Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
Video Transcript
Duration: 120 minutes
Speakers: 14
Good evening, and welcome to the Roswell Historical Preservation Meeting.
Today is
04/09/2025.
Five. I wanna read to you a little bit about the commission, the district, and what we do here.
The current Roswell Historical Preservation Commission was established in 1988 with the mission to protect and preserve the historical and archaeological
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 UDC.
My name is Philip Mansell. I am the Historic Preservation Commission chair.
The HPC commission members are vice chair Mark DiNolo, Ron Jackson,
Mary Nichols,
and also present 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.
The process will begin with staff presenting the application. This presentation will include applicable codes and guidelines and staff recommendation
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 question to the 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 rebuttal to public comment if so desired.
The commission will have further discussion if needed. Then we will call for a motion which will require a second to that motion then a vote. Another motion may be offered. At that time, anyone agreed by a decision of the HPC as 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.
Thank you, and let's get started.
So tonight's agenda,
the first matter is HPC 2025075247
Golding Place certificate of appropriateness to remove an existing deck and add a new screen deck.
So we'll call the staff up to give us a rundown of it.
Shay Dixon, City of Roswell playing in zoning staff.
Good evening. Good evening. BC.
K. So our first
item up for the docket
covered deck and uncovered deck, there's also gonna be some minor site changes proposed as part of the project.
We received the, application back in February,
passed staff reviews this last month, and it's now before each day.
Here's the current front facade of 47 Goulding Place,
much similar to many of the buildings that are on that street.
It is a new traditional craftsman house, so it's similar to the older traditional craftsman houses. But this one was built, in the nineteen nineties, so it has some minor design elements that are different.
But generally built to be as close
to the original
architectural style as possible.
Here's the current existing rear facade.
This is where the deck extension would be the deck extension would be,
matching with the gable there as a, as a extension off of the building.
Here's the current site plan. I should note that part of this site plan doesn't include a mudroom and small front porch, second front porch. That was added back in, I believe, it's 2015, if I remember correctly,
after HPC approval.
That would be on this site plan directly to the right of the building and just behind the big, the brick driveway.
And, that partially blocks the view of where the screen porch or the covered porch is proposed from the public right away. So it reduces
what is actually would be viewable
of this covered porch.
Here are some elevations of the proposed porch.
Side elevation here. And here you can also see where the, the gable is extended off the back of the building.
Now as a history, the current site in the property is listed as non historic. It's zoned downtown residential like most of Goulding Place is.
Goulding Place, as a road, was built in 1857.
There was some structure of some sort on the property back in the nineteen fifties according to some historical aerial photographs we have. We're not terribly sure what that structure was, but it was gone by the nineteen sixties.
The property was included in an expansion of the historic district back in 1988.
And the current residence here was built, so we believe, in 1992. It wasn't included in our last historical resources survey, but this is what Fulton County reports is the date of construction.
And then in 2015, HPC approved a or in 2014, HPC approved a mudroom in second small porch as mentioned, which was built onto the house in 2015.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions
large and large by and large.
The proposal meets UDC design guidelines.
And with the recommended conditions which I'll discuss in a moment, it should be fully compliant with the current design guidelines and UDC.
And then while the primary structure is not historic, the elements of the building, that match well with this is where context will be protected with this proposal.
Conditions we're suggesting is that railings and the railing supports
of the expansion of the porch should be made to match the ones that are on the current existing
deck and that the wood should be painted the same color as the house, which isn't currently shown in the current plans.
We also propose and suggest that proper drainage be included so that rainwater from the runoff of the roof don't run onto the current existing structure
and that if a window is being removed or the back door is being changed, that a HPC minor administrative application be filed just because the current plans don't clearly show
whether or not,
the window and back door will be changed currently. So we wanna make sure we have that clarification even if we go ahead with approval
on this application.
And, that is the summary of of this project. Great. Thank you, Shay.
Does the applicant wanna come forward and say something?
Hi. I'm,
Chris Archambault, and I'm I'm here on behalf of, Rob and Sally McKenzie who couldn't be make it there out of town.
So I've been helping him with construction.
Hi, Chris. Welcome.
Mansell, how are you? I'm doing great.
Do you have anything you wanna add to it? Or
No. In regards to the window, there is a big, multi slider that's gonna replace the the double hung window that's there today. And then the McKinsey's have,
recently decided to add a a fireplace that's not shown in the elevation.
And I was gonna ask if if the consideration
could also be administrative.
It it'll be added in one of the elevations
and it'll be, just a very nice brick, very in line with,
the the requirements. So,
that would be the only thing that I wanted to add. Okay.
Do we have questions for the applicant?
Hi. Mary Nichols.
I was getting ready to say I was for this completely, but now that you've thrown in the fireplace,
where is this going?
It's going, dead center on, if you wanna bring up the one elevation. So that means there'll be a new chimney?
Correct. Will that be higher than the current elevation of the pitch?
I know that you're meeting the pitch all the way through the back. It's per the code, I believe it has to be two foot higher than the current ten twelve pitch that's on that gable. So you'll be able to see that from the street?
I don't believe you'll be able to see that from the street.
You don't believe?
Just knowing the way that the slope on that house is Uh-huh. And from the street, there's almost zero visibility
of the rear of the house from the street.
I would say zero visibility.
Staff just learned of this change tonight. Should you want to consider it? I think he has plans.
Other than that, you can decide how you would require them to proceed.
Could approve it with condition that we
see the fireplace before?
Yeah. I actually brought it with,
but I know that's probably not the forum for it. But,
Okay. Ron.
Mister
petitioner. Say say your name. Do you have any objection to any of these conditions placed on
on this application by the staff?
No. Regarding the rear window and the door, no. Do not.
K. Thank you, Chris. And can we call up anybody from the audience that might have something to say? Thank you.
Okay.
Judy.
Did you say that you do have
the chimney on the drawings
that you have with you?
Can we see that? If you'd like to see that, we can put it up on the over. Mhmm.
We'll put the.
Probably 99% chosen. It's Charleston Brick Company from Georgia Brick. It's an old world,
thin brick style, so it'll really
nice.
Oh, brick with
Okay.
Yeah. Also has a we also have a side elevation as
well.
That's good for me too. That's good? Okay.
Alright. Thank you, Shay. Thank you.
Alright. Do I have a motion?
Mary Nichols.
I move to approve HPC 2025075247
Golding Place
for the certificate of appropriateness
with the staff conditions that we discussed.
Do I have a second? Second.
Alright. All in favor?
Okay. It passes unanimously.
Thank you very much, Chris, for your time. You guys are good to go.
Okay. Moving on to HPC 2025100430
Golding Place, recognition
of demolition.
Shay, I like that suit. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Shay Dixon, city of Roswell planning and zoning staff.
The second item up for the docket is 30 Goulding Place, a demolition.
This is a recognition of a demolition by neglect. So the property had a had a catastrophic damage of some sort. We're not terribly sure as city staff what exactly happened,
but most of the structure came down during, an approved partial demolition,
resulting in a situation where the rest of the structure had to come down for safety
reasons. In these situations, we have a process called demolition by neglect, which is in, our UPC design guidelines,
which allow for the structure to come down without HPC approval prior to the situation just so we can get that done for safety purposes,
but it does require that we have HPC approval or to recognize that that demolition occurred. So this is what this specific
excuse me. What this specific application
is going to be recognizing.
This is the structure as it was previously
existing. Pardon me.
Immediately prior to its demolition,
but after the incident occurred, you can see through
you can see open sky behind the front facade here. It's probably one of the more striking images,
of the circumstance. You can also see some of the large damage that occurred. This entire structure
had additions reaching back almost to about halfway down the property, and this is all that was left after after the, the incident occurred.
And,
move on. This is the only structure that still remains on the property. It's the existing garage. This is provided garage elevation,
that has
is been kept remaining on the property,
prior to, new construction.
Now
historically wise this building is considered or this building was, I should be saying,
was a historic building in our 2003 historic resources survey.
Given the demolition of all of the historic elements, though, this probably would be reclassified as non historic if we redid the historic classification survey today.
It is also zoned downtown residential much like the rest of Goulding Place is,
and the structure actually had a fairly extensive history.
Of course, Goulding Place again, the, road built circa 1957.
But then the structure itself was built circa 1920 and then moved to the current property,
in 1927.
Originally, it was on Canton Street.
Additions were made to the residence
throughout,
the nineteen forties and fifties,
largely
coinciding with the postwar
boom. And then the property was included in the historic district in 1988,
with some
pardon me.
The detached garage was constructed with HPC approval circa circa in '18
I'm so sorry. Circa 1989,
with a variance received regarding how far the garage would be from the property line. The detached garage is only a few feet from the property line despite the setbacks, the side setbacks being about five feet there.
There were also some minor details added to the building as well as a porch added, but we couldn't find confirmation that HPC approval was was granted in that case. This is very early on in its inclusion in the historic district.
A small addition was added in 1993
with HPC approval.
In '99, a screen porch was added, though HPC approval received after the fact.
In addition, it's a minor change that were made with HPC
approval in February.
In February,
there actually was an HPC approval to demolish the entire structure,
due to discovered structural damage, but this demolition never occurred. It's the same it was the same structure before and after,
from all of our records.
A new roofing and a replaced back deck was approved by HPC
in 2018.
And then in last year in May of twenty twenty four, a partial demolition of some of the additions and a new addition along with the pool and pool deck were approved by HPC.
And then in February,
we had, the incident which caused
massive damage to the structures we previously discussed. And then starting in February and March of this year, we've started the process to approve reconstruction and to recognize the current demolition
as it stands.
Staff recommends approval
of this application
due to the fact that the historic structure was beyond a state of reasonable repair. The demolition is recent enough that the presentation is still in the present tense. So is the staff report. Structure was still there when staff report was being written.
The proposal still adheres to the UDC design guidelines
and our demolition process that are in those design guidelines.
And And that the residents undergoing a demolition by neglect,
we're hoping to have a recognition of demolition so that we can move on to a reconstruction of some sort for this property, which will be discussed later in the meeting, of course.
Okay. Thank you, Shay. Yep.
State your name.
Name. Name.
This is Ron Jackson.
I thought we just started.
You guys have done a good thing. One of the neighbors in that area,
alerted me to the fact there wasn't much to that house left.
So I went by it and it looked like a movie set.
The front was there, but then around the back,
there weren't any house.
And it was pretty surprising. It looks like a vehicle hit
the canopy
under which you would drive to go to the back, and it moved that canopy back three or four feet.
I can't believe,
it didn't I can't believe it's stayed up. I thought it was gonna fall in, which it obviously did.
And I think it's good that we recognize that it was demolished because
it it was a mess.
I've I've appreciate the recommendation by the staff
that we,
go ahead with
the replacement of a new
existing a new a new building.
I'm concerned about the garage.
I'm concerned that that garage may not match
the context of this new
development. Do you have you guys looked at it if they provided any information about that garage?
We haven't provided any information specifically about the garage, but most of the reconstruction we'll discuss in our next case is this is mainly just recognizing the demolition that's already occurred.
I know there's there's,
a good amount of both public opposition and support regarding the reconstruction project.
That will be discussed on the next case. Alright. I drove by there a few minutes ago, and I recognized
it was down. I could see. Yes, sir. So let's work on this recognizing
and let us get to do something with that garage.
Alright. Do I have a motion to recognize that it has been destroyed?
I have a question.
Yes.
I how does this happen? I mean and and how can we make sure that this doesn't
Do we need to call up the applicant?
Is there an applicant for this particular issue? The applicant should be here.
But we're we can, of course, call up the applicant for the circumstance to discuss the situation. Well, my I I just wanna make sure, I mean, that this doesn't happen
again. We don't want it to set a precedence for
any demolitions that we approve.
I I can Jeanne Payton, planning and zoning director. I can assure you there was nothing that, you know, the city staff
permitted or did not permit that allowed
it to move I know that.
Recognize the problem as it happened,
got the applicants,
and owners in there into the city for a meeting to discuss what
the process that we needed to follow.
And they followed through with those steps, and they're here at this meeting. So Okay.
There was, you know, nothing that had been permitted to allow them to get to this point,
but was permitted as far as an addition
permit
get to this place.
So I think the question is how was it destroyed? Is that
right? I mean, how did how did half of the how did part of the building in the front
how did how did the rest of the structure
how was it demolished like that? I'm just curious.
Paul, as Ron
Hey, Jay.
Jay Baug,
gauge design, Roswell,
resident and business owner.
We were in demolition
in some point during the evening hours. That house took impact to our knowledge,
took the impact at the port to share point and shifted the house office foundation.
We were alerted through a phone call through one of the neighbors to the city.
That call came in to me. We went out, assessed the structure. The GC came back that evening
after hours when it was dark
and proceeded to secure what he could at that point.
And then we brought the,
it was already brought to the attention of the city. And
myself and the homeowner
did everything that we could have done
barring,
calling ourselves, but we didn't know that that the damage incurred. So it incurred overnight. So we have a neighbor with a ring. And
based on the ring hits, it happened overnight.
That was like a storm?
No. It was
I mean, I'm
purely speculating. I would guess that something backed into the driveway, potentially turning around on Goulding and hit the cord
exterior. Ron.
This is Ron again.
It's obvious, and I think you know this or you'd agree with this. There was a dent in the gutter.
Somebody tried to go under that thing and it didn't clear it. Maybe an Amazon delivery guy. They come to my house at 4AM.
So it knocked it off.
It it it knocked the porta could share about four feet back. It knocked it it was like there's a brick pillar
and then
woodwork framing that held the rest of it up. And it was, man, it was really knocked back. And I do have photos of my phone. Yeah. We got pictures.
We got pictures.
So,
you know, Mary asked question of how do we stop this?
I'm not sure you can stop accidents. This nobody's gonna just run into a house. No.
Not sober,
not
somebody who's not an Amazon driver at 4AM.
So I don't know there's any way to alleviate it. It happens. I don't know that there would be anything that we could have done. Maybe we could have put a barricade at the end of the driveway, but Goulding is known for people turn around in driveways.
So
Okay. Well, do I have a motion to recognize that this thing has been destroyed? I'll make a motion. Mark DiNolo.
Motion to approve HPC 2025100430
Golden Place recognition of demolition.
Alright. All in favor?
Give me a second.
He seconded it.
Okay. It passes unanimously.
Now we'll move on to the big matter everyone's here for.
HPC 2025089630
Goulding Place certificate of appropriateness for new construction.
And we'll call Shay up for this one.
Shay Dixon, City of Roswell playing in zoning staff.
So the second 30
item up for docket is
a record
pardon me. Certificate of appropriateness
for the reconstruction
of the specific property.
Now applicant's requesting a COA to reconstruct the house to the specifications
that were previously proved in May of twenty twenty four,
and as closely as possible.
We've already gone over the timeline. It is the same timeline as the previous one. This application was received slightly
slightly earlier than the recognition of demolition.
But other than that, it remains the same timeline as, as the demolition application.
The same photos here, but here's a proposed front elevation of the new house.
It's very similar to the structure as it previously was, but this is how it was approved in May of twenty twenty four. The only primary difference is,
from how the house was existing.
The approved plans have this more rounded,
gable underneath or over the front door there. It was more of a triangular gable previously with,
before, the demolition. But this was what was approved with May of twenty twenty four plans.
Not any particular not any particular issues with that from staff as this was what was previously approved.
It does limit some of the architectural designs that were present on the house.
Prior, it eliminates some of the spindle work design that was there that made this house more of a folk Victorian architecture style, which is a little bit more rare for, Goulding Place and the historic district as a whole.
But that was already planned on being eliminated.
This is side elevation of the new house as was, again, approved in May of twenty twenty four.
And the site plan, which is
probably where most of the,
public issues
are from,
mainly stemming back to the approval of the pool and pool deck,
in previous HPC approval.
Now
same history as we previously discussed. The the structure was historic, was considered historic
because it's demolition. It no longer would be even a new construction would be considered non historic,
even if built to the exact same specifications as is proposed here today.
Zoning is still downtown residential,
Doctor zoning.
And staff recommends approval with conditions
for the reconstruction.
Reconstruction is designed as closely as possible to what the existing conditions were at 30 Goulding Place,
that therefore, the proposed,
proposal adheres to the UDC design guidelines
and that the residents currently undergoing a demolition by neglect,
must have the recognition of demolition before HPC can approve this new construction, which we've already gone through.
Now that condition that staff is is recommending is just that HPC had already recognized demolition.
As we've already done that, it's up to HBC whether or not
you're going to require this as a condition on paper,
but I would still recommend having it there just in case for our documents and for our records to recognize that the reconstruction must have had the demolition
acknowledged by HBC.
But that is currently the only recommended condition
as of when the staff report was, was published last week. Okay. And that's it. Thank you, Shay.
Do we have any questions for Shay?
Okay. Let's call up the applicant.
Jay Bauch, Gauge Design, Roswell, Georgia, business and resident owner. Welcome back, Jay. Thank you.
So,
as you know, we've already gone through the design.
We didn't change the design with this resubmission.
We had some light back elevation
adjustments
per some grading and other items that are going on. But the front left and right sides are just as we had previously approved,
including the removal of the gable that was existing on the front porch.
That was
a staff
ask that we could remove that, and the
arched
entryway,
at the front porch was the approved
decision, so we aren't altering that path. The spindled columns were not indicative of the house originally.
That was asked to be removed in prior HPC meetings and hearings.
So we went with a more accurate chamfered column that was square.
So,
again,
what we had previously approved is exactly what we're presenting this time with the exception that we will have a new foundation.
Any questions, project?
Yeah. I have a question.
One of the thing well, first of all, I totally appreciate
I know we requested and asked for you not to harm the tree as you look at the house, the big tree on the left. And
whenever I was watching
the
demolition,
it appeared as if you did not park on the roofs and stuff. So I we appreciate that. And,
but my another thing that I want to bring up is,
are you gonna show us
the colors and the
It it is included in the HPC package.
Do you do you have samples of the design?
I don't have those with me, but we do have a colored,
PDF of of the elevation colors.
Because I think that's really important to this structure.
Right. And I agree.
And again, those were approved previously.
Run.
Color version of the thank you. The the color version should be in your packet. It is in
sorry.
The site plans are listed all as one document, so it makes a little bit difficult to navigate, unfortunately.
They follow-up the the exterior elevations on sheet a 2.2.
One of the reasons I'm bringing that up is, you know, to mister Jackson's point, the garage that's existing,
which we did approve that it could stay when we discussed
this in our work session.
I just wanna make sure that the colors
and the
structure complements that because
With the tree line that's behind it and the colors that were we've selected,
it'll probably fade away
more so than it does currently.
And the multiple print that you have here is not accurate. So if you look at the
the building photos that are in the upper left hand corner,
that is a house with the exact same colors on it.
That was a precedence photo that we
reviewed and approved with the client.
So it is a darker trim, darker overhang,
soffits and fascia,
A
little bit lighter body color on the house, and then it'll be stained columns
and various stained accents on those columns, front and rear porches.
The garage doors will be stained to match.
Yep. Ron.
That's you really hit on my question. That is the garage.
You're planning to leave it like it is or do anything to it? Like it is?
It Maybe the existing proportions that we had before
or what we'll have this done? Okay. Is it contextual?
I mean, is it will it fit in with this restructure
rebuild of this house? So some of the demo that we're doing on the garage,
removes the man door that's on the front of the garage.
So we lose that fenestration on the front because we already have a door on the back of the garage that will remain. That'll provide us access to that upper level.
The
we brought in a bracket detail that's more indicative of some of our barn structures that we have here in Roswell.
It is a solid fill,
triangular bracket that comes back that's faced in siding.
That's a detail that we've incorporated
to offset the look of the cantilever
of the second level.
We brought in some sconces, which you see there on the lower right hand corner that'll go above those doors to kinda highlight
and and give some focal point on the stand doors, which are a carriage door.
The upper level,
which
does have an existing
triple,
double hung window,
we're pulling that vinyl window out and matching it back with the windows that we're putting on the house with the same grid
configuration that we're doing on the house. In the original,
it was kind of a funky arrangement from the house to the garage. Right. Something like a cat walk. You went up and down steps multiple times to go from the house. Could you even open the garage doors and put an automobile in it? No. So well, not at the left door. So
unlike the one of the additions that was put on previously at the back of the house, that now has become their new deck.
And that deck is inset
to the left,
providing more access clearance to the left garage bay. So both of the bays will be available for a car. Right. I wouldn't say a suburban in the left one, but definitely a regular passenger car would be able to get in there.
Judy.
So if you're making all these changes to that garage, shouldn't we be seeing
drawings of those?
The garage is in the set. It is in the set. It is included in the set. Yes, ma'am.
This is Jeanne Payton, planning and zoning director. The reason there's an emphasis on what was approved is you previously approved this entire plan in 2024.
So the only thing that's changed is the existing part of the house that was to receive the new finishing
is now a new part of the house
and not existing materials. So they're using materials, but everything about that approval
So the garage go forward. The garage had all these changes? Everything is the same. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Aside from, Mark DiNolo here, aside from the difference on the front where you have the curve now in the new construction versus the triangular,
front, are there other,
I'll call them modifications or improvements that would be different from the historical building
on the exterior? I had imagined the interior would be able to do some new things there that maybe were not in the original building.
Right. So the building was
cannibalized
over
time. The existing windows that were in that house were vinyl.
The front windows were vinyl. They were shortened. You could see it in the framing.
They brought up the sill of those windows to something that was probably more readily available and cheaper at the point whenever they put the adjusted windows in. We're going back with a taller window that's indicative of what it was
originally.
So we kept the width of the window. We kept the windows at their current location. We just lowered the sill to be more synonymous with what was probably there originally.
The the front gable
was added at some point with the fish scale,
shingles
that was asked by HPC that we could
hopefully come up with something a little more appealing than that.
The front porch
really only originally went
to the extents left or right of the house.
The extent of that porch off to the left of the house closer to the Canton Street side, that was an addition at some point. The porta cochere
was an addition at some point.
So
we're
trying to get back and conserve the the the core features of the project without
fully removing too many of those elements from the design.
And so
going back to what was there prior to demo,
it's the gable that's removed
with the scalloped eyebrow that goes in there. The spindled columns go away,
and they go back to a little more accurate
square column with chamfered edges or chamfered corners.
The front windows and front door are removed
because they are not original to the house either.
So the the front door with the sidelights,
that was another topic that in one of our prior HPC meetings was asked if we could go with something that was a little more
accurate.
So in effect, you'll have a a better historical
rendition of the original building then
Probably touching us closer onto what it was probably originally. Yes, sir.
One more thing. This is Mary Nichols.
Alright. So we approved
the how the submission and we approved the pool in the back. Yes, ma'am. We never talked about
obviously, you have to have a fence
and what goes behind the, you know,
what fence fencing is gonna be provided.
Do you have I didn't see anything about that
in the packet. Or So in the proposal that's
on the permit for the pool,
we have an iron fence that's going in. Just a very simplistic
square tube iron fence that's going around the pool enclosure.
Like black? Black iron fence.
And has the, fence
been approved by the staff?
And we just had a fist fight about one down in the Mill Village.
I don't want a fist fight, but, yes, we can discuss it further. Okay.
That's why I brought it up. Okay.
Very simplistic
black
iron fence.
And we can as part of the condition, we can supply spec on that for you.
Okay.
Okay. Any other questions?
Alright. Let's call up the, public. Thank you, Jay.
I saw your hand first.
I like it.
And everyone who is speaking, please make sure to fill out a a card. Yes. I have a card right here. Great. Do you need it now?
Just make sure that
Best to keep stick in the, three minutes.
When I timed myself at home, I wasn't I had an ease of We'll we'll we'll give you a little bit of grace. Okay. I'm gonna
okay.
My name is Nona Kellhofer, and I live at 715
Camp Avenue.
And my property,
directly backs up to 30 Goulding Place.
And representing five homeowners or five property
owners,
seven,
25,
seven fifteen,
seven zero five on Camp,
and then
1014 Canton Street.
And Table and Main, Ryan has also approved,
what we're gonna propose.
So
my first visual
Can you help me understand where Kent
is? Kent Canton oh, Camp Avenue. Oh, Canton. I've gotta say Kent.
This is,
Goulding
this is the property. I know I know Kent. And then here are townhomes. I know Canton Street. Okay. I didn't know Kent Street. Avenue. Okay. Listen to me. I didn't know Kent Street. I misheard you. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm probably racing because I You're okay. I wanna get in trouble.
Okay.
So
this aerial shows 30 Goulding in the homes and the businesses it now faces.
The green line marks the historic
rear build line
that's been respected for over fifteen years. It preserved a a mature dense buffer,
that separated these uses.
Okay.
This,
was our view for more than a decade, a dense year round coverage.
It protected privacy.
It absorbed sound, and it preserved character.
This is the same backyard view today.
The lot was clear cut. No vegetation.
Full exposure.
This is a little closer view of my first map.
What's being built,
is a pool, fire pit, hot tub, pavilion,
fully exposed, hardscaped,
and set into a shallow bowl
surrounding the properties that sit above it. And our topography is higher.
So we all look down
into
their
not so private backyard.
In addition, sounds really travels. When I was working on this presentation yesterday,
workman was whistling, and I heard him right through my windows.
This is a mock up of what they're putting in.
I took it off the architectural plans, and I did my best, obviously, without architectural software
to,
map the
12 foot gazebo, nine foot retaining wall, the pool, the hot tub, and the fireplace.
And this is our view.
I
I overlaid it from this
this exact photo
by aligning,
what was the start of the retaining wall, and then I used people to scale it.
So this
this is my porch,
railing.
K.
From the inside of the backs of our homes,
not just the porch,
It's the dining room,
the family room,
master bedroom.
And this is if I'm sitting on the porch.
So the view is unrelenting
absent any meaningful buffer, and nothing is specified in the plans.
Our exposure is total from every level of our homes, three levels of our homes,
seven
buildings in all. There's five homes in our block, and then there are the two adjacent buildings on camp,
or I'm sorry.
Canton Street.
What we're asking for is fast growing growing evergreen trees,
double staggered row,
eight to 10 feet tall at planning along the south and east property lines,
or basically behind where their swimming pool, fence is. There does appear to be,
space there. It wouldn't disrupt
the homeowner's plans because the issue
that they may not fully realize is
because our screened in porches probably look private with brown screening,
we see it's it's almost like an apartment complex view
of an amenity
center, and it's in the sound travels, there's nothing to block it. And the family will not have any privacy for their own space.
Proposing
looks like this.
Planning,
like Leyland Cypress or
the Florida Green Giant that can have the capacity to truly grow because we're on an elevation,
in a staggered row,
at the time of planning, eight to 10 feet tall.
In,
five years,
it'll have this coverage.
This is the site map
where,
as you can see, based on where their facility is,
there is there does appear I'm not a landscape architect, but there does appear to be room
for them to do, this to try to restore the buffer
to a very special part of, Canton Street. We're just one,
row in and and the streets.
Goulding Place starts to converge.
Camp and Goulding converge, and we get really close together
about where our properties are.
And it's, it's having a really profound impact in the backyard.
So everything we talked about with the staff report
talks all about the building
in the front, and nothing has been addressed in the back. And so we respectfully request a mitigation,
and I have a paper that I would like to hand to you and enter into the formal record if that's acceptable.
Mhmm. It has the notes of
Thank you for your preparation.
Want me to put them in order basically or is there anything specific? Something.
So Like, they have something to give context about what you're saying. Because I'm looking at you from Let me whatever 10 yards away.
I
think it might be a little
Well, Ron, it appears that all the exhibits are in the write up here. No. It's the different. I've worked with the Oh, is this a different one? Okay. I mean Do you have Oh, actually, let me see that.
I don't know.
Actually, they're close
you could start here. Just start here
because we're just focused on the buffer. Right.
Are you still familiar with it? Do you wanna I am. Okay.
Would you like a copy of this that I Is that a different paper? This is a different paper that I filed. I filed a formal mitigation with the city on Monday. They received they received Okay. This is,
this is just a kind of a summary. Okay. It's not different specifications. If you can email that for our records, that'd be great. Okay.
Do I sit down or Or you're saying you want to show Oh, I don't
well, I can. Yeah. Okay.
Okay.
I just I I can't be able to speak to you. I'll kinda I'll kinda talk through it. Right. Okay. So,
these top pictures showed what the buffer one of the things you can
A lot was cleared in the winter.
This is approximately what's going in.
It's above,
foot gazebo, and I I took, the drawings right from the architectural the elevations
from the architectural plan, and I did my best to
approximately site it. I used the site map. So I can't promise that it's
No. You you did a very good job. I I think we we we got the the point.
Okay. Let let me let me have,
just a clarification.
I thought you were saying Canton Street. You were saying Camp Street. And there is set hang on a minute. There is a camp.
Yes? Yes. Okay. And is that in the what we call the brownstones?
Where is camp?
It's right behind Goulding.
Behind Goulding.
Stones. That is the brownstones.
Yes. It's the brownstones.
It's in the brownstone. We are the brownstones. Okay. Alright. I got you.
Alright. Thank you very much. That was a very well organized presentation.
We're running up on the the time limit.
So it's just trees. That's all we can I swear
no trees?
Okay.
Thank you. Well, I was gonna do
another person from the public.
So so what we're gonna do, we're gonna hear everybody from the public and then we'll let the applicant come up and
speak at the end.
Yes, ma'am.
This works.
How are you this evening? I'm well. How how do I get can you see this? How far do you Yeah.
Alright. While we're doing this, I'm Anne Smith.
Hi, Anne. I live at 36 Goulding Place, which is right next to 30 Goulding.
I'm here with George Cora.
Okay. We can see it. Okay. When George and I purchased our historic home five years ago,
we knew we had a responsibility
to our neighbors and the city of Roswell
to preserve the historic structure and return restore it to adhere to the HBC guidelines we committed to.
Little we did we know that would be quite a challenge.
Our historic home
was in shambles, and really, it should have been demolished.
The foundation was literally held up by stacks of stone.
Nothing was straight or plumb.
However, despite it being costly
and inconvenient, we kept the original foundation
so we could maintain the historic structure.
In the end, we spent $50,000
just to retain that structure.
By the way, George was our GC on the project. George is not a GC. He is a CPA.
And somehow, we were able to maintain
the integrity
of our home.
Fast forward five years and much to my dismay,
the historic home next door has been demolished.
It appears to me that the necessary steps that we took to shore up our home weren't implemented with 30 Goulding.
I still don't understand
why the contractor was able to dig out the entire foundation,
take out the back wall,
making the structure so unstable and highly likely to collapse.
It's no wonder it did didn't collapse before.
The other reason I'm here today is my frustration that the only thing remaining is the 1989
garage that is not in keeping with our historic guidelines and was built four feet over the setback
encroaching on my property.
From my perspective, this garage is an eyesore and should also be addressed so it is in keeping with our HBC guidelines.
First, from the street view, it's very unattractive and doesn't fit in our beautiful historic neighborhood.
You know, you can change out the windows
and put some, you know, pretty moldings around, but it doesn't change that gigantic peak. You can't see it from here, but there's skylights
on the side.
It's just to me is not in keeping with the guidelines.
Second,
since it's street level, two stories and and cantilevered in the front, it towers over my home.
Unfortunately,
this is the view that I see from my living room.
To make matters worse,
to make matters worse, there's only 18 inches between their garage and my retaining wall. So there's no room to even plant a screen to soften the view.
By the way, when we were building our retaining wall, we were forced to spend $6,000
to shore up their garage.
Okay. So we could build our retaining wall. So it's kind of adding insult into injury here.
I realize the purpose of the meeting today is to address the new design of the house, but the garage is an important piece of the package.
It is not consistent with our historic architecture and, frankly, an eyesore.
I understand removing and rebuilding the garage is extensive. So as a compromise,
I propose the homeowners reduce the structure to a one story so it's less obtrusive
from the street view and my view.
I also request that the homeowner install a trellis
on the west side of the garage and plant a climbing vault,
vine
so that it softens the view from my perspective.
By the way,
the,
paint color that they chose
is much darker than the representation, I think, that Jay showed us earlier. I looked it up. It's a Benjamin Moore river rock or something, and I saw
how dark that is. So imagine
a big dark structure that doesn't reflect light. At least that's not a pretty color. Right? But it's at least it's light enough that it reflects light.
Imagine it being a big black
structure now that I'm looking at with no softening capability.
So,
as I close, I wanna just show
you a before and after.
This was the before
when we bought our home at Third in Goulding. Okay?
Here's the after.
As you can see
as you can see, there's not very much difference other than a few cosmetic things like lighting.
We adhered to
the standards of the HPC at a very high cost, I might add.
And I don't understand why we were set with different parameters
than 30.
I would have loved, for example, to have a double,
double door glass door,
to let more light into my house. But we were told we had to stay with the existing, you know, door that we had.
So I just I'm confused
as to why there's different standards, a. And, b, I'm asking for your consideration
around this garage.
You know? And I might add,
I that presentation
was excellent. Thank you very much. I would like to also add on because it is the view in the backyard now is
they scalped it. So I would last ask to be added on to have a screening in the backyard as well along the fence. So I have some privacy from the pool activity as well. And table in Maine.
Yeah. And table in Maine.
Any questions? Can I
can I give you these pictures? You you can bring those up here. Ron's got a question. Yeah. I'm troubled with what you presented, not your presentation, but the facts you brought out.
I was talking to miss Mery here a minute ago and that picture that you just showed, the last one you showed,
shows the garage in the background
of
your house.
If you can put it back up, you could see it.
It's a pretty big
structure.
I think we are we're gonna have to do something with that because The before and after of the garage?
Alright. Right there is the garage. Is it not right where your finger is? Oh, right.
So that's a pretty big,
chunk there. Yeah. Like I said, the roof is is the peak is huge. It's very, very high.
And even from the street view, I think it's just unattractive,
and it's not in keeping with our neighborhood. The the homeowner, the lane of the purchaser, the people that own the parcel
need to have something they need to be able to do something with it.
But on the other hand, they need to disrupt your
reasonable use
of your property
and your neighbors. They need to be able to have a backyard where they're not looking at somebody's hot tub or
swimming pool or whatever.
I'm troubled with it
a little bit. Anybody else?
Alright.
Thank you very much, miss Smith.
Okay. Do we have anybody else from the public?
Yes.
Good evening. My name is Susan Stone. I live at 69 Golding Place.
Moved down from Connecticut nine years ago. Could have lived anywhere including inside the perimeter, but I chose Roswell for its historical value.
I used to live in a 1928
colonial previous to that in 1932.
So history was extremely important to me.
We purchased
our lot at the time and worked with the builders
to have our home, which was new construction,
meet all the HPC guidelines,
which were extremely stringent.
At one point, our builder had to take out the windows that he put in because the mullions were an eighth of an inch too wide according to HPC. So they had to replace all the windows before we even moved in. So I know you all do what you do and take it very seriously,
and I a 100% appreciate that. Mary, I know you live in a historical home that has been added on to, so I appreciate your questions earlier. My main concern goes back to,
question one about
the
incident
that happened overnight,
allegedly overnight.
I guess my question is,
who permitted
a demolition
that allowed for
removal of a foundation,
removal
of one of three walls,
holes in the ceiling or the roof,
so that the approved demolition
created
a structure that was
so capable of collapsing at any time and therefore deemed
dangerous to the point where the city had to come in and fully demolish it. I don't understand how that permitting
respected
preservation
and enforcement of preservation
to a historical structure. We only have so many of them. This is why people love Roswell and come here and why our tourism is what it is.
So to see at the end of my road,
a home that was quaint,
yes, had it been neglected, of course, it's old.
And it's going through a process with beautiful renovations proposed
exception of the inappropriate Belle Epoque shape on the roof line.
I would love to see that
even though this happened, we can't go backwards.
But what protocol is going to be put in place
where we can
ensure
that
building,
permitting, or building
inspection
as demolition is happening
with a builder
to make sure that a structure doesn't get so demolished
that it is left in an unsafe condition. So all it takes is a
what's the word?
Unspecified
incident.
I'd like to know,
are we investigating the incident to make sure that we can't have
future unspecified
incidents
so that we can have historical homes preserved,
of course, added onto under HPC guidelines that are appropriate. So I'm looking forward to meet my new neighbors. I want them to love living on Goulding as much as I do.
I'm sure they chose
it, hopefully, originally for its historical relevance, and I know they're trying their best to replicate that.
I'm really concerned about
that permitting and, I guess, the demolition and what happened and to make sure to Mary's point that we never run the risk that that could happen
at at any location
really in general.
It it was shocking to see the three walls.
It was like someone took out everybody's teeth except for one.
So thank you.
Ron. I don't have an answer for you about
how do you stop it.
I will bet you a CoCoppola
that
a vehicle
struck that
that roof because I can see the imprint on the and it's in the photos. You can see where the vehicle hit the gutter
and it moved it back four feet. So I don't know how you stop that. I am concerned.
So you're saying that because an alleged vehicle allegedly hit the gutter
that it shifted the entire remaining three walls off off of its foundation? No. You ask how did it happen, and I'm saying
my take on it was a vehicle hit it. It was pretty flimsy to start with, and so it knocked
other stuff. That's right. I
I'm
concerned about, miss Smith's case
that we've got different standards here. You know,
they had to shell out a bunch of money,
and these other guys are running into it with the construction vehicle. And
miss Smith
had to spend a bunch of money and had her property intruded on.
I don't know how it even got beyond the no build line. I don't know how any of this stuff happened. That was
HBC before my time.
But I am concerned about
when standards
apply to one house
and don't apply
to another house.
Some people are spending a bunch of money, others are clear cutting a a yard.
That doesn't seem quite right.
I I I would concur with that. And to your point, Susan, you know, I I think not following those standards compromise the integrity, the structural integrity of the building
to a point which all it took was an incident by a vehicle to knock it down or to destroy it beyond repair. So
you know, I share the concern. I I don't have an explanation for it, though.
And and I think we're all assuming it was it's an assumption that it was a vehicle. Nobody knows for sure what happened or when it happened. But, you know, I'd walk down that street every day with my dog to come in and out from work every day.
It was three walls with holes in the ceiling
with no foundation for quite a long time
with no incident happening.
And then all of a sudden,
an incident happens and then they slap the
the build the building
the city slapped on the little orange sticker on the mailbox saying
construction has been halted because it's deemed unsafe.
I guess at that point, I'm confused
where
HPC
or the historical preservation entity
doesn't get with the building
department that said, hey, this is unsafe,
to say, okay, we know it's unsafe,
but how are we gonna preserve
what is here? Do we need to coordinate off with an orange fence line
so that people know not to go in there because it's deemed unsafe?
Because we need to preserve the remaining three walls
while maintaining a safe site. You certainly could have just taken off the little the little roof that goes over the driveway.
That could have been removed easily,
and the three walls of the building, the front wall and the two side walls and the roof could have been maintained. Right. So that's where my confusion is. Yeah. I think we were made aware of it at a at a meeting interval. I don't know that we knew about it as it happened. So,
I'm not sure what staff knew or when that was known, but I think, you know, we found out about it in a meeting in preparation for a meeting.
I just hope moving forward,
I guess, more synergy
happens
so that whatever remains of the historical entity can fully be preserved as opposed to demolished.
Ma'am?
Ron. The,
I I was made aware
that that,
curve, that portico had been knocked off its pedestal
four feet south.
There were photos I was sent,
and I didn't know exactly where to go. So I went to City Hall
and explained to them what I had seen.
And the building guys
came roaring out of their office when they heard about it and went roaring over to Goulding Place.
So they were concerned. I guess they I'm sure they signed off on it
on the front end. The notes would say whether they had looked at it or not, but it was probably not the best idea we ever had.
Yeah. I mean, I guess at that point because I know that the beam you're talking about, it was the far right hand one, but that was the outside of that overhang that really wasn't the home itself. And while the roof line was connected,
they could have just taken
a saw. I'm sure It was not and just remove that part of it. There was a brick
port
pedestal on which that wooden gizmo
was situated, and it was knocked clean off of it four feet
on the west side of the property. Right. So for several days, that roof line sagged on the right hand side.
Correct. It could have been But that wasn't part that's not part of the house or outside of it. But it could have been remediated
and Remediated instead of demolished. I agree. And I think maybe we might have taken
advantage of the fact that it was hanging on with a thread there.
Thank you for your
time. Thank you, miss Stone. Thank you.
Anybody else from the public?
Hi there. I'm Deborah Moroski. I live directly next door to Nona, and I do not have a presentation like she does. So she killed it.
I just want to
reiterate
what she says. I I'm looking at the exact same thing she is. There were trees,
peacefulness,
and just like someone else said, I had two houses to choose from. And I chose that home
because it was peaceful and there was a barrier, and
now it's all gone. It's sparse. There's nothing there, and, my porch, I will now be looking at a swimming pool.
So all we're asking for of course, I have a dog that we like to sit on the back porch, and,
definitely, the dog's gonna do some barking, but,
we're just asking for a buffer. We're asking
for the trees to that they took down, put something back. So that's all I'm I just wanted to reiterate that I'd I'd and be a backup for her. So thank you. Thank you so much, Deborah. Thank you.
Okay. Who's next?
Okay.
Would the applicant like to come up and address any of these concerns?
And before he responds, I I do I I would like to say that I I agree that that the garage does look very intrusive
and not having any kind of buffer completely exposes the backyard.
The issue that we're running into when everything was approved
last year, we we didn't
see any of these pictures or
we're we're told about any of that. So we're kind of in a little bit of a pigeonhole
where we've approved something, and now we're hearing all the complaints about it that probably would have changed
our decision making last go around.
So let's see if we can try to come to some kind of understanding, and we'll go from there. Alright, Jay. Okay.
Well, we already know that design that was approved before
is where we're going this time. Of record. Yep. Including the existing garage
with a couple aesthetic updates to it, not increasing the size of the structure.
The
garage as it exists
is the same slope.
Its roof is the same slope as the primary house that we're replicating or putting back to the way that it was.
And I do have a couple photos here. Is there any chance I can
Oh, can you increase your brightness, Amy, possibly?
It's like fifth dimension.
It might be easier to set it down there.
So
so the shot of the house was the existing
you can see the small
on
the right through the porting to share.
Again,
at HPC recommendation, we're removing the gable that was upfront.
We're removing the spindle columns that were upfront, going with more indicative finishes of what would have been
in the house when it was original.
If we
left,
I've taken
handful of steps over to the right.
You can see that the garage is still covered by the Porta Cashier.
Further over to the right, standing in the property across the way,
looking at the garage straight on, Porta Cashier again
masked the majority of the existing garage that was in place that was built
back in the eighties.
And it isn't and you can see in this picture here that
the main level of
36 Goulding to 30 Goulding is quite significant.
Goulding isn't on a downtick as you go westward.
So
inherently,
the house is going to be higher
than the adjacent property.
Ron. Can I ask one question while this slide is up? Certainly. And that is the foliage behind the garage, the trees, I see trees.
Did we approve
scalping? Not take down any specimen trees on the back of the property. But it looks like from where this building
was raised or
involuntarily
raised,
it looks like everything's scalped
past the garage. Is it past the garage or through the garage? The property was terraced at some point in its prior life with the prior owner.
It was heavily covered in
the small grass
grasses and privet.
That was the majority of the vegetation
on the back of the property.
Now the the homeowners,
believe me, they want their privacy as much as anybody surrounding that property does, and they do intend to fully plant
the three sides of that backyard.
And it will be a staggered vegetation. It will be a tall vegetation that
And you're gonna put Leland Cypress
or something?
Probably not Leland. You're gonna put something out there, something
green that grows. Probably more like an arborvita or something like that that grows a tighter diameter, a little bit longer life cycle. It is a little bit slower to grow, but they have intent to buy mature trees to put on the property.
I was on a school board, the Fulton school board for eight years, and our solution to everything was legal and cypress.
Yeah. Legal and tend to break, especially in the random snowstorms that we get.
So so there is a plan to
have a little privacy for the owners. I mean, I would assume that they would want privacy from all the neighbors looking at
To the table in Maine, to the left or the east side, to the rear, backing up to the townhomes, which I also did the design on,
and to the,
to Georgian hand side going
to the west.
This is Mary Nichols. So the homeowners,
I guess, in Providence, did y'all know that they were
okay. So this is your first time hearing it?
Not you guys. You guys. Yeah.
So you know that they're going to plant trees. Not part of the plan to the tax Yeah.
So the the part of our our If we could put it in a condition front yard.
We do not have a landscape plan for the backyard.
Right. And I think that was one of the conditions
also for the front yard. Well, we have the front yard landscape plan that is part of the package. Okay.
Staff can provide background to some of the issues that came up if you would like.
Alright. Judy.
I would suggest you do
submit
the landscape plans for that whole backyard area that you're saying you're doing on three sides Okay. Because I think that would make all the neighbors feel a lot better that you have something on paper that is exactly what you're gonna do. Okay. Yeah. We can definitely work on that. And that would be as soon as possible. Okay. Can I ask a question about the synagogue on your East Side?
It that is on Goulding. It's Goulding in Canton. Right? We did not pull any vegetation on the fort. But there isn't there's not significant,
proximity?
No. There's actually a decent amount of distance from us to the eastern
property boundary because
of the large tree that's existing that we're trying to stay off of. So we did not touch any of the hollies or the primate that are there in the left side.
Going back probably about two thirds to three quarters of the property line, it isn't until we get over,
behind table in Maine
that we got into the the private and the small type
trash trees that were back there.
Come up, please.
One one other thing I really I want wanted to address. Tell me to fill out a call. Yeah. Fill out a form. Speak before that. You can do that. Yeah.
My name is Kathy Schwartz. I'm the owner of 1036 Canton Street. So I just wanted to I was just here to listen. I think from our perspective, I think the trees that are lined up there, there hasn't been any kind of impact,
to us necessarily.
I think it is kind
of kind of at the end of,
Table And Main
where it starts, kind of that whole corner
from the back of our parking lot
to Golding is untouched right now. So
making that back since you asked about it.
Thank you, Catherine.
I just wanted to make a point. When we did our work session with the builder,
we had an architect
with historic
experience
give us feedback on the pointed versus the rounded, and he recommended the rounded roof. So I I do I commend you for coming forward with that. I I think your plans look good. And, we we want you to build a beautiful home there
that complies with what we approved
in the first place. And we do wanna make sure that,
obviously, you plant the buffer of trees between your home and those townhomes
because
I know what it's like to lose a bunch of trees behind you.
So that's
this is just my feedback.
Can we do,
what's it? A minor,
like a minor
certificate appropriateness for the bushes in the back? Like a minor application
for that? Or
And specify that you would like,
a review by staff member that can come through administratively.
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you guys get that? Refer to a mine as a minor.
So for the miner, they would they just submit it to you and then you guys be
Yes. I do feel like at this point, I do need to clarify
some
points that were brought up. Okay. Do you want me to just stick to the buffer, or do you want me to write down
some of the items? Let let let us have it. State your name, though. Jeanie Payton, planning and zoning director.
As far as the demo, I think we we
stated a statement at the beginning, and it was subtle, but we did not the no no city staff approved a demolition that was done as poorly
as what was done. And I can
assure you that planning and zoning staff
stepped in as soon as we were made aware
and advocated in the way that is being described.
I we cannot
there's a point to the punitive nature of what can happen from here forward.
Obviously,
the
contractor,
you know, it's obvious
how it was handled, and it was
important to lead us to this point. And we have
met with the owners
and,
and their design professionals to establish that. So we did step in. It was not our call as to
how
it is done technically. That is a building process, and we have advocated through this process
our side of the historic preservation,
with building staff that is here now
and maybe not at the time that the application came in.
Second, it it's not our call how unstable something is. There are engineer reports that are required and that were required,
in my understanding,
as part of what needed to happen next. And we, as planning and zoning staff, can't stand in between something being unsafe
and happening, and that's why the house came down
in its entirety based on those decisions that are outside of us. And we presented those facts to you that we could about what transpired.
Second, as far as the buffer between the townhomes and the house,
there is no buffer that is required.
At the time the townhomes were built, the stream was classified as a state water,
probably a perennial
Kellhofer
represented. So she she talked about a shift to preserve a buffer, and that would have been a stream buffer at this time. We do have evidence in the review of this particular application,
where the stream our engineering staff did go out, look at the stream. Streams change.
Stream heads change. How streams operate change.
And it was,
classified as ephemeral stream.
And, therefore, there is no buffer that's required. So a landscaping
buffer was never in question. It was a stream buffer that was present
back in like February,
the early two thousands, twenty ten was I think when her structure was developed,
but that does not exist at this time.
And our engineering staff has been granted
status by the state.
They are the licensing
licensed issuing authority.
The city is the only designated jurisdiction by the state that can officially identify streams within its limits. So I can tell you that having that authority is very important
to jurisdictions. It's important to the city of Roswell, and our engineering staff takes it very seriously.
And they go out and they identify
streams
at the time, not what existed
back in the early two thousands. It's what is the stream, how is it operating right now.
And so there is no required
stream buffer for 30 Goulding at this time
based on
what was decided in the review of these plans from 2024
until now. You do have the right to add some conditions,
to
I caution you to remember that, you know, this is a historic preservation
board
and there is a point where it gets gray about adding too many conditions. But it sounds like the applicant is amicable to the
the loss of the vegetation.
But I did just wanna clarify that there was there's nothing that was required that has been lost and everything that was to be protected as far as the tree. There's a specimen tree in the front yard. It has been
protected and maintained.
And then as far as the garage, I just wanted to clarify
variance was granted for the location
of that garage. So they did go through that, but we cannot identify any historic process.
But that was about the time it was added
to the boundary.
Ron. So the variance
from 1989
is what got the
garage
a little too close to miss Smith's property,
and we're gonna let that,
let that sleeping dog lie.
I'm sorry? We're gonna let
that stay like that. We're not gonna do anything about it. They were granted
a bearing. Understand. Okay. And I know state waters DNR gets worked up about state waters.
But you're saying it is classified as an ephemeral
stream that it may be here and it may not be here and it may move and so forth. It is possible that it was classified as a perennial stream previously and that
we're intermittent
and that it has, you know, and a stream and it the function of the stream can change.
You know, we have a presentation that our engineering staff
provided us with so that internally we can understand what those things mean, but no state buffers
refer or,
apply to that. And I do have
2024
email where Michael Vasquez of our engineering staff did reach out to the applicant at that time and let them know the classification
as ephemeral,
and it is reflected as that way per that discussion on the plans that you have seen both at that time and now.
And that's why there's no buffers present. Alright. So we've got a situation here
that we've got to resolve.
We've got,
stuff that happened in 1989,
was approved and we get state waters that
in the Femoral Stream that may be here and may not be here. The point is, what are we gonna do for these folks?
And it may be
the
the ubiquitous Leland Cypress or something else.
But we gotta come up with something
to help these folks
because I know they don't wanna have swimming pool noises
all the time. And I know the swimming pool people don't wanna know they're watching them.
And we've gotta have
some compromise or some workout, some deal where
everybody's happy or at least halfway happy.
So I think we we need to take each of these pieces at a at a time. Mark D'Anello here.
And I agree with what you're saying, Ron. The garage, I want to clarify on the garage. The 1989
garage, was that there before the restoration work on 36 Goulding Place
took place.
So the garage was already there when you Sounds like that. Okay. So it's not like
you were there, did the restoration work, and then this garage went up. No. Okay. No. The garage was existing. Okay.
And then regarding a landscape plan for the
back two thirds of the of the property,
we'd be
you know, you can throw that in as a You're good with the condition in there? As a condition. And we'll just have to put together a HPC minor submission
for the,
the rear rear two third
landscape plan.
That would be covered by the two thirds of the property.
So when it's a condition like that,
is it staff that reviews the plan to say, yes, this meets the condition?
Right. So you say, well, we're going to put in Arborvitae or, you know, and then you end up putting in Boxwoods.
Well, who's reviewing to to just confirm that that's been done as you say it's going to be done? That would be staff? That's part of our engineering
staff,
division in the community development department. We do have a landscape architect. So I would he would be the subject matter expert.
So you should best describe what you hope to achieve
wise
Mhmm.
For him to know
what it is the condition
is.
Otherwise They're Otherwise, it's Trees to block out visibility and help decrease sound. So, generally, if you do a 10 foot buffer, it's one row of trees. If you want that's you know, you understand how one row of tree grows up and doesn't provide screening.
So it's up to you to decide. And, again, none of us are the subject matter expert,
so you can specify
multiple rows of
vegetation
to provide screening
to a certain
height. I you know, again, not a subject matter expert, but I would try to be a little specific
so that, you know, you have the applicant's representative here. He's kind of agreeing to it. And that way, you
we
know what's being approved in that Okay. Area.
Jay, why don't you throw out,
what you think would be appropriate, then let's see if that is agreeable before we have a motion.
Again, not a landscape architect by by any sense, but it would be probably of a little faster growing nature, probably more evergreen double row on the sides. Double row? Okay. Double row across the back with a smaller vegetation shrub in front of that poolside,
going along the southern property edge. That is what
I've discussed with the with the homeowners when they sought my recommendations.
There would be other vegetation in there too surrounding the pool to give them other ground cover and other shrubs.
But not being the expert on landscape architecture, I would have to default to designer on that.
Get
could we get,
Philip, chair Philip, or somebody to sit in on
this con flap and discussion of the plants with the staff and see what he thinks? What
whatever you feel is I just like to have some yeah. I'd like to have somebody. We we just wanna get back to building. So
landscaping is a little bit further out, but yes. So we're we're happy to work on a plan.
And then to address the ephemeral stream,
that was
a determination that's been made on multiple properties,
I think, including the town homes.
So we had to go through that process on multiple projects in the past. So it's been deemed for quite some time. So so, Jeanne, can we do that? Can we say, you know, when they submit the plan, you have we we have our landscape architect, but we can have a representative from HPC review that as well. Okay.
Okay.
I think you just say the chair. No. No.
Come up to the front, please. Speaking of the microphone, introduce yourself again.
I'm Nona Kellhofer, and I my property directly abuts the back of Golden Place 30 Golden Place. I just wanted to,
clarify the
critical importance if the buffer is to be the visual and acoustical buffer is to be successful.
Whatever evergreens they choose has to really hit at least 25 feet at maturity
because we are so much higher
than they're they're kind of down in a shallow bowl relative.
Like, Table in Maine has a,
a retaining wall that they're they're higher up. We're all higher than they think we are. And so if it's not,
tall enough to growing,
we'll still see them. And so I just wanted to,
I don't I'm not a landscape architect, but and I certainly don't know what trees do that, but to make sure that whatever is specified
will reach an appropriate height
so that the privacy is,
So may maybe we do it with the landscape
architect engineer guy that he comes up with something that would be that would get to a suitable height that provide the privacy
under his recommendation.
Generally, our
I think I turned it off. Generally, our staff will not provide design,
information. They can give advice, but the design has to be submitted for review. I was gonna Gina, we should we even be discussing this as far as the HPC?
Which plants to I mean, I gonna put in as the I think that
in
as I mean, we're trying to help everybody out. Jackson mentioned. Yes. It sounds like the applicant is amenable to you, so I'm not going to stand the line.
You you understand that it's not required. This is not a required buffer.
And and saying that doesn't mean we don't understand the physical conditions on the site and the emotion that goes along with having a screen
of planted materials and losing that screen, by all means. But there is a point where we cannot impose regulations that don't exist
on property owners. But the property owner's representative is amicable,
and so I think that you're well within your right to discuss something, and we're get we're heading in the right direction.
Thank you, Jean.
George. Yes.
Oh, you gotta come up and introduce yourself.
Maybe an easement. State your name, please. George Cora. Thanks, George Cora.
There may be an easement back there for the electrical or for somebody.
My neighbor
are you know, the next door, they said there's an easement going back there. So what's gonna further complicate that is where you could plant those everything they're talking about. Just wanna let everybody know that
I can confirm that that is true. Okay.
Alright. This is why a review needs to take place by a subject matter expert. Gotcha.
Yeah.
Quickly.
Okay. Because I've researched
this
thing that we can't really do it. The UDC
one point one three and one point one four
require preservation of existed vegetation and meaningful landscape buffers between uses.
UDC 4.25
stresses minimizing the visual impact of rear additions
and accessory structures,
something that the previous buffer handled elegantly.
UDC 1.28
reinforces the importance of respecting topography
and integrating natural transitions between properties.
So it is my opinion that there
are UDC provisions for this.
It's not just a,
resident preference.
Okay. Thank you. And I think that that might be good to incorporate
that,
the vegetation that's put in is in
abidance with UDC 1.3, 1.4, 4.25,
and 1.28.
I'd
be careful because some of those don't apply. So, actually, the townhomes are more intense use than the single family homes.
So,
it
nowadays,
in certain situations,
townhome
development would be required to provide a buffer to the single family homes,
not the other way around. Gotcha. Single family homes are less intense.
So while those codes exist and that language is there, it is
not being
interpreted
Gotcha. How how correctly.
Okay.
Do I have a motion
for the
Mark, Mark DiNolo, I'll make a motion to
approve HPC 20250896,
30 Goulding Place, Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction
with the staff conditions as stated in the report and also with with the conditions for,
providing the landscape plan and approval by staff.
I'll second.
Okay.
All in favor?
Okay. It passes unanimously.
Alright. Thank you everybody for coming and speaking on that.
We will move on to
and again, any
any ruling can be appealed to the
planning and zoning department, which will go in front of mayor and council.
Okay.
Moving on
to discussion item, b Z A 20251262,
1027
Alpharetta Street variance to primary street entrance.
Shade, extent planning and zoning staff. Sorry. Let me get my
slides over here real
quick.
Taking a break? We're gonna take a break.
I think we,
try to but it's really not our job. I mean, that's really not HPC's done. But we were trying to make peace. Yes. Yeah. And that's what we try to do. Yeah. You know?
But the thing is,
they're tearing down those trees that are affecting the people. I know. And I'm not sure. I hate all this property that is even. That's well, it's their property.
The people that are built.
I hate the all the trees that are coming down. I mean, they're coming down everywhere.
We hate the trees coming down.
Okay. I hope everybody had a good break. Let's jump back in here
and resume with
HOrBZA202512621027
Alfred Registry variance to primary street entrance.
Hey, Dixon planning and zoning staff.
Once and more. Hey, Shay. Once again.
This is a discussion item. We're gonna be discussing,
what HPC would like to be seeing regarding a variance that will be going before BZA in in May, I believe.
And because the variance is specifically for a property within the historic district, it comes before HPC for
any comments or recommendations you might have and might like to see be be aware of prior
to that meeting.
So to go over the summary here, the applicant is requesting a variance to requirement in UDC five point three point one one which requires,
buildings in their zoning
to have a front facing entrance facing the primary street. In this case, it would be after, Alpharetta Street.
So we received this application,
back in March, and the BZ will be hearing the case in in May of twenty twenty five. I realize I have a typo in May right there. Look at there.
Here's the background here. This is the applicable requirements as listed in five point three point eleven point four point c of the unified development code specifically stating pedestrian access entrance facing primary feet street required.
This is for all, this is for all single store or single story shop fronts that are within,
DX zoning, downtown mixed use zoning.
This project is part of the Southern Post projects.
This is one of the smaller pod buildings attached to,
to
that larger project. Here we have a site plan here of the specific building that is requesting this variance as provided
applicant. And, this is the current primary street face facade. You can
see the, the doors right there off to the right of the front facing facade. This is what is existing.
It was more of an elevation of the same of the same. Now the proposal would be to remove the doors from this side and add a second door to the other side of the building currently facing the interior,
walk walkable area of Southern Post. There is already a door on that one side, but this would add a second one to that side. At least that's what the full proposal is.
But the variance itself is just so that
the applicants aren't required to have the door on this side of the building.
Presumably, the door would still have to come back as an HPC minor,
for the change, but the for the purpose of the variant, that's all. Variance, this is all that's currently being proposed.
Currently, because of the 2003
historic resources survey, the property is considered intrusion.
That probably wouldn't be the case if it was reclassified now just because
Southern Post has only been built within the last few years, and we haven't had an updated classification survey since 02/2003.
Most likely in my survey of the property, it would probably be reclassified as non historic since it isn't over 50 years old, but is contributing to the look of the historic district.
As I mentioned, it's downtown mixed use DX zoning. And as again, as I mentioned, if approved by its BZA, project would still come back to HPC but as an administrative minor for the changes made to the door.
So BZA staff is recommending approval of this application ultimately, but BZA staff is also interested in hearing from HBC on a few questions specifically and then you are, of course, free to ask or answer any more comments or recommendations that you might have. But the the specific questions that BCA staff are asking is, would granting this variance affect the historic context of the North Alpharetta character area of the historic district?
Would allowing the storefront to not have an entrance on Alpha Alpharetta Street affect the cohesiveness
of the character area?
And would allowing the storefronts to not have an entrance on Alpha Street
affect the pedestrian circulation
of that area?
And,
that's all I have. Thank you, Shay. Thank you.
Ron.
I've got a couple of questions.
This is
Southern Post, and we're talking about one of what we used to call the jewel boxes,
the little
thing Yes. Outbuilding.
And
have we asked mister Fireman
if moving that entrance from the front from the facing Alpharetta Street to the back, if that's an issue.
I can I can answer that probably?
All of our variances go through the same plan review staff that, our HPCs do. So Fire would have looked at this at one point in time because it's gotten this far, it might I don't handle variances, but presumably, it has been approved by fire department. Experience that mister Fireman would have looked at this. Right. Okay.
It it's just my take
on this may be right, may be wrong, but I think
the courtyard,
that's what I'm gonna call it, that inner thing, is where the activity is gonna happen. It's not gonna happen to I don't know, on Alpharetta Street. So I would put a door
facing that courtyard because that's where people are. That's where it's gonna happen.
That makes sense?
Yes, sir.
And
what you're telling me is since this is,
it's this is a BZA thing.
It's not a HBC thing. We're just looking at it for our
our take. For your opinions, any questions, or recommendations, especially that you might wanna have, BZA or BZA staff see before the May meeting discussing this item. Thank you.
Judy.
So,
I was real involved in this.
Judy Meer.
And,
I think
those little buildings were put there to
fill in spaces and have some more,
activity with
people wanting to
have a restaurant or whatever. But having that door on the Alpharetta side of the street, I think, is dangerous.
And I think putting it to the back and
in same as Ron said, the activity is back there.
So I think it's actually a a good thing to move
that door to the other side. I have a representative
here to speak about the case,
that part.
Philip Mansell. I personally think with the long windows right right there, not having a door is gonna be unnoticeable.
So I I really don't think that
there's an issue. And I like what Judy said about about the safety. I mean, somebody walking
be like, oh, well, there's a door. I guess I'll go in here now as opposed to just walking five more feet and going around the building.
That's my take. Yeah. I I would say the,
I would agree the orientation is toward the inside, toward that courtyard. You have some other restaurants and shops in there already.
I think the original or the zoning,
of saying you have to have a door street facing
makes sense in general, but in a specific situation like that where the orientation is clearly happening on the other side,
I think it's probably appropriate. I did look at it today and noticed there is one door on the back.
And I wondered, you know, for traffic flow, do you have a double door? Is it two doors? But I suppose that's really up to the the owner to to do that. And and I can also see the case that they're making about the interior,
you know, all this
was, like, 70 square feet or something being eaten up
by concrete stairs that really aren't even necessary. So, you know, I think it makes sense.
So I would say, you know, to those three questions, I would say,
no on all of those. I don't I don't think it affects the character. I don't think it affects
cohesiveness. I don't think it affects,
pedestrian circulation to make that change.
I I'll throw one other thing out there, Philip Ansell.
I was coming,
I was passing there last
Friday night, and it was at that light. And
a bunch of little kids
came running up, like, right there by the street. So I would think that having a door there, you're gonna see a lot of little kids running straight towards
Alpharetta Highway there.
Yeah. That's my 2¢.
Anybody else?
Okay. If there are any other questions, we also have a member of the BZA staff here, my colleague.
And,
and I
otherwise,
You got anything you wanna throw in?
I just have a
I just have a thank you for being here tonight, by the way. Of course. You have Richard, the planning liaison to the BZA. I have a I have the footprint of the proposed toward the doors. I don't know if you guys wanna see that. Sure. I have it.
So this is this is where the door is now. And, yeah, there's this is an existing door, and they're gonna add it the door there.
Oh, we didn't know it was gonna be a sushi bar. That's even better.
That's great news.
Looks good to me. Alright.
Thank you. Alright. Moving on to item number five, the 02/19/2025
HPC
special minutes call.
And it was special because it got postponed a week.
And let's see here. I've got that the meeting was adjourned at 06:47PM.
Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?
Yes. Ron Jackson.
Move that we approve the minutes of the HPC special call meeting for 02/19/2025.
Do I have a second? Mark Tonolo, second. All in favor?
Passes unanimously.
Alright.
At this time, 08:01.
On 04/09/2025,
I am adjoining adjourning
the meeting.
Thank you. That's That's alright.