Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streetscape topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HTC approves modified gate/arbor (option 4) with Exhibit A; Belgian‑block edging debated
Summary
After public comment and a review by the Historic Structures advisory group, the commission approved a modified curved‑top gate (a tailored 'option 4' with lattice removed and an Exhibit A to be prepared). Commissioners debated the use of Belgian‑block edging and expressed divided views.
The HTC approved a modified arbor/gate design — a curved‑top gate without the full circular lattice (a modified 'option 4') — and directed the applicant to provide an Exhibit A showing the revised gate geometry and construction details. The Historic Structures advisory group (represented by Mickey Rowland) and multiple commissioners recommended simplifying the top of the arbor and removing heavy lattice to better match local precedent.
Applicant Tori presented eight options and confirmed the gates are salvage pieces in some cases; commissioners repeatedly said simplification would improve compatibility. Commissioner Joe Paul recommended an arched top with minimal members and clear sight lines; Commissioner Connie Patton and others asked that the circle/lattice be removed down to a simpler curved gate. The board coalesced around the modified option 4 and asked the applicant to submit a clear Exhibit A for staff review to show the second horizontal cut point and the simplified arch.
Separately, the board debated the proposed Belgian‑block border on the site. Commissioner Angus McLeod voiced opposition to extending formal Belgian‑block borders because it could set an unwelcome precedent; other commissioners noted existing precedent in the immediate area and supported its limited use in this application. The transcript records a split on how to treat the Belgian‑block edging within the application discussion; the motion to approve the modified gate with Exhibit A passed after roll call, and the Belgian‑block question was left as part of the application's details for staff follow‑up.
The commission asked the applicant to return Exhibit A drawings and clarified that staff can confirm final details during review.
