[00:00:02]
[Landmark Commission Meeting on March 6, 2023.]
THIS IS THE, UH, PUBLIC MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR DALLAS.IT IS 1 0 8 ON MARCH 6TH, AND I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER.
UH, I AM THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION, EVELYN MONTGOMERY.
AND OUR VICE CHAIR IS, UH, COMMISSIONER COURTNEY FALLACY.
AND WE WILL BEGIN BY HAVING OUR BELOVED STAFF MEMBER, ELAINE, CALL OUR ROLE DISTRICT TWO.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY, UH, PRESENT DISTRICT THREE COMMISSION.
PRESENT? DISTRICT EIGHT COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS PRESENT.
AND FOR THE COMMISSIONERS AT HOME, UH, THE, THE STATE LAW DOES SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE ON CAMERA, SO WE'LL MAKE SURE IT'S REALLY YOU.
I'M SURE I COULD TELL BY YOUR VOICE, BUT WE STILL NEED TO SEE YOU.
UM, AND WE, UH, I FIRST MUST ASK, WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS WHO ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ME, UH, THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING, NOT ABOUT THE CASES TODAY.
AND NO ONE HAD REGISTERED FOR THAT PURPOSE, CHAIRWOMAN.
AND NO, WE CAN'T, WE'RE JUST SEEING YOUR NAME.
PERHAPS SOMEONE ON HIGH WILL HELP YOU TO REMEDY THIS COMPUTER PROBLEM.
WELL, YOU HAVE A MINUTE, YOU KNOW,
BEFORE WE, UM, MOVE TO REORDERING OUR AGENDA AND HEARING OUR CASES, I WANT TO REMIND US THAT OUR, UM, OUR VICE CHAIR SPY IS GOING TO BE MAKING SURE WE STICK TO OUR OWN RULES, WHICH WE SOMETIMES IGNORE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES, AND THAT A COMMISSIONER MAY SPEAK ON EACH ONE AND, AND HOW LONG WE'RE ALLOWED TO SPEAK SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A SMOOTHER AND QUICKER MEETING AS WE MOVE THROUGH SOME COMPLICATED CASES TODAY.
SO WE BEGIN BY ASKING IF, UH, COMMISSIONERS BEI HAS MOTIONS REGARDING OUR AGENDA.
BEFORE REARRANGING THE AGENDA, I'M GONNA GO OVER THE SPEAKERS THAT I HAVE.
UM, CURRENTLY WE HAVE, UH, THOSE SIGNED UP, ALI
IF YOU ARE PRESENT AND YOUR NAME WASN'T CALLED, WE NEED TO FILL OUT A YELLOW SLIP AND PROVIDE THAT TO ELAINE IN ORDER FOR US TO INCLUDE YOU ON THOSE, THOSE SPEAKERS.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, THEN, MR. JOHNSON, UH, EXCUSE ME.
UH, DID WE ALREADY VOTE ON THE MEETING? NO, WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT TOWARDS THE END.
EVEN THOUGH THE AGENDA HOLDS IT AT THE BEGINNING, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND READ THAT? LET'S JUST DO IT AT THE END.
SO WITH THAT, UH, IN MY, I, UH, PROPOSE THAT WE REARRANGED THE AGENDA AS FOLLOWED.
FIRST, WE'LL TAKE DISCUSSION ITEM EIGHT, FOLLOWED BY CONSENT ITEM NINE.
THEN WE'LL DO THE COURTESY REVIEW FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEM 1, 3, 5, 6, DISCUSSION ITEM TWO, FOUR, AND SEVEN.
AND WE NOTE THAT A, UH, COUNCIL, THE COMMISSIONER HAS REQUESTED THAT CONSENT ITEM NINE BE MOVED TO OUR DISCUSSION AREA.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S PART OF THAT HONOR.
SO, UH, IS THERE A SECOND ON THIS PROPOSED REARRANGEMENT? SECOND.
[00:05:01]
ARE, WE ARE JUST REARRANGED AND READY TO MOVE ON TO DISCUSSING OUR CONSENT.FIRST, LET ME ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON A CONSENT ITEM WHO'S HERE, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO GIVE US ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR MAKE A PRESENTATION RATHER THAN JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ALL THE CONSENT ITEMS UNLESS WE NEED FURTHER KNOWLEDGE FROM ANYBODY.
I MOVED TO, UM, APPROVED CONSENT ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT AND CONSENT ITEMS 10 THROUGH 16.
SECOND, WHO WAS THE SECOND? OH, OKAY.
AND, AND SO I'LL CALL FOR VOTE ON THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL OF THOSE CONSENT ITEMS, EXCLUDING CONSENT NINE, HAVE GONE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND SO IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT, YOU'RE DONE.
SO, AS WE SAID, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH DISCUSSION EIGHT, BECAUSE THAT'S A QUICK ONE, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IT.
AND IT IS, UH, THE INITIATION ON PAULA STREET, UH, A NEW LANDMARK.
IF I JUST MAY CLARIFY, UM, THE LAST MOTION WAS TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM OF C1 THROUGH C EIGHT AND C 10 THROUGH C 16, BUT OUR CONSENT AGENDA STOPS AT C 14.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, IT'S C 10 THROUGH C 14? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
ALL THE CONSENT ITEMS EXCEPT C NINE WERE JUST VOTED ON AND HOWEVER MANY OF THEM THERE MAY BE.
STAFF, COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THE, UH, SUBJECT MATTER OF D EIGHT? UH, SO DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT AS IT IS IN THE AGENDA? LET LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT I SUBMITTED IT TO BEAR
I WOULD
WHAT DID YOU SAY? IF YOU COULD JUST READ THE ITEM INTO THE AGENDA.
RHONDA DUNNS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF REGARDING DISCUSSION ITEM D EIGHT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 700 PAULA AVENUE.
IT'S REFERRED TO AS THE RAY WORTH WILLIAMS HOUSE.
THE REQUEST IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INITIATION OF THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR 700 PALACE AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE REWAR WILLIAMS HOUSE.
THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY IS MR. WILLIAMS C LOCUM III.
AND, UH, WE DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK WHO I THINK WILL TELL US OF A SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT SINCE THAT WAS FIRST NOTIFIED, WHICH WILL REQUIRE OUR RESPONSE TODAY.
I HAVE TO ASK IF, MAKE SURE THE MICROPHONE'S ON, PLEASE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR YOU AT HOME IF IT'S NOT, DOES IT HAVE A RED LIGHT SHOWING DOWN AT THE BASE GREEN'S? GOOD.
I NEED YOU TO START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND DO YOU, UH, SWEAR OR PROMISE TO TELL US THE TRUTH TODAY? THANK YOU.
YOU, YOU HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES.
YOU MAY HAVE TO SPEAK UP A LITTLE.
I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE AT HOME ARE GETTING IT THROUGH THAT MICROPHONE.
JUST MOVE IN LIKE A ROCKSTAR OR WRAPPER AND JUST IT'S NOT ON NOW.
DEAR LAMAR COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS NOEL ATON AND I LIVE AT 61 11 WEST STREET IN OLD EAST DALLAS WITHIN JU HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I'M ALSO THE BOARD PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT.
I'M HERE TODAY SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS AGENDA ITEM INCLUSION INTO JUNIUS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE ADDED PART OF THE AGENDA ITEM, BUT ALSO IN SUPPORT OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF 700 PAUL MR. SLOCUM'S RESIDENCE.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR, MR. SLUM HAS BECOME A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE THROUGH THIS EFFORT TO PRESERVE 700 PAULS AND NEEDS TO BE COMMENDED FOR HAVING THE VISION AND DETERMINATION TO PROTECT HIS UNIQUE AND ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSE.
[00:10:01]
AS NOTED, UM, WELL AS WILL BE NOTED BY OUR NEXT SPEAKER.THE HOUSE WAS DE DESIGNED BY ARCHITECT DAVID WILLIAMS, KNOWN AS THE FATHER OF TEXAS REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1926.
THE DESIGN IS A UNIQUE MEDITERRANEAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH FEATURES THAT WOULD COMMONLY BE INCORPORATED IN DAVID WILLIAMS' LATER TEXAS REGIONAL WORK.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 700 POLISH IS AN IMPORTANT STEP IN PRESERVING SUCH A WONDERFUL PIECE OF DALLAS'S HISTORY INCLUSION INTO GENIUS HEIGHTS.
HISTORIC DISTRICT WILL GIVE THE PROPERTY ADDITIONAL PROTECTION WITH A COM WITHIN A COMMUNITY OF LIKE-MINDED RESIDENTS WHO VALUE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ACTIVELY WORK TOWARD, TOGETHER AND TOWARDS ACHIEVING THESE GOALS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE RENEE SCHMIDT AND I WILL POINT OUT HERE THAT THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING AS WE WERE ARRANGING TO PUT THIS ONTO THE AGENDA, THAT WE THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO BE A SEPARATE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT LATER WE LEARNED THAT IT WAS FELT TO BE BETTER TO ADD IT TO JUNIUS HEIGHTS BECAUSE BECAUSE IT WAS LISTED ON OUR AGENDA AS, AS MAKING IT A SEPARATE LANDMARK DISTRICT, INSTEAD OF THAT'S ALL WE CAN VOTE ON.
WE CAN'T VOTE YET ON THE ADD TO JU HEIGHTS, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS JUST, UM, PUT THAT OFF OR, OR VOTE IT DOWN TODAY AND REDO IT.
THERE'S NO, NO PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT.
THAT DOES NOT CAUSES A PROBLEM.
SO, MR. RENE SCHMIDT, PLEASE, UH, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UM, MY NAME IS RE RENEE SCHMIDT, SEVEN 15 PARK MONTH.
I'M CURRENTLY, AND DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH? I PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
I'M CURRENTLY CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC ZONING COMMITTEE IN THE JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I AM PAST PRESIDENT JUNIUS HEIGHTS AND LED THE DRIVE THAT LED TO THE CREATION OF THE JUNIORS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT BACK IN 2006.
BACK THEN, WE WERE APPROACHING 70% OF THE HOMES IN JUNIORS HEIGHTS THAT SIGNED THE PETITIONS THAT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT.
PAULA AT THAT TIME, WAS NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE IT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND WE HAD OUR HANDS FULL WITH AROUND 750 HOUSES SPREAD OVER 185 ACRES.
WE WERE ON THE VERGE OF CREATING THE LARGEST LANDMARK DISTRICT IN DALLAS.
OUR ARMY OF VOLUNTEERS REMAINED FOCUSED, BUT IT WAS A HUGE UNDERTAKING CONCURRENT WITH ALL THIS.
ONE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNED A PIECE OF VACANT LAND IN JUNIORS HEIGHTS BEGAN SPREADING DISINFORMATION.
HE CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS SOCIALISM, PERHAPS EVEN COMMUNIST INSPIRED.
IT WOULD PLACE A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON EVERY HOUSEHOLD, AND THE AUTHORITIES WERE EVEN GONNA MANDATE THE COLOR OF PANES THAT COULD BE PLANET.
HE DELIVERED HIS VERSION OF REALITY STAMPED WITH AN AMERICAN FLAG TO EVERY PROPERTY IN GENIUS HEIGHTS AT THAT POINT TO LESSEN CONFUSION AND KEEP MOMENTUM GOING.
WE TOOK WHAT WE HAD AND UNFORTUNATELY, 700 POLICY WAS LEFT OUT.
BILLY SL SLUM MOVED IN ABOUT THAT TIME THE DISTRICT WAS FORMED AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIS HOUSE INCLUDED IN THE JUNIORS HEIGHTS DISTRICT, BOTH THE HISTORIC AND ZONING COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD OF UNIONS HEIGHTS ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTED INCORPORATING IT INTO THE DISTRICT.
IT MAKES SENSE TO INCORPORATE 700 PAULA INTO THE DISTRICT.
PAULA IS COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS A SHORT BLOCKS, ONE OF THE SHORT BLOCKS TRIC THAT RUN PERPENDICULAR TO NEED SOME GASTON.
THE SHORT BLOCKS WERE AMONG HER PLACE EDITION, ALL OF WHICH EXCEPT FOR PAUL, ARE NOW IN JUS HEIGHTS.
BILLY'S HOUSE IS ADJACENT TO THE LAKEWOOD LIBRARY, WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE DISTRICT.
BY INCLUDED IT IN THE DISTRICT, IT WOULD HELP FRAME THE EASTERN ENTRANCE TO HEIGHTS.
THE HOUSE IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT AS NOEL HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT, BUILT IN 1926 BY DAVID WILLIAMS, THE FATHER OF TEXAS ARCHITECTURE, REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE.
WILLIAMS WAS DEVELOPING A INDIGENOUS REGIONAL STYLE, AND THIS HOUSE SHOWS MANY OF HIS AESTHETIC ASPIRATIONS.
IT HAS UNIQUE MEDITERRANEAN FEEL WITH THE TEXAS FLARE.
RAWORTH, A WELL-KNOWN DALLAS PHYSICIAN, WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS HOUSE AND LIVED THERE FOR YEARS.
THE INTERIOR, THANKS TO BILLY IS ALSO REMARKABLY PRESERVED.
WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON AN APPLICATION FOR JUNIOR SITES TO BE INCLUDED, ARE TO BE PLACED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
BILLY'S HOUSE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LISTING AND WOULD BE A HUGE ASSET TO OUR DISTRICT.
EXCUSE ME, SIR, THAT IS YOUR TIME.
CAN I ASK, UM, THE COMMISSION TO GIVE HIM MORE MINUTES? SECOND.
[00:15:01]
AYE.IN 2009, RICHARD AND BAILEY GALLAGHER BOUGHT A HOUSE ON GASTON AND LATER JOINED THE DISTRICT.
HE SAID IT WAS NOT A DIFFICULT PROCESS AND YOU WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY.
THE COMMUNITY OF JUNIORS HEIGHTS.
WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO INCORPORATE 700 PAULA BILLY SLUMS HOUSE INTO THE GOVERNING ORDINANCE OF JUNIORS HEIGHTS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UM, JUST SO WE CAN, YOU WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE ON WITH DEALING WITH IT AS IT WAS PRESENTED TODAY, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK IN ANOTHER TIME TO ASHLEY ADD IT TO JUS HEIGHTS.
DUN, YOU DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM MARCEL QUIMBY SHOWING ITS LOCATION, WHICH YOU CAN USE TO FURTHER VERIFY WHETHER YOU THINK IT, IT COUNTS AS CONTIGUOUS TO JUS HEIGHTS.
UM, WE WILL NEED TO KNOW THAT.
UM, SO GIVEN THE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN, WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO IS MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THIS ONE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANNA BE AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK
THEY WANNA BE PART OF JUNIORS HEIGHTS.
SO IT HAS TO BE REDONE PROPERLY LIKE THAT.
AND, AND I OR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS SOME FREE TIME COULD REQUEST THAT BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME.
SO I, I WILL, WILL MAKE THE MOTION ON D EIGHT 900 PAULA STREET, THE REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
UM, I MOVED THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER TO FURTHER REFINE THE REQUEST.
SECOND, WELL, WE HAD A RACE A SECOND.
WE'RE GONNA SAY, MR. SWAN, HE HAD HIS LIGHT ON FIRST, SO WE'RE GONNA SAY HE ALL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
DUNN'S STAFF TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION THAT MARCEL COLUMBIA HAS, SUR HAS SUPPLIED ABOUT THE EXACT LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY RELATIVE TO JUS HEIGHTS, SO THAT WE CAN BRING IT BACK AS AN ADDITION TO JULIUS HEIGHTS AF AFTER WE CONSIDERED THE PROCESS FOR DOING THAT.
CAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, BUT WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT,
SO I HOPE TO SEE, UH, Y'ALL NEXT TIME WHEN WE REALLY DO IT, IF, IF YOU HAVE TIME TO COME BACK AT THAT POINT.
NEXT ON OUR LIST IS WE ARE GOING TO DO A CONSENT ITEM NUMBER NINE, CHRISTINA MINKOWSKI FOR THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
OH, IT'S ON, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
CHRISTINA MINKOWSKI, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 9 24 31 PARK ROW AVENUE.
THE REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INCREASE SECOND FLOOR FROM EIGHT FEET TO 10 FEET.
UM, ARE WE READING IN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? I THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO IS, IS ABBREVIATED ONES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ ALL THE WHOLE NUMBERS AND STUFF.
STAFF, UM, IS, UH, THE RE THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, APPROPRIATENESS TO INCREASE SECOND FLOOR, SECOND STORY FLOOR PLATE FROM EIGHT FEET TO 10 FEET BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS STATED 1 31 23.
THERE IS NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.
AND I DID TRY TO PULL UP THE PREVIOUS PLAN, THAT PARTICULAR PAGE, AND THE NEW ONES TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S THE SAME HOUSE AND THEY LOOK PRETTY CLOSE TO, I'LL TRY TO SHARE IT SO THAT, UM, THERE'S, ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP DURING OUR BRIEFING ON THIS SUBJECT.
SO IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPEAKER ON IT, IT'S KIND OF ALL UP TO US.
SO LET'S GIVE MS MANKOWSKI A MOMENT TO, UM, OKAY.
PULL UP THESE PICTURES THAT WE MAY VIEW THEM.
THAT'S AS CLOSE AS I CAN GET THEM TO BE TOGETHER.
UM, THE, THE DARKER, THE ONE IN THE BACK, THE DARKER ONE, THOSE ARE THE PREVIOUS PLANS.
AND THE, THIS ONE HERE, THOSE ARE THE NEW PLANS.
AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE 10 FOOT, WHICH BRINGS THE TOTAL HEIGHT TO 33 FEET, SIX AND A HALF INCHES.
AND THE, THE TOTAL REGULA, THE, THE MAX FOR THIS DISTRICT IS 36 FEET.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PLANS IN 2016 WERE APPROVED.
THEY JUST HADN'T FINANCIALLY GOTTEN TO DO HIM YET.
AND, UH, NOW THAT THEY CAN, YOU'LL SEE, UH, INITIALLY ON THE APPLICATION, THEY DID HAVE A GARAGE NOTED, BUT I TOLD THEM TO WAIT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON THE VACANT LOT THAT, UH, THEY DON'T OWN YET.
SO,
WITH THESE CLOSE TOGETHER, IT'S EASY TO SEE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW SMALL OTHER CHANGES BETWEEN THEM.
THOSE UPSTAIRS WINDOWS ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME ANYMORE.
[00:20:01]
RIGHT.NOR IS THE PORCH EXACTLY THE SAME AND MAYBE EVEN SOME OF THE OTHER UPSTAIRS WINDOWS.
SO I THINK THIS IS DECEIVING BECAUSE THERE, THE FLOOR PLATE, I MEAN THE, YOU MATCH THE ROOF UP, BUT THERE'S QUITE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEIGHT IF YOU TAKE DOWN THE, IF YOU BRING THE, THE REAR ELEVATION DOWN TO IN LINE WITH THE, IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT? I DON'T KNOW.
I, I'M USING TWO DIFFERENT PDFS AND IF YOU CAN BRING, BRING IT UP A LITTLE, CAN BRING UP A LITTLE BIT MORE DOWN.
LIKE THIS ONE, UH, UP, UP, UP.
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ZOOMED IN AT THE EXACT STAGE.
WELL, I THINK YOU CAN NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE OTHER YEAH.
BUT THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE ROOF FORM, WHICH NO, I DIDN'T REALIZE BEFORE.
UM, AND MATTER I MIGHT ADD, JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE 36 FEET AT HEIGHT, DOESN'T MEAN THIS BUILDING AUTOMATICALLY GOES 36 FEET AT HEIGHT.
IT, IT'S GOTTA FIT THE RIGHT, RIGHT.
THE DISTRICT THAT WAS JUST PER ORDINANCE.
UM, SO NOW THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY ELSE HAD THAT THEY WANNA ADD INTO OUR DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, YOU SAID THAT, UH, CHRISTINA, YOU SAID THAT THE NEW ELEVATION OR ROOF HEIGHT IS 33 INCHES.
ARE THERE OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA THAT, UH, ARE COMPATIBLE TO THAT HEIGHT? UM, IT WAS 33 FEET, SIX AND A HALF INCHES.
IS THE, YEAH, I'M SORRY, HEIGHT, 33 FEET.
UHHUH
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER TWO STORY HOMES ON THAT STREET.
I DON'T KNOW THEIR EXACT, UH, HEIGHTS, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE ARE, I SAW, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF TWO-STORY HOMES, WHETHER THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING OR NOT, UH, I CAN'T TELL YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF OR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST TODAY WITH THE DRAWING THEY SUBMITTED AND THE WORDING THAT WAS ABOUT RAISING THE FLOOR PLATE.
ARE WE ALSO APPROVING THOSE OTHER SUBTLE DIFFERENCES THAT I SEE IN THE DRAWINGS? ANY CHANCE THAT HAPPENS, YOU WOULD JUST BE APPROVING WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTED AS DEPICTED ON THE PLATE.
THAT'S WHY I ONLY PUT THE, ALL RIGHT.
YOUR, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? THE ISSUE, LET, BRING THE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP EARLIER IS THAT THIS IS A STREET OF PREDOMINANTLY WHAT'S CALLED THE CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW.
THERE ARE BRICK BUNGALOWS, AND THE ROOF FORMS ARE ALL VERY CONSISTENT AND POPPING ONE UP WITHOUT EXPLORING FURTHER HOW IT HAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE REST OF THE BLOCK WOULD BE A, A BIG, BIG MISTAKE.
SO I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
WELL, LET'S MAKE OUR MOTION AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT IN, UM, IN, UH, THE FACT OF CA 2 23 DASH 24 OH CM 24 31 PARK ROW AVENUE.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE RAISING THE ROOF WILL HAVE AN, A ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE DISTRICT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? THOMAS SECOND? WHO WAS THAT? I HEARD ON LIE.
IS THAT YOU, MR. CUMMINGS? YES, MA'AM.
DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON? WELL, MY, MY DISCUSSION, I GUESS IS JUST GOING BACK ON THE DRAWING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMISSION THAT APPROVED THAT, THAT SET, I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE PLANS TO SEE THE BIG, THE BIG CHANGE FROM THAT.
UM, SO THE TWO FEET, MY, MY CLARIFICATION IS JUST TO UNDERSTAND, THE TWO FEET IS A HEIGHT MAX OF THE INTERIOR, THAT'S WHAT'S BEING INCREASED, CORRECT.
AND THE ROOF LINE GOING UP TWO FEET, CORRECT.
SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE PROXIMITY AND THE WAY THE DESIGN IS LAID OUT AS A, THAT BEING THE REAR OF THE ELEVATION, I, I SEE IT CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER, OTHER PROPERTIES, UH, IN THE DISTRICT.
UM, SO THE TWO FEET TO ME, IS NOT, UH, INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A, A BIT OF A STREET SCAPE, SHOWING THE EXISTING MAYBE THREE OR FOUR HOUSES IN A ROW, AND HOW THIS ONE EITHER FITS OR DOESN'T FIT THAT, THAT BLOCK PHASE OR STREET SCAPE.
[00:25:01]
I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS.DRAWING DOESN'T TELL ME ANYTHING.
IT DOESN'T TELL ME HOW IT AFFECTS THE STREET.
UH, MAYBE TWO FEET RAISING THE ROOF TWO FEET IS NO BIG DEAL.
IT'S JUST, FIRST OF ALL, IT, IT WAS KIND OF DISGUISED AS WE'RE RAISING THE FLOOR PLATE.
YOU CAN RAISE THE FLOOR PLATE AND NOT RAISE THE ROOF.
SO IT ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU'RE RAISING THE ROOF, IT'S, IT'S A BIGGER DEAL THAN JUST MOVING THE INTERNAL CEILING AND FLOOR AROUND.
I JUST FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE COMING BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION AGAIN.
SO MY CO AGAIN, MY COMMENT, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, JUST BASED ON, IN MY OPINION, THE BLIGHT OF THIS PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN SITTING THIS WAY FOR, WHAT, 15, 20 YEARS.
UM, SO THE TWO FOOT, AGAIN, THE TWO FOOT ROOF LINE INCREASE IS MINIMAL AS FAR AS A CONCERN.
I DO AGREE WOULD NEED TO BE CLOSELY LOOKED AT SPEC, PARTICULARLY HOW THAT GARAGE CARPORT SEEMED TO ME BEING CONNECTED BY A ROOF LINE, BUT I DIDN'T WANNA GET INTO THAT.
BUT, BUT AS FAR AS A TWO FEET INCREASE, I DO THINK IT'S, IT'S A MINIMAL INCREASE.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS, WITH THIS, WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS STREET, IN THIS DISTRICT.
UM, AND YEAH, IT'S SEVERAL TWO-STORY MANSIONS ACROSS THE STREET NEXT TO IT, ON BOTH SIDES.
UM, SO THE HEIGHT, THE TWO FEET IS NOT A BIG, UH, CONCERN TO ME WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHANGE.
UM, DOES THAT MEAN COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON, THAT YOU DON'T FEEL INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, OF COURSE, IF WE WERE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION, THAT GIVES THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS BOTH THAT QUESTION AND SOME OF THE OTHER ONES WE'VE RAISED, LIKE, ARE THEY REALLY CHANGING THE PORSCHE? ARE THEY CHANGING THOSE WINDOWS? BECAUSE THE CHANGES DO GO BEYOND JUST AN INTERNAL THING, IT TURNS OUT, SO THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK.
UM, SO THAT IS WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? I HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, WE'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS DENIAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE IS TOO MANY GRAY AREAS, UH, WHAT'S BEING SHOWN, THE CHANGES BEING SHOWN.
I QUESTION ACTUALLY IF THE, UH, THE DIMENSION IS SHOWN PROPERLY OF THE, OF THE, THE ROOF.
AND I THINK, UH, CHANGING TWO FEET COULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT.
AND, UH, I'D SEE, EXCUSE ME, I HEAR OTHER THINGS GOING ON.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE A CLEAN TRO, BUT JUST THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WITHOUT OTHER ITEMS ON THE, UH, ON THE PROPOSED, UH, SO THERE WOULD BE, UH, THERE WOULD BE NO GRAY AREAS OF THIS.
SO THE DRAWING NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP.
I THINK ESCAPEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO MAKE SURE WE, UH, WE ARE SEEING THIS CLEARLY WHEN YOU START CHANGING DRAWINGS, IT, IT CAN, IT CAN GET OUTTA HAND QUICKLY.
SO I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE DENIAL ON THIS UNTIL WE GET A BETTER DRAWING THAT ISOLATES WHAT, WHAT'S REALLY BEING PROPOSED.
AND IT DOES GIVE THEM ANOTHER CHANCE TO, TO COME BACK.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FURTHER VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? OPPOSED? OKAY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER OP.
DISTRICT SEVEN COMMISSIONER LEVINSON? NO.
DISTRICT 12, COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER? YES.
DISTRICT 13 COMMISSIONER SLAVE? YES.
[00:30:02]
UH, FOUR NOS.SO THE MOTION HAS STILL CARRIED, BUT OF COURSE WHAT WE'RE HOPING WILL HAPPEN IS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL DISCUSS IT WITH STAFF, AND STAFF WILL LET THEM KNOW WHAT OUR REAL CONCERNS WERE.
PLEASE COME BACK WITH THE EXACT DRAWING YOU WANT, AND, UM, LET STAFF HELP THEM CRAFT THEIR REQUEST TO COVER WHATEVER IS DIFFERENT IN THIS NEW ONE SINCE 2016.
THEY COULD HAVE HAD A FEW NEW IDEAS SINCE THEN.
IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THE HOUSE, AND IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING IT'S AWFUL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
JUST, UM, WE WANNA SEE THE ACTUAL DRAWING OF WHAT WE'RE APPROVING AND DISCUSS THAT HEIGHT THING AND THAT, UM, IT WOULD HELP TO SEE THE HEIGHT AND CONTEXT OF OTHER HEIGHTS
BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WILL ASK STAFF AND STAFF WILL HELP THEM WITH THAT.
SO WE MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ONE, WHICH IS OUR COURTESY REVIEW, COURTESY REVIEW ONE.
AND COMMISSIONER SWAN IS STEPPING OUTSIDE THE CUSING HIMSELF.
UH, I DO HAVE A QUICK AMENDMENT.
I DID CHANGE THE STAFF FEEDBACK ON THIS, SO I WILL READ WHAT MY CURRENT STAFF FEEDBACK IS INTO THE RECORD.
AND WE'LL TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
RHONDA DUNN ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF, UH, REVIEWING COURTESY REVIEW.
ITEM ONE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 100 NORTH MOORE STREET IN THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CR 2 23 DASH OH.
STAFF FEEDBACK IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 10TH STREET BETWEEN I 35 AND EAST CLARATON DRIVE BE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FINAL DESIGN, AS WELL AS ANY ASSOCIATED SITE PLANS, SECTIONS, RENDERINGS, AND DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEW.
AND THAT THE PROPOSED WORK MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND COMPLETED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION.
THAT WAS QUITE ELOQUENT AND INCLUDED, INCLUDED EVERYTHING.
WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER REGISTERED FOR THIS, UM, ALI HATI.
GOOD MORNING, ALI? YES, MA'AM.
YOU WERE USUALLY HERE ALWAYS BEFORE, SO, YES, MA'AM.
YOU MUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR ABSOLUTELY MA'AM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, NAFI, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AT THREE 20 EAST JEFFERSON, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU WILL TELL US THE TRUTH? I DO.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS THIS PROJECT WITH US.
SO, AS YOU KNOW, UM, THE 10TH STREET PROJECT IS A PART OF, UH, THE BOND PROGRAM.
THAT IT HAS BEEN VOTED BY PEOPLE AND APPROVED BEFORE.
AND, UM, AS A PART OF OUR CONSTRUCTION, UM, WE WERE GOING TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF PREPAREDNESS FOR THE, UH, IMPROVEMENT IN THE HISTORIC DESIGN.
AND WE RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION THAT, UH, THERE WERE SOME CONCERN ABOUT, UM, STABILITY OF THE SLOPE OF THERY.
WE ADDED, UM, ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES TO OUR SCOPE, AND ALSO THEY'RE GONNA PROVIDE US, UH, GUIDANCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
ALSO, WE ARE GOING TO, UM, STABILIZE THE SLOPE OF THE CEMETERY, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY OUT SCOPE OF WORK, BUT WE ADDED THAT, UM, TO, UM, HAVE THAT ASSURANCE ALSO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE GOING TO STABILIZE IT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM GEOTECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING, UH, FIRMS, UH, THAT THERE, OUR CONSULTANT, UH, INVESTIGATING THIS MATTER.
YEAH, YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR CAMERA ON BECAUSE THE ATTORNEYS SAY IT'S THE STATE LAW.
WE HAVE TO SEE YOU THE WHOLE TIME YOU'RE TALKING.
SO WE SEE, UM, MY CAMERA IS ON.
YES, I, I GUESS, UM, CONNECTION.
I THINK, I BELIEVE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I'M SORRY.
[00:35:01]
ARE IN LINE WITH THE, I BELIEVE WITH THE CODE THAT COVERS THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE HISTORY DISTRICT.AND, UH, WE ARE ASKING, UM, UM, THE COMMITTEE TO KINDLY PLEASE APPROVE OUR OBLIGATION.
OF COURSE, YOU'RE IN A COURTESY REVIEW TODAY, SO WE DON'T APPROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING WE JUST DISCUSSED WITH YOU.
UM, SO WHAT, WHAT QUEST, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS THAT HAVE NOT REGISTERED? OKAY.
UH, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU LEAVE, YOU MUST FILL OUT A YELLOW PIECE.
SO LARRY JOHNSON, NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
UH, LARRY JOHNSON, TWO 14 LANDIS.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? I DO.
AND NICE COLOR SHIRT, BY THE WAY.
MY NAME IS LARRY JOHNSON, AND I'M HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE OAK CLIFF CEMETERY BOARD, OF WHICH I'M A BOARD MEMBER.
UH, WE RECENTLY HAD, UM, OUR ANNUAL BOARD MEETING, AND I WAS ASKED TO COME AND TO STATE AND TO REPRESENT THE BOARD AND TO STATE SOME CONCERNS, UM, UH, REGARDING THIS PROPOSED WORK.
UH, WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE YOU ALL THE LAST TIME, UH, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE, UM, IN BLACK AND WHITE IN PAPER FORM, UM, THE PROPOSED WORK AND HOW IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO LAST.
BECAUSE ACCORDING TO, ACCORDING TO PREVIOUS, UM, MEETINGS, UM, THE ARCHITECTS AND THE ENGINEERS CANNOT GUARANTEE, UH, THE LONGEVITY OF THIS WORK.
AND SO, UH, WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED DUE DILIGENCE FROM THE ENGINEERS.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO THIS RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT, UM, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ACTUALLY SUGGESTED, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED TO THE ENGINEERS ABOUT, UM, UM, AND WHAT THEY SUGGESTED IS SHORING UP OR ACTUALLY PUTTING BACK THE SLOPE, UH, THEREBY ALLEVIATING THE ISSUE OF A FAILING RETAINER WALL.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THE ENGINEERS TO CONSIDER, UM, TO RESEARCH AND TO, UH, TO PUT IN BLACK AND WHITE AS WELL.
SO THESE ARE THE CONCERNS FROM THE, UM, FROM THE BOARD.
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE ENGINEERS YET.
AND TO CONSIDER, UM, UH, OUR PROPOSAL, WHICH IS TO PUT BACK THE SLOPE.
WILL THAT BE IT? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
MR. JOHNSON, WHEN YOU SAY PUT BACK THE SLOPE, UM, EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS TO YOU.
SO, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, UH, WHERE THE SLAVE PORTION OF THE CEMETERY CURRENTLY IS, UM, THERE'S A DROP OFF.
AND, UM, WHEN YOU TAKE A, A GOOD LOOK AT THE DROP OFF, IT, IT'S BEEN GRADED.
10TH STREET HAS BEEN GRADED AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR TIMES.
AND SO, UM, AT ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THAT PIECE OF LAND, THAT LAND WAS ONE BIG MASS.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UM, IN ORDER TO PUT IN 10TH STREET, UH, IT WAS GRADED.
UH, SOME OF THE GRAVES, OF COURSE, ARE DISPLACED.
AND WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS TO, IS TO PUT THE SLOPE BACK.
SO ARE YOU, YOUR, YOUR STATEMENT AS I HEAR IT IN PUTTING THE SLOPE BACK, YOU'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE STREET? WE'RE TALKING YES, MA'AM.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE STREET.
WE RECOGNIZE HOW COSTLY WOULD BE.
AND SO, UM, ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS, WELL, ONE SUGGESTION WAS TO PUT THE ROAD BACK.
THE OTHER ONE WAS JUST TO CAP OFF 10 STREET, UM, PUT THE DIRT BACK CAP OFF 10 STREET, AND AT A LATER DATE, UM, PUT THE THROUGH ROAD BACK THROUGH.
SO WE WOULD LIKE FOR THE ENGINEERS TO CONSIDER THOSE TWO AS WELL.
UH, ABANDONING A STREET IS A, A SIGNIFICANT PROCESS THROUGH THE CITY
RIGHT? UNDERSTAND, I WAS PARKED DOING ONE ONCE.
IT WAS, IT WAS QUITE A, QUITE A LONG THING.
UM, I I, IF IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE OUR FIRST SPEAKER TO RESPOND TO MR. JOHNSON'S IDEA.
AND THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON FOR THE, UH, QUESTION.
UM, MR. JOHNSON, IF YOU REMEMBER, UM, YOU MENTIONED, UM, IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETING THAT YOU ARE GONNA BRING, UM, A PROPOSAL OF THE DESIGN TO OUR OFFICE THAT WE CAN REVIEW.
BUT AS OF TODAY, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM, UM, YOU FOR THAT REGARD.
THAT'S JUST, UM, TO CLARIFY THAT.
AND ALSO, UH, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW STATE AND CITY REQUIREMENT.
IT HAS TO BE ENGINEER, IT HAS TO BE, UH, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME LIABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
THE PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR US.
WE HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE PROCEDURES, THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT, THE CITY, UH, CONSTRUCTION STANDARD REQUIREMENT, THE CITY DESIGN MANUAL STANDARD REQUIREMENT, AND ALSO THE STATE REQUIREMENT.
SO WE CANNOT JUST, UM, I GUESS ELEVATE THE ROAD OR, UM, YOU KNOW, PUT 10 FEET OR 13 FEET OF DIRT TO ELEVATE THE ROAD WITHOUT HAVING ANY CONSEQUENCES, UM, DOWN THE ROAD.
[00:40:01]
THERE IS DRAINAGE COMPONENT, THERE IS BLOCKAGE OF THE VIEW FOR OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE.AND THIS IS DEFINITELY OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE AND OUTSIDE OF OUR RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE, UM, IT VIOLATES A LOT OF ENGINEERING RULES.
UH, ABANDONING THE STREET IS SOMETHING THAT PUBLIC DOESN'T DO.
IT ABANDONING COMES FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF THE, I GUESS, UH, THE WILLINGNESS OF THE PROP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO ABANDON THE STREET, THEY CAN FILE THE APPLICATION WITH THE ESTATE OFFICE.
BUT AT THIS POINT, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO PURSUE BECAUSE OUR, UM, I GUESS INTENT IS TO PRO, UH, TO PROVIDE THE QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVED THAT.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE BOND PROJECT THAT THE PEOPLE VOTED ON, AND IT WAS APPROVED, UM, AT THAT TIME.
SO, UH, IF THERE IS ANY OTHER QUESTION, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
UH, I THINK NOW WE WILL GO TO HAVING COMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS POLICY? YES.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR, UM, DIRECTOR HATHI.
I THINK THE INCLUSION OF THE REPORT FROM STANTEC IS A RESPONSE TO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND, AND I FIND IT TO BE SATISFACTORY.
I ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT IT, AND THAT WAS IN REGARDS TO THE EXCLUSIONS SPECIFICALLY.
I, I THINK IT'S A APPROPRIATE TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING REGARDING POTENTIAL HUMAN REMAINS.
COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THOUGH, THE ARCHEOLOGICAL, UH, TESTING AND THE DATA RECOVERY EXCLUSIONS, JUST SO I, UM, UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S REFERRING TO SPECIFICALLY? THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
UM, AS I MENTIONED, UH, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR CONSULTANT, UH, WE ADDED THE ARCHEOLOGICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, UH, SERVICES TO OUR SCOPE OF WORK.
UH, THEY'RE GOING TO SURVEY THIS SLOPE AND, UH, SEE WHAT IS NEEDED, UH, DURING THE DESIGN AND ALSO DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE STABILIZATION OF THE SLOPE.
SO THEY'RE GONNA GUIDE US THROUGH THE DESIGN, THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION, UH, WITH THE DATA THAT THEY GATHER, UH, WITH, YOU KNOW, UH, APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE EXCLUSIONS, THE ARCHEOLOGICAL TESTING, ARE YOU, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY REFERRING TO STATE THAT THEY'LL DO A SURVEY, BUT THEY'RE NOT SOIL TESTING, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT? LIKE, WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO THAT? NO.
WE DO HAVE A, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ACTUALLY.
WE DO HAVE THE GEOTECHNICAL, UH, ENGINEERING FIRM THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ANALYZE THE SOIL AND THE STABILITY AND ALL THESE THINGS.
WE ALSO ADDED THE ARCHEOLOGICAL, UH, SERVICES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES.
THEY DON'T TYPICALLY SURVEY OR, UM, I GUESS RECOMMEND ABOUT THE SOIL STABILIZATION AND STUFF LIKE THAT, IF THIS IS A QUESTION.
BUT WE DO HAVE ALL THE SERVICES IN THIS PROJECT.
THE ENGINEERING FIRM WAS DESIGNING IT, THE GEOTECHNICAL FIRM, UH, WHO ARE INVESTIGATING THE STABILIZATION PROCESS AND ALSO TALKING THEOLOGICAL, UH, ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GUIDE US, UM, THROUGH THE, I GUESS, HISTORIC, UH, CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS LAW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM YES, COMMISSIONERS? THIS IS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.
OH, UM, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HAD HIS LIGHT ON FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL DO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR AND THEN WHOEVER ELSE.
I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
FIRST OF ALL, HOW TALL IS THE WALL? WHAT IS IT MADE, WHAT IS IT INVENTION, THE HEIGHT, THE LENGTH, AND WHAT IS IT MADE OF? WELL, WELL, THE ONE SHOULD HEIGHT BE MADE OF, WHERE IS THE HEIGHT OF THE GRAVES? WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF IT? WHERE THE GRAVES OR HEIGHT OF THE WALL AND IT'S LENGTH IN THE MATERIAL.
UM, THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE SYMMETRY, UM, IT VARIES COMPARED TO THE, UH, GRADE, I THINK THE MAXIMUM, I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING AROUND 13 FEET, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
AND, UM, THE WALL WILL BE BASED ON THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, THE, THE ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION THAT WE ARE ADDING, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE WALL OR THE RETAINING WALL OR THE SLOPE OR THE SLOPE STABILIZATION WILL LAST, UM, FOR A LONG TIME.
UH, AGAIN, IT'S VERY HARD AT THIS MOMENT TO SAY WHAT WE GONNA DO, BECAUSE THIS IS ENGINEERING INVOLVED.
I MEAN, WE HAVE DONE THIS IN ANY OTHER PROJECTS, NOT JUST THE, UM, 10TH STREET WE HAVE DONE, UH, RETAINING WALL.
IN MANY OTHER CASES, THEY'RE ALL IN THE CITY.
UH, AGAIN, UM, THE HEIGHT IS 10 FOOT, 13 FOOT MAXIMUM.
UM, BUT PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS FOR US TO GET A GREEN TAG AND MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY PAY THE CONSULTANT TO DO THE, A LOT OF ADDITIONAL, UM, INVESTIGATION.
BUT REGARDLESS, WE TOLD THEM TO DO THE, UH, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION, AND THEY RECOMMENDED THE ENGINEERING WALL WITH
[00:45:01]
THE PIER AND ALL THESE THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SOIL IS STABILIZED.SO I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR, WHEN THE CITIZENS VOTED THE BOND PROGRAM TO RE DO REPAIRS TO 10TH STREET, THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR A 13 FOOT CONCRETE WALL THAT WAS NOT ON THE BOND PROGRAM.
SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SURPRISE TO THEM.
SECOND OF ALL, THIS IS AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT PUTTING IN A 13 FOOT CONCRETE WALL, WHICH IS NOW A ROLLING, UM, LITTLE BIT OF A HILL, IS AN ADVERSE EFFECT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THERE.
SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOME WAY THAT YOU CAN SHORE UP THE WALL OF THE HILL THAT IS THERE NATURALLY WITH, WITH STONE, WITH PLANT MATERIAL, WITH RIP WRAP, SO THAT WHEN YOU DRIVE BY, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THE HILL IS STILL THERE AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING IN AN ABUTMENT, WHICH DOESN'T BELONG IN AN, IN, SEE, 10TH STREET IS VERY VERNACULAR, IT'S VERY ROLLING, VERY CALMING, AND PUTTING IN A 13 FOOT WALL NEXT TO THE CEMETERY IS NOT GONNA MAKE ANYBODY HAPPY.
SO IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN REINFORCE THE WALL THAT IS, OR THE, THE HILL THAT IS THERE WITH PLANT MATERIAL ROCK? SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A NATURAL FEATURE, A LANDSCAPE FEATURE IN THE DISTRICT AS OPPOSED TO A RETAINING WALL.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I, I GUESS THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS I HAVE TO UM, MENTION HERE.
THE CITIZEN DIDN'T VOTE ON THE WALL, UH, OR RETAINING WALL WHEN THEY VOTED ON THE 10TH STREET AND THE WALL WASN'T PART OF THE SCOPE OF OUR PROJECT, WE WERE JUST GOING TO REMOVE THE STREET AND REPLACE IT WITH THE NEWER MATERIAL, WHICH IS THE SAME STANDARD CONCRETE, UM, ROADWAY.
WE ALSO REALIGN THE ROADWAY TO STAY AWAY FROM THE SLOPE TO NOT IMPACT IT AT ALL BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA IMPACT ANY SLOPE OF ANY SYMMETRY IN THE, REGARDLESS IF IT'S IN HISTORICAL OR NOT HISTORY, BECAUSE THAT'S VIOLATING THE, UH, RULES AND, AND THE LAW.
UM, SO WE'RE ADDING THE STABILIZATION ON THE WALL PER THE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
AND WE ARE ADDING MORE SERVICES TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS A CONCERN, WE CAN HAVE RECEIPT WHILE WE ARE DOING THE CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE COST OF THIS RETAINING WALLS IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, UM, THE DESIGN AND COST.
BUT I GUESS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE EVEN MORE, WE HAVE TO INVEST, WE HAVE TO PAY THE CONSULTANT FOR A PROJECT THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT GOES, IF IT MOVES FORWARD ON NINE.
UM, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A CONSULTANT AND WE CAN INVEST UP TO SO MUCH TO SEE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS, I GUESS, ADDRESSING THE CONCERN OR NOT.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY FOR CONSULTANT TO GIVE US THE, THE DESIGN TO GIVE US THE, UM, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY, UM, WHAT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BUILD IS GOING TO LAST.
KEEP IN MIND, PLEASE, THAT THE SLOPE GONNA FAIL REGARDLESS OF THIS CONSTRUCTION.
I MEAN, OUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT, ANY IMPACT TO THE SLOW STABILITY OF THE SYMMETRY.
EVEN IF WE SAY, OKAY, WE ARE NOT GONNA DO THIS PROJECT AT ALL.
UH, AT THAT POINT THEN SOMEONE HAS TO THINK ABOUT IT, HOW WE GONNA STABILIZE IT? WE, WE SAY WE ARE GONNA ABSORB THE CAUSE OF THE RETAINING WALL.
AND THE ORIGINAL, UM, I BELIEVE, UM, INVESTIGATION THAT THE CONSULTANT DID FOR US WAS A WALL.
AND OF COURSE IT HAS TO BE A CONCRETE WALL, UH, TO BE ABLE TO STABILIZE THIS SLOPE.
UM, THIS IS SLOPE IS FAILING, AS I MENTIONED, AND THERE ARE NOT TOO MANY VARIATIONS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY FOLLOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE IS A LIABILITY WHEN WE ARE BUILDING A WALL.
AND, UH, THAT'S WHY WE ALWAYS AVOID TO BUILD A WALL BECAUSE THE LIABILITY IS VERY HUGE.
AND IF WE ACCEPT BUILD A WALL, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT, UM, BASED ON THE FULLY ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION AND NOT JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, GETTING JUST THE WALL CONSTRUCTED JUST FOR THE AESTHETIC PART OF IT.
AND WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WALL IS, UM, IN LINE WITH THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT AGAIN, WHAT THE ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION WILL DICTATE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO RESPECT THAT, UM, OPPORTUNITY.
WILL YOU EXPLORE A MORE NATURAL WAY TO HOLD THAT HILL IN PLACE? A SOMETHING THAT KEEPS THE NATURAL, THE SLOPE THAT THE SLOPE
[00:50:01]
THAT'S THERE AND WITH OTHER MATERIALS, UM, ROCK, UH, PLANT MATERIAL OR RIP WRAP, UH, REINFORCEMENT THERE, THERE'S GOTTA BE OTHER WAYS TO KEEP THAT WALL, THAT HILL IN PLACE BESIDES A 13 FOOT RETAINING WALL.CAN YOU EXPLORE THAT FOR US? UH, AGAIN, IF THERE IS ANY METHOD THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY PRESERVE THE NATURAL LOOK OF THE SLOPE, WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLORE THAT.
I MEAN, I HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I, I GUESS THE THING IS THAT SINCE THIS PROJECT IS STILL ON HOLD AND WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD, WE CANNOT PAY FOR ALL THE INVESTIGATION TO HAPPEN.
SO, UM, MAYBE LATER ON, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO ADDITIONAL GEOTECHICAL INVESTIGATION AND THEY'RE GONNA COME AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, INSTEAD OF THE WALL YOU CAN HAVE OPTION A OR B.
IN THAT CASE, THEN THAT WILL SATISFY EVERYONE'S NEED.
BUT AT THIS POINT, THE PROJECT IS ON HOLD AND WE CAN NOT PAY THE INVOICES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA INVEST ON SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE DON'T KNOW IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD.
THAT, THAT, I HOPE THAT, UM, THAT THAT'S A CLEAR POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO AT.
THE PROBLEM WE'RE COMING ACROSS IS THAT, IN MY OPINION, THE WALL IS AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE DISTRICT.
IT'S GONNA BE DAMAGING TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND I PERSONALLY CANNOT VOTE FOR THAT.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT DEALING WITH THE RISK OF ISSUE WILL DO.
BUT IF YOU COULD EXPLORE SOMETHING THAT IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE DISTRICT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE, THAT IS IN THE VERNACULAR OF THE CEMETERY IN THE NEIGHBOR, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UM, YES, I, I THINK, UM, WE, WE ALL WANT TO SEE THIS ROAD GET UPDATED AND WE ALL HAVE CONCERNS FOR THAT RETAINING WALL AND GRADE.
UM, I, I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU HAVE A TIMELINE FROM THE CONSULTANT ON WHEN THAT STUDY, UM, OR DRAWINGS WILL BE PROVIDED IF YOU DO GET THAT APPROVAL, SAY NEXT TIME AFTER THIS COURTESY REVIEW? UH, YES SIR.
I THINK, AGAIN, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO, AM I ALLOWED TO TALK? I'M SORRY.
SO I GUESS I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE POINT THAT I MADE, UH, PREVIOUSLY, UH, WE HAVE TO PAY THE CONSULTANT TO DO THE EXTRA INVESTIGATION FOR US, RIGHT? WE'RE ALREADY ASKING THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WITH ADDITIONAL, UM, ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES AND ALL THIS, RIGHT? SO I GUESS AT THAT POINT, IF THE ENGINEER TELLS US THAT, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT OPTION A AND WE HAVE TO JUST FOLLOW THAT, I GUESS FOR US, WE'RE JUST GONNA, WITH WHATEVER THE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE GOAL, IF THEY'RE GONNA COME UP WITH ANOTHER MAYBE INNOVATIVE WAY TO DO IT LATER ON, THEN WE CAN EXPLORE THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THEM, THEY WERE SAYING THIS IS NO FAILING AND IT HAS TO BE AN ENGINEER OF ALL.
AND PROBABLY THE DESIGN AND EVERYTHING WILL PROBABLY TAKE TWO TO THREE MONTHS, UH, TO GET IT COMPLETED.
UH, COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS, IS THAT YOU? YES.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, UM, THE, THE, THE INVESTIGATION OF A POSSIBLE
AND THEN THAT COULD BE COORDINATED WITH LANDMARK AND COORDINATED WITH THE CONSULTANT AT THAT TIME.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING NOTHING CAN BE DONE BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S SOLELY UP TO THE CONSULTANT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, ARE WORKING WITH AND THAT TALK TO THEM, UH, AND, AND YOU CAN'T GET ANYWHERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE MONEY LIMITED ON GOING ANY FURTHER WITH THAT.
MY THOUGHT IS, WELL, IS THERE NOT A DESK, UH, ENGINEERING DESK, A CIVIL DESK AT, UH, AT THE CITY THAT COULD LOWER THE, THAT POSSIBILITY, THAT TYPE OF DESIGN AND GET A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD ON THAT END? IS THAT NOT A CAPABILITY AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU.
UM, I GUESS THE THING IS THAT, YEAH, WE DO HAVE ENGINEERING SECTION AND THEY ALL REVIEW ALL
[00:55:01]
THE ENGINEERING DESIGN THAT WE RECEIVE TO MAKE SURE IT'S, UH, FOLLOWING THE CITY'S STANDARD.I GUESS IT'S ANOTHER, I GUESS PART OF IT IS THAT, UH, AN, A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT THEY BOIL THE SOIL AND THEY DIG THE SOIL AND THEY TAKE IT TO THE LAB AND ANALYZE IT, MAKE SURE WHAT KIND OF FAILURE IS THAT AND ALL THIS THINGS.
SO THAT PART IS OUTSIDE OF OUR CAPABILITY IN THE CITY, CUZ WE DON'T HAVE A LAB, WE DON'T HAVE ANY, UM, I GUESS EQUIPMENT TO DO TO PERFORM THOSE TYPE OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT AGAIN, UM, OUR CONSULTANTS, THEY'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE GAME PLAN TO FIRST MAKE SURE THAT THIS ORGANIZED STATE IS THAT LIVES RIGHT.
AND DUE TO THE, I GUESS, SEVERITY OF THE FAILURE OF THIS SLOPE, THERE ARE SO MUCH YOU CAN DO.
AND, UH, YEAH, THERE ARE SOME SLOPES THAT ARE, THEY ARE IN A BETTER SHAPE THAT YOU CAN MAYBE DO IT WITH SOME SORT OF, UM, LIKE A GEO GRIDE OR OTHER TECHNICAL TERM THAT YOU CAN E STABILIZE IN ANY A BETTER WAY.
BUT AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WE HAVE WITH THE CONSULTANT, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE AN ENGINEERED WALL AND PROBABLY GONNA BE SOME SORT OF RETAINING WALL TO SOME EXTENT.
WHETHER THE WHOLE ENTIRE LENGTH SHOULD BE 10 FOOT 13 FOOT HEIGHT OR IT VARIES FROM MAYBE TWO FEET ALL THE WAY TO 10 FOOT BASED ON THE SLOPE.
UM, AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO THE, THE FINALIZING OF THE DESIGN THAT WE HAVE AT THIS MOMENT.
I, I JUST KIND WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID AND WHAT'S KIND OF BEING, UM, MAYBE HOPE FOR ON SOME PARTIES, I JUST SEE THAT THERE'S AN IMPASSE THAT UM, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN AVENUE TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITIES OF A REDESIGN.
UM, AND THAT, THAT WE'VE GONE DOWN ONE PATH OF A, A DESIGN EXPLORATION AND THEN, AND WE'RE BEING SERVED THAT DESIGN AND IT'S ONLY THAT DESIGN WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD CUZ WE HAVE TO STABILIZE ONLY WITH THIS DESIGN.
I HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, I I I SEE IT AS AN IMPASSE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE POINTING TO THE CONSULTANT AND THE CONSULTANT IS SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND THEN WE START GETTING MY SAFETY, UH, ISSUES INVOLVED.
AND THIS IS LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE TO GO.
IT WOULD SEEM TO BE HELPFUL IF THERE WAS JUST THE, THOSE EX, IF THEY'VE BEEN ALREADY EXPLORED, IF THAT WAS BE, WOULD BE BROUGHT TO LIGHT, UH, UH, FROM CITY ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, SOMEBODY, UH, HERE'S ALL THE POSSIBILITIES AND THESE ARE, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE BEST, BEST.
THESE ARE THE REASON THESE ARE NOT.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA BEING SPOONFED JUST ONE DIRECTION RIGHT NOW, ONE PATH AND IT'S ONLY THIS PATH.
AND THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF QUESTIONS AND BLOWBACK A LITTLE BIT FROM, FROM THE SITUATION JUST TO TRY TO SEE WHAT ARE, ARE THERE REALLY IS, IS THIS REALLY THE ONLY OPTION, UM, GIVEN TIME CONSTRAINTS GIVEN BOND, UH, ELECTIONS GIVEN MONEY? I JUST SEEMED LIKE THERE WOULD BE A, ANOTHER APPROACH, CITY ENGINEERING SOMETHING COULD GET INVOLVED IN THIS TO TRY TO GIVE US SOME POSSIBLE OTHER WAYS OF LOOKING AT THIS, UM, BEFORE THE FINAL VOTE ON, ON THIS.
CUZ I KNOW THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING DOWN THE ROAD.
UH, SO THAT I HAVE CONCERNS AND THAT'S MY QUESTION.
AND MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF THEY'RE NOT IN OFFICE THAT, OR A DESK IN THE CITY THAT WE COULD GET A PART OF THIS IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO GO BACK TO THE CONSULTANT.
AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GO BACK TO THE CONSULTANT TO, TO DO ANY, ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIVE ON ANY OTHER DESIGNS, UH, IS THERE NOT A, IS THERE NOT ANOTHER RECOURSE GIVEN TO US? UM, THANK YOU MR. CUMMINGS.
I THINK PRETTY MUCH WE'VE ARRIVED AT, NO THERE ISN'T
UH, FOR THE SPEAKER, I HAVE A QUESTION AND OR TWO QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S THE LENGTH OF THE WALL PROPOSED WALL? UM, THE LENGTH OF, I HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK TO BE HONEST, BUT IT'S PROBABLY ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE WHOLE SYMMETRY.
THE HEIGHT VARIES FROM I THINK FIVE TO NINE FOOT.
I THINK THAT LENGTH IS, UH, 330 FEET.
UH, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUE ACTUALLY JUST TEXTED ME, SO THE LENGTH IS 330 FEET.
THE, THE HEIGHT VARIES FROM FIVE TO NINE.
AND, AND AGAIN, I MEAN, SOMETHING THAT I NEED TO MENTION HERE IS THAT WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER INNOVATIVE, YOU KNOW, SOLUTION TO THIS, UH, ENGINEERING WORLD.
BUT I GUESS I WANNA MAKE, I DON'T WANNA, UM, MAKE ANY PROMISES THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I CANNOT DELIVER LATER ON.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HELP WITH THE CIVILIZATION OF
[01:00:01]
THIS IS SLOW BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S GOING, IT'S GOING TO FAIL ANYWAYS.SO, UM, I GUESS THAT'S MY POINT.
UH, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A BUDGET, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS EVEN A WORTHWHILE CONSIDERATION, BUT, UH, IF THE CITY OR WHOMEVER HAD THE EXTRA FUNDS TO DESIGN THE WALL IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD DEPICT THE HISTORY OF THE CEMETERY OR THE HISTORY OF 10TH STREET, UH, SUCH AS, UH, SOME BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, HAVE ETCHINGS OR WHATEVER, LIKE THE DALLAS MORNING, OLD DALLAS MORNING NEWS BUILDING, ET CETERA, UH, THAT I WONDER IF THAT MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE OF A WALL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF IT DEPICTED THEIR, THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I GUESS I'M, I'M SUGGESTING THAT TO YOU, BUT MAYBE EVEN MR. JOHNSON, UH, IF, IF THAT'S A, IF THAT COULD BE A CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT A WALL.
I, I, I, LET'S HAVE MR. JOHNSON RETURN TO THE MICROPHONE AND HE CAN SAY WHAT HE THINKS OF THAT.
AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WHAT WE GET IS A WALL, MIGHT IT BE A BETTER WALL IF IT DID
UM, AND IT'S, IT'S FUNNY, UM, UH, YOU'RE A GREAT MIND.
I'M A HALFWAY DECENT MIND, BUT WHEN I WAS SITTING BACK IN MY SEAT, I WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING COMPARABLE, UH, TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
AND SO, UM, UH, THE IDEAL THING WOULD BE TO, TO PUT THE SLOPE BACK.
BUT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE'RE PUSHING FOR THAT, BUT IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS OF, YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE THINKING ABOUT SOME TYPE OF A, AN ARTIST RENDERING OR, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, UM, TO MAYBE WE CAN COME UP TO THAT WITH A HAPPY MEDIUM.
IT'S CERTAINLY WORTH THINKING OF POSSIBILITY OF EVEN, YOU KNOW, DOING A MURAL OR SOMETHING AND THERE MIGHT EVEN BE GRANT MONEY OUT THERE, SOMEONE COULD GET IF, IF THIS WALL IS ERECTED.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OH, I JUST HAD TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.
UM, UM, WHAT IS THE COST OF THE PROJECT, THIS TOTAL PROJECT, AND WHEN, WHAT YEAR WAS THIS BOND, UM, REQUESTED? UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
UM, I BELIEVE I HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE STAFF.
UM, THEY ARE ACTUALLY HERE, THEY'RE LISTENING.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO LET ME KNOW ABOUT THE, UM, COST, UM, THE COST OF THE WALL ITSELF.
I BELIEVE IT ADDED SOMETHING AROUND, UM, ALMOST HALF A MILLION DOLLAR, UM, THAT WE'RE GONNA, YOU KNOW, ENGINEER AND BUILD THAT WALL.
THIS IS PART OF 2017 BOND PROJECT.
AND, UM, BACK TO, YOU KNOW, THE POINT THAT, UM, I, I BELIEVE THE TERM, UM, UM, UM, MADE ABOUT THE MO NEURAL OR ANY, UM, KIND OF OTHER THINGS ON THE WALL, UH, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.
I MEAN, OUR PLAN WASN'T TO ACTUALLY BUILD A PLAIN WALL.
WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A WALL THAT MAYBE CAN HAVE SOME SORT OF CHARACTERISTIC TO IT.
UM, CONSULTING WITH, UM, I GUESS, UM, OTHER AGENCIES TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF, UM, ART OR DESIGN THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, IS IN LINE WITH THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ARE ALL ON BOARD WITH THAT.
UH, I BELIEVE THE COST OF THE, UH, PROJECT, UM, I WAS ADVISED THAT IT'S 3 MILLION.
UM, I HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, SIR.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? NESS? OH, WELL WE CAN DO THAT.
CAUSE COURTESY REVIEW, SO WE DO IT DIFFERENTLY.
YEAH, I GUESS MY, MY COMMENT, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK THAT THIS LAST TIME SOME, UM, COMMEMORATE COMMEMORATIVE ART, UM, AND MADE THAT SUGGESTION THE LAST TIME.
UM, BUT I GUESS MY, MY PAUSE IN HEARING EVERYTHING IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT LED ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, ABOUT THIS AREA, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PRESERVATION, SO WE KNOW WHEN THE STREET WAS ERECTED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE REPRESENTATION TO PUSH BACK, UM, ON THE THOROUGHFARE.
SO I, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND READING THE, THE RATIONALE TO BRING IT BACK TO GRADE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND I COMPARE THIS TO THE SM RIGHT, UM, FREEWAY WHERE THAT'S BEING BROUGHT TO GRADE RIGHT NOW.
[01:05:01]
IT IS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S COSTLY AND IT'S TIME CONSUMING, AND YOU'RE NOW, YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS POLITICALLY WHO'S, WHO WANTS IT.SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION WITH COMPETING PRIORITIES.
UM, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I HEAR THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. JOHNSON TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE AN ACCOMMODATION TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, UH, JUST A, A REASONABLE, YOU KNOW, TRIBUTE TO, BUT THE REAL THING IS WHAT WAS DONE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE TO ME, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, TO CITE THE, THE LEGALITIES OF IT, OR THE COST OF IT IS REALLY NOT JUSTIFIED IN, IN MY OPINION, TO THE PROBLEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, UM, I GUESS IT'S JUST MY COMMENT ABOUT THE AREA.
I WOULD, I WOULD IMPLORE EVERYONE, OF COURSE, TO TRY TO MAKE THE, THE MODIFICATION AS, AS, AS SENSITIVE AND MEMORABLE AS POSSIBLE.
UM, BUT ALSO CONSCIOUSLY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROAD PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH THERE AND BROUGHT DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON.
YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT HISTORIAN, NOT AS GOOD AS ME, BUT REALLY CLOSE TO EXCELLENT
NO, I'M SURE YOU'RE JUST AS, AS GOOD AS ANYBODY.
I AM A HISTORIAN AND MY, NO, THIS IS A REALLY DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR US.
THE, THE ROAD HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, AND THE ROAD IS GONNA HAPPEN, AND THE ROAD IS NEEDED.
PERHAPS THE ROAD WAS NOT NEEDED WHEN IT WAS FIRST PUT IN, BUT IT'S BEEN THERE NOW.
AND, AND A, AS, AS PRETTY MUCH WHAT MR. LIVINGSTON WAS SAYING, WHEN A WRONG HAS BEEN DONE, YOU COULD, IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY FIX IT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HARMED TO TAKE IT BACK.
BUT I'M NOT SURE THIS, THIS FIXES THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE, WHO WERE HARMED.
IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S BETTER TO JUST MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT IT HAPPENED, SO NOBODY EVER DOES IT AGAIN.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A CLOUDS FOR ANYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT FINDING OUT FIRST IF THAT'S MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
IN THE CASE OF THIS, THEY STARTED OUT JUST DOING A ROAD, AND WE SAID, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CEMETERY? THE CEMETERY IS VERY IMPORTANT.
CEMETERY IS GOING TO COLLAPSE.
AND WHILE THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO HOLD IT UP, IT SOUNDS LIKE BUREAUCRATIC PROBLEMS, WHICH YOU CAN'T ALWAYS FIX, ARE IN THE WAY OF DOING THAT, SUCH AS PLANTINGS OR A LOVELY WALL.
IT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN HAVE THE CEMETERY COLLAPSE, I'D RATHER HAVE AN UGLY CONCRETE WALL.
BUT EVEN BETTER IS A BEAUTIFUL CONCRETE WALL WITH THE WORK OF HISTORICAL ART DONE THROUGH THE WILL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THEM HAVING ALL THE INPUT, PERHAPS EVEN LINING UP A SCHOOL OR LOCAL ARTIST OR SOMEONE TO DO THE, IT'S ALBEIT ACTIVE HISTORIC INTERPRETATION WILL BE A STORY OF 10TH GRADE ON THE WALL.
SO IT IS A VERY GOOD IDEA THAT PERHAPS AMELIORATES A BAD, THAT MAY BE UNAVOIDABLE, WHICH IS A CONCRETE WALL, BUT THAT AVOIDS THE BAD OF THE CEMETERY SLIDING DOWN THE SLOPE, WHICH IS WORSE.
YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT IN THIS WORLD, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY VOTE TODAY.
WE'VE EXPRESSED A COUPLE DIFFERENT, UM, CONCERNS, LEAVING YOU COMPLETELY CONFUSED MR. TAVI AS TO WHAT WE AS A GROUP THINK.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE AS A GROUP THINK EITHER, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU CAME TO ASK US WHAT TO DO.
AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO SAY MORE BEFORE WE, WE, WE LET THE PEOPLE, THE PICTURES ON THIS ONE GO WITH AS MUCH ADVICE AS WE CAN GIVE THEM.
N NEVER GIVE A HISTORIAN AN OPPORTUN, A PUBLIC HISTORIAN, AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A MURAL ON A WALL, BECAUSE WE'LL ALWAYS GO FOR THAT.
WE HOPE TO SEE YOU BACK WITH YOUR ACTUAL CA I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU WHAT IT SHOULD BE, BUT YOU HEARD SOME OF OUR OPINION.
WE'LL THINK UP MORE OPINIONS WHILE YOU'RE GONE, SO WE CAN CONFUSE YOU SOME MORE.
OKAY, WE ARE NOW READY FOR D ONE, CORRECT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START TALKING ABOUT D ONE STAFF.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2002 COMMERCE STREET IN
[01:10:01]
THE HARWOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT.THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2023 DASH 2 28 R D.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ADDITION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW CONSTRUCTION BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS INCONSISTENT WITH HARWOOD DISTRICT'S PRESERVATION CRITERIA, SECTIONS 4.1, 4.3, AND 4.6 PERTAINING TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH FOUR DOT 5 0 1, SUBSECTION G SIX C, ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SOMEONE OVER THERE ALSO THE SPEAKER FOR THIS, SIR, IN THE BACK.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU A SPEAKER ON THIS ONE? THE COMMERCE STREET ONE? YES, I'M OKAY.
WELL THEN WE JUST HAVE ONE SPEAKER.
UH, YOU MAY GO AHEAD, SIR, WITH YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS IAN, O UH, 1217 MAIN STREET, SUITE 500, DALLAS, TEXAS 75 202.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU'LL TELL US THE TRUTH TODAY? YES.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT OR WHATEVER YOU WANT, LIKE TO PRESENT TO US.
SO THE, WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL COMMENTS FROM THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING, AND WE HAVE, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE RESPONDED TO IT, AND WE HAVE TRANS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE TRANSFORMED THE BUILDING ENTIRELY TO, TO BE OFF BRICK MATERIALS.
AND WE HAVE SET BACK THE, UH, FACADE OF THE BUILDING ABOVE THE THIRD STORY TO BE, UH, FIVE FEET, FIVE FOOT FOUR FROM HARWOOD, UH, FROM THE BASE OF, FROM THE BASE FROM HARWOOD, AND 9.8 FROM THE BASE TO THE FOURTH LEVEL ON ALONG COMMERCE STREET.
SO THE, IN DOING SO, WE HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN OUR APARTMENT AND ALSO THE, THE, REALLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS THEMSELVES.
SO WE BELIEVE WE HAVE RESPONDED TO ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THE PAST, AND WE ARE INTERESTED TO LEARNING MORE, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.
THIS IS NOT, WE'RE NOT DOING COURTESY REVIEW ANYMORE, SO WE START ONLY WITH QUESTIONS TO OUR APPLICANT OR TO STAFF WHO HAS A QUESTION.
YES, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION DURING THE BRIEFING ABOUT, UH, THE WINDOWS ON THE THIRD LEVEL.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDS, HOW ARE YOU PROGRAMMING THAT, UM, THAT FLOOR SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WANT AS MUCH NATURAL LIGHT, PERHAPS BASED ON THE PROGRAMMING OR THAT KIND OF THING? CERTAINLY, THE, UH, THE THIRD FLOOR IS ALSO FOR APARTMENT UNITS.
SO THE, THERE IS NO AMENITY ON THAT FLOOR, AND WE WANTED TO CREATE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BASE AND THE SHAFT OF THE BUILDING.
AND WE FELT THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO CREATE A TRANSPARENT FLOOR.
UM, SO THE, THE PARAPET OF THE, OF THE BASE, PART OF THE BUILDING WILL FORM THE GUARDRAIL FOR THE THIRD FLOOR, UM, APARTMENT BALCONIES.
SO THAT'S WHAT IT'S USED IS FOR.
AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD IN REGARDS TO THE, UM, THE, THE LACK OF A, UM, UH, COLUMN AT THE, AT THE CAFE, COULD YOU COMMENT ON, UM, SORT
[01:15:01]
OF THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE, HOW IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNED VERSUS THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE? UM, EVEN IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY, IF YOU WERE TO PUT A COLUMN THERE FROM THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE STANDPOINT, UM, IT'S REALLY, THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENT.AND OKAY, IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE, WE KNOW THAT WE CAN DO WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN.
UM, BUT AESTHETICALLY WE FELT LIKE IT WILL ATTRACT MORE ATTENTION TO THE CORNER AND THEREFORE CREATE MORE OF A DISTINCTIVE, UH, ENTRY POINT TO THE BUILDING.
UM, WHEN, IF WE CREATE A NEGATIVE VOID IN THAT, IN THAT CORNER, AND BECAUSE I BELIEVE PART OF THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS DISTINGUISHED, A DISTINGUISHING CHARACTER TO THE COURT, TO THE ENTRIES OF THE BUILDING.
SO THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS THERE.
AND, UM, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE, THE, THE GROUND LEVEL IS MOSTLY A VERY ACTIVE USE AROUND THE BUILDING, SO AROUND THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING AT THE BASE.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT IN TERMS OF PROGRAMMING AND EXPERIENCE, IT'S, THERE IS REALLY NO REAL DIFFERENCE THERE, EXCEPT FOR JUST A MORE GENEROUS, UH, OR A MORE, UH, SPACE THAT FEELS MORE OPEN TO THE CORNERS.
FELLI, UH, WHO ELSE HAS A QUESTION? I CAN SEE YOU AT HOME.
ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, MR. ANDERSON.
I MOVE IN CASE, AM I DOING THE RIGHT PAPER? WHAT NUMBER IS THIS? OH, I'M SORRY.
CASE CA 2 23 DASH 28 RD 2002 COMMERCE STREET.
I MOVE THAT WE REQUEST THAT SEARCHING PROP SHOULD CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION.
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW CONSTRUCTION BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CITING HARDWOOD PRESERVATION MATERIAL, 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, AND 4.6, THE BUILDING BASE.
THE BASE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF DESIGN OF CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
4.4 USE OF STREET FRONTS AND WINDOWS ON THE BUILDING BASE SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
AND THOSE BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS.
UH, THE DESIGNATION REPORTED FURTHER STATES THAT BRICK IS A PREDOMINANT BUILDING MATERIAL.
ALSO, GRANITE TERRA CARTA MARBLE AND CONCRETE BLOCK METAL PANELS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
FACADE MATERIALS, 4.6, THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING BASE MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING GRID PATTERNS AND MASSING PRECEDENT.
BUILDINGS ALONG HARDWOOD STREET, NEW BASES SHALL NOT OVERPOWER EXISTING BUILDINGS OF THE 20 CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, 15 ARE FROM 1900, 19 45 IN THESE 15 STRUCTURES, THE FIRST FLOOR BASE, VERY SIMILAR IN CONFIGURATION DETAILS OF MATERIALS AS ADJACENT BUILDINGS ON COMMERCE STREET.
THIS BUILDING, THE BUILDINGS BAN ON BOTH COMMERCE AND HARBOR STREET SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EARLY CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
THE SOUTH DEVOID RATIO SHOULD BE MORE TYPICAL TO THE HISTORIC BUILDING MID-RISE HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.
THESE BUILDINGS INCLUDE THE TWO LONE STAR GAS BUILDINGS, THE WHITE PLAZA HOTEL TOUCH GENER BUILDING, THE TAR PETROLEUM BUILDING DENIAL OF HORIZONTAL PANELS OF GLASS METAL PANELS, AS THEY'RE NOT TYPICAL TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.
THE LIBRARY IS THE ONLY CONTEMPORARY BUILDING IN THIS DISTRICT.
AND THE STANDALONE ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENT IS NOT TYPICAL TO THE DISTRICT.
THE SETTLER HILTON IS USED AS A REFERENCE.
THIS HOTEL IS NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS A REFERENCE.
IN ADDITION, HERE COMES THE POINTS THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT NEXT TIME YOU SUBMIT, BECAUSE YOU MISSED A LOT OF 'EM LAST TIME, SO I HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING.
REMOVE THE TOP BRA WITH THE ROOF AND REPLACE WITH A PARAPET.
REMOVE THE HORIZONTAL GLASS BAND AT THE THIRD FLOOR AND REPLACE WITH PUNCH WINDOW OPENINGS.
NUMBER THREE, REMOVE CORNER CUT ENTRANCE AS THERE ARE NO OTHER CORNER CUT ENTRANCE IN THE, IN THE DISTRICT.
UM, THESE ARE, IT'S YOUR MOTION WAS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
[01:20:01]
0.68, BELIEVE YOU SAID 4.1.UM, THESE ARE COMMENTS THAT YOU CAN ADD TO AFTER THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED.
HOWEVER, WE CAN'T ADD ANY CONDITIONS TO THE MOTION TO DENY.
THE PROBLEM IS THE APPLICANT IS NOT DOING WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
BUT THAT CAN BE PART OF YOUR COMMENTS AND WHY YOU SHOULD, WHY YOU'RE ADVOCATING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WE JUST FIRST NEED TO GET A SECOND, AND THEN IT WILL BE COMING TIME.
BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THIS IS PART OF THE RECORD, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE SAID, IT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD AFTER THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
THEN I'LL STOP FOR, SO THE MOTION IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PRETTY MUCH FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? SECOND? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER SWAN HAS SECONDED THIS MOTION.
NOW IT IS TIME FOR US TO MAKE COMMENTS.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH MR. ANDERSON, WHO'S MADE MOST OF IT YEAH, SO FAR, AND THEN THE REST OF US.
BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THESE COMMENTS ARE WRITTEN AND GOES DOWN.
AND I MUST REMIND MR. ANDERSON TO SHOW COMPLETE AND PROPER POLITENESS TO OUR APPLICANTS AND ALL OF OUR STAFF AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S WE TRY TO DO, EXCEPT WHEN WE LOSE OUR TEMPER.
BUT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE WE'RE PROFESSIONALS.
IN ADDITION, NUMBER ONE, REMOVE THE TOP BROW ROOF AND REPLACE WITH A PARAPET.
REMOVE THE HORIZONTAL GLASS BAND TO THE THIRD FLOOR AND REPLACE WITH PUNCH WINDOW OPENINGS.
NUMBER THREE, REMOVE CORNER CUT ENTRANCE AS THERE ARE NO OTHER CORNER CUT ENTRANCES THAT OR OVERHANGS IN THE DISTRICT.
NUMBER FOUR, THE FIRST FLOOR BASE SHOULD BE COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF SYMMETRICAL STOREFRONTS AND A CENTERED FRONT ENTRANCE TYPICAL TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWS LIGHT TO THE FIRST FLOOR AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.
NUMBER FIVE, THE SECOND FLOOR PART OF THE BASE SHOULD HAVE PUNCHED WINDOW OPENINGS THAT ARE TYPICAL TO THE CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.
I, I THINK THIS IS VERY PROBLEMATIC IN REGARDS TO OUR PROGRAM.
AND THE REASON WHY I THINK IT'S PROBLEMATIC IN REGARDS TO OUR PROGRAM IS WE GAVE VERY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK IN OCTOBER, AND THE APPLICANT INCORPORATED ALL OF THAT SPECIFIC FEEDBACK.
THEY CHANGED THE PROFORMA SUBSTANTIALLY IN REGARDS TO DECREASING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
THEY CHANGED THE MATERIALS ALL ALONG THE FRONT WITH THE EMPHASIS ON THE MASONRY.
AND I THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD A CHANGE IN, IN STAFF WHO MAY HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, ALTHOUGH I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY WHAT'S DRIVING THE MOTION BY ANY MEANS.
I THINK WHAT'S DRIVING THE MOTION IS DISPLEASURE WITH THE PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING AND A LACK OF CARING THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATED EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE ASK THEM TO DO.
AND I THINK IT IS HARMFUL TO THE PROGRAM WHEN YOU ASK SOMEBODY TO INCORPORATE IT, THEY DO.
AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND TELL THEM THAT YOU STILL DON'T LIKE IT ANYWAY.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT SOMETHING PARTICULAR IN REGARDS TO THE DESIGN, AND YOU TRULY THINK YOU'VE GOT THE MAGIC TO MAKE IT BETTER, THAT OFFER UP A MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITION AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHATEVER THAT CONDITION IS, BUT TO JUST DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, I, I THINK IT HARMS THE REPUTATION OF THE, OF THE COMMISSION, AND I THINK IT HARMS THE PROGRAM AND ASSOCIATION WITH IT.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
I HAVE THE BOTH, NOT I MUST, I MUST ASK.
I MUST ASK, HAVE WE LOST OUR APPLICANT? I NO LONGER SEE HIM ON THE SCREEN.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY WERE STILL HERE AND, ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAS A COMMENT TO MAKE? I DON'T WANNA GET INTO A BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN PEOPLE.
I THINK THAT STR ANDERSON HAS PRESENTED HIS CASE VERY THOROUGHLY AND ELOQUENTLY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER RESPONSES TO IT BEFORE WE DO ANYBODY FOR THE SECOND TIME? AND SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS ONE BEFORE AND NEED TO THINK BACK ON.
BUT, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND ON WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
BUT I DO HAVE THE MOTION IN MY HAND THAT I WROTE LAST TIME IN OCTOBER 3RD, 19 2 20, 20 22.
AND REALLY THE ONLY THING THEY CHANGED WAS THEY TOOK OUT THE, UM, MONOLITHIC PANELS AND THE, THE MULTIPLE MATERIALS.
I HAVE A MOTION THAT IS ALL KINDS OF THINGS IN IT THEY DID NOT DO.
UH, THE, THE TASK FORCE FOR THE FIRST TIME HAS MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE IN THE PAST.
THEY DID NOT HAVE THOSE DETAILS, UH, MUCH OF WHAT I SAID THAT SHOULD BE DONE OR IN THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION.
I FEEL THAT THIS BUILDING IS STILL A LONG WAY FROM BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT.
UM, THEY HAVEN'T, IN MY OPINION, DONE A DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE
[01:25:01]
IT FIT THE DISTRICT.THEY'VE DONE A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF CHANGES TO THE BUILDING AND BROUGHT IT BACK TO US.
SO I FEEL THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE FROM THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND FROM WHAT THE TASK FORCE HAS SAID THIS TIME AROUND.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST CHECK WITH STAFF.
WHEN DID WE FIRST SEE A REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT? DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION HANDY? IT'S PROBABLY IN, IF MY COMPUTER WOULD COOPERATE, I COULD PROBABLY LOOK AT MY OWN DOCKET.
BUT IT'S AUGUST, AUGUST OF THIS PAST YEAR.
UM, WE DO NOT KNOW, OF COURSE, HOW THEY HAD WORKED WITH STAFF PRIOR TO APPEARING IN FRONT OF US IN AUGUST, BECAUSE ALL THE STAFF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN DOING THAT ARE GONE.
UM, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD OR BAD ADVICE THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT THEIR, UM, DESIGN WHILE IT WAS IN PROCESS, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO THEY, UM, BOTH THE DESIGNER AND, AND THE DEVELOPERS AND US MAY BE A BIT OF A QUANDARY DUE TO NOT KNOWING HOW THIS GOT TO THE STATE THAT IT'S IN.
AND WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FAIRNESS OF THAT TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE PLANNER.
THIS IS NOT A HORRIBLE BUILDING.
IT'S A, IT'S A LOVELY BUILDING.
IT'S NOT THE ONE I WOULD CHOOSE FOR THIS PLACE, BUT I CAN THINK OF A LOT WORSE.
SO WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE MARKET WILL ONLY ALLOW YOU TO BUILD CERTAIN THINGS THAT MORE ALLOW YOU TO BUILD JUST ANY OLD THING THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE A NICE CORNER OR TWO STORY BUILDING, NEW MCK, THE ONE NEXT TO IT, AND THAT'S NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
SO WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING IN A COMPROMISING MOOD TO TRY TO HELP A BUILDING THAT'S GOOD.
IF NOT PERFECT, COME TO FRUITION BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA GET PERFECT IN, IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORLD.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER SPY AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON HAVE BOTH DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB OF VOICING TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, LEAVING ME TO BE IN THE MIDDLE.
SO THERE IS NOTHING I THINK WE CAN DO FURTHER SINCE NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO BE JUMPING UP AND DOWN TO MAKE A COMMENT, EXCEPT CALL FOR THIS BOAT AND SEE WHERE IT GOES.
BUT I, I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FALLACY THAT WE MUST BE CAREFUL THAT WE ARE NOT PUTTING OUR APPLICANTS IN A BIND BY ASKING FOR DIFFERENT THINGS AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
AND, AND, AND WE HAVE, WE HAVE, UH, DONE A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH, BUT THEY DID LISTEN TO SOME OF MR. ANDERSON'S ORIGINAL REQUEST LAST TIME.
SO PERHAPS WE CAN HAVE ONE MORE GOAL AT SEEING THAT ONE AFTER THE DESIGNER HAS ONE MORE GOAL AT DESIGNING IT.
IF, IF IT, THIS MOTION PASSES.
UH, I TAKE COMMISSIONER SP'S POINT.
I THINK I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF I KNEW EXACTLY, UH, MAYBE IF IT WERE BROKEN DOWN FOR US, HOW THE APPLICANT REPLIED TO WHAT HE WAS DIRECTED TO DO LAST TIME.
BECAUSE I MEAN, THERE WERE RESPONSES THAT SUCCEED IN RESPONSES THAT FAIL.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST FIND IT MORE HELPFUL, UH, IN, UH, MAKING THE MOST INFORMED DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE.
I, WELL, WELL, YOU STAFF COULD TRY TO INTERPRET IT.
IT, THE STANDARD IS IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, SO IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT IN FRONT OF YOU IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW HELPFUL IT IS.
IT WOULD BE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT, UM, THE PREVIOUS MOTION WAS AS COMPARED TO COMPARING IT TO THE STANDARD.
DO WE THINK, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT? RIGHT.
UH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UH, OUR, OUR ONLY CONCERN IS LOOKING AT IT AS OBJECTIVELY AS WE CAN AND, AND MAKING A JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND IT, JUST, I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND IT'S DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GET MORE INPUT, MORE PRECISE INPUT FROM TASK FORCE, WHICH THE CURRENT COMMISSION WEIGHS VERY HEAVILY.
DUNN COULD PROVIDE MORE INSIGHT ABOUT WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, WHAT THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS COMPARED TO WHAT IT IS NOW THAT THEY CHANGED OR MAYBE THE APPLICANT WOULD SAY BUT WAS CHANGED.
I GUESS FOR ME, IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BASICALLY STATE HOW HE ADDRESSED THE, UH, TASK FORCE BECAUSE STAFF APPROVED, BUT TASK FORCE'S, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS LAST TIME.
IN OTHER WORDS, SPECIFICALLY WHAT DID HE ADD THAT'S DIFFERENT BETWEEN TODAY AND OCTOBER? YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE
[01:30:01]
AT THIS POINT.I'M MORE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT IF THE APPLICANT WOULD ADDRESS THE CURRENT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH A NEW DESIGN.
IF THERE'S ANY MOVEMENT TOWARDS ADD THE, UM, THE VERTICAL PARAPET, GET AWAY WITH THE GLASS BAND ON THE THIRD LEVEL AND PUT THE COLUMN THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME INFORMATION AND THE APPLICANT SOME INFORMATION.
SO ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME SPEAK AGAIN? OH, IT'S UP TO ME.
LET'S INVITE THE APPLICANT
TO ADDRESS THOSE THREE ISSUES.
COULD WE CHANGE THE ROOF SO THAT IT HAS A PARAPET THAT IS IN MOURN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE DISTRICT AND GET RID OF THAT THIRD LEVEL GLASS BAN AND ADD THE COLUMN? CAN I SAY SOMETHING IN THE MEANTIME? A BIG CONCERN THAT WAS IN THE MOTION WAS THE, UM, THE, THE, THE BASE, THE, THE BASE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE BASE OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE COMPAT WITH THE CHARACTER AND CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, USE OF STREET FRONTS AND WINDOWS.
AND THE BUILDING BASE MUST BE ABOUT OTHER CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
THE MASSING OF BUILDINGS ON THE BASE MUST POWER WITH EXISTING GRID PATTERNS.
MASSING PRESENT BUILDINGS ON HARDWOOD STREET, NEW BASIN SHALL NOT OVERPOWER NEW BASES, SHOULD NOT OVERPOWER EXISTING CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
THIS IS LANGUAGE FROM THE ORDINANCE WAS IN THE LAST MOTION.
THEY DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR.
IT SHOULD HAVE PUNCHED OPENINGS.
IT SHOULD HAVE THE CONTINUITY OF, OF THE DISTRICT.
UM, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WERE IN THE, I DO THINK I THE CHANGE THAT WERE TOTALLY IN THE BASE OF IT TO AT LEAST WHERE IT LINES UP BETTER HEIGHT WISELY, JUST FEEL A DARKER COLOR.
YEAH, I, I DO THINK I SEE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE BASE, BUT MY QUESTION WAS TO THE APPLICANT.
SO LET'S LET THE APPLICANT, NOW THAT HE'S BACK ONLINE, ANSWER THE THREE ISSUES THAT WERE THE TASK FORCES QUESTION, THE PARAPET, THE COLUMN, AND THE GETTING RID OF THE, UM, THE WINDOW WALL.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY SAYING THAT FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE, WE'VE MADE EARN WE SINCERE, UH, EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
WHAT WE COULDN'T REALLY REACT TO ARE SUBJECTIVE WORDS LIKE COMPATIBILITY.
RIGHT? WE BELIEVE IT WAS COMPATIBLE.
AND I CAN TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND MORE GUIDANCE WILL BE HELPFUL TO US.
AND THE THREE THAT WERE BEING MENTIONED ABOUT THE PARAPET, UH, LOSING THE CROWN OF, OF THE BUILDING AND THE THIRD LEVEL, UH, GLASS AS WELL AS ADDING COLUMNS.
IF THOSE ARE ALL DONE, WE HAVE TO DO, UM, OKAY, WE WILL DEFINITELY DO.
SO WE WILL, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THAT.
BECAUSE PRIOR TO THE TURNOVER IN THE STAFF, UH, TO ITS CURRENT STATE, I ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THIS WITH LAURA AND MARIE, UH, PRIOR TO OUR SUBMISSION.
AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH AND THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE FINALLY CONFIDENT THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE AND HOW IT WAS BEING MADE.
UM, AGAIN, THE WORD COMPATIBLE IS VERY SUBJECTIVE, AND I RESPECT MR. ANDERSON'S, UM, DISAGREEMENT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION.
BUT I WOULD BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, HALF OF THE PEOPLE THAT, THAT ARE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS MIGHT AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH ME EITHER WAY.
AND WE'VE JUST BEEN ON THIS PROCESS FOR TOO LONG.
AND WE WILL TAKE THE THREE SUGGESTIONS BEING MADE AND, UH, OKAY.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM MY COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO MOVE.
AND I CAN SAY THAT I DON'T SEE THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TODAY IF WE DIDN'T.
I DON'T SEE IT POSSIBLE TO DO AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS WITH A PARAPET, CUZ I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PARAPET WOULD LOOK LIKE AT THIS, YOU KNOW, LIKE ANYTHING.
BUT I, IF WE END UP WITH, WITH THIS DENIAL PASSING THAT AT LEAST, UM, THIS TIME WE HAVE CONVEYED SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE IT COMES BACK AGAIN.
AND I AM VERY, VERY SORRY THAT ALL THE TROUBLES THAT, YOU KNOW, BOTH STAFF CHANGES AND COVID BROUGHT TO THIS LANDMARK COMMISSION MADE IT SO COMPLICATED FOR YOU TO ATTEMPT TO GET YOUR PROJECT THROUGH.
IT'S BEEN KIND OF CONFUSING TO US TOO.
SO I'M GONNA CALL FOR THE VOTE ON THE EXISTING MOTION, WHICH IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PRETTY MUCH FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
[01:35:04]
DO WE HAVE ANY NAYS AT HOME? UH, COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA.DO WE WANNA DO A ROLL CALL VOTE IN MY READING, WE HAVE THREE NAYS.
UM, I WILL SAY MY, MY REASON FOR VOTING WITH IT IS THAT I WANT ANOTHER CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT WHEN IT COMES BACK.
UM, I HAVE STATED WHAT I THINK ARE THE THREE THINGS TO BE MET.
JUST ME,
BUT I HAVE BEEN VERY PLEASED THE DESIGNER WAS COOPERATIVE IN THAT.
WHO WAS IN OPPOSITION? COMMISSIONERS.
I APOLOGIZE TO EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY IF I LOST MY TEMPER, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL DO THAT SOMETIMES
YOU'RE, YOU, YOU DO HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL FOR A FAILURE.
YOU CAN JUST COME BACK AND VISIT WITH US AGAIN.
OKAY, WE'LL, WE'LL WE HOPE THAT WE ALL COME THROUGH A AGREEMENT.
AND I'LL JUST MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
COULD WE HAVE A LINEAR FORM OF IMAGES OF WHAT, HOW THE BUILDING HAS CHANGED OVER TIME? CAN WE MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE NEXT APPLICATION SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES? THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD HAVE A LINE OF PICTURES OF WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE.
AND, AND THE REASON I ASKED FOR THAT IS I FEEL LIKE SOME OF THE PAST CONSIDERATIONS, THERE WERE MULTIPLE OPTIONS AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO HELPED, THAT'S HELPED CONFUSE THE SITUATION.
SO THERE'S A HINT THAT WOULD HELP US IF WE COULD SEE THEM ALL STANDING IN A LINE
ALL RIGHT, NOW IT'S TIME FOR D THREE.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE LOCATED AT 26 26 THOMAS AVENUE.
THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS STATE THOMAS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 23 30 R D.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW MAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 3 6 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT FRONT FACADES.
SECOND STORY, TRIPLE GANGED WINDOW BE REDESIGNED AS A BAY WINDOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE THOMAS DISTRICT'S PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
CRITERION SECTION 51 P DASH 2 25 1 0 9, SUBSECTION A THREE PERTAINING TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS PRESENT AND A LAWYER YES.
OKAY, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
BEGIN JAMES FOR OUR EIGHT 11 KELE WOODS TRAIL.
I AM THE CO-OWNER, CO-DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND I HAVE TO ASK YOU TO SWEAR, AFFIRM HE'LL TELL THE TRUTH.
I WILL NOT INTUNING YOUR CHARACTER.
JUST ASK EVERYBODY AS PEOPLE I KNOW.
YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE, WE'VE BEEN TRAINING FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.
SO NOW YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE IN ELAINE OVER THERE.
FIRST OFF, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DR.
UH, SHE WAS VERY HELPFUL IN MY, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD TASK REVIEW.
I, I WAS ATTENDING THE BRIEFING AND I DID HEAR THAT THERE WERE THREE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, ONE OF WHICH YOU'VE INTRODUCED AND I HAVE A QUESTION ON HOW THAT WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BAY WINDOW.
SO I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT A STAFF ISSUE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I REPRESENT TO THE LANDMARK PERMISSION WITH THE BAY WINDOW ON THE SECOND FLOOR? YOU, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND TELL US SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT YOUR THINKING IS.
SO THERE WERE TWO SUGGESTIONS.
WELL, FIRST OFF, LET ME CLEAR UP ONE THING.
THERE WAS A QUESTION BY ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS IN THE BRIEFING SAYING, HEY, DO THE WINDOWS IN THE RENDERING MATCH THE WINDOWS AND THE ELEVATIONS? THEY DO.
THE RENDERING WAS AT SUCH A SMALL SCALE, UH, IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED FOR THIS MEETING THAT YOU COULD NOT SEE THE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOWS IN THE RENDERING, BUT THE RENDERING DOES MATCH THE ELEVATIONS.
UM, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT THOSE WINDOWS, AND I CAN ANSWER THAT AS WELL.
BUT THE BAY WINDOW IN PARTICULAR, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD IN ANY FORM OR FASHION THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS.
[01:40:01]
I'M JUST A LITTLE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.UM, BY THAT I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE, UH, HISTORIC PRECEDENT TO USE FOR THAT BAY WINDOW DESIGN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
I KNOW WHAT A BAY WINDOW LOOKS LIKE, BUT NOT ONE COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD LIKE.
I ALSO, QUITE FRANKLY, LIKED THE SUGGESTION THAT CAME UP IN THE TASK FORCE OF JUST DOING THE TWO SEPARATED WINDOWS.
SO IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS APPEALING, I'D LIKE TO DO THAT IN LIEU OF THE BAY WINDOW.
SO, SO THAT BEING SAID, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN STAFF AND ME? AND THEN WE MOVE FORWARD, WE WILL PROBABLY ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT NOW AFTER Y'ALL OH, SURE.
INTRODUCE WHATEVER THING YOU WANNA TELL US THEN.
WE'LL, AND SO, AND, AND I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS, THIS POINT.
THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. GRIFFIN.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MEET YOU.
I'VE SEEN YOUR NAME, I PROMISE SAY THE TRUTH,
I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS AND, UH, THIS WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY WE THOUGHT TO BE FIND A VACANT LOT IN THE, UH, STATE THOMAS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I WAS WONDERING WHAT IT SAYS COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND LOOKS LIKE A HOUSE.
IT IS TIME NOW FOR STAFF TO ASK ANY QUE STAFF COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR OUR, UM, APPLICANT ABOUT WINDOWS OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANNA ASK ABOUT
DOES THAT MEAN SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? WE HAVE NOT.
UM, WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT ON THE QUESTION OF THE UPSTAIRS WINDOWS, THEY WOULD REFER TO WINDOWS OVER OF A WINDOW.
I BELIEVE WE COULD PROBABLY MAKE A APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION OF ADDING, OF MAKING IT TWO WINDOWS.
THOSE WINDOWS ARE SIX OVER ONES.
AND I CAN ANSWER THE PRECEDENT AS TO WHY I AM ONE PROPOSING THAT AND OKAY.
CUZ THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT, THAT WAS FELT NOT TO BE PARTICULARLY VICTORIAN.
DUNN'S POINT, I, I DID USE ONE BUILDING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, 26 26 STATE, UH, AVENUE OR STATE STREET.
THERE WAS A SECOND BUILDING THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE WORKED ON OUTSIDE OF YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT JUST ACROSS THE STREET BUILT IN 1890, IT LIGHT 26 26 26 20 STATE IS ONLY A HANDFUL OF TRIPLE Y MASONRY BUILDINGS THAT STILL EXIST IN THE CITY.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 27 23 RUTH STREET.
I WORKED ON A PROJECT THAT DEALT WITH, UH, A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR GRANT FROM THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR HUMANITIES.
IT ALSO WENT THROUGH THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
AND I WORKED ALSO IN CONCERT WITH PRESERVATION DALLAS AS WELL ON THIS PROJECT AT 2 7 23, UH, RUTH STREET.
I HAVE ARCHIVAL PHOTOGRAPHY FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS ON THIS PROJECT THAT HAS THESE EXACT WINDOWS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED ON THE BUILDING.
I CAN PROVIDE THAT TO STAFF FOR REVIEW OR, OR IF I NEED TO ANYBODY ELSE.
BUT THESE SIX OVER ONE WINDOWS ARE IN FACT ON AN HISTORIC BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT AT THE SAME TIME AS 26 20 STATE STREET AS WELL.
SO THAT WAS MY HISTORIC PRECEDENT FOR USING THAT KIND OF WINDOW IN THIS PROPOSAL.
IF, IF YOU FOUND WE WERE RESISTANT TO THAT, WOULD ONE OVER ONES BE AN OPTION? YOU KNOW, I, I'D, I'D LIKE, WELL, YES, OF COURSE.
I DON'T WANNA HOLD THIS PROCESS UP.
I DON'T WANT TO GET TRICKY OR, OR, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
BUT THAT SIX OVER ONE IS AUTHENTIC TO DALLAS AND TO A BUILDING THAT IS VERY MUCH A KISSING COUSIN TO 26 20, UM, ALMOST IDENTICAL IN THE ENVELOPE AS WELL AS WELL AS MASSINE.
AND, UM, IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS BUILDING JUST A LITTLE BIT.
THE BRICK ALSO THOUGH, UH, IS IS IS QUITE LOVELY.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER WAN? YEAH, A COUPLE, UH, SINCE WE GOT ON THE WINDOWS, UM, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE SIX OVER ONE AS NOT BEING TYPICAL OF, OF VICTORIAN STRUCTURE OF THIS KIND, BUT I HAVE SEEN TWO OVER TWO AND TWO OVER ONE ON LONG NARROW, UH, HISTORIC VICTORIAN WINDOWS.
WOULD YOU FIND YOU WERE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DISTINCT MORE, JUST MORE, I DON'T KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WOULD SET IT APART A LITTLE BIT FROM
[01:45:01]
THE 1 0 1? WOULD THAT ANSWER? YEAH, I, I, I WOULD, INSTEAD OF THE 1 0 1, I'D JUST LIKE SOMETHING A LITTLE DISTINCT WITH THE, THE BUILDING.AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
THERE ARE SOME FABULOUS BUILDINGS HERE THAT HAVE INCREDIBLE DETAILS.
WE WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT BLENDS DOESN'T STAND OUT.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE DONE WORK IN OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE DISTINCTION AND DIVIDE.
UM, AS WE ALL KNOW, WHAT WINDOWS DO THEY, THEY BREAK DOWN THE SCALE OF BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
SO WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SORT OF MASTER THAT I LIKE TO KIND OF TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE DELICATE.
SO IF I HAVE TO COMPROMISE WITH TWO OVER ONE, I CAN DO THAT TOO.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING, THE, THE WHAT, UH, PROBABLY NEED TO ASK A QUESTION.
UH, HOW DOES THE PORCH DEPTH AT THE ENTRY COMPARE TO YOUR, UH, NEAREST NEIGHBOR ON THE RIGHT, IT'S STEEP THE PORCH TO THE RIGHT, WHICH IS THE TWO-STORY, UM, UH, MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, I BELIEVE THAT WAS OPENED THE 90 BY A PARK.
UH, I BELIEVE THEY ARE ROUGHLY FOUR FEET, FEET.
THIS IS SIX FEET DEEP AT THE FRONT DOOR.
AND MY BUILDING STEPS BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THAT PORCH TOWARDS EIGHT FEET.
IT DOES NOT READ
AND, AND I'M, I MEAN, RENDERING IS RENDERING.
NOW, UH, YOUR, THE MODEL THAT YOU USED, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE, UH, PORCH STEP AT THE ENTRY? AND WHEN I, WHEN I TALK ABOUT DEPTH, I'M REALLY TALKING ABOUT BEHIND THE COLUMNS, BEHIND THE, YOU KNOW, THE BACK OF THE COLUMN, RIGHT.
THE CLEAR SPACE FROM THE BACK OF THE COLUMN TO THE, UH, TO THE FACADE WALL.
UH, YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THAT WAS ON YOUR MODEL? I, YES.
AND SO THE COLUMN IS A LITTLE BIT OF A, UM, IT HAS A SQUARE BASE, IT'S DORK IN NATURE.
RIGHT? UM, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT EXACT WITHIN INCHES.
I MEAN, I WOULD SAY IT IS NOMINALLY, I DON'T KNOW, AN ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES INTO THE PORCH DEPTH.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE THERE IS A LITTLE BRICK LEDGE FORWARD OF THE ACTUAL VERTICAL WALL FOR THE PORCH.
SO THE BRICK LEDGE AT THE FACE OF THE PORCH EXTENDS A LITTLE BIT.
AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BUMP OUT THAT PER ME THAT THE THREE COLUMNS SIT ON AS WELL.
SO THAT ALSO IS A LITTLE BIT FORWARD OF THAT PRIMARY WALL.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON YOUR PROPOSED BUILDING? YES.
AND, AND JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, JUST TO CLEAR UP ANYTHING, WHAT WE DO IN THE WORLD OF ARCHITECTURE IS WE USE OUR BIM MODEL, WE THEN GIVE IT TO A RENDERER AND HE OR SHE WILL THEN TAKE OUR BIM MODEL AND DO THE RENDERING FROM THAT.
SO THE RENDERING IS IN FACT A VERY TRUE REPRESENTATION WITHIN THE 16TH OR 64TH OF AN INCH OF MY ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I'M NOT REALLY MAKING MY, UH, UH, IT WAS JUST THE RENDERING THAT CALLED IT TO MY ATTENTION.
WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, UH, REL RELATIVE TO THE MODEL MM-HMM.
PART OF IT MAY BE THE WAY THE SHADOWS ARE CAST.
UH, THAT, I MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M READING FROM THE CAST SHADOWS.
UH, I W IT, IT HAS A FLAT LOOK.
THE FACADE, AT LEAST THAT I'M READING FROM THE RENDERINGS, HAS A FLAT LOOK.
AND, UH, I THINK IT'S, IT, IT'S MADE A LITTLE BIT WORSE BY THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ENTRY BAY COMES FORWARD.
THE ENTRY BAY HELPED ME OUT WITH THAT.
WHERE YOUR UH, WHERE YOUR FRONT DOOR IS.
UM, THAT, THAT IS A FORWARD PROJECTION.
AND THEN OF COURSE THE PORCH IS DEEPER ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO I I I WOULD HAVE LESS CONCERN WITH THE PART WHERE THE PORCH GETS DEEPER, BUT IT JUST, IT'S, UH, WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU, THE, THE CLEAR SPACE WAS BEHIND THE COLUMN TOO.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE'S A LITTLE BRICK PROJECTION, ALMOST LIKE A, LET'S SAY THE COLUMN BASE IS ROUGHLY 18 INCHES.
SO THE COLUMN BASE, IF YOU PROJECTS INTO TOWARD THE BUILDING ROUGHLY NINE INCHES.
AND SO I HAVE SIX FEET NOMINAL BETWEEN THE EDGE, EDGE OF THE PORCH PORCH AND THE FRONT DOOR, AND THEN ANOTHER ADDITIONAL TWO FEET ON THE SIDE OF THE DOOR WHERE THE BUILDING STEPS BACK.
AND THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ENVELOPE THAT I WORKED ON AND THE 1890 HOUSE ON ROOF STREET, AS WELL AS THE RESIDENCE LOCATED, WHICH I DID NOT WORK ON AT 26 20 STATE STREET.
THESE ENVELOPES ARE VERY CONSISTENT.
AND WHAT TYPICALLY WOULD HAPPEN, AND ALL OF YOU MAY KNOW THIS, IS THEY WOULD EITHER BUY PLANS FROM LIKE SEARS, SOMETIMES MO MONTGOMERY WARD, OR THEY WOULD USE ARCHITECTS THAT KNEW HOW TO DO THIS KIND OF A BUILDING, AND THEY WOULD JUST MAKE SMALL CHANGES TO THIS BUILDING.
[01:50:01]
THE TWOS, I'M GETTING MIXED UP WITH ALL MY TWOS, BUT THE RUTH STREET ADDRESS AND THE STATE STREET ADDRESS ARE VERY, VERY BUILDING, CONSISTENT BUILDING ENVELOPES.AND THIS IS A VERY CONSISTENT RETELLING WITHOUT TRYING TO COPY MM-HMM.
NOW, NOW MY PORCH IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE STATE STREET PORCH.
AND, AND YOU SAY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROJECTION, UH, LIKE THE, THE, UH, PROJECTING VAN ON THE LEFT IS TWO FEET.
SO, SO THE FRONT DOOR IS TWO FEET IN FRONT OF THE WALL ADJACENT TO IT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S ABOUT 18 INCHES OFF OF THE SIX FEET LOST.
SO, SO THEN WE HAVE A DATTO LINE FOR THE FRONT PORCH WHERE IT'S EITHER SIX FEET, FEET OR EIGHT FEET DEEP.
AND THEN THE COLUMNS SIT, THERE ARE THREE COLUMNS.
THE PORCH ITSELF, AND THIS IS A VERY CONSISTENT HISTORIC DETAIL, THE COLUMNS KIND OF COME JUST A LITTLE BIT FORWARD OF THAT SIX FOOT EIGHT FOOT DATTO LINE, AND THEY REST ON LITTLE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE COLUMN BASES COME FORWARD OF THAT CORRECT.
OF THE GRIP SIX OR EIGHT FOOT PORCH.
AND SO THEY KIND OF MIDDLE IT AND I'M SORRY, JAMES, WHAT IS YOUR NAME? UH, UH, ROBERT, COMMISSIONER ROBERT.
ROBERT, I FEEL LIKE COMMISSIONER SWAN,
UM, SO THIS IS, AGAIN, A VERY CONSISTENT HISTORIC DETAIL.
AND I'VE LOOKED AT THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM DIFFERENT PORCHES AND, AND DIFFERENT ALBUMS OF THE ERA IN TEXAS.
AND SO THE COLUMNS WILL SIT ON A LITTLE PLINTH THAT IS PROUD OR FORWARD OF THAT PORCH LINE.
AND SO THOSE ARE, LET'S SAY 18 INCH DEEP COLUMNS.
SO IT'S ROUGHLY NINE INCHES IN FRONT AND THEN NINE INCHES BACK OF THAT BEHIND, PARDON ME, OF THAT LINE.
SO YOU'VE GOT, SO THAT WOULD MEAN YOU'VE GOT ABOUT, UH, WHAT, FIVE FIVE FEET, THREE INCHES? YEAH.
CLEAR ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE COLUMN.
AND, AND THAT IS ONLY JUST 18 INCHES WIDE HERE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO SEVEN FEET, THREE INCHES.
THAT, THAT HELPS CONSIDERABLY.
AND I'M, I'M REALLY THE, THE 5 8 3 FEELS A LITTLE SKIMPY TO ME, BUT THE, I WOULD LOVE IT TO BE DEEPER, BUT I WAS ALSO TRYING TO PLAY WITH THE SETBACK.
AND THEN ALSO THERE'S A, JUST ONE OTHER THING TOO.
WHAT, WHAT KIND OF IS DRIVING THIS IS THAT EIGHT FEET IS KIND OF LIKE A VERY STANDARD HISTORIC DEPTH FOR KIND OF HOUSES OF THIS NATURE.
UH, AND THEN COMING OUT TO IT LIKE IT DOES ON STATE STREET AS WELL AS ON ROO STREET.
UM, I WISH IT WERE DEEPER, BUT I ALSO HAD THE SETBACK ISSUES THAT I WAS DEALING WITH AND ZONING.
I'VE WORKED UP ALREADY ON THEM.
I'M, I'M GETTING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN SOME OF THE HOUSES, BUT I'M TRYING TO SAVE A HUNDRED YEAR PLUS, UM, POST OAK TREE AT THE BACK OF MY LOT AS WELL.
SO THAT'S HOW IT WORKED, DESIGNING AND ALL THAT.
IF I COULD COME CLOSER TO THE STREET WITH A DEEPER PORCH ON THIS PROJECT, ABSOLUTELY.
NO, YOU WELL, YOU HAD ME WITH A HUNDRED YEAR POST OAK TREE, SO YEAH.
YOU KNOW, I HAD THE REST OF THE CITY TOO,
NO, AND I, AND THE FACT THAT IT, THAT IT STEPS BACK ON THE, THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND YOU GET YEAH.
BECAUSE I'M REALLY, WHAT I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT LARGELY IS THE DEEP SHADOWS YEAH.
THAT ARE SO CHARACTER DEFINING YEAH.
I'M SURE SWAN ENJOYED THAT COMMENT.
WHAT'S THAT? I'M SURE HE ENJOYED THAT.
HE LOVES TALKING LIKE THAT ABOUT STUFF.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME HEAR COMMISSIONER CUMMINS? YEAH.
I HAD A, UH, SHARE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN OF THE EARTH, OF THE PORCH, THE SHED ROOF PORCH, AND THE, UH, WHAT SLOPE HAVE YOU GOT THERE? IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING THE, UM, THE, UM, SHED OF THAT PORCH, IT JUST SEEMS TO BE PRETTY THICK, UH, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE THE, THE, UH, VICTORIAN, YOU KNOW, WRAPAROUND UH, UH, TO KIND OF SOFTEN.
AND SO IT'S JUST PROJECTING, JUST STRAIGHT OUT.
SO YOU'VE GOT KIND OF A, AN ODD SITUATION TO KIND OF DEAL WITH A LITTLE BIT ON A VICTORIAN ON, ON THIS KIND OF STYLE HERE.
IS, IS THAT GOING, IS THAT ALONE GONNA MAKE IT KIND OF STAND OUT TO A LOT OF THE HOUSES IN THE AREA? JUST THIS, THIS, UH, SLOPED SHED ROOF THAT JUST PROJECTS STRAIGHT OUT? UM, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION FROM YOU.
SO, SO THE PORCH IS CONSTRUCTED, I'M JUST SAYING IS IS THERE ANOTHER, IS THERE ANOTHER, UH, SITUATION IN THIS AREA THAT HAS JUST A SHED ROOF PORCH? UH, AND WITH THAT,
[01:55:01]
THAT, UH, SHARP SLOPE, IT, UM, CAUSE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT ON THE SIDE, IT, UH MM-HMM.JUST THAT THE BIG TRIANGLE WEDGE THAT CREATES, UH, IS THAT SHED COMING STRAIGHT OUT AND RIGHT.
SO LET ME, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, MAKE STAND OUT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WANTING TO TRY TO KIND OF HALT TO BLEND IN A LITTLE BIT AND NOT STAND OUT.
AND SO THAT PORCH ALONE KIND OF ALMOST SEEMED STAND OUT.
IT, SO WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? SURE.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
UM, THESE RENDERINGS ARE A BIT OF A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD BECAUSE THEY ALLOW US TO ZOOM IN ON SOME CERTAIN THINGS.
AND THEY ALSO, BY VIRTUE OF THE ANGLE AND THE HEIGHT THAT WE LOOK AT THESE THINGS, THEY CAN BE A LITTLE BIT, UM, MISLEADING.
SO THIS SLOPE IS BASED ON OTHER, UH, OF THE PORCH ITSELF, WHICH IS ONE, ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
UH, AND THEN THE QUARTER HEIGHT, QUARTER PER FOOT.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, IS THE SLOPE A QUARTER PER FOOT? IS WHAT IS THE IT IS A, IT IT'S BASICALLY THAT ONE TO FOUR.
IT IS ALSO TO THE HEIGHT OF THAT HORIZONTAL, UH, UH, FREEZE IF YOU WILL.
THE BEAM IS AT EIGHT FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED, UH, ELEVATION SPOT ELEVATION OF THE PORCH, WHICH IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE DETAILING THE RAKE OF THE PORCH ROOF AT THE VERY TOP.
UM, IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT MY ELEVATIONS NOW, I DON'T IF YOU CAN SEE THIS IN THE RENDERING THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT TOO, COMES RIGHT BELOW, UH, A REALLY NICE, UH, BRICK MASONRY STRING COURSE OR HORIZONTAL STRING COURSE THAT DENOTES BASICALLY AS, AS A LOT ALL OF YOU, OR A LOT OF YOU MAY KNOW, KIND OF LIKE WHERE THE SECOND FLOOR LIES.
AND THAT'S HOW WE DIVIDE THE FIRST FLOOR FROM THE SECOND FLOOR WITH SOME SORT OF ELEMENT.
AND SO THAT'S A VERY CONSISTENT DETAIL BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, RISING BETWEEN THE LOWER STORY AND THE UPPER STORY AND CUTTING OFF THE RAKE OF THE ROOF AT THAT UPPER STORY.
THE STRING COURSE OCCURS IN A VERY HISTORICALLY CORRECT LOCATION VERTICALLY ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, UM, FROM AN O BIG VIEW, WHICH IS THE VIEW THAT YOU HAVE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING AND WE KIND OF GET THAT, YOU KNOW, SHOT RIGHT AT THE CORNER AND IT'S VERY DRAMATIC, RIGHT.
WHICH CAN EITHER BE JARRING OR CAN BE A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, CALL TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO ITSELF.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A FAIRLY, I THINK, FAIRLY QUIET SOLUTION.
YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T GO FOR ANY, UH, FRET WORK OR DETAILING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALONG THE PORCH.
AGAIN, I WANTED TO KEEP IT VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE.
I'VE TRIED TO ERR ON THE, THE SIDE OF SIMPLE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, OVER DETAILED.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I LOOK AT THE HISTORIC PRECEDENCE AND MY HEIGHT ELEVATIONS FORS TO STOP AND START, IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU WOULD FIND FOR A RAKE OF A ROOF LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, I'M JUST LOOKING AT, UH, THE HEIGHT OF YOUR COLUMNS MIGHT BE A LOWER, SINCE SOME OF THE PORCHES MIGHT BE A LITTLE TALLER IN THIS AREA.
AND, UH, I THINK THEY ALL STOP AT ABOUT ROUGHLY EIGHT FEET.
UH, DETAILING, I, I CAN SPEAK PRETTY DEFINITIVELY ON THAT ONE, AND I'M SO SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF LIKE THAT COMMISSIONER GUMMING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF, UH, YOU KNOW, TAKE THAT OFF THE PLATE.
CAUSE THAT IS A VERY CONSISTENT ARCHETYPAL BUILDING PRECEDENT FOR A PORCH LIKE THIS.
IT JUST SEEMS THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT STOOD OUT IN MY EYES WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT.
I JUST LOOKED AT YEAH, THAT, THAT WET, THAT SHED ROOF COMING OFF THE PORCH, IT BEING PRETTY, PRETTY SURE SICK AND IT KIND OF STOOD OUT.
AND I KNOW WE WENT OVER THE WINDOWS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, BUT THAT KIND OF STOOD OUT QUITE A BIT AND IT JUST KIND OF SEEMED LIKE MAYBE SURE PLUMS ARE A LITTLE BIT LOWER, AND MAYBE THEY, YOU COULD EASE THAT BY JUST MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT LESS OF A SLOPE.
AND I, AND IT MIGHT EASE THAT, UH, THAT THOUGHT.
ANYWAY, THAT WAS JUST KIND OF WHAT STOOD OUT TO ME.
AND I WAS JUST HOPING THAT IT WOULD HELP BLEND IN A LITTLE BIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE YOU.
WELL, I APPRE I APPRECIATE THAT, AND WITH RESPECT, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AS DRAWN, UM, UNLESS IT'S A DEAL BREAKER FOR A LOT OF YOU BECAUSE IT, IT DOES KIND OF HUE TOWARD HISTORIC PRECEDENT FOR ROOFS AND SHEDDING THE WATER AND, AND THAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THAT ERA JUST BRING, I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP JUST, JUST TO TALK.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? UH, NOT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION?
[02:00:07]
I HAVE TO SAY REASON I WAS PAUSING.I'M COMPARING THE RENDERING TO THE, TO THE ELEVATIONS.
THE, THE RENDERING IS EXAGGERATING CERTAIN PROPORTIONAL ELEMENTS.
LIKE FOR INSTANCE, WHEN I LOOK AT THE RENDERING, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND WHERE THE PORCH ROOF MEETS, MEETS THE, THE, UH YES.
UH, IT LOOKS MUCH THICKER IN THE RENDERING THAN IT LOOKS IN THE ELEVATION.
AND, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS, BUT I'M SAYING THAT I THINK THAT THE RENDERING IN THIS CASE IS NOT HELPING, NOT DOING ME ANY FAVORS.
IT'S NOT DOING ANY FAVORS BECAUSE IT, IT HAS A, THE, THE, THE SECOND STORY HAS A SUBURBAN RANCH EEL TO IT FROM, I THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S LIKE, IT FEELS LIKE THIS INSTEAD OF LIKE THIS UHHUH
TO EVERYTHING IS LOOKING A LITTLE FLAT AND A LITTLE SQUAT.
AND THE RENDERINGS HAVE MUCH MORE PROPORTIONAL GRACE THAN WE'RE READING.
THE, THE ELEVATIONS HAVE MUCH MORE PROPORTIONAL GRACE THAN WE'RE READING FROM THE RENDERINGS.
I'M NOT SURE IF SOME OF THE OTHER, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, COMMISSIONERS WOULD TAKE THE SAME VIEW FROM IT.
I LOOKED AT THAT ROOF AND I THOUGHT, WOW, THAT LOOKS REALLY STEEP AND MM-HMM.
SO I'M ENCOURAGED WHEN I LOOK AT THE ELEVATIONS, I DO THINK THAT IF YOU USE THE, EVEN THE ONE OVER ONE OR THE TWO OVER ONE OVER THE TWO, OVER TWO OVER TWO, YOU'LL GET EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE VERTICALITY, WHICH IS GONNA SURE.
BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF US HAVE RESPONDED TO THE SAME THING.
I LOOKED AT THOSE COLUMNS, I THOUGHT THEY LOOKED SQUAT.
I WAS TRYING TO THINK, OKAY, COULD YOU MAKE THE FREEZE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND ADDRESS THAT, OR COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU MAKE THE WINDOWS A LITTLE BIT LOWER ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND ADDRESS THAT.
BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE MODEL, UH, THAT YOU GAVE US, WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL, THEY READ SO DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF THEIR PROPORTIONAL UNDERSTANDINGS.
VERTICALITY VERSUS HORIZONTALITY.
I, I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE, THE MODEL THAT, WELL, FIRST OFF, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, WE BUILD FROM DRAWINGS, NOT MODELS, RIGHT.
SO I MEAN, SO THE, THAT'S THE CONSOLATION THERE.
SO IF YOU DO LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE FLAT ELEVATIONS, THAT'S THE BUILDING.
UM, I GUESS JUST IN THIS INSTANCE, THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL RENDERING ISN'T DOING THE TRICK, BUT IT, IT IS DIRECTLY TRANSLATE.
I MEAN, THEY LITERALLY TAKE MY 3D MODEL THAT CREATES ALL THOSE FLAT DRAWINGS AND THEY JUST, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY, SO, BUT IF YOU LIKE THE ELEVATIONS, I HOPE YOU'RE POOR.
OH, THAT HE'S REALLY A NICE GUY TOO.
SO I WAS YOUR INTENTION TO HAVE MULTIPLE LIGHTS OVER ONE, OR WHY DO WE SUDDENLY HAVE MULTIPLES OVER MULTIPLES? I'D LIKE TO TABLE THAT COMMENT ONLY BECAUSE THAT WINDOW'S GOING TO CHANGE AND IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ANY LONGER.
WELL, BUT, BUT IT WILL, IT IS SORT OF IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE WINDOW THAT REPLACES IT IS GONNA BE, WHAT IS IT GONNA BE? IT'S GOING TO BE THE TWO WINDOW.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE WINDOW STYLE THAT IS THE, AS LONG AS STAFF IS OKAY WITH THIS.
AND, AND YOU ARE OKAY WITH THIS, THE WINDOW STYLE TO THE LEFT OF THAT TRIPLE GANG WINDOW, THE TWO SINGLE WINDOWS THAT YOU ALL SEE? YEAH, THE SIX OVER ONES.
IF WE'RE CHANGING THAT TWO AS COMMISSIONER, UH, AS WAS SUGGESTED, TWO OVER ONE, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
SO I BELIEVE I HAVE A MOTION COMING.
RIGHT IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 23, 2 30 RD 26, 26 THOMAS AVENUE.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING, UH, CONDITION THAT THE TRIPLE GANG WINDOW ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE PRIMARY FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE BE CHANGED TO THE TWO SEPARATED WINDOWS TO FOLLOW THE DESIGN, UM, OF OTHER WINDOWS
[02:05:01]
ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE PRIMARY FACADE.AND THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, CAUSED THESE WINDOWS TO BE TWO OVER ONE IN DESIGN.
DID I HEAR A SECOND FROM, YOU KNOW, I, I HEARD COMMISSIONER OSA FIRST OSA SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS PLEASE? JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
SO ALL THE WINDOWS WILL BE TWO OVER ONE, THAT IS AS IT NOW STANDS.
SO LET, UH, LET US VOTE ON THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? OKAY.
IS CARRIE UNANIMOUSLY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DUNN, I APPRECIATE, I KNOW THE WHOLE STAFF WAS MUTED CAUSE I WAS ALSO WORKING WITH PREVIOUS STAFF, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND WE MAY ALL DRIVE BY TO SEE YOUR LIVE HOPE OH, YOUR POST OAK TREE BEFORE IT'S COVERED BY A BUILDING.
SO IF YOU SEE US THERE, WE'RE NOT HAVING A MEETING
THAT NOW HAS BEEN DECADES AND DECADES AGO.
OF COURSE COVERED OVER WITH, YOU KNOW, THEIR PROPERTY TOO.
WELL, DON'T MESS THAT UP THEN.
WE HAVE, UH, THE NEXT TWO ARE FIVE AND SIX, WHICH WILL KIND OF GO TOGETHER, MAY TAKE A WHILE.
SO SHOULD WE TAKE A BRIEF BREAK TO RUN AND DO 10 MINUTES OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO COMING BACK AT 3 25.
WELCOME BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
OUR BREAK IS OVER AND I BELIEVE WE ARE READY TO HEAR G FIVE.
OH, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI FOR THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 5 4 16 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, WANEKA HEIGHTS, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 2 34 CM, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING GARAGE.
THE STACKED RECOMMENDATION TO REPLACE EXISTING GARAGE IS TO BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION STATED 36 20 23.
AND WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER TODAY.
AND JUST ONE THING BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I WANNA CLARIFY WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT OUR STANDARD FOR JUDGING THIS GARAGE DESIGN IS THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IT'S MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GARAGE THAT'S THERE.
WHICH ONE ARE WE AIMING FOR? THIS IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, SO IT'S JUST THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH HISTORIC OR RELATE DISTRICT.
NOW OUR SPEAKER IS SURE HE KNOWS HIS NAME AND NOW I KNOW IT TOO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
IT'S RUSSELL PETERS, 2118 BARBERRY, DALLAS, TEXAS 75,002 11.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? I DO.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO US ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE US TO KNOW, AND THEN OF COURSE WE'LL ASK YOU QUESTIONS, BUT YOU'VE SEEN ALL THAT ALREADY.
UM, THE PURPOSE OF OF THIS IS TO, UM, TEAR DOWN, WELL IT'S, IT'S TWO PROPOSALS, RIGHT.
SO CAN I JUST DO 'EM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME OR JUST THINK YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT, IT'S JUST IN OUR RULES THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION BEFORE WE ADDRESS YOUR REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE OLD ONE.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT JUST THE WAY IT IS
SO, BUT IF WE WANNA HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING JOINTLY, THEN I WOULD HAVE MS. MINKOWSKI READ ITEMS D SIX INTO THE RECORD, BUT THEN WHEN WE MAKE OUR MOTION, WE WOULD DO THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IN, UH, DISCUSSION.
ITEM NUMBER 6 4 16 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, WINNETKA HEIGHTS, HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 2305 CM, A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO REMOVE CON NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION CERTIFICATE FOR DEMOLITION TO REMOVE NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 36 23.
SO I'M REPRESENTING, UH, MY CLIENT AT FOUR 16, UM, SOUTH CLINTON AS BOTH THE DESIGNER AND AS THE BUILDER.
AND UH, THE REALLY THE GOAL FOR THIS PROJECT WAS TO REPLACE AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE NON-CONTRIBUTING.
IT, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PARK BACK THERE BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE STREET ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK.
ALSO, THE, THIS STRUCTURE IS VIOLATING CODE EVEN THOUGH IT'S GRANDFATHERED
[02:10:01]
IN BY BEING, IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ALLEY, SO IT'S SITTING ON THE ALLEY.UM, AND IT IS ALSO TWO FEET FROM THE HOUSE ON THE, UH, RIGHT HAND SIDE.
SO IT'S VIOLATING CODE THAT DIRECTION AS WELL.
THERE IS REALLY NO VIABLE USE FOR THE STRUCTURE, SO WE'D LIKE TO TAKE THE STRUCTURE DOWN AND REPLACE THE STRUCTURE WITH A THREE-SIDED CARPORT WITH ACCESSIBILITY FROM THE ALLEY, UH, IN LIEU OF WHAT'S THERE.
THAT WAY MY CLIENT COULD PARK IN A CARPORT, BUT THE DESIGN WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE, THE NECCA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE NOVELTY SIDING ALSO MATCHING THE HIP ROOF OF THE HOUSE.
IT CURRENTLY HAS A GABLE ROOF, UM, THAT IS VERY TALL.
UM, AND THEN SO WE WOULD LIKE TO THEN REPLACE THEN BUILD NOVELTY SIDING ALL THE WAY AROUND WITH A COLUMN SO THAT YOU'RE REALLY REPLACING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AT ALL USEFUL WITH SOMETHING THAT IS USEFUL AND COORDINATES AND GOES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? IF WE RATE THEM OUT?
UH, MEGAN, YOU JUST ADDRESSED THIS, BUT YOUR DECISION TO GO WITH A HIP ROOF, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING FROM A GABLE ROOF TO A HIP ROOF, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THAT DECISION WAS MADE BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE'RE A HIP ROOF ON THE HOUSE ALSO, THE SCALE OF WHAT'S THERE NOW IS VERY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE ITS SURROUNDINGS.
SO IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT HIGH GABLE WALL, IT'S GOT THIS HIGH GABLE WALL THAT JUST SEEMS VERY LOOMING.
SO BY DOING A HIP ROOF THAT MATCHES THE HOUSE, IT'LL BRING THE WHOLE THING DOWN SO THAT IT IS, UM, MUCH LESS IMPOSING.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, UH, IF YOU'RE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH A HEIGHTS, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
UH, ON AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO USE A GABLE ROOF OR WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN, UH, IN, IN OTHER WORDS, UM, IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD A HIP ROOF ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE, UH, WOULD YOU BE LESS LIKELY TO SEE A GABLE ROOF ON AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR DO YOU THINK THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UH, LIKE MAYBE APPLIED DIFFERENT RULES OR STANDARDS OR? I THINK IT'S PROBABLY ALL OVER THE PLAY.
I THINK THE HIP ROOF IS BETTER THOUGH, SO, BUT I THINK THE HIP IS BETTER IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR MOTION? IT DOESN'T WORK TO STARE AT THE SCREEN.
THEY CAN'T FEEL MY EYES UPON THEM.
IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 23 DASH 2 34 CM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS FOUR 16 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE IN THE WOOD HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, I MOVED THAT WE APPROVE WITH A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SANGEN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS SECOND? COMMISSIONER VEN.
AND I NOTE THAT I'VE GOT SOME COMMISSIONERS ONLINE WHO I AM NOT ABLE TO SEE.
WE DO NEED TO CORRECT THAT MEMBER STATE LAW, NOT ME, STATE LAW.
UH, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON MS. MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL TAKE, MA'AM, MAY I JUST MAKE ONE? YEAH.
UH, I DID READ THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS SUGGESTED DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE, UH, THE, UH, UH, DID NOT SHOW THE POOL ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO FIT IN WITH THE PROPERTY POOL AREA,
[02:15:01]
BUT IT JUST SEEMED TO ME THAT THAT IS MAYBE A LITTLE BEYOND OUR REACH IN TERMS OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE, OF THIS STRUCTURE WITHIN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED WITH HOW IT APPEARS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.THAT WOULD BE MORE OUR PURVIEW.
AND I BELIEVE THEY DID GIVE US A NEW PLAN NOW THAT HAS THE POOL IN IT, SO OKAY.
THEY DID, WE GAVE YOU THAT
SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
IT APPEARS THAT IT IS BEST UNANIMOUSLY THOUGH I COULD NOT SEE IF, UM, COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS, COMMISSIONER TABLE AND COMMISSIONER HA YOU HAD THEIR HANDS WAIVING OR ANY INDICATION, BUT IT APPEARS THAT HAS PASSED.
NOW WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CERTIFICATE DEMO, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD AND WE ALREADY HEARD.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION? HELLO, YOU SPEAKING? WELL, WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT, UM, ONE OF WHICH OF THE FOUR CRITERIA THEY'RE DEMOLISHING UNDER.
CUZ ON THE APPLICATION IT SAYS THEY'RE DEMOLISHING CUZ IT IS NEWER THAN THE PREVIOUS SIGNIFICANCE.
SO THAT, SO SOMEBODY HAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF WE WANT TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION, SOMEONE HAS TO CONVINCE US THAT THE BUILDING IS NOT CONTRIBUTING.
DID YOU FIND OUT THE PREVIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I THINK IT'S 1935, BUT I, THAT'S JUST A MEMORY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, SIR? OH, HOW OLD THE BUILDING IS? THE, THE EXISTING BUILDING? OH, I THINK CHRISTINA AND I SAID MAYBE 1945, BUT THAT IT'S ON THE SANDBORN MAP AND I THINK THE ONE I FOUND IT ON I WANNA SAY IS LIKE 54, BUT WE NEED TO KIND OF GO BACKWARD TO SEE IF IT WAS THERE IN 24.
BUT I, IT LOOKS, I DIDN'T SEE ANOTHER, I DIDN'T FIND ANOTHER MAP.
IT LOOKS NEWER TO ME, BUT UNDER THE ARCHITECTS AND GOOD AT VERNACULAR, AGES OF VERNACULAR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, IT'S 35 OR 40 OR 50 JUST BY THE INTERIOR.
ARE YOU ABLE TO TYPICALLY THE APPLICANT GIVES US INFORMATION ON THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1945 AND THAT'S 1935 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER.
YEAH, THE OWNER DIDN'T HAVE IT.
THAT'S WHY I WENT TO THE SANDBORN MAPS.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DRAWING OF A STRUCTURE THERE.
UM, I DIDN'T TEND TO THINK IT WAS THE ORIGINAL MYSELF OR NOT FROM PRIOR TONIGHT.
CAN YOU LOOK AT SANDBAR 1920? I'M TRYING, I'M HAVING TROUBLE.
THERE IS A LITTLE AUTO GARAGE THAT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE THIS STRUCTURE.
SO THERE WAS A SMALLER GARAGE THERE IN 20 SOMETHING.
AND YOU'RE SO IN 22 IT WASN'T THERE AND IN 1950 SOMETHING IT WAS THERE.
WELL IT WAS JUST THE DRAWING, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE SAND BOARD METHOD, LIKE IT WAS JUST THAT.
SO I CAN'T TELL YOU IF IT WAS THAT BUILDING, BUT THERE WAS A STRUCTURE IN ITS PLACE THAT WAS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GETTING RID OF THE STRUCTURE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE, BUT IT WASN'T THERE IN 22.
IT, THERE WAS STRUCTURE THERE, THERE WAS A STRUCTURE, BUT IT APPEARS TO BE MUCH SMALLER.
SO IT WASN'T THERE IN 20, 22, 22, BUT WAS THERE IN 50 SOMETHING? ANOTHER STRUCTURE WAS THERE LIKE IT JUST SHOWS, I CAN'T SAY THAT ONE FOR SURE.
WAS THERE, THEY MAY WE SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AGAIN? YES.
AND ARE THOSE ASBESTOS SHINGLES? THE SIDING LOOKS LIKE EARLY FIFTIES TO ME.
I WAS GONNA SAY THEY ARE, WE CAN MAYBE DATE BY THAT AS LONG AS WE FEEL COMFORTABLE.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SENDING ARE ASBESTOS, SHING AND I DROVE UP AND GOT OUT AND KIND OF LOOKED UP? NO, NO, I HELD MY BREATH, I HELPED WASH MY HANDS AND OKAY.
AND FUNNY FACT THERE, WE THOUGHT MAYBE THERE WAS SIDING UNDER THE SHINGLES WHERE YOU WOULD SORT OF EXPECT THERE WOULD BE, BUT THERE IS NOT.
SOMEONE HAD STRIPPED WHATEVER WAS THERE OR MAYBE IT WAS NEVER THERE, BUT THERE IS NO OTHER SIDING UNDER THOSE MACHINE BOARD.
WHAT SIDING IS THERE TODAY? AN ASBESTOS SHEEN.
SO I MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE LATE FORTIES, EARLY FIFTIES WITH ASBESTOS SIDING BECAUSE IF, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU FOUND SOMETHING UNDERNEATH IT, THERE'S NOTHING UNDER THERE.
IT'S JUST A, IT'S JUST A SKELETON WITH
[02:20:01]
THAT ON TOP.I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE SURE.
YEAH, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S SORT OF A DOG OF THE BUILDING QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE TASK FORCE ABOUT, THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST UP CLOSE.
I MEAN IT'S GOT A KIND OF A, DO WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE EAVES AT ANY POINT? THAT'S ALL I CAN PULL UP FROM HERE JUST BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO SERVER.
I THINK THAT'S
BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE, THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF, UH, WHAT'S THAT ON THE, THE BACK HERE? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SIDING MATERIALS THEY'RE ON.
IT'S IT'S AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ON THE
AND THERE'S A BIG HOLE IN THE ROOF RIGHT THERE.
I, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE DO OKAY.
ONE LAST QUESTION THOUGH, JUST CUZ IN
WHICH CAN SOMETIMES GIVE YOU A GOOD INDICATION OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
IT WOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU, SHOW YOU THE, UH, PITCH, UH, THE, UH, WHETHER IT'S A GABLE ROOF AND THE ORIENTATION OF THE PITCHES.
I MEAN, I I'M INCLINED TO SAY THAT THIS IS A FAIRLY EASY CASE FOR DEMOLITION, BUT I'M REALLY JUST TRYING TO BE, UM, RESPONSIVE TO THE TASK FORCE CONCERNS.
I I CAN'T EVEN OPEN LIKE THE INTERNET RIGHT NOW.
YOU KNOW THE FAIR TRIAL AERIAL SURVEY THAT SMU RIGHT? UH, WELL, I I'M GONNA LOOK IT UP.
YEAH, THEY HAVE THE, THE, IT'S AVAILABLE, UH, PRE ONLINE, THE PROSECUTE LIBRARY.
IF YOU JUST LOOK UP FAIR TRIAL AERIAL SURVEY, DALLAS, SMU MM-HMM.
UH, AND FIND THE APPROPRIATE QUADRANT AND OKAY.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE CHECKING ONE MORE SOURCE OF INFORMATION, BUT THUS FAR WE BELIEVE WE FOUND IT'S NEWER THAN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, SO WE COULD GO WITH THAT STANDARD.
WE KNOW IT WAS, WELL WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, BUT WE KNOW IT WAS THERE IN 50, PROBABLY THERE IN 54.
MAY HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE, WAS NOT THERE IN 22, BUT, SO WE'RE SHRINKING IT DOWN
BUT 1930 GIVES US A MUCH CLOSER, UH, REFERENCE MUCH CLOSER TO THE UPPER LIMIT OF THIS.
TO ME, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A HISTORIC GARAGE IN WE HEIGHTS THEN THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE FORM OF THE 1920S AND THIRTIES GARAGES.
SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SENDING IT OFF.
IT COULD EVEN BE WORLD WAR II ERA HOUSING ADDED.
SO MANY PEOPLE DID THAT AND THAT CASE IT'S TOO NEW.
FAIRCHILD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF 1930, WHICH CAN SHOW YOU SOMETHING.
LET'S ASK, LET'S HAVE COMMISSIONER HOSA GARAGE.
LET'S HAVE COMMISSIONER HOSA ASK HER A QUESTION WHILE THE GENTLEMAN ARE LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH.
I HEAR COMMENTS ABOUT NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
I HEAR COMMENTS THAT, UH, IT'S, UH, SEEMS TO, UH, JUST, I MEAN IT CAN GO AWAY, BUT I ALSO SEE OTHER THAN THE ROOF, A PRETTY SOUND STRUCTURE.
UM, SO DO WE JUST, UH, DO WE JUST DO AWAY WITH PRETTY SOUND STRUCTURES JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE NON-CONTRIBUTING? YEAH, BASICALLY I THINK PART OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHETHER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE BUILDING IS SO NEW THAT IT DOES NOT COUNT, UH, SOMETHING TO BE RETAINED FOR ITS HISTORIC VALUE.
AND, AND I MENTIONED THAT THE, UM, OUR, OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SOME CONCERN.
IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO DO IT FOR STAFF TO DO THIS BECAUSE THEN IT'S NOT US.
REMEMBER, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LIVE IN A DARK CLOSET AND NEVER COME OUT TILL IT'S TIME FOR THE MEETING SO THAT WE KNOW NOTHING OF THE WORLD OTHER THAN WHAT THEY TELL US.
WHILE, WHILE WE, WHILE WE CONTINUE TO WAIT, LET US CLARIFY.
[02:25:01]
DIS STERN THE AGE OF THIS BUILDING SO THAT WE CAN USE THE SUPPORTING STANDARD FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION.THAT WILL BE THE BUILDING IS NOT, IS NEWER THAN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
WOULD THAT BE FINE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES.
I DIDN'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE ON THE APPLICATION.
SO WE, WE'LL GO IF WE DISCOVER ENOUGH EVIDENCE, THAT'S WHAT WE WILL SEE IF WE DO, UH, WE SUSPENDED OUR SEARCH.
UH, ON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES OF RECESS WHILE STAFF, PLEASE DO RESEARCH.
PERHAPS STAFF SHOULD GO RESEARCH.
ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY, WE ARE NOW BACK IN SESSION AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CLOSE EXAMINATION OF A FAIRCHILD PHOTO HAS YIELDED SOME INFORMATION WITH STAFF.
PLEASE TELL US WHAT HER EXAMINATION.
YES, MS. MANKOWSKI, BASED ON THE FAIRCHILD SURVEY, THE, THIS BUILDING DID NOT EXIST THEN IT WAS A MUCH SMALLER BUILDING, JUST LIKE THEY FOUND ON THE PREVIOUS PICTURE.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE COULD, IF WE WISH TO GRANT THIS CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, DO IT ON THE GROUNDS OF BUILDING IS NEWER, WE'RE JUST DEFINING THEN THE PERIOD OF STRIKE SIGNIFICANCE.
AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A 4.501 H, SUBSECTION H, PARAGRAPH FOUR, SUBPARAGRAPH D D NOT A, NOT A EXCELLENT.
UH, SO IS ANYBODY PREPARED TO MAKE THAT MOTION NOW? THANK YOU.
OH WAIT, I'VE GOTTA FIND IN THE MATTER OF CD 2 23 DASH ZERO OH THAT'S YES.
I MOVE THAT WE PERMIT THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS DEFINING A FACT STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE AND FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND, UM, NOW I SHALL CALL FOR A VOTE IF THERE'S NOT FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL IS IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSE THIS MOTION? WE WE CAN'T SEE THE PEOPLE.
WE CAN'T SEE THE PEOPLE AT HOME? NO, WE CAN, WE'RE SEEING THE GARAGE RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, JUST THEY COULD BE WAIVING FRANTICALLY FOR ALL WE KNOW.
DID ANYBODY OPPOSE THIS MOTION? I OPPOSE THIS MOTION.
YOU OPPOSE THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER OSA? YES.
ANY OTHER? ALL RIGHT, THEN THE, THE, THE MOTION HAS CARRIED BY, UM, A MAJORITY BUT NOT UNANIMOUS AND SO GOOD LUCK TO THE APPLICANT TO GO AHEAD AND, AND WORK ON THEIR PROJECT AND THANK YOU OUR OKAY.
OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE D TWO AND THERE IS NO SPEAKER
[02:30:01]
FOR CASE D TWO.RHONDA DUNN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF PRESENTING DISCUSSION ITEM D TWO.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 43 0 6 GASTON AVENUE IN THE PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23, 23 31 R D.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD ACCESSIBLE RAMP WITH ACCESS AISLE IN FRONT BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 36 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THAT ACCESSIBLE RAMP BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA RAMP REQUIREMENTS THAT RAMP BE CONSTRUCTED OF PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER THAT ACCESS AISLE BE A MINIMUM OF 60 INCHES IN WIDTH AND THAT AISLE BE CONSTRUCTED OF BRUSH FINISH.
CONCRETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PEAK SUBURBAN EDITIONS PRESERVATION CRITERION.
SECTION 2.3 UNDER SITE SITE ELEMENTS, THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE SECTIONS SECTION 4.8 PERTAINING TO RAMPS IN SECTION 4.6 PERTAINING TO PARKING AND PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.
UH, REQUEST NUMBER TWO THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE EXISTING FRONT DOOR AND REINSTALL IS OUTSWING DOOR BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 36 20 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO DOOR SWING DIRECTION.
REQUEST NUMBER THREE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALTER REAR FENESTRATION REPLACE WINDOW WITH DOOR BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 3 6 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, THAT SINGLE WINDOW ON NORTHEAST LEFT SIDE REAR INSET BE REPLACED WITH EXTERIOR DOOR AS OPPOSED TO SUBMITTED GANGED REAR WINDOW.
THAT WINDOW DIMENSIONS ADHERE TO A D A DOOR REQUIREMENTS THAT DOOR DIMENSIONS, I'M SORRY, ADHERE TO A D A DOOR REQUIREMENTS AND THAT NEW DOOR MATCHING EXISTING EXTERIOR DOORS ARE MATCHES.
EXTERIOR DOORS IN MULIAN EXPRESSION, LIGHT CONFIGURATION AND MATERIAL COMPOSITION IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PEAK SUBURBAN EDITIONS PRESERVATION CRITERION.
SECTION 3.3 PERTAINING TO FACADES.
SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE SECTION FOUR 13 PERTAINING TO DOORS.
LASTLY, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RELOCATE AC CONDENSER UNITS TWO BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STORAGE SHED IN REAR YARD BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 36 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PEAK SUBURBAN EDITIONS PRESERVATION CRITERION, SECTION 2.7 UNDER SITE AND SITE ELEMENTS, THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS, THEREFORE NO ONE FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REPLY OUT A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
UH, CASE, I MEAN 40 43 0 6 GASTON AVENUE CASE
[02:35:01]
CA 2 23 DASH 2 31 RD APPROVAL OF STACK RECOMMENDATION TEXAS NATIVE, TEXAS NATIVE LANDSCAPING NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE INSTALLED OR SCREEN RAMP SUGGEST HOLLY SHRUBS.I'M SORRY TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE FOR REQUEST ONE THROUGH FOUR.
YOU ARE APPROVING FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I'M ASSUMING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT ADDING, UH, UH, FOR REQUEST NUMBER ONE, YOU ARE ADDING A CONDITION OR I DON'T KNOW, LET ME SEE.
IS THERE WHATEVER THE YES, THAT'S THE RAMP.
SHOULD I SAY FRAME NUMBER ONE? YES.
OKAY, I'LL CHANGE, I'LL SAY OVER AGAIN.
UM, 43 0 6 GASTON AVENUE PEAKS, UH, DIS, UH, CA 2 23 DASH 2 31 RD APPROVED OF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE, TEXAS NATIVE LANDSCAPING NOT TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE INSTALLED TO SCREEN RAMP SUGGESTS HOLLY SHRUBS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND TIME THIS MOTION? SECOND.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER COMMENTARY, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE.
I HAVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
UH, UH, REAR DOOR, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED A, UH, REAR DOOR AT, UH, AT THE INSET, ANOTHER REAR DOOR.
UH, AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT IT MAY NOT HAVE, UH, A RAMP FOR A PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON TO GO INTO THAT PATIO.
NOW I DID HEAR, HEAR A COMMENT DURING THE BRIEFING.
WELL, THERE'S MAYBE SOME OTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN GO, GO THROUGH THE FRONT, UH, AND THAT WOULD BE OKAY I GUESS IF THERE WAS NO IMPEDIMENT FOR THEM GOING THROUGH THE FRONT RAMP TO THE BACK PATIO.
UH, IT SEEMS TO ME THOUGH THAT IT'S LIKE, OKAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GO TO A SIDE PATIO THAT'S LIKE BEING RELEGATED TO A CHILD'S TABLE INSTEAD OF SITTING WITH THE ADULTS IN THE BACK.
SO, BUT, UM, IF, IF, UH, IF IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY CAN GO FROM THE FRONT, THEN IF THERE'S NO REAR DOOR RAMP, UH, TO THE PATIO, THEY CAN GO FROM THE FRONT WITH NO IMPEDIMENT TO GET TO THE BACK PATIO.
I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BUT THERE'S STILL SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER OSA, I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF WE KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO USE THAT LITTLE PATIO WE SAW NOW IN THE PICTURE THAT LOOKED MORE LIKE WHAT THE RESIDENTS USE.
THEY MAY BE HAVING NO PATIO OR A BIGGER DIFFERENT PATIO.
WELL, BUT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF PATIO, WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE IT ON THE TABLES.
THEY'RE MOVABLE AND IT'S NOT UNDER THIS, THE PURVIEW OF THIS LANDMARK COMMISSION TO, TO MAKE THIS PIECE PROPERTY ADA COMPLIANT.
JUST ALSO, THIS IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE PRES THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA, WHETHER IT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THEY MEET ADA EIGHT BE IN A EIGHT COMPLIANCE THAT COULD OCCUR AT A LATER STEP SOMETIME WITH THE CITY.
BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION.
AND I SUSPECT THAT IF THE PATIO SITUATION IS, AS COMMISSIONER OSA IS ENVISIONING IT, WHERE CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE TO ACCESS IT IN A WAY THEY FEEL A SECOND CLASS OR DEMEANING, THAT THE PUBLIC WILL TAKE CARE OF COMPLAINING TO THE OWNERS ABOUT THAT.
BUT AT THIS POINT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE PATIO, MAYBE THE WHOLE SIDE THING'S GONNA BE THE PATIO FROM NOW ON FOR ALL WE KNOW.
SO IF WE'RE READY TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION, ALL US IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? I SEEING, SEEING NONE.
SO YOU CAN NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WERE OF THEIR, OF OUR JUDGMENT, WHICH THEY MAY THEN QUITE KNOW
IT'S A FOURPLEX RIGHT NOW AND THEY'RE TURNING ONE OF THE APARTMENTS INTO A COFFEE SHOP.
WELL, THEY SAID FOURPLEX, I THINK.
WE LIVE DOWN THERE, BUT IT'S LOOKED TO ME LIKE IT WAS RESIDENTIAL.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ITEM, UH, DISCUSSION ITEM D FOUR ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED OR WILL BE LOCATED AT 35 20 MEADOW STREET.
THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS WHEAT PLACED.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 DASH 2 25 R D.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS,
[02:40:01]
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 30 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS ARE TO BE EXPRESSED THAT WOOD TRIM BE APPLIED TO EXTERIOR SIDING AND NOT FLUSH WITH SIDING AND THAT FASCIA BOARD HEIGHT BE BETWEEN EIGHT AND 12 INCHES.IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHEATLEY PLACES PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 9.2, 9.3 9.7 AND NINE 11 SUBPARAGRAPH A PERTAINING TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS.
THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A DETACHED GARAGE, BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 36 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
THAT EXTERIOR WALL CLATTING THE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING PATTERN 1 0 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION.
WOULD I CAN GET TO THE NEXT PAGE, WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHEATLEY PLACES PRESERVATION CRITERIA, SECTIONS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6, AND 10.7 PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN AT TWO, BUT NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
OKAY, WE'LL ALLS HOLD WITH THIS ONE.
THERE IS NO ONE TO SPEAK TO AT THEREFORE NOR ONE FOR US TO QUESTION.
UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS THEY LIKE TO MAKE OR WOULD THEY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? OKAY, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT.
I THINK THIS IS THE ONE IN THE PACKET THAT HAD THE 24 31 PARK ROAD FORM ON IT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.
DO WE HAVE ANY CONS? CAN I MAKE A MOTION? OH, GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THEN.
SO YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE A CONCERN? NO, I DIDN'T HAVE A CONCERN.
I WAS JUST, UM, IN THE MATTER.
IN THE MATTER OF 35 20 MEADOW STREET, WE GRACE HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 225 RD.
I MOVE, UM, TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ONE AND TWO NOW AND COMMISSIONER SPY HAS SECONDED THAT.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WE GOT IT.
I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OPPOSED, SO STAFF WILL PLEASE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW.
UM, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
DISCUSSION ITEM NU NUMBER 7 4 19 NORTH WINNETKA AVE, WANEKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 2 3 3 CM.
THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE AND REPAIR FENCE ALONG CORNER SIDE AND EXTEND FRONT FENCE BY 36 FEET.
UH, THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE AND REPAIR ALONG FENCE ALONG CORNER AND EXTEND FRONT FENCE BY 36 FEET BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION STATED 21 20 23.
AGAIN, THERE IS NO ONE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? I CAN NOW WE'RE ALL MOTION THE PEOPLE AT HOME I CAN MAKE MOTION.
AND THE MATTER OF FOUR 19 NORTH WINNETKA
[02:45:01]
AVENUE CA 2 23 DASH 23 3 CM I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CORNER SITE FENCE BE REPAIRED, REPLACED AND REPAIRED IN FRONT FENCE EXTENDED BY 36 FEET FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REASONS CITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPEC STATED FEBRUARY THE FIRST, 2023.AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS INCORPORATED.
CAN I HAVE, CAN I, UH, HANG ON.
IS THAT COMMISSIONER OFFIT WHO SECONDED? IT IS.
SO IF THERE'S ANY COMMENT PLEASE GO AHEAD, MR. CUMMINGS COMMENT.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, IT'S, UM, ONCE, ONCE THIS GETS, UH, APPROVED THAT LATER ON SOMEONE COULDN'T COME BACK AND DO A, UM, SINCE IT'S IN PLACE AND IT'S IN THE LINE, IN THE LINE WHERE IT'S GONNA BE THAT THEY CAN'T COME BACK AND PUT, UH, AN AC FENCE AND JUST, UH, HAVE THAT AS UH, MAINTENANCE SINCE IT'S KIND OF, IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.
THAT'S, THAT, THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE, TO, UH, TASK FORCE AND, UH, LANDMARK.
CUZ IT'S NOT MAINTENANCE IF YOU CHANGE IT, IT'S ONLY MAINTENANCE.
WELL, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I CAN SAY.
WELL, A LOT OF TIMES, A LOT OF TIMES MAINTENANCE KIND OF GETS OVERLOOKED ON, IT'S LIKE WHAT'S ALREADY THERE TYPE OF THING.
AS LONG, AS LONG AS I JUST KIND OF FIX IT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WELL CAN COME BACK LATER AND GET AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THERE AT THE SAME LOCATION.
WE, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT DO WHEN NO ONE'S LOOKING, BUT LEGALLY SURE THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT COMING AND GETTING PERMISSION TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AS THINGS STAND NOW.
I HAVE A POSSIBLE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
UH, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE STATING THAT BECAUSE THIS STRUCTURE IS CLOSE TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
UH, PARTICULARLY THE, UM, THE, THE THEATER, WHAT'S IT CALLED? UM, NESTLER? NO, THE, UM, THE CASTER THEATER THAT THERE IS MORE TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
I I THINK THAT I, IF YOU DO THIS FINDING THAT BECAUSE OF ITS JC TO COMMERCIAL BILLING, PARTICULAR THE CANCELER THEATER THERE HAS A LOT OF LATE NIGHT ACTIVITY.
IS THAT AMENDMENT AMENABLE TO THE MAKER COMMISSIONER OSA? YES.
AND TO THE SECOND COMMISSIONER OFFIT? I, I, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AMENDMENT WAS.
I THINK WE'RE SAYING PART OF THE, UM, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS FENCE BEING WHERE IT IS, IS THAT THEY ARE ON SUCH AN EXPOSED CORNER WITH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
THE POINT OF WHICH I THINK IS SO THAT NOT EVERYBODY WANTS THE SAME FENCE.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S AN AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED TO A COMMENT.
WELL, WE, I THINK WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IT BE PART OF THE MOTION.
SO WE CALL IT AMENDMENT AND JUST BOTH, UM, THE MAKER AND YOU NEED TO SAY YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH ADDING THAT INTO WHAT SHE SAID THE FIRST TIME.
THE COMMISSIONER HOUSE IS OKAY.
I'M OKAY, I'M OKAY AND IT'S A GOOD, GOOD.
UH, BECAUSE THERE'LL BE OTHERS THAT SAY, WELL THEY DID IT HERE AND THEY DID IT THERE.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO WARD OFF BECAUSE IT HAPPENS.
OKAY, SO WE GOOD? WE'RE GOOD TO CALL A VOTE ON THIS.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS, SO PLEASE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW WE HAVE ONLY ONE MORE JOB TO DO.
ARE THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE MINUTES THAT ANYBODY WANTED US TO CHANGE? THANK YOU, COR SECOND THIS POLICY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES? AYE I SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO AND THUS AT FOUR 13 THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.