City of Aurora Preservation Commission met July 13.
City of Aurora Preservation Commission met July 13.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
Call to Order:
Mr. Castrejon called the meeting to order at 7:08p.m.
The following Preservation Commission members were present: Fernando Castrejon, Marissa Furneaux, Jim Schweizer, Al Signorelli, Don Truax and Rob Vaughan. Jose Garcia, Mike Lord, Herman Shelton and Mike Walker were absent. Mr. Miller arrived at 7:10 p.m.
The following staff members were present: Stephane Phifer and Sue Jackson.
Craig Wetter (238 W. Downer Place).
Approval of Minutes:
17-00633 Approval of the Minutes for the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June 15, 2017.
A motion was made by Mr. Truax, seconded by Mr. Signorelli, that the minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried by voice vote.
17-00632 June Historic Certificate of Appropriateness Report
There were no questions on the COA report.
17-00617 Discussion on Section B.4.5 Parking and Permitted Driveway Materials
(City of Aurora - 17-00617 / KDWK-17.145-PZ/HP - JM)
Ms. Phifer said as you know, we do take a look at the guidelines on a regular basis, especially based on questions and concerns that are raised as we go through the Certificate of Appropriateness process and one of the things that has been coming up more recently is this question on the materials used for driveways. So we wanted to bring that before the Commission this evening for discussion. The guidelines have a number of different ways it addresses different guidelines/requirements. Some of them say that this shall be, which means that it is absolute, that is a requirement. Then there are other provisions in the guidelines that say that it should. Should basically is used in the document to allow the Commission and staff additional discretion to be able to react to the guidelines and so at those points in time is when we come to the Commission to get additional input with regard to what should means. So that’s what we wanted to discuss this evening. Jill has given you a memo in your Legistar report that really kind of goes over some of the history. This has been an ongoing question. The Commission did make a ruling earlier about the fact that if you do have a concrete driveway that the Commission did not want to see that replaced with a lower quality material such as asphalt, but if it had a concrete driveway then they wanted it to remain as a concrete driveway, but we, again, have had some concerns, so we did go do some additional research. So if you look on your iPads, you’ll see that Jill went and did some surveys of different communities with regard to how do they handle this question of asphalt versus concrete driveways in historic districts. Through all of the communities that she looked at, none of them actually prohibit asphalt. A number of them do encourage concrete and brick and there are number that outright allow asphalt. It is interesting as well, which I think because Aurora’s historic districts were such a model for the communities, it is interesting to see that there were 3 communities that actually had the exact same wording as Aurora’s guidelines because they used ours as a template moving forward. So that’s always good. There is also in your packet photos, so there are different photos of different historic districts throughout the country really and how asphalt driveways have been utilized in the historic districts, so just to give you a little more background. But also, we do have Craig Wetter, who is a resident who has this question with regard to his properties with regard to asphalt and he did want a chance to address the Commission on this issue and give you some additional information to consider. So unless you have any other questions for me, I will turn it over to Craig and you can hear his testimony.
Mr. Wetter said I’d like to hear first some more reasoning behind how we ended up with this and what they feel about it.
Ms. Phifer said so as far as the Commission’s feelings at this point with regard to the materials for the driveways. Did you have any?
Mr. Miller said does anyone have background on that issue they’d want to speak of?
Mr. Truax said well we looked at it a couple of years ago and I think the minutes for one of the cases is in there and that was a case where I think it was gravel. It was concrete, not asphalt.
Mr. Miller said they upgraded from gravel to concrete?
Mr. Truax said well they wanted to replace the gravel with something more durable. One of the things though that when I was looking around at the time, the second block of Downer Place there is an asphalt driveway that has rows of concrete pavers to give it a little more color and a little more interest than just a straight asphalt driveway. I don’t know where that fits in the collection, but I thought it was an interesting thing. The other thing that I haven’t thought too much about is that what if somebody wanted to use concrete pavers? I like concrete pavers, but I’m not sure we have a position on replacing a concrete driveway with concrete pavers, so something else we need to think about.
Mr. Miller said I may be wrong, but there might be a Commission member that’s not here this evening that actually did install concrete pavers.
Ms. Phifer said typically if it is a concrete material we consider that concrete, so whether it is concrete pavers or concrete, so we have allowed it.
Mr. Truax said they look like brick. They don’t look concrete at all.
Mr. Miller said no they really don’t. They make me think more of bricks also.
Mr. Castrejon said for those of you that haven’t seen it, that job has been completed and we feel it looks amazing. It fits the home. It fits the neighborhood. It looks really, really nice.
Mr. Signorelli said I can see these concrete pavers as being an upgrade. Certainly I don’t think it detracts from the historic value of the house or the neighborhood and clearly the many pictures that Jill has included in our package show the different types of architecture, different neighbors in historic districts and I don’t think the asphalt takes away from any structures.
Mr. Truax said so you wouldn’t have a problem with asphalt replacing concrete? I would.
Mr. Signorelli said I think that my position would be I would want the homeowner to replace concrete with concrete, but if say for example money was an issue, and I’m taking for granted that asphalt is going to be a lot cheaper than concrete, I don’t think that I would object to an asphalt drive over an original concrete.
Mr. Truax said so would it be a function of cost that would drive you?
Mr. Signorelli said well I think that could be a factor.
Mr. Truax said well you just said it, that it would cost more and it might be oaky in your view.
Mr. Wetter said are we aware of what the difference is in cost?
Mr. Truax said I don’t.
Mr. Signorelli said no I don’t.
Mr. Wetter said the one I’m looking at right now, the concrete driveway, the estimates that I’ve gotten are 43% of what I paid for the property. It is 4 times the cost of asphalt. The problem I have is I have a passion for historic preservation, I always have, and we’ve got to be cognizant of what we have to offer here is value. We have really a lot of value in our properties, but that is a double edged sword. The values are significantly less than replacement cost. I mean a fraction of replacement. So those properties deteriorate for whatever reason, foreclosures. You have properties that cost, that are upside down value-wise even if you own them free and clear because it costs so much money to fix them and to restore them to what they should be. What I try to do is, my analogy is sometimes what you are trying to do is make 1 plus 1 equal 3 and that’s what I try to do. I’ve bought ones that have had holes in the roof big enough to put a basketball through that have been that way for years. I’ve bought some pretty rough properties. It is frustrating when I want to, I’m putting in granite countertops, I’m trying to offer amenities to offset the functional obsolesce of the properties. I’m putting in dishwashers, microwaves. That’s where I want to spend my money to attract a quality tenant to our neighborhood and if I have to spend $20,000 to put a driveway in, that’s not money well spent when I could do like I did on Downer and replace the hoods over the windows and replace some of the architectural details. That’s where I think our money needs to be spent. At least that’s what I’ve run across when I’m trying to fix these building. It is tough. I’ve put in a bunch of driveways, probably 4 or 5 in the last couple of years. Most of them, fortunately, they were gravel so I was able to put asphalt in. But now I’ve got one that has real bad concrete and the way I read the ordinance when I bought the property is I thought we allowed asphalt.
Mr. Truax said you did understand the shall/should difference right?
Mr. Wetter said what’s the verbiage in there?
Mr. Truax said should.
Mr. Wetter said do you have the guidelines?
Ms. Phifer said I wanted to point out one thing too though, especially in the case that Craig is talking about, a lot of the gravel driveways were once concrete too. Sometimes these driveways get to such a bad state that really another alternative as a homeowner could just wait until his concrete driveway is deteriorated just to the point where it really is just gravel. We really want to avoid that. I do think that to the point that Craig brings up, when we are looking at making an investment in our historic districts I think we need to look at what is that return on that investment with regard to the historic structure and is it really adding value to the historic structure or is that money better spent adding value to that historic structure. Everyone is on a limited budget and if you are looking to redo a house, would the Commission rather have that individual spend those dollars on fixing those wood windows and fixing those little historic elements of that structure or instead spending that money on the driveway, which you could argue doesn’t actually add to the historic nature of the structure itself. Now there are a lot of people who prefer concrete. There are a lot of reasons why as a preference someone might like it, so obviously if people can afford it I think they will still be putting in concrete and I think we still would want to encourage that, that it is more aesthetically pleasing and it does help the overall lifetime of the driveway. Concrete driveways last a lot longer. They don’t need as much maintenance as asphalt driveways, but to require that and to say that we’d rather have them spend their money on the driveway versus the structure I think is what’s coming up based on what the current situation is with housing stock. I think making that decision as a priority right now, which with the should language is something the Commission could come back and reconsider at a later date when we are at a different point in time, maybe when we’ve completely recovered from the housing market crash and once we’ve had that investment in those structures.
Mr. Wetter said you said it much better than me.
Mr. Truax said I have a question of staff. Why is it the city on aprons, when they replace the curbs, always puts in concrete?
Ms. Phifer said well there are a couple of reasons. One, because like I said, the life cycle of them, so the city, because we are responsible for that, we do make that upfront investment in that. Also we are already pouring those curbs and it is actually just as easy for us to pour those concrete curbs and have a concrete contractor out there pouring that apron. Whereas, if you have a contractor who is, you know, if we didn’t have any concrete and we were only doing asphalt maybe it wouldn’t be as cost effective. But it is cost effective for the city because we have a larger contract.
Mr. Truax said so you have numbers that show that the concrete, even though it costs more, is cheaper?
Ms. Phifer said well we have quantity of scale.
Mr. Truax said I’m still arguing that point.
Ms. Phifer said well I think no matter what, if you buy 500 yards of concrete it costs you less than if you buy 100 yards of concrete. That’s what I’m saying. When the city buys its concrete, we are buying it in such bulk that we do get a better price on it than what a homeowner would get if they are going out and doing it on their own.
Mr. Signorelli said now I think there are a couple of compromises that we might suggest. Again, I’m not 100% familiar with cost here either, but we could talk about just 2 narrow strips of concrete with the grass running through the middle, which is a compromise. Also I think that you can stamp asphalt, can’t you?
Mr. Wetter said sure.
Mr. Castrejon said so back to the timeline of that little driveway we approved with the gravel, wasn’t the compromise either that or soon thereafter to stamp an asphalt driveway?
Mr. Truax said it was discussed.
Mr. Wetter said I couldn’t find any historic districts that absolutely prohibited asphalt. I mean, I called historic districts that looked wonderful to drive through real close to here with values double what our properties are and triple, and they allow asphalt. They didn’t see any problem with it at all.
Mr. Truax said what neighborhood were you looking at?
Mr. Wetter said I’m in the Tanner District.
Mr. Truax said no, what city with historic districts did you look at regarding asphalt?
Mr. Wetter said Geneva. I called them and they said they allow asphalt.
Mr. Truax said they don’t. Geneva doesn’t discuss what it should be as does Naperville.
Ms. Phifer said but leaving it out means that it is the preference of the.
Mr. Truax said they can do whatever they want.
Ms. Phifer said yes.
Mr. Miller said are we referring to a neighborhood in Geneva that has historic district guidelines in place or it is just you are talking city-wide?
Ms. Phifer said in the pictures that are in your packet, there are also examples that Jill has in there that are from Naperville from the historic districts that have asphalt driveways, so there are a number of examples there of some fairly gorgeous houses.
Mr. Signorelli said Elgin.
Ms. Phifer said yes, in Elgin.
Mr. Truax said Elgin has guidelines though that are exactly ours.
Ms. Phifer said they are exactly ours, but they actually allow asphalt in Elgin.
Mr. Truax said on any driveway?
Ms. Phifer said yes.
Mr. Truax said even though it was concrete before?
Ms. Phifer said yes.
Mr. Wetter said I agree with you. I prefer concrete. I started looking at Google Earth when I started thinking about this because I wasn’t sure it was a good idea to even bring it up, but I started looking at Prestbury and Naperville and Geneva and I start seeing all these things and I’m like, you know, there are pretty nice places and their driveways look nice and their houses look nice.
Mr. Truax said well Prestbury isn’t historic.
Mr. Wetter said no, but what I’m saying is I was looking at it aesthetically because to me it is not a historic issue. It is an aesthetic issue. I think a lot of these driveways were probably originally gravel, weren’t they?
Ms. Phifer said probably.
Mr. Wetter said when you look at the timeframe, the time and place of our properties, gravel is what’s historically appropriate and the asphalt paver was invented in Aurora.
Mr. Miller said I have a question and it is directed to staff, and you don’t have to answer right away, I was thinking that in the 1890’s, teens and 20’s when all these homes were built, I’m not sure what the driveway material was.
Mr. Truax said if you could afford it, it was brick.
Mr. Miller said I don’t know how we determine what the original design was. I don’t know of any cases where the original design would still be there for me to look at because all driveways have been redone.
Ms. Phifer said and there are a lot of homes that actually were not constructed originally with driveways per se. They didn’t have garages.
Mr. Truax said on 4th Street they are off the alley.
Mr. Schweizer said could I ask staff a question? What does it mean by less stringent should?
Ms. Phifer said really it is to allow more options to the homeowner.
Mr. Schweizer said so what you are asking the Commission is, is it okay for the Commission to say yes to asphalt?
Ms. Phifer said yes. That’s what we are asking.
Mr. Schweizer said so I guess the question that comes to my mind is would we prefer to see a concrete driveway fall apart or would we prefer to see an asphalt driveway in good shape?
Mr. Wetter said that’s an interesting point. One thing that occurred to me when I was thinking about this is I’ve probably done about a dozen roofs over the last few years and I can only think of 1 that didn’t have the original shake shingles. People just start letting stuff go when it is too expensive and they start doing things that aren’t the best. I think we see a lot of busted up driveways because people just can’t afford to replace it with concrete. That’s the one I’m dealing with. It was just in horrible condition. I had to rip it out.
Ms. Phifer said I think the other factor to look at too is what is the long-term impact of the decision? If somebody pulls out the windows or pulls off a historic porch, there is long-term irreparable damage to that home. If you are putting in an asphalt driveway right now, there is always the opportunity to go back and put in a concrete one. There is no long-term or irreparable damage by allow a different material. So at some point in time if, again like I said, if the Commission revisits it when maybe the historic districts have recovered from the downturn and residents have a lot more financial ability, maybe it is something that can be looked at again. I do think that was the intention of the should. I think that was the intention in the guidelines to allow the Commission to be able to take those factors into account. We are not changing the guidelines. We are really just saying that given the current circumstances this is going to be the interpretation going forward until it is reconsidered again.
Mr. Signorelli said it would be nice if there were money available to offer a loan program to help when we say well we really would prefer that you put in a concrete driveway and we could somehow help with the cost of that.
Ms. Phifer said and I would absolutely agree, but I would also say priority-wise any money that is available I think would have a longer impact on the community if we used it for windows, painting, porches.
Mr. Wetter said and I don’t think asphalt is necessarily inferior to concrete. There are places where I would absolutely insist on concrete. If it has garbage trucks on it. I’ve done a lot of concrete, but I’ve also seen concrete fail in 10 years because of salt.
Mrs. Furneaux said I can speak from experience. I’m in the Tanner Historic District as well and we had to replace 1 pad of concrete when we replaced our sewer line and that alone was $2,500 and it is already sinking and that was 2 years ago.
Mr. Wetter said that’s the other thing. You can make asphalt look good again by sealcoating it. If it is bad, you can cut out a section and fix it pretty easily. Concrete is a mess when it goes bad.
Mrs. Furneaux said exactly.
Mr. Miller said I going to speak as my personal preference, I’ve always preferred money going into siding, roofing, windows, and doors.
Mr. Truax said or a roof.
Mr. Miller said just for practical reasons we’re not requiring historic materials on roofs, but as you know if you let water run in all sorts of things happen.
Mr. Truax said we had a house on 4th Street, just to talk about it a little bit, cedar shakes. The original cedar shakes last half a century easily. The current cedar shakes have about the same life span as asphalt shingles, 25 years. We’ve got a case on 4th Street where it is coming apart.
Mr. Schweizer said so even when we prefer something, that’s still a should and not a shall, so we are not really changing anything.
Ms. Phifer said correct.
Mr. Truax said but we’ve got to think about what we think when we see a situation. As long as we understand should you’re right.
Mr. Wetter said we’ve got to get our values up.
Mr. Schweizer said I would prefer to see a good driveway versus a bad driveway.
Mrs. Furneaux said I agree, more money spent on the porch, the siding, the roofs I think is money well spent versus.
Mr. Truax said but now we are talking cost.
Mr. Miller said I would think that was a priority.
Mr. Truax said but it is the cost we are taking about.
Mr. Wetter said it is more efficient too.
Mrs. Furneaux said but it is aesthetics also. It is not just cost.
Mr. Truax said I disagree.
Mr. Schweizer said if you can get them both fixed with the cost.
Mr. Miller said my reaction to hearing of people being required to do a concrete driveway, this was before I was ever serving on a Commission or anything, is I was kind of surprised in that I didn’t think that a concrete driveway was an original material any more than the aluminum siding on the homes as original, although it’s been there a long time.
Mr. Wetter said that’s why I think it is an aesthetic issue.
Mr. Truax said it depends on the age of the buildings.
Mr. Miller said well if it was built in the 50’s.
Mr. Truax said no. Our house in 1910 it was concrete.
Mr. Miller said I was still on the aluminum siding.
Mr. Wetter said wouldn’t it depend too on the level of house that it was? I could see a lot more houses on W. Downer being concrete in 1910.
Mr. Truax said you’re absolutely right. Out historic districts aren’t all architecturally significant buildings. They are contributing some, but some are intrusions.
Mr. Wetter said no. What I meant was in 1910 someone who owned one of these beautiful houses on W. Downer would have more likely had a concrete driveway than as a 1,200 square foot house in the Tanner District.
Mr. Truax said more likely brick.
Mr. Wetter said or brick, but a lot of these were probably just gravel.
Ms. Phifer said because even back in 1910 there were priorities, so there were people who could afford to put in the desired material and then there were people who did put all of their money into the structure itself and ended up with having probably gravel driveways. We are lucky in Aurora to have a wide variety of different price points really even back when they were built originally of different historic structures because we really did have a very diverse community even at that point. Whereas some of these other historic districts even are much more homogenous even from the beginning. We have the Downer Place, which were the affluent residents of Aurora and then you still have the worker housing, which we are protecting, but they probably did have different priorities as far as those types of materials. So it really is the same, I think.
Mr. Schweizer said in my personal experience with our house, which was built in 1894, our original garage wasn’t a garage. It was a stable. It was horses. So the 3 car garage that we have now came later and the transition was a stable that was facing south is now a garage facing west. Just from my experience, I mean obviously the driveway came later. I wouldn’t have even had a driveway. I would have had a dirt patch where the horses came galloping up.
Mr. Signorelli said when we purchased our house, we have a rather wide driveway and the previous homeowners had widened the concrete by putting asphalt strips to widen it on both sides, which didn’t look too good. We, of course, ripped that all out and replaced it with concrete, which I think in the Highlands that was used in the 20’s when the subdivision was put up. I think pretty much everyone had concrete and that was our personal preference over say asphalt. But I don’t have an objection to this homeowner or other homeowners putting in asphalt because I don’t think, as the pictures in our package show, that it detracts from the houses or the neighborhood and asphalt when it is put in it is pristine and shiny and new and smooth and aesthetically I wouldn’t have an objection to it.
Mr. Miller said as you mentioned, Riddle Highlands is more homogenous. Would you insist on concrete within Riddle Highlands?
Mr. Signorelli said yes. I would look at a compromise. I would look at the concrete with the grass middle as a compromise. When we can, I’d like to give people an alternative if possible. I would not be against that, but I would have to say even having had said what I said, that in the Highlands in my historic district I would prefer concrete. I don’t know that we have any asphalt do we?
Mr. Castrejon said there are a few.
Mr. Signorelli said well maybe a couple.
Mr. Castrejon said but then back to the cost. Me having one of the longest driveways in Riddle Highlands, when we did the concrete 8 years ago, ouch.
Mr. Miller said on the other hand as has been mentioned, Tanner is far less homogenous. There is huge variety of styles, age, you name it and I would imagine the original driveways were pretty much the same way of variety, including the gravel I would guess.
Mr. Castrejon said so within this discussion have you filed a COA for this?
Mr. Wetter said yes.
Mr. Castrejon said are we just discussing?
Ms. Phifer said tonight we are just discussing because we wanted to bring it up and there is another item that is not Mr. Wetter’s, but there is another item discussing driveways tonight, but we really just wanted the opportunity to have this discussion with the Commission and get some direction with regard to allowing asphalt driveway replacement.
Mr. Schweizer said so in terms of parliamentary procedure are we voting on this as a using of the should?
Ms. Phifer said just a recommendation on clarification of the guidelines.
Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Jim Schweizer
Motion Seconded By: Al Signorelli
Ayes: Fernando Castrejon, Marissa Furneaux, Dan Miller, Jim Schweizer, Al Signorelli
Nays: Don Truax, Rob Vaughan
Ms. Phifer said so Jill write up a memo as she’s done in previous instances and bring it to the Commission at the next meeting so you can review it and make sure that the language is your understanding of what you just voted on. Once you’ve reviewed that then we’ll put that up on the website and it will be an official guideline clarification available to the public.
Mr. Wetter said thank you.
Mr. Miller said I’m not sure we changed anything written here. It says the original design material replacement where known. It is just not clear to me how you know that. I don’t know the original design of my driveway.
A motion was made by Mr. Schweizer, seconded by Mr. Signorelli, that this agenda item be approved. The motion carried.
17-00531 Certificate of Appropriateness to add a 6' flare to the current driveway at 129 S. 4th Street (Jorge Barba - 17-00531/ AU27/1-17.122-COA/HP - JM - Ward 2)
Ms. Phifer said so this is a current violation. You can see from the pictures that are in your packet that the homeowner did start to put down gravel and was intending on expanding the asphalt, the existing asphalt driveway. They were cited and they did stop work. Jill has been working with this homeowner and her recommendation is that we not allow the full expansion of the driveway, but that we look at allowing some flairs right at, close to the garage itself just to provide a little more room. You can see that there is really room to park 2 cars there, but it is very, very tight and the homeowners have a hard time being able to get in and out of the vehicles, so they are just looking for a little bit of extra space right up at the garage. This would not be a full flair. If you are familiar with how our zoning ordinance does allow a driveway flair, those are allowed to actually be an entire car width. This would not be that wide. So what Jill is recommending is that they not go any wider than the structure of the garage itself and that that only be 6 feet away from the garage that that flair would exist and then it would be at its normal width when it goes to the street.
Mr. Vaughan said can you say that again for me? Can you clarify where the actual flair is going to be? Is it currently where the gravel is located?
Ms. Phifer said no.
Mr. Vaughan said so it is actually literally the width of the garage continuous, not all off on one side?
Ms. Phifer said that’s what Jill has talked to them about is that we would.
Mr. Vaughan said was this the compromise or what they wanted to do?
Ms. Phifer said the homeowner does not appear to be here tonight.
Mr. Miller said a question on clarification. The pictures here are showing a 6 foot, this appears to be a 6 foot extension of almost the entire driveway. Is that what they proposed?
Ms. Phifer said that’s what they proposed.
Mr. Miller said okay, and Jill is proposing that be scaled back to only within 6 feet of the actual structure?
Ms. Phifer said 6 feet of the actual structure, yes.
Mr. Miller said and in the pictures here, I see a lighter color where they’ve extended. Is that a gravel they put down or something?
Ms. Phifer said yes.
Mr. Miller said was that to go underneath the concrete or asphalt?
Ms. Phifer said the asphalt. So they had already started doing some of the work and then they got a stop work order.
Mr. Vaughan said I think my concern here is that that is wide enough for a third car and this is turning into a parking lot real quick. This is two family I believe, so obviously having 3 cars would be quite awesome. My personal recommendation is if getting in and out of the 2 cars is an issue, I don’t see why maybe 3 feet wouldn’t substantial.
Ms. Phifer said the 6 feet is just so that the entire car length can fit past.
Mr. Truax said is it 6 feet wide too?
Ms. Phifer said no. I think it is 1 1⁄2 feet on either side of the existing driveway. You can see there are the garage doors and then there is about a foot and a half of brick. It would be really just filling in from that brick and then 6 feet out and then it would taper back to a regular driveway.
Mr. Vaughan said okay. I’m sorry. That’s what I was asking before. It is the width of the garage.
Ms. Phifer said that’s what we are recommending. They wanted to just put a big extra section on the one side. We’re saying no. If you match the structure and you don’t go wider than the structure, which is a total of 3 feet, so a foot and a half on each side, so not at all allowing for an additional car, but allowing them to open their doors. So if you look at that picture, I mean you really cannot get in and out of those center doors because there is just not enough room and so that would just allow a little bit of room on either side so they could get in and out of the vehicles.
Mr. Miller said I’m not matching up what we are talking about with what’s written here under recommendations. It says conditional approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to retain the asphalt drive.
Ms. Phifer said with flairs on both sides of the width of the garage, so the whole width.
Mr. Miller said so the length is 6 feet.
Ms. Phifer said and the garage width is 18.7 feet.
Mr. Signorelli said and so then where we are looking at the gravel now, that would go back to grass?
Ms. Phifer said correct. They would have to remove that gravel and re-turf.
Mr. Miller said could we edit these recommendations to specify that the 6 foot flair is 6 feet in length and not width?
Ms. Phifer said yes and actually we’ll probably actually draw up a little exhibit just to make sure of the clarification.
Mr. Miller said because I’m confused by that and I’m afraid we’ll end up with a 6 foot wide flair and they’ll say that it was approved.
Ms. Phifer said we’ll make sure there is an exhibit when they get what was approved so they know exactly what t is.
Mr. Castrejon said just a question. Is the right side of that gravel line in the next door neighbor’s property?
Mr. Truax said that’s their house.
Ms. Phifer said that’s their house. They were going to put additional asphalt between them.
Mr. Miller said I would just like the recommendation to be clarified to say 6 feet in length and with the diagram.
Mr. Truax said and the width of the garage.
Mr. Miller said and to the width of the garage, which is written here at the end.
Motion Of Conditional Approval Was Made By: Rob Vaughan
Motion Seconded By: Al Signorelli
Ayes: Fernando Castrejon, Marissa Furneaux, Dan Miller, Jim Schweizer, Al Signorelli, Don Truax, Rob Vaughan
A motion was made by Mr. Vaughan, seconded by Mr. Signorelli, that this agenda item be approved. The motion carried by voice vote.
A) Grants - Rob Vaughan, Chariman
Has not met.
B) Near Eastside Historic District - Jose Garcia, Chairperson
C) Riddle Highlands Historic District - Fernando Castrejon, Chairperson
Has not met, but I do have a Riddle Highlands announcement. As most of you know, I’ve been working along with Mike Saville to secure the property behind Carson’s as a future park. As you might have read, at the last minute at November’s closing Bonton backed out and expected more money for those parcels. That was settled out of court and the closing for those properties is scheduled for July 20th. So we will be, hopefully, breaking ground sometime early fall.
Mr. Miller said will the closing be on the original agreed upon price?
Mr. Castrejon said yes.
Mr. Miller said excellent. That’s really good news.
D) Public Awareness - Dan Miller, Chariman
Has not met.
E) Landmarks - Don Truax, Chariman
F) FoxWalk Design Review - Don Truax, Chairperson
I told you last time the day before we met. We haven’t met since.
G) Tanner/Palace Historic District Committee - Dan Miller, Chairperson
Has not met.
A motion was made by Mr. Truax, seconded by Mr. Castrejon, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Mr. Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.