back
lawn
as
well,
and
that's
getting
we're
getting
further
and
further
away
from
that,
as
things
are
brought
closer
and
closer
to
the
house.
F
That's
where
I
struggle
with,
and
the
guidelines
are
pretty
clear
on.
You
know.
We
know
where
it
was.
We
know
how
tall
it
was.
We
know
that
it
was.
You
know
on
whataga
plays
that's
why
I
struggle
on
adu,
I'm
not
as
concerned
about
the
swimming
pool,
and
I
would
you
know,
that's
where
I'm
it's
the
historic
pattern
and
what
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
preserve.
N
I
appreciate
that
well,
if
I
might
just
revisit
item
number
seven
locate,
new
accessory
structures
and
keeping
with
historic
pattern
in
terms
of
relationship
to
primary
structure,
traditional
location
of
ancillary
buildings.
So
just
looking
at
that
sanborn
map
across
the
street
towards
the
bottom,
you
can
see
that
all
those
accessory
buildings
are
not
hugging
the
back
property
line.
Those
are
closer
to
the
primary
structure,
the
property
immediately
to
the
west
or
left
of
the
applicant
property.
N
F
Those
are
historic
structures
from
19.
What
is
this
20,
whatever
that's
where
they
were?
That's
just
how
it
was.
It
was
a
sloppy,
that's
where
they
put
them,
but
the
people
who
wrote
the
standards
said
when
locating
new
put
it
where
it
was
or
put
it
towards
the
back,
and
neither
of
that
is
happening.
A
F
Yeah
toward
the
rear
of
the
structures,
early
garages
on
the
paragraph
before
on
page
34
early
garages
were
typically
single
bay,
located
in
the
rear
yard
at
the
end
of
a
driveway.
So
I
see
what
you're
saying
in
the
rear
yard.
I
was
thinking
more
towards
the
rear
of
the
yard.
We
know
where
it
was.
We
know
it
is.
I
see
I
I
understand
how
much
convenience
is
being
added
by
the
placement
and
I
completely
understand,
but
that's
I
don't
feel
that's
what
the
preserving
of
the
historic
neighborhood.
F
N
It
means
that
one,
you
wouldn't
put
it
in
front
of
the
structure.
You
wouldn't
I
mean
just
look
at
the
sanborn
map,
but
the
traditional.
M
Right,
I
would
say
I
mean:
let's
get
to
a
point.
That's
already
that's
already
been
made
respectfully.
Let
me
make
a
couple
points.
I
mean
to
extend,
there's
a
pattern
and
obviously
pattern's
a
word
that
can
be
interpreted
a
million
different
ways,
but
I
mean
it
gets
to
the
point
of
the
two
accessory
structures
on
the
neighboring
properties.
M
M
If
you're
sitting
in
the
house
backyard
and
their
structure
sits
there
now
the
house
to
our
left,
which
is
now
multi-family
housing
and
has
tons
of
people
crammed
into
it,
has
a
has
a
has
a
has
a
carriage
house
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
sitting
right
behind
it,
also,
which
is
now
also
rental,
housing
and
so
we're
proposing
putting
the
house
on
that
line
which
to
me
like.
I
actually
think
it's
a
stronger
argument
that
that
is
the
pattern.
So
so
so
again,
there's
a
million
different
ways
to
interpret
the
other
thing.
M
C
B
N
Does
the
do
the
guidelines
reference
your
perception
of
michael.
B
Can
I
can
I
interrupt
for
just
a
moment,
so
I
just
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
that
the
public
comment
has
been
closed
and
this
is
the
period
of
time
where
the
commission
should
deliberate.
So
we're
waiting.
We're
really
like.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
all
the
commissioners
get
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
weigh
in
and
offer
input,
and
I
know
that
this-
the
the
design
review
kind
of
lends
itself
well
to
this
open
discussion.
B
B
H
I
I
think
that
you
guys
have
done
a
great
job
on
the
backyard
it
looks.
I
just
think
it
looks
so
much
better
and
I
I
think,
you're
going
to
be
very
happy
with
that.
I
do
have
trouble
with
the
location
of
the
new
garage
just
because
on
this
particular
lot
it
was
in
the
back
in
the
corner
there,
and
it
just
seems
to
me
from
reading
the
guidelines
that
it
should
be
there.
H
D
I've
got
a
question
for
any
of
the
commissioners
who
might
have
been
here
longer
than
me.
Maybe
that's
only
emily,
but
when
it
comes
to
when
it
refers
to
the
original
location
of
an
accessory
structure
on
the
lot
and
when
it
says
you
know
it,
should
the
new
structure
should
maintain
the
location
of
the
the
old
structure.
D
D
You
know,
try
to
restore
it
to
the
historical
look
like
like
it's,
it
seems
like
if,
if
you
were
trying
to
make
it
be
how
it
was
when
these
structures
were
built,
you'd,
say:
okay.
Well,
that's
only
going
to
be
a
one
door
carriage
house
and,
like
you
know
nothing
else,
just
bringing
it
back
to
a
very
historic
look,
but
it
seems
like
what
been
what
is
more
common
now
is
retain
the
historical
structures
and
the
historical
landscapes
as
they
currently
are.
D
So
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
to
see
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
on
that,
I
think
it's
pretty.
E
Oh
sorry,
well
is
that
that
is
sort
of
why
we
have
a
commission
to
speak
about
it
and
to
talk
about
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
that
the
guidelines
don't
have
a
dogmatic
restoration,
it's
more
of
a
rehabilitation
slant
to
them
and
that
part
of
this
is
up
to
us
to
discuss
and
to
come
up
with,
rather
than
it
doesn't
say,
replace
every
single
thing
in
kind.
No
changes,
no
footprint
changes.
No,
you
know
no,
nothing
so,
and-
and
this
is
a
good
discussion
we're
having
on
this.
C
So
I
think
the
trend
has,
in
my
time
on
the
commission
has
been
if
we
know
where
an
accessory
structure
was
because
we
have
sanborn
documentation,
then
I
would
say
almost
all
of
the
applications
that
we've
reviewed
have
proposed
an
accessory
structure
in
that
approximate
location.
We
have
the
guidelines
in
item
number.
C
Five
on
on
carriage
houses
and
accessory
structures
says
if
an
original
carriage
house
is
completely
missing,
you
replace
it
with
either
a
reconstruction
or
a
new
design
compatible,
and
so
reconstruction
would
require
some
documentation
and
evidence
of
what
it
even
looked
like,
which
we've
not.
I
don't
think
in
my
time
in
the
commission
have
ever
been
presented
with
any
of
that
it
would
be
a
rare
occasion.
I
think
that
that
documentation
would
even
it
really
exist.
C
We
have
been
as
a
commission
very
open
to
changes
in
the
size
and
footprint
of
a
new
accessory
structure
in
an
original
location,
recognizing
that
cars
are
not
the
same
size
as
horses,
for
example,
and
so
we
haven't,
we
haven't.
There
hasn't
been
much
debate
in
those
situations
where
we
have
been
concerned
about
a
size
of
a
new
structure
matching
the
size
of
an
of
an
original
structure.
C
We
do
sometimes
comment
on
size
if
we
think
it's
out
of
scale
with
with
the
the
main
primary
structure.
C
You
know
the
proposed
structure
should
be
located
in
the
original
location
unless
it
is
found
that
the
original
location
creates
a
site-specific
hardship
and
then
it
may
be
located
as
near
to
the
original
location
as
possible,
and
so,
even
in
those
cases,
it's
it's.
How
close
can
we
get
it
to
where
the
where
the
original
location
was
so.
D
I
mean
that
that
guideline
that
passage
it
does
state
pretty.
Clearly,
you
know
it's
it's
kind
of
hard
to
argue
that
it's
it's
unclear
what
that
says.
I
think
you
know
from
the
applicant's
perspective,
that's
quite
unfortunate,
but
it
does
make
our
job
really
hard.
C
C
So
if
someone
with
a
primary
structure
wanted
to
add
an
adu
to
their
property
that
didn't
previously
exist,
which
we've
also
reviewed
those
applications?
Yes,.
D
Sorry
emily
go
ahead,
you
go.
Are
you
good?
I
yeah.
I
do
think
that
if
there
was
no
evidence
of
of
a
structure,
a
secondary
structure
on
this
lot,
then
I
think
you
know
going
with
the
pattern
of
the
neighborhood
it'd
probably
end
up
similar
to
what
the
applicant's
proposing,
because
there
is
you
know
in
in
the
neighboring
residences,
that
pattern.
O
And
this
is
this
is
janice,
but
I
just
wanted
to
comment
because,
as
you
say,
emily
you
usually
take
this
into
consideration,
but
I
in
my
relation
recollection,
it's
often
that
somebody's
building
the
same
kind
of
building,
so
the
only
interpretation
here
that
you
might
think
about
is
that
was
that
its
original
building
was
probably
a
lit.
Maybe
a
little
garage
we
kind
of
can
tell
it
was
small,
and
so
just
a
garage
would
be
way
back
there
on
the
alley.
C
Just
I
think,
that's
a
good
point.
I
think
if,
if
this
commission
says,
we
need
to
see
that
that
accessory
structure
in
the
original
location,
it
is
the
applicant's
going
to
be
faced
with
a
choice
of
either
a
garage
or
an
a
dwelling
unit,
because
there's
not
going
to
be
a
two
s,
a
a
scenario
whereby
the
topography
is
going
to
allow
for
the
accommodation
that
that
that
they're
making
now
to
be
able
to
have
both
of
those
things
because
a
two-story
it
would
be
there'd,
be
substantial
change
to
the
topography.
C
I
suspect
the
road
is
not
going
to
allow
for
that
kind
of
an
access
to
allow
for
two
levels
of
something
happening
in
that
in
that
structure,
so
that
the
applicant
will
be
faced
with
a
choice
of
either
a
garage
or
an
adu.
B
H
B
I
think
that
was
a
question
for
the
applicant,
so
I
would
say
yes,
michael
is
invited
to
speak
in
this
particular
case.
What
I
want
to
avoid
is
this
debating
that
goes
back
and
forth
between
the
applicant
and
certain
commissioners,
because
that
has
the
effect
of
quieting
other
voices,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
gets
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
that
will
follow
procedure.
B
I
have
pulled
up
the
the
elevation
that
shows
the
single
family
or
the
accessory
structure,
as
it
relates
to
the
principal
dwelling.
So
you
can
see
it's
not
a
view
from
the
street.
We
don't
have
a
sketchup
model
that
would
show
whether
or
not
you'd
be
able
to
see
this,
but
you
can
see
it
is
the
the
peak
of
this
structure
is
lower
than
the
primary
structure
side.
C
It
would
be
highly
my
property
line
is
the
highest
point
of
the
property.
You
know
from
the
from
watauga
street
to
the
back
of
the
property
at
watauga
place.
It's
the
highest
point
is
back
there.
H
C
That's
a
that's
an
interesting
question.
I
think
because,
like
if
you're
standing
on
watauga
right
facing
the
front
of
looking
at
the
front
of
the
house,
I
think
you're
going
to
be
low
enough,
that
you
probably
don't
see
it
okay,
but
it
would
technically
be
higher
than
the
primary
structure.
B
A
B
F
Yeah,
since
we
don't
have
that
in
front
of
us,
we
can
only
vote
on
what
we're
looking
at
and
and
it's
kind
of
how
I'm
kind
of
feeling.
C
But
we've
heard,
if
I
can
maybe
sort
of
help,
give
the
applicant
some
a
little
bit
of
a
summary
context
of
what
we've
talked
about.
It
sounds
like
there's
at
least
three
or
four
or
five,
maybe
folks
that
are
struggling
with
the
placement
of
it
on
the
property
reluctantly
struggling.
Maybe.
C
Michael's
got
a
question
in
the
from
the
chat
that
says
if
the
rear
property
was
subdivided
and
became
a
lot.
Where
would
the
structure
go?
The
other
question
was
the
historic
ex
historic
accessory
footprint
appears
to
be
set
on
the
property
line.
Would
that
even
be
allowed?
C
That's
often
been
the
case,
michael
in
applications
that
we've
reviewed,
that
the
sanborn,
the
the
original
structure
doesn't
comply
with
current
setback
requirements
for
property
lines
and
in
those
instances
we
would
you
know
that
would
be
an
overriding
factor
I
think
in
in
most
of
it.
I
can't
think
of
a
case
that
we
looked
at,
that
we
haven't
positioned
a
new
structure,
mostly
in
the
spot
of
an
existing
structure,
with
consideration
to
the
current
setback
requirements.
B
Yeah
we
well,
we
don't
have
a
standard
for
that,
but
also
I
want
to
ask
folks
not
to
use
the
chat
to
ask
questions.
It
should
be
spoken
directly
as
part
of
the
public
hearing.
So
it's
fine
because
emily
you've
stated
the
question
from
the
chat.
So
I
think
it's
it's
on
the
record,
but.
C
C
I
we've
not
heard
from
everyone.
I
don't
know
if
that
means
they're
in
agreement
with
what
folks
have
said
or
if
there's
a
any
other
commissioners.
That
would
like
to
render
some
comment,
but
it
does
look
like
there's
at
least
a
bit
of
discussion
with
a
handful
of
folks
on
the
commission
that
are
struggling
with
alignment
of
the
standards
with
the
placement,
as
proposed
of
the
accessory
structure.
K
I
have
one
question:
shannon
had
that
google
earth
ariel
pulled
up
and
it
it
looks
like
that
that
one
tree
back
there
is
pretty
substantial,
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
tell,
but
is
that
not
sort
of
smack
dab
where
that
original
structure
was
located?
K
I
guess
what
I'm
sort
of
getting
at
is
is
putting
it
back
there
are
we
putting
a
fairly
large
tree
at
risk,
just
sort
of
locate
it
back
there?
I
tried
to
leave
the
aerial
the
site
plan,
but
it
was
a
little
unclear.
D
C
On
the
sanborn
road
that
has
nice
90
degree
angles
of
watauga,
we've
sort
of
curved
that
a
little
bit,
so
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
different
different
shape.
Yeah.
I
think
it's
entirely
possible
that
construction
and
the
footprint
of
the
of
a
new
accessory
structure
back
there
would
encroach
on
the
drip
line
of
a
tree
like
that.
L
It
seems
to
me
like
the
owner
and
the
architect,
maybe
need
to
provide
more
research,
and
I
guess
exhibits
to
support
where
they
want
the
building.
I
mean
they
need
to
show
other
buildings
in
montford,
maybe
that
have
a
similar
location
like
what
they're
proposing,
because
I'm
in
agreement
with
putting
the
structure
in
the
back,
like
commissioner
hornaday
and
commissioner
vaughn.
M
Okay,
so
if,
if
it
was
placed
back
there,
then
what
what
would
happen
with
the
rest
of
the
area
where
we
were
proposing
the
structure
now,
would
it
just
remain?
As
is
I
mean
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
also
is
correct.
The
prior
owners
work
without
going
through
an
approval
or
anything.
So
so
that's
a
little
unclear,
and
you
know
the
purpose
of
this
was
to
was
to
do
it
on
the
footprint.
That's
already,
there
was
to
not
cannibalize
more
yard,
so
I
I
we
we.
M
M
D
A
C
Know
looks
like
from
the
photographs
that
that
concrete
kind
of
parking
area
with
the
sort
of
retaining
wall
maybe
predates
the
work.
If
I
look
back
at
the
exhibits
enforcement
photos
from
that
are
in
our
packet
there's
a
2016
image
that
shows
that
parking
that
predates
the
terracing
and
the
and
the
patio
work
that
was
done.
That's
in
the
2020
photograph,
so
that
at
least
without
knowing
anything
more
was
done.
C
Prior
to
so
it's
been
a
parking
surface
with
a
retaining
wall
there,
for
you
know,
at
least
since
2016,
even
when
the
back
terracing
was
had
not
yet
been
done,.
D
So
you
basically
have
all
of
the
existing
built
area
and
then
plus
an
accessory
structure
at
the
back
of
the
lot.
C
Well-
and
I
think
you
know
one
thing
that
was
important
to
us
when
we
were
wrestling
with
that
the
pool
and
the
and
the
hot
tub
was
the
visibility
of
it,
and
we
talked
quite
a
bit
in
our
last
meeting
about.
Can
you
see
it
from
the
neighbor's
yard?
How
high
are
some
of
those
retaining
walls?
What's
the?
What
is
the
presence
of
that
in
the
view?
C
As
you
drive
down
wichita
place-
and
I
think
certainly
one
of
the
successful
things
about
the
accessory
structure
is
its
ability
to
help
shield
that
all
of
that
work
from
view
and
to
and
to
create
some
better
privacy,
and
it
allows
us
an
opportunity
to
recreate
some
of
the
topography
along
watauga
street
that
probably
gets
a
lot
more
close
gets
closer
to
an
original
topography
along
the
roadside.
So
there's
some,
you
know.
I
think
this
is
a
challenging
case,
because
there's
certainly
benefits
to
putting
it
in
the
in
its
proposed
location.
C
C
That
seems
that's
that's
difficult
to
know.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
history
on
where
that
parking
area
came
from,
certainly
there's
some
convenience
to
the
to
the
applicant
and
having
parking
up
close
to
the
house
and
not
way
back
at
the
back
of
the
property
as
it
currently
works.
But
this
is
the
this
is
a
challenging
question,
because
I
can
really
kind
of
go
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
in
in
how
I
think
about
it
and
depending
on
which
standard
I
read.
H
C
And
I
think
that
that
would
be.
I
would
look
to
the
applicant
to
provide
some
precedent
for
that.
You
know
we
often
get
precedent,
support
for
things.
Other
examples
in
the
neighborhood,
I'm
trying
to
think.
If
there's
been
an
application
where
we
that
we've
reviewed
that's
proposed
anything
like
that
and
I'm
struggling
to
that
feels
like
a
memorable
application.
C
If
we
had
had
one
that
seems
like
something
that
would
be
memorable,
but
I
think
we
would.
We
would
certainly
look
for
the
applicant
to
build
a
a
story
about
that.
That
has
precedent
backing
behind
it
and
in
that
particular
case,
so
I
don't
think
it's
less
will
or
somebody
could
find
some
evidence
in
the
standards
that
says
that's
okay
or
that
it's
common
or
anything
like
that.
We
would
look
to
the
applicant
to
sort
of
tell
that
story
in
a
compelling
way
that
helps
us
fit
it
into
the
into
the
standards.
C
I
don't
get
a
clear
sense
from
the
commission
that
there
would
be
that
voting
is
necessarily
the
right
next
step.
I
think
we're
all
a
little
bit
wrestling
with
with
what
the
best
route
is,
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
other
commissioners
that
haven't
spoken,
that
have
something
new
to
offer
or
want
to
reiterate
things
that
other
commissioners
have
said
to
help
the
applicant
know
what
the
best
path
forward
is.
G
Yeah
this
is
commissioner
gardner.
I
feel
very
torn
through
listening
to
this
conversation.
My
perspective
has
changed
a
thousand
times.
It
seems
at
first.
I
was
very
much
like
you
know
the
current
footprint
of
the
house.
G
It
makes
sense
to
me
to
put
it
closer
to
the
home,
but
then,
commissioner,
jordan,
came
in
with
a
fantastic
explanation
of
what
our
job
really
is
here,
but
then
now
I'm
looking
and
you
know
the
way
the
road
is
shaping
and
it
seems
like
it
might
be
eroding
into
the
yard
just
a
little
bit,
which
kind
of
would,
I
would
imagine,
affect
where
they
would
put
it.
If
we
were
to
say
it
needs
to
go
in
the
back
closer
to
where
it
originally
was.
G
So
I
see
both
ways,
I
think,
maybe
just
a
little
bit,
I'm
leaning
more
towards
having
them
be
allowed
to
put
it
closer
to
the
home.
Just
because
that's
where
that
it
seems
like
it
might
fit
better
there,
just
overall
but
again,
either
way.
D
I
know
I've
spoken
already,
but
I,
but
I
feel
like
just
to
reiterate
what
commissioner
gardner
was
saying
about
the
shape
of
the
lot
and
how
it
seems
to
have
morphed
over
time.
I
feel
like
the
condition
of
the
current
site
is
different
enough,
that
it
may
be
a
long
shot
to
ask
them
to
put
a
structure
back
there.
That
may
actually
be
you
know
too
close
to
the
property
line,
maybe
actually
in
the
road
taking
out
the
big
tree.
D
F
I'd
like
to,
I
agree
that
it's
tricky
back
there
and
it's
kind
of,
but
I
think
if
they
go
back
and
look
at
it,
there
we've
never
seen
anything
proposed
there.
Maybe
I
walked
back
there.
It's
a
large.
As
the
applicant
said,
it's
a
huge
space
back
there
and
there
there's
some
wiggle
room
there
and
maybe
with
alex's
help
they
maybe
just
look
at
tr
at
placing
it
where
the
guidelines
suggest
in
that
region.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
dead
on.
F
You
know
that
ten
by
eight
box,
that's
there
now,
but
something
that's
and
and
in
a
perfect
world.
F
I
think
we
would
clear
up
the
outstanding
open,
the
unapproved
improvements
and
then,
if
we
were
looking
at
a
blank
slate,
it'd
be
a
little
easier
to
say
well,
but
we
don't
we're
we're
kind
of
building
on
top
of
and
that's
what
we've
kind
of
jiggled
around
muted
last,
between
the
two
times
where
the
pool
moved
around
it
kind
of
settled
things
down,
but
I
think
I
think
this
warrants
another
look
and
a
little
more
looking.
F
I
don't
feel
that
the
standards
were
they
need
to
be
looked
at
a
little
harder
in
in
placement,
and
I've
talked
too
much.
But
that's
where
I'm
thinking,
if
this
goes
back
to
staff
and
applicant,
to
work
a
little
more
collaboratively
and
see
where
that
this
can,
where
they
can,
where
everybody
can
be
a
little
happier.
C
We
we've
not
addressed
as
part
of
that
analysis,
and
I
think
there
certainly
is
room
in
the
standards
for
there
to
be
hardship
for
why
we
can't
put
it
back
where
it
goes,
but
that
we
maybe
haven't
dug
quite
deep
enough
to
to
discover
that
and
if
the
tree
is
the
hardship
and
so
that
it
really
does
warrant
some
exercise
to
to
go
through
the
process
and
say
we
really
tried
to
put
this
where
it
was
where
the
guidelines
told
us
to
put
it
and
and
it
it
doesn't
work
for
these
reasons,
or
it
does
work
and
we're
comfortable
with
it
as
an
app
as
an
application.
H
C
Michael
to
your
question,
would
staff
be
shannon
or
alex
I
at
this
point
it
would
be
alex.
There's
not
been
any
sort
of
change
to
that.
This
is
a.
B
C
And
so
I
think
to
maybe
michael
to
your
question
alex
is
not,
I
think
she
certainly
is
still
part
of
that
and
and
and
as
our
at
this
point
certainly
alex
and
shannon
would
talk
about
the
the
content
of
this
meeting
and
any
kind
of
conversations
moving
forward.
C
Clarified
for
you,
a
path
forward,
and
certainly
you
all
are
familiar
with
the
options
at
this
stage-
is
to
amend
an
application
based
on
the
feedback
or
to
request
a
continuance
in
order
to
continue
to
study
based
on
the
feedback
that
you've
gotten
today.
M
Well,
let
me
let
me
give
give
my
michael
is
obviously
you
know
the
expert.
You
know,
I'm
not
the
expert
in
this.
What
I'm,
I
think,
I'm
I'm
not
100
clear.
I
understand
the
spirit
of
what
you're
saying.
So,
on
the
one
hand,
I
think
you're
saying
we
need
to
pursue
the
the
structure
in
the
back
and
pursue
what
the
options
are
around
that
and
what
the
hardships
may
be,
and
all
of
that
to
present
to
you.
M
Do
you
as
part,
I
guess
a
couple,
and
this
is
where
michael's
maybe
more
versed
in
in
the
operations
of
the
commission
and
so
forth,
but
I
mean:
does
that
mean
you
want
us
to
have
michael
draw
a
new
plan?
That
is
a
structure
back
there,
and
then
it
relates
a
little
bit
to
my
question
about
the
existing
work,
which
is.
J
M
Sure
and
then
the
so
a
little
bit
of
clarity
on
that
and
then
a
little
bit
of
clarity
on
the
pool
it
seemed
like
people
were.
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
people's
mouths,
but
the
pool
was
not
an
issue,
but,
as
we
kind
of
went
back
and
forth,
some
of
that
was
predicated
on
location
and
privacy.
I
mean
do
we
need
to
redraw
the
pool
and
then
another
issue
in
all
this.
M
For
me
and
us
is
liability
which
is
shannon
what
what
I've
heard
from
you
and
alex
in
the
past
is
that
we
are
liable
on
like
a
daily
fine
basis
for
what's
happening.
You
know
the
fact
that
that's
a
violation
I
have
not
received
a
violation.
I've
been
very
happy
to
you,
know,
work
through
the
process
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
that.
Honestly,
you
know
as
we're
now
going
60
90,
potentially
more
days
than
that
out,
I'm
getting
worried
about
liability
and,
honestly
that's
starting
to
like
subsume
everything
here.
M
You
know
we
had
to
rewire
the
entire
house
with
electricity.
It
hadn't
been
done
since
1910.
You
know
we
put
a
new
roof
on
the
house,
you
know
there
there's
a
limit
to
to
you
know
the
liability
I
want
to
be
engulfed
in
here.
I'm
worried,
first
and
foremost
about
fixing
the
issue
that
we
inherited
from
the
prior
owner
in
a
lot
of
ways.
B
I
I
would
not
anticipate
that
there's
it's
very,
very
low
risk,
I
think
in
terms
of
liability.
When
it
comes
to
the
enforcement
case,
you
have
not
been
issued
a
notice
of
violation
and
we
have
a
process
where
you
have
to
first
be
noticed,
then
issued
a
citation,
then
we
would
start
to
record
fines
and
even
if
you
did
a
crew
fines,
if
you
were
actively
pursuing
a
solution,
we
would
remediate
those
fines
so
but
we're
just
to
be
clear:
we're
not
going
to
issue
a
notice
of
violation,
provided
you
continue
to
explore
a
remedy.
B
So
so
I
don't.
I
don't
think
you
should
have
great
concern
there.
Okay,
we're
not
in
the
interest
of
you,
know
we're
not
in
the
business
of
punishing
people.
M
M
B
C
And
john,
I
think,
to
to
follow
up
on
some
of
your
other
questions.
Regarding
you
know,
what
do
we
want
you
to
do?
I
don't.
I
think
that,
certainly
it
is
your
design
team's
job
to
propose
a
solution
that
meets
the
guidelines.
It's
the
no
different
than
meeting
the
building
code
requirements
or
whatever,
and
it's
and
we
are
the
body
that's
supposed
to
interpret
whether
or
not
the
solution
that
you've
proposed
is
in
alignment
with
those
standards
and
how
we
read
them.
C
I
think
we're
all
vacillating
back
and
forth
on
where,
where
this
thing
should
be,
and
for
many
of
us
it
would
be
extremely
helpful
to
be
able
to
see
it
and
for
us
to
have
some
dialogue
with
you
about
the
the
thought
process
and
the
work
that
you've
done
around
trying
to
put
the
accessory
structure
in
the
original
location,
so
that
we
have
more
information
to
be
able
to
help
us
to
stop
sort
of
swinging
back
and
forth.
C
For
many
of
us
that
that
have
that
can
see
multiple
points
of
view,
and
so
I
think
that
certainly
you
and
michael
michael
especially,
is
well
versed
in
the
got
in
the
standards
for
motford
and,
and
we
can
certainly
see
that
this
solution
moved
us
closer
in
the
direction
that
we
would
like
to
see.
C
The
project
go
with
regards
to
those
standards,
and-
and
you
know
we
we
may
look
at
it
and
go
this-
doesn't
work
at
all
or
you
may
present
it
to
us
and
say
here's
why
we
don't
think
this
works
at
all
back
here
or.
A
C
May
say
with
this
is
much
better
and
I
think
I
don't
know
how
to
tell
you
what
to
draw
or
what
the
outcome
of
what
happens
to
where
this
accessory
structure
was.
If
we
move
it
to
the
back.
C
Yeah
so.
N
Okay,
can
I
just
make
one
more
question,
or
one
more
point
sure
yeah?
Obviously
this
is
a
recent
middle
and
the
we
resubmitted
with
design
changes
based
on
the
feedback
we
got
in
the
previous
meeting.
We
address
the
height
by
repairing
the
grade.
N
We
address
the
expanding
footprint
by
retreating
scaling
back
the
location
of
the
proposed
accessory
structure,
never
came
up
in
the
previous
discussion,
so
I'm
just
a
little
bit
worried
that
we
are
going
to
respond
to
a
new
concern
and
I
just
feel
like
we.
N
We
can
only
address
commissioners
concerns
that
we're
aware
of-
and
it's
kind
of
unfortunate,
that
we're
only
hearing
about
kind
of
an
insistence
that
we
explore
the
original
footprint
when
that
hadn't
come
up
before
and
then
we're
being
asked
to,
I
guess,
work
with
staff
and
I
think
emily
you
mentioned
working
collaboratively,
so
I
think
it'd
be
better
if
we
could
work
with
the
commission,
so
we're
not
kind
of
caught
off
guard
by
some
new
concerns
that
come
up
with
a
resubmittal.
Is
there
any
way
we
can
include
commission
members
in
exploring
new
options.
C
C
C
You
don't
look
to
the
inspector
to
tell
you
what
the
building
code
says,
and
so
I
I
understand
the
process
takes
time,
and
I
understand
that
we
had
some
pretty
big
things
to
wrestle
with
last
time
with
regards
to
the
topography
and
the
substantive
changes
that
had
been
made
previous
to
the
current
proposed
swimming
pool
solution,
there's
a
lot
to
bite
off
and
we
certainly
have
spent
a
great
deal
of
time
talking
through
that
last
time.
C
We're
spending
a
great
deal
of
time
talking
through
it
again
today
with
other
things
that
arise,
and
I
think
you
know
the
process
well
enough
to
know
that
we
eventually
get
to
a
place
where
minor
adjustments
can
be
made
in
a
meeting,
because
the
big
issues
have
been
resolved
and
we
there's
an
end
to
the
process
that
results
in
something
that
everybody's
comfortable
with.
C
B
B
You
know,
and
I
think
that
that
is
probably
the
appropriate
course
of
action.
I
also
just
want
to
to
ask
folks.
I
know
we
have
some
new
commissioners
and
I
know
that
this
remote
meeting
format
can
present
some
challenges,
but
the
because
this
is
a
quasi-judicial
hearing
and
even
if
it
wasn't
even
in
our
regular
public
hearings,
we
ask
people
not
to
use
the
chat,
because
we
want
to
have
a
public
record
of
the
discussion.
B
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
questions
that
that
they're
kind
of
out
there
and
transparent
for
everybody
to
hear
and
see
and
and
hear
the
response
to
so
the
chat
is
great
for
things
like
I'm
having
problems
hearing
or
my
internet's
going
down,
I'm
going
to
jump
off,
I'm
going
to
come
right
back.
You
know
it's
great
to
kind
of
give
us
an
idea
of.
What's
going
on.
You
know
like,
if
you're
having
a
technology
issue
or
something
like
that,
but
it
shouldn't
include
content
about
the
meeting
discussion
so.
O
And
this
is
janice.
I
just
wanted
to
comment
that
to
michael's
point,
because
this
is
a
quasi-judicial
body
and
process.
You
can't
you
can't
get
the
feedback
from
the
commissioners
outside
of
this
process,
but
certainly
working
with
staff
and
what's
been
presented
here
would
be
you
know,
alex
and
shannon
would
be
working
from
from
that
as
well.
I
just
want
to
comment,
oh
and
also
I
I
was
at
the
last
meeting,
and
I
do
believe
maybe
mr
hornaday
could
correct
me,
but
I
believe
that
that
guideline
was
talked
about
the
original
location.
O
C
M
And
I
just
say
that
out
loud
yeah,
okay,
I
say
my
name.
I
j.
I
john
o'neill
requested
a
continuance.
C
C
It's
usually
pretty
quick
turn
around
because
of
the
nature
of
when
things
have
to
get
onto
the
agenda,
and
so
you
probably
have
a
week
or
two
for
revisions.
If
you
want
to
be
back
on
the
november
agenda,
if
something
happens
in
that
time
and
it
pushes
to
sep
to
december,
that's
also
acceptable
that
doesn't
change
any
of
the
continuance
work
that
we
just
got
done
doing,
and
so
now
we
would
look
for
a
motion
from
the
commission.
F
A
C
Myself
I
as
well
that
motion
carries,
and
john
and
michael
certainly
shannon
or
alex
will
follow
up
with
you.
Regarding
the
november
meeting.
C
Okay,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
next
application
item
in
albemarle
park,
we're
going
to
go
to
three
branbury
cross.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
this
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
a
after
the
fact:
certificate
of
appropriateness
request
for
two
two
items
as
it
relates
to
this
accessory
structure.
It
one
is
the
replacement
of
roof
material
and
then
the
other
is
to
add
carriage
doors
to
this
accessory
structure.
So
the
property
is
located
at
three
benberry
cross
it
the
front
of
the
home,
is
oriented
towards
benberry
cross.
However,
the
accessory
structure
is
located
here
on
cherokee,
so
at
the
rear
of
the
property
against
a
separate
right-of-way.
B
There
is
a
plan
to
paint
the
doors
they're
not
yet
painted
the
wood
is
still
curing
and
then,
when
it's
ready
they
will
be
painted.
So
they
won't
remain
in
this
unfinished
wood
appearance,
but
that
is
basically
the
request.
There's
a
photo
of
how
it
appeared
before
and
then
a
historic
photo
that
was
supplied.
That
shows
kind
of
what
those
doors
had
previously
looked
like
with
the
extr,
with
the
structure,
not
apparently
in
the
best
condition
either
so,
and
I
believe
that
yep.
B
That
is
all
that
we
have
for
this
one
relatively
straightforward.
Just
a
request
to
improve
this
small
accessory
structure
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
Any
questions
for
shannon
no
questions,
I
think
we
would
love
to
to
the
applicant
for
any
further
comments.
Barbara,
I
think
maybe
you're
here
on
the
phone.
If
you
can
unmute,
we
do
need
to
do
a
little
bit
of
swearing
in
before
you
present
any
information.
B
O
O
O
B
J
We
can't
hear
them,
could
they
maybe
use
the
chat
to?
Let
us
know.
J
C
H
Hi
barbara
is
it:
is
it
working.
A
P
P
B
It
all
yeah
when
the
chair
rejoins
and
we
re
resume
the
meeting.
She's
gonna
swear
you
in
since
this
is
very.
P
B
H
C
C
And
we
will
pick
up
where
we
left
off
so
barbara.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
to
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
information
you
present
during
the
hearing
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
before
the
historic
resources
commission
shall
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
Do
you.
P
C
P
Okay,
well,
our
house
is
very
old,
it's
a
to
a
1910
house
and
we
have
done
a
lot
inside,
but
we
didn't
do
anything
on
the
outside
as
far
as
the
garage
goes
and
we
needed
the
space
to
storage
for
storage
and
we
needed
it
to
be
safe
space.
So
we
needed
to
put
the
doors
on
the
there
were
no
doors
on
the
garage
when
we
first
bought
the
house.
P
However,
bill
barkley
who
lived
in
this
neighborhood
was
born
in
this
neighborhood
he's
in
his
probably
70s
or
80s,
and
he
said
in
the
beginning,
there
were
doors
on
the
on
the
garage,
and
so
that
was
encouraging
to
know
that
we
we
did
something
good
to
make
it
better.
Hopefully,
the
roofing
was
also
falling
apart.
It's
brick
on
the
side.
P
You
can
see
that,
but
the
roof
was
shingled,
so
we
have
re-shingled
the
top
and
added
the
doors,
and
it's
able
to
be
locked,
so
we
can
store
valuable
things
in
there
before
we
could
do
that.
There
were
a
lot
of
animals
living
in
it,
it
wasn't
safe
and
we
basically
needed
it
to
be
closed
and
safe
from
animals.
P
So
that's
one
we're
right
on
the
highway,
we're
right
on
the
road,
so
we've
gotten
lots
of
comments
from
neighbors
who
are
excited
to
see
that
we
have
done
something
with
the
garage
they
love
it
and
they've
complimented
us
so
we're
very
proud
of
it,
and
I
I
didn't
do
an
application
for
approval
because
I
thought
it's
a
door,
it's
not
a
whole
building.
So
I
apologize
for
that.
But
I'm
glad
to
tell
you
anything
I
can
about
it.
P
It's
locked,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
lock
on
the
side
and
we
can
store
valuables
in
there
and
we
feel
they're
safe
and
there
are
no
animals
coming
in
and
making
a
mess.
So
that's
briefly:
it
we
put
the
the
roofing
was
added.
The
old
roof
was
taken
off
and
a
new
roof
was
put
on
as
well
done
all
by
my
husband
and
son.
C
Robert
shannon
mentioned
that
you
intend
to
paint
the
doors.
P
We're
we're
thinking
of
either
painting
or
shellacking.
We
like
the
color
of
the
wood,
so
we
will
actually
cover
it
with
something
if
you
prefer
paint
we'll
put
paint,
but
I
like
the
color
of
the
wood
and
I'd
like
it
to
be
shellacked
or
covered
with
a.
I
don't
know
what
you
call
it
shellac's
the
word
I
know,
but
some
kind
of
coating
that
would
preserve
it.
Absolutely
we
need
to
do
that.
C
We
will
open
the
floor
quickly
for
public
comment.
If
there
is
any.
C
A
P
D
I
it's
replaced
with
a
like
material,
which
is
positive,
follows
the
guidelines.
Guidelines
also
say
that
when
possible,
you
know
replacing
with
a
similar
design
is
favorable
this.
This
is
a
similar
design.
I
think
the
only
thing
to
make
it
even
closer
would
to
be
putting
those
the
other
cross
on
it,
but
other
commissioners,
do
you
have
any.
D
E
On
that,
my
only
comment,
and
it's
a
very
minor
one-
is
I'm
trying
to
look
through
the
albemarle
park,
guidelines
on
painting,
unfinished
wood,
sure
and
and
that
I
just
haven't,
found
others.
C
A
C
Don't
know
if
that's
you
know,
if
that's
true,
but
if,
in
the
absence
of
strong
guidelines
about
what
we're
supposed
to
do,
it's
hard
to.
D
And
to
add
upon
that,
emily
that,
if,
if
you,
if
the
applicant
were
to
put
you
know
a
like
a
poly
finish
on
it,
a
clear
finish
over
time
that
wood
would
would
gray
and
probably
be
closer
to,
you
know
the
the
color
or
tone
shown
in
that
photo.
E
Add
that,
during
that
period
of
significance,
that
kind
of
that
natural
look
of
wood
was
would
not
be
out
of
place.
P
F
I
think
there's
a
a
similar
garage
across
the
street
at
shamrock
that
had
the
same
collapsible,
doors,
yeah
and
and
all
the
garage
doors
without
exception
and
exterior
wood
is
either
stained
dark.
A
P
F
Okay
good
to
know
so
yeah,
so
I
would
push
to
a
paint
or
if
it
shingles
it's
dark
stained.
But
if
it's
raw
wood
there's
no,
I
can't
think
of
any
examples
of
that
in
in
outlaw
park.
F
The
cro
I
echo
commissioner,
springs
comment
on
the
crossbar,
the
finish
the
x's
and,
and
I
think
you're
there
just
paint
and
the
crossbar,
and
it
is
a
wonderful
improvement
from
the
tarp
and,
and
it
looks
great.
H
I
Graph
have
a
comment:
is
there
a
reason
the
cross
bars
weren't
exactly
like
the
original.
P
J
F
Gosh
yeah
and
that's
a
it's
such
a
asset
that
the
this
person
has
a
a
late
70s
view
of
every
house
in
the
neighborhood.
Oh.
K
I
have
a
quick
question:
it.
It
looks
beautiful,
so
no
complaints
at
all
on
that,
but
is
that-
and
I
guess
the
bottom
right
hand
corner-
is
that's
just
showing
the
beginnings
of
a
little
bit
of
water
damage?
I
know
that.
P
I
noticed
that
too,
and
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
Maybe
I
can
find
my
husband
and
ask
him,
but
he
he
did
not
want
to
be
on
the
screen.
He
wanted
me
to
do
it,
but
I
can
ask
if
you'd
like
and
see.
K
No-
and
it's
probably
nothing
really
to
to
talk
about
for
this
meeting-
I
just
thought
more
of
as
it.
P
P
K
I
mean
you'll
probably
want
to
treat
the
wood
before
you
put.
Whatever
finish
is
on
it
and
if
it
is
it's
hard
to
tell
just
from
a
picture
but
probably
find
the
source
of
why
it
may
be
showing
a
little
more
water
damage
there.
K
I
know
the
doors
are
a
little
further
they're
closer
to
the
street
than
they
appeared
originally,
and
it
looks
like
the
the
eve
of
the
roof
is
a
little
bit
more
shallow,
so
it
may
just
get
a
little
bit
more
water
on
that
corner,
it's
hard
to
tell,
but
the
possibility
yeah.
I
just
try
to
find
the
source,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
it's.
F
F
There
is
one
thing
in
the
standards
that
all
exposed
wood
shall
be
painted
or
stained.
So.
A
P
F
But
a
contrasting
is
also
so
it
wouldn't
be
the
shingle
color.
I
don't
believe
it
would
be
a
contrasting
color
right.
D
D
C
C
P
C
We
could
do
it.
Certainly
we
could.
We
could
amend
the
application
today
by
by
talking
about
it
with
you
and
the
and
the
commissioners
that
wouldn't
require
you
to
make
any
other
revisions
to
us.
In
terms
of
coming
back
for
another
meeting,
we
could
verbally
discuss
that
option
of
adding
those
ex
that
the
cross
members
there.
C
A
C
To
finish
those
x's,
certainly
before
you
paint
or
stain
the
wood.
C
Okay,
then,
we
would
ask
for
you
to
just
state
that
you
would
like
to
amend
your
application
to
include
the
x
bracing
on
the
door
panels.
P
My
the
boys
in
my
family
are
going
to
put
the
crossbar
bars
back.
They
didn't
take
them
out,
they're,
just
going
to
add
them
and
make
it
look
like
more
of
the
possible
original
garage
that
was
their
garage
doors
that
were
there.
We
didn't
have
that
other
picture.
O
C
F
Okay,
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
excellent
time.
Madam
madam
chair,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
to
this
commission,
including
exhibit
a
application
project,
description
and
site
plan,
three
pages
exhibit
b
photographs.
Three
pages
exhibit
c
2016.
Google
street
view
image,
exhibit
d
1925
sanborn
fire
insurance
map
exhibit
e
1970's
historic
photograph
received
october,
8th
2021.
F
And
there
was
no
other
exhibits,
I
don't
think,
and
the
commissioner's
actual
inspection
and
review
of
subject
property
by
all
members
accepting.
F
The
application
seeks
an
after
the
fact,
approval
to
install
custom
painted
or
stained
to
be
determined
by
to
be
shown
to
hrc
staff
would
garage
doors
and
to
insert
the
cross
bracketing
on
the
four
doors
after
the
doors
wait.
They.
F
Yeah
yeah
and
replacing
a
roof
material
on
existing
structure.
New
roof
material
is
dark,
green
asphalt,
shingles
doors
will
be
painted
or
stained
once
the
wood
has
had
time
to
cure.
F
All
work
will
be
in
accordance
with
attached
drawings
and
plans.
All
permits,
variances
or
approvals,
as
required
by
law,
must
be
obtained
before
work
may
commits
two
that
the
standard
for
garage
and
out
garages
and
outbuildings
found
on
page
36
and
windows
and
doors
on
page
31
and
roof
forks
roofing
materials
and
guttering.
On
page
28
of
the
albemarle
park,
architectural
standards
and
guidelines
adopted
july
8
2015
were
used
to
evaluate
this
request.
F
This
application
does
meet
the
design
standards
for
the
following
reason:
structure
and
original
door.
Openings
have
been
preserved,
original
doors
were
completely
missing.
New
doors
are
wood
and
compatible
in
size
scale,
color
material
of
the
neighborhood
structure
and
its
environment
and
c
roofing
is
asphalt,
shingle
and
dark
in
color.
C
Okay,
we
will
vote
by
roll
call
vice
chair
spring
aye,
commissioner
lazarus.
L
F
C
F
Based
upon
the
foregoing
findings
and
for
the
reasons
set
forth
therein,
I
move
that
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
be
issued
with
the
with
the
following
conditions:
one
that
the
brackets
are
put
on
or
that
crossbar
members
are
put
on
the
four
doors
and
that
paint
or
dark
stain
is
added.
C
O
C
Commissioner
oliva,
I
commissioner
falcon
aye
commissioner
vaughn
aye
commissioner
west
aye,
commissioner
watkins.
I
myself
I
as
well.
That
motion
also
carries
barbara
and
I
think
that
alex
or
shannon
will
follow
up
with
you
after
the
meeting
in
the
next
couple
of
days
or
so.
C
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
So
this
is
your
third
accessory
structure
tonight
to
be
discussed.
So
this
is
a
request
for
the
property
located
at
29
rice
branch,
road
or
the
rice
commonly
known
as
the
rice
cornell
brown
house.
So
this
is
a
historic
landmark
and
the
property
well,
there's
actually
two
properties
that
are
kind
of
relevant
to
today's
discussion.
B
We
have
the
the
subject:
property,
29,
rice
branch
road
across
the
street
is
30
rice
branch
road,
which
had
formerly
been
in
the
same
family's
ownership,
and
there
was
a
play
structure.
An
accessory
structure
was
a
play
structure
that
was
located
on
the
property
at
30,
rice
branch,
road
and
in
alex's
notes.
She
told
me
that,
where
you
see
the
c,
the
letter
c
in
current
location
is
approximately
the
location
of
the
play
structure
and,
where
you
say
see
the
n.
The
lowercase
n
under
proposed
location,
is
the
proposed
location
of
the
relocated
structure.
B
Here
are
a
couple
photos
of
the
play
structure.
You
can
see
it's,
it's
got
a
lot
of
interesting
historic
character
and
it
has
a
lot
of
family
value,
so
they
would
really
like
to
save
the
structure
and
relocate
it
to
the
property
that
their
family
continues
to
to
own
and
manage
and
where
they
can
kind
of.
You
know
make
sure
that
it's
it's
kept
in
good
condition.
B
I
believe
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
the
I'm
not
sure
what
structure
that
is
where
it's
coming
from
or
going
to.
I
assume
that
is
the
historic
structure
of
the
rice,
cornell
brown
house,
so
the
property,
the
the.
Let
me
back
up
for
just
a
moment.
You
see
the
proposed
location
that
end
the
the
play
structure
is
going
to
be
relocated
to
kind
of
that
wooded
edge
sort
of
behind
the
home.
So
it's
really
not
going
to
have
really
any
impact
on
the
the
designation
or
or
any
other.
B
B
C
There
hi
I'm
going
to
read
the
oath
for
you.
If
you
can
raise
your
right
hand
and
then
I
will
ask
you
to
a
friend:
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
information
you
present
during
the
hearing
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
before
the
historic
resources
commission
shall
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing?
But
the
truth?
Do
you.
Q
C
C
Well,
that
was
silly
as
I
kept
talking
to
you
myself,
leah,
we're
happy
to
hear
any
kind
of
additional
information
and
background
that
you'd,
like
the
commission,
to
consider
as
part
of
project.
Q
Q
So
I
have
met
with
the
representatives
from
asheville
preservation
because
it
is
a
local
and
the
the
picture
you're
looking
at
is
the
rice
cornell
brown
house,
which
has
been
in
my
family
since
the
20s.
It
was
built
in
1848,
so
that
property
has
been
very
treasured
by
my
family
and
in
use
by
many
many
groups
and
and
neighbors,
and
they
enjoy
the
open
space.
Q
So
we
do
not
want
to
make
any
changes
to
the
open
feeling
of
undeveloped
property,
which
is
a
rare
thing
in
beaver
dam
and
but
this
little
cabin
was
my
mother's
playhouse
and
she
always
dreamed
her.
Her
parents
built
that
the
house
at
30
rice,
frank,
rice,
branch,
road
and
they
built
a
playhouse,
and
now
it
is,
you
know
it's
since
been
sold,
so
the
owners
have
offered
us
offered
the
plans
to
us.
Q
Of
course,
you
know
we
would
really
like
to
do
that
and
where
we
have
in
mind
locating
it,
we
would
not
have
to
cut
any
trees,
there's
just
a
little
flat
area.
The
playhouse
itself
is
11
by
12
and
around
12
feet
high.
It's
not
it's
like
a
little
out
building,
so
it
won't
have
electricity
running
water
or
anything
like
that.
Q
It'll
just
be
a
little
accessory
structure
and
if
you
look
at
it,
the
the
details
of
that
building
also
mirror
details
that
were
on
or
on
the
cabin
additions
that
were
made
to
the
mice.
Cornell
brown
house
were
made
from
using
materials
from
a
house
that
was
taken
down
on
on.
I
think
it
was
on
boom
avenue,
so
my
grandfather
used
details
from
this
little
victorian
house
on
biltmore,
at
for
the
playhouse
and
for
the
the
rice
cornell
brown
house
editions.
F
Is
is
there
the
foundation
for
the
playhouse?
Is
that
just
gonna
be
on
pier.
Q
That
is
gonna,
be
it
sits
on
piers
and
it
will
be
back
on
yeah
back
on
piers
yeah
with
a
poured
cement.
You
know
they're
going
to
sit
on
cement.
I
guess
underneath
the
ground,
how
do
you
describe
it
yeah?
D
J
Q
E
One
question:
I'm
not
seeing
this
in
the
application,
but
what
is
what
is
the
planet?
The
chimney
is
beautiful
in
the
little
fireplace,
but
clearly
I
am
assuming
that
cannot
be
moved.
Q
We
are
talking
to
house
movers,
it's
been
a
real
challenge
to
find
a
company.
You
know
that
that
will
move
this
little
house,
and
so
this
company,
that
our
contractor
has
found
is
from
tennessee
layman's
house
moving
and
they're
gonna
come
if
it.
If
this
is
approved,
they'll
come
and
look
at
it
and
they
are
hopeful
that
the
whole
thing
can
be
wrapped
and
that
chimney
can
be
supported
otherwise
and
and
the
the
chimney
itself
is
separate
from
the
fireplace
inside
somehow
so
a
worst
case.
Q
We
would
take
the
chimney
down,
save
the
stones
and
rebuild
it.
You
know
in
this
whole
process,
we've
thought
about
just
dismantling
the
house
and
then
putting
it
back
up,
but
the
paneling
is
so
complicated
inside
you
know
it's
so
beautiful
that
it
it
might
crack
or
whatever
and
the
windows
and
everything
so
they'll.
They
will.
Probably
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
about
the
chimney,
but
either
way
it
will
be
built
back
the
way
it
is
that's
the
plan.
A
F
Before
before
you
do
before
you
close
it,
one
last
question
that
just
came
to
me:
the
is
there
a
pathway
or
anything,
that's
gonna
be
visible
between
the
two
houses
and
that's
it.
Q
Right,
the
the
pathway
that
I
see
just
envisioning
would
be
just
a
little
brown
pebble
pathway
from
the
the
drive.
That's
already
there
up
through
the
woods,
just
a
minimal
little
pathway.
Q
Are
there
any
suggestions.
F
Q
C
Q
Not
really,
I
you
see,
there's
a
tool
shed
in
the
back
that
doesn't
have
a
pathway,
it's
just
a
little
tool
shed
and
then
the
other,
the
other
structure
she's
talking
about
came
from
madison
county
actually
and
the
the
struct
one
of
the
structures
is
a
another
rental.
It's
a
cabin
up
on
the
hill
that
has
a
drive
around
it
and
it's
it's
been
there
since
the
70s
and
then
there's
another
structure,
that's
a
little
a
barn.
Q
So
you
know
that's
just
there
in
the
middle
of
a
pasture.
So.
Q
R
C
A
R
I
think
this
is
awesome.
My
great-great-grandma
used
to
have
one,
and
it
was
really
neat
to
see
it.
They
weren't
able
to
keep
it
up
like
this.
One
has
been,
but
it's
always
really
cool,
to
see
things
like
this
in
this
area,
especially.
F
The
playhouse
will
be
sighted
immediately
in
the
wooded
area
immediately
to
the
east
of
the
house.
All
work
will
be
in
accordance
with
the
attached
drawings
and
plans.
All
permits,
variances
or
approvals
required
by
law
must
be
obtained
before
your
commitments,
two,
that
the
secretary
of
standards
of
interiors
for
rehabilitation,
specifically
the
standards
for
site
and
setting,
were
used
to
evaluate
this
request.
This
application
meets
does
meet
the
design
standards
for
the
following
reasons.
F
Playoffs
will
be
inconspicuously
located
on
the
site
so
that
historic
relationship
between
buildings
and
landscape
features
of
the
setting
are
retained
and
preserved
b.
The
site
consists
of
multiple
contributing
and
non-contributing
structures,
some
of
which
are
original
to
the
site,
others,
which
previously
relocated
to
the
site.
C.
Relocation
of
the
playhouse
allows
for
its
preservation
number
four,
that
the
action
and
improvements
proposed
by
the
application
before
us
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
are
congress
with
the
special
historic
character.
F
O
C
C
C
C
We'll
all
talk
at
once,
we
will
vote
by
roll
call
vice
chair
spring.
I,
commissioner
lazarus
aye,
commissioner
hornady.
F
C
C
C
And
might
be
the
last,
I
think
that's
the
last
thing
on
our
agenda.
Ms
latimore,
someone
from
hrc
staff,
either
alex
or
shannon,
will
follow
up
with
you
in
the
next
couple
of
days.
A
C
J
We
have
old
business,
you
might
make
sure
I've
held
off
the
last
few
months
because
we've
had
marathon
meetings,
but
we
did
talk
about
trying
to
come
up
with
a
list
via
either
a
committee
or
just
as
a
group,
to
submit
to
the
reparations
committee
recommending
reparations,
be
directed
to
some
black
historic
properties
in
nashville
and
buncombe
county,
and
I
note
that
the
commission
is
about
to
start
meeting
soon.
So
I
hate
for
us
to
miss
our
window
opportunity.
I
I
don't
know,
is
the
best
way
to
try
and
move
forward
this.
J
Maybe
at
our
next
meeting
we
all
come
forward
like
we
did
with
the
our
awards
and
then
you
know
settle
on
a
list
to
to
submit,
but
I
I'd
hate
to
see
miss
the
opportunity
to
try
and
weigh
in
as
a
board
to
advocate
for
preservation.
C
B
Yeah
I'll
I'll
get
up
with
alex
and
I'll
see,
and
one
of
us
will
get
back
to
you
guys
with
some
some
thoughts
on
that.
I
know
that
the
application
process
is,
it's
got
some
specific
requirements
and
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
that.
So
I
might
need
to
kind
of
look
into
that
a
little
bit
more
and
you
know
and
we'll
see
how
good
of
a
match,
maybe
it
can
be.
I.
J
Could
tell
you
this.
She
has
her
private
correspondence
with
alex
and
she
did
note
that
we
can't
do
a
subcommittee
because
of
something
about
the
way
we're
structured.
But
I
didn't
want
to
just
make
sure
that
we
didn't
not
do
something
because
of
that,
but
that
we
could
then
bump
it
up
to
the
higher
level.
Is
all.
F
There
was
an
african-american,
I
think
it
was
just
commercial
property.
Shannon
helped
me
with
that.
A
survey
done.
B
A
F
J
J
As
well
as
those
properties
that
were
on
the
new
and
I'm
horrible
with
names,
the
andrea
clarke,
historic
walking,
tour
that
she
had
put
together,
that
will
you
and
I
attended-
and
I
think,
chair
kite.
Maybe
you
were
there
as
also
a
reference
point
for
some
of
those
for
that
list.
C
C
C
That
seems
to
be
the
worst
of
that
is
over
so
anyways.
Well,
if
there's
nothing
else,
then
I
think
we're
done.
Okay,.