Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
Video Transcript
Duration: 161 minutes
Speakers: 14
No. There we go. Good evening, everyone. We are still waiting on one commissioner so that we can have a quorum,
before we can begin. So
be patient with
us.
That sounds like it's working.
I was just calling to check them. If you would give me a callback, I'll shoot you a text. Thanks. Bye.
Hey, everyone. I am so, so sorry. I
We're
we're trying to figure out where the other,
at least one of the commissioners are so that we can get going.
Unfortunately, we can't start until we have a quorum.
So we're one person short on that.
Bear with us. We're trying the best we can. I I do appreciate everybody coming out tonight. This is a nice crowd for us.
Okay. I have an update.
Looks like we're gonna be able to make this thing happen tonight.
Mark Danilo will be here in about ten minutes. He came in from the airport. He wasn't scheduled to be here tonight, but he's gonna come in and fill our vacant spot. So bear with me about ten, fifteen minutes. We'll get going.
Alright. Thank you for your patience, everyone. I am very, very sorry about that.
Good evening, and welcome to the Roswell Historical Preservation Commission. Today's date is,
August
13?
Thirteenth. 08/13/2025.
I wanna read to you a little bit about the commission, the district, and what we do here this evening. The current Roswell Historical Preservation Commission was established in 1988 with the mission to protect and preserve the historical and archeological
resources
within the boundaries of the district. The commission is composed of dedicated volunteers who are appointed by mayor and city council to carry out the design review process and other tasks as outlined in section 13
of the unified development code. My name is Philip Mansell, and I am the historic preservation commission chair. The HPC Commission members are vice chair Mark DiNolo, Ron Jackson,
Mary Nichols, and also present is Judy Muir, who is the ex officio member and is president of the Roswell Historical Society.
Tonight, we have with us from the City of Roswell Planning and Zoning staff, Shay Dixon.
The process will begin with the staff presenting the application. This presentation
will include applicable codes and guidelines and staff recommendations based on our UDC and design guidelines,
as well as the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation of historic properties and our historic district master plan.
Commission members may then ask questions to city staff regarding the application.
Next, the applicant will present the project and commission members may ask questions and or clarification in regards to the application.
Commission members may then ask questions to city staff regarding the application.
Then we will take public comments, which is limited to three minutes per speaker.
The applicant may have a rebuttal to public comment if so desired.
If you are planning on speaking, I believe there's a little form in the back that you need to fill out on the podiums there.
Let's see. The commission will have further discussion if needed, then we will call for a motion, which will require a second to that motion and then a vote. Another motion may be offered. At that time, anyone aggrieved by a decision of the HPC has the right to appeal to mayor and city council.
Such an appeal must be filed with the planning and zoning director within thirty days of the decision.
I will,
we do have a big,
audience this evening.
So the
three minute timeline is probably gonna be pretty tight,
but we only wanna be discussing the,
issues at hand.
We do not wanna discuss Mimosa
or any other,
areas like that that have not come before us yet.
So
with that, I will call up staff.
Good evening, mister chairman, Arnold commissioners, city staff, members of the public. I'm Shay Dixon, a historic district planner. And today, I'll be presenting staff findings
applications today.
Quick look at the agenda.
We had Green Street, Alpharetta Street, parking deck discussion has been postponed to a later date. For now, we have two different applications, both for the 1076 Canton Street. First, the approval for the demolition of an historic
an existing historic structure, and then the certificate of appropriateness for new construction
at the same property. Both are recommended by staff for approval with conditions.
Starting off with the application first at hand, 1076
Canton Street, historically known as Ballhaus or Founders Hall, an approval for the demolition of an existing historic structure.
A little bit of background. Applicants are requesting approval to demolish the existing structure on the property to be followed by the reconstruction of the building
with salvaged historic materials.
Quick timeline of this project. It first showed up for HPC,
as a working session
on 06/11/2025.
Forgot to get that on there. I apologize for that.
The application
was then received for HPC approval,
on 06/25/2025.
Fees were received, and the application was considered complete on June 30. The application passed all staff reviews,
on July 9, and then we are now reviewing this, as a board today, August 13.
A little bit of further background here. Here's the current existing front facade at 1076 Canton Street as it, as it stands today as it faces Canton Street. This is a bit of a side angle view, but here you can see the non as the non historic side and rear additions as well, as well as the, non historic front porch that's been added, that was was added during the nineties. The, historic core of this building is the build part of the building flanked by the brick fireplaces there on the photo. That structure has existed since approximately 1870. We'll get into the history a little bit later.
Here's above again Founders Hall during the twenty tens when it was operating as a mainly a wedding venue, but also as a general special of his facility.
And, again, the front facade today as it stands.
Here's the existing rear facade. Almost all of this is likely non historic additions dating back again to 1996.
And this is the existing south facade focusing on the historic core of the building. We can also see here, again, the non historic front porch as well as the cornice returns, which are a key part of their, architectural elements, which we'll get into in just a moment. But those are historic portions of the building.
Alright. Going on a little bit. The interior of the structure has largely been stripped down to baseboards and supports.
This is an important time to to mention that according to state law, this is,
code 44Dash10Dash28.
Local HPCs don't have jurisdiction over interior only renovations. So the interior changes here have not been reviewed by HPC at this point,
and wouldn't be able to be reviewed.
This picture here is of the historic core of the building or one of the two Ground Floor rooms of the historic core of the building.
As we go on, despite me saying that we don't have much jurisdiction over interiors, we're going to look at a few images of the interiors here.
This is the existing fireplaces
as viewed from the interior of the building. There are two in the historic section,
flanking each side of the historic core of the building.
There are some missing siding on the interior
or as viewable from the interior of this historic portion.
And this is a view viewing the interior
of the historic core looking backwards as you view further down in the image. Those are the non historic rear additions that were added to the building over the course of its existence.
The flooring is one of the only things that kind of remains still from the, the building in the interior.
These most likely aren't historic. They, look like they date back to either the 1985
or 1996
renovations,
though exact dating couldn't be clear upon immediate inspection.
And this is some of the some of the structure
sorry. Some of the structural supports,
in the foundation of the building, at least some shoring is present to help ensure the integrity
of the current
structure. Going to the architecture of the building, the, 1076 Canton Street is a Greek revival architecture style in an I House form.
Going over a little bit of what a Greek revival structure is.
We're mainly looking at rectangles rectangular shaped plans, generally two stories, symmetrical facades,
gabled or hips roofing,
full height or usually full facade porches,
clapboard or brick exterior materials with specific details and windows. And we'll go into in a moment how this building does or does not adhere to these current,
standards of what a Greek revival architecture style is.
Briefly going into the form of the house, this is considered an I House form of building. This is how the UDC design guidelines depicts an I House form.
We're mainly looking at,
mainly looking at one room deep, two rooms wide, and two floors tall, and that is what the historic core of the structure is.
In the city's 2018 historic resources survey, Ballhaus Founders Hall actually is the given example for what an I House looks like in Roswell, and that is a direct image from the 2018 historic resources survey.
Now for in the terms of Greek revival architecture, the structure meets every single one of the stated elements that are mentioned in both the UDC design guidelines and the architectural guide that staff most commonly uses for HPC reviews, which is the field guide to American houses.
That is all of the previously mentioned, features as well as double hung slash windows, three o or sorry. Six over six style.
Classical columns, they are on the non historic
porch. It is a dork square column. We couldn't exactly tell what it was on the actual historic porch,
but they were most likely dork round columns.
Transom and sidelights around the doors, and there is an emphasis on the cornice. As I was mentioning, the cornice returns earlier on the side of the structure.
It doesn't exactly nowadays follow exactly what an I House is defined as, but that's mainly due to historic or both historic and non historic additions
over the course of the the many decades this this structure's been here.
Going to the history, it's a bit of a long history section. I apologize for that. But, the structure was originally built, circa 1870.
There are conflicting sources on whether or not this was built for the first veterinarian in Roswell. Staff couldn't confirm that at the time, but it's mentioned in a few,
more modern sources.
There are some sources that say this building was specifically built in 1872.
We still don't have exactly a clear date on historical service. The historical society tends to say this is circa 1870.
Between 1880 and 1890, a rear addition is added to the building. It's kind of unlikely that this is any of the additions that are currently on the building, but it does show up on a a 1911
map of the area.
Going on, the structure was purchased by Bascom Chalmers Ball in nineteen o nine as a grocery
merchant on Canton Street, and him or his family lived in the house for a confirmed seventy two years afterwards.
Some sources say that he may have even the family might have even owned the house previously, but at least for seventy two years, the the house was occupied by the same family, and that's why the house used to be called the Ball House or the Ball Place
due to the Ball family. And this image here is of the house just a few years after it was sold out of the family in 1985.
During the time they lived there, there were a few outbuildings on the property.
Mainly, we can see these in aerial photographs. There aren't too many records on them, so we don't even know exactly how many of them are there.
From aerial photographs, it appears there are at least three, possibly a fourth.
These all seem to be have been demolished
at least before, circa 1972.
In 1981,
Cora Ball, the daughter of the original purchaser, sells the house.
The house is immediately reused as office space that same year, and a parking lot is added to the rear of the property in order to accommodate for that office space without altering the, the street character of the building.
In 1985, the house is sold to a developer, and a rezoning is applied for and approves to change from an office type of zoning to a commercial
zoning. At the time, the stated purpose was to use the building as a as a restaurant.
At least some of the current additions
that are on the building were built during this time frame, but this is slightly before,
the building would have come under HBC jurisdiction
or at least the HBC at the time, jurisdiction.
So we don't have full records on exactly which parts those additions are.
Now in 1988, the house is included in an expansion of the historic district.
And, the house is then sold and the original the previous developer still remains a leading part of later projects.
In 1996,
HPC approved renovations to become an 125
person event space to be known as Founders Hall, which is most commonly what the building is known as today.
There was a bit of kerfuffle that same year because it seems there, there were some,
miscommunications
with the HPC and the developer at the time.
So the real property ended up being clear cut to expand to a 100 spaces, and the developer of the Times newsletter stayed the building to have a capacity of 500 attendees, a little bit more than originally proposed.
Neighbors at the time began public opposition to the project, alleging conflicts of interest, failure to issue, certificate of appropriateness, among other things.
A negotiated settlement was found between the neighbors and the, the legal representation at the time, and mayor council affirmed the approval and issued a certificate of appropriateness,
later that year, June 1996.
Sometime around that time is when the current non historic porch was added.
Henderson, one of the developers, stated it wanted to be reminiscent of traditional
plantation architecture.
It's notable though that because of the location and the time frame of when this building was built, it the property and building was never used as a plantation home.
So it does not it is not in line with that,
with that architectural statement,
but that is the current porch that is on the property today.
Between 2005 and 02/2007, there were several applications for variances to a 40 foot buffer. These applications appear to have been withdrawn and never approved, but the requirements are also no longer in place according to the current code, so they would no longer be a requirement.
But in 02/2007, HPC approved a white lattice screen fence, black metal lighting posts, and a gazebo, all of which were used as part of the building's wedding venue that was added around the same time.
Now more into today in 2021,
HPC
approved redevelopment of the site as a private club and hotel,
including the addition of 10 guest cottages, a pool space, small parking deck, and the removal of non historic porches of the primary structure. This is all being in the property behind
on the same parcel, but behind the current structure.
In 2022, HPC staff approved minor changes to propose siding windows and doors.
There was a admin application, a staff application filed in 2023 but expired. And then now in June 2025, the current HPC application
was submitted to the city of Roswell.
Briefly looking at the previously approved demo plan,
it only included the demolition of the non historic front and rear porches.
And this plan currently is the demolition
of the entire building,
with the plan to reconstruct it with salvaged materials.
Now the city of Roswell has five criteria for demolition in historic district, and we're gonna go with them real briefly here. But, the first one being that,
asking is the building of such architectural or historical interest that removing the building would be a detriment to the public interest.
The structure is of high architectural interest,
large both due to its I House form and its Greek revival architecture.
The I House form is rather unlikely in the state of Georgia. It's most commonly to known toward the Midwest.
And Greek revival architecture was
was much more common prior to the time frame it was built in. This is an 1870 building. It's built during the reconstruction period post civil war. Greek revival is much more common architecture of the time,
immediately antebellum.
So so this is a little bit uncommon. So it would be a little bit of a detriment to the public interest in that way.
Moving on, is the building a structure of such interest that it can reasonably be made into a historic shrine? A historic shrine is something along the lines of Bullock Hall or the Smith Plantation, something that has been kept the same over the course of its existence and can reasonably serve as a untouched symbol of the time frame at which it was built. Because of the both historic and non historic additions over the years, we do not believe that this building could reasonably serve as historic shrine.
Onto the third criteria is the building or structure of such older unusual design that cannot be reproduced,
without great difficulty.
The current proposal for reconstruction, which we'll discuss later today,
is a proposal that rebuilds,
the historic core of the building.
So it would be considered unlikely that it would be
reconstruct in the same way as currently currently built.
Going to the last two, would retention of the building help preserve or protect historic place within the city?
While the structure is itself a historic age contributing building in the historic district, it isn't tied particularly to any historical events or historical figures, which is usually what this criteria is used for.
So it's it it itself isn't necessarily considered a historic place under this definition,
outside of its contributions, its its enormous contributions to the historic district as a whole.
And lastly, would retention of the building or structure promote the general welfare
of the city, its people, its businesses, and visitors is the summary of that question.
Ultimately,
retention of the building,
whether or not
retention of the building
benefits
the city of Roswell and its people and its residents,
depends on whether or not the structure can be used.
If the current building can be used,
if it can be reasonably restored by any reasonable developer,
then it may prove better to keep the building. But if it's not, if it's going to be overly burdensome that any reasonable developer couldn't
manage to restore the building, then it may not be. That's ultimately a decision for HBC to make. It's a little bit more of a fine line there that, staff aren't able to provide the exact answer for.
Moving on lastly to the recommended
conditions
from city staff. Staff again recommend approval with conditions for this project.
Going through these,
these are the same as in the staff reports with a few small grammatical corrections.
But, ultimately, the first one is that demolition may only occur if a reconstruction
certificate of appropriateness has been approved, which is our second application for today.
The reuse of all historic original historic materials or any materials that could have reasonably been put there prior to 1975,
that are not rotten, broken, or beyond repair are to be required to be surveyed and maintained so they can be put back onto the building during reconstruction.
Third is that applicants must return to HPC prior to the commencement of reconstruction to notify the commission
of the results of the survey and inventory of these materials
that are to be reused.
And fourth, that applicants must, after final completion of the project,
submit elevations of the structure to the planning design planning and zoning director or historic district planner, as well as the HPC chair indicating which portions of the elevations were successfully maintained
from those original historic materials.
These are the, again, reasons for
staff recommendations on this. We've mostly discussed these, and that is what I have on this particular application at this time.
Thank you, Shay. I appreciate that.
Do we have any questions for Shay?
Judy.
State your name, please.
I do have a question.
On page 46 of our packet,
it's section 5.31.
My apologies.
The demo is the demolition
to include
the house, the original
house,
and then the addition
on the back?
It is considerably bigger than the house, larger than the house? The the current plan as submitted by, as submitted by the applicants, and it's been staff's understanding, it is a complete,
take down and demolition of the entire structure, both historic and non historic. Okay. And then applicants will be able to answer further questions. Alright.
May I read this
particular section? Of course. Requires that an addition to an historic structure be subordinate
to the historic primary structure
at the very least from its primary public sight lines.
Due to the proposed increase in height of the rear and side additions, this criterion
will not be
met. That's mainly I believe that's mainly for the reconstruction portion of the application Right. Which we'll have a whole discussion on in the next application. We're not I wanna vote on both of these applications at the same time. But there is a problem with
tearing the whole thing down. Yes. Because it would be considered a new building at that point,
from a city legal perspective, in which case it would theoretically have to follow the design guidelines as they are stated exactly there.
Applicant up.
Hi.
I am, Scott Rosenblum.
I am
the founder
of this, project.
I appreciate you guys,
hearing us out tonight and
listening to our application.
It's okay.
So,
I thought I would speak first since I'm pretty sure there's gonna be a lot of comments with what's going on in Roswell
right now.
But, I live in the Historic District.
I live in the Mill District. And the reason
that I live there is because
I have fallen in love with the Roswell lifestyle.
And when
my partners and I, and some of them are here tonight, when we saw this building and we
purchased it, we had an idea to bring something really
special
to Roswell.
And our our plan
all along was
to develop it to the plan that we originally
had approved.
When we went through the building and we,
you know, when we started to
to take it apart,
we saw that that could not be done in the way we wanted to do it. And the only way to
keep this building
and preserve it would be
to
to to take it down
and rebuild it and put the materials
back onto it.
The building was in the additions over the years had
made the had put this building in such bad shape that,
you know, it was almost heartbreaking when we saw it. We looked underneath it. There were stones holding up part of it. There was no sheathing on it. It was we
sort of had to start all over again to figure out, okay, how do we preserve this
and and bring it back as a developer here in Roswell. And I'm not a long time developer, but as a developer here in Roswell,
you know,
what my goal is on anything that we get involved in are only things that work
and segue right into the community.
If we build something, we want it to look like it's always been there. Any project that we've ever spoken to the city about, it would be something if we built it, you would never know it wasn't there for one hundred and fifty years. We would, you know, we bring in urban planners
and make sure that any materials used on them
historically significant.
And, you know, I know there's
a lot of things
going on in Roswell right now with with,
the trees
or, you know, with the parking deck
things. But our intention is to do this the right way and
really make sure that this building, when we're done with it, is
is preserved
and
is better than it was before.
It's right now, it's it would be almost impossible.
I don't even know if we could preserve it in the way that it is right now because there's really nothing to shore anything up against.
And I'm concerned that if we did,
we would end up with a situation like what happened on Goulding with that house that fell down, and that's just something we don't wanna happen. We have an opportunity
to really do something great here. So
anyway, I wanted to come up and speak.
And,
you know, I hope
this goes our way tonight, but you never know. But,
anyway,
that's, you know, from ownership, that is our viewpoint on here.
And,
you know, we're committed to making sure that this project's a great project for Roswell.
I'll turn this over to
Hold on a second. Come back up here.
Does anybody have any questions?
Ron.
Wait a minute.
Is that on? Yep.
My question is almost irrelevant. If you take if you choose not to answer it, that's fine. You say that you have,
worked in the area. You built other things, make them blend into the community like they've been here for a long time. Could you tell us some other projects you've worked on? Well, I haven't I'm new to the development game. We were
we were
I was in software.
We we sold and we saw this property,
and
we had an idea of something that we wanted to bring to Roswell. Now I've lived here for a long time. I've lived here
gosh, I don't know,
out of the last
I've lived in the Mill District for
ten, twelve years, and I lived off Grange Bridge Road for probably
ten or twelve years.
And in between that, I lived in the city. That's where I was from and I moved back up here.
So this is our first development project here in Roswell. We own some office buildings,
but this is our first. And when we
purchased this property and we,
engaged with Alex, Alex was in my neighborhood.
The first thing we said to him is, listen, when you build this project,
make sure that it is built
within
every single code that the city has. Don't ask. Don't try and get any zoning changed. Don't try and get any height.
You know,
don't don't try and get any
new exceptions. Make sure it stays within the code. So our intention
was to build it exactly
the way we applied for before.
And, really, now it's gonna still look the same. We just have to go another method to make sure that we preserve the building. We're not asking to change the look of the building.
When it's done, it's gonna be perfectly preserved.
Alright. Let me follow-up just a second. You said when it's finished, it looked like it originally did. Yeah. Do I hear that correctly?
I mean, if I come back in five years,
yeah, I look at it and it'll look like what I'm used to seeing. Well, it won't have those columns that were on there. Except for the columns. It will look like the picture. Our
our plans are to build it. How the picture that we had from 1870
is with the exact same veranda in the front. That's why we're pulling those those columns off,
and we're gonna, you know, restore everything. Even a lot of those windows, which are which were new windows that were put in, that's why they're all,
you know, they're offset. We're gonna put in historically significant windows. I mean, it's we're gonna restore this. If you look at it now
in five years and you pull a picture out from 1870,
we are building to so it looks like that. I mean, the yard's gonna look different, of course. But
let me ask one last question then I'll relinquish.
Is it gonna cost more?
Just off the top of your head, will it cost more
to restore what's there
to a functioning building?
Will that be more than if you raise the building and start over?
Well,
I would say
probably
yes because I believe
that it's it would be very, very difficult
to restore what's there because of the shape that the building's in.
You know, I'm not
I'm not an architect or an engineer,
but if you are in the building and you look at it, one of the glaring things that stands out is
that there is nothing
there's no sheathing. There's
nothing that that
you you can't restore
the siding because there's nothing behind it. You have to take it off to be able to
to bring it up to code. There's
none of the the code basis,
you know,
precedents are put in place and you can't do that unless
you pull everything else, I it it would be very hard to do it. But and, yeah, probably expensive. But listen, it's expensive. I don't know what we're doing now. It's
So it it so it would cost it would cost more
to re restore it
than to
rebuild it. I would have to turn that over to
understand what we have there.
Yeah. Then you state your name. I'm Marcus Mello with the Brando Paulson Architects.
We need to understand that the foundations that are there are completely inadequate,
and then the floor joists that are there need to be replaced because they are also inadequate.
And then
the siding is applied directly to the studs. There is no sheathing. So we need to remove
the siding,
right, to be able to put sheathing. But the studs that will be part of the siding are inadequate. There is a lot of dry rot. There is termite damage,
and there are no headers. So the the studs do not comply
with modern codes. So
we will need to replace
the studs.
The roof structure is inadequate.
So how
what are we going to keep there to restore if we have to re remove the siding,
remove the studs, remove the foundation?
That's why it's easier to just
rebuild
an exact replica what's there.
We took very,
precise
dimensions of everything that's there
so that we can rebuild exactly
what is there right now. I have a question, if I could. Mark DiNolo here.
We did have a site visit with you, which was very helpful.
We I think we understand completely what you're saying.
There are
a few examples, several examples of historic properties in the Southeast where they have shored those properties up, lifted them and built the foundations
under
them, put them back in place.
I think what we would like to understand is the difference between this project and those situations.
For example, if we look at those and we have the names of those, but if we look at those situations,
did those buildings have greater structural integrity that allowed that to be done that simply could not be done here? And so my concern is we're going off of, you know, what you're telling us, which I, you know, I think is very credible. But
for something historic like this, we wanna make sure that there is no other alternative
to that, right? I mean, expense is one thing, but once the historic property is gone and then we find out, well, we can only replace half the siding and
we end up with you know, basically a recreation that's not the real thing. That that's the concern. Once it's done, it's done. So I I'd like to know the difference between the properties that we have examples where they have done this and this property and why it could not be done.
Yeah. I think
the problem is the structure of the house
may not be as robust as other historic homes.
You can see, like, the windows are basically supporting the wall that's above.
So there is a lot of big structural deficiency. The house originally,
was not
well built, I would say.
And so once you remove the siding,
the the stud walls that are there, this is insufficient.
Like, there is no bracing. There is nothing, and you would need to also replace those those studs.
I I understand that.
And and and that
that makes sense as you describe it. What I would like to know is if we look at those other examples,
what's the actual empirical difference between those and this building?
Were those
structurally
stronger that they could do that? Could we take this building and could we put a structure around it so it would keep it intact to be able to lift that and do what they did with those other buildings? I just like to know factually what the Okay. I know, but you still need to take the,
siding out
to be able to put sheathing.
You need to take the siding out.
So you have a stud a scleral. Right? Just
just
a a a wood frame
because we have and the siding, we want to take the siding and reuse as much as we can. Some of it is is is rotten. What happens is rotten, we replace with wood with exactly the same size.
The windows are not original.
The windows the door is old, and we want to replace the door. The windows are from the nineties. It's the same windows that I have in my house that was built in '85.
So
we will use exactly the same size
exactly the same size of trims, wood trims,
but I don't see
what
once we take the siding out
and the windows are not original, what what are we trying to to keep there?
Because this the roof structure will need to be replaced. The stud walls will need to be replaced.
The foundations will need to be replaced. So
and and, like, he's not trying to do this to save money because it's it's costing him a fortune to rebuild this house.
It's just, like, it's
impractical to try to
save
what's there because
you have to there is no way to fix this without removing
all the siding Yeah. Which is holding the house together. I I I I understand that. I I think,
I I would just like to be able to make the case.
Here's three or four examples of where this was done in other places. Here's why we cannot do that here, and it's not reasonable to do that. And and, you know, I think what you've described
is great, but I I'm just very concerned. Once it's done, it's done. I would almost like to take those may maybe, you know, we could do that as a follow-up. Take those three or four examples and say, okay. What was different about those
versus Founders
Hall is this, and this is why it cannot be done. Because my concern like I said, once it's done, it's done.
We have a, you know, we have a responsibility
to the public to make sure this is done correctly Yeah. And we protect this. So I wanted to be able to stand up to the public and say, we did everything we did. We did all the diligence, and and this is the only answer. I just wanna make sure that we can make the case for that. Yes.
I think
by looking at the structure that's there, I think it's it's very challenging
to try to
renovate
what is there.
And eventually say, okay.
Let's just put drywall and leave as it is.
It's unsafe knowing how the structure is,
we will never get a certificate of occupancy.
If you just say, well, let's just put drywall on top of these studs the way they are and call it a day,
that is irresponsible.
Yeah. And I'm not suggesting
you're suggesting
we put I'm not suggesting we put drywall on top of it. What I'm what I'm suggesting is let's make it just a comparison. Let's do the business case.
Three or four other properties, here's why we cannot do it here. Maybe there's a way to add structure inside. I mean, you're the architect. I'm not obviously, but I just wanna make sure that we just do our diligence to know why we can't do this.
No. That's fine. But,
I guess, let me let me just say one more time. There is no other way to restart this without removing,
basically, the skin, the exterior skin that the the siding.
There is no way of adding shading to a house without removing the siding. Mhmm.
It it's not possible to do that. This is Mary Nichols. You know, we wanna support your project,
in 2021
when with this was approved.
I want everybody to understand the front of that building is gonna look entirely different. That whole front is coming off and the back is coming off. The only thing that will be remaining is the I the the Yes. Historic building. So it's not gonna look the same way as it does now anyway. And the big square columns, we want to get rid of it because that's not original.
Okay. I know. I'm And I do the very detailed research and you see that that thing is not original.
So when you remove
the front porch and you remove the addition, all we're gonna have left is that historic building.
Three walls. The front and the sides because the back is the addition. So we'll only have three walls anyway? What about the front wall?
The front wall?
The side walls. And the side walls will be gone. Yes. Yes.
And what we are going to do is the front,
once the porch goes away, we are going to do the same return
on the eaves that we have in the back, which is what is historically correct.
Philip Ansell.
So, obviously,
this Founders Hall
is significant to Downtown Roswell. And
there
it's very difficult for us to just say, let's tear it down and put it back together
exactly the same way it was.
It is difficult for
a lot of reasons, but,
you know,
the more
the public outcry.
So
I I don't feel comfortable without what Mark was saying without fully vetting that there are no other possibilities.
And
and
I
you said earlier that it would be easier
to do it this way. Well, I I agree it would be a lot easier.
And when I was in the house, I did not feel safe at all just walking in there. I felt like it could come down at any moment.
So,
obviously,
we've got major concerns with that,
but we need to make sure that there's
no other way to try to salvage this before we just green light a destruction of Founders Hall. So I I want you to understand where we're coming from.
And it's easy for us to sit here and listen to you say, well, we're gonna put it back exactly the same way it was. So that leads me to my next or, well, I guess my first question.
What how exactly do you intend to
to put it
back the same way it was? Like, what tools, techniques, technology?
Like, how exactly are we gonna accomplish this goal?
Well,
we are going to put siding. This is not original of the house, but it's required by code. So we are going to put stud spacing
per current codes,
header above the windows per current codes,
and then a foundation
which nobody's going to see
because it's below grade.
And then,
the wood siding will be applied over the sheathing
and will be installed using nails. And once this is painted, nobody see the nails. The nails may not look like they are from eighteen hundreds, but nobody see the nails.
But the wood siding will be this exact same dimension as the siding that's there. The trims will be the same dimension. The corners will be the same dimensions.
Everything that is historic in that house will be replicated with exactly the same dimensions or with the same trims if they are salvageable.
They have even a a like, a little molding
on the,
between the the,
soffit and the top of the wall that we took careful dimensions because if if any when it's removed and and is damaged, we can replicate that exactly. So you've got dimensions and measurements for Everything. Every square inch of that house. Dimension that personally went there to do that.
And it's, like, uploaded in the computer program that you can Yes.
And I've got We will be share happy to share,
the drawings that you mentioned. You can Yeah. I guess we're not there. And and double check that. You will you you are going to review this.
I I don't mean to jump jump the gun on that. Yeah. We are not I want to make very clear that we are not trying to hide anything or do anything
without the border population
being aware of what's going on. We want to solve the house. He bought the house because he he liked the house. Nobody's trying to demolish that to put, I don't know, a Mac mansion or or whatever.
That's what we are going to do. It's just that
trying
to,
fix what's there is very complex because the walls
are failing, the roof is failing, the floor is failing, so there isn't really not much. But when you can use to as a starting point. Point. When when when you took on the project,
did
walked into the house, did you look at it and it's like, yeah, we gotta tear this down? No. That that's wrong. That's wrong. Or did you look into the possibility of shoring it and
maybe, like, a cost comparison?
I I know it'd probably be extra work, but I'm just wondering if you explored that option in-depth.
Well, when we
originally, we were keeping the house.
We didn't want to demolish it.
Once the drywall was removed, we were, like, in shock what was behind.
Okay. Because that was all concealed behind the drywall.
Once we saw well, there's no sheathing here. And then we saw all the termite damage and the dry rot.
And and,
like, there's no way we can use this.
State your name.
Scott Rosenblum.
I'd like to add to this. You know, our contractor
showed
when they
came and looked at this house,
when,
after
we had,
demolished the
taken everything down, they looked at it and they really don't wanna they're concerned with working on that
property with that house like that. They're concerned that house that house is gonna fall in at some point.
And so there's other concerns.
There's
that wood every day is getting termite damage. It's getting rot damage. It's getting weather,
water.
So every day we don't get started on this and be able to take
that siding off to restore it. It's I mean, you guys saw it. You can pull some of it off. It's just
watery under there. And we really need to get started on this so we can
preserve this building. That fireplace, at some point, is going to fall down because
this building is not structurally sound. When we bought this building,
we like, this is gonna be
we got our approval. This is gonna be great. We're gonna go in. We're gonna redo it. We had to redo all of our
architectural plans because of this. You know, over several $100,000
because we have to now go in
and redo.
Not something that we wanted to do, but
now that we need to do that to be able to preserve it, we're gonna do it so it's done
the right way. And when we're done,
it's going to be it's it's gonna be a great building. And we're
what what we're applying for is what you're gonna see. It's gonna
our I told Randall Paulson when we met him, restore this building to make it look like exactly the way it did in 1870.
Porch, everything.
So it's looks like exactly when that veterinarian moved into that house. And that's what our intention is.
I also want to mention that the addition
also does not have sheathing.
I think in the eighties, it's it's really poor construction,
and that's why we are not really solid.
Scott,
Philip Mansell.
Out of curiosity, when you guys were purchasing the house, did the
inspector
come back and like say that there were potentially
major issues or
They didn't inspect it out. I mean, it's or we wouldn't have purchased it. But, you know, I don't know how deep Yeah. We'll get it. Except the time, a lot of that stuff is Was hidden. Right? But if an inspector came in right now, he would probably put us all in
handcuffs. And, you know, it's
just
and it's, you know,
Harry is right. It's scary to walk in there. It's there's parts of there where the floor's saggy.
You can
it it jump in there.
It almost seems like you could go through the floor.
The beams are being held up by things that aren't even nailed. Like our contractor said, he said it was new architecture
that just
the foundation
downstairs is held up by, like, stacked stone. It's not even not even concrete.
Yeah.
And and and Mark DiNolo here again.
I I I don't think we're
I I think what we're saying is not don't don't don't keep the termite infested
beams as an example,
but is are there ways
to lift,
replace the foundation, bring the building back down, replace
beams or structure,
that may be rotten, that may have structural integrity issues without taking the building down. And, again, all I want is just to see they did it in these other places. Here's why we cannot do it here. Scott, you made the, you know, the the argument every day we wait, the, you know, the building gets more and more fragile. It's gonna come down. I don't think urgency is an argument here. I think it's like, let's make sure we do it right because this thing has been around for a very long time. And so, you know, the time it takes for us to just make the determination of is this the best
answer,
you know, that that's, I think that's worth spending that time to just know that answer. So, again, all I'm asking for is business case, here's why we can't do it compared to these other properties.
Well, I have to talk to our contractor about that, but I do not think they wanna be on that property which presents Yeah. And and that's not an argument. Whether the contractor wants to be on the property or not is not an argument for what you do with the property. I you know, I I think you have to understand what what's the right answer? What's the correct thing to do?
You know, we don't obviously wanna put anybody in danger, but just because the contract doesn't wanna go on the property doesn't mean you don't restore
the best way that you can. The building
to redo the foundations. Right? To
support the walls to redo the foundation,
but then you still need to take the all the sheathing out
and then you have
basically, they start framing left.
That is not the part, so you have
to do sections of wood frame.
Once you replace the frame and you put the stem back,
what's the difference between taking all down at the same time and reconstructing?
I don't understand the difference. I think there's a difference in taking the entire building down and then rebuilding the whole thing
versus keeping the building intact and and and replacing,
you know, and and structurally repairing it while it's while it's in position. I think there's a difference between the two. But in this case, you would basically
demolish one side of the building, keep short the rest,
and then rebuild this, and then
demolish the front, rebuild it, demolish the other side, and rebuild it. I don't see what the difference is between this and just
demolishing the three walls at the same time to rebuild it. I mean, we're kind of having a logic argument right now. I I think I just wanna see here's what here's what these other properties did that we we referenced. We'll give you the names. Oh. And here's why we cannot do it here. Yes. To be able to do this analysis, we would need to know what's the condition of this property. Right. Right. And I'm sure there's plenty of information on those properties as well. And, you know, I I wanna say I I like this project a lot. It's not that I don't like the project. I just want to make sure that we do our job here,
for for the historic property and for the community. Right? Yes. I wanna make sure there is no other alternative
so that, you know, ten years from now, it still stands up in terms of the decisions that we all made together.
Ron.
Ron Jackson.
I gotta agree with Mark
that urgency he stated something earlier. Urgency is not an argument. Can't be an argument. We can't rush through this.
My wife and I go a lot to Williamsburg. We've got kids that live in Charlottesville,
down the street from mother Jefferson.
And in Williamsburg,
they have moved buildings that they found that were incorrectly located.
When they reconstructed it, they've moved them a foot. Now they had Rockefeller money. I understand that.
But it's really important. If we do this wrong
or we let you guys do it wrong, they're gonna get a rope in a tree for us.
It's not gonna be good. So we've gotta do it right. Mark's right.
Urgency cannot be an argument.
I'm not talking about put it off for a year.
I'm talking about do a little look see, see what can be done,
in ways where they have two
ways of doing it. They have reconstruction, which means it's new, essentially new.
And then
the renovation
where you take a building that can be saved and is saved. Now, like I say,
I know we're not talking about Rockefeller money, but the other side of the coin is
that's landmark. It may not be a historic landmark. A lot of people hang their hat on seeing that building. So we gotta be careful with it. So I I think that's important we
we not rush through this.
Judy.
I agree with Mark and with Braun
to take the time, defer,
and get other information.
I have been to a building
called Drayton Hall just outside of Charleston.
It's a three story
mansion,
and they
did this kind of work in restoring that building.
There is information
that Gurtek was
able to,
get off the Internet
that I think it would be really important
to see that information,
maybe even do contact one of them. And if if we have enough information from them to see what they did and what condition those buildings were in to begin with.
That would be our due diligence to make sure that there is no other way other than take down a building that was built in about 1870
when we say that we are the historic city of Georgia, basically.
And I I just think we need to take the time to make sure that this is right, and I also look forward to hearing what people in this audience say tonight.
Alright. I think that's a good segue into let's hear from the audience.
Come on up, sir.
Welcome back to the chambers.
Yes, sir. I am. And what's your relationship with Philip? He's my dad. Okay.
Well,
remind me about here. I haven't seen Philip since elementary school. He he passed away a couple years ago, but I'm sorry I didn't hear back. That's okay. It's good to know that he was a good fellow. And, thank you very well. Played in the orchestra
together. Yep. He was good.
I was the only VO to play and that's the only reason I was there. I was good.
Mr. Rosenblum, I wanna thank you for addressing him also, and I appreciate your whole time, miss Smith.
What I've not heard from today is folks that familiar with renovation and construction.
I'm not an expert, but I renovated the Perry Place,
renovated the little house next to it, renovated,
two buildings in, Bill Village, and so on, did it myself. And
Bill Village.
And zoned it myself.
But I would have liked to have heard from some folks with construction experience. I have a lot of respect for the architects,
but they're not the guy who's hammers the nails and works the crowbar.
My first
comment was,
they talked about the fireplace will fall down. Well, that fireplace has been standing a hundred seventy years.
Fireplaces
that are not well founded
began leaning after a few years.
This thing's still standing strong.
And I don't know what their plans are for the fireplace, but I cannot imagine why they would tear down those brick chimneys,
that had been standing solid for a hundred and seventy years.
They talked about they couldn't
do anything with the studs.
My experiences is a lot of times the floor joists are rotten,
but it's very seldom to see that much termite damage in the studs because of their distance from the ground.
And if you look at the photographs,
they've taken off all the interior's
sheathing.
They can reinforce those studs, sist them up, or replace them without taking off the siding. They can do it from the inside.
So there's a lot of missing information
about
the construction side of this.
I know it would be easier to tear it down.
That's not the standard y'all need to go by.
We haven't heard what the comparable costs are, but the fact that it costs more is not the standard you're to follow.
That's not the reasonable cost is not one of the criteria you you look at.
I don't think they have met all that criteria. I think
there are
things that can be done to preserve some of the structure without tearing it down to the ground. You don't have to tear the chimneys down. You don't necessarily have to pull out all the studs. You may have to build up the foundation.
The floor joists are probably good to go. But I'll bet you the rafters are good because they've been up in the attic. And unless they they didn't fix the roof after they bought it, those rafters are still good. And those rafters are probably hard pine.
But back in eighteen seventies, by an old sash sawmill.
So I just don't think,
I think they can save some of this building without tearing it down.
And they haven't given us the expertise to show that it could not be torn down.
I do hope they succeed in this project, and I don't wanna add millions of dollars of cost. But I don't think we've heard from the experts that we need to hear from about what really can be done.
Is that and I can you cannot convince me. I've built some fireplaces
from the ground up.
This fireplace, these two fireplaces were places were not sound. They would have fallen down a long time ago. They're not being held up by the
by the wood. They're not being held up by anything other than the foundation they're under and the brick. Brick's pretty damn stable.
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Wood.
Excuse me.
Who's up next?
Come on up.
Hi.
Hi.
I'm Anne Smith. I live at 36 Goulding Place.
You may recall I was here back in April,
regarding 30 Goulding.
I am proud to say that I bought a historic home that was built in nineteen o eight,
and it was a mess. I think you guys remember the pictures I showed you. It was also on rocks.
It was a mess. We ended up spending $50,000
to shore it
up, and it was a 700 square foot home. Okay?
So it was a big big expense, but we had a big responsibility.
And,
I am here today because I'm concerned.
Just like last time I was here, I felt that 30 Goulding,
was neglected,
and now it's gone.
And I have since
met with multiple people in the city,
trying to get answers,
understanding
what where we are, and are there any consequences for this to happen
again? And I just get no answers.
Now, incidentally, I built a fence recently. Okay? And it's out of code.
Right?
So I did some research and I find out that the penalty from me being out of code with my fence is as much as a thousand dollars a day
and possible jail time.
But yet, from my understanding and the answers I'm getting from the folks at the city, there are no penalties
for
neglecting a historic home that ends up getting demolished.
So I I just think we need answers.
We need to know
what systems and processes are in place to prevent this happening again.
I mean, I think this we you all and the city owes it to the citizens of Roswell that care about our historic
structures and homes and trees, etcetera.
And I think it's it's time now
to get the answers.
Thank you very much.
Alright. Who we got next? Come on up, sir.
And, Anne, I agree there should be a penalty
system for not following the HBC rules.
Get that on the record.
Hello, guys. My name is Billy Reeves. I live at Blacksmith Road.
Been here for four years and, either so you don't have a little bias. I am a founding member
of the ten seventy six club.
When we moved up here, it was the first thing that we actually joined.
And much as I love all the architectural stuff that we talk about in this meeting,
I find some of it
not realistic.
I find that,
trying to save something that is totally, completely dilapidated
is not something that y'all should look at. I think what the the concept should be is the need to save the stuff that makes it look like it's,
architecture.
Make it look like it what it was, in 1890 with the raffle with the two posts, with the siding, with the two fireplaces, which I'm assuming they could probably save. But more so than anything else,
for us to have to for them to have to go through the point that they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars, which I know is no consequence
if we can get what y'all want done, to find out that in,
common sense
that we could actually make this place look absolutely spectacular for the city and the people of Roswell.
I would like for y'all to pass this
because I don't know it it doesn't seem like y'all know either
of of someone that you can pick up the phone and call and say, hey. Can you come down here and tell me what all we can save in this project?
But I think if you can save the exteriors,
you can save the fireplaces,
and you can put back the concept
something that would generate a lot of money for the city of Washington.
Thank you very much, Billy.
Okay. Who's next?
Going once.
Oh, come on up, sir.
My name is Don Horton. I live at 9885
Robinwood Lane in Roswell.
I am very interested in historic preservation. I have gone to all sorts of seminars
and conferences regarding historic,
preservation.
And I have been exposed to a number
of of buildings that have had to go on undergo significant restoration.
And,
now I haven't been at this building to see what what the issues are, but I can say that some of the buildings that I have seen,
had
the stone foundations.
They used the stone foundations when they were restoring these homes.
They where they had to, they
replaced
the studs and,
the floor joists and so on. I've seen some really
horrendous
situations that were turned into magnificent properties.
So my concern is,
I don't think we've seen evidence
that there are,
differences, significant differences in this particular
property
to other properties that have had significant restoration.
And until you have that comparison, I don't think you can approve
this kind of,
demolition.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, mister Portman. Alright. Who is up next?
Okay. So we will call the applicant back up. Oh, yes, sir.
Richard O'Donnell. 555
Lakemont
Court in Roswell.
10 Years
Roswell Planning Commission, twelve years Roswell Board of Zoning Appeals.
I'd like to give you my card, but I'll have to do it afterward because,
Mayor Wood put it in his folder and walked away with it.
Maybe he was trying to tell me I didn't need to speak because
I honestly don't have any answers, just,
questions. My connection with this structure was simply,
I used to be a member of the Roswell Founders Club when Founders Hall was part of that. Carl Bogner is a good friend of mine.
Even though they,
have former owner,
and they, you know, moved away some fifteen years ago to do Wolf Mountain.
I have no answers. I have only questions.
I,
am
a little,
surprised
to find out that,
I believe a certificate of appropriateness
was issued in 2021,
and yet nothing has been done. And, of course, according to your regulations,
a certificate of appropriateness is, I believe, expires after a year,
which is another
reason that,
as y'all have already discussed, urgency is not really,
an issue here.
If there is urgency, it's urgency
that seems to have been created by the applicant.
And as your regulations
make clear,
if the reason
the justification
for a full demolition
is contributed to by the applicant.
And I don't know if that's the case or not. I mean, I've, you know, I've heard about, you know, open windows, weather, the the property not being maintained. So I don't know why it took it wasn't
developed the way it was supposed to in 2021.
And,
but
if you do defer and you do investigate this further, I hope one of the things you will look at is how much of this
need to demolish,
has been caused in this four years since that original
c of a.
I don't know what the answer is.
I don't have the expertise
to,
to refute some of these things. I haven't even been fully through the agenda packet.
But I hope you all will do as seems to be what you are gonna do, which is look at this, a little more closely,
and I'm sure you will do what's best for Roswell. Thank you. Thank you, Richard.
Okay. Anybody else?
Going once.
Okay. So now we will call the applicant back up here
and
let them,
answer the questions of the public or
if they want to.
Well, I just want to comment that the damage that we have there is
result of decades old
of a structure that is insufficient. That's not a four years. You just have to walk in and it that's very obvious.
Regards to the comment that, you can brace
sister studs and and
and,
put drywall on top. No. You cannot do that. Building codes require sheathing to be applied, and the sheathing needs to be on the exterior side. And in order to do that,
this siding needs to be removed and reinstalled. So, it's not a matter of, oh, you'll
matter of, oh, you'll sister some studs, put drywall, and the problem is solved. That's not correct.
Thank you.
Mark DiNolo here. I'd like to ask the question, and I can make a motion to this effect if necessary.
If we can do this as either a work session or a follow-up session, maybe we don't need to go full month, where we can just look at the case
why we can't do to this building what's been done in those other buildings, so that we know that we've done our diligence. I don't know how we frame that, but
that would be my suggestion is that we have the opportunity to do that. As
the other gentleman had said, I don't think it's a $10,000
project to do anything like that. I think we're simply getting the information on those other
properties and understanding
what the differences are.
Thank you, Martin.
Anybody else? Are they willing are they willing to do a work session?
Jeanne, are we and are you Chris, are you willing to do a work sec Scott, I'm sorry. Willing to do a work session?
If that's what we need to do to
that's what we need to do to push forward on this, I I
think. Look. We didn't have the show
come here today because they came to the work session, and it it seemed like we
forward. But they
you know, to address that somebody who hasn't built, they've they do a lot of historic projects. They
lot of high end projects, a lot of restorations,
and they were pretty clear
that this
building
need this is what needs to be done to to
to happened. And, you know, even a fireplace,
you know, when,
when,
Jerwood was speaking to the fireplace,
there's bricks. You can pull those bricks right out. They're not stable in there. There's plenty of places. I can walk up to that fireplace on the outside
and pull those bricks right out.
I think I did that actually
while we were there. There's the the whole thing is gonna crumble
down. It's just it's just not I'm not I'm not questioning the credibility,
or the reputation of Randall Paulson. I think they're a great firm, obviously. But I again, we just need to make sure that we collectively
have done the diligence that it's bulletproof. That That's really
it.
Go ahead.
Could we approve we have changes,
minor changes on the other buildings. Could that be approved? And then we have our accession for the front building or
the board
about the front building. Because the issue here seems to be the front building.
We have
all other buildings in the side that we are building that we need to start construction.
We don't want this,
mess that's currently there to stay for very long. Could that be approved and then we,
schedule a word session with the board about the front building?
Shay, can we proceed to the second topic and
potentially approve that without
approving the demolition?
No. Approving the front building. I want to just take the front building out.
Because the other buildings have been approved and we have some minor changes.
Oh, yeah. I mean, we should be able to do that. Yes. And then we just exclude the front front building
to the work session that you were talking about. Yeah. But this way,
we don't hold the work on the other buildings that are completely unrelated to this. I I would say as long as it doesn't preclude us from
doing
whatever might be the right answer for the front building. So if ultimately we said, okay. Well, actually, we can lift it or do certain things as long as the new construction is not going to, you know, prevent you from from doing that. Yeah. Yeah. I would think that's fine.
Yes, ma'am.
Judy Neer.
I think we have to
have them agree to a deferral,
and then we have to find out how long we have in that period of time in the deferral.
Oh, I was hoping to get a full question before I answered. Jeanne Payton, planning and zoning director.
As long as the applicant agrees
to the the extension of time. Mhmm. And is there a time limit on that? Not if the applicant agrees to the extension.
Okay.
So that comes to the next question. Can we do a work session?
We will do everything we can to provide a work session.
What about approving the minor changes for the buildings that are not affected by the front historic
building?
Sorry. We only have one mic working up here at the moment. Shade accent planning and zoning.
The second application staff's recommendations
include both an option if demolition is approved or denied. So they could apply we could go ahead and discuss the reconstruction
and just accept
all of the staff conditions either way. So if it gets approved for demolition later down the road or gets denied demolition later down the road, that reconstruction
application is still gonna Alright. Cool. Let's let's do that then. Let's go into the reconstruction.
I would also recommend that as you consider it, you consider adding conditions that talk about phasing of the project so you can really define what they can move forward on. Okay.
Thank you, Jean.
Okay. So we will yes. Ron.
This is Ron Jackson. I wanna make sure that we delineate what we're talking about here. What's the new building, the old building, as long as we can all agree to what those items are.
I don't want us
to show up and work on something that, oh, I thought that was one of the
historic or I thought that was a new part. And I I think you could do that pretty easily because you know what's new. You know what's
not
wasn't
there
originally.
Should it some planning and zoning? I would just make sure that in any condition that you state,
once we get to that point to specifically say it is the three historic walls that you're attempting to
certificate of appropriateness,
HPC 20252820,
1076 Canton
Street for new construction.
I'll call Shay up to give us a rundown.
Do we need to make a motion or anything for the first You know? Work session. Make a motion on that.
To define
it.
Yeah. I guess we did. Let's
do that.
Work session.
Shay Dixon planning and zoning staff. Hold on a second, Shay. We're gonna.
Okay. I think we need to make a motion on the first item. Right?
On the deferment?
I mean
and and the board can decide if they want to hear
the second,
product, you know,
case
prior to making any decisions. And I felt like that was Yeah. Was decided. But Yeah. Let's do that. Yep.
Up to you. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Shay, you're on.
Good evening, commissioners. I'm Shay Dixon.
Pardon me.
Planning and zoning, historic district planner. And I'm here to present staff findings, recommendations for 1076 Canton Street, historically Ballhaus Founders Hall. For a certificate of appropriateness for new construction, this is HPC20252820.
Bit of background, applicants are requesting a certificate of appropriateness for reconstruction
of, if demolished would be a formally historic structure after the demolition of the originally existing structure.
The proposal also includes an increase in height of the non historic additions
of the structure as part of the reconstruction,
facade changes to the previously
approved spa building,
changes to the location and number of cabana buildings, and miscellaneous minor site changes.
And the timeline is the same as previous, all submitted on the same days, work session on the same days.
Once again, the facade, the Founders Hall, both in twenty tens and today.
And this was the previously approved development of the site.
Not too many changes are occurring site wide, but we'll get to a full, detailed site plan in just one moment.
Architecturally,
there is isn't much to talk about that hasn't been already discussed.
The only main change is that as as was approved in the 2021
HPC,
approval,
the, the
previously non historic,
front porch
would be removed and replaced
with a, with a more,
historically,
appropriate
front porch. These would also still have Doric square columns just like the current ones, just with a few better details.
History again about the same major events spanning from circa 1870 up through today. Still DH zoning,
still a historic property.
This is the, previously approved front elevation.
As you can see here, this is the the proposed
front elevation.
The taller roof line of the rear addition is the main difference between these two.
The non the historic core of the building is proposed to remain the same in appearance.
Materials
as is proposed by the applicant.
We can also see the taller roof line here. This is the previously approved elevation side elevation. You can see the increase in height between the two of
them.
Same here. This is the south side elevation. This is the previously approved, and this is the proposed.
Post.
And then this is is the rear elevation. Not many visible changes here. It appears there's a the chimney will not be added in back into the
rear addition.
These aren't the same chimneys that are on the front. These are these are different chimneys on the rear portion of the building. Here is
changes
will be
occurring.
We can see here
apologize as I flipped to it on my book here.
And see here the clubhouse will be moving go to the club. There will be a new clubhouse.
An ADA cottage will be moving to the left of where it is currently, and a cabana will be moving to the right, which appears like this.
Increase of one extra building and the moving
of where the current,
handicap accessible cottage is.
Other than the changes to the front building, these are the most significant of the changes being made at the site. There are a few minor facade changes that are included in in the,
published packet, but generally speaking, these are the major changes being made to both the site and, of course, the, proposed reconstruction
of the proposed demolished building.
Recommended conditions. We have two different sets of recommendations, so I apologize for the length.
This first set is if demolition has been approved.
So if demolition is is approved,
then staff recommends, with that recommends approval with conditions
with the following conditions, that the demolition
has been approved by HPC before reconstruction may occur,
the reuse of all historic materials. I should note that the first few are repeats of the demolition conditions to make sure they're included in both the demolition and reconstruction.
The reuse of original historic materials,
that are not rotten or damaged are included in survey and inventory materials. Applicants must return to the HPC prior to the building of reconstruction
to notify the commission of the results of survey and inventory,
and that the applicants must, after completion of the project, submit a, submit a elevation
of the
maintained original materials.
In addition, because this is a new building,
all modern,
transparency requirements would apply. This is considered a commercial house in this historic district, so it would have a 20%,
ground floor and upper floor transparency requirement. The building, if rebuilt exactly as it is currently designed,
would have only 12% transparency.
Now for the ground floor, the UDC design guidelines allows,
the applicants to place either planting beds or vertical trellises on the front wall in order to reduce that transparency requirement. That would be a condition of their
approval.
However, for the upper floor, the UVC design guidelines doesn't provide any any difference from the code, so they would have to apply for a variance to allow the upper floor transparency to be reduced from 20% to 12%.
Seventh would be the applicants must provide staff with any details of any and all structures and objects being placed in the setbacks within a proposed fenced enclosure on the south side primary structure for review. This is a fenced in a fenced in area that is included on the site plan, But, unfortunately, provided site plans just aren't detailed enough to show what's in there.
There could be nothing, but we wanna make sure the applicants are submitting everything that would be within that fenced in area to make sure nothing that wouldn't be allowed in a set a side setback,
is being properly placed or not placed within that area.
Administrative HPC approval must be obtained
for the proposed wood fencing, and that the fencing must either be stained a shade of dark brown or painted to match the primary structure.
And, lastly, that the applicant must submit an updated lighting package and photometric plan that meets the photometric maximums of one point zero foot candles at the property line. The current, proposal,
it goes over the code's requirements for photometric,
photometric lighting.
Now going into if demolition has been denied, we worked with the chief building official
to work up a few different conditions that would apply in such a case of the building being restored rather than demolished.
First, the applicants must submit a detailed engineering report to the chief building official, P and Z director, and historic district planner stating that the building can withstand the proposed scope of work.
Two, that the building must be inspected by the CBO to demonstrate that can withstand the partial reconstruction
without demolition.
Three, that the applicants must adhere to any and all shoring plans and requirements issued by the chief building official.
Four, only that only
historic materials that are genuinely rotten, damaged, or beyond repair may be removed from the building. Remove materials must be replaced in kind with materials that are as identical to the original as possible.
Fifth, that no demolition of the building may occur unless the CBO certifies the building cannot be safely restored and a separate application is made to the historic preservation commission.
This would allow if the circumstances were that the demolition was denied,
and the reconstruction
approved under these sets of conditions, that if the CBO inspects it, they can come back for a separate application to demolish it if the CBO does find that it can't be salvaged.
Shay, can I ask a question real quick? Philip Mansell.
The the chief building official, have they inspected the house
or Founders Hall yet?
They have. They have not inspected the house itself. They've inspected the plans. I believe miss Jean might have some more words on
that. I I I I only ask because I feel like it would be very beneficial if the chief building
official went in there and looked around at everything and said, we can't salvage this. It needs to be torn down.
And I guess I'm just confused why they haven't been involved up until this point.
That's all.
They're afraid to go in?
Okay.
And that was based on his
plans for the proposal
Gotcha. And the structural
Okay. Alright. Sorry, Shay. Perfectly okay.
Six, again, a repeat of the, setback requirement.
Seven, a repeat of the fencing application
requirement, and eight, a
repeat of the photometric maximum requirement.
Then lastly, of course, these are basically what we've gone over already, but that staff recommends approval with conditions,
for the reasons that if approved to be demolished, then it should be rebuilt as closely as possible to the previously existing structure. If reconstruction is approved, that the building must follow the current
requirements of the unified development code. And if the structure is not approved to be demolished, then efforts must be made to ensure that any redevelopment protects this historic structure while reducing the financial impacts of the renovation on the applicants.
And that's all I have if there are any questions.
Any questions?
Ron.
Mister Dixon, I've got one question. This is Ron Jackson.
And that has to do with the elevation.
You said the roof that
the sight lines, the backside stuff would be visible from Canton Street. Is that about right?
From the front elevation that was provided, it does appear so. Okay. I wanna scroll back there for you here. Yeah. That's what I'm looking at. And so what are we gonna see when we see stuff peeking over?
If that can always also be added as a as a extra condition that
the applicants provide sight line a sight line review of what you'd be able to see from the street.
Because strictly speaking, these elevations show exactly at level with the house. It's not exactly clear whether or not this is what it would look like from the street,
but it is entirely possible considering this that it could be.
So that would be something I would either ask applicants or include as a condition for approval if you went ahead with approval. Okay. I'd like to know what are we gonna be seeing from Canton Street.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay. Let's let's take about a five minute break to, go to the bathroom, and then we'll reconvene and let the applicant come up.
Sorry. I gotta go to the bathroom.
I understand.
Thank you.
We need Mary.
Mary, you ready?
Heather Stoneline.
Okay. We're not making any friends here.
Alright. Let's get back into it.
So we will call the applicant up. So
this is the rendering of
the element of the previous
version before,
we have the design changes we're going to discuss today. Just to give an overview of the development,
this is an
aerial view. Some renderings what you see from the pool looking towards the front
back.
And here,
we on the top, we have the site plan
showing the previously approved site plan and the difference
between and and and highlighted in yellow is the portion that we are changing.
So on the,
top plan, the previously approved,
the HPC the
ADA cottage,
which is the wider cottage,
we
was before the last cottage on the bottom row to on the left side, and we we have moved that,
to the right
so that we created room
for,
a pool house
where we are going to have a housekeeping room.
And this is part of the reason this change originated.
Our
space for housekeeping was basically a closet, and the operator said it was insufficient.
So,
we did we created the,
pool,
house where the we are going to have the housekeeping room
and where the pool,
bathrooms are going to be, which is the room the last,
the middle room on that highlighted area in the bottom.
That building, and I have elevations, is going to look like a one story cottage.
And then to the left of that,
the, the the exterior bar that before was between
the three cottages of the bottom row
and the ADA cottage.
Now the
bar has moved to,
the left side that's close to the,
spa.
And,
the design we have changed the design because there is a very strong access along the pool, and then the cottages have the same style on both sides.
And then that axis changes
when we go towards the spa at that very,
where the the the and this is because just the shape of the site, there is a change
more modern language. So we decided to that it would be more appropriate to have the bar with the same language.
And I have elevations of all that. We will review this.
So here is a blow up. So you can see the ADA Cottage together with the other cottages,
and then the building is the middle is,
the
pool cabana where you have the housekeeping room and the pool restrooms,
and then the bar to the left as you change the access aligned with the spa.
And what we want to do is have the this,
bar with the same architectural
front building. Above is the, approved elevation.
Front building. Above is the, approved elevation,
and,
we want to change the storefront because that,
clerestory above the the
the the windows that you see above the doors there was getting very narrow.
It didn't make sense. It was was getting, like, something like eight inches. So we decided to just do a a larger piece of glass that is just full height.
When
and then we
more recently, and this is not on this, but it's on my presentation.
I want
to raise the roof deck seven seven inches because
we are having
a huge problem with
the HVAC under the structure inside the building.
And
I want to raise the deck seven inch. So you you see the top image is is the design
with the
18 foot seven inches and before
below is the current design with 18 feet.
It's almost imperceptible, the difference, but it's just
get the few inches we need to just go with the the ducts under the the steel beams. It's not joist. It's steel beams.
So we could keep the building as well as possible, but it there is just not enough space.
Here we see the side.
It's it's it's very similar that we we were
just,
the location of the windows changed slightly because of interior floor plans.
And here you see if we raise seven inches
or if we don't raise the seven inches, the difference. And
but with the new window locations and the windows,
it
you can see the top and the bottom. They it's it's very close. It it's we just moved
a a a couple of feet in one direction or the other, I think, makes very little difference.
That's the other side.
Here again, we moved the windows. Here is what was even less,
maybe a foot or so.
And if we raise seven inches, so the building instead of being
18 feet from the front door would be 18 foot seven.
Do we have any questions about this building before I move to the next one?
Okay.
This is the ADA cottage.
Before the ADA cottage had a closet on one end, which was the housekeeping closet.
And since
we are creating a larger housekeeping room,
we center the doors,
so that would be more more more,
appropriate
and,
use that space inside the cottage, which was the closet, now is part of the cottage.
I the you can see that the canopy on the left side
of the new design is centered instead of slightly off centered, which I think looks better.
Philip Mansell. Hey, Marcus. Is,
has anything changed from when we,
had the discussion about about these slides?
Okay. If you wanna just, like, gloss over them. Okay.
So this has not changed. You see here those doors that were built access and we got rid of. It's just a a wall.
This is the ADA bar that before they were with the cartridge, so they had a sloped roof. And now because they are close to the spa, they have the same architectural languages and same material as the spa
Because now it's it's very close to the spa.
And this again, no changes from what we have seen previously.
And this is the new building that's the,
where the pool restrooms and the the housekeeping room is. And as you see, it's
a very similar language as,
the ADA Cottage.
And,
those windows are, we have restrooms in in,
the housekeeping room behind that. So those shutters will be permanently closed, but we want to have them so so the building looks nice.
And all the materials
have not changed from from what you have seen before.
And then this is the front building.
Here are some images of the old house that we want to bring back and get rid of those terrible
huge square columns that are there.
This is,
the proposed elevation.
Here, we have some images for a Photoshop raising the rear roof. And when you compare, like, that you take the top image,
right and left, you can almost not tell which one is which.
In reality, the right one is the one that we raised the rear of the building three feet.
The bottom image, you can see,
one side is raised three feet. The other, you can hardly tell. So when people are on the street,
you you make almost no difference.
Here again,
you can see the top on the top image, like, you can hardly tell
which one is
raised
the raised, rear building, raised at three feet.
And you can see the bottom image is the same. It's side by side. It's it's very difficult to tell.
On the top one, the raised building is on the left side.
On the bottom one, the raised building
is on the left side.
Materials,
we have not changed that. We are
using the same materials that were approved. It's wood siding, the historic
portion,
fibersmith,
siding in a nonhistoric portion.
The nonhistoric portion
will be the most because there is no siding and it's poorly built,
but it's not historic anyways.
And here we have image showing how the there's, like, no sheathing. It's it's it's just not good. And here, the historic building, we already talked about that in in the previous presentation, so I'm just going to fly over that.
We do I do have a copy of the engineering report about the conditions of the building that I have given before to the board, but I had I brought copies. If if you want, I will I will give that up. Yeah. Yeah. That'd be great.
This is one another change I want to do in the back. On the
proof facade. You see there is on the left side is the design
that,
has been submitted,
and I want to delete that double door on the top of the left stair
because the there's a restaurant there,
and
there is not going to be an entrance at that end. And people will go up the stair and go to the door,
and that's not an entrance.
So we want to get rid of that because we are going to have, like, like, a
a
a seat against that wall. So it doesn't make any sense to have that. And since on the right side, we need to have,
it's it's it's the kitchen door, that single door. The kitchen door
would be symmetrical having the three, sets of window in the in the
section and then a blank wall on the side and just a single door on the the right side.
Why wouldn't you want a window there instead of I mean, I understand why you don't want a door, but why not a window?
I think the window would not look appropriate,
personally.
I don't think would look
good to have something
shorter there.
Because upstairs
look asymmetrical, I think.
Yeah. Basically, your proposed elevation is symmetrical.
Yes. It's not on the left one.
Okay.
I have I have a question.
This is Mary Nichols. I have not seen and I don't know if you showed this, where the sanitation
would like the trash the
trash and all that? I I can talk about that. I think I need to go to the very beginning to the site plan.
So we have a garbage enclosure,
and I can point things here, but I don't think you can see in your screen.
So,
you can see you see the three,
handicap parking spaces in the back parking lot? South of that, there is a garbage enclosure with a trash compactor. Can you see that? Yes. So it will be cladding in in in brick, the garbage enclosure, and we'll have a compactor inside that nobody's going to see, and and it has a gate to hide that. All the trash for this whole it's gonna go there? Yes. Okay. So there's a compactor
there. And you had another question about something else?
No?
Okay.
Out was on the south side of the front building?
Yeah. So what is there? And I think Shay was saying we have a fence there and we didn't tell what is there. There is a bunch of
condensing units for the HVAC. So that side will be fuel of condensing units, and that's why we need to fence it. It's just to hide the condensing units.
And and the fence will be either painted at the color of the house or a dark color that Shay
mentioned.
Any other questions?
Alright. Thank you very much, Marcus, and we'll call up,
the audience.
Yes, ma'am.
No worries. Take your time.
Yeah. Come on up, Janet.
Mark. The
city
of Rozzo is not going to serve this property. It's going to be serves privately.
And the reason
is that
for the city of Rosso garbage truck to go in,
we need to have a loop,
and this site's not wide enough for that loop. So the city said we cannot service this property.
So we are going to have a private company
servicing the compactor, and the dimensions that we have there work.
Jenny, you gotta get to a microphone if you could.
The,
garbage
required for
for
code requirements.
A private garbage collection service.
Will you be recycling in your property?
Well, I can tell you because I started the recycling center thirty years ago in Roswell, and I'll give you a detailed list.
Thank you, Janet.
Anybody else?
Okay.
What do we wanna do? Do we have a motion?
Give me a motion.
Give me a motion.
Mark Tonolo will make a motion
to approve,
HPC 202528201076CannesStreet
Certificate of appropriateness for new construction,
not to include
the
historic,
building,
which is under the prior
item. There's different conditions.
Two different conditions. We finished.
Set of conditions?
Yeah. Yeah. There there are two set of staff recommendations. So we can approve the staff recommendations and then depending on how it goes, we Excuse me. Pardon me. Commissioners.
If you if you want to accept with staff conditions and staff conditions are set up sort of to include either the demolition being approved or denied, that's perfectly fine.
But whatever,
y'all choose to do, make sure you also specifically state any additional conditions that you want.
I'd just be very careful about it because we have to follow as closely as y'all say it. So
language
related to the first condition that's,
suggested for the
development
because it is not too
arrested and letting them move forward.
Okay. So help us a bit with the language then. That was have to pull up the condition so you could read Sure. Thank you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah. Okay.
Should we should we,
should we We're gonna go ahead first item first. Yeah. We're gonna first. Do the first item first.
Okay. So I'll go ahead and do that one then.
So,
Mark Denneil, I'll make the motion to defer,
to a, a work session,
HPC two zero two five
two seven seven nine ten seventy six Canton Street,
the demolition
of an existing historic
structure. So,
defer that to a work session where we can look at the
case for the differences between,
comparable properties and this property,
for, any demolition of that of this property.
Ron
Jackson second.
All in favor?
All in favor?
One.
Alright. Passes unanimously.
Scott, are you and Marcus good with doing a work session?
Will you say that in the microphone just so we've got
Yes. Thank you very much. Yes.
Alright.
Onto it. I I can't make the motions.
So I'm just reading these conditions then. Right?
Yeah. You've got the one on for demolition.
Yeah. This is this is, if demolition has been approved, we need the other one.
We can scroll
through
the ones that were attached to the demo approval and the demo denial. So we're yeah. So we're doing demo denial. The
work session.
Yeah. But I think you were trying to make Yeah. We're we're doing we're doing the redevelopment. We're doing. So maybe
maybe express your the outcome.
K. But we need to
like, number one on the demolition.
Do you have to redo all those?
I would just encourage him to decide which ones he wants to include and which ones would encumber
any
redevelopment
from beginning
prior to the decision
front building.
Right. I mean,
these four here all apply to the historic building, which we are,
I mean, in item two, we're talking about new construction.
There we go.
Yeah. These last
four apply to the Sorry. Shea Dixon planning and zoning. There's also if you go to packet page forty one and forty two, they have them all listed out on these two pages there. And that lists both the,
if demolitions approved and demolitions are denied.
And my understanding would be also that you could approve
all of those conditions. And that way, depending on the circumstances,
either set could apply without you having to specify which ones you wanna apply in current circumstances.
Okay. So forty one and forty two. Okay. So,
does not okay. So on 42, you have you get two sections here. You got approval of def demolition,
one through eight, and you've got denial of definition demolition one through seven.
There was a numbering issue on the second left second set there. It is also one through eight, for some reason, 2% wise, that's my bad.
Is it the same number eight,
They are. They should they should be identical except for the numbering issue.
So we're on page 42.
Forty one and one two.
The demolition point.
Oh, okay. Okay.
The demolition. Right.
Right. So you're one through one through seven. If we approved
it. Alright. So I think if you make a statement about what you're trying to achieve, we can all maybe also help you.
Okay. What I'm trying to achieve is that we approve,
the new construction,
not including any demolition of the historic building as as we had discussed. And would that include just the detached buildings,
or are you interested in letting them begin?
Any anything that is not part of the original,
historic structure. So So if it's attached to historic structure, it could still be
removed because it's not historic.
Okay.
Yeah. So, yes, they come again. So that is the intent. Okay. I think that you can state that as condition number one. Mhmm. And we'll be able to capture your statement,
and
we'll we'll let the board review them since these are kind of sensitive. And then you want me want me to go through the rest of the rest of the conditions then after that?
And decide which ones you want to include. You certainly don't need to. You just need to be mindful if you don't intend to encumber the applicants
with any kind of delay
in moving forward on reconstruction on the site, then it it would be very helpful for us to that for that to be stated because we have to use these
exactly as
and if there's an emission. Yeah. So so once through number one through four apply to if the building is is
demolished.
Number five, raise plantings that does not.
Number six,
variance and reduction in transparency that does not
provide number seven, provide staff any
structures obviously being placed in the setbacks that does not apply to demolition.
Wood fencing does not apply to demolition,
lighting package does not apply to demolition. So it appears that the final one, two, two, three well, final five did not apply to demolition. So those would be the conditions.
Judy Mayer, are you talking are we talking about
taking
down
the building that is in the at the back of the
historic house?
Yes. That has already been approved. That's wide open. If they tear that down, the back of the house is wide open.
Yes.
And, building will intervene and require
shoring and phased planning,
for any kind
of demolition that is permitted with any decision that you make
to ensure that the building can withstand the demolition and that is protected during any demolition. But it is up to the board
to craft the wording
to convey what it is that you're willing to approve.
And if we need to take, like, a break to be able to you to write out and get Yeah. Some of these things. Understand it. That that's not even mentioned in here.
Marcus.
How could you have this situation
where we are demolishing the back of the building and we don't know if the building from is going to be saved or not. Right?
We are talking about construction.
When we are demolishing that building, we are going to have a decision on this.
So if you approve demolishing the non historic portion,
you you don't need to worry. Well, would that front historic building be standing there? Mhmm. Yes. It will. Because if the board decide that the building will need to be restarted and not be demolished and reconstructed,
there will be everything will be braced and and will be just the non historic portion will be demolished.
There is no situation where, oh, we don't know if the front building is going to be demolished when we are construction this building. We are never going to get a permit for that. Am I right? I would think that it would be difficult, but I was letting the board have the latitude to allow you. Yeah. If you want to separate the entire front structure
from the rest of the site so that they can consider that approval and you could move forward with LDP and
that you're in and the construction on the rest of the site, are you interested in that? Well, we can submit for permit as if the building is going to remain, which is and then
once once we we start to site work, once we get submit that particular building, we want the design approved by the HPC,
so we don't have to come back. But once we we go to to to submit drawings for permit, we will know then if the building is sustained or it's being demolished. Right? We will know by then.
So are you saying you'd like to encumber this decision with waiting until you know the The design. We approve the design,
approve demolishing the rear portion that's not historic, and we leave the decision
about the front building Mhmm. To a later day. I think that's what they were trying to achieve. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
So the second not not to belabor this. The second section then,
if if we take out three and four, the historical materials, number three. Number four,
no demolition of the building may occur,
because we're already saying that if we take those two out, the other ones apply.
So why don't I try it?
Let me try and see if it works. And if it doesn't, then
maybe Ron can do it.
Okay.
So,
Mark Tonolo,
I would move make a motion to approve,
HPC
20252820,
1076
Can Street certificate of appropriateness
for new construction,
which does not include the demolition
of the
historic building, but, can include,
removal of the non historic
portions of the building that are connected to the historic building
with the conditions that the applicants must submit a detailed engineering report to the chief building official,
planning and zoning director, and historic district planner that the building can withstand the proposed scope of work.
The building must be inspected by the chief building official demonstrated that that it can withstand partial reconstruction without demolition.
The applicants must adhere to any and all shoring plans requirements issued by
the Chief Building Official.
Applicants must provide staff with details of any and all structures and objects being placed in the setbacks within the proposed fenced enclosure on the south side of the primary structure. For review,
administrative
HPC approval must be obtained
for the proposed wood fencing. Fencing must be,
must either be stained a shade of dark brown or painted to match the primary structure and
applicant must submit an updated lighting package and photometric plan that meets photometric maximums
of one point zero foot candles at the property line.
Do I have a second? This is Ron Jackson. Second.
All in favor?
Passes unanimously.
Alright. Thank you, Marcus and Scott.
Look forward to seeing you soon.
Okay.
This brings us to item number four, the July.
I have a meeting adjourning at 06:18,
present
well, at 06:18. Do I have a motion?
To
approve the minutes. To approve the minutes.
I've got to speak in the microphone.
This is Mary Nichols. I move to approve
06:18.
We Yeah. We were quick last time. Do I have a second? Ron Jackson, second.
The minutes are approved.
With that, we adjourn
the
08/13/2025
HPC meeting at 08:45.
They're moving up since it's yours.
They didn't wanna hang around and talk to it.