Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the April 10th, 2026 public hearing of the City of Prescuit Preservation Commission. Members present. Rick Emery, present. Mike King, present. Diane Davis, and Travis, Wow.

Yeah. I haven't known you. And I'm Richard Spring, the chair. James Carver, Rob Johnson are excused. Staff present, Alex Bermott, Tammy Dit, Jacob Lun, and Mary Frederickson from council leazison on for us. This is an open public hearing is being recorded by the city. The proceedings are being televised by representatives of the public media, local cable, and/or radio stations and may be rebroadcast. The number of commissions present is four and will take a majority vote of those present to pass a motion. All parties wishing to be heard will be expected to state their name for the record. Uh, please speak loudly and clearly into the microphone in front of me and please turn off all electronic devices. Thank you. With four of us, it has to be unanimous, does it not?

Majority three still be three. Sure. Yeah. But it just needs to be majority of the quorum present. Okay. All right. To the agenda. We're now on number three. approved them. Uh March 3rd, 2026 pres preservation commission meeting minutes. Do I have any comments on it? Do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, Diane Travis, I move to approve the March 3rd, 2026 meeting minutes as presented. Rick Emery seconds.

All in favor? I I oppose. Motion carries. On to B, the HP26-00003.

Thank you. Good morning, chairman, members of the commission. Tammy Dwit, community planner. So before you is a revised um site plan for Doc's Barbecue and Whiskey ex for their exterior improvements. So, here's some pictures again about what it looked like before on the property. We have pre-fire, we had a fourstory hotel and then um prior to the current additions that they did back in 200 21 that um it was a cigar was the last place, but it was also a uh a car uh oil change place before too. So it's gone through a lot of revisions on this property, reiterations and design. So before you today is the these are the changes um from the November 25 2025 approval. Installed retaining wall with CMU block to level patio floor to existing inter interior floor. They installed a mirror ADA pavers um on the entire north and east patio areas. The review of the installed Gabian wall with an unfinished welded steel frame with metal grid and flat counter surface on top. Two new smokers on the west corner of the patio and installed the metal frame and standing seam metal flat patio covers to install these painted black to match the building over the north and two over the northeast patios of varying depths. So the historic this is within the local um historic preservation master plan district the courthouse plaza district. So the compatibility review that we use um in this district use only integral and natural colors of a neutral tone compatible with the building in the district. Compatible use of materials is strongly encouraged to continue design theme established in district at turn of 20th century. Details of Assad can add

character, vitality, and a sense of craftsmanship. And details should generally be constructed of materials already present in the building, as in brick. If different materials are used, they should be compatible to the primary material. So, here's a picture of the Gabian wall um with an unfinished welded steel frame and then the counter uh surface on top. And then here's another view of the retaining wall that was before they had a um CMU uh wall, not CMU wall, I'm sorry. Um my brain's versil lock. Thank you. They had a versal lock wall that was approved before, but they installed the CMU wall and painted it black to match the the building. They installed the ADA pavers, which is required for that leveling that area. um adjacent properties. So, when we're looking at uh the fencing, so the local district doesn't um address fencing on these in the downtown business district um for this uh historic district. So, these are adjacent properties fencing. So what we do is we go back to the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation which the intent of the standards is to assist in the long-term preservation of a property significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. So in your analysis um that was provided to you in your packet they refer to standards 9 and 10. So standard nine is new additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic m historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

And then uh criteria number 10 is new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. So what we look at is what naturally is in the area and these are the types of fencing that we do see in our downtown business district area. They're also proposing um patio covers. So, we have this one which is over the bar area that's being proposed and then we have this one over the entrance and patio area and this one would be in the back and then we have the the grills. The um smokers are back in here. So, this will provide protection for patrons and also for the employees working on the smokers. So, it'll be flat um metal frame with standing seam metal flat patio covers painted black to match the building. So, we kind of highlighted where those are going to be. Here's over the the bar area and then over the patio and then in the back area that's kind of and they'll be broken up adjacent to the property. It'll be connected to the building. So the analysis u was completed by a third party reviewer and was included in your packets. Um I went through the standard 9 and 10. So the gab gabian wall was determined the existing gabian wall does not meet standard 9 and that it will not be compatible with the adjacent historic buildings within the district. The existing gabian wall meets standard 10 though. So if it was removed it wouldn't um interrupt the character of the building. And the proposed patio covers proposed standing seam flat metal patio covers have been evaluated to be compatible with the district. It meets both standard 9 and 10.

So that concludes my presentation. I'm free to answer any questions. Um you can either approve, deny, or we can modify the approval too if you want to move as this goes forward. Looking through the November meetings, we did approve a wall with the rocks in it from a picture here from looking at it. Is that

No, it it was the the fencing was not really part of it because the fencing was approved before. Um it was the the similar to the adjacent properties. um but it was black iron with the the um slats going up and down similar to what we see on the National Bank across the street but painted black. That's what was approved originally um but was never installed and then it was reapproved again back in November. So the the Gabian wall that's there now was never part of the request and wasn't evaluated at the time in November. Okay. Any other questions for Tanning?

Well, let me finish with just clarification for me. So, you that is during when the previous owner had it. Is that what you're talking about for the for the uh the railing? The railing was approved by the previous owner. Yeah. Back in 2021, we had the black iron fence and then that's what was carried on to the November that we reaffirmed that that was the fencing to be approved at that approval back in November. So the Gabian wall was never part of any request that we saw. Thank you. And we have a representative here also. We can

I was just going to say that photo you have of the Gavian wall. It was in the November packet. However, it was not part of the fencing that we reviewed. And I think that's where the the confusion came about. In our mind, we were thinking of the the picture that we submit sub submitted with the packet. That's all. So, you're saying you were under the impression that you have permission to build that wall as it is now.

As it was, yes. The picture that you're saying with the the Gabon, that's what we were thinking the whole time. So, that in no way were we were trying to, you know, go behind the board's back and create something that was not approved. We were under the assumption that this was what was being presented. But you didn't ask for clarification from the city or No, no, sir. I just assumed it was part of the packet that we were discussing that day in November.

Michael. Um, Mr. Mayor, so it's Kell. Cal. Okay. Ke, um, I understand it wasn't not intended. You You thought you were following that. And how did how did this come to your attention? Through the building department or through the preservation? I believe through building building. Okay. You're there was things happening on the site. I'm sure it was combined, I'm sure. Okay. Okay. It was combined. You're saying Okay. Thank you. I just see the city of Prescuit as working as a team. So, one one department speaks for other departments. And how much of it is is completed? All of it.

All of it. So, if you look at it as well, um you see what you should looking at right there. All the the rocks, it's the same fence as what is right there on the west side by the smokers. And that according to the staff report was approved. So, all we changed in regards to that was just putting the rocks in between the metal grate and it was more for our safety purposes. Uh prevents little kids. We get a lot of kids and a lot of dogs reaching into the fence, things like that. So, it avoids uh that exposure. And then that back area, we didn't worry about it because it's a staff location. And I will say if you've ever been down there, we you go there for an hour, you will hear people commenting about it. I had someone speak to me last week about they were just down in Tombstone and there was similar walls set up down there for a outside courtyard. People take pictures every day and I assure you no one's taking a picture of the the fence over by the bank. It's something that's definitely highlighting the corner there. So, and again, at any time we leave, we can take it down and remove it, and it will be not changing the building, which I believe was built in 1969, I think, from what I recall.

Can we make motions to have that removed? Yes. and then approve the uh overhangs part or the Yes, you can make your motion to approve a different fencing. Um and so yeah, you can definitely amend your approval based on that of what you want to approve for the fencing.

I'd like some more clarification questions then please. So I I just have to look at the history of it. You gave a good history. Uh I mean that particular building site. Uh I've been here 30 years. It's gone through the rental car. It's gone through a cigar shop, a thrift shop. Uh then the cold people took it over and and you know totally covered up that I'll say eyesore. That's my opinion. It does not fit the ex you what was there before. So then we have a new owner and uh what I see is yes it you know it's broadband says it doesn't comply with with number nine that part of the historical but at the same time it complements what we already have there. Does the building is it better now than it was before they took it over and made these changes? That's part of the context for me. And uh it doesn't take away it's it it complements what's there, but it still violates that little part of the interior guidelines. We can we can go counter to that, can we not? We don't have to follow that. That's not a mandatory Secretary of Interior guideline that if we if we approve this that we're out of compliance with the secretaries and vulnerable,

but it does set a precedent again that we start digging ourselves a hole that we can't get out of. We're into that problem already.

I wasn't asking I wasn't asking the chair. I was just putting a rhetorical question up there to to the legal people. So, as it relates to the guidelines, it's up to you to use those guidelines to educate yourselves as to whether you think that this is substantially in compliance with those guidelines. It's guidelines, not requirements. And so, that's really where the discretion of this commission comes into play is that you have to use those to guide your understanding of um what the intent is and whether it complies substantially with that or not. It's guideline, not a requirement.

If I may, I think one of the challenges is trying to use a broad brush for the downtown district because there's no other property like this down there that has an outdoor patio that has that seating capability. The the fence that it was compared to referenced the bank, that's basically a security fence on what they have to keep in and out of their property. Um, I also believe the guidelines say that if this was wood combined with the metal, it would be okay. So, if we were to follow that specifically, we could put up boards or planks over the rock so you don't see the rock and that would fit the guidelines. So, we're just trying to avoid that. Uh, chair, would you like me to read number nine again just for clarity? Okay. So, number nine, the new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. So, the fence isn't attached to any part of the building and it doesn't alter the building at all. And if you look at number 10, if the if it is removed, it does it would doesn't affect the character of the property or the building. So that's why it meets number 10.

Good morning, Alex Braramlet, planning manager. I just uh to address your question, Mr. King, based on the analysis that Broadband did, our ordinance as it stands doesn't address this specific situation. and that's why they leaned on the Secretary of Interior standards to help kind of guide that review process, but it's not specifically called out in the ordinance and that's why the the standards came into play. So, they were helping guide that direction, not part of the actual ordinance for the requirements. Diane Travis, I'm just going to say I'm disappointed that the changes to the fence and the block were made without going through the process again. Um, however, I'm also going to say that the change from verse block to block and that gabian is not so extreme that it's a dealbreaker for me.

Gotcha. And and the reason I'll address the versel lock. Uh, originally we came with the versel lock and then we we hired our own engineer and they said that the versel lock one isn't going to take paint very well. it's not going to look good. And integrity-wise and safety wise, it was better to go with the cement block. And that's why we painted it black and and did it for safety purposes. Any other questions?

No further questions, comments. Would someone like to make a motion? And no one has any questions on the coverings or it's on the slide too.

Do you mind if we interject on the on the patio cover? Can we go back to the the layout of the patio cover just so I can explain it a little bit? There we go. So, the purpose is um the what you see over the bar area, that is what's currently been constructed. And then the two remaining spots, the one goes all the way to the rail and that's just for coverage of the smoker area. And then the other is for the the seating for what is currently on the patio. Currently, right now, we have some easy ups there. um the the size or the gap between those two. We were told that that may vary a little bit. So, that's something, but they will be separate. They will not be one entire patio cover. Uh and this was based off of the the installer said that it's hard to tell the distance between the two. So, it may be a shorter distance, but it will be two separate units, not one entire unit. And I think originally uh we had presented it being one whole one and it was recommended that we break it up. So I just want to clarify that it will be still broken up. It's just going to vary based off of installation and it's according to our engineer and the installers. It's too hard to be specific exactly on how wide it will be or how wide the gap will be if that makes sense.

Mr. Chairman. Uh so that they're flat. They look flat. Now, that's a big surface area. Where does the drainage for that? So, it'll be It's not totally flat because roofs don't work very well when they're totally flat, but they'll be uh they'll be draining down away, I think, at a 6 in grade. So, it appears basically flat. The drainage will be on the on the towards the street, not towards the building. I'm not sure exactly on that one, sir. I mean, I would assume so. in reference the drainage portion. It's all guttered and all drain all set up on a system or it's just not going to

it's not going to splash down on the pavers and all the gas that are there. Yeah. It's going to be directed somewhere that it goes into the drainage system that you've already installed. Yes, sir. Thank you. By the way, one more thing. The the easy ups that are there are temporary. Absolutely. Yeah. Very temporary. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair Diane Travis, I move to approve HP26-003 as presented. All in favor? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I second that motion. All in favor? I I I against I I

Oh, wait. For who? Who's who supports it? Raise your hands, please. Thank you. three and then one in post. Okay, thank you. Motion carries three to one. Yeah, clarify that. All right. Thank you much. If I may, I have something. Um I just had a question with you all here last in November. You guys accommodated us with removing some cement barriers that were there. We I'm going to hand something out and I just didn't know if this is something that comes in front of preservation and if it does, great. We'll plan accordingly. But we just wanted to hear if that's something that applies. got to come to us. Yes. Okay. We'll review after the meeting. Okay. Perfect. Okay.

And just let us know. Okay. Nothing to do with the building at all. So, we just want to know a direction. That's all. Thanks, guys. It's all the same picture. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um Okay. Yeah, we'll review this stuff. So, that's going to have to come back through. That's fine. This will just make sure that's all.

Yeah. Um so for closing um we want to recognize um Mike King. This is his last meeting with us. Um he was not reappointed but we wanted to thank him for his time and his service to the city and we really appreciate you and everything you've contributed to a historic preservation the city of Prescuit.

Thank you. Uh this is my swan song. Uh moving on to something else. Uh, I was hoping that the some of the new people that were assigned would be sitting in the audience so I could give them some counsel and advice and that is have fun. Bring your passion and your joy and your staff work to this table. Thank you for the the support by the city coun city council city planning department in my time here serving you as one of your commissioners and also my fellow council commissioners here those that are absent as well. So, it's been a pleasure and I thank you for your support.

We will have new members next month. Yes. When would we vote on new chair and vice chair? Chair and vice chair. Your next meeting. It would be the next meeting also. Yes. Okay. And we'll do a brief training too with the new members here. Um so to get everybody on the same page. So there will be a meeting next month regardless. Yes, we have something. Okay. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you everybody. And thank you Mike. Thank for all yours. Appreciate it.