[00:00:01]
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS LANDMARK COMMISSION.
WE HAVE A QUORUM OF COMMISSIONERS.
I AM EVELYN MONTGOMERY, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION.
OUR VICE CHAIR, COURTNEY SPELL IS ALSO PRESENT.
UM, UH, AND WE ASK NOW FOR ELAINE TO DO A ROLL CALL OF THE AVAILABLE COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON IS NOT PRESENT TODAY.
COMMISSIONER SLAVE WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS PRESENT AND COMMISSIONER JOANNA HAMPTON PRESENT.
ALL RIGHT, BEFORE WE BEGIN, OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS ASKED ME TO REMIND THOSE AT HOME THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR CAMERA ON AND STAY CLOSE TO IT EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, QUICK EMERGENCIES BECAUSE THERE IS A STATE LAW ABOUT THAT.
AND COMMISSIONER BEVIN LEFT WHILE I SAID THAT.
TO BEGIN OUR MEETING, OH, WE FIRST, LET'S BEGIN BY FIRST TAKING OUR VOTE ON OUR MINUTES SO THAT I DON'T FORGET TO DO THAT AT THE END.
UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS GIVEN TO US FROM LAST MEETING? COMMISSIONER VIN, ARE YOU SAYING? SO MOVED.
I'M, WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.
I THINK OUR FIRST SECOND WAS FROM COMMISSIONER SWAN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
THE MINUTES HAVE PASSED, THEN ELAINE CAN TAKE CARE OF THOSE AND I'LL SIGN THEM.
UM, AND THE NEXT THING FOR US TO DO, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS NOW THAT WE AREN'T READY FOR THAT YET? ALL RIGHT.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, PESI, DO YOU HAVE, UH, ANY MOTIONS TO MAKE YOU SHOULD? I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE LIST REALLY QUICKLY OF INDIVIDUALS WE HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN PERSON.
JAMES ADAMS? YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S JAMES ADAMS. ROBERT BALDWIN.
WILL MITCHELL, BENJAMIN GRIFFITH, CHRISTOPHER WISE, HOWELL, BEAVER.
IF YOU ARE PRESENT AND YOUR NAME WASN'T CALLED, I NEED TO KNOW, RAISE YOUR HAND.
UM, SO FIRST I MOVE THEN TO APPROVE, UH, CONSENT ITEMS C, C1 AND C2 AS WELL AS C4 THROUGH C EIGHT, ALONG WITH DISCUSSION ITEM 15.
SECOND, UM, DID WE NEED, ALRIGHT, FIRST, BEFORE WE REQUEST THAT SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE DISCUSSION ITEM 15, WHICH WE DISCUSSED IN OUR BRIEFING.
BEFORE WE CAN DO THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE, UM, DISCUSSION ITEM 15, WHICH WE DISCUSSED IN OUR BRIEFING PROPERLY BELONGS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA.
CAN SOMEONE MAKE THAT MOTION? SO MOVE SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING DISCUSSION.
ITEM 15, THE CONSENT AGENDA, AYE.
[00:05:01]
CONSENT ITEM C ONE, C TWO, AS WELL AS C4 THROUGH C EIGHT.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
I, I WILL NOT BE STEPPING OUT.
NEXT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CONSENT ITEM C THREE.
WE CAN LET EVELYN BECK IN THEN.
OKAY, NOW I MOVE THAT WE REARRANGE, UM, OUR ITEMS AS FOLLOWS.
WE'LL START WITH DISCUSSION ITEM ONE, FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEM THREE, THEN D SEVEN, D EIGHT, D NINE, AND D 10, FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEM D 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, FINISHING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM 16.
THAT'S D 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? AYE.
UM, JUST ENTERING THE ROOM ARE OUR, OUR NEW STAFF MEMBERS WHO WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE ONE OF WHOM I KNOW.
SO I'LL INTRODUCE HER AND SHE WILL INTRODUCE THE OTHER GENTLEMAN WHOM I DON'T KNOW.
SO KATE SINGLETON
UM, SO I HAVE WITH ME MARCUS WATSON, WHO WAS ANOTHER SENIOR PLANNER WITH ME AT THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, LIKE, LIKE KATE SAID, WE USED TO WORK TOGETHER HERE IN THIS VERY DEPARTMENT AND I'M EXCITED TO BE BACK AFTER 12 SOME ODD YEARS.
WELL, WE'RE GLAD TO BE BACK AND I KNOW THE PREVIOUS STAFF MEMBERS ARE HAPPY TO HAVE A LARGER GROUP OF FRIENDS TO WORK WITH US.
THEY, UH, HAVE BEEN DOING ALL OF THIS WORK,
SO WE ARE READY TO START HEARING OUR DISCUSSION CASES.
THE STAFF WILL PLEASE READ THAT.
RHONDA DUNN, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OH, PARDON ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.
OKAY, I FORGOT TO SAY SOMETHING.
THE ATTORNEY TOLD ME TO SAY, OH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ELECT TO NOT READ THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS INTO THE DOCKET AS THEY ALREADY EXIST IN THE AGENDA AND THEREFORE PART OF PUBLIC, UM, RECORD UNLESS SOMEONE OBJECTS TO THIS.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, I'D LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AS SUGGESTING THAT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS PROCESS AND IT SHOULD BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
IT'S NOT LABORIOUS, IT'S NOT GONNA KEEP US HERE UNTIL EIGHT O'CLOCK TONIGHT, SO I WILL BE OPPOSED TO THAT.
THEN WE WILL SELECT A VICTIM TO READ THESE INTO THE RE REAGAN
AND I ASK THAT YOU SIMPLY SAY WHETHER THEY APPROVED, DENIED, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AND CONDITIONS ON EACH THING.
WE DON'T NEED TO REPEAT ANY OF THE, BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE BEEN THERE BY NOW.
SO WE WERE ON, WE'RE DOING D ONE.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 1300 SOUTH IRVE STREET.
IT'S THE FORMER AMBASSADOR HOTEL.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 3 4 R D.
THE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING COMPLEX
[00:10:01]
WITH ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE ON SITE OF THE FORMER AMBASSADOR HOTEL.THREE BUILDINGS TOTAL WITH FOUR LEVELS OF PARKING.
TWO OF THOSE LEVELS ARE UNDERGROUND.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW MAIN MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING COMPLEX WITH ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE ON SITE OF THE FORMER AMBASSADOR HOTEL BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 5 1 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THAT ONE STORY BE ADDED TO THE SIGNATURE CORNER ELEMENT, THE CENTER OF THE JEWEL BOX THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE PARAPETS ON JEWEL BOX AND NORTH BAR BE A MINIMUM OF 30 INCHES ABOVE THE POINT WHERE THE ROOF SURFACES AND THE PARAPET WALLS INTERSECT THAT THE BASE LEVEL THREE OF NORTH BAR BE A MAXIMUM OF 25 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THAT PARKING AREA SURFACES BE BRUSHED, FINISHED CONCRETE, INCLUDING PARKING AREA, EGRESS AND INGRESS.
AND THAT STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS BE USED TO SECURE FIBER CEMENT.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 3.2 UNDER NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS, SECTION 5.1 SUBS, DIVISION B ROMAN ONE PERTAINING TO FACADES AND SECTION 7.3 UNDER ROOFS.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH FOUR DOT 5 0 1 SUBSECTION OF SUBDIVISION G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU THOUGH, I THINK FOR THE REST OF THEM WE CAN SKIP THE, UM, THE NUMBERS EVEN THOUGH I LOVE ROMAN.
YOU LIKE, BUT JUST TELL US YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE REST IS ALREADY PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, RIGHT? RIGHT.
TO CLARIFY, YOU CAN JUST SAY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE REASON SET FORTH IN THE DOCKET.
MR. ROTHENBERG, TELL ME IF I DO IT RIGHT, I'M SORRY.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING WEST WALL SIGN BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS THAT APPLICANTS SUBMIT.
NOTES CLARIFYING EXISTING SIGN WRONG ONE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS 1401 OKAY SHOT.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A MAIN MULTIFAMILY DWELLING COMPLEX COMPLEX WITH ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
AND DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WELCOME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIRMAN.
MY NAME IS ROB BALDWIN, OFFICER 39 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER O H T PARTNERS IN THIS ONE.
AND YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH? YES MA'AM.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TELL US.
UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US BACK.
WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH, IT DIDN'T GO OUR WAY AND SO WE'RE HOPING WE'RE, WE WILL HAVE A BETTER LUCK THIS TIME.
AS YOU REMEMBER, UH, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO RECREATE THE AMBASSADOR HOTEL.
UH, MY CLIENT BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
UH, THERE WAS A MOTION OR A MOVEMENT BEING FORWARDED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION TO REMOVE THE H OVERLAY ON IT CUZ THE BUILDING WAS NO, NO LONGER THERE.
MY CLIENT WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AMBASSADOR HOTEL WAS RECOGNIZED, SO THEY VOLUNTARILY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS TO PUT PRESERVATION CRITERIA ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DID NOT HAVE A STRUCTURE ON IT.
WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TRY TO GET OUR CA APPROVED AND SHOW HOW WE COMPLY WITH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA THAT WAS ADOPTED BOTH BY, UH, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION PLAN COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL.
NOW, KEEP IN MIND, UH, THE, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WAS SAID IN THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA IS WE ARE NOT TRYING TO RECREATE THE AMBASSADOR HOTEL, BUT WE'RE HERE TO CELEBRATE IT NOW, HOPEFULLY YOU, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM, UH, MY CLIENT ALONG WITH A MATRIX SHOWING ALL THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA AND HOW WE MET THAT.
AND, UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THAT BECAUSE WE ONLY GOT THREE MINUTES OF PERSON.
BUT, UH, THE ARCHITECTS I THINK, DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF GOING THROUGH EVERY CRITERIA
[00:15:01]
AND SHOWING HOW THEY'VE MET IT.SO, UM, WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS.
UH, ONE THING I WILL BRING UP IS THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
I, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER OSA EARLIER, UM, THAT WE'D NOT HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION STAFF WILL NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE THAT.
SO, UM, THAT'S NOT COMING BACK.
SO, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO THE ARCHITECTS AND OWNER, BUT, UM, UH, WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
HELLO, SIR, PLEASE BEGIN BY STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY NAME IS HOW BEAVER, UM, 42 32 SAN CARLOS.
UM, AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU'LL TELL THE TRUTH? I DO.
APPRECIATE WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE IF YOU GUYS READ THE LETTER WE WROTE.
UM, I'M WITH, I AM THE DEVELOPER ON THE PROJECT.
UH, WE OWN WE OWN THE PROPERTY AND I'M HERE REALLY JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE NOW TO HELP KIND OF MAYBE FILL THE GAPS.
I KNOW THIS IS A BIT OF A, PROBABLY A DIFFERENT ABNORMAL TYPE OF PROJECT FOR THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.
THIS IS A GROUND UP DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT.
IT'S EXTREMELY, UM, IT'S AN EXTREMELY PROMINENT SITE IN THE CEDARS, WHICH I'LL GET BACK TO IN A MINUTE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, HALF OF THE SITE IS IN THE OVERLAY AND HALF OF IT'S NOT.
UM, SO WE JUMPED IN AT THE END OF 2021, UH, TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.
AND AT THE MOMENT, THE OWNER AT THE TIME, AS, AS ROB SUGGESTED, WAS PURSUING AN ABANDONMENT OF THE OVERLAY ALTOGETHER THAT CLEARLY WAS, WAS UNSETTLING FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE BOTH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THIS BODY.
SO WE KIND OF ASSESSED THAT, TOOK A STEP BACK, STARTED MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MET WITH WITH MS. HAMPTON, UM, AND, AND AGREED TO, TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND, AND START OVER, WHICH WOULD BE, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO THE OVERLAY TO ALLOW US TO BUILD THE THING.
SO, UM, WE DID THAT, WE JUMPED IN.
IT WAS A LITTLE NERVOUS TO ME BECAUSE, WELL JUST KIND OF THE UNKNOWNS OF THAT.
THESE ARE VERY LARGE COMPLEX PROJECTS, THIS ONE BEING SUCH A BIG AND PROMINENT ONE.
UM, SO MY KIND OF, MY MISSION WAS, GUYS, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE AND, AND, AND LET'S GET A GOOD SET OF RULES AS WELL AS INTENT IN, IN THE, IN THE TEXT SO WE CAN THEN GO DO OUR THING.
UH, WE GOT THAT APPROVED ALL HUNKY DORY, SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOME OF WHOM ARE HERE TODAY, I BELIEVE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS.
SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH MS. HAMPTON AND WE'RE QUITE HONEST WITH EACH OTHER.
I MEAN, WE DIDN'T ALWAYS AGREE ON EVERYTHING.
UM, KIND OF GAVE EACH OTHER THE DIGNITY OF, OF BEING FRANK ABOUT STUFF.
I OBVI I I DIDN'T LEAVE EVERY MEETING HAPPY WITH WHAT JOANNA HAD TO SAY, FRANKLY, BUT, BUT WE WORKED TOGETHER AND WE GOT IT DONE.
SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER BEERS, PRESENTATIONS, ALL THE THINGS.
AGAIN, DIDN'T ALWAYS HEAR WHAT WE WANTED TO HEAR, BUT WE'RE HONEST WITH EACH OTHER AND, AND HAD A, I THINK A REALLY GOOD PROCESS THIS PROJECT FOR THAT REASON.
UM, AND JUST THE, THE COOL FACTOR OF IT IS, HAS REALLY BECOME SOMEWHAT OF A PASSION PROJECT FOR ME.
I MEAN, WE BUILD A LOT OF APARTMENTS, BUT THIS ONE'S REALLY NEAT AND I WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TOO.
THE, THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION, NOT JUST RELATED TO THE HISTORIC FACTOR, BUT THE PROMINENCE OF THE SITE.
ONE SIDE, YOU GOT OLD CITY PARK, THE OTHER SIDE, YOU'RE LOOKING INTO THE CEDARS, AND THEN OF COURSE YOU GOT THE SKYLINE.
SO IT'S, THERE'S NO BACK DOOR TO IT.
AND THAT WAS A HUGE PART OF THE, UH, PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND AGAIN, WHY IT'S SO EXCITING.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND, AND PART OF THE INTEREST OF IT IS WE'RE GONNA DO THE HISTORIC FACTOR, THE HISTORIC PART, AND THEN THE OTHER HALF OF THE SITE FACING THE DALLAS SKYLINE NEEDS TO HAVE A BIG PRESENCE.
SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, EXCUSE ME, SIR, THAT IS YOUR TIME.
CAN I WRAP UP WITH ALL THAT SAID? SORRY.
HI, MOVE AND AOSA? YES, I MOVE THAT WE GAVE THE GENTLEMAN, UH, AN EXTRA TWO MINUTES.
YOU HAVE AN EXTRA TWO MINUTES.
WITH ALL THAT SAID, THE MISSION WAS TO COME UP WITH A TEXT THAT CLEARLY DEFINES WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO OR WHAT WE SHOULD DO AS WE GO BUILD THIS THING, WHAT OUR RULES ARE.
AND, UM, AND AS WELL WE HAVE KIND OF THE, THE STATEMENT OF INTENT IN THE BEGINNING OF IT.
AND, AND CLEARLY BY NATURE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING HERE.
THERE'S, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SUBJECTIVITY TO EVERYTHING.
THERE'S A LOT OF OPINION AROUND WHAT'S AROUND HISTORIC THINGS.
I JUST ASKED THAT, UM, THAT YOU, WELL, MY INTENT HERE IS SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM, HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT, AND, UM, THE INTENT OF THE WHOLE THING.
MY DESIGN TEAM HAS DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB.
I TOLD 'EM, STICK TO THE TEXT, DO WHAT THE TEXT SAYS, BE COMPLIANT.
[00:20:01]
WE'VE GOT A CHECKLIST TOGETHER THAT IS VERY CLEARLY KIND OF BOX CHECKING AS TO WHY INES DESCRIPTIVE AS TO WHY WE DO COMPLY.HOPE YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THAT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
AND THEN OF COURSE, UM, THE INTENT I THINK IS CERTAINLY THERE.
SO I THINK WE'VE REALLY DONE AND THEY'VE DONE A REALLY, REALLY GOOD JOB OF, UM, OF MEETING THE CHALLENGE.
SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, I REALLY, UM, APPRECIATE YOU GUYS AND, AND REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.
IS THERE ANOTHER SPEAKER ON THIS ONE OR I'M SURE YOU KNOW, NAME AND ADDRESS, RIGHT? YES, I AM CHRISTOPHER WEISS, 1419 GRIFFIN STREET EAST.
I AM SPEAKING AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CEDARS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, YOU DO HAVE TO SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOU'LL TELL THE TRUTH, SO WHY WOULDN'T YOU? I DO
UM, SO SPEAKING, REPRESENTING THE BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS OF THE CEDARS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WE ENCOURAGE A LANDMARK COMMISSION TO PROVE THIS OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THIS PLAN AS PRESENTED BY O HT PARTNERS AND CORGAN ARCHITECTS.
UH, THE PLAN WAS PRESENTED LAST WEEK TO THE CEDARS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DURING ONE OF OUR REGULAR MEETINGS.
AND AFTER A LONG Q AND A WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN FAVOR OF THE DESIGN PRESIDENT.
THEN WE HAVE SEEN THE DESIGN AS PRESENTED TODAY AND ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT AS WELL.
WITH THE MODIFICATIONS BEING DONE THERE, WE DO SEE THE AMBASSADOR SITE AS PART OF A, AS A KEY PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT AREA, INCLUDING THE AMBASSADOR, OH, THE, UH, OLD CITY PARK, THE GULF CONE BUILDING, AND OTHERS WERE THERE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE NEW GATEWAY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE SEE THE IMPORTANT TO SEE REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT LONG NON-ELECTED SPACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOPING TO SEE REACTIVATION IN THAT SPACE WITH THESE NEW PROJECTS.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT IN THIS MATTER.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS MATTER? HELLO, SIR.
UH, IT'S CASEY MCMANON, 51 45 YOLANDA LANE, DALLAS, 75,229.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? I DO.
HOPEFULLY YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE GULF CONE BUILDING.
IT WAS EMPTY FOR MANY YEARS WITH LOTS OF PARTIES, DRUGS, GUNS, AND SOME HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS THAT NEEDED SOME PLACE TO DRY AND SLEEP.
I BOUGHT THE GULF CONE IN 2014.
MY GOAL WAS TO IMPROVE THE BUILDING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY, BEAUTY, AND PURSUE THE IDEA OF RE REACTIVATING THE CEDARS BY DELIVERING A GATEWAY.
THE AMBASSADOR WOULD BE THE LEADER.
THE GULF CONE IS LESS THAN 100 FEET AWAY.
I WATCHED MY FRIEND, MY NEXT NEIGHBOR BURN FROM THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE GULF CONE.
I HOPED THE DEVELOPER WOULD ARRIVE INSTEAD.
MANY MEETINGS, IDEAS, DISCUSSIONS, EFFORTS AND TRIPS TO THE ROOF OF THE GULF CONE AND A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS RESULTED IN EXCITEMENT IN THE CEDARS.
I WANNA PRESENT ONE VERY SPECIFIC OPINION.
WHEN HAL AND HIS O H T COLLEAGUES PRESENTED THEIR INITIAL DESIGN, MORE THAN ONE FRIEND OF THE CEDARS HAD STRONG RESPONSES ABOUT THE DESIGN AND WHERE IT WAS DIRECTED.
IT WAS DIRECTED ABSOLUTELY TO THE NORTH IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS.
THAT IS NOT THE CEDARS THE CEDAR.
PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GO TO DOWNTOWN.
THEY WANT PEOPLE TO COME TO THE CEDARS.
MANY OF US MADE AN EFFORT TO SHOW EVERYBODY THE O H E TEAM, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, WAITING FOR OUR PARTNER TO SHOW UP.
AND WHEN WE PRESENTED WHAT OUR IDEAS WERE, HELEN AND HIS FRIENDS, THEY SAID, GIVE US SOME TIME.
THEY CAME BACK WITH A MUCH BETTER EFFORT, I WOULD SAY A TREMENDOUS EFFORT.
AND THEY CAME UP TO US, FORTUNATELY TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS MUCH MORE LIKE WHAT THE CEDARS DESERVE.
NOT WHAT YOU WANT, IT'S WHAT THEY DESERVE.
AND WHAT WE SHOWED IS THAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON STREETS, PARKING LIGHTS, BEAUTY AND SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY.
THERE ARE FOUR PARTIES THAT OWN ALL OF THE STREET
[00:25:01]
ON SOUTH IRVE.AND ALL FOUR OF US, WE OWN ALL OF THAT THERE.
WE HAVE ALL AGREED EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH STREETS AND PARKING AND SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY.
HOW MANY SPEAKERS TOTAL DO WE HAVE ON THIS ONE, BY THE WAY?
BEN GRIFFITHS AND I LIVE AT 2,400 SOUTH IRV BAY STREET.
AND YOU PROMISE OR SWEAR TO TELL US THE TRUTH? I DO.
IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC.
UM, BUT I WANTED TO COME HERE IN PERSON, EVEN THOUGH CHRIS HAS DONE A GREAT JOB REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, AND JUST GIVE AN OPINION ON THIS.
UM, I DO LIVE IN THE CEDARS AND I HAVE FOR A LONG TIME.
I CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT THE LIVING HISTORY AS, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE HISTORY THAT'S BEEN LOST TO THE CEDARS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND THE AMBASSADOR IS A KEY.
IT'S, IT'S A KEY DEVELOPMENT TO THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOW, AND, AND HIS PLAN THAT HE PRESENTED, UH, IS RESPECTFUL.
UM, I THINK THAT IT DOES HONOR THE TRADITION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE AESTHETIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, THE INVESTORS, UM, THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I'M HERE AS MUCH TO SPEAK TO THAT AS I AM AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE, I I I THINK THEY ADD A LOT OF COST WITHOUT ADDING VALUE TO THE PROJECT.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS, A AS A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE CEDARS THAT I WANT TO DO IS, AS I'M SURE YOU DO TOO, ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT, NOT HOLD IT BACK.
THE CEDARS IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF, OF PROPERTY AND AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO DALLAS, BUT IT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED THE WAY IT NEEDS TO.
AND WE HAVE ONE MORE AFTERNOON.
UH, I'M WILL MITCHELL, 28 21 LOVERS LANE.
UM, AND I'D LIKE TO REQUEST, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, IF I COULD BE MADE PRESENTER TO SHARE AN IMAGE.
AND I HAVE TO QUICKLY ASK YOU, YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH? I DO.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AGAIN FOR THE AUDIENCE TO CLARIFY A FEW CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR PROPOSED DESIGN FOR THE AMBASSADOR PROJECT.
WE'RE THE ARCHITECTS ON THE PROJECT.
FIRST, OUR PROPOSAL FOR WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE JEWEL BOX STRUCTURE BUILDING IS FIVE STORIES TALL.
AN ADDITIONAL FLOOR IS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF.
UH, RECOMMENDATION WOULD REQUIRE THE STRUCTURE TO MOVE IN A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTION TYPE, WHICH WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE FOR THE PROJECT.
UM, BUT WE TALKED SINCE THE RECOMMENDATION CAME OUT AND OUR TEAM LOOKED AT AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION.
UH, IF THE CONCERN IS TO FURTHER ACCENTUATE THE CENTRAL STONE VOLUME OF THE JEWEL BOX, UH, WE PROPOSED, UH, WE COULD RAISE THE CEILING HEIGHT IN THAT AREA OF THE BUILDING, UH, FROM SAY 10 TO 12 FEET AND INSERT A ROW OF CLEAR STORY WINDOWS AND THAT SOUTH FACADE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IMAGE HERE, EVERYONE CAN SEE THE IMAGE.
UM, SECONDLY, THE PROPOSED DESIGN DOES INCLUDE A SECONDARY VEHICULAR ENTRY ALONG ST.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
UM, THE AT GRADE RENDERING WE INCLUDED ALONG ST.
PAUL IS TAKEN JUST FROM A VANTAGE POINT JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT VEHICULAR ENTRY.
AND SO THUS THE, THE ENTRY, THE VEHICULAR ENTRY IS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE RANGE OF THAT VIEW.
BUT IT IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THAT.
UM, AS MENTIONED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IN THE BRIEFING, WE'RE UNABLE TO KEEP THE EXISTING CIRCLE DRIVE AT SOUTH IRVING DUE TO TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE RESTRICTIONS.
HOWEVER, THE PROJECT TEAM INTENDS TO USE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE EXISTING BRICK FROM THAT AREA AS ENHANCED LANDSCAPE AND PAVING THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
AND IN KEY FOCUS AREAS LIKE THE ENTRY, UM, REGARDING THE FASTENERS USED FOR THE FIBER CEMENT BOARD AREAS OF THE BUILDING, OUR TEAM RECOMMENDS AND PROPOSES THE USE OF GALVANIZED STEEL FASTENERS PAINTED TO BE CONCEALED FROM VIEW.
UH, THE, THE GALVANIZATION PROCESS INHIBITS THE CORROSION THAT I THINK WAS THE CONCERN.
OUR CONCERN WITH STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS IS THEY DON'T ACCEPT PAINT WELL AND WOULD REFLECT LIGHT AND THEN BE, UH,
[00:30:01]
VERY VISIBLE AND THEY WOULD STAND OUT VIS VISUALLY.AND THEN AS TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BASE ALONG THE NORTH BAR BUILDING, WE DID HAVE AN INDICATION OF THE INTERIOR FINISH FLOOR THAT READ AT 125 FOOT SIX THAT IS THE INTERIOR FINISH FLOOR AND IS INDEPENDENT OF GRADE.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BASE BRICK EXPRESSION, THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING IS 24 10 ABOVE GRADE ALONG THAT FACADE.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE WANNA BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE WITH OUR INTENT WITH THE DESIGN TODAY.
AND NOW IS WHEN, UM, COMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS OR STAFF TO FURTHER CLARIFY THEIR UNDERSTANDING.
AND COMMISSIONER SWAN? UH, YES.
I THINK THIS IS FOR ANY OF YOU WHO'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IT.
I'M JUST A LITTLE UNCLEAR, UH, ABOUT THE, UM, THE REQUIREMENT ABOUT THE, THE PARAPET ON THE, UH, JEWEL BOX AND THE NORTH BAR.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, I GUESS, A CLEARER ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT WAS BEING ASKED AS A CONDITION OF YOU ALL AND WHAT YOU ALL HAVE PROPOSED, UH, TO MEET IT OR TO COUNTER IT.
CAUSE I'VE JUST, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD VISUAL SENSE OF, OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO SHOW A MINIMUM 30 INCH PARAPET ANYWHERE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING.
AND THERE WAS A REFERENCE DURING THE BRIEFING OF BUILDING CODE.
UM, WE OF COURSE INTEND FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
AND WE, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT HEIGHT PARAPET IS PRETTY STANDARD PARAPET HEIGHT ON THE BUILDING.
SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.
I GUESS I, I MISSED THE, YOU WERE EXPLAINING ABOUT THE CLEAR STORY WINDOWS.
WHAT WAS THAT IN RESPONSE TO THAT? THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF A CONCERN IN THE MASSING OF THIS JEWEL BUILDING BECAUSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ADD A, UH, A SIXTH STORY TO THIS STRUCTURE.
OUR THOUGHT WAS, OKAY, THE GOAL IS TO BETTER DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE STONE VOLUME AND THE FLANKING BRICK VOLUMES BECAUSE THE, THE, THE, UH, PACKET THAT WE SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY SHOWED ABOUT A FOUR FOOT DELTA BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARAPETS TO ACCENTUATE THE STONE VOLUME.
AN ADDITIONAL STORY, OF COURSE, WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
SO OUR PROPOSAL WITH THE CLEAR STORY IS TO KIND OF MEET IN THE MIDDLE THERE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND AN ADDITIONAL WINDOW TYPE TO DIFFERENTIATE THE CENTER SECTION FROM THE FLANKING, UH, BRICK VOLUME.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, IT DOES.
SO WOULD I BE CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE ONLY, UH, POINT OF DIFFERENCE NOW BETWEEN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS WRITTEN IN THIS APPROVAL, THE STAFF CONDITIONS WOULD BE ON THE MATTER OF GALVANIZATION OF THE, UH, THE, THE FA THANK YOU, THE FASTENERS GALVANIZATION OF THE FASTENERS.
BUT, BUT I WOULD FURTHER CLARIFY THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT ADD A SIXTH FLOOR.
IT RAISES THE HEIGHT OF THE, THE TOP FLOOR, WHICH IS THE FIFTH FLOOR.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I THINK THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ADD A FLOOR YES.
MISSED THE PART ABOUT REQUIRING A SIXTH, UH, FLOOR IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THAT, IS THE SIXTH FLOOR WRITTEN INTO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? I DID SAY AN ADDITIONAL STORY, AND AS MR. MITCHELL IS SAYING, THE ISSUE WAS DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE, UH, SIGNATURE CORNER ELEMENT, WHICH IS, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO IT AS? UH, THE STONE CENTRAL VOLUME.
THE STONE CENTRAL VOLUME AND THE, UH, WINGS, WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING TO AS THE, THE BRICK FLANKING VOLUME.
UH, UH, IS, IS STAFF SATISFIED BY THE ADDITION OF THE CLAIRE STORY IN LIEU OF THE SIX STORY? I, I CAN SEE A DIFFERENTIATION WHERE I DID NOT SEE ONE BEFORE PER SE.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE SEEING FRESH.
RIGHT? THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I AM SEEING FRESH.
SO WE CAN REALLY SAY THEN THAT, UH, THE CLEAR STORY SUBSTITUTION FOR THE ADDITIONAL STORY IS WHAT HE'S PROPOSING.
SO, UH, THAT COULD BE ACCEPTED.
AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE IS GALVANIZATION VERSUS STAINLESS.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND I'M FINE WITH THAT.
[00:35:01]
OKAY.AND YOU'VE, YOU'VE, UH, DEMONSTRATED THAT, UH, THE BASE ON THE NORTH BAR FALLS WITHIN THE, THE 20.
WHICH SAY I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT POINT,
BUT, UM, BECAUSE WHAT ARE WE SAYING, THE 24 FEET, 10 INCHES REFERS TO? IT'S THE BRICK, UM, CLADDING ON THE ELEVATION AND IT'S HEIGHT FROM GRADE.
AND, AND I CAN EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE 1 25 FOOT SIX DIMENSION THAT RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO THAT SETS THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING.
SO THE INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR OF THE BUILDING, WE NEED THAT TO BE AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT TO ALLOW TRUCKS TO SERVICE THE BUILDING FROM WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE JUST TO ALLOW ENOUGH OVERHEAD CLEARANCE MM-HMM.
THE CITY OF DALLAS DOESN'T ALLOW THAT.
SO THAT ALLOWS THEM TO ENTER THE STRUCTURE SO THAT THAT'S THE REASON WE, WE NEED THAT INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT TO BE THERE.
BUT FROM THE EXTERIOR, FROM A FACADE POINT OF VIEW, THE CHANGE BETWEEN THE BRICK BASE AND THE SECONDARY MATERIAL IS AT 24 FOOT 10.
SO THAT'S HOW WE ARE DEFINING THE, THE BASE.
AND THE BASE METAL TOP EXPRESSION IS THE, THE BRICK BASE AT 24 FOOT 10.
MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP TO THAT? UH, CERTAINLY YES, PLEASE.
SO ON, UM, MS. DUNN AND I, APOLOGIES.
I'M TRYING TO GET THE PAGE ON THE CASE REPORT, THE ELEVATION OF THE NORTH BAR THAT'S IN THE CASE REPORT.
LEVEL THREE IS NOTED AS BEING THE 25 FOOT SIX INCHES.
BUT, UM, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT, IT NOTES THAT 24 FOOT 10, WHICH I UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE DIMENSION, THE BASE DIMENSION, SO THE EXPRESSED MATERIAL DIMENSION.
IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I ALSO JUST HEARD MR. MITCHELL SAY, WELL, TODAY THAT'S WHAT MR. MITCHELL HAS INFORMED US OF.
BUT WHEN I SPOKE TO LUKE, LUKE SAID THAT, THAT THE 24 FOOT 10 WAS THE FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT.
SO THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION IS.
BUT IF TODAY WE'RE SAYING IT'S 24 FOOT 10 IS WHAT WE SEE, IF WE'RE STANDING ACROSS THE STREET, THEN I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING IN OUR, IN OUR CASE REPORT.
SO I THINK THAT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A MU UNFORTUNATE COMMUNICATION ON DIMENSIONS THERE.
AND THEN MY FINAL, MY FINAL QUESTION IS THIS DRAWING THAT YOU'VE SHOWN US WITH THE CLAIRE STORY SUBSTITUTION FOR THE SIXTH FLOOR, UH, WHAT IS THE DATE ON THIS DRAWING? OR HOW ARE WE IDENTIFYING THIS DRAWING? UH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE, THE DATE WOULD BE TODAY,
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THIS AND, AND DATE IT TODAY.
UH, UM, IF THAT HELPS WITH THE, THE RECORD KEEPING HERE.
AND, UH, ON THE MATTER OF THE BRUSH FINISH, UH, CONCRETE AT THE ENTRANCES, HAS THAT BEEN ACCEPTED? NO PROBLEM, NO ISSUE THERE.
UM, I HAVE A MOTION, BUT OF COURSE I DEFER TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? CAUSE IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN PROCEED, MR. SWAN.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF DISCUSSION, ITEM ONE 1300 SOUTH STREET, UH, CA 2 23 3 40 RD.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE, UM, WITH THE CONDITIONS, UH, THAT THE, UM, WITH THE CONDITIONS CITED, CITED BY STAFF, UH, BUT WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE DRAWINGS, UH, THE PARAPET, UH, THE CLEAR STORY SUBSTITUTION FOR THE SIXTH FLOOR, UH, ON DRAWINGS DATED MAY 1ST, 2023, SATISFY THAT CONDITION MADE BY STAFF 4 0 6 FLOOR.
AND THAT THE, UH, FINDING OF FACT THAT THE, UH, THE BASE, UH, OF THE NORTH BAR, UH, FALLS WITHIN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY STAFF, AND THAT, UH, GALVANIZED FASTENERS WILL BE SUFFICIENT IN PLACE OF STAINLESS STEEL FASTEN FASTENERS.
YES, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY FOR REASON, CITED BY
THANK YOU, MR. SWAN AND COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA HAS SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? ALL RIGHT.
I, I JUST HAVE THE COMMENT THAT I'M PLEASED TO SEE IT LOOKING MORE LIKE THE BELOVED AMBASSADOR.
I WORKED OVER IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AT OLD CITY PARK.
[00:40:01]
AND, UM, I'VE BEEN TO THE AMBASSADOR.I'M GLAD I GOT TO SEE IT, FORT BURNHAM.
BUT, UM, NOW, NOW THERE'LL BE SOMETHING NEW THERE, APPARENTLY, UNLESS THIS FAILS, BUT LET ME CALL 'EM THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, AYE.
OUR NEXT CASE IS TO BE D THREE.
RHONDA DUNNS, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF PRESENTING DISCUSSION ITEM D THREE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2002 COMMERCE STREET IN THE HARWOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 DASH 3 42 R D.
THE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, THE CONDITIONS BEING AS FOLLOWS, THAT BRICK COLOR THREE BE ALTERED TO MATCH.
THE PREDOMINANT BRICK COLOR OF THE MAIN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING ARE BE ALTERED TO A LIGHTER NEUTRAL COLOR.
AND THAT BLACK METAL PANELS BE REPLACED WITH RECTANGULAR CANOPIES IN A LIGHTER, NEUTRAL COLOR.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENT QUESTION TASK FORCE TASK TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, RAYS HEIGHT, FORM, AND CORNERS OF THE PARAPET ON THE SECTION OF COMMERCE STREET FACADE, WHICH HAS A BRICK COLOR THREE TO MATCH THE SAME HEIGHT FORM, AND CORNERS OF PARAPET ON THE SECTION OF THE COMMERCE STREET FACADE, WHICH HAS BRICK COLOR ONE.
AND IT APPEARS THAT, UM, NEW PLANS WERE SUBMITTED AFTER THAT TASK FORCE MEETING WITH THE REQUESTED ALTERATIONS.
UM, WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR THIS.
THE FIRST TWO SIGN UP WAS IAN ONG.
BEGIN BY GIVING US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS Y O UH, ADDRESS IS 1,217 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 75 2 0 2.
AND YOU PROMISE JUST SWEAR TO TELL US THE TRUTH? YES.
ALL RIGHT, SIR, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS YOUR PROJECT WITH US, AND THEN LATER WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS.
I'M REALLY JUST HERE TO, UH, MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE, UH, GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF, UH, YOU KNOW, A FEW TIMES NOW, AND WE, WE'VE ATTEMPTED AND LISTENED AND TAKEN THE SUGGESTIONS WHICH WE FEEL HAVE BEEN PRODUCTIVE AND HAVE IMPROVED THE PROJECT.
AND WE ARE, UM, WE HAVE REVISED OUR, UH, DRAWINGS TO COMPLY WITH THE LATEST, UH, APPROVAL CONDITIONAL APPROVALS, UH, THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE TASK FORCE.
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO, UH, A POSITIVE OUTCOME AND, UH, AND ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
SO I'LL JUST FROM WITH THAT, I'LL JUST MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT ONLINE COMMISSIONER GIBSON HAS JOINED US.
I KEEP SEEING HIM FLASH ON AND OFF.
AM I INCORRECT IN THIS? ANYBODY ELSE KNOW BETTER? YES, HE IS HERE.
AS LONG AS SOMEBODY HAS TO SEE HIM.
UH, WE HAVE ANOTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR THIS ONE, LISA RICCI.
PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY ADDRESS IS 616 SOUTH HARWOOD STREET.
AND YOU, UH, SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? I DO.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, MA'AM.
I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW TO SHARE IT.
YOU'RE ON YOUR CITY HALL WIFI.
UM, AM YOU LOG THE, OH, I'M SORRY.
OH, HOW DO I LOG INTO THE MEETING? I, I, UM, DO YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THAT? DO YOU HAVE THE LINK FROM THE EMAIL? OKAY.
[00:45:04]
NO, I DUNNO.THAT IS, IT'S IT'S CITY HALL, CORRECT? THE WIFI? YES.
IS, UH, TRYING TO FIND CONNECTION.
WELL, I'M NOT GETTING ON THE WIFI FOR SOME REASON.
WELL, IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THE ONE IMAGE THAT I WANTED TO SHOW IS, UH, OKAY.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE IMAGE EMAILED TO STAFF TO BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION? UM, IF, IF THAT WILL WORK BETTER, BUT I THINK THE ISSUE IS GETTING ON THE INTERNET AT ALL RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS, IF IT'S THE SAME IN IMAGE THAT WAS SENT TO US.
UM, COULD JUST GET IT FROM, FROM THERE.
UM, YOU'D THINK WE COULD, YEAH.
UM, ADRIAN IS OVER THERE HELPING HER RIGHT NOW.
ADRIAN IS OF COURSE OUR TECH EXPERT.
RHONDA, DO YOU HAVE THAT IMAGE? I DO NOT.
I THINK IT WAS A PRIOR, UM, VERSION OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, WELL, I'M NOT FINDING IT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT HERE.
I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MY EMAIL RIGHT NOW.
YEAH, I LOOKED AT IT, BUT IT WAS AN OLDER VERSION OF WHAT THE PROJECT CURRENTLY IS.
SO DID YOU SEND IT TO NO, I HAVEN'T SENT IT.
I HAVE NOT SHARED AN IMAGE IN THE PAST.
[00:50:02]
SORRY, I HAVE NEVER SHARED AN IMAGE BEFORE.THEY CAN START WITH MY THREE MINUTES.
SO I AM A STAKEHOLDER JUST OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC HARDWOOD DISTRICT.
I OWN ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PRODUCE WAREHOUSES, UH, TO THE FARMER'S MARKET.
I'M A PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE WORKING WITH UT SOUTHWESTERN IN CULINARY MEDICINE, NUTRITION AND AGRICULTURE.
BUT I DID INVEST IN THIS PROPERTY EXPECTING THE FARMER'S MARKET TO BE A THRIVING DAILY DESTINATION.
NOW, MY TAXES WENT IN 10 YEARS, FROM 16,000 A YEAR TO $35,000 A YEAR BECAUSE THE NEW BUILDINGS, UH, AND THE TIFF FUNDING.
BUT THEY HAVE TAKEN UP EVERY INCH OF ALLOWABLE SIDEWALK SPACE, WHICH HAS KILLED WALKABILITY AND PROVIDES NO RETAIL OPPORTUNITY.
I NOW RENT MY SPACE FOR PODCASTS BECAUSE IT IS SO QUIET ON THE STREET.
I HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THE FIRST BUILDING GOING UP.
AND, UM, THIS ADDITION, UM, WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE MEETING, ONE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS ASKED WITH OUTRAGE, HOW DID WE GET HERE? WE GOT HERE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL HARDWOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE IN 1998 REQUIRED A SETBACK OF THE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE, UM, BOTH THE BUILDINGS, BUT ALSO THE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK SO THAT WHEN SOMEONE WALKS DOWN THE SIDEWALK, THEY DO, THEY CAN APPRECIATE ALL OF THE BUILDINGS AS THEY WALK THROUGH OR DRIVE THROUGH.
UM, AND THE FIRST BUILDING, UM, THAT, UM, WAS PROPOSED, UH, ALSO HAD A PRESERVATION ARCHITECT ADVOCATE FOR, OR, OR ADVOCATE CONSULT SO THAT, UM, THE DEVELOPER COULD USE THE LANGUAGE TO GET AROUND THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SETBACK REQUIRED.
IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND, UM, THE FIRST BUILDING WAS SEVEN STORIES, AND IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR NINE STORIES THE DAY AFTER IT WAS APPROVED.
SO, UM, THE REASON THE FIRST BUILDING WAS APPROVED BECAUSE THE, UM, ARCHITECT CAME BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH THE MINUTIAE OF THE BUILDING JUST LIKE NOW, BRICK, UH, UH, UH, THE COLOR OF THE BRICK.
UM, BUT WE ARE IGNORING THE ONLY ORDINANCE THAT STILL IS ON THE BOOKS, WHICH IS DOES THIS BUILDING OVERPOWER THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES? THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IS THE GEORGE DOLL BUILDING THE ON THE RIGHT.
THE OTHERS ARE, UM, UH, NOT, NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR, THE OTHER WORD COLLABORATING OR THEY'RE NOT IMPORTANT ARCHITECTURE.
SO, UM, WE FIND OURSELVES HERE AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE BRICK AND THE SIZE OF THE BANDS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, WHEN CLEARLY THIS MONSTROSITY IS, HAS NO CORRELATION.
WHEN IS YOUR TIME? CAN I HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES? I MOVE THAT THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN TWO MORE MINUTES.
ALL THOSE WHO HAVE APPROVE WITH THIS SAY AYE.
SO, UM, SO NOW WE HAVE A SIDEWALK WITH, UH, NO SETBACK, WHERE THE PEDESTRIANS WILL NOT, WILL BOTH HAVE A COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTED VIEW OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH, LIKE THE GREEN DOME OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE U N T LAW SCHOOL OR, UM, ANY OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS ALONG THE WAY.
UM, SO THIS BUILDING VIOLATES THE SPIRIT, ALTHOUGH, UM, AND UM, ALSO THE ENTRANCE IS AT THE CORNER.
SO ALL OF THE STUDENTS FROM U N T IN PARTICULAR, THE PRESCHOOLERS GOING TO THE PARK WILL HAVE TO NAVIGATE THAT.
THE PARK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE HAD TO BE REDESIGNED BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR VIEW.
AND, UH, AS A WONDERFUL CHILDREN'S PARK WITH SUSTAINABLE LESSONS AND GREEN DESIGN TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN ABOUT, UH, THE ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH THEY LIVE.
SO CURRENTLY THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
DOES THIS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, DOES THIS, UH, OVERPOWER THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES? IF YOU BELIEVE IT DOES NOT, YOU CAN VOTE YES.
IF YOU BELIEVE IT DOES, UH, YOU WOULD VOTE NO.
I'VE BEEN THROUGH, BEEN WITH THIS, UH, SITUATION FOR FIVE YEARS, AND I'M HERE MOSTLY BECAUSE I HAVE TO LIVE WITH MYSELF THAT I HAVE INFORMED YOU AND THAT YOU WILL MAKE YOUR DECISION.
AND WHEN THERE'S PUBLIC OUTCRY AND NATIONAL IS A STAIN ON OUR CITY, UM, YOU
[00:55:01]
WILL KNOW HOW YOU VOTED.NOW IS TIME FOR, UM, THE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR OUR SPEAKERS.
UH, I, OH, COMMISSIONER SWAN, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE MOST RECENT SPEAKER.
UH, HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE OVER DOMINANCE OF THE BUILDING MM-HMM.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT THIS BUILDING IS, UH, THERE'S ONLY A, UM, A COUPLE OF DOZEN FEET OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHAT WOULD BE OPTIMAL IS IF THE BUILDING, EVEN IF IT WAS TALLER, WOULD NOT BE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUE.
BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ECONOMICS INVOLVED IN THAT.
BUT IF THERE WERE A 45 DEGREE ANGLE CUT AT THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING SO THAT THERE WAS SAFE PASSAGEWAY AND AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF A VIEW, IT WOULD BE A, UH, AN IMPROVEMENT.
BUT, UM, I'M SORRY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE CUT ON THE CORNER? YEAH, JUST ON THE, YOU KNOW, I HAD, UM, I THINK I HAD, UH, COME HERE A PREVIOUS TIME AND SHARED ANOTHER VIEW WHERE THERE WAS, UM, A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING IN PARIS THAT, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF BEING AN APEX, JUST THAT LITTLE SLICE OF THE CORNER AND THEN THERE WAS, UH, ACTIVITY, LIKE A CAFE ON THE CORNER WHERE PEOPLE WOULD ENJOY.
BUT I MEAN, UH, THE FIRST BUILDING WAS APPROVED UNFORTUNATELY, AND THERE WAS NO SETBACKS.
SO, UM, THAT CAUSES A NARROW SIDEWALK.
BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE APEX OF THE CORNER, IT REALLY IS A PROBLEM WITH THE DOWNTOWN 360 PLAN SAFETY, STREET SAFETY, YOU KNOW, I'M QUITE CONCERNED THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOMEONE ON A BICYCLE KILLED OR, OR THESE CHILDREN TRYING TO CROSS THE STREET AND THEY CAN'T GET AROUND THAT CORNER.
AND, AND THE CURRENT BUILDING IS AT THE SAME SETBACK AS THE FIRST BUILDING THAT WAS APPROVED, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, UM, THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
I MEAN, IT'S, UH, THE FIRST BUILDING IS, UH, USES UP EVERY INCH OF ALLOWABLE SPACE.
THERE WAS NO, IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT THE BUILDING HAD TO BE SET BACK 15 FEET.
SO THERE WASN'T ANYTHING TO SAY THAT THEY COULDN'T DO, THAT THEY WERE, THEY HIRED A PRESERVATION CONSULTANT WHO HELPED THEM GET AROUND THE LANGUAGE OR WHATEVER ELSE THAT CONSULTANT DID TO PERSUADE THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE IT.
UM, SO THIS CURRENT ONE, I, YOU KNOW, DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY.
YEAH, IT'S ON THE SAME PLANE, BUT IT, AT THIS POINT, I THINK I NEED A CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF DR.
THE CURRENT DESIGN, AS WELL AS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN HAS HAD TO ADDRESS THAT DUE TO DALLAS CITY CODE REGARDING LINES OF SIGHT AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
SO FOR BOTH THE JACKSON STREET HARDWOOD STREET INTERSECTION AND NOW THE COMMERCE STREET HARDWOOD STREET INTERSECTION, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE 45 OR THE 90 DEGREE ANGLE.
IN OTHER WORDS, LET ME SHOW YOU, LET ME SHARE RIGHT QUICK.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT, THAT THERE COULD NOT BE A 45 CUTOFF THERE, BECAUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, NO, NO.
NOW THERE IS A, UM, CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN YET? UH, OKAY.
SEE ON MY SCREEN NOW, THERE IS, AS MS. RICHIE IS SAYING, A 90 DEGREE ANGLE AT BOTH CORNERS, BECAUSE THAT IS CITY COLD.
WHAT WE'VE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION LAST TIME, THERE WAS CONCERN BY THE TASK FORCE FOR THIS FLOATING CORNER.
BUT THE REASON FOR THE FLOATING CORNER IS TO PROVIDE LINES OF SIGHT, TO PROVIDE VIEW CORRIDORS TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AS WELL AS VISIBILITY FOR DRIVERS.
SO HE HAS TO HAVE, HE, IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN THOUGH HIS INITIAL DESIGN FOR THE ORIGINAL BUILDING DID NOT HAVE THE 90 DEGREE ANGLE, HE HAS TO HAVE THAT IN THE CURRENT DESIGN, WHICH HE HAS ADDED, AND IT HAD TO BE ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN BECAUSE OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 51, A
[01:00:01]
4, 6 0 2.SO WHAT IS BEING ASKED HAS BE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED, IS WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH, I GUESS IT'S THE ENTRANCE UNDER THE PEAK OF THE CORNER.
AND THAT IS, NOW, AS MS. RICCI IS PROPOSING, THERE'S A CAFE THERE AND THERE IS NOW A 90 DEGREE ANGLE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU SEE THERE, 45 FEET FROM, UH, WHAT IS THAT? HARVARD STREET AND 45 FEET FROM COMMERCE STREET, IT NOW COMPLIES WITH DALLAS CITY CODE.
IT'S THE, IT'S THE FIRST FLOOR.
OH, UNDER THE RIGHT, THE FIRST FLOOR UNDER THE 90 DEGREE OVERHANG.
WHICH MAKES FOR SAFER PASSAGE, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT THE VIEW.
I THINK I'VE BEEN CONFUSED BY WHAT YOU MEAN BY 90 DEGREES, CUZ I WAS THINKING OF LIKE THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING ITSELF COMING TO.
BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE A RIGHT ANGLE TRIANGLE, RIGHT? UH, WITH 40.
IN OTHER WORDS, UH, YES, WITH 45 DEGREE VERTICES.
MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION IF MR. SLOAN IS DONE, UM, MR. SLOAN, UM, I, I ACTUALLY WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING, MS. RICCI, UM, WHEN YOU SAID YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THE BUILDING SORT OF CUT OFF AT 45 DEGREES AT THE CORNER, DO YOU JUST MEAN THE SECOND LEVEL THERE OF THAT BASE BECAUSE THE REST OF THE BUILDING ALREADY STEPS BACK ABOVE THAT LEVEL? THE REST OF THE BUILDING STEPS BACK, I KNOW THERE'S NO VISUAL.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE SHOWS THAT THE TALL PART OF THE BUILDING STEPS BACK SOME ANYWAY.
YEAH, THIS IS THE CURRENT DESIGN, UHHUH
AND SO THERE IS A SETBACK AT LEVEL THREE AND THERE IS FOR VISIBILITY, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE CORNER NOW.
WELL, AND HE HAS ADDED A CAFE RETAIL SPACE, ET CETERA.
I SURE HOPE THAT IS NOT A BAIT AND SWITCH.
BUT THAT'S, WELL THAT'S NOT A LANDMARK COMMISSION ISSUE.
WE, WE, WE ATTEMPT TO, UM, ENFORCE OUR RULINGS AND IF WE SAY YOU CAN HAVE ONE THING, YOU CANNOT CHOOSE ANOTHER AND JUST SAY IT'S THE SAME THING.
WELL, UM, NO, I THINK JOANNA HAMPTON HAD SOMETHING.
WELL, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M GONNA ASK THEN IS, SO THE ONLY, UH, SECTION THAT WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE OVERBEARING NATURE OF THE BUILDING OR RESTRICTING THE VIEW WOULD BE THAT SECOND LEVEL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES.
AND I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL THAT THAT STILL, UM, UH, AS, AS EVEN WITH THE, THE SETBACK ABOVE IT, UH, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THAT, UH, BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE STREET AND, AND THE ANGLE THAT IT OCCLUDES FROM LIKE A, A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE STREET THAT, UH, THAT IS AN OFFENSIVE, OVERBEARING, UH, FEATURE? CORRECT.
THAT IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES, THAT A NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT OVERPOWER THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
SO IN MY OPINION, THIS BUILDING HAS NO PLACE IN BEING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT IT'S ONLY A FEW, IT'S ONLY A COUPLE DOZEN FEET THAT IS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THIS BUILDING IS QUITE LARGE ALL THE WAY BACK, ALMOST GOES BACK TO, UH, THE STREET BEHIND IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I DID, UH, APPROACH THE DEVELOPERS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE HAVING SUCH TROUBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHY DON'T YOU JUST ADD A COUPLE OF FLOORS TO THE ENTIRE THING AND, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT OUT OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND BASICALLY THE ANSWER WAS THAT, UM, THE ELEVATOR WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE, SO LET US MAKE NO, UH, MISTAKE THAT THE DEVELOPER IS, DOESN'T REALLY HAVE, UH, ANY PRIORITY FOR THE CIVIC EXPERIENCE.
AND IT IS A, MY OPINION OF PREDATORY DEVELOPMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? PE IS THE SETBACK ALONG, UM, COMMERCE STREET STARTING AT THE THIRD FLOOR, IS IT SET BACK TO, TO THE SAME AMOUNT ON HARDWOOD OR THAT IS LESS, WE NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT.
[01:05:03]
YEAH.SO THE SETBACKS, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ABOUT FIVE FEET FROM EITHER, UH, FROM EITHER SIDE.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY LOOKING AT THE BUILDING, THEY WILL APPEAR THE SAME.
BUT THEY WILL APPEAR THE SAME, BUT THEY'RE NOT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BY INCHES.
I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL WHAT THEY ARE BECAUSE THE, THE, BECAUSE THE FEATURES OF THE BUILDING, THE PROPERTY LINE IS NOT EXACTLY STRAIGHT EITHER.
UH, SO IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THAT PHASE OF THE BUILDING IS.
AND BECAUSE THE, THE GROUND LEVEL TRIES TO FOLLOW THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, THE UPPER LEVEL HAS TO VARY FROM IT A BIT.
SO, BUT IT IS ABOUT, IT IS ABOUT FIVE FEET.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, CHAIR, I HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP.
I'M LOOKING AT THE PLANS THAT ARE IN THE, UM, CASE REPORT ON LEVEL THREE.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT, AND I'M GONNA GET MY ORIENTATION WRONG.
THE OFFSET FROM HARWOOD STREET IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET, BUT ON CARER STREET, WHEN YOU GET TO LEVEL THREE, THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S MAYBE CLOSER TO 15 FEET SETBACK, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT WILL BE TO THE FACE OF THE GLAZING.
UM, IF YOU, IF WE CAN GO BACK, GO TO THAT EXHIBIT, I CAN DESCRIBE THIS BETTER PROBABLY TO THE WHAT MS. DUNN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, IT'S A PLAN OR IF YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT VIEW.
SO YOU CAN, UM, SEE THE OFFSETS.
AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE AT LEVEL THREE BECAUSE I THINK AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND MR. ON, CORRECT ME, LEVEL TWO IS EFFECTIVELY TWO, IT'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON HARDWOOD, BUT IT'S TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON COMMERCE.
WHEN YOU GET TO LEVEL THREE, THE TOWER STEPS BACK FROM COMMERCE AND THEN HAS, I GUESS A A NO OR JUST, UM, RESOLVES ITSELF AT THE ANGLE OF THE STREET ON HARDWOOD.
BUT IS, DOES THIS HELP YOU BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO IT, THE TWO SETBACKS OR IS A PLAN VIEW EASIER? THE PLAN VIEW WILL BE EASIER.
AND SO IT'S PAGE D 3 38 IN THE CASE REPORT.
I THAT'S LEVEL, THE GROUND LEVEL AND THE SECOND FLOOR PLAN.
AND THEN THE THIRD AND FOURTH PLANS ARE OKAY.
IT'S JUST, I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE NETWORK RIGHT NOW.
DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE NETWORK? NO.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT ANY SHERIFF? YEAH.
OH, YOU HAVE TO? OH NO, SHE CAN.
DO YOU BY ANY CHANCE HAVE THE FLOOR PLANS THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE MORE QUICKLY? UH, NOT ON, ON THAT DEVICE.
LET ME, LET ME HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME HERE.
UM, IF I COULD ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, ARE YOU ASKING IF THE SETBACK OF THE, THE WALL THAT GOES UP FROM THE SECOND LEVEL IS THE SAME SETBACK ON BOTH STREETS FROM THE BRICK FACE OF THE, AND I, CUZ I THINK WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY IS IT WAS A FIVE INCH DIFFERENCE AND I, IT APPEARS IT LOOKS MUCH DIFFERENT IN AN AXONOMETRIC, THAT CORNER VIEW THAT WE SAW.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT MUCH FURTHER ON COMMERCE, WHICH SORT OF SEEMS APPROPRIATE ACTUALLY THAT IT WOULD BE SET BACK FURTHER FROM THERE THAN FROM THIS SIDE.
SO IF YOU GO TO PAGE 13 OF THE PDF,
[01:10:04]
UH, PAGE 13, SORRY, UH, GO, GO BACK TO YEAH, THAT ONE 13 OF THE PLANS.SO I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS IT'S 15 FEET TO THE, UM, TO THE CAFE GLASS.
RIGHT? IF YOU ZOOM INTO THE SECTION DIAGRAM TO THE LEFT CORNER THERE.
THERE'S NINE, EIGHT FROM, UM, IF YOU ZOOM INTO THE, YEAH, THE E EXACTLY THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE TO THE LEFT, THAT DIAGRAM, THE BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAM, THE CAFE IS 15, UH, 15 FOOT 10 FROM THE FACE OF THE SECOND FLOOR FACADE.
AND THEN THE, UH, ON THE THIRD LEVEL, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SECOND LEVEL AND THE THIRD LEVEL FACADE IS 10 FEET.
SO YOU'RE CORRECT, ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING ABOUT FIVE FEET WAS, UH, WAS NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE THERE.
THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD IT BACK EVEN MORE SO ALONG COMMERCE STREET IN RESPONSE TO EARLIER TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ARE YOU FINISHED, COMMISSIONER
I JUST, JUST WANTED TO BRING SOME CO CLARITY TO THAT.
CAN YOU SHOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, IMAGES THAT ILLUSTRATE THAT ON HARDWOOD? BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT PLAN VIEW, IT, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH IT'S SET BACK IN THAT WAY.
ALONG COMMERCE, YES, BUT NOT ON HARDWOOD.
TRY GOING TO TWO PAGES AFTER THAT.
SO MR. HONG, IS IT CORRECT IF THAT'S AT, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST A NOTCH OUT OF THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING.
IT SETS EFFECTIVELY, IT'S NOT A NOTCH, UH, NO, IT'S NOT A NOTCH OUT OF THE CORNER.
SO THE SECOND FLOOR, THE FACADE FROM LEVEL TWO AND DOWN, IT'S FIVE FEET IN FRONT OF THE PASSADE FROM LEVEL THREE AND UP.
COMMISSIONERS PESI, WAS YOUR QUESTION AT THE GROUND PLAIN OR AT LEVEL THREE? LOOKING AT THE, THE PLAN VIEW ON D 3 38 THAT WE'VE REFERENCED, IF YOU SCROLL BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THAT AND THE NEXT PAGE, SHOWING THE THIRD AND THE, UM, AND THE SECOND FLOOR, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S THAT THE STREET ITSELF IS, IS ANGULAR.
BUT IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT, LET'S SAY THAT'S D 3 39, FOR EXAMPLE, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT LEVEL THREE FLOOR PLAN, SO RIGHT, RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT.
SO IT, THE STREET IN TERMS OF ITS ANGULARITY IS WHAT CAUSES WHAT OCCURS AT THE CORNER.
BUT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SETBACK IS THE SAME ALONG HARDWOOD AND COMMERCE, IT'S NOT YEAH.
UM, COMMISSIONER SWAN, WELL, IF I'M, AM I READING THIS PLAN CORRECTLY TO SAY THAT AT THE CRITICAL CORNER THAT WE SEE MOST CONCERNED WITH, UH, THERE'S REALLY NO SETBACK ON HARDWOOD AT ALL.
IT'S, UH, THE THIRD, UH, STORY AND ON UP COMES OUT BASICALLY TO, UH, TO THE SAME PLACE AS THE BASE OF THE BUILDING.
SO I, I FEEL THAT HONESTLY
AND IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE READ THAT WAY FROM THE STREET BEFORE WE USE A WORD LIKE MISREPRESENTATION, I SUSPECT THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN ALL PARTIES INVOLVED ABOUT WHICH SETBACK WE WERE TALKING.
[01:15:01]
CUZ THERE WAS THE SETBACK OF LITTLE CAFE.THERE'S THE SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE STREET.
THERE'S A SETBACK BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD.
OKAY, WELL, I, I, I WITHDRAW THAT WORD, BUT I, BUT IT WAS MISLEADING TO HEAR THAT, UH, THAT THERE WAS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG HARWOOD WHEN AT THE CRITICAL CORNER THERE IS A SETBACK ON COMMERCE, BUT NONE WHATSOEVER ON HARWOOD.
SO WHAT I SAID EARLIER WAS THAT THERE IS A SETBACK AND ROUGHLY FIVE FEET BECAUSE IT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
YOU SEE AT THE, UH, TOWARDS THE, UH, THE BOTTOM OF THAT PLAN DIAGRAM, YOU SEE THAT THAT'S, THAT IS, THAT IS WHERE THE FIVE FEET IS.
AND THEN, UH, AS THE PROPERTY GETS, UH, TOWARDS, UH, HEADS TOWARDS COMMERCE, THEN THAT FIVE FEET DISAPPEARS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE BUILDING ARE NOT PARALLEL.
SO IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.
AT THE, AT, AT SOME POINT AT COMMERCE, A LOT NEAR COMMERCE STREET, THERE'S ALMOST NO SETBACK, BUT FURTHER AWAY FROM COMMERCE STREET, WE DO HAVE A SETBACK.
UM, UM, ALRIGHT, UH, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BECAUSE I CONFESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW IT SETS BACK A LOT AT THE FRONT, AND I'M, IT DOESN'T SO MUCH AT THE SIDE.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT'S A POINT OF FOCUS HERE, BECAUSE IT BLOCKS THE CORNER VIEW, I GUESS IT DOESN'T REVEAL IT AS MUCH AS WE WISHED IT WOULD.
UM, NO, THE, THE, I WOULD ARGUE THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE PEOPLE ASKING THE QUESTION IS TO THE POINT OF MS. RITCHIE WHO IS DISCUSSING IN TERMS OF THAT IT'S NOT TRULY SET BACK ALONG HARDWOOD, WHICH WAS HER POINT.
AND THE REASON WHY WE WERE ASKING THAT QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF THE APPEARANCE WHERE NO ONE IS ARGUING THE, THE SETBACK ALONG THE STREET, RIGHT, IT'S THE SETBACK ON THE THIRD FLOOR FROM THE SECOND FLOOR.
AND HER CONTENTION IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE ANGULARITY OF THE STREET AT, AT THE CORNER, IT WILL NOT APPEAR AS THOUGH IT IS SETBACK AND DISTINCT FROM AND BASED ON THE PLAN VIEW, THERE ARE SOME UP HERE THAT WOULD ARGUE THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE ASKING ABOUT, ABOUT THAT.
SO NOT REALLY SPECIFIC TO THE CAFE OR THE SECOND FLOOR, BUT MORE OF THAT AND ABOVE.
SO ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED ABOUT THIS? WELL, I'M, I'M GONNA ASK STAFF SOMETHING.
DUNN, UM, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE, THE, NOW WE HAVE THE BRICK BASED PART THAT DOES SEEM TO LINE UP WITH THE SHORTER BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR, WHICH I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT, WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE EXISTING LOW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, WHATEVER THEY'RE RANKED IN THE HARDWOOD DISTRICT, BUT THEY'RE STILL REPRESENTATIVE.
DO YOU THINK IT HAS NOW ACHIEVED A VISUAL CONTINUITY OR HOMAGE TO THEM? I DO.
I THINK THE, THE GRID PATTERN AT THAT LEVEL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE, UH, COMPATIBLE BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR TO IT ON COMMERCE STREET.
IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, THEN SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF 2002 COMMERCE STREET CA 2 23 DASH 3 42 RD, I MOVED TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 5 1 20 23 WITH CONDITIONS CITED WITH THE REVISED PLANS ILLUSTRATING, REQUESTED ALTERATIONS IN THE PARAPET DESIGN AND WITH THE STANDARDS INCORPORATED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? SECOND? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, I I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A SPECIAL ER AND, AND IT DESERVES BETTER.
I, UM, I MYSELF EXPECT TO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
[01:20:01]
UM, I DON'T THINK THEY COULD BUILD A MUCH SMALLER BUILDING ON THIS LOT AND JUSTIFY THE COST OF THE LAND LAND.THAT'S JUST THE REALITY NOW THAT OUR DOWNTOWN HAS NO LONGER WASTELAND, BUT HAS BLOOMED, UH, ANSWERING THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO IT.
AND THE DARK PART, NOT OVERPOWERING THE IMPORTANT OLD LIBRARY, UM, SEEM TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS.
ANYTHING BUILT ON THIS LAW'S GONNA BE TALL, I'M AFRAID.
SO I'M GONNA GO ALONG WITH THIS.
IT'S IMPROVED IMMENSELY SINCE THE FIRST ONE THAT WE SAW, SO I'M, I'M MUCH HAPPIER WITH IT.
BUT EVERYBODY WILL VOTE AS THEY SEE FIT.
ALL IS IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
I ACTUALLY WAS GOING TO SAY BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS WELL, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, BE ON RECORD THAT I WAS GONNA SUPPORT THIS MOTION AS WELL.
I BELIEVE IT IS IN SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
I BELIEVE THAT IT'S TAKEN SYMPATHETIC GESTURES TO, TO THE BUILDINGS TO THE LEFT OF THAT.
UH, I THINK, UH, I, I I'M THE SWORE OF THIS MOTION.
I THINK IT, I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD.
OF COURSE I SECONDED IT, BUT I WILL BE, I WOULD BE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL.
YESTERDAY, UH, I WENT AND STOOD, JUST SO HAPPENS, UH, THE ROAD IS BEING RECONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE FORMER MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND I STOOD IN THE MIDDLE AND WAS ABLE TO LOOK DOWN HARD TO THE SOUTH.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE VISIBILITY THAT EVERYBODY HAS BEEN SPEAKING OF SO HIGHLY FROM THE BEGINNING.
WHEN YOU'RE STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, YOU CAN LOOK SOUTH AND CLEARLY SEE THE DOME.
YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE LONE STAR BUILDING.
AND WITH THIS STRUCTURE THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT, UM, WHICH WOULD GIVE A RELATIVELY CLEAR GIVEN WHERE IT'S BEEN BEING CONSTRUCTED, YOU CAN STILL SEE THAT WITH THIS BUILDING BEING WITH, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A MINIMAL SETBACK FROM HARDWOOD, I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN STILL BE ABLE TO CLEARLY SEE DOWN HARDWOOD HARDWOOD.
ALSO, REGARDING THE ISSUE THAT'S REALLY BEEN BOTHERING ME A LOT IS THIS ISSUE OF, OF, UM, IS THE BUILDING OVERPOWERING OTHER STRUCTURES, UM, AN OVERPOWERING STRUCTURE OF NINE STORY.
I MEAN, NINE STORIES TO ME DOES NOT OVERPOWER A FIVE STORY STRUCTURE.
NEXT DOOR OVERPOWERING WOULD BE A 30 STORY BUILDING OR A BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT IS OVERPOWERING A NINE STORY BUILDING THAT IS TRYING ITS BEST TO REFLECT, UM, SOME OF THE ART DECO CHARACTERISTICS IN THE AREA AFTER FOUR ROUNDS OF REVIEW THROUGH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
IT'S A VERY, UM, UH, VERY GOOD PRODUCT THAT I BELIEVE THAT'S COME BEFORE US AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.
ALL RIGHT, ALL WE READY FOR OUR VOTE NOW? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION SAY AYE.
UM, AM I RIGHT IN SAYING THAT THERE ARE TWO OPPOSING VOTES? YES.
COMMISSIONER SWAN AND COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
AND, UM, WE WISH THAT ARCHITECT AND DEVELOPER LUCK IN MAKING THIS BUILDING A GOOD CONTRIBUTION TO ART DOWNTOWN DALLAS.
NEXT WE HAVE DISCUSSION SEVEN.
ALL DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN 800 NORTH MARSALIS AVENUE.
THIS IS CHRISTINA MINKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
PROPERTY IS, UH, LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 3 30 CM.
THE REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMODEL THE STRUCTURE TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM TO INCLUDE MATCHING BRICK TO THE EXISTING BRICK, UH, REMODELING THE EXTERIOR TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM, USING HARDY BOARD SIDING, REMODELING EXTERIOR TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM, MATCHING PAINT COLOR TO THE EXISTING PAINT COLOR, AS WELL AS INSTALLING WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ARE AS FOLLOW THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMODEL EXTERIOR TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM MATCHING BRICK TO EXISTING BRICK BE APPROVED.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFICATE TO REMODEL EXTERIOR TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM USING HARDY BOARD SIDING BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMODEL EXTERIOR TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM MATCHING PINK COLOR TO THE EXISTING PINK COLOR BE APPROVED.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMODEL EXTERIOR TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM, INSTALLING WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS, BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, HOW DO WE, WE DON'T WANNA SAY THE WHOLE THING, RIGHT? UM, APPROVED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECTIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PROPOSED WORK IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA LISTED IN THE DOCKET DOCUMENT, TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST OF CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO
[01:25:01]
ITS ORIGINAL FORM BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PER CONDITIONS FOUND IN OUR AGENDA.THERE IS ONE MORE REQUEST AT THE ORIGINAL, UH, THE MATCHING THE ROOF SHINGLES TO THE EXISTING ROOF SHINGLES, UH, BE APPROVED WITH THE SAME CRITERIA LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
AND, UM, APPARENTLY WE HAVE A SPEAKER FOR THIS THOUGH.
FIRST, SIR, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
PASQUA MOJICA 24 0 4 WOODLAWN DRIVE, ENNIS, TEXAS.
AND DO YOU, UH, SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? YES.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE WHAT STATEMENTS YOU WISH ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, THEN WE CAN ASK YOU QUESTIONS.
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO REMODEL, REBUILD THIS, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX.
UM, THE FRONT ELEVATION, SOME OF THE SIDE ELEVATIONS ARE STILL EXISTING.
THE BACK ELEVATION AND THE INTERIOR IS PRETTY MUCH ALL GONE AND IT'S STILL CONTINUING TO FALL.
WE HAVE PUT THE FENCE AROUND IT.
WE STILL ARE HAVING A LOT OF HOMELESS, UH, BREAK INTO THE FENCE ON THE REAR AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE.
SO IT'S, UH, DANGEROUS TO HOMELESS THAT KEEP, UH, BREAKING INTO THE ACTUAL FENCE.
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO REBUILD THIS AND WITH ANY RECOMMENDATION APPROVALS THAT YOU GUYS WILL GIVE US, UH, WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO ADDING TO IT.
WE DID ADD ADDITIONAL PLANS THAT WERE REQUESTED AFTER THE TASK FORCE MEETING.
UH, AS FAR AS THE ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLAN WINDOWS AND PAINT COLOR, UH, I DID SPEAK TO MS. MANKOWSKI ON THE SIDING THAT THE HARDY BOARD MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED MM-HMM.
SO WE WILL GO WITH THE LAP WOOD SIDING IF THAT IS WHAT'S, UH, ALLOWED.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE WINDOWS, UH, THREE BY SIX SINGLE HOG ALUMINUM, UH, RELIABILITY WINDOW, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE PAST, WE LOOK TO ADD THOSE LISTING WINDOWS WHERE WE NEED TO ADD THEM AND REPLACE ANY EXISTING WINDOWS THAT NEED TO BE ADJUSTED OR FIXED OR REPLACED.
DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR OUR SPEAKER? THIS IS JUST A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, SPEAKER.
DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT YOU, UH, ACCEPT THE CONDITION THAT AND AGREE TO USE LAP BOARD INSTEAD OF HARDY BOARD? YES, SIR.
WE WOULD LOOK LIKE TO USE THE LAP WOOD SIDING TO REPLACE ANY SIDING DAMAGE ON THE SIDES.
AND THEN OF COURSE, ON THE REAR WE WOULD NEED TO REPLACE ALL OF THE SIDING ON THE REAR.
UH, DID, DID I, UH, HEAR THE STAFF PERSON SAY THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF AN, UH, ADDITIONAL MATCHING ROOF SHINGLES OR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT, THAT WASN'T LISTED IN THE, IN THE DOCKET? OH, NO, IT WAS LISTED.
I JUST, WHEN I READ THE FIRST FOUR, I DIDN'T TURN THE PAGE OVER.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT LAST FIFTH ONE.
BUT, UH, MS. MANKOWSKI, THE, UH, THE, UH, REASON FOR THE DENIAL ON, UM, NUMBER FOUR WAS THAT BE, UH, OF THE WINDOWS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT EXISTED.
SO I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO JUST SAY, ARE WE STILL, ARE WE STILL THERE WITH, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION YET.
UM, WHAT, WHAT DID YOU DECIDE? SO WE ARE GONNA GO WITH THE RELIABLE ALUMINUM FRAME, THREE BY SIX, SINGLE HUNG.
IS THAT WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE ON THE WINDOWS? THAT'S, UH, WHAT'S, UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S CURRENTLY THERE, BUT IT'S WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE PAST ON THE OTHER PROJECTS.
WHAT WINDOWS ARE CURRENTLY IN THE, THE EXISTING ONES THAT ARE NOT GONNA BE CHANGED? WHAT ARE THOSE? WE HAVEN'T PULLED THOSE OFF OF YET TO SEE WHAT THOSE ARE.
SO THEN I DON'T KNOW, JUST CAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO, YOU STILL DON'T KNOW.
THESE WINDOWS, THESE RELIABLE WINDOWS, IT'S BEEN SAID THAT IT'S BEEN APPROVED BEFORE, I THINK, UH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT IF SURE.
I KNOW SOMETIMES WE MOVE ON WITH BETTER DECISIONS.
[01:30:01]
I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THESE PARTICULAR WINDOWS.THEY, I DON'T, THEY HAVE NO REDEEMING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS.
I DON'T THINK HE MEANS THEY WERE APPROVED BY US.
HE PROBABLY JUST MEANS IN THE DISTRICT IN GENERAL.
I HAVEN'T APPROVED THOSE OF MY OKAY.
NO, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE APPROVE THEM SOMEPLACE ELSE.
WE DO NOT SET PRECEDENT BY ONE APPROVALS.
UM, SO LET ME ASK MR. CUMMINGS, WAS YOUR POINT THAT YOU DON'T THINK THESE WINDOWS THAT HE HAS SUGGESTED ARE APPROPRIATE OR THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS OUT THERE.
THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD WAY OF LOOKING THAT HE COULD BE LOOKING FOR.
AND WHAT, WHAT, WHAT GUIDANCE MIGHT YOU GET? NOT TELL HIM WHICH WINDOWS, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT ATTRIBUTES WOULD HE BE LOOKING FOR IN A BETTER WINDOW? I'D BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE DIMENSIONAL.
THESE WINDOWS, UM, UH, THE SASHES ARE INCORRECT.
THE SEAL EXTERIOR SEALS ARE INCORRECT.
I WOULD BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING TO GO BY LIKE A JELD WIND, 2,500, UH, WOOD CLAD.
UH, AND YOU CAN GET TRADITIONAL WIND SEALS FROM THOSE.
UH, THAT WOULD BE A STARTING POINT TO LOOK AT.
UH, BUT THAT'S, UH, THAT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OPTION THAN A, SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY HISTORICAL DE DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS THIS WINDOW.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
AND OF COURSE, STAFF IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE IF, IF AN APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT CLARIFICATION REPEATED.
AND, AND STAFF COULD ALWAYS ASK ONE OF US IF WE HAVE AN OPINION, DON'T ASK ME, BUT ASK, ASK HIM.
OKAY, IN THE MATTER OF 800 NORTH MARAIS AVENUE CA 2 23 DASH 30 30 CM, I MOVED TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE, THREE, AND FIVE AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE ITEMS TWO AND FOUR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS INCORPORATED.
UM, I, I DO WANNA CLARIFY WITH COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED THAT ON ITEM TWO, HE WILL NOT USE HARDY BOARD, BUT WILL USE REAL WOOD SIDING AS WE PREFER.
IF WE PUT THAT AS A CONDITION, MIGHT THAT CHANGE YOUR YES.
UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT.
IS THAT ALL RIGHT TO RESTATE IT? CERTAINLY.
IN THE MATTER OF 800 NORTH MARAIS AVENUE CA 2 23 DASH THREE 30 CM, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE, THREE, AND FIVE AND TWO, UH, ON THE CONDITION THAT, UH, THAT, THAT BE REPLACED, UH, WITH APPROPRIATE MATERIAL AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ITEM FOUR, IN ACCORDANCE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS INCORPORATED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? SECOND? COMMISSIONER HIA, TO BE CLEAR, FOR REQUEST NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE APPROVING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY USE APPROPRIATE MATERIALS, WOOD SIDING? YES.
SPECIFICALLY LAP BLOOD, LAP WOOD LAP SIDING, WOOD LAP SIDING.
AND WHO WAS OUR SECOND? SECOND? OUR, OUR SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER HAK.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENT OR ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? OKAY.
IT APPEARS IT IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SIR, YOU DID GET ONE DENIAL AND YOU COULD GO TO CPC TO APPEAL THAT FOR A FEE.
AND THE, THEIR BASIS WOULD BE, HAD WE DESIGNED, DECIDED AN ERROR OR YOU COULD WORK WITH STEPH ON THE ONE THING THAT DIDN'T PASS THE WINDOWS, UM, TO, TO BETTER CLARIFY AND GET SOMETHING WE COULD APPROVE.
WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF, UM, CHANGES IN THE IN-PERSON AND ONLINE, AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO REARRANGE THE SCHEDULE.
SO I MOVE THAT WE NEXT TAKE DISCUSSION.
ITEM NINE, FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEMS 10, 12, 8, AND 14.
THE REMAINDER OF IT WILL STAY, UM, AS STATED PREVIOUSLY.
SO THAT WOULD BE D 9 10 12, 8 14.
I THINK YOU BETTER LIST THE REST.
JUST SO WE'RE FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEMS 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 12.
SO 11 WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY 13.
[01:35:01]
YOU, COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER.SORRY, CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THE LAST ONES WE, WE DIDN'T? SURE.
SO THAT'S D 9, 10, 12, 8 14, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THAT HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND MEANS THAT THE NEXT CASE WE SHALL HEAR IS D NINE.
RHONDA DUNN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF PRESENTING DISCUSSION ITEM D NINE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 10 12 BETTERTON CIRCLE IN THE 10TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CD 2 23 DASH 0 0 8 R D.
THE REQUEST IS TO DEMOLISH A MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, THE STANDARD BEING USED AS IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS DATED 5 1 20 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CODE TASK FORCE.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMO DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO COME UP WITH SALVAGE PLAN FOR THE ITEMS THAT ARE SALVAGEABLE, AND TO REPLACE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURE THAT IS OF ORIGINAL SIZE AND MASSING AS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE FIRST IS, UM, ARTIST L COOPER.
COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? MY NAME IS ARTEO COOPER, 180 7 COUNTY ROAD 33 72 DARY, TEXAS.
YOU MIGHT WANNA MOVE THAT MICROPHONE.
SO MOVE IT UP TO YOUR, YOUR MOUTH A BIT.
AND THEN, UH, YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU'LL TELL US THE TRUTH TODAY? I DO.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS YOUR APPLICATION.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY I, I HEARD WHAT THE, UH, RESTRICTIONS ARE WITH CONDITIONS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONDITION BECAUSE ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE HOUSE IS THAT I BOUGHT THE HOUSE AT A CERTAIN DIMENSION.
AND WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO FIX THE HOUSE, THE CITY SAID THAT THE HOUSE HAD ADD-ONS.
SO THE ADD-ONS WAS WHAT TOOK THE HOUSE OUT OF BEING, UH, CONTRIBUTING FOR HISTORICAL.
SO I BOUGHT THE HOUSE AT 1800 FEET AND THEY WERE SAYING THE HOUSE BY THE CITY DIAGRAM WAS 1200 FEET.
AND BEFORE THE HOUSE EVER BECAME HISTORICAL, I HAD ALREADY HAD STARTED REMODELING THE HOUSE BECAUSE I BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 83 AND I HAD STARTED REMODELING THE HOUSE.
CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I BOUGHT THE HOUSE TO DO BECAUSE I AM A, I WOULD GUESS YOU SAY A DESCENDANT OF THE RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I BOUGHT THE HOUSE TO FIX IT UP.
AND DURING THAT PROCESS, AS EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING IT'S HISTORICAL, THE MAJORITY OF THAT MATERIAL, I SAY MATERIAL ON THAT HOUSE IS NOT ORIGINAL BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONE WHOLE HOUSE INSTEAD OF A LOT OF ADD-ON PIECES, I HAD BOUGHT THE WOOD TO MAKE THE HOUSE LOOK AS IN ONE STRUCTURE.
ONLY ABOUT ONE FOURTH OF THAT OUTSIDE STRUCTURE IS, UH, ONE 17.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD BE SAVING AS FAR AS THE HISTORIC COMMISSION AND THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH I HAD SO MANY PROBLEMS OF TRYING TO FIX THE HOUSE WITH CODING EVERYBODY ELSE.
AND THAT CAME AFTER I FOUND OUT Y'ALL HAD MADE IT HISTORICAL BECAUSE I HAD CHANGED THE OUTSIDE AND THE WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING.
AND THEN ONCE IT BECAME HISTORICAL AND I STARTED GOING THROUGH BURGLARY, I REALLY COULDN'T FIX THE HOUSE NO MORE.
WE HAVE TWO OTHER SPEAKERS AND THEN WE'LL BE ASKING PEOPLE QUESTIONS.
I STAY AT THREE 14 CEDAR CREE DRIVE IN DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS.
AND I PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
YOU, YOU'VE, YOU'VE LISTENED TO A LOT OF THESE, HAVEN'T YOU?
MY BROTHER REALLY WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE BECAUSE HE'S SO FRUSTRATED.
WELL, LIKE HE SAID, HE BROUGHT THIS HOUSE IN 1982 BEFORE IT BECAME HISTORICAL.
[01:40:01]
A LACK OF CITY SERVICES, THE HOMELESS CRIME AND DRUGS, IT, HE COULDN'T LIVE THERE BECAUSE HE COULDN'T GO TO WORK AND COME HOME WHEN HIS STUFF STILL BE THERE.SO HE LEFT AND THEN THE HOUSE BEGAN TO DETERIORATE.
AND EVERY TIME HE WOULD TRY TO DO SOMETHING, THE CITY WOULD SAY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
CAUSE IT'S IN THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
AND HE ALWAYS TRIED TO TELL HIM IT'S NONE CONTRIBUTING.
AND AFTER TALKING TO MS. DUNN, LIKE I TOLD HIM, WE JUST WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO WHERE WE WERE, WHERE MY GRANDMOTHER WAS, BEEN HERE NEXT DOOR FOR A HUNDRED YEARS.
HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE FOR MS. WILLIAMS IN 82.
WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE OUR CHILDREN'S A HOME THAT THEY WOULD BE PROUD OF THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
BUT TO DO THAT, TO TRY TO RENOVATE OR RESTORE THIS HOUSE IS COST PROHIBITIVE.
IT NEEDS A NEW FOUNDATION, NEW RETAINING WALLS.
LIKE HE SAID, MOST OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS NOT EVEN ORIGINAL, IT'S JUST WHAT THEY SEE.
AND THEN THEY, THEY WANT TO RESTRICTING THE BACK.
HE DIDN'T BUY A 1400 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
HE BOUGHT A 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
SO TO REDUCE THAT WOULD BE TO REDUCE HIS LIVING SPACE.
SO I JUST WANT, AND I'M HERE TOO, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT WANT US TO ADDRESS, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
WE KNOW WE GONNA HAVE TO START OVER FROM THE FOUNDATION, THE DRAINAGE, THE RETAINING WALLS, THE STRUCTURE.
AND I'LL ALWAYS COORDINATE WITH MS. DUNN ON WHAT HER OPINION IS ON WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO.
UM, LARRY JOHNSON, TWO 14 LANDIS, I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
UM, UH, WE'RE IN A TIGHT SPOT TODAY.
UM, I'M STANDING HERE ON BEHALF OF THE 10TH STREET RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION.
UM, WE HAVE ALL REVIEWED THIS CASE.
AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE FORWARD, UM, IS ACTUALLY BECAUSE OF OUR, OUR LARGE IN PART, OR DUE IN LARGE PART TO THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT ANY STRUCTURE UNDER 3000 SQUARE FEET, UM, WITH A COURT ORDER CAN BE TORN DOWN.
AND IT PUTS US IN A TIGHT SPOT.
IT PUTS US IN A POSITION TO WHERE, UH, WE HAVE TO TAKE LEMONS AND MAKE LEMONADE.
AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, WHAT HE'S DESIRING TO DO IS TO TAKE DOWN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS TO DO A REMOVE AND RESTORE.
AND SO, UM, WHEN I FIRST GOT INVOLVED WITH THE DISTRICT, UM, WE WERE GOING THROUGH A DEMOLITION.
AND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE IS AN EMPTY LOT.
AND SO IN A CASE WHERE AN APPLICANT WANTS TO, IN A CASE WHERE AN APPLICANT HAS DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND THEY HAVE FOUND THAT, THAT THE STRUCTURE IS EITHER IRREPARABLE OR UM, OR IT WOULD BE BETTER TO, IN THEIR EYES TO REBUILD, UM, ANYTHING BEATS A VACANT LOT.
AND SO, UM, UNTIL THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE IS ABOLISHED, UH, WE ARE KIND OF HAVING TO TAKE LEMONS AND MAKE LEMONADE.
AND SO, AND BESIDE THAT TWO UH, ARTISTS GROUP OF CREDIT, I'VE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH HIM PHYSICALLY ON THIS HOUSE JUST TO BE TOLD THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS HAS COME THROUGH AND HAS TOLD HIM TO STOP WORK.
UM, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE CURB VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, HE WAS SIMPLY FIXING HIS HOUSE.
I UNDERSTAND HIS FRUSTRATION, I GET IT.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE AND BECAUSE OF WHAT HE COULD DO, UM, WHEN I REACHED OUT TO THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WE'VE DECIDED THAT WHAT IT IS THAT HE'S, THAT HE'S LOOKING TO DO.
UM, WHILE IT'S NOT THE BEST THING, IT'S NOT ALL THAT WE WANT, WE WOULD PREFER THE HOUSE BE FIXED UP.
BUT GIVEN WHERE WE ARE, THIS IS KIND OF, UH, IT'S A TOUGH DECISION FOR ALL OF US.
UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CITY ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM THAT YOU TOLD US DURING OUR BRIEFING THAT THERE IS NOT AN IN PLACE COURT ORDER ON THIS ONE.
CORRECT? I SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS EXPIRED.
THAT WAS PRIOR TO MY TIME AT THE CITY.
BUT AGAIN, WE ARE HERE UNDER THE STANDARD THAT IT'S DEMOLISHED TO REMOVE A STRUCTURE THAT POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
SO YOU'RE USING THE, THOSE STANDARDS THAT THE STRUCTURE, IT CONSTITUTES A DOCUMENTED MAJOR IN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER AND MANNER.
SO IF IT MEETS ALL THOSE THREE, THEN YOU MUST APPROVE.
[01:45:01]
HOWEVER, IF IT DOESN'T MEET ONE OF THOSE, THEN YOU CAN DENY BASED OFF OF WHICH ONES THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET.SO WHAT QUESTIONS DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE FOR STAFF OR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? I HAVE QUESTIONS CUS FOR APPLICANT, UM, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT UM, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE THIS DOWN AND YOU'RE PLANNING ON TO DO A RESTORE OR A, A REBUILD AND LIKEWISE, SIMILAR TO THE HOUSE THAT'S THERE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND THEN IT SEEMS LIKE REALLY ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS THAT KIND OF IS POPPING UP ON, UH, THERE'S A SALVAGE PLAN, UM, TO BE ABLE, DO WE HAVE A DOCUMENTED JUST A SIMPLE FLOOR PLAN OF WHAT THIS, OF WHAT YOU HAVE EXISTING? I MEAN, I SEE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN A PLAN.
HUH? IT'S ALL BEEN PLUMBING ELECTRIC.
IS THERE A PLAN? IS THERE JUST A SIMPLE PLAN SHOWING WHERE THE WINDOWS ARE, WHERE THE DOORS ARE, THE ROOF JUST A, A SIMPLE PLAN OF THE HOUSE.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH IS I UNDERSTAND IT NEEDS TO, IT THE REASONS WHY IT NEEDS TO COME DOWN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IT DOCUMENTED BEFORE IT COMES DOWN.
SO WHEN WE GO, YOU GO BACK TO PUT IT BACK THAT YOU'RE HAVING SOMETHING THAT'S SOMEWHAT ACCURATE TO, TO WORK OFF OF.
SO HOW ARE YOU ANSWERING THAT, THAT QUESTION? EXCUSE IF YOU HAVE, ARE YOU ASKING ME IF WE FINNA BUILD THE SAME HOUSE BACK? WELL, SAME HOUSE.
YOU'RE THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT WHERE YOU'RE GONNA RESTORE THIS HOUSE WHEN YOU COME BACK.
WE'RE GONNA BUILD WITHIN THE CRITERIA THAT Y'ALL ALLOW US WHEN WE PRESENT A NEW PRODUCT.
THAT THAT'S THE HOUSE WE GOING TO BUILD THAT.
SO, SO IT COULD BE SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THIS.
IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF THE HISTORY OF DISTRICT.
SEE, MY THING OF IT IS, IS THAT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT'S GOT A HOUSE, THE WHOLE THING OF THE HOUSE, CAUSE I AM, UH, CONSTRUCTION SAVVY MM-HMM.
AND OUR CONCERN IS USUALLY THE HIS AS YOU KNOW, THE HISTORIC MATERIALS, THE THE HISTORIC FACADES OF, OF A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE, UH, AND TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THAT.
AND IF WE CAN'T MAINTAIN IT, HOW, HOW CAN WE CELEBRATE IT WHEN YOU DO BUILD IT BACK UNDER THOSE? AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THOSE CRITERIA, AS YOU MENTIONED.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING AS FAR AS THAT HOUSE GO, AIN'T NONE OF THAT LEFT.
I MEAN, THAT WAS PART OF THE WHOLE DEAL BECAUSE OF THE, UH, VANDALISM.
THAT'S THE REASON THEY, THEY WAS BREAKING OUT ALL THE WINDOWS, THE DOORS, EVERYTHING.
SO MY THING IS NOW WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS, IS STAY WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT BUT BE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THAT LOT OR WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE WE KNOW THE PARK IS COMING, WE KNOW EVERYTHING IS GOING ON, BUT WE WANT TO STAY IN THE CRITERIA, BUT WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT AREA OF SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WILL SEE.
AND WANT TO COME TO IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
UH, MY ONLY GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION IS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT'S THERE.
CUZ IT WAS ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE AND THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL WAS.
AND ALSO A RECORDING OF SOME OF THE, THE MATERIALS THAT YOU MAY HAVE 20% MATERIALS LEFT AND IT WOULD BE ALSO A GOOD UNDERSTANDING AND UNDERSTANDING.
ARE YOU WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT ON, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING 20% OF? WELL, I'M, I DON'T KNOW.
IS THAT STRUCTURE OR YEAH, LIKE YOUR SIDING.
SO WELL THAT SIDING IS NOT HISTORICAL ANYMORE, SIR.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPRESS.
THE HOUSE, WHEN THE FIRE HAPPENED, IT DESTROYED THE, UH, THAT ONE FOURTH MM-HMM.
SO YOU SAYING I DON'T LOST EVERYTHING OUT THAT HOUSE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
THE CABINETS, THE SINKS, THE WIRING, THE PLUMBING IS IN THE GROUND.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON WHEN I HAD THE HOUSE, UH, ESTIMATED FOR CONSTRUCTION, WHAT THE GUY WAS REALLY TELLING ME IS THAT THEY WAS GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE WITHIN A HOUSE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WAS GOING TO CHARGE ME TO SLOWLY DEMOLITION THE HOUSE WHILE RECONSTRUCTION STEP BY STEP, WHICH IS CAME UP TO AN ASTRONOMICAL FIGURE, IF THAT MAKE ANY SENSE.
AND MAJORITY OF THE WOOD UP WHEN I EVALUATE IT IS LIKE MY BROTHER SAY, WE GOT LEAD, WE GOT HUMIDITY.
THE, THE, THE WOOD IS RIDING, UH, IT'S REALLY, IT'S A CERTAIN BOARD IN THERE FOR YOU MOVE IT, THAT HOUSE WILL FALL IN.
AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WANT TO GET IT OUT BECAUSE I GOT PEOPLE GOING INTO THE HOUSE AND THE FLOORING IS ABOUT TO FALL IN AND IT'S, IT IS REALLY CREATING A LIABILITY.
[01:50:01]
IF SOMEBODY GET HURT, I CAN GET SUED AND I DON'T, I'M NOT TRYING TO LOSE THE PROPERTY.SO I WILL BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND PUT ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE.
I WANT TO PASS IT ON TO MY FAMILY.
I MEAN, I HAD A CONTRACT OUT AND HE WALKED OUT, SAID IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE IN THERE.
SO MADAM, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, AGAIN, IT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND IT'S A GOOD THING TO DOCUMENT WHAT THERE THAT YOU DO HAVE IN TERMS OF MATERIALS THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S ALSO NOT ON THE AGENDA.
SO WE SHOULDN'T REALLY BE TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD WITHIN THE, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION PRESERVATION, PRESERVATION CRITERIA OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UH, THING I WAS GETTING AT ON SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE'S BEEN SALVAGE PLANS SAID ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE WHERE WE WERE ON THE SALVAGE PLANS AND RIGHT.
THAT WAS TEST TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT I HAD, UM, REITERATED DURING THE BRIEFING THAT THOSE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS TO ATTACH TO.
UM, THE, IF THIS COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE, UH, THOSE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS TO APPROVE THIS CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION AS IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO THE STANDARDS.
IF MR. CUMMINGS IS FINISHED, ARE YOU FINISHED THEN MR. COMMISSIONER OFFIT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? UH, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER SWAN ALL, WHICH DOES WISH TO ASK A QUESTION, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION OF COUNSEL.
IN AS MUCH AS THE, UH, PROMISE OF A NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN DANGLED IN FRONT OF US IN THIS MEETING, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS IS, THIS CASE IS SOUNDING MORE LIKE IT FALLS UNDER THE STANDARD OF REPLACEMENT WITH A MORE APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE.
BUT THEY CAME UNDER THE APPLICATION FOR THE IMMINENT THREAT OF TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
AND THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT WE ARE TO USE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS POSTED.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA.
THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, MR. JOHNSON.
UH, MR. JOHNSON, DO, DO YOU AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL? WELL, DOES THE 10TH STREET RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION BELIEVE THAT THIS HOUSE POSES A MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO, UH, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? UH, NO.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT POSES A THREAT.
ARE YOU DONE, MR. SMART? I'M, I'M, I'M DONE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BECAUSE MR. OFFIT HAS A MOTION TO MAKE.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT, PLEASE MAKE YOUR MOTION ON THE MATTER OF 10 12 BETTERTON CIRCLE 10TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 23 DASH OH OH A R D.
UM, I MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF AND TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT WITH STAFF FORCE RECOMMENDATION, THEY HAD THOSE CONDITIONS THAT WEREN'T APPROPRIATE.
SO IT WOULD JUST BE APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IT DOES MEET THE STANDARDS IN SECTION OF THE CODE AND IT'S JUST APPROVING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION WITHOUT THOSE CONDITIONS.
ARE THERE, IS THERE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? HI, SECOND, UH,
I THINK, I THINK WE'LL TAKE MR. FOGELMAN SECOND AND, UM, I'LL SAY HE WAS FIRST BUT QUIET.
YOU HAVE TO TURN THE MICROPHONE ON.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSION WAN? YEAH.
UM, I'VE JUST HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS HOUSE POSES A MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
UH, I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH THAT TESTIMONY.
UH, DO I SEE COUNSEL MOVING INTO ASHTON? THE STANDARD IS WHETHER THE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DOCUMENTED MAJOR IN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
SO IF THERE'S A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THAT THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT
[01:55:01]
IS IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON THAT PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION.UM, MAY I ASK COUNSEL, BUT WHAT IF WE FEEL THAT THE, UM, THE INFORMATION PRESENTED BY THE CONSULTANT WHO SAID THAT IT WAS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION, WE BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THEIR POINTS, UM, WERE NOT AS SERIOUS AS THEY PROCLAIMED THEM TO BE.
AND I'M SAYING WE, AS IN ME, AND I'M NOT SAYING I ACTUALLY KNOW THAT MUCH, EXCEPT THAT I KNOW OLDER HOUSES SOMETIMES DON'T HAVE AS MUCH SUPPORT AS NEWER HOUSES.
AND THAT CAN ALWAYS BE REPAIRED BY ADDING.
SO WHAT IF WE QUESTION WHETHER THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED ACTUALLY PROVES THAT IT'S AN IMMINENT THREAT? YOU CAN USE THE OTHER PARTS OF THE STANDARD, WHICH SAY THE DE THE DEMOLITION OF REMOVAL IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
IF YOU DON'T, IN YOUR OPINION, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE IT IS DOCUMENTED, SO WE CAN'T TAKE THAT CONDITION AWAY.
BUT IF YOU THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO ALLEVIATE THE IMMINENT THREAT AS OPPOSED TO, UM, DEMOLITION, THEN YOU CAN USE THAT AS WELL.
BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE FINDING EFFECTS ON THE RECORD.
AND ALSO, IF WE WERE TO NOT APPROVE THE DEMOLITION TODAY, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT UNDER THE OTHER STANDARD WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE WITH SOMETHING MORE COMPATIBLE? IF YOU DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THEN YES, THEY CAN COME UNDER, THEY CAN COME BACK WITH THE SAME STANDARD OR THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
SORRY TO HAVE INTERRUPTED YOU MR. SWAN.
THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING MY, OKAY.
UM, BECAUSE WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY, WHAT I'M SEEING IS, UH, WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE TASK FORCE THAT WE REALIZE WE CANNOT MAKE AS CONDITIONS TODAY.
HOWEVER, UH, THAT THERE IS SOMETHING BEHIND, THERE'S A SPIRIT BEHIND THOSE CONDITIONS, AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR WAYS TO PRESERVE, UM, THE SPIRIT OF THE CONDITIONS.
UM, AND PERHAPS THAT IS, UH, AND, AND ALSO THE, THE, THE PROMISE OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN A VACANT LOT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO US TODAY.
YOU KNOW, UH, A HOUSE, UH, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE P PASSED DOWN TO THE FAMILY.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IN RESPONSE TO WHAT ARE THE OTHER TWO CONDITIONS, ONE IS THAT DEMOLITION IS THE ONLY WAY TO DO SO IN A TIMELY MANNER, RIGHT? SO YOU, YES.
THIS COMMISSION HAS TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH IF IT FINDS THAT THE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT AND MAJOR IN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
TWO, THAT THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
AND THREE, THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
SO IF IT MEETS THOSE THREE, THEN YOU MUST APPROVE IT.
AND I WOULD SAY WITH NUMBER THREE, I THINK WE COULD STILL BE ADDRESSING THIS IN A TIMELY MANNER WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN TO COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL FOR WHAT, UH, WHAT HE INTENDS TO REPLACE THE HOUSE WITH, RIGHT? BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DIMINISH THE IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
SO SAYING WHAT'S GOING TO, IT'S GOING TO REPLACE HOW, BECAUSE IF THAT IS ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY, THEN WE CAN GO AHEAD AND, AND ADDRESS THE CERTIFICATE WITH, WELL, WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS, THE PROPERTY, THE WAY IT IS, IT IS, IT IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
SO THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO RE ELIMINATE THAT THREAT IN A ENTIRELY MANNER OTHER THAN TO DEMOLISH IT.
COMING UP WITH WHAT'S GOING TO REPLACE IT DOESN'T REALLY TALK TO, UM, THE, THAT IT, THAT THE STRUCTURE IS A, AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THAT IT'S A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITY.
SO TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT'S GONNA REPLACE IT WITH, IS IT ELIMINATING THAT THREAT THAT IT'S STILL A PUBLIC, UM, THAT IT'S STILL A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITY? THIS IS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.
UM, AS SOMEONE WHO'S ACTUALLY WALKED AROUND, AS SOMEONE WHO'S ACTUALLY WALKED AROUND THIS BUILDING, UM, AND SEEN THE BAMBOO, YOU KNOW, GARDEN IN THE BACK, UM, I I, IT, IT IS A HOME THAT IS IN DIRE NEED OF, OF REPAIR.
AND IT'S, IT CAN'T BE WORKED ON IN THE CONDITION IT'S IN.
I STILL CANNOT, UH, APPROVE A DEMOLITION ORDER STRUCTURE, UM, WITH, WITH, WITHOUT A PLAN FOR MOVING FORWARD, WHETHER IT IS REBUILT OR RAISE.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT, BUT FOR, FOR ME, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE
[02:00:01]
DEMOLITION IN ITS STATE RIGHT NOW JUST TO LEAVE A VACANT LOT.UM, MR. TAYLOR, MIGHT I ASK, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU WERE NEAR THE BUILDING, WERE YOU AT ALL CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD FALL UPON YOU? NO, BUT I AM I'M JUST ASKING FOR YOUR EVALUATION OF WHETHER YOU THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA FALL DOWN.
IT, IT, IT WAS IN DIRE STRUCTURAL NEED AND THIS, AND WHEN I WALKED IT, IT WAS CLOSE TO TWO YEARS AGO, UM, NO, ACTUALLY THREE YEARS AGO.
SO IT, IT, IT DEFINITELY HAD DETERIORATED IN THOSE YEARS.
UM, BUT, BUT AS JUST AS A RESIDENT OF 10TH STREET AND SOMEONE WHO'S SEEN THE CONDITION OF THESE HOMES, I, I CAN'T JUST BLATANTLY SAY LET'S DEMOLISH IT.
OKAY? WHAT IF THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION? IF YOU THINK IT'S A DANGER WITHOUT ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT OUR ATTORNEY IS TRYING TO TELL US, THAT WE DON'T GET TO THINK AHEAD NECESSARILY, THEN DO YOU CHANGE OR DO YOU STICK WITH THAT? BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE UP MY MIND WHERE I STAND.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANNA DEMOLISH IT, BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOLISHING OF THE BUILDING.
MR. OFFIT HAS SOMETHING TO ADD.
BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T RELY ON THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE STANDARD.
SO IF YOU ARE TO DE DENY THIS DEMOLITION, IT NEEDS TO BE WITH THE FINDING EFFECT THAT IT DOESN'T MEET ONE PART OF THE STANDARD THAT I READ.
AND, AND I, I REMIND EVERYONE, UM, WE HAVE A, WE HAD A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION THAT WENT ON FOR TWO YEARS, I BELIEVE, WHERE WE WOULDN'T ALLOW SOMEBODY TO DEMOLISH SOMETHING AND HAD THEM COME BACK WITH A NEW BILL.
WE APPROVED THE NEW BILL AND THEN STILL REFUSE TO LET THEM DEMOLISH THAT.
SO WE'RE SENDING ALL KINDS OF MIXED SIGNALS THERE AND I'VE GOT TO GO, UH, WITH STAFF AND WITH THE FOLKS THAT, THAT ARE THERE FETCHING THAT THING, UNDERSTAND THE, THANK YOU.
I DO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WHAT WE DO ON ONE CASE DOES NOT SET UP A PRECEDENT FOR THE OTHER.
THOUGH CHANGING OUR MIND AND STRINGING PEOPLE ALONG THAT WE MIGHT BE ACCUSED OF IF WE EVER DID THAT TOO MUCH IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO BE AVOIDED BY THIS COMMISSION.
CUZ WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE PEOPLE VALID ANSWERS THAT THEY CAN COUNT ON.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO MAKE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEFORE I, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
SO IF THEY DEMOLISH THIS, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE IT PROBABLY IS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC, AREN'T THEY GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK TO US AS A BODY TO DECIDE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BUILD ON THE PROPERTY TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW? THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CA PROCESS AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED.
HOWEVER, WE CANNOT MAKE THEM BUILD SOMETHING.
THAT'S, I THINK, THE FEAR OF THE EMPTY LOT THING BECAUSE WE CAN, WE CAN ONLY TELL PEOPLE WHETHER THEY HAVE PERMISSION TO BUILD THEIR EXACT PROPOSAL OR NOT.
WE CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO BUILD A HOUSE.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE? MADAM CHAIR? WOULD SOMEBODY RESTATE WHAT WAS PROPOSED EXACTLY SO I CAN HEAR IT? WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WORDS FLOATING AROUND, I JUST WANT TO HEAR.
UM, THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION OF THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DATED 5 1 23 FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
I, I KNOW THIS ONE'S HARD TO DECIDE YOUR VOTE ON, SO EVERYBODY NEEDS TO DECIDE.
I HAVE A TAD MORE TO SAY AND I WON'T DRAG THIS ON.
THIS ONE'S DIFFICULT AND I REALLY APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER TAYLOR SAYING WHAT HE SAID CUZ HE LIVES IN THE DISTRICT ALONG WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER SWAN, THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS BEEN IN A FRAGILE STATE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
WE HAVE JUST HEARD THIS MORNING THAT MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO SURVEY THE DISTRICT AND FROM THAT SURVEY THERE WILL BE SOME INTERESTING OUTCOMES AND SOME HOPEFULLY STRONG RECOMMENDATIONS.
WITH A 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE, THE CITY, BECAUSE OF ITS 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE, IS LARGELY SYSTEMATICALLY DEMOLISHING 10TH STREET ITSELF.
SO THERE ARE OTHER STANDARDS THAT COULD BE MET IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLAN TO REBUILD.
I WON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION EVEN THOUGH I FEEL MR. COOPER'S PAIN.
I KNOW THIS IS HARD, UM, BUT I AM GOING TO, UM, LEAN AGAINST, UM, NOT SUPPORTING.
[02:05:01]
THANK YOU.DID YOU WISH TO CONTINUE MR. SW? THE, YEAH, THE LAST THING I'M GONNA SAY IS I THINK THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE WAY AND I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR HAS TOUCHED ON IT.
I, I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND HIM CORRECTLY AND INCORRECTLY ME, IF I'M NOT, THAT HE IS SAYING THAT THE CONDITION OF THIS HOUSE IS, UH, IT IS SIMILARLY FRAGILE LIKE MANY OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT.
AND WE COULD GO ONE BY ONE BY ONE AND AND TOL THEM ALL.
BUT I, THE USE OF A DIFFERENT STANDARD AND THE PRESENTATION OF SOMETHING I THINK GIVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD A LOT MORE REASSURANCE THAT SOMETHING'S GONNA BE THERE OTHER THAN A VACANT LOT.
ALRIGHT, SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M, I'M OPPOSING THIS MOTION.
I HOPE, UH, UH, ANOTHER ONE CAN COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT STANDARD AS, AS WE MOVE TOWARDS THE VOTE.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT I THINK THERE IS A PATH FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, TO ACHIEVE WHAT THEY ULTIMATELY WANT TO ACHIEVE.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS PATH THAT THEY SET FORTH TODAY WITH THE HEALTH, WITH THE SAFETY ISSUE OF THE HOME IS THE PATH TO ACHIEVE THAT.
AND I THINK THAT ALL OF US HAVE OUR REASONS WHY WE, WE ARE TRYING TO THINK OF WHICH WAY WE WANNA GO ON THIS.
SO WE'RE GONNA CALL FOR THE VOTE.
WE ARE GOING TO REMEMBER THAT WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON.
DOES THIS MEET THOSE THREE STANDARDS THAT PROVE IT'S A DANGER? IF IT DOESN'T, WE CAN DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
IF IT DOES MEET THOSE THREE STANDARDS, THEN WE HAVE, WE SHOULD APPROVE IT TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM GETTING HURT.
UM, OTHER IDEAS IN OUR HEAD ABOUT WHAT WE HOPE FOR IN THE FUTURE AND SUCH ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PART OF THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE IN OUR HEAD WHILE WE MAKE OUR DECISION.
I ALSO WANT TO, UM, TO NOTE OUR APPLICANTS HOWEVER THIS GOES.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR DESIRE TO PASS ON TO YOUR CHILDREN THE ABILITY TO LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH YOUR ANCESTORS LIVED.
WE WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TOO BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY, BUT THIS VOTE SQUAD, IT'S REAL HARD TO TELL.
I'M NOW GONNA CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
IS MR. OFFIT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? AND OKAY, SO WE HAVE THREE VOTES.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE, THE NAYS RAISE THEIR HAND AND THEN WE'RE GONNA DO THE ROLL CALL THING JUST BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, UH, NAY, NAY, NAY, NAY.
ELAINE, WILL PLEASE DO THE ROLL CALL.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN NAY.
DISTRICT TWO COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY NAY.
COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN FOGELMAN? YES.
DISTRICT FOUR COMMISSIONER SWAN NAY.
DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER OFIT FOUR.
DISTRICT EIGHT COMMISSIONER, SPY NAY.
DISTRICT 10 COMMISSIONER HDU FOUR.
DISTRICT 12 COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER NAY.
DISTRICT 14 COMMISSIONER GUEST NAY.
DISTRICT 15 COMMISSIONER, VEN NAY.
I HAVE FOLKMAN OUTFIT AND OH YES.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS MOTION HAS FAILED.
ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION? YES.
UH, I MOVE THAT, UH, WE IN THE MATTER, I'M SORRY, IN THE MATTER OF 3 38 AND, UH, 2 10 12 BETTERTON CIRCLE CD 2 23 DASH 0 0 8 RD UH, THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT IT IS NOT MEET NUMBER THREE, UM, OF SECTION 51 A 4 5 0 1 H FOUR C SECOND.
[02:10:01]
DISCUSSION THEN WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THIS ONE.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY SO.
SO THOSE IN OPPOSITION ARE COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN, COMMISSIONER OFIT, AND COMMISSIONER HAK.
AND ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THAT? UM, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO NEW ANOTHER ROLL CALL CAUSE IT'S JUST THE SAME AS THE FIRST ONE.
AND NO ONE'S SPEAKING UP UP THAT THEY VOTED DIFFERENTLY.
THAT MEANS THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED.
THIS IS A DENIAL, MR. COOPER, THAT NOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT IT'S STILL A DENIAL.
YOU COULD FOR A FEE APPEAL TO CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND THEIR ONLY STANDARD WOULD BE DID WE RULE AN ERROR? BUT YOU COULD ALSO COME BACK TO US AFTER A, YOU CAN CONFER WITH DR.
DUNN, WHO I'M SURE LISTENED TO EVERY SINGLE WORD WE SAID, AS IS HER JOB.
AND SHE LOVES US AND SHE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU FIND THE PATH TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE ARE ALL IN SUPPORT OF SEEING A HAPPY FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
THIS WAS A DIFFICULT DECISION AND WE THANK YOU FOR COMING.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF BREAK BEFORE WE DO THIS NEXT CASE?
IT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE, I THINK WE'RE GONNA TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK TO JUST, CUZ THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO SIT HERE, PARTICULARLY ME THE WHOLE TIME
SO LET US TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
I MEAN 10 MINUTES EVEN IF WE'RE CALLED.
SO 10 36 CUZ WE DO WANNA GET OUT OF HERE SOMEDAY, BUT WE CAN GIVE OUR ATTENTION BETTER IF WE ARE COMFORTABLE.
I'M, IT'S A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW.
SO WE HAVE HAD OUR BREAK AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION.
UH, WE ARE READY TO HEAR DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 10, IF STAFF WILL PLEASE PROCEED.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3 38 SOUTH FLEMING AVENUE IN THE 10TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CD 2 23 DASH 0 0 7, AURA D THREE.
THE REQUEST IS TO DEMOLISH YOUR MAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
THE STANDARD IS IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH MAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 5 1 20 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH THE MAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDING, UH, BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS FOUND IN OUR AGENDA.
WE HAVE, UM, A SPEAKER ALREADY UP AT THE PODIUM.
WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? YES, MY NAME IS RANDY SHEARER.
I LIVE AT, UH, 70 27 GASTON PARKWAY IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING, BUT ALL RIGHT, YOU HAVE, UM, THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR INITIAL PRESENTATION AND THEN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS LATER.
I'M, I'M HERE AS THE DESIGNER FOR THE HOUSE THAT WE HAD DESIGNED, UH, TWO MO TWO YEARS AGO.
AND, UH, SOME OF THE STAFF I RECOGNIZE, BUT, UH, SOME OF THE STAFF I DON'T RECOGNIZE.
SO I'M KIND OF GIVING A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY.
WE'VE COME TO YOU, UH, IN DECEMBER OF 21, UH, AS, UH, IN THE FIRST, UH, UH, CASE TO DESIGN A HOUSE THAT WOULD REPLACE THIS HOUSE BECAUSE WE HAD DETERMINED THROUGH ENGINEER REPORTS THAT THE HOUSE IS IRRETRIEVABLY LOST.
AND SO WE ALSO, UH, HAD, UH, FLASH FORWARD, WE ENDED UP LAST YEAR GOING FOR, UH, GRANT MONEY, UH, TO RESTORE THE HOME.
AND, UH, THE, THE PEOPLE FROM THE GRANT DEPARTMENT HAD DENIED OUR, UH, HAD DENIED OUR, UH, APPLICATION BECAUSE, UH, THE PROPERTY WAS DEEMED COMMERCIAL.
SO NOW WE HAD ALREADY IN 2022, TWO HAD GONE TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
AND SO THE FIRST STANDARD, WE FOLLOWED IT, UH, TO THE T AND I HAVE THE EMAIL FROM LIZ CASO.
THAT IS TWO PAGES OF ITEMS THAT WE HAD GONE THROUGH IN DESIGNING THIS BUILDING AS AN IDENTICAL REPLICA.
[02:15:01]
EXACT COPY, BUT PRETTY CLOSE TO IT WITHIN INCHES, I WOULD SAY INCHES.AND SO WE HAD DEVELOPED THIS BUILDING DESIGN, WHICH WAS, UH, THE CA HAD BEEN APPROVED, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN 2023, THE STANDARD WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
THE, THE STANDARD WAS DETERMINED BY LIS HASSO IN DECEMBER THAT YOU KEEP THE CD AND THE CA TOGETHER IN THIS STANDARD.
AND IN 2023, THE STANDARD WAS BROKEN UP INTO TWO PARTS, THE CA AND THE CD.
AND THAT WASN'T, THAT WAS NOT GOOD TO US BECAUSE YOU HAD ALREADY AGREED JUNE TO APPROVE OUR PROJECT, BUT LATER ON TO GET THE CD, WE WERE DENIED AND WE WERE DENIED.
ON THE BASIS OF THIS EMAIL HERE, A RED REDACTED EMAIL FROM, UH, UH, ACCORDING TO MR. JOHNSON, UH, TO CARLOS VANNA STATING THAT THEY HAD, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED A HOME NINE TIMES, AND THEN ALSO IT WAS CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE, THE HOUSE WAS REPAIRABLE.
BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE FORMER DIRECTOR, MILLER, IS NOT AN ENGINEER.
AND, UH, CARLOS VANNA, WHO WORKED HERE OF THE O H P S, NOT AN ENGINEER.
I MOVE THAT WE GIVE THE APPLICANT TWO MORE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
OKAY, WE HAVE TWO MORE MINUTES, SIR.
SO WE ENDED UP HAVING, UH, ANOTHER ENGINEER REPORT.
THE FIRST, WE, WE SHOWED THREE ENGINEER REPORTS.
THE FIRST ENGINEER REPORT SAID THAT IT WOULD COST $89,000 TO FIX THE FOUNDATION JUST FOR THE, NOT THE, THE EXTENSION OF WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED, BUT JUST THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
AND SO THAT WAS OUR FIRST REPORT AND WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF IT, BUT WE DID GET A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO COME IN BEDROCK ENGINEERING, WHICH WAS, UH, RECOMMENDED BY MR. PE PRESI.
AND UH, WE HAD THEM COME IN AND THEN WE HAD THIS THIRD REPORT, WHICH WAS CONCURRENT WITH THE SECOND REPORT, WHICH IS IN THIS DOCUMENT, THIS TIME AROUND THOUGH, WHEN WE WENT TO THE CPC, UH, BECAUSE THE, UH, THE, THE CA WAS APPROVED, WE HAD NO WAY OF SHOWING THEM THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE CD.
AND SO ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AT THE CPC MEETING WERE ALL ABOUT WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? SO YOU DESIGNED SOMETHING SHE SAID, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT? SO I HAD NO WAY OF TELLING THEM OR SHOWING THEM WHAT THE DESIGN LOOKED LIKE.
IN FACT, WE LEARNED NOW THAT THE CPC MEETING HAD SHOTTED BACK TO YOU GUYS BECAUSE WE HAD NEW EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS ADDED TO OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE CPC.
AND THAT WAS DEEMED NEW EVIDENCE.
AND IN THE SAME BREATH, THE DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE 6TH WOULD'VE BEEN NEW EVIDENCE.
SO THEY WOULD'VE DENIED IT AND SENT IT BACK TO YOU GUYS, EVEN IF I WAS TRYING TO SHOW THEM WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKED LIKE.
AND EVEN NOW, WHEN WE WENT IN FRONT OF THE CPC, THEY CANCELED THE THING AND SENT IT BACK TO THE LANDMARK.
SO HERE WE ARE, WE'RE, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO WANNA KNOCK DOWN A BUILDING, BUT IT IS IN THAT IS YOUR TIME, SIR.
I, I ALSO HAVE ON MY LIST OF SPEAKERS A DAKOTA WRINKLE.
UM, HE MAY BE LISTENING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S ACTUALLY GOING TO PARTICIPATE.
SO CAN YOU GET THEM ON WHERE I CAN SEE THEM, BUT I THINK MR. JOHNSON WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE HIM ON OUR LIST.
WE USUALLY GO BY THE PRE-REGISTRATION FIRST, AND THEN THE, I UNDERSTAND.
CAME WITH THE YELLOW FORMS. I DON'T SEE THE, THAT THEY'RE, WELL THEN LET US ASKED DAKOTA, COULD YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE AND YOUR CAM? I THINK HE'S JUST LISTENING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU DON'T WISH TO SPEAK, THEN DON'T TURN ON ANYTHING.
HEARING NOTHING, LET US MOVE FORWARD AND HEAR FROM LARRY JOHNSON.
[02:20:01]
OKAY.UM, I PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
UM, UH, MUCH THE SAME TO WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE PREVIOUS CASE.
UM, WITH, UH, THIS IS GONNA BE A HARD DECISION WITH, UH, WITH, WITH THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE IN PLAY, UM, THIS APPLICANT COULD EASILY JUST, UH, GET A COURT ORDER, DEMO THE HOUSE AND LEAVE NOTHING THERE.
BUT THIS APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY DONE DUE DILIGENCE AND HAS COME TO, UM, HAS COME TO THE COMMUNITY WITH WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REDO.
AND, AND WE ARE IN FAVOR OF, UM, OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND I UNDERSTAND YOU ALL'S HANDS ARE TIED.
WE HAVE, UM, REVIEWED, UH, THE PREVIOUS CASES, AND WE HAVE SEEN WHERE THE ISSUE IS CONTRIBUTING, NOT CONTRIBUTING.
UM, BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT RULE DOES NOT TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND SO, UM, BETTER THAT WE HAVE, UH, SOMETHING THERE THEN THAT WE HAVE A VACANT LOT.
AND IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS ACTUALLY COME WITH, UH, WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO BUILD AND WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO BUILD IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT AND WHAT IT, WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.
AND IF I MAY ALSO SAY, UM, I HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH, UM, THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES, AND, UH, TO HER CREDIT, UM, SHE IS SOMEONE THAT, THAT WE DEFINITELY WANT AND DEFINITELY NEED IN THE DISTRICT, SOMEONE WHO WILL BE AN ASSET AND NOT A LIABILITY.
SO WE'RE HOPING THAT, UM, THAT YOU ALL TAKE A LOOK AT, UH, WHAT MR. SHEER HAS AND, UM, UH, IT'S A HARD DECISION.
BUT, UH, HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
I THINK THAT'S ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS.
SO QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS TO STAFF OR SPEAKERS, MR. SHEARS, UH, SHEAR, UH, SHEAR, I'M SORRY.
UM, I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT LOSS OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL REPRESENTS LOSS OF INTEGRITY, INTEGRITY TO THE DISTRICT, AND THAT THAT HARMS OUR DISTRICT.
IT HAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT, AND, AND THAT ORIGINAL MATERIAL HAS BEEN DRAINING OUT OF THE DISTRICT FOR YEARS.
YOU KNOW, AND APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SALVAGE AND INCORPORATE SOME OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS, WHICH ARE PART OF 10TH STREET'S INTEGRITY IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT YOU HAVE PLANNED.
WELL, I HAVE TO REMIND YOU THAT, UH, OTHER CITIES HAVE PROGRAMS AND ORDINANCES IN WITH REGARD TO THAT.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE CITY OF DALLAS DOES, HAS, DOESN'T HAVE A DECOMMISSION.
UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS DOES NOT HAVE A, A DECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, RIGHT? SO, RIGHT.
BUT TO, TO SAY THAT THE ENGINEER HAD SAID THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS, BUT THAT CAN'T BE KNOWN UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY START TO DISMANTLE THE BUILDING.
SO, UM, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW UNTIL WE KNOW, RIGHT? UH, OF COURSE, WE LIKE TO KEEP, UH, EVERY PIECE OF WOOD.
EVEN THE OWNER HAD STATED IN THE FIRST LANDMARK MEETING THAT SHE'S WILLING TO SALVAGE AS MUCH AS SHE CAN.
AND OF COURSE, THERE'S THE QUESTION OF, UH, MATERIAL, UH, THAT IS CONDEMNED, BASICALLY LEAD BASED PAINT AND, UH, ASBESTOS THAT THESE OTHER, THEY GOT DEMOLITION, THEY GOT, UH, MONEY, UH, FROM GRANT MONEY, AND STILL THEY'RE, THAT KIND OF, UH, SITUATION PUTS THEM INTO, UH, UH, THEY, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO ABATE THE, UH, ASBESTOS OR ANYTHING THAT'S FOUND.
BUT OF COURSE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS, IS NOT DEEMED SAFE.
AND ACTUALLY, THE CITY CAME IN WITH BOTH AN ENGINEER REPORT, BUT WITH A CODE OFFICIAL.
AND WE'VE TRIED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CODE CONDITION OF THIS STRUCTURE IS, AND IT PRETTY MUCH IS AT THE BOTTOM.
IT'S, IT'S A CONDEMNED, IT SHOULD BE A CONDEMNED STRUCTURE.
[02:25:01]
DETERIORATED OVER THE TIME PERIOD THAT WHEN WE FIRST SHOWED UP HERE, AND TO THEN, IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS NOW.SO EVERY TIME IT RAINS, I REALLY WONDER IF IT'S JUST GONNA COLLAPSE.
SO, UH, I THINK THAT SHE'S MADE SOME PROMISES, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KIND OF STICK TO HER WORD IN HOW MUCH SHE CAN REDEEM FROM THIS BUILDING.
BUT, UH, IT'S DONE ALL THE TIME.
I'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO IT, AND A LOT OF THE CONTRACTORS, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T CALL IT DECONSTRUCTION OR SALVAGE PLAN, THEY'RE DOING IT ACTIVELY DOING IT NOW.
SO THERE ARE PEOPLE DOING THAT, BUT, AND SOME, AND THIS ONE CONTRACTOR THAT I SPOKE TO SAID THAT HE, HE TAKES THE HOMES APART, BUT THEN FINDS OUT THAT HE HAS ANOTHER $15,000 WORTH OF MATERIAL HE NEEDS TO REPLACE WITH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT LAST TIME, UH, COMMISSIONER RENO SAID THAT, UH, HE WAS GIVING ME A LITTLE BIT OF A LECTURE ABOUT, UH, THE OLD WOOD AND HOW STABLE IT IS.
IF THERE'S A PIECE OF WOOD THAT YOU CAN KEEP IN PUT INTO THIS NEW HOUSE, I HAVE TO ALSO SAY THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IF YOU KEEP, IF YOU SALVAGE ENOUGH, THERE HASN'T BEEN A PERCENTAGE DEVELOPED BY THE CITY OR EVEN THIS COMMITTEE OF WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE IS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW THAT AUSTIN HAS A 10%, IF YOU KEEP 10% OF THE EXISTING HISTORICAL BUILDING, THEN IT STAYS AND REMAINS HISTORIC.
BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THIS CITY IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT YOU CAN SAVE.
SO IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION, I WOULD THROW IT BACK TO YOU AND SAY, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO KEEP, TO KEEP IT HISTORIC? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PANEL CAN ACTUALLY TELL ME THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I I HATE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WITH A QUESTION, BUT THAT MAKES SENSE.
I MEAN, WE WOULD LOVE TO KEEP THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY INTACT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE COPYING IT.
UH, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, I MEAN, WE WOULD LOVE TO KEEP THE THIRD LEG OF THE PORCH.
WE'D LOVE TO KEEP THE BIG WINDOW, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE SOMETIMES OKAY.
AND IF, UH, WITH YOUR, UH, INDULGENCE, I'LL ADDRESS THAT QUESTION IN DISCUSSION.
I'M SORRY, YOUR QUESTION BACK TO ME.
UH, I'LL ADDRESS IT IN DISCUSSION.
I HAVE, I BELIEVE, UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WANTS TO SPEAK.
I DO HAVE ONE, ONE QUESTION, SIR.
I, I CAN HEAR IN YOUR VOICE THE EMOTION THAT THIS LONG PROCESS HAS CAUSED YOU.
IT'S ALSO CAUSED US A LOT OF EMOTION.
WHO WHO'VE SEEN IT FROM THE BEGINNING? I HAVE TO ASK YOU NOW.
YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, THE BUILDING HAS DETERIORATED.
DID YOU NOT FEEL THAT THE OWNER OR YOU, AS HER REPRESENTATIVE AND HER ASSISTANT HAD A DUTY TO TRY TO STOP THAT OVER THIS TIME, EVEN WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT AND HOW WHILE YOU OWNED A PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD TRY TO AT LEAST KEEP IT FROM GETTING WORSE? WELL, NO, I THINK THAT THE OWNER HAD DONE THESE STEPS BECAUSE OF DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
I HAD ASKED HER TO, UM, BE FORWARD AND START TO, UH, MEDIATE THE, THE, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING.
SO SHE WENT AHEAD AND SHE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS NOT ONLY EMPTYING OUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF FROM ALL THE JUNK IN IT BECAUSE IT WAS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, BUT, UH, SHE ALSO, UH, PATCHED THE ROOF.
SHE PUT ON TARPS AND SHE PUT UP PANELING AND PROTECTED THE WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE.
SO SHE'S DONE EVERYTHING, AS YOU'VE SAID BEFORE.
CAN I DO ANYTHING? AND I CAN, THE SOLUTION IS TO PUT FOAM IN UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING NOW, BUT YOU PROBABLY WON'T LIKE THAT KIND OF SOLUTION.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S DONE ALL THE TIME TO SUPPORT FOUNDATIONS THAT ARE SHOT.
I HEARD YOU, UM, MENTION THAT WHEN YOU WERE GOING THROUGH YOUR PROCESS EARLIER THIS YEAR, THAT THE BUILDING WAS DEEMED COMMERCIAL.
HOWEVER, IN THE JANUARY STRUCTURAL REPORT, UNDER THE GENERAL INFORMATION, IT NOTES THAT IT WAS A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY BUNGALOW.
AND DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT DETERMINATION OF, OF COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENCY? ARE YOU SAYING THE ENGINEER MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A ONE STORY BUNGALOW, SINGLE FAMILY BUNGALOW? WELL, THE ENGINEER WAS JUST THERE TO DETERMINE THE STRUCTURE.
HE WASN'T AN ARCHITECTURAL PERSON.
SO HE, I MEAN, IT USED TO BE 40 YEARS AGO,
[02:30:01]
50 YEARS AGO, BUT THAT'S HALF THE LIFE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE.IT'S BEEN A HOUSE, BUT NOW IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
IT HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
THE OWNER PAYS TAXES ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOT A HOUSE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
OKAY, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DOES ANYBODY HAVE? I HAVE A QUESTION.
MR. SHEER, WHAT IS THE, UH, CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT WILL BE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION? WELL DETERMINE IF THE, THE STRUCTURE OF, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PORCH AREA ALSO? BECAUSE OF THE FOOTPRINT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ACTUAL AREA INSIDE.
SO, BUT THE AREA INSIDE IS AROUND 1500, AND THE NEW STRUCTURE IS ONLY GONNA ADD, UH, UH, 8,000 SQUARE FEET TO IT.
SO IT'LL BE 20 SOMETHING, 2300 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
BUT THAT'S IN THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED.
AND THE NEW, UH, THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE? YES, IT WILL BE, MM-HMM.
AND ON THE APPLICATION IT SAID THAT THEY WOULDN'T GIVE US MONEY IF IT WASN'T A SINGLE FAMILY HOME PRESENTLY.
UM, AND SO THEY KIND OF, THEY KIND OF DIDN'T FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES IN THE APPLICATION, SO THEY LET THAT FLY.
AND ONE LAST QUESTION, WILL THE OWN, DOES THE OWNER, UH, PROPOSE TO, UH, MOVE INTO THE PROPERTY? YES, OF COURSE.
SHE, SHE ACTUALLY, ORIGINALLY SHE WANTED TO DESIGN IT, AND WE DESIGNED IT WITH HER HUSBAND AND MINE, WHO WAS, UH, DYING OF CANCER.
SO WE KEPT IT AT THE SAME LEVEL SO THAT HE COULD TAKE, UM, HE COULD BE AT THAT HOUSE WHEN IT WAS BUILT AND ACTUALLY SEE IT REALIZED.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, LARRY HAD DIED.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
UH, MR. SHEER, I, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE US SO MANY TIMES.
UH, A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
UH, SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT SHOULDN'T THE OWNER HAVE DONE SOMETHING OVER THE TWO YEAR PERIOD TO STOP THE DETERIORATION, BUT, AND I JUST NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATION, BUT DID YOU GUYS, UM, SUBMITTED AND IT WAS APPROVED A PLAN FOR THE BACK BILL OF THAT HOUSE, UH, SO IT WOULDN'T BE AN EMPTY LOT, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, YES, OF COURSE.
THE, THE HOUSE WAS GOING TO BE BUILT.
IS THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE, ONCE WE WOULD, WE START CONSTRUCTION RIGHT AWAY.
SO WE NEVER GONNA, I'M SORRY, I'M TALKING ABOUT, I'M TALKING ABOUT TIMELINE.
SO YOU GUYS PRESENTED SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, A PLAN TO COME BACK AND FILL THAT HOUSE, AND THAT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THEN IN THE MEANTIME, YOU HAD TO THEN WAIT AND APPLY FOR THE DEMOLITION PERMIT.
SO AT ANY TIME DURING THAT PERIOD, DID YOU ALL SUSPECT OR HAVE ANY SUSPICION AT ALL THAT THIS COMMISSION, AFTER THEY HAD APPROVED THE NEW BILL, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, OH, YEAH, WE'VE APPROVED THE NEW BILL, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA LET YOU TEAR DOWN THE OLD HOUSE.
WAS THERE ANY CONTEMPLATION THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN? NO.
I THINK WE HAD LEARNED FROM LIZ CASO THAT IN THIS STANDARD TO REPLACE THE CD AND THE CA GO TOGETHER, IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE CA FIRST, THEN YOU GO TO THE CD.
YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THE CD THEN.
SO IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE CA, YOU DON'T SEE THE CD AND IT GOES IN THAT ORDER.
AND THAT STUCK WITH ME FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
[02:35:01]
SHE'S ACTUALLY TELLING US HOW THE STANDARD WORKS, AND THE STANDARD WAS NOT FOLLOWED WITH THE, THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF PRESERVATION, MR. MILLER.I I JUST, IT GETS SO CONFUSING.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
IT'S ALSO A MATTER OF THAT, IT, IT UPSETS THE TIMELINE BECAUSE IF WE WERE APPROVED AND WE COULD START CONSTRUCTION, THEN EVERYTHING WOULD WORK IN SYNC.
BUT WITH THREE MONTHS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CA AND THE CD, WE COULDN'T, WE COULDN'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.
SO IT WAS A, A SALE, A SAFE, IT WAS A, IT, IT COULDN'T, IT COULDN'T BE WORKED OUT BECAUSE EVEN IF WE HAD THE CD, WE MAY RUN OUT OF TIME ON THE CA AND WE'D HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR THE CA LIKE WE DID TOO.
ALSO NOW, BECAUSE THE THING IS THAT THE CA RAN OUT IN DECEMBER 3RD, JUST A COUPLE A MONTH AFTER WE WERE REFUSED THE CD.
MR. SHEER, I, I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO, TO TRY TO CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS HERE.
AND OUR ATTORNEY WILL LISTEN CLOSELY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AS SHE ALWAYS DOES.
UM, IT IS THE NORMAL STANDARD WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION BASED ON THE FACT YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A NEW HOUSE THAT IS BETTER COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT FIRST WE MUST APPROVE THE NEW PLAN AND SAY, YES, THAT IS REALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT FROM THEN, WE HAVE NOT SAID A THING ABOUT THE, THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION YET.
WE JUST SAID, THAT'S A REAL NICE PLAN.
AND THEN, AND OFTEN THEY COME TOGETHER ON THE SAME, UM, DOCKET ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER, AND THEN WE APPROVE THEM.
IF, IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE AN APPROVAL THAT GETS YOU ANYWHERE YET.
IN THE MEANTIME, MANY THINGS HAPPENED, AND I'LL ADMIT THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHAOS BETWEEN THE, THE PANDEMIC AND, AND, AND ALL THE, THE CHANGES IN PEOPLE LIKE MS. CASTLE LEAVING.
BUT YEAH, IT, IT WAS NORMAL THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THE HOUSE AS A REAL NICE PLAN FIRST, BUT THEN ADDRESS AS A SEPARATE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION.
NOW YOU ARE HERE ASKING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION BASED ON THE FACT YOUR CONTENTION, THE FACT IS THAT IT'S A DANGEROUS BUILDING THAT IT COULD HARM PEOPLE.
SO THAT IS WHY I ASKED, HAVE YOU TAKEN STEPS TO MAKE IT NOT BECOME DANGEROUS DURING THIS CONFUSED TIME? BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT A DANGEROUS BUILDING THAT COULD HURT PEOPLE.
SO MR. OFFIT, AND, AND MR. SHEER, THAT IS WHAT I WAS MEANING BEFORE.
I'M SORRY IF I WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR ARE WE POSSIBLY READY FOR A MOTION? AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
AND TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT THE CHAIR SAID BEFORE, THEY MIGHT HAVE COME IN FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION UNDER THE STANDARD TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE.
AND WITHIN THAT STANDARD, IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST FIRST APPROVE THE CA BEFORE IT CAN ISSUE THE CD.
BUT THIS STANDARD'S DIFFERENT.
AGAIN, IT SAYS THREE THAT I READ BEFORE, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT YOU NEED TO APPROVE OF CA BEFORE YOU ISSUED THIS CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION UNDER THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD.
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, UH, UH, STANDARD BECAUSE IN ONE OF THE LANDMARK MEETINGS, MR. ANDERSON HAD QUESTIONED ME OVER AND OVER ABOUT WHY DID I PICK, PLAN THE, THE STANDARD A OVER B? AND HE KEPT SAYING IT OVER AND OVER.
I MEAN, YOU PICKED A AND WHY DIDN'T YOU PICK B? AND SO I REMEMBER THAT FINALLY WHEN WE WERE IN A POSITION OF DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT LAST YEAR, WHICH WAS PROPOSED, WE CAME UP WITH THIS STANDARD, WHICH ALSO FITS.
THERE ARE OTHER STANDARDS THAT ACTUALLY FIT OUR CONDITION ALSO.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE WITH THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT WE ACTUALLY CAME IN WITH A REPLACEMENT AND THE DESIGN THAT'S NOT ONLY BEEN APPROVED, BUT THEY'VE CALLED IT EXCELLENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
LET ME ASK YOU, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT THAT YOU FAILED TO, I DON'T, I'M NOT SAYING YOU FAILED.
WHAT CAUSED THERE TO NOT BE A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE NEW PLAN? BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL THAT DETAIL.
SO I'M ASKING YOU OR STAFF WHO WEREN'T HERE TO, UM, DID, DID YOU NOT APPLY FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION SOON ENOUGH? OR DID STAFF NOT GET IT TO US? OR WHAT HAPPENED? I DON'T REMEMBER.
WHAT WAS IT? UH, JUST REPEAT YOUR QUESTION.
AFTER AT THAT MEETING, I REMEMBER THAT MEETING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT YOUR, YOUR PLAN AND SAID, THIS IS A NICE PLAN.
THEN WHAT HAPPENED AS FAR AS YOUR CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION BASED ON YOU WERE GONNA BUILD A BETTER HOUSE.
DID YOU APPLY UNDER THAT? DID WE APPROVE IT? DID IT NOT GET TO US? DID STAFF NOT ACCEPT IT? WHAT HAPPENED? NO.
THE LANDMARK, UM, DETERMINED THE CD WAS NOT, UM, THEY DENIED IT.
[02:40:01]
WE, AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE, WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, WE CAN SAY YOUR REPLACEMENT PLAN IS VERY GOOD, BUT WE'D RATHER HAVE THE OLD HOUSE.WE THINK IT MORE BEATS THE STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD FULFILL IT BETTER.
SO THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS, HAPPENED.
SO NOW WE ARE AT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING TODAY, AND WE'RE ALL REALLY SORRY, THIS IS DRUG ON AND THAT IT HAS MADE MANY OF US FEEL.
BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT'S IRRETRIEVABLY LOST.
IT'S A NON CONTRIBUTOR, AND IT'S BEEN DEEMED IRRETRIEVABLY LOST.
AND YOU HAVE PRESENTED TWO ENGINEER REPORTS, AND IT'S A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, YOU FEEL, BUT YOU ALSO HEARD AD NAUSEUM HOW OUR ATTORNEY HAS EXPLAINED TO US WHAT WE MUST RULE ON TODAY.
THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO KEEP IT FROM BEING AN IMMINENT THREAT.
AND, AND SO IT'S, IT'S GOTTA COME DOWN.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO RULE ON TODAY.
ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS, JUST LIKE WITH THE LAST CASE, ARE IMPORTANT TO US AND AFFECT US, BUT THEY AREN'T WHAT WE'RE HERE JUDGING.
SO WE WILL MAKE OUR MOTION BASED ON THAT.
SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO ELUCIDATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT MOTION SHOULD BE FOR DEMOLITION OR NOT? OR DOES, IF NOT, DOES SOMEONE HAVE A MOTION? MR. OFFIT, WHAT ARE YOU, MADAM CHAIR? YES.
UH, JUST TO, UH, REMIND EVERYBODY, I THINK AS I RECALL, THE DELAY BETWEEN THE APPROVAL OF THE NEW HOUSE AND THE DEMOLITION WAS BECAUSE THEY HAD, UH, THEY FELT IT WAS SO DANGEROUS THAT THEY HAD TO SEEK RELEASES FOR CITY STAFF TO EVEN STEP IN AND TO ALSO MITIGATE THE, UH, THE STUFF THAT WAS THERE.
SO I, I THINK THAT WAS PARTIALLY, AS I RECALL, A DELAY BECAUSE IT, THE STAFF FELT IT WAS SO DANGEROUS THAT THEY HAD TO GET, UH, NO, THAT WAS, UM, RELEASE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS EXACTLY IT.
AS I RECALL MR. MURRAY MILLER, WE ALWAYS GOT HIS NAME WRONG.
MURRAY MILLER WANTED TO EXPLORE FURTHER WHETHER OR NOT THE HOUSE COULD BE SAFE.
SO HE REQUESTED THAT THE STAFF MAKE AN INTERIOR VISIT, AND THEY WERE HELD OFF WITH THE IDEA FROM THE APPLICANTS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR THEM TO DO SO.
AND THEY FINALLY DETERMINED THAT WITH HARD HATS AND PROPER PRECAUTION AND SIGNING RELEASES, THAT THEY WOULD GO IN AND PHOTOGRAPH IT.
AND WE SAW THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS AND MANY OF US SAID, WOW, THERE'S STILL A, THERE'S THE BONES OF A NICE HOUSE STILL IN THERE.
UM, SO THOSE EV THOSE PHOTOS BECAME EVIDENCE IN A PREVIOUS CASE THAT CAME BEFORE US.
SO YEAH, I THINK THAT, NO, IT WAS NOT THAT THE STAFF THOUGHT IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO GO IN.
IT'S THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT DID NOT WISH THE STAFF TO, UM, POTENTIALLY BE ENDANGERED.
AND THE STAFF SAID THEY DID NOT AGREE THAT IT WAS A DANGER.
DUNN WAS ACTUALLY HERE BY THEN, WEREN'T YOU? YES, I WAS.
AND YOU WERE ABLE TO GO INTO THE HOUSE? YES, I DID.
SO AT THAT POINT, WE NOW HAVE INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY OF GOING INTO THE HOUSE AND, AND MURRAY MILLER REPORTING TO US WHY HE THOUGHT THAT THE HOUSE WAS STILL SALVAGEABLE.
BUT LIKE THE PREVIOUS CANDIDATE, IT IS A LIABILITY TO THE OWNER.
IT, IT COULD BE A LIABILITY TO THE OWNER, BUT WE ARE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS A DANGER TO THE PEOPLE.
AN OWNER'S LIABILITY IS KIND OF THEIR PROBLEM, UNFORTUNATELY.
WELL, WORKERS ARE ACTUALLY PEOPLE, SO THEY ARE INDEED.
AND HOPEFULLY THEY ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO BE REAL SAFE WHEN THEY GO INTO THOSE AND WEAR PROPER EQUIPMENT AND NOT WALK IN THE WRONG PLACE.
USUALLY THE ONES I'VE MET ARE VERY GOOD ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT ARGUING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER OTHER THAN TRYING TO CLARIFY OUR PATH THAT GOD IS HERE.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION OR QUESTIONS THAT MOVE US FURTHER ALONG.
PERHAPS YOU COULD RECALL, OR MAYBE YOU CAN'T, BUT WAS IT NOT DEEMED, UM, LIKELY THAT ONCE STAFF GOT ON SITE THAT THE ACTUAL ENCLOSING OF THE WRAPAROUND PORCH SHOULD ACTUALLY PRESERVE THE HOUSE MUCH MORE THAN WE'D BEEN LED TO BELIEVE? YES.
THAT WAS DETERMINED AT THE TIME BY, UM, MR. MILLER, THAT, UM, THE WRAPAROUND, WELL, IT'S NOT BORDEN BATON, BUT THE PLYWOOD AROUND THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, BECAUSE ON THE BACK IT'S SHEET METAL, BUT THAT, THAT HAD ACTUALLY PRESERVED THE WRAPAROUND PRO.
SO THAT WAS PART OF THE NEW FINDING THAT LED TO THE QUANDARY.
WE HAVE IT, IT WAS OKAY, THAT'S, I WASN'T TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY.
SO THAT WAS THE ENCLOSURE OF THE WRAPAROUND WAS SOMETHING I RECALL, BUT I WASN'T CLEAR.
MAY I ASK ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION? MADAM CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WILL BE FOR MS. DUNNER FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THAT IS IT CORRECT THAT A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, IF ORIGINAL TO THE DISTRICT, CAN BE RESTORED TO CONTRIBUTING STATUS.
WE HAVE SOMETIMES DONE THAT IN THE PAST OR RULED THAT IT WAS MADE NON-CONTRIBUTING IN ERROR.
AND PART OF THE ARGUMENT MADE BY MR. MURRAY MILLER AFTER THEY GOT TO GO IN WAS THAT IF, IF THE PORCH
[02:45:01]
WASN'T ALL COVERED UP, IT WOULD SURE LOOK A LOT MORE CONTRIBUTING.SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEAUTY SO TO SPEAK HAD BEEN HIDDEN BY THAT BOARDING UP.
UM, THE ATTORNEY MAY NOW ANSWER THE LEGAL QUESTION CAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? WELL, IT WAS JUST A, I BELIEVE THAT CHAIRMAN MONTGOMERY MAY HAVE ANSWERED IT, BUT THE QUESTION WAS, IF A, A STRUCTURE LISTED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING IN A DISTRICT, IF IT WAS AN ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, CAN BE RETURNED TO CONFORMING OR CONTRIBUTING, EXCUSE ME, CONTRIBUTING.
I DUNNO THAT THAT WOULD BE DIRECTOR
THAT WOULD BE A DIRECTOR QUESTION.
I THINK WE'VE SEEN EVIDENCE OF THAT ON EARLIER CASES.
IN THE CASE OF THE WANEKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE PLANNER, UM, I MEAN THE PRESERVATION CONSULTANT THAT WROTE THAT NOMINATION SAID THAT, UM, CONTRIBUTORS, I MEAN, NON CONTRIBUTORS ARE NOT NECESSARILY IRREVERSIBLY ALTERED, AND THEY CAN BE, UH, IN MANY CASES, UH, RESTORED.
UM, SOME ARE IRREVERSIBLY ALTERED, BUT NOT ALL.
SO IT'S NOT A PERMANENT CONDITION IN MANY CASES.
I THINK WE HAVE EXPLORED ALL, DO YOU HAVE, OH, DOES SOMEONE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT QUESTION? COMMISSIONER OSA? YES, I, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION OF DR.
DUNN, SINCE YOU WENT INTO THIS PROPERTY, DID YOU FEEL YOUR, UH, HEALTH AND SAFETY WAS THREATENED? WELL, THAT WAS BACK IN JULY.
AND, UM, I MEAN, I COULD SEE THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS FAILING AND THAT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE HAD FAILED.
BUT, UH, IT WAS NO LONGER IN PLACE.
BUT I, I CAN'T SAY THAT I FELT IN DANGER.
I MEAN, WE DID HAVE ON THE HARDHATS, BUT I CANNOT SAY I FELT IN DANGER AT THAT TIME.
THE, BUT NOW YOU AS, UH, STEPH IN CHARGE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, YOU, UH, RECOMMEND DEMOLITION BASED ON THE FACT, IN OTHER WORDS, I WANTED AN EXPERT OPINION, NOT JUST MINE.
SO WHAT'S HAPPENED BETWEEN JULY AND NOW IS THAT I'VE ASKED, AND HE DID INDEED RESPOND TO HAVE A CITY SPONSORED, OR A, A CITY CONSIGNED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ACTUALLY REPORT ON AND EVALUATE THE PROPERTY.
AND HE HAS, IN ADDITION TO, BECAUSE I DID QUESTION THE FINDINGS, CUZ LIKE I SAID, COLLAPSE TO ME MEANS IT'S ON THE GROUND PANCAKE.
BUT, UH, HE DID EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HE USED THE TERM THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED BECAUSE THERE'S VARIOUS LEVELS AND PATTERNS OF COLLAPSE.
AND ON THE EASTERN SIDE, WHICH I DID INDEED SEE, IT'S ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND.
THERE'S NO MORE FOUNDATION THERE.
AND SO IT IS A DANGER FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
SO LISTENING TO SOMEONE WHO KNOWS BETTER THAN MYSELF, THAT'S WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ON IT.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT, ON THE CASE OF 3 38 SOUTH FLEMING AVENUE, 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT, CD 2 23 DASH OH SEVEN RD, UM, I MOVED TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE, DEMOLITION, DEMOLITION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF THAT MEETS THE, THE, UH, CRITERIA.
AND ALSO, FRANKLY, BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE MULTIPLE ENGINEER REPORTS, INCLUDING THE CITY SAYING THAT THIS THING IS DANGEROUS.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT.
I BELIEVE MR. FOGELMAN GOT THERE FIRST.
AGAIN,
COMMENTS ON THE MOTION DISCUSSION? I DID SAY THAT I WOULD ANSWER MR. SHEARER'S QUESTION, UH, ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE SALVAGED.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, IN THE, IN THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU INTEND TO BUILD IT.
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I CAN ONLY, UH, BASE THIS NOT WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM THE STREET, BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD AND SEEN HERE, IT SEEMED THAT IN
[02:50:01]
THE LIKE SOFFIT AREA AND IN THE GABLE, THERE MIGHT BE, AND I CAN'T SAY THAT THERE IS, UM, ORIGINAL DIMENSIONAL WOOD THAT WOULD HAVE A THICKNESS AND, UH, CHARACTER THAT YOU MIGHT NOT FIND IN SOMETHING NEW.IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THOSE KINDS OF ELEMENTS COULD BE, UH, WHOLESALE TRANSPLANTED TO THE NEW STRUCTURE INCORPORATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
AND, AND THEIR DIMENSIONS RETAINED AND THEIR PROPORTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING RETAINED.
UM, AND IN OTHER AREAS, UH, WHERE IF YOU, YOU KNOW, UH, GET A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION AND YOU MIGHT NOT BE USING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AS THEY ARE IN THEIR CURRENT CONFIGURATION, FRAMING, THAT SORT OF THING, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE GREAT MANY, UH, STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM FLOORING, PORCH FLOORING, THAT SORT OF THING THAT IS ORIGINAL AND A GOOD CONDITION.
AND, UH, AND THIS IS JUST A BY WAY OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
AND, AND I THINK YOU'VE SHOWN, UH, A GREAT DEAL OF GOOD FAITH IN YOUR SINCERITY IN WHAT YOU, YOU WANT TO DO FOR THE DISTRICT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY BEST ANSWER ON THAT.
AND, UH, I'M SURE THAT MR. JOHNSON, UH, WOULD TALK WITH YOU ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? I WOULD ADD THAT MY HESITATION, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE THREE ENGINEERS REPORT WHO SAY THAT IT IS IN GREAT DANGER OF FINISHING ITS COLLAPSING.
WE DO STILL HAVE TO FIND THAT IT'S ALSO TRUE NUMBER THREE, WHERE THERE'S NO REASONABLE OTHER WAY BESIDES DEMOLITION TO PREVENT THIS HOUSE FROM CONTINUING TO BE A DANGER.
I THINK FOR TWO YEARS THERE'S BEEN A REASONABLE WAY, UH, TRY LIFTING IT BACK UP, PUTTING SOME SOMETHING ELSE UNDERNEATH THE FOUNDATION AND SHORE UP THE WALLS.
BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT CLAIMING TO BE AN ENGINEER.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S WHERE I, I HESITATE TO SAY THAT IT IS READY TO RECEIVE ITS DEMOLITION PERMIT AND THE OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS.
CAUSE I CAN CONTINUE TO CONSIDER MY, I HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, I TOO HAVE HESITATION, UM, UNDER THIS STANDARD.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY, VERY TEMPTING TO JUST GRAB ANY OLD STANDARD AND TRY TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD, IT'S, IT'S TEMPTING BECAUSE THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION MAY BE THE TYPE OF ENERGY THAT MIGHT HELP INFUSE THE DISTRICT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
BUT, UH, ONCE AGAIN, THE FRAGILE NATURE OF THE DISTRICT MAKES IT, UM, SUCH THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL.
AND THIS ONE HAS HAD ITS BUMPS AND BRUISES ALONG THE WAY AS FAR AS PROCESS GOES, BUT, UM, I'M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE APPROVING, UM, IN SUPPORT.
BUT, UM, WITH THAT SAID, I WISH IT WERE EASIER, BUT IT'S NOT MADAM CHAIR, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WOULD BE WILLING TO, UM, GIVE HIS OPINION ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
I FOUND HIS PREVIOUS REMARKS TO BE HELPFUL IN THE LAST ONE.
SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.
UM, I DRIVE BY THIS HOUSE EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GO INSIDE OF IT.
UM, I WASN'T PART OF THAT, UH, EXPLORATORY TEAM.
UM, BUT I, I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS APPLICANT'S JOURNEY, UM, OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.
UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE NOT ONLY EXHAUSTED EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE OPTION, THEY'VE COME IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE NUMEROUS TIMES, UM, TO TRY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE PUT THEM THROUGH.
UM, NOT ONLY TO GET A HOUSE APPROVED, UM, BUT THEN TO GO THROUGH EXCESSIVE REPORTS AND BACK AND FORTH WITH THE STAFF, UM, AND THE COMMISSION TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE PATH FORWARD.
UM, AND SO, UH, WITH THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS, WHAT'S THE WORD? THEY HAVE A PLAN FORWARD AND, BUT LOOKING AT THE FACT OF WHAT IF IT'S A DEEMABLE STRUCTURE THAT CAN BE REPLACED FROM LOOKING AT THE PICTURES AND ALL THE REPORTS.
UM, UH, I'M GOING TO SIDE WITH LEAD MILITIAN, WHICH IS VERY, VERY RARE FOR ME.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS ONE.
[02:55:01]
OF THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.ALL THOSE OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY NAY.
HOW MANY SAID NAY? OKAY, SO I'LL BE, OBVIOUSLY THE MOTION HAS CARRIED THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION WERE MYSELF, COMMISSIONER SWAN, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, AND COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
OPPOSED WERE ME, COMMISSIONER SWAN, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, AND COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
UM, DOES THE ORIGINAL CA OF THE APPROVED PLAN STILL HOLD OR WILL THE APPLICANT HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET OUR APPROVAL? SO THEY ARE READY TO GO WITH THAT PLAN UNLESS ANY CHANGES AT ALL ARE MADE, IN WHICH CASE THEY MUST COME BEFORE US AGAIN TO SEEK THAT.
ALL RIGHT, SIR, YOU HAVE PREVAILED.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG PREVAILING
AND IT'S NOT THAT I'M EMOTIONAL, IT'S THAT I'M COLD ACTUALLY IN THIS ROOM.
WE'RE ALL COLD IN HERE TOO DIDN'T ON, SO MY VOICE IS SHIVERING AND I'M A CANADIAN TOO.
WELL, IT'S LIKE CANADA IN THIS ROOM.
YOU MAKE ME FEEL RIGHT AT HOME HERE.
I HOPE YOU'LL DO AN EXCELLENT JOB ON THIS HOUSE BECAUSE, UH, SOMETHING IS OLD, THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY TIME SOMEONE WORKS IN IT.
I'M SURE THAT ANNEMARIE WILL BE VERY, UM, PLEASED WITH THE OUTCOME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO D 12.
ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY CASE NUMBER 28, REQUEST, REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATENESS TO APPROVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND DATED THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION.
THAT IS SOMEONE SAYING ANYTHING? OH MY GOODNESS.
DID I, SHOULD I START FROM THE BEGINNING OR JUST FINISH? UH, THE, JUST FINISH.
IT WAS JUST READING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SO, UM, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR DOCKET.
SO THE, UH, WHAT'S THE DOCKET NUMBER? THE DOCKET NUMBER? ALRIGHT EVERYONE, WE ARE ON DISCUSSION ITEM D 12 LOCATED AT 35 18 METAL STREET.
THE REQUEST IS TO BUILD A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
THE CONDITIONS ARE THAT THE PORCH COLUMNS BE TWO PART TAPERED BOX COLUMNS, WOOD, TOP BRICK MASONRY, RED BRICK, MASONRY, BOTTOMS, UH, THAT THE DIMENSIONS OF THE COLUMNS BE A MINIMUM OF OF 10 INCHES.
THE EXTERIOR SIDING, IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED TO BE HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING THAT THE, UH, DORMER WINDOW BE A LOUVERED VENT AS OPPOSED TO, UH, THREE PART, A THREE LIGHT WINDOW.
BUT I'M ACTUALLY OKAY WITH IT.
I DO LIKE THE LOOK AND BASICALLY
[03:00:02]
WELL APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA LISTED IN THE DOCKET TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS FOUND IN OUR AGENDA.MA'AM, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? YES, MY NAME IS TTRA ANDREWS.
I'M THE BUILDER AND THE OWNER OF 38 15 MEADOW IN WHEATLEY PLACE DISTRICT.
AND UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH.
OKAY, I'M GLAD YOU'RE HAPPY ABOUT IT,
SO NOW YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO US.
SO I'VE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TASK FORCE ON GETTING THIS PLAN PLAN APPROVED.
I CAME BEFORE YOU GUYS, UM, IN MARCH AND I TOOK ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN.
AND THEN WHEN I PRESENTED IT TO THE TASK FORCE, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, SO I HAD TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER PLAN.
UM, I'VE BUILT HOUSES BEFORE BUT I'VE NEVER BUILT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO I TOOK EVERY FEEDBACK.
I EVEN WENT WITH THE PLAN THAT A BUILDER GAVE ME TO USE.
UM, I JUST LET THEM, I JUST WANTED TO GET MY PLAN THROUGH WHATEVER WAS ALLOWED FOR THE DISTRICT.
AND THE PLAN THAT I USED WAS APPROVED ON 10TH STREET.
IT WAS ON LANDED STREET AND I'M JUST HERE TO TRY TO GET HER APPROVAL.
UM, WHAT QUESTIONS DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE OF OUR APPLICANT OR OF STAFF?
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, GO AHEAD.
FOR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE SEEN JUST A TAD BIT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION IN WHEAT PLACE.
UM, AND SOME OF IT WAS UH, IT'S PRETTY GOOD, BUT CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU THINK MAKES THIS ONE PERHAPS, UM, EXEMPLARY IN THE SENSE THAT WHAT IT MIGHT DO FOR THE DISTRICT, YOU THINK AS A, IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, CUZ A NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NEVER BE CONTRIBUTING, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPATIBLE AND ENCOURAGE THE DISTRICT TO GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
BUT CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ITS EFFECT IS GONNA BE? YES, BECAUSE IT'S YOUR CREATION.
SO YES, SO I AM A LINCOLN GRADUATE, SO I AM FROM THE AREA AND I CURRENTLY OWN SEVERAL LOTS IN SEVERAL VACANT LOTS IN THE AREA AND I JUST WANTED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO PROVIDE, UM, A BETTER, I GUESS TO BRING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIFE BECAUSE IT JUST BEING VACANT, THE HOUSE IS NEXT TO IT.
THEY'RE NOT GETTING REMODELED, THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO THOSE HOUSES AROUND IT.
SO I THOUGHT THAT IF I COULD BRING SOMETHING NEW TO THE AREA AND PUT A FAMILY IN THERE AND IT WILL BE AFFORDABLE, UM, AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WOULD BRING SOMETHING BETTER TO THE AREA.
DUNN, WHAT'S YOUR FEELING? MY FEELING IS AS MS. ANDREWS HAS SAID, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS, WELL SHE'S ACTUALLY BEEN THROUGH TASK FORCE THREE TIMES, BUT BEFORE US TWO.
AND UH, WHAT WE'VE DECIDED ON OR SETTLED BETWEEN THE TASK FORCE MYSELF AND MS. ANDREWS IS THAT WHAT WE WOULD PRESENT IS A CRAFTSMAN STYLE PROPERTY, WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OR OF THE OTHER ARE SEVERAL OF THE OTHER HOUSES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DID WORK ON MASSING, WE DID WORK ON UH, FENESTRATION, WE FOCUSED ON UM, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS LIKE EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS, UH, DORMER UP FRONT, PAIRED WINDOWS, ET CETERA.
SO WE THINK THAT UH, THIS TIME AROUND WE DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S AN ASSET TO THE DISTRICT.
WE ALSO INSISTED THAT IT NOT BE CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE THAT IT AT LEAST BE 18 INCHES ABOVE GRADE.
SO I THINK WE DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT, THAT PERIPHERALLY
[03:05:01]
THE DISTRICT WILL BE PROUD OF.AND THOSE WHO WERE IN THE ROOM, THEY ALSO WHO LIVE IN WHEATLEY PLACE, CUZ WE HAVE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FROM 10TH STREET AND WHEATLEY PLACE ON THAT IN THAT SAME GROUP.
BUT THOSE FROM WHEATLEY PLACE, THEY WERE EXCITED ABOUT IT.
THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION FIRST? I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT SURE.
HOW SHE FELT ABOUT THE CONDITIONS THAT, UM, STAFF HAD REQUESTED.
UH, IT WAS A LOT OF GOING BACK AND FORTH.
UH, I THINK MY ARCHITECT ALMOST QUIT THREE TIMES, BUT, UM, IT WAS A LOT OF GOING BACK AND FORTH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE TASK FORCE AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THE AREA WERE COMFORTABLE WITH.
AND I TOOK EVERY FEEDBACK THAT THEY GAVE ME AND I IMPLEMENTED IT IN THE PLAINS.
SO THE TAPERED BOX COLUMNS THE DORMER WINDOW, HAVING A LOURED VENT INSTEAD, AND THE WOOD SIDING ARE ALL OKAY WITH YOU? THEY WERE ALL OKAY WITH.
I WAS OKAY WITH WHATEVER WAS GONNA GET APPROVED.
DON'T GIVE US THAT MUCH POWER.
MR. TAYLOR, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? YES.
OKAY, THEN WE HAVE TO LET MR. CUMMINGS MAKE HIS, UH, QUESTION FIRST.
UM, I WAS JUST GOING THROUGH, I WANTED TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE WOOD WINDOWS OR THE WINDOWS.
UH, I SEE SOME PHOTOS AND I SEE THE DRAWINGS OF THEM ON THE ELEVATION, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY DIMENSIONAL DETAILS ON THE SASH.
AND UM, SO I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR THAT, IF THAT'S AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT I'M NOT SEEING, UM, WHAT'S, WHO, WHAT'S THE MANUFACTURER OF THE WINDOW.
WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, THE, THE OTHER SECOND QUESTION I HAD ON THAT, IF I'M ALLOWED TO, THE HEIGHT OF THE RAILING ON THE SH SHOWING ON THE PORCH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS? WAS THAT I DIDN'T SEE A DIMENSION ON THAT.
AND LIKE I SAID, I'M TRYING TO GO THROUGH THESE, HOLD ON.
WHAT IS THE QUESTION, SIR? HEIGHT OF THE RAILING.
OH, DID WE DO WHATEVER YOU TELL ME TO
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT MS. ANDREW.
NO REASON TO SAY THERE WAS A LITTLE CONCERN WITH THE RAILING HEIGHT, HOW HIGH IT WAS ABOVE THE SHOWN ELEVATION OF THE WINDOWSILLS.
IT JUST SEEMED LIKE IT WAS, UM, NOT A HISTORICAL FEELING OF THE HEIGHT OF THAT.
IS THERE A PREFERRED USUAL HEIGHT FOR A RAILING LIKE THIS THAT YOU COULD SUGGEST? IT'S TYPICALLY ON EYESIGHT AROUND THAT WINDOWSILL HEIGHT.
AND WHEN IT GOES WAY UP ABOVE THE WINDOW, SI SEAL HEIGHT, IT WILL STAND OUT AS A CONTEMPORARY AND NOT A FEEL OF A HISTORIC FEEL.
SO IT'S TYPICALLY 23, 25, 26 AROUND IN THERE.
BUT A LOT OF THESE RAILS, SOME, SOME PEOPLE WILL START PUTTING 'EM ON THERE AND IT'S 36 INCHES OR 42 INCHES SOMETIMES PER CODE.
IF THERE'S A DROP OFF OF 30 INCHES, THEY'LL PUT IT 42.
SO WOULD UNDER 30 BE BE 30 OR UNDER BE THE BEST RECOMMENDATION? YEAH, SAY 24 TO 28.
I WOULD SAY IT'S STICKING THAT RANGE AND WHEN IT'S SO HIGH, IT JUST, TO ME AND MAYBE MAYBE OTHER PRESERVATIONS, I DON'T KNOW IF, BUT JUST THAT JUST STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.
AND UH, THE WINDOWS SASH? I SEE, UH, I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION TO BE POINTED TO IT.
I'M ON PAGE, WELL IT'S THE D Y W TITLE BLOCK ON THESE WINDOW DETAILS.
THERE IS NO DIMENSIONS ON IT THAT THE BOTTOM SASH OF, YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM SQUARE, THE BOTTOM SASH, THERE'S, IT'S JUST THE SAME DIMENSION AS THE SITE SASHES.
AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT JUST JUMPS OFF THE PAGE AND JUMPS OFF.
AND WHEN I SEE WINDOWS THAT ARE INSTALLED, IF THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN ACCURATE DIMENSIONAL OF A, OF A PROPER SASH.
AND THAT'S WHY I KNOW WHEN WE, WE START LOOKING AT DIFFERENT WINDOWS, WE'LL WE'LL FIND WINDOWS THAT HAS MORE TRADITIONAL DIMENSIONS.
[03:10:02]
AND THIS ONE JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT HAS THAT.AND, AND I ASSUME THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION IS THE APP, IT'S NOT DIVIDED LIGHT, I'M SURE IT'S ALL JUST ONE PIECE OF GLAZING WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE DIVIDED LIGHT ON THERE.
SO WE'RE EMULATING A SIX OVER ONE.
AND ON A HOUSE LIKE THIS, IT WOULD'VE TYPICALLY BEEN PROBABLY MORE OF A ONE OVER ONE, NOT UNLESS THERE'S OTHER, UH, UH, OF EXAMPLES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WHEN YOU START THROWING ON DIVIDED LIGHT LIKE THAT, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE MUTTONS THAT GO ON.
AND THEN SOME OF THEM WON'T EVEN HAVE 'EM ON ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
SO I HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN WITH THAT TOO.
I'M SO, I HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN WITH THE WINDOWS AND SO MY QUESTION WAS JUST GETTING POINTED TO THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND I'M LOOKING AT THESE PROPERLY AND THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERNS WERE.
THE ISSUE IS FOR ME IS I TAKE, I GO BACK TO THE TASK FORCE, I MAKE EVERY ADJUSTMENT, EVERY COMMENT, I ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT THEY TELL ME TO DO.
AND THEN WHEN I COME BACK IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE, ONE PERSON SAYS, I DON'T LIKE THIS.
AND THEN I GO BACK TO THE TASK FORCE AND THEN THEY TELL ME THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SUGGESTED AND THEN THEY DON'T GIVE ME A RECOMMENDATION.
SO IT MAKES IT VERY, VERY HARD FOR ME AS A BUILDER, AS SOMEONE TRYING TO BRING EQUITY AND DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SOUTH DALLAS TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY IN THIS HOME WHEN I CAN'T GET A PLAN APPROVED BECAUSE I'M GOING BACK AND FORWARD WITH WHAT HE OR SHE WANTS.
SO IT'S LIKE I'M NOT GETTING ANY REAL DIRECTION BECAUSE I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ARCHITECT'S JOURNEY OF IT.
EVERYONE WILL BE LIKE, OKAY, IT LOOKS GOOD, I THINK IT'S GONNA GO.
AND THEN I GET IN FRONT OF IT AND THEY SAY MM-HMM AND SO I'M GONNA LOSE THE ARCHITECT OR MY MIND.
COULD, COULD I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION DIRECTLY TO STAFF ON COULD I JUST, I WANTED TO SAY ONE THING CUZ I, THE PICTURE THAT I HAVE FOUND THAT DETAILS THE WINDOW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS A SINGLE PANE OF GLASS WITH THE MULLIONS KIND OF IN FRONT OF IT ON THE OUTSIDE.
SO NOT EXACTLY THE HISTORIC WAY, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE DEPTH.
SO YEAH, WE DID REQUEST EXTERIOR MOUNTAINS ARE MO OKAY.
AND WHAT ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT THE WINDOW ITSELF AND THE SASH? HAVE YOU SEEN LOOKED AT THAT AND DID YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT STAFF? WE DID NOT.
YOU DON'T HAVE A REASON WITH, DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE BOTTOM SASH BEING THE EXACT SAME DIMENSIONS AS THE SIDE SESSION.
IT'S MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY LOOK AND IT JUST STANDS OUT REALLY BADLY TO MAYBE JUST ME.
I DON'T, BUT I ASSUME QUITE A FEW.
DO YOU HAVE A WINDOW RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE ONE ISSUE IS, WE DID FIND THAT THE GEL WIND 2,500 WAS ACTUALLY A WOOD CLAD WINDOW.
AND SO WE REQUESTED AN ALL WOOD WINDOW, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED.
WE REQUESTED AN ALL WOOD WINDOW WITH EXTERIOR MULLIONS MOUNTAINS, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL THEM.
BUT SHE HAS RESPONDED TO THAT REQUEST.
UH, THERE'S ALL WOOD WINDOWS CALLED HEIRLOOM WINDOWS THAT ARE, HAS THOSE DIMENSIONALS.
UM, BECAUSE THE OTHER ISSUE IS, UH, ECONOMICS, SHE'S ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THIS A AFFORDABLE BUILDING.
I WAS JUST HOPING THAT IT COULD MARRY THE TWO.
IT COULD, THE PRICE THAT SH YOU'RE GETTING FOR ONE WINDOW MIGHT NOT BE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE FROM A PRICE FROM ANOTHER WINDOW THAT COULD ACTUALLY GET THERE.
IT WAS A BIG DIFFERENCE WHEN WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH THE DIFFERENT WINDOWS AVAILABLE.
CUZ LIKE I SAID, THE 2,500, IT IS IN A LOWER PRICE RANGE, BUT THE ISSUE WAS, IT WAS RIGHT.
IT'S A WOOD WINDOW, IT'S, IT'S JUST CLOUD, IT'S CLAD.
AND THE W 25 IS THE WOOD ONE THAT'S CLAD AND RIGHT.
A LOT OF PEOPLE GRAB THAT V ONE, THAT'S THE VINYL, BUT, UH, SO THAT'S AN ISSUE.
WHO WAS THAT? COMMISSIONER OFFIT, OIT, UH, COUPLE OF THINGS.
DUN, THE HEIGHT OF THOSE, UH, RAILINGS, THAT'S, UH, UNLESS YOU EXCEED THE HEIGHT, UH, THAT'S DETERMINED BY CITY, CURRENT CITY CODE.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? I THOUGHT IT WAS.
IT WOULD ONLY BE CITY CODE IF THE DROP OFF ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, TO THE GRADE WOULD BE 30 INCHES OR MORE.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS WENT, HAS GONE BACK AND FORTH AND THE APPLICANT
[03:15:01]
HAS MET EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY AND OR THE TASK FORCE ASKED HER TO DO.IS THAT CORRECT? THIS IS CORRECT.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. TAYLOR, DIDN'T YOU HAVE MR. SWAN? YEAH, JUST, JUST A QUICK THING.
UH, THIS IS TO, UH, MS. ANDREWS, YOUR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO HAVE A, UH, THREE LIGHT, UH, WINDOW IN THE DORMER.
AND THEN I ALSO MADE THE ADJUSTMENT FROM, UH, THE LAST TASK FORCE.
AND THEN THEY DIDN'T CARE FOR THAT, THE TASK FORCE, THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA DIDN'T CARE FOR THAT.
AND SO I MADE IT, UH, WITH THIS PLAN THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED HOPING THAT I WOULD HAVE TO, WOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, GOING.
MAYBE I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT, BUT WHAT, UH, WHAT MADE YOU GO WITH THE WINDOW IN THE DORMER? THE DIVI, THE THREE LIGHT WINDOW IN THE DORMER? ORIGINALLY I DROVE THE AREA AND I JUST TOOK, UM, FEEDBACK FROM THE TASK FORCE AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THE AREA MM-HMM.
AND I JUST TOOK WHATEVER FEEDBACK THAT THEY GAVE ME AND JUST IMPLEMENTED IT IN THE PLANS.
THE REASON I ASK YOU THAT THE, THE WINDOW THAT YOU ORIGINALLY DREW IS, UH, I MEAN THE WHEATLEY PLACE, UH, PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE BEGINS IN 1916 AND A WINDOW IN THE DORM ROOM WOULD BE HIGHLY CONSISTENT WITH A CRAFTSMAN HOUSE BUILT IN, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM 1916.
ON THE OTHER QUESTION THOUGH, I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, WELL NOW HOW, HOW DO I PUT THIS AS A QUESTION
THIS IS FOR STAFF OR WHOEVER CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
RAILINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY CITY CITY CODE.
IF THE DROPOFF IS UNDER 30 INCHES, UH, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO, UM, COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS ON THAT.
AND THE ONLY REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP IS THAT I THINK, UH, WELL, AND OKAY, HERE'S THE QUESTION.
WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE WINDOWSILL OF THE WINDOWS ON THE PORCH? OR ACTUALLY IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH WINDOWS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR THE SAME HEIGHT.
WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE, UH, WINDOWSILL ABOVE THE PORSCHE FLOOR APPROXIMATELY? I'M SORRY.
I'M BUILDING ABOUT EIGHT HOUSES RIGHT DOWN IN THE AREA, SO I NEVER HAVE DONE THIS FLOOR PLANNED, SO I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
BECAUSE ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE AN IMPOSSIBLE LOW HEIGHT FOR A RAILING.
AND I THINK A HOUSE LIKE THIS BUILT IN 1916 PROBABLY WOULD'VE HAD NO RAILING AT ALL BECAUSE, UH, WINDOWS WERE VERY, VERY LOW.
SO TO ME THAT'S A REASONABLE CONSIDERATION.
BUT AGAIN, UH, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE BOWING TO TASK FORCE.
I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THESE BECAUSE THEY SEEM, UH, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE LATITUDE MAYBE THAN, UH, THAN HAS BEEN SUGGESTED.
IT LOOK, LOOKS LIKE THE SILL IS ONE FOOT SIX APPROXIMATELY, AND THE HEIGHT OF THE RAILING IS MAYBE 40 INCHES APPROXIMATELY.
AND I THINK, UH, IN AS MUCH AS THERE'S NO RAILING THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT CELL HEIGHT, THAT WOULD BE ANYTHING MORE THAN A TRIPPER.
UH, I THINK THE ABSENCE OF A RAILING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND ALLOWABLE, BUT THAT'S JUST, WE'VE HAD TWO OPTIONS GIVEN TO IMPROVE THE RAILING IDEA.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
DUN, HOW OFTEN HAS THIS APPLICATION COME BEFORE US OR HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAS COME BEFORE? THIS IS THE SECOND TIME.
THE FIRST TIME DID WE HAVE THIS, UH, RENDERING WITH THE RAILING? NO.
ARE WE READY FOR MR. TAYLOR AND HIS MOTION? GO MR. TAYLOR? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION TO ADJUST THE RAIL HEIGHT, UH, TO 28 INCHES.
I KNOW THAT THE WHEATLEY PLACE IS A VERY PASSIONATE TASK FORCE THAT I'VE SERVED ON MYSELF AND I, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT'S A, IT'S A HARD PROCESS GOING THROUGH THAT TASK FORCE.
UM, BUT THEY, THEY'RE VERY DILIGENT AND THEY CARE A LOT.
[03:20:01]
COMMEND THE APPLICANT FOR GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND ADJUSTING TO MEET, UH, THEIR NEEDS AND GOING BACK AND FORTH.SO I MAKE A MOVE A MOTION TO THAT PROOF WITH THAT OBJECT REAL HEIGHT.
CAN I ASK YOU, MR. TAYLOR, ARE, ARE YOU WISHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED, WHICH WERE THE TAPERED BOX COLUMN, THAT THE EXTERIOR SIDING BE WOOD AND THAT THE FRONT DORMAL WINDOW BE LOUVERED BENT, HE SAID IN ADDITION TO THE 20, IN ADDITION TO THOSE? WELL, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT.
SO THAT WOULD MAKE FOUR CONDITIONS.
AND THE SECOND WAS, I'LL SECOND ME SECOND.
IT WILL TAKE COMMISSIONER OSA.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? UH, CAN I ASK THE QUESTION, WAS THE ADDRESSING ALL READ INTO THE RECORD? I I MEAN, WE HAD A LITTLE DISCUSSION.
I DON'T REREMEMBER IF, UH, THE RECORD, IF THE ADDRESS IN THE CASE NUMBER WAS CALLED OR YES, IT WAS BECAUSE DR.
DUN READ IT, IT STARTED OVER AGAIN.
DID YOU MEAN BY MR. TAYLOR? YES.
MR. TAYLOR, WE DO NEED YOU TO CLARIFY THAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR DOCKET, UH, ITEM NUMBER D 12 AT ADDRESS 3,518 MEADOW STREET TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF STAFF AND THE ADDITION, THE APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION OF THE RAIL HEIGHT TO BE AT 28 INCHES.
AND WE HAVE OUR SECOND AND LET US VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? NO OPPOSED.
OKAY, THEN THIS MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
NOW YOU CAN HAVE THE JOY OF BUILDING THE HOUSE.
WE HAVE A SPEAKER IN PERSON FOR DISCUSSION ITEM FOUR.
UH, WOULD IT BE, UH, DO I NEED A MOTION TO, TO REQUEST THAT WE TAKE DISCUSSION ITEM FOUR.
NEXT, I GUESS IT WOULD BE I MOVE THAT WE TAKE DECISION ITEM FOUR.
EVERYBODY IN, EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF THIS, PLEASE SAY AYE.
LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TAKING DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 4 54 14 JUNIOR STREET.
THIS IS CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF.
THIS PROPERTY IS INGEN HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE REQUEST, WELL, FIRST REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE FRONT DOOR.
SECOND, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE FRONT WINDOWS.
THIRD, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, TO REPLACE THE REAR WINDOWS.
AND THE FOURTH IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS TO RENOVATE REAR PORTION OF MAIN STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE SIDING, ROOFING, FOUNDATION, WINDOWS, AND DOORS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE AND TWO ARE, UH, TO REPLACE THE FRONT DOOR AND REPLACE THE FRONT WINDOWS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ITEMS NUMBER THREE AND FOUR TO REPLACE REAR WINDOWS AS WELL AS RENOVATE THE REAR PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ARE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE, UH, SECTIONS NOTED IN THE DOCKET.
NUMBER ONE, THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE FRONT DOOR BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE FRONT WINDOWS BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
REQUEST THREE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE REAR WINDOWS BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RENOVATE REAR PORTION OF MAIN STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE SIDING, ROOFING FOUNDATION OF WINDOWS AND DOOR LOCATION, BE APPROVED AS SHOWN ALL OF THOSE WITH CONDITIONS AS FOUND WITHIN OUR AGENDA PRESENTED TO US.
ALL RIGHT, AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER TODAY, SIR.
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? UH, ROBERT LITTLE 80 99 GARLAND ROAD IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? YES.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS YOUR APPLICATION.
SO I'LL, THIS ADDRESS ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
SINCE THOSE ON SIR OH, OH, PUSH IT.
IS IT ON, IS IT GREEN LIGHT ON? IT SAYS GREEN LIGHT.
UM, SO I'LL ADDRESS ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
UM, THERE'S A FOLLOW UP SURVEY.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT GOT TO YOU GUYS IN TIME OR NOT, BUT THE WINDOWS SURVEY SHOWING THE CONDITIONS OF ALL THE WINDOWS.
UM, THE, THEY'RE IN THE DOCKET.
YOU WANT ME TO PUT THE PICTURES UP? THERE'S, OKAY, LET ME SEE.
I MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE IT, IT SHOWS HOW SEVERELY DAMAGED THE WINDOWS ARE.
I MEAN, THEY'RE LITERALLY FALLING APART, NOT ONLY IN THE, GOT THE SSES AND THE SILLS AND THE WINDOW PANS THEMSELVES.
UH, SO OUR PROPOSALS TO REPLACE ALL OF THOSE, UH, WITH A GEL WIND WOOD ON WOOD WINDOW, THE FRONT DOOR, UM, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S THAT DAMAGED.
[03:25:01]
UH, AND IF YOU LOOK AT PHOTO NUMBER TWO, IT'S AN EXTERIOR PHOTO OF THAT DOOR.UM, BUT YOU CAN SEE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR WHERE THE WOOD IS SPLIT, THAT CENTER PANEL, UH, AT THE BOTTOM IS A, LIKE A WOOD VENEER.
HOWEVER, AN I, UH, PHOTO, PHOTO 44 IS AN INTERIOR VIEW OF THAT DOOR.
AND THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE SEVERE DAMAGE, UM, HAS OCCURRED.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE REQUESTED REPLACE THAT DOOR AS WELL.
THERE'S, AND WE WANNA REPLACE THAT DOOR IN KIND, SO WE'RE GONNA GET SOMETHING VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THAT PRAIRIE STYLE IS NOW, I'M SORRY, THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE.
I NOTED THAT THE LAST APPLICANT, HER DOOR KIND OF LOOKED LIKE YOUR EXISTING
UM, IS THE INTERIOR JUST IN THE PANEL? MAY I ASK, OR LIKE A DOG SCRATCHED IT THAT INTERIOR DAMAGE? UM, I'M, IT WAS, NO, THE, THE OWNER WHO HAD IT BEFORE MY CLIENT BOUGHT THE HOUSE WAS TRYING TO STRIP ALL THE WOOD.
AND IN THE PRICE OF DOING THAT, THEY, THERE'S DEEP GOUGE MARKS IN THE WOOD.
UM, BESIDES THE, THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN SCRATCHED UP FROM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? THEN? DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? I KNOW IT'S LATE AND WE'RE GETTING TIRED, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO TRY TO STAY PERKY.
OKAY, IN THE MATTER OF 54 14 JUNIOR STREET CA 2 23 DASH 3 26 CM, I MOVE THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE BOTH ITEM ONE AND TWO AND APPROVE BOTH ITEMS THREE AND FOUR FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPEC SPECIFICATIONS STATED 3 6 20 23 WITH CONDITIONS CITED AND THE STANDARDS INCORPORATED.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, FOR YOUR SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN I'M GONNA CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
YOUR ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
IT APPEARS THAT THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED, IT DOES INCLUDE DENIALS, WHICH MEANS IT COULD BE APPEALED FOR A FEE TO CPC AND THEY WOULD BE DETERMINING WHETHER WE RULED IN ERROR.
THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF, UM, RETHINKING OF WHAT, WHAT ONE WANTS TO DO AND COMING BACK, DISCUSSING WITH STAFF AND, UM, COMING BEFORE US AGAIN WITH EITHER MORE EVIDENCE OR A DIFFERENT REQUEST.
OKAY, SO NOW WE CAN DO NUMBER EIGHT.
IS THERE A SPEAKERPHONE? OKAY.
UM, OH, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF, UH, 50 0 3 RUGER AVENUE, MUNGER PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 3 23 CM.
THE REQUEST ARE AS FOLLOWS, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE AN EXTEND EXISTING WOOD IN IRON FENCE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE IRON GATE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REGRADE AND RECEDE LAWN STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UM, THAT THE REQUEST OF A FORCE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE AN EXTEND EXISTING WOOD IN IRON FENCE TO BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE IRON GATE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATION TO REGRADE AND RECEDE LAW BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ALL BASED ON CRITERIA LISTED IN THE DOCKET TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE, I'M SORRY.
SEE, TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE AN EXTEND EXISTING WOOD AND IRON FENCE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE IRON GATE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NUMBER THREE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REGRADE AND RESE LAW AND BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER REGISTERED FOR THIS.
[03:30:08]
IT, IT'S ACTUALLY SARAH JANE.COMMISSIONER HIJO SAYS YOUR MICROPHONES STILL ON.
WE'RE GETTING SOME, UM, BACKGROUND.
OH, YES, SO SORRY ABOUT OH, I SEE.
OKAY, MR. BALDWIN, WE CAN SEE YOU NOW.
CAN I ASK YOU TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? ABSOLUTELY.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPEAK CLOSE TO YOUR MIC AND SPEAK UP.
IS THAT A RECEPTION ISSUE OR HIS MICROPHONE OR US HEAR ME AT ALL? OKAY.
WE WON'T TAKE IT AS BEING YELLING AT US.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH TODAY? I DO.
I KNOW YOU MAY LOSE YOUR VOICE TALKING SO LOUD, BUT YOU'LL ALLOW TO
WE WANT TO EXTEND THE FENCE, UH, BOTH THE FENCE, UH, THE IRON, UH, IRON GATED FENCE INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND INTO THE GARAGE AREA.
UH, WE'VE HAD, UH, ATTEMPTED BREAK IN FROM THAT DIRECTION.
UH, WE'D ALSO LIKE TO EXTEND THE, UH, THE FENCE THAT IT WOULD NORMALLY BE, UM, AT THE REAR CORNER, SLIGHTLY FURTHER FORWARD TOWARDS, UH, RIGGER, UM, TO ENCOMPASS A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKYARD, UH, TO GIVE OUR KIDS, UH, A SAFER, LARGER, SAFER PLACE TO PLAY BACK THERE CUZ UH, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC.
UH, AND REGULARLY WE'VE HAD PEOPLE GET INTO ARGUMENTS, FIGHTS, UH, SCREAMING, CURSING, THROWING THINGS AT ONE ANOTHER, THAT KIND OF THING ON, ON A, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST A WEEKLY BASIS.
UM, SO WE'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR, TO KIND OF EXTEND, UH, THE SAFE AREAS THAT OUR KIDS CAN STAY AT.
LET ME ASK, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT IS, UM, IS THIS LOT ON A CORNER? IT IS.
AND MY, ACTUALLY, MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.
UM, THE, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
WHY WOULD THE RECOMMENDATION FOR, TO REGRADE AND TO RESEED ALONG, WHY, WHY WOULD THAT, THEY, WHY WOULD THAT RECOMMENDATION? THAT WAS PART OF THEIR PROPOSED WORK BECAUSE ONCE THEY MOVE, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MOVE THE FENCE, THEY WOULD NEED TO REGRADE, I BELIEVE THE YARD AND THE, UH, RECEDE THAT, THAT WAS JUST PART OF THEIR PROPOSED WORK.
SO TO BE INCLUSIVE AND ENCOMPASS EVERYTHING THEY WERE ASKING FOR, I PUT IT AS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
AND IF THE FENCE, IF I, IF I HEARD THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY, THEY WANT TO EXTEND IT TO THE QUARTER OR THE HALF OF THE HOUSE, UM, ACTUALLY TO BE, UH, ABOUT A THIRD OF THE HOUSE TO THE, UH, DINING ROOM WINDOWS.
AND UNDER STAFF, UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, ARE THEY ALLOWED TO, PARTICULARLY BEING ON THE CORNER TO COME TO 50% WITHOUT BLOCKING THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO COME TO 50%, BUT I BELIEVE BASED ON THEIR SITE PLAN, IT WOULD BRING THEM IN THE FORWARD 50%.
SO THEY WOULD BE PAST THE LINE OF APPROVAL OR ALLOWABLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND WE WILL, WE'LL, WE NEED TO, UH, WE NEED TO RE UH, AND REPEAT OUR LAWN
[03:35:01]
REGARDLESS OF, UH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF I MAKE A SEPARATE REQUEST.WHAT DOES THE REGRADING INVOLVE? I MEAN, YOU JUST MEAN YOU'RE GONNA, UH, LOOSEN THE SOIL SO YOU CAN PUT NEW GRASS IN, OR YOU'RE GONNA MAKE IT HIGHER.
PROBABLY ADD A LITTLE BIT OF A, UH, A GRADE TO THE GRASS RIGHT NOW.
SO RUNOFF ACTUALLY GOES TOWARDS THE STREET AS OPPOSED TO THERE ARE CURRENTLY, THERE ARE, UM, LARGE CIRCLES OF LAWN THAT ARE NOW DEAD, UH, THAT THE WATER CAN BLEND.
SO THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE BASICALLY FILLED IN SO THAT IT CAN ALLOW PROP.
AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL ON THE FENCE, CAUSE IT'S WHERE IT WOULD LAND IS, IS IN THE FRONT 50%? IT'S FOR BOTH.
IT'S WHERE, SO IF THEY DREW IT BACK, GO AHEAD.
IT, IT'S WHERE IT WOULD LAND IN THE FRONT 50% AS WELL AS REPLACING THE IRON GATE IN THE BACK AS WELL AS THE IRON FENCE IN THE BACK WOULD THEN OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE HOUSE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT OR BEHIND IT, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED PER ORDINANCE.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? OKAY.
WELL, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
FOR THE FENCE THAT'S AROUND YES.
WHERE THE CARS PARK AND WHERE WE SAW THE LITTLE VIDEO OF THE, THE MOTORCYCLE AND ALL THAT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND, UM, STAFF'S OBJECTION TO MAKING IT A WOOD GATE? MY MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT IS THAT PEOPLE, I GUESS DRIVING ON COLLETTE WOULDN'T SEE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IMMEDIATELY.
IS THAT THE IDEA BEHIND IT? YEAH.
UM, SO IF YOU THOUGHT THAT, THAT REPLACING THAT WITH WOOD WAS NOT GONNA GET APPROVED, WOULD YOU CONSIDER A TALLER METAL GATE? BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE THAT ONE WAS REAL TINY.
SO I, I HOPE THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS THEY FORMULATE A MOTION.
CAN WE JUST CONFIRM THAT THIS IS DISCUSSION ITEM EIGHT? I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION.
IT'S, IT'S 5,003 RER AVENUE DISCUSSION ITEM EIGHT IS, IS THAT THE ADDRESS OF THIS PROPERTY? CAUSE THEN I'M LOOKING ON HERE.
58 0 2 WORTH STREET, OR AM I LOOKING AT THE WRONG? THIS IS 5,000 REG, 5,003 REGUR AVENUE.
OKAY, THEN JUST DISREGARD, USE MY APOLOGI.
OUR, OUR ATTORNEY HAS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF NOBODY MAKES A MOTION.
IF NO ONE MAKES A MOTION, THE STATUS QUO PRESERVED AND IT'S DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA TEAM SPIRIT THERE OVER, OVER SPIRITED.
IN THE MATTER OF 50 0 3 RYER AVENUE OR RIGGER AVENUE CA 2 23 DASH TWO DASH 3 23 CM, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE ITEMS ONE AND THREE, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS INCORPORATED.
AND WHAT ABOUT ITEM NUMBER TWO?
[03:40:01]
OH, LET ME SEE.OKAY, I GUESS I FORGOT THAT ONE.
IS, UM, THE, THE IRON GATE, WHICH THEY HAVE REQUESTED TO REPLACE WITH WOOD AND HAVE INDICATED THEY WOULD ACCEPT TALLER IRON GATE INSTEAD.
ALSO, JUST TO NOTE ON THE ITEM NUMBER ONE, THEY WERE ASKING TO CHANGE THAT PORTION OF THE IRON FENCE TO WOOD.
SO I'M ASKING COMMISSIONERS IF THE SUGGESTION TO JUST MAKE THE GATE AND THE FENCE, DOES THAT APPLY TO BOTH THE GATE AND THE FENCE TALLER BECAUSE THEY'RE IN TWO SEPARATE ITEMS? YEAH, THE IDEA, IT'S WHERE, WHERE IT'S IRON THAT IT WOULD JUST BE TALLER.
I'M NOT MAKING THE MOTION RIGHT.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHEN THE, YOU KNOW, MOTION IS MADE, YOU MAY MAKE SPEAK WRONG,
COMMISSIONER OSA, IF YOU UNDERSTOOD ALL OF THAT, THE IDEA IS NO, I DID NOT.
THERE ARE THE IRON GATE IN, IN QUESTION TWO AND THEN IRON PORTION OF THE FENCE IN QUESTION ONE.
HOW DO WE, UM, HOW ARE YOU MOVING? WE REPLACE THEM WITH WOOD OR WE, UM, REQUEST THEM TO BE A TALLER IRON GATE.
I MEAN, IRON FENCE AND GATE, LIKE SIX FEET.
I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
WHAT DID I SAY? ARE YOU GONNA MAKE A MOTION? UH, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION.
NO, WHAT, UH, TO STAFF, WHAT HEIGHT OFFENSE WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ORDINANCE? MS. MAKOWSKI
I'M THINKING IT'S NINE FEET IN MUNGER PLACE, BUT I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING.
BUT THIS IS A FRONT GATE, RIGHT? NO, NO, IT'S A REAR GATE.
THE FRONT GATE WAS THE ONE THAT WOULD END UP BEING IN THE FRONT 50%.
SO IT, THAT'S THE EXTENSION OF THE FENCE.
THE REAR GATE THAT, UH, ENCOMPASSES THE CAR, THE DRIVEWAY.
I SHOWED THE VIDEOS OF SOMEBODY ON THE MOTORCYCLE, THAT'S THE IRON GATE.
SO IT WOULD BE THE BACK PART OF THE FENCE IS IRON AND THEN THE, THE GATE IS IRON.
AND ON ON NUMBER ONE, THE EXTENSION WAS DISALLOWED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT EXCEEDED THE YES, IT WOULD, WELL, UNLESS YOU GUYS APPROVE IT, BUT IT WOULD BE FORWARD OF 50%, RIGHT? RIGHT.
AND, UH, PLEASE CONTINUE TO LOOK THAT UP.
I'M TRYING, YES, ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE INTERNET'S NOT LETTING ME DO IT.
AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
ASSUMING THAT, UM, UH, THAT YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO EXTEND THE FENCE, BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE A HIGHER GATE.
TELL ME, TELL US PLEASE, WHAT YOU WOULD REQUIRE IN TERMS OF REGRADING AND RECEDING.
LIKE IF YOU COULD GIVE US MORE SPECIFICITY ABOUT THAT.
THERE, THERE WOULD LIKELY BE ABOUT THE SAME AS FAR AS JUST BECAUSE THE TREES WERE, BEFORE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY LAST YEAR, THE TREES WERE SOMEWHAT OVERGROWN, LOTS OF DARK PATCHES AND THE, THE GRASS JUST DIDN'T GET SUNED AND DIED OUT.
UM, SO THERE ARE ALL ALONG THE LEFT SIDE PE SOME WORK DONE DONE TOO.
AND DO, DO WE HAVE A, COULD STAFF PROVIDE US WITH A PICTURE THAT SHOWS WHERE THE REGRADING IS PROPOSED? UM, LET ME PULL THAT UP SO THAT WE COULD MAYBE HAVE THE APPLICANT DESCRIBE HOW HE WANTS IT TO BE DIFFERENT.
AND THE QUESTION, IS THERE ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, SHORT OF WHERE THE, WHERE WE ARE, UH, PROPOSING TO MOVE THE FENCE TO MOVE IT FORWARD, SOMEWHAT CIVIL AS IT WERE? OR, OR IS IT ANY MOVEMENT WHATSOEVER? LIKELY NOT TO HAPPEN.
OH, ARE ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE IS LIKE AN E INTERMEDIATE EXTENSION OF THE FENCE THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE? YES.
PLEASE SHOUT BECAUSE I HAD, I HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING.
TH THAT IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS THERE AN, AN INTERMEDIATE EXTENSION THAT WOULD BE A PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ORDINANCE? ONLY IF COMMISSION APPROVES IT.
SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW THE FENCE IS AT ITS LIMIT? I DO BELIEVE BASED ON THIS, THAT'S WHERE THE IBEL, IF I'M CORRECT, THE FENCE LIES IN THE RED LINE ALREADY.
[03:45:03]
THAT'S GONNA BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT CORNER OF THE CORNER SIDE HOUSE, THE, THE LOT CORNER OF THE LOT HOUSE.SO THEN IF YOU GO BACK, IT WILL END UP BEING LIKE RIGHT HERE.
AND IF THE CORNER IS RIGHT HERE, AND THIS IS THE BORCH, I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S A COMMISSION APPROVAL.
IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE IMAGE BEFORE THAT SHOWS US WHERE THE FENCE WAS OR, OR IS
IS THE, UH, BECAUSE I'M SEEING, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A GATE THERE, KIND OF WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS.
IF YOU MOVE YOUR CURSOR UP, IS THAT AN EXISTING FENCE OR IS SO BECAUSE I, I'M NOT SURE.
SO IT, IT IS, UH, THE FENCE THERE AT THE REAR CORNER OF THE HOUSE.
I'M TRYING TO GET A BETTER, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RED LINE IS IT, I, I I LINE SQUARES IS EXISTING, I'M SORRY, THE LINE SQUARE DRAWING THAT THE CORNER EXISTING YES.
SO I'M GOING BACK UP THAT, THAT LINE WOULD BE FENCE LINE, SQUARE, SQUARE, SQUARE, THE CORNER.
SO WHAT'S THE RED LIGHT PROPOSED? YES.
BUT YOU SEE HOW MUCH OF THE, THE REAR, IF YOU TOOK ALL THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU SEE HOW THE HOUSE IS A LITTLE, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION BASED ON THE WINDOWS AREN'T THERE, OR EXCUSE ME, BASED ON THE PHOTOS, AREN'T THERE WINDOWS WHERE THAT RED LINE IS INDICATED? YES, I DO BELIEVE IT'S LIKE A BUMP OUT, WHICH WOULD THEN BE IN COVERING UP AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE OF THE HOME.
SO THAT'S JUST ANOTHER REASON WHY, UM, AGAIN, WHY STAFF DENIED IT, BUT OKAY.
COMMISSION CAN APPROVE DAYS OF, AND IT SAYS EXISTING WOOD AND IRON IS, IS I'M, I'M MM-HMM.
BECAUSE IF THE PROBLEM IS THE OBSCURING OF VIEWS OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, COULD THAT BE REMEDIED WITH AN OPEN FENCE? WELL, THAT'S WHAT MADAME CHAIR, UH, JUST ASKED IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO KEEP THE IRON FENCE.
HERE, I'LL SHOW YOU THIS ONE IF IT, WELL, SO THIS IS, I, UH, WE CAN ASK APPLICANT, UM, SHE KNOWS THE HEIGHT.
WERE, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND THE ORDINANCE? UH, NO, IT'S STILL SPINNING.
UM, I BELIEVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOW IN THE DISTRICT IS NINE FEET.
NO, WELL, I CAN READ YOU THE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO VERIFY THAT IT WAS NINE FEET TO THE ATTORNEY.
OKAY, BUT IS, IS THAT NINE FEET FOR THE ENTIRE FENCE OR JUST THE REAR PORTION OF THE FENCE? THAT'S FOR THE, THE WHOLE FENCE, I'M PRETTY SURE.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT, SO THIS SPAC FENCE, I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, IT'S SO DARK, I THINK IN THE DOCKET.
LET ME SEE IF THERE'S FURTHER BETTER PICTURES FOR YOU TO SEE, BECAUSE A NINE FOOT FENCE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT BIG A DEAL IN THE BACK, BUT A NINE FOOT FENCE THAT COMES VERY FAR FORWARD IS GOING TO BE, I, I BELIEVE THE SUGGESTION OF THE HEIGHTENED FENCE WAS ONLY FOR THE IRON PORTION OF THE FENCE ABOUT THE RAISING IT HIGHER WAS BECAUSE WHAT'S BACK THERE WHERE WE SAW THE FILM WITH THE MOTORCYCLE OR WHATEVER WAS GOING ON, IT LOOKED LIKE A REALLY SHORT FENCE.
SO I, I WAS THINKING SIX FEET, NOT NINE, BUT YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TALLER TO WHERE IT'S HARDER TO GET OVER AND STEAL ANYTHING.
UM, I'M TRYING TO FIND A, A, A CLEARER PICTURE BECAUSE IT, OKAY, IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE DRAWING THAT THE, THE IRON PORTION OF THE FENCE IS THE, THE EXISTING FENCE IS THE PART THAT FACES TOWARD THE STREET.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND IT'S WOOD ON THE SIDE.
UH, BOTH THE WOOD AND THE IRON BOTH FACE THE STREET.
I'M SHOWING YOU A, A BETTER PICTURE.
RIGHT, BUT THE, THE IRON FENCE FACES TOWARD THE FRONT? YES, THE FRONT IT.
IT'S STILL NOT VERY CLEAR, BUT RIGHT HERE, THIS IS THE WOOD FENCE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? YES.
THIS IS AN IRON GATE AND STRAIGHT BACK IS AN IRON FENCE.
THEY WERE PROPOSING TO REPLACE THAT IRON PORTION, BOTH PORTIONS WITH WOOD, WHICH WOULD THEN OBSCURE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE ORDINANCE ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THE EXTENSION ON THE WOOD FENCE IN THE FRONT WOULD
[03:50:01]
THEN NOT ONLY OBSCURE THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE OF THE HOUSE, THE BUMP OUT, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BRING IT FORWARD IN THE FORWARD 50%.YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE IT BETTER IN YOUR DOCKET.
SEE? LITTLE BIT, UH, I TRIED TO GET AS CLEAR PICTURE AS I COULD GET.
UM, UH, SEE THAT IRON IS THE DRIVEWAY? YES.
AND THIS JUST TURNED BACK TOWARDS THE GARAGE? YES.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY IRON IS THAT SECTION THAT WOUND AND IS ON THE SAME FOR THE DRIVEWAY GATE.
IRON GATE IS IN THE SAME PLANE AS THE WOOD AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND IS TURNED TO LOOK BACK TO THE HOUSE AT THAT, THAT CORNER.
SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER YOU WANT TO BRING IT UP ANY FURTHER INTO THE, AND THEN IF YOU DID BRING IT UP, IF YOU START TO TURN BACK AT THE HOUSE, WINDOWS WOULD BE, UH, CORRECTLY NOT COMMISSIONER COM.
COULD YOU REFER ME TO A PAGE? UH, YEAH.
UH, THIS IS THE DAY I LEFT MY GLASSES AT HOME, RIGHT? 5 76.
OH, SO YOU CAN SEE THE GARAGE THERE ON THAT ONE.
YOU CAN SEE THE WOODEN WOOD ON TOWARD THE DOWN SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND IT HAS TURNED.
IN THIS TRACT, A MAXIMUM IS HEIGHT IS NINE FEET.
IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION ON THE COMPROMISE, YOU HAVE TO CLEAR THAT TREE AND THEN TAKE IT PROBABLY RIGHT TO THE RIGHT OF THOSE THAT PAINTED THREE WINDOWS.
THAT WAY YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE.
AND, AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I WANTED TO, THE WINDOWS ARE THERE, BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL BUMP OUT OF THE HOUSE AT THAT, AT THE DINING WIN ROOM WINDOWS THAT YOU'RE SITTING THERE.
HE'S JUST SAYING THAT TRIPLE GANG WINDOW THING THERE IS NOT IN A BUMP OUT.
IT'S JUST FLAT, THE SAME PLANE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN STILL DIE INTO THAT PLANE, MAKE COMPROMISE STILL A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING SPACE OF SOME SIDING.
AND IF DISCUSSION, NOT ALL WAY FORWARD, THREE, YOU HAVE TO EXTEND PAST THAT BIG TREE ANYWAY.
AND THEN ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, L RAISE.
OKAY, MR. SWAN IS, WHEN YOU COME BACK, YOU COULD MAKE THE MOTION.
WE'LL, WAIT, NO
BUT THE FENCE THAT WOULD OBSCURE THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHICH NEIGHBORS IS THE CURRENT IRON FENCE, IT'S THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM.
SO IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN, YOU SEE THEIR HOUSE HERE, YOU'RE SEEING THEIR WOOD FENCE.
CURRENTLY, YOU CAN STILL SEE THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S AN IRON FENCE AT THE END.
BUT IF YOU PUT A, THE TALL SIX TO NINE FOOT FENCE WOOD THERE, YOU WOULD NO LONGER HAVE THAT HOUSE.
IN YOUR VIEW, DOES THAT HOUSE IN FRONT THE SIDE STREET OR IS IT FACING AWAY FROM THE APPLICANT? IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE ORDINANCE, IT WILL OBSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE.
BUT TO CLARIFY, I THINK WE HAVE A PHOTO IT FACES ONTO COLLETTE, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? UM, WHICH IS THE SIDE STREET.
SO, SO WHAT IT WOULD OBSCURE WOULD BE A MORE SIGNIFICANT FACADE OR A PORTION OF A SIGNIFICANT FACADE.
THE, THE ISSUE, THE, THE HOUSE ON THE SIDE STREET.
OKAY, SO AN EXTENSION TOWARD THE FRONT IS BEING PROPOSED YES.
ON THE ONE HAND, CORRECT? YES.
AND IT'S BEEN ASKED THAT THAT EXTENSION BE WOOD? YEAH, IT WOULD BE THE SAME FENCE.
THE SAME FENCE THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE.
AND THAT IS A SIX FOOT FENCE? I, I DO BELIEVE SO.
UM, JEREMY CAN I BELIEVE CONFIRM IT'S 8 0 8.
AND THE CURRENT FENCE IS AT THE 50% MARK.
[03:55:02]
UM, WHEREABOUTS? LET ME PULL THAT BACK UP.I MEAN, THE CURRENT FENCE IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO EXTEND THE WOOD FENCE, UH, TO THE FRONT CORNER OF THE HOUSE? NO, TO WHERE THE RED, OH, YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
UM, JUST IN FRONT OF THE TREE.
I'M LOOKING AT A DIMENSION LINE.
NOW DOES THAT, THERE ARE, THERE ARE WINDOWS ON THAT? DOES THAT POINT FALL BETWEEN THE WINDOWS? I GUESS I'M ASKING EXACTLY.
IT, IT GOES BEYOND THE WINDOW.
SO IT DIDN'T CUFF THE WINDOW WINDOWS.
THE THREE, IT ENCOMPASSES THE GANG THREE, IT COMPLETELY ENCOMPASSES THE WINDOWS.
BUT, BUT WHAT I'M CURRENTLY LOOKING AT, THE ONE LEG OF THAT EXISTING FENCE IS AN IRON GATE, IRON FENCE, RATHER IRON FENCE.
THE, THE ONE WHERE I CAN SEE POSTS AND THAT SORT OF THING IN THE BACK.
THIS RIGHT HERE THAT YOU SEE UP HERE, THIS IS JUST THE EXISTING FENCE.
THE IRON FENCE IS ALL BACK HERE.
SO YOU HAVE THE IRON GATE AND THIS REAR PORTION IS IRON.
I'M THINKING IT WAS PROBABLY DONE THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOVING US OFF OF MOVING US INTO DISCUSSION, WHICH I, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE DONE A LONG TIME AGO, BUT I, OKAY.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF I DISCUSSION, ITEM NUMBER 8,503, UH, RAGER AVENUE IS THAT RIGGER RIGGER RIGGER AVENUE, UH, CA 8 20 23 DASH 30 23 CM.
UM, I MOVE THAT ON THE ITEM NUMBER ONE.
UM, WE PERMIT THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING FENCE AS OPEN IRON WORK AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE CURRENT WOOD FENCE.
THE EXTENSION IS NOT ON THE IRON FENCE.
THEY'RE WANTING TO REPLACE COMPLETELY TAKE OUT THE IRON.
HE'S SAYING ALLOW THE EXTENSION OF THE PROBLEM IRON, SO OH, OKAY.
UH, THAT WE APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF THE FENCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL OF THE EXTENSION BE IRON.
UM, AND CONTINUING AT THE SAME HEIGHT OF THE, OH, IS THE, IS THE EXISTING FENCE GOING TO BE, I'M SORRY, I'M INTERRUPTING MY MOTION.
IS THE EXISTING FENCE GOING TO BE REPLACED? THE WOOD FENCE? NO, THEY ONLY WANTED, THEY WERE GONNA LEAVE THAT THEY WERE JUST, THEY WANT THE EXTENSION.
THAT THE EXTENSION BE PERMITTED AS OPEN IRON AND THAT IN THE REAR.
ON LIKE, ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, THAT THE, UH, IRON GATE BE PERMITTED, UH, END FENCE BE PERMITTED AT A HEIGHT UP TO EIGHT FEET, UH,
AND THEN NUMBER THREE, UH, THE REGRADING AND RECEIVING OF THE LAWN, UH, BE APPROVED.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY CAN KEEP THE SIDE PORTION WOOD AND THEN EXTEND WHATEVER FEET IT IS.
SO YOU'LL HAVE IRON PIECE, WOOD PIECE, IRON PIECE.
UM, I'M JUST, I, I WANT, I I I DIDN'T SAY IT WOULD BE PRETTY, I WANT A DISCUSSION.
I WAS JUST WRITING IT DOWN FOR MY NOTES.
YEAH, I, NO, I, I EXPECT HER TO BE DISCUSSION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? SECOND.
NOW I HOPE WE WILL GET MORE PARTICIPATION FROM COMMISSIONERS SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HASH THIS THING OUT.
ALRIGHT, WELL, WE'LL SEE WHO, WHO WISHES TO DISCUSS THIS NOW THAT WE HAVE A MOTION TO REACT TO WHO LIKE TO REACT? I'LL, I'LL DISCUSS AND REACT TO IT.
[04:00:01]
THE EXTENSION ON THE FIRST PART, THE EXTENDING OF THE, OF THE SIDE FENCE, GOING PAST THE TREE AND THEN TURNING BACK AFTER WE PASSED THAT GANG OF THREE, I THINK IT WOULD, IF, IF WE WOULD ALLOW THE DO IT EXTENSION, I WOULD PREFER IT JUST TO BE ALL WOOD.SO IT'S NOT INTRODUCING YET ANOTHER ITEM THERE.
I KNOW WE HAVE IRON GATE ON THE SIDE, BUT IT'S REALLY KIND OF CONTROLLED JUST AT THE DRIVEWAY, REALLY.
AND SO I THINK IF WE EX HAD INTRODUCED ANOTHER MATERIAL GOING ALONG DOWN THE SIDE OF THAT, THAT HOUSE, I THINK THAT WOULD JUST, THEN IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A PEN OR SOMETHING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE WOODEN FENCE IN THE HOUSE.
IT LOOKED LIKE MORE LIKE A PIN OVER THERE.
SO I, I I WOULD SAY EITHER YOU EXTEND IT, THE WOOD MATERIAL PAST THE TREE, PAST THE GANG OF THREE DIE INTO THE SIDE OR NOT DO IT AT ALL.
UH, THAT WOULD BE ON THAT, THAT, THAT ONE THERE.
NOW, I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE IS FINE.
IT RAISING THE HEIGHT TO WHATEVER IT'S ALLOWED ON THE ORDINANCE, ON THE, ON THE GATE MASK CLARIFICATION, UH, MASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON YOUR POINT.
CUZ IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE EXISTING FRONT FACING LEG OF THE FENCE LIKE THAT.
IS, UH, OPEN IRON? WELL, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE DRIVEWAY PART.
WELL, I THOUGHT I SAW LIKE POSTS AND THE APPEARANCE OF, DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT IN THIS DRAWING THAT OKAY.
GO ABOVE THE RED LINE THAT WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS.
JUST BRING IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
YOU'RE THINKING THIS, THAT RIGHT THERE? YES.
I'M, I'M LOOKING AT POSTS AND I'M, I'M READING THAT.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS, THAT'S WOOD FENCE.
I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF THE FRONT SO YOU CAN SEE.
THAT, THAT LINE YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE, IT'S A SQUARE LINE.
SQUARE LINE THAT'S JUST REPRESENTING A FENCE IN GENERAL.
AND AT THE TIME IT WOULD'VE, THAT WAS THE WOOD FENCE.
IT'S NOT REPRESENTING A, A, A, A, A, I DON'T KNOW, A MATERIAL.
YOU SEE THE WOOD FENCE BACK HERE? OH, I SEE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, BUT THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT
WELL, I THINK IF THAT EXTENSION IS ALLOWED, IT SHOULD JUST BE WOOD THEN I, I WOULD, MY INCLINATION SHOULD BE TO DISALLOW THE EXTENSION EITHER WAY.
EITHER YOU DO IT OR YOU DON'T DO IT.
BUT IF YOU DO DO IT, JUST MAKE IT WOOD.
AND I COULD SEE IT COMING PAST THAT TREE AND DYING INTO IT IF THERE'S A SECURITIES ISSUE, BUT ALSO I COULD SEE NOT DOING IT AT ALL AND JUST MAINTAINING OUR ORDINANCE.
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO GO THE WHOLE RUN ALL IRON AND GET RID OF THE WOOD.
IF, IF THE OWNER WAS INTERESTED IN THAT, I THINK WITH THE ISSUE OF PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE INTERESTED IN ENTIRE DEFENSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEN EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE CHILDREN
IF THE ISSUE IS PRIVACY, MOMS WOULD WORRY ABOUT THAT.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE LITTLE CHILDREN.
IT MAY, I AMEND MY MOTION DENYING THE MOTION.
SO YOU CAN WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION.
OKAY, I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
UH, THE SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER OFFIT, ARE YOU OKAY WITH WITHDRAWING THIS MOTION? YES.
I THINK I'M READY TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
UNLESS COMMISSIONER CUMINGS HASN'T, NO, NO, NO, NO, GO AHEAD.
IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 23 DASH 3 23 CM, I MOVE THAT ON ITEM NUMBER ONE.
UH, WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, UM, WE PERMIT THE, UH, FENCE AND GATE REQUESTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT, UH, THEY BE OF OPEN IRON AND NOT TO EXCEED A FEET.
AND THAT ON NUMBER THREE, UH, WE APPROVE THE REQUEST.
WHO, WHO'S SECOND COMMISSIONER HAD HADK IS THE SECOND FLIP A COIN? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HI, COMMISSIONER HAK HAK.
AND I'M USED TO PEOPLE CALLING ME ELIZABETH, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER HDU, THAT'S A CLOSE I'M GONNA GET, HAS SECONDED THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY A DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION WE HAVE SO DISCUSSED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY
[04:05:01]
AYE.ALL THOSE OPPOSED THIS MOTION.
THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR.
SO, UM, I, UH, BECAUSE THE STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE, UM, APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE TO MEET THE CONDITIONS ON THIS.
I'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU, JEREMY.
CHRISTINA MINKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 14, ADDRESS 2 0 1 NORTH EDGEFIELD AVENUE, WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 3 33 CM TO REQUEST FIRST REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
SECOND REQUEST OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE A SECTION OF THE SOUTH RETAINING WALL TO FORM AND POUR ADA APPROVED CONCRETE STAIRS FROM THE CON, UH, AND CONCRETE RAMP TO THE STREET.
RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED AND THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE A SECTION OF THE SOUTH RETAINING WALL TO FORM AND POUR ADA APPROVED CONCRETE STAIRS FROM THE CONCRETE RAMP TO STREET BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATION LISTED IN THE DOCKET TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION.
THE TASK FORCE DID NOT COMPLETE THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION DUE TO MISSING COMPONENTS OF GARAGE PLANS, A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED WORK THAT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THIS APPLICATION.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS REGISTERED ON THIS ONE.
IS ANNA ALS WITH US? TURN NICOLE.
CAN ANYONE SEE UP THERE? SHE'S THERE.
CAN YOU PUT YOUR CAMERA ON ANNA? THERE YOU ARE.
HI, MS. ALBERTS, I'D LIKE YOU TO START BY GIVING US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
ANNA ALBS, 2 0 1 NORTH EDGEFIELD AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75,208.
AND DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL US THE TRUTH TODAY? YES.
ALL RIGHT, MA'AM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO, UM, GIVE US ANY INFORMATION YOU THINK YOU NEED TO ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION.
WELL, I ASK YOU TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, UM, AS, UH, AS I THINK I TOLD YOU LAST TIME, I CANNOT GO DOWN THE SLOPES IN MY YARD, UH, IN A WHEELCHAIR, UM, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE.
SO HAVING STAIRS DOWN TO THE STREET FROM THE, FROM THE YARD TO THE STREET WOULD ENABLE ME TO LEAVE MY, UH, BACKYARD AND EXIT TO THE SAFETY OF THE STREET IN THE CASE OF A FIRE OR GAS LEAK OR GAS LEAK OR, YOU KNOW, FOR SOME REASON IF I NEEDED TO LEAVE AND I WAS HERE BY MYSELF, I, UM, I WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE STAIRS.
I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THEY WILL HAVE RA HANDRAILS GOING DOWN THE STAIRS SO THAT I CAN ON BOTH SI ON, YOU KNOW, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STAIRS SO THAT I CAN GRASP THE HANDRAILS AND KIND OF LOWER MYSELF AND DRAG MYSELF DOWN THE STAIRS.
SO, UM, THEY WILL BE THE SAME KIND OF HANDRAILS AS WE'RE GOING TO BE ON THE RAMPING STAIRS GOING DOWN FROM THE BACK PORCH DOWN TO THE YARD AT RIGHT FROM THE BACK PORCH TO THE YARD.
UM, SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW.
A QUESTION IS OUR OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER THAT NEXT, THAT MAN NEXT TO YOU, OR ARE YOU MR. BARNABAS? YEAH.
YES, THAT'S VJ BARNABAS MY HUSBAND.
UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SPEAK, WE NEED YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS SO IT'S OBVIOUS
IT'S, UH, VJ KUMAR BARNABAS 2 0 1 NORTH EDGEFIELD
[04:10:01]
AVENUE, DALLAS.AND YOU SWEAR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH? YES.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU NEED TO ADD FOR THREE MINUTES? UH, NO, NOT REALLY.
I, I WAS HERE MORE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, IF ANY.
THEN IT IS TIME FOR COMMISSIONERS DON'T, OH, THEN IT IS TIME FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT, UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR THE APPLICANTS.
UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'VE, UH, READ AND SEEN, UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHAT'S APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ABOUT THE FRONT STEPS AND CENTERED AND THE FINISH AND ALL.
AND, UH, THOSE THINGS CAN WORK FOR YOU ALL AND ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WANT TO GET DONE.
WELL, THE, THE STEPS WILL BE IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT LIKE A BRUSHED CONCRETE FINISH ON, ON ALL THE STEPS IN THE RAMPS, UH, AND, UH, AND THEN ADD HANDRAILS.
UH, SO, UH, I THINK WE MAY HAVE A SLIGHT MISUNDERSTANDING HERE.
I THINK THAT CONDITION ABOUT CENTERING IT ON THE DOOR WAS A DIFFERENT APPLICATION, MR. OFFIT, THAT I DON'T SEE THAT IN THIS ONE.
THE CONDITION WAS THE, THE, UH, THERE'S NO CONDITION.
WHICH, UH, UH, THIS IS APPARENTLY I'M ON THE PHONE.
THIS IS DISCUSSION 14, 2001 NORTH EDGEFIELD.
ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR SOMEONE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
UH, UM, I'M ON THE MATTER OF 2 0 1 NORTH EDGE BILL CA 2 23 DASH 33.
I'M MOVED TO, UM, APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, UM, AS YOUR QUESTION, WOULD THAT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE, UH, STAFF SUGGESTION FOR THE RECENT STATED? OH, YES.
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD THAT IN THE WRITING.
WELL, WE LIKE TO SAY EVERYTHING TWICE AROUND HERE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT.
UH, WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER, ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY OR SHALL WE TAKE THE VOTE? TAKE THE VOTE.
IT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION USUALLY, BUT FINALLY SOMEONE ANSWERED ME.
ALRIGHT,
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, Y'ALL, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR WORK VERY MUCH.
I THINK WE'RE OUT OF ONES THAT HAVE SPEAKERS NOW.
AND ME AGAIN, TWO FOR A SECOND.
UM, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 2 14 0 1 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, WEKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 2 3 3 35 CM, A REQUEST OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REFACE EXISTING 32 F FOOT WALL SIGN ON WEST ELEVATION AND 32 SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN.
SECOND IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD TWO 17 SQUARE FOOT SIGNS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATION WALLS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REFACE EXISTING 32 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN ON THE WEST WALL AND 32 SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN BE APPROVED.
THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD TWO 17 SQUARE FEET SIGNS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATION WALLS BE DENIED WITHOUT PRE PREJUDICED, UH, WITH THE REASONS AND CRITERIA LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
ALSO, I HAVE ANSWERS FOR THE MONUMENT SIGN.
THE BRICK BASE IS INCLUDED IN THE HEIGHT, SO THAT HEIGHT CANNOT REACH HIGHER THAN EIGHT FOOT, BUT A SIGN ITSELF CAN ONLY BE 32 SQUARE FEET.
BUT YOU CAN HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT SIGN TOTAL.
THE TOTAL HEIGHT CAN BE EIGHT FEET AND NO MORE THAN 32 SQUARE FEET.
[04:15:01]
I BELIEVE IS THAT, UM, IN OUR PURVIEW, CITY ATTORNEY, RIGHT? THOSE ARE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ARE, ARE FOUND IN THE PD.SO WE REALLY SHOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT THE APPEARANCE OF THIS SIGN AND WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT THAT WHAT THE SIGN LOOKS LIKE IT IS APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT.
AND NOT THAT IT NECESSARILY MEETS THE ZONING REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A SIGN PERMIT ANYWAY.
UM, BUT THAT'S NOT WITHIN THIS PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION.
AND THERE ARE NO PREVIOUS CAS APPROVING NOR DENYING THE EXISTING SIGNS.
UH, THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING WESTLAW SIGN AND MONUMENT SIGN BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMIT NOTES CLARIFYING EXISTING SIGNS.
REQUEST NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD SIGNS TO SOUTH AND ELEVATIONS BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOUND ON OUR AGENDA.
I HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE, SO BEAR WITH ME.
UM, THERE ARE SOME 605 STRUCTURES IN THIS DISTRICT, NOT COUNTING THE NEW CONSTRUCTIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THE ORDINANCE WAS PUT INTO PLACE.
5% OF THOSE ARE DEEMED IN TRUTH, NOT EVERYBODY'S TALKING AT ME.
HAVE WE NOT HAD A MOTION YET? NO.
WE NEED TO, SO WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION BEFORE WE HAVE EXPLANATION.
IS THIS NOT QUESTIONS OF SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE HERE? HUMOR WOULD BE STAFFED.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION, THEN WE'D HAVE DISCUSSION OF IT AND YOU COULD DISCUSS.
WELL, I CAN'T PREFACE THE MOTION WITH WHY I WANT, I CAN'T SPEAK TO MY OWN MOTION WITHOUT MAKING IT FIRST.
I THINK YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE IT FIRST, BUT WE ALL KIND OF KNOW YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO GIVE US AFTERWARDS.
SO WE, WE CAN LISTEN LIKE THAT AND LISTEN TO THE MOTION AND THEN LISTEN TO YOUR, OKAY.
WELL, UM, I MOVE THAT, UM, UH, REQUEST NUMBER ONE.
IN THE CASE OF D 2 14 0 1 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, UM, IT SAYS IN OUR DOCKET HERE THAT IT'S IN LAKE CLIFF.
IT IS IN THE WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THAT BEING CA 2 23 DASH 3 35 CM, UM, AN INTRUSIVE BUILDING IN THE WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR CLARIFICATION.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE BOTH ITEMS ONE AND TWO, UM, BECAUSE WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE EXISTING SIGNAGE, UM, WAS NEVER REVIEWED NOR DEEMED AS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS DISTRICT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE RIGHT TO REPLACE EXISTING SIGNAGE, UM, AND THAT MULTIPLE SIGNAGE IS EXCESSIVE AND WOULD EXACERBATE THE INTRUSIVE NATURE OF THE, UM, THE BUILDING AND THE DISTRICT.
UM, AND, UM, WHILE I'D LIKE TO APPROVE SOMETHING THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED, THE ONLY THING I CAN SEE IS TO DENY BOTH OF THEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MERITS, THOUGH.
AND THAT THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER SP FOR SECOND TO ELAINE.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS? ALL RIGHT.
I HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE
UM, THERE'S ONLY 25 BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT THAT ARE DEEMED INTRUSIVE.
WE'RE LUCKY THAT WE HAVE ONLY 5% OF THEM THAT ARE INTRUSIVE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHAT MAKES THIS DISTRICT SPECIALIST VERY INTACT.
IN FACT, THE STATE OF TEXAS RECOGNIZED IT AS ONE OF THE MOST INTACT EXAMPLES OF CRAFTSMEN AND PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION IN THE STATE.
UM, THAT'S WHY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO NOT MAKE AN INTRUSIVE, UM, SITUATION.
EXACERBATED IT HAS TO GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE.
UM, AND WHEN WE DEEM SOMETHING COMPATIBLE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT, UM, DOES IT OBSCURE, UM, COMPATIBLE IN CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS ON THE EXISTING BLOCK FACE OR DOWN THE DOWN THE STREET.
UH, SIGN D WOULD DO JUST THAT.
UM, THE MONUMENT BASE OUT IN THE FRONT, UM, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE OVERALL 32 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE THE BASE AND THEN SOMETHING MOUNTED ON TOP MAKES IT, MAKES IT
[04:20:01]
EVEN MORE, UM, OUTTA SCALE AND NOT IN KEEPING WITH, UM, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY MASKED.UM, AND, UM, THE ONLY SIGN THAT I CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, THAT I WOULD PROBABLY SEE AS, UM, APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISTRICT AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUILDING WOULD BE THE ONE ON, UM, THE JEFFERSON SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THAT ONE, HOWEVER, WOULD NEED TO, UM, HAVE THE ADDRESS ADDED TO IT.
UM, AND, UM, BUT THE WAY THE APPLICATION IS WRITTEN, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS TO DENY IT ALL AND HOPE THEY HEAR SOME FEEDBACK AND THAT THEY TRY AGAIN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE ONE OF THOSE SIGNS APPROVABLE UNLESS WE SAID, I MEAN, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
UM, I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR, YOU KNOW, WAY FINDING AND THEIR, UM, BUILDING LABELED, BUT NOT IN AN EXCESSIVE, UM, FASHION.
SO, WITH THAT SAID, UM, I WANTED TO ASK, UM, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, IF SHE COULD PROVIDE A BRIEF EXPLANATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NON-COMPATIBLE AND INTRUSIVE.
INTRUSIVE HASN'T REALLY COME UP BEFORE THAT I CAN REALLY REMEMBER.
INTRUSIVE IS A CATEGORY OF NON-COM COMPATIBILITY.
UM, IT ADDRESSES NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT, UM, IS DEEMED DISSIMILAR TO THE REMAINDER OF THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF ITS SCALE AND MATERIALS.
THAT'S WHY IN 1960S, CONSTRUCTION LIKE THIS HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE, UM, THE CONTRIBUTING NATURE OF THE, UH, THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.
AND I COULD RATTLE OFF SEVERAL OTHER ADDRESSES AND YOU COULD PROBABLY SEE, I MEAN, WE HAVE A FRENCH MANED ROOF APARTMENT BUILDING MM-HMM.
UM, THAT ALSO FALLS INTO AN INTRUSIVE CATEGORY.
THAT'S TWO OF 'EM I CAN KEEP RATTLING ON MORE.
AND SO DOES IT, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S IN THE DISTRICT BASED ON ITS LOCATION.
UM, IT, DOES THE REMOVAL OF THE SIGNS KEEP IT FROM BEING INTRUSIVE OR WOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL THINGS? NO, IT WOULD REMAIN INTRUSIVE.
NON-CONTRIBUTING NON, IT CAN'T, IT CAN NEVER BE MADE, UM, CONTRIBUTING.
SO IT'S BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT'S INTRUSIVE AND ALSO NON-COMPATIBLE.
INCOMPATIBLE, INCOMPATIBLE, NON-CONTRIBUTING.
UH, I'M GONNA SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT MAY SHOCK Y'ALL.
I THINK SIGNS LIKE THIS WILL LOOK LIKE CRAP IN THIS AREA.
AND FOR THAT REASON OWN I, I WOULD VOTE FOR HER MOTION.
IT'S LATE IN THE DAY, SO WE'RE GETTING REAL HONEST NOW.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? ALL RIGHT THEN.
ALL ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSE THIS MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
STAFF WILL COMMUNICATE TO THE APPLICANT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DID RECEIVE A DENIAL SO THEY COULD GO TO CPC PERPE OR THEY COULD RETHINK THEIR REQUEST AND COME BACK TO US.
CHRISTINA MINKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 5 58 58 0 2 WORTH STREET, JUNIUS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 3 25 CM, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE A PORTION OF AN EXTEND WOOD FENCE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE, OH, PARDON ME.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE A PORTION OF AND EXTEND THE FENCE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICED FOLLOWING THE CRITERIA LISTED IN THE DOCKET TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE A PORTION OF AND EXTEND FENCE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PER SECTION IN OUR AGENDA IN FRONT OF US.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ABOUT THIS? OR DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
UM, IN THE CASE OF D 5 58 0 2 WEST STREET, IN THE JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 DASH 3 25 CM, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT BOTH STAFF AND TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, STATED AND FOR THE REFERENCE TO THE SECRETARY OR INTERIOR STANDARDS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THEN WE ARE READY FOR A VOTE.
[04:25:01]
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE.ANY OPPOSED? SENATOR CARRIE UNANIMOUSLY, STAFF WILL COMMUNICATE WITH THE APPLICANT THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION? YES, MA'AM.
UM, SIXTH STREET, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 6 5 0 3 EAST SIXTH STREET, LAKE CLIFF, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 3 27 CM.
THE REQUEST, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PAINT EXTERIOR OF MAIN STRUCTURE SSW 70 0 8 ALABASTER FOR THE BODY AND SSW 70 69 IRON ORE FOR THE TRIM STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PAINT EXTERIOR OF MAIN STRUCTURE, ALABASTER AND IRON ORE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA LISTED IN THIS DOCKET.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PAINT EXTERIOR OF MAIN STRUCTURE WITH COLORS PROVIDED HEREIN BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, WITHIN OUR AGENDA ARE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TASK FORCE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
IN THE CASE OF D 6 5 0 3 EAST SIXTH STREET IN THE LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 DASH 3 27 CM, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE, UH, THE PAINTING OF THE BODY OF THE HOUSE IN, UH, SHERWIN WILLIAMS 7,008 ALABASTER, BUT THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PAINTING OF THE TRIM IN IRON OR, UM, WITH THE FINDING EFFECT, THAT THAT HIGH LEVEL OF CONTRAST, STARK CONTRAST, UM, UH, IF APPLIED TO THIS DWELLING WOULD LEND A STANDALONE QUALITY FROM THE BLOCK FACE AND THUS WOULD, THUS WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE DISTRICT.
AND FOR, AND ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO, UM, THE ORDINANCE, WHICH STATES THAT, UM, UM, THERE'D BE SECTION, UH, 48, LET'S SEE, I'VE GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN.
UM, IN TERMS OF FACADES 48 C, WHICH STATES THE COLORS OF A STRUCTURE MUST BE COMPLIMENTARY TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT.
AND THAT COMPLIMENTARY COLOR SCHEMES ARE ENCOURAGED THROUGH THE BLOCK PHASE.
ALSO, I JUST WANT TO, UH, NOTE THAT, UM, I HAVE ALSO SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAINT THE STONE BECAUSE OH, CORRECT.
I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE STONE REMAIN UNPAINTED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS SECOND? WHO? HI, DREW.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR SHALL WE VOTE? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT QUICKLY.
IN, IN THESE CASES, WE SEE A PROLIFERATION OF THIS IN THE WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE HAVE SINCE NOT, UM, BEEN PAINTING ANYMORE ZEBRAS IN THE DISTRICT.
UM, IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND YOU SEE A PROLIFERATION OF THIS TYPE OF, UH, COLOR PALLET REPEATEDLY APPLIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE RHYTHM OF THE BLOCK FACE IS DESTROYED.
UM, REGARDLESS OF HOW REMARKABLE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY MIGHT BE, UM, IN MY OPINION.
AND, UM, SO I THINK WE, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN THE TYPE OF COMMUNICATION WE WOULD HAVE WITH AN APPLICANT.
LIKE IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY, WHAT WOULD YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE? SOMETHING WITH LESS CONTRAST, LIKE A TONE ON TONE OR EVEN A, A GRAY.
UH, BUT ALABASTER HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE COLORS THAT SHERWIN WILLIAMS USES THAT BLENDS WELL WITH DARK COLORS.
IT ALSO HAS A LITTLE HINT OF COOL IN IT, SO IT'S NOT COMPLETELY WARM.
UM, SO PROBABLY, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE STEP DOWN ON THE COLOR CHART FROM THE ALABASTER OR ONE OF THE COMPLIMENTARY COLORS.
SO, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THEY'LL COME BACK AND ASK FOR SOMETHING ELSE CUZ IT IS A REALLY PRETTY BUILDING.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE? AYE.
THE MOTION HAS CARRIED AND STAFF WILL COMMUNICATE WITH THE APPLICANT.
[04:30:10]
OKAY.ARE WE READY FOR DISCUSSION? ITEM 11.
RONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM D 11 LOCATED AT 36 0 7 HAVANA STREET IN THE WHEATLEY PLACE.
HISTORIC DISTRICT CASE NUMBER CA 2 23 DASH 3 39 R D THE REQUEST STAR AS FOLLOWS, TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT.
THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A SINGLE CAR GARAGE.
WITH RESPECT TO REQUEST NUMBER ONE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 5 1 20 23.
WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE FRONT STEPS BE CENTERED WITH RESPECT TO THE FRONT ENTRY DOOR, THAT FRONT STEPS BE BRUSH FINISHED CONCRETE, THAT THE PORCH BE CONCRETE CONSISTING OF BRUSH, FINISHED CONCRETE SLAB AND CONCRETE RETAINING WALL AND THAT PORCH COLUMN CUZ THERE'S ONLY ONE BE PAINTED WHITE.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA PRESENTED IN THE DOCKET.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOTH ITEMS. THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND COMMENTS, ONLY TASK FORCE WAS REC, UH, SUPPORTIVE OF BOTH REQUESTS.
OKAY, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR A MOTION IN REGARDS TO DISCUSSION? ITEM 11 36 7 HAVANA STREET CA 2 23 3 39 RD.
I MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST ONE AND TWO PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THAT WAS COMMISSIONER SWUNG WHO SECONDED.
ALL RIGHT, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
STAFF CAN INFORM THE APPLICANT.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 28 15 TANNER STREET IN THE WHEATLEY PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 DASH 3 36 R D.
THE REQUEST IS TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS ON FRONT SLOPE AND REAR SLOPE OF ROOF.
RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS ON FRONT SLOPE AND REAR SLOPE OF ROOF BE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRES PRESERVATION CRITERIA PRESENTED IN THE DOCKET.
TASK COURT'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS ON THE FRONT SLOPE AND REAR SLOPE OF ROOF BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, YOU SAID THEY WERE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 13 IN THE MATTER OF, UH, 28 15 TANNER STREET CA.
I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND DENY WITH PREJUDICE, UM, THE REQUEST.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER OFFIT, DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSES MOTION COMMISSIONERS FALLACY, ARE YOU IN OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION? YES.
THE MOTION HAS CARRIED AND STAFF WILL OF COURSE, HAVE TO COME TO CONTACT THE APPLICANT AND ESPECIALLY MENTION THE APPEAL PROCESS.
THAT'S ALL OF THE CASES EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NUMBER 16, WHICH IS DIFFERENT.
[04:35:01]
YES.RHONDA DUNN, PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2001 BRYAN STREET.
AND WE HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THC TO REVIEW THE NATIONAL REGISTERED NOMINATION FORM FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND WE WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY, THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE, UH, SUFFICIENCY OF THE NOMINATION FORM THAT'S BEING PRESENTED.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION OR, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT REALLY VOTING ON THIS, WE'RE JUST SAYING WHAT WE THINK YOU SHOULD SAY TO THC.
UM, I WAS THERE FOR THE, UM, THE TOUR AND DARREN TAPSCOTT HAD BEEN IN THE BUILDING WHEN IT WAS NEW, WHEN HE WAS YOUNG.
THEY WERE BOTH NEW AT THAT TIME.
AND, AND HE, HE'S THE ONE WHO SAID THAT THERE THERE HAD BEEN SOME CHANGES.
SO THERE, THERE WAS A GENERAL FEELING THAT PERHAPS IT DID NOT HAVE AS MUCH INTEGRITY AS THIS WRITEUP SAID IT DID.
BUT, UM, THO THOSE ENT FINS ARE CERTAINLY STILL THERE AND THEY'RE IMPRESSIVE.
THEY JUST DON'T COME DOWN AS FAR AS THEY USED TO.
IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE AT THE STRAIGHT LEVEL.
NOT ONLY DID MY DAD OFFICE HERE IN THE, UH, SIXTIES, SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, BUT ALSO THIS WAS THE HOME OF HENRY S. MILLER.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW MUCH ABOUT HENRY S PERS HISTORY, BUT IT WAS, IT'S GREAT HISTORY OF THAT FAMILY AND WHAT THEY DID.
IT WAS ALSO THE FIRST PLACE I SAW A COMPUTER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
AND, UH, ALSO, UH, IT'S MORE, MORE COMPANIES, ROGER STAUBACH, UH, EVANS BIRMINGHAM AND WILLIAMSON, UH, UH, HERB WHITESMAN, THE WHITESMAN COMPANY, THEY ALL SPUN OUT OF THE HENRY NER OFFICE THAT WAS IN THIS BUILDING.
FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT HAS A LOT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THE BEST LOOKING BUILDING, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA SAY.
AND OF COURSE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT, UM, CRITERIA FOR LANDMARKING A BUILDING.
SO WE MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT THERE IS A RICH HISTORY ASIDE FROM ANY ISSUES WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING.
WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS ONE, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING.
DID WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER, FORMER COMMISSIONER TAPSCOTT IN FAVOR OF, HE DID NOT EXPLICITLY SAY THAT, THAT I RECALL.
DO YOU RECALL? AND, AND WHAT HE ACTUALLY STATED WAS IT WAS WAY BETTER WAY TO INTERACT WITH THE CITY AT THE BOTTOM NOW THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY, BUT IT, IT HAS CHANGED.
FORMER COMMISSIONER TASKS TAPS SCOTT.
I CALL HIM DARREN, BUT ANYWAY,
HE DID SEND ME HIS LETTER AND IF ANYONE ELSE FEEL STRONGLY, PLEASE SEND ME A LETTER BY FRIDAY.
BUT, UH, HE DID SEND ME HIS COMMENTS AND BASICALLY HIS COMMENTS WERE, HE JUST FELT THAT SINCE SO MUCH HAD TAKEN PLACE, THAT ON THE FIRST GROUND FLOOR LEVEL, IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE THE FENCES HAD BEEN RAISED AND NOW IT'S ALL GLASS AT THAT LEVEL, HE FELT AS IF IT WAS A CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE, UH, PEDESTRIANS ON THE STREET AND THE BUILDING.
SO HE FELT AS IF THAT MIGHT DETRACT FROM THE INTEGRITY.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS WE WERE IN THE SUPPOSED 1970S FIELD LOBBY, BUT IT DIDN'T REALLY FEEL THAT WAY.
AND FEEL IS ALSO FEELING ASSOCIATION IS ALSO A PART OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY.
SO, YOU KNOW, SEND ME YOUR COMMENTS.
AND MADAM CHAIR, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF THIS COMMISSION MIGHT MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO BE NOMINATED TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES THAT MIGHT HELP BOLSTER THE LETTER FROM THE CITY, UM, THAT MS. DR.
WHO'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE MOTION ON THAT ONE? ME.
UM, I, I, I WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE SUPPORT THE NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
WE SUPPORT THE NATIONAL, THE RE, WE SUPPORT THE NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WITH, UM, THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN, IN ANY LETTERS.
EVERY, EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF THAT SAY AYE.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY, THEN I THINK WE ARE DONE AND I CAN CALL US.
UH, WHAT'S THAT? WHICH THING?