The property on Santa Maria Street, recognized for its historic value, was the subject of a detailed presentation by an architect seeking approval for additions and alterations. The plans included a new wing with a bedroom and study, a formal entry porch, and an expanded master suite, all designed to enhance views of the nearby golf course. However, the proposed movement of the garage to the front and expansion of the wings prompted a debate among the commissioners. Concerns were raised about the potential infringement on the neighboring property’s setbacks, the visual impact of the garage, and the historical integrity of the front facade. Some commissioners suggested alternative solutions, such as relocating the garage to the back of the property or replacing it with a carport, though these proposals faced their own challenges, including the removal of a tree and potential alteration of the property’s front appearance.

The discussion reached a crescendo with a 5-3 vote to deny the application for the front elevation modification. The city attorney confirmed that one commissioner’s previous business with the architect did not conflict with the decision-making process.

Another topic was the debate over the relocation of the Gondola Building, a disused accessory structure of the Biltmore complex. The City staff presented two relocation options, favoring one due to safety and accessibility. However, concerns about rewarding the neglect of the building by moving it and the substantial cost of nearly a million dollars for replication sparked discussion. Members questioned the justification for the expense and the lack of a defined purpose for the building post-relocation. Opinions varied, with some commissioners advocating for the building to remain in its current location and others exploring potential productive uses. Ultimately, the commission unanimously agreed that the Gondola Building should stay put and be preserved, with a motion passed to explore its adaptive reuse through a collaborative process.

The commission also discussed the appellate procedure for decisions made by the Board of Adjustment and Historic Preservation Board. The city attorney emphasized the importance of due process and substantial competent evidence. A debate ensued about the role of city staff in appeals and the necessity for the City attorney’s office to advocate the board’s position to the commission. Suggestions were made to have the Historic Preservation Office brief the Commissioners before appeals and consider having a separate representative for the board during these proceedings.