[00:00:01]
OH, GOOD AFTERNOON.UH, WELCOME TO THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS LANDMARK COMMISSION.
IT IS JULY 3RD, 2020 3, 1 0 1 IN THE AFTERNOON BY CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER.
I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION.
OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IS COMMISSIONER REAGAN ROTHENBERGER, FILLING IN FOR A ABSENT COMMISSIONER WHO'S HAVING A GOOD TIME TODAY, BUT WE'RE HAVING A BETTER TIME HERE WITH ALL OF YOU.
UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT LET US BEGIN BY HAVING ELAINE TAKE ROLL CALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SPELL IS NOT IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
COMMISSIONER RENO IS NOT IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS NOT IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA IS ON CAMERA NOW.
COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA PRESENT.
WE NEED TO, UM, TEXT HER OR SOMETHING THAT HER SOUND IS, I'LL DO THAT.
SO WE, WE, WE DEFINITELY HAVE QUORUM AND THAT'S GREAT.
UM, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF, UH, WE USUALLY DO SOME REORDERING OF OUR AGENDA WHEN WE BEGIN, BUT I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE AN A MOTION THAT WILL AFFECT THE ORDERING.
MADAM CHAIR, I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE THAT, UM, DISCUSSION ITEM 9 57 28 SWISS BE MOVED TO CONSENT ASSUMING THE APPLICANT HAS NO OBJECTION.
SECOND, IF THAT'S A MOTION, UH, THAT IS A MOTION AND APPLICANTS RARELY
SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM BEING UPSET ABOUT THAT.
SO I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THAT.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER NINE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
NOW, I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER HAS SOME MOTIONS TO MAKE UP ZONE.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED C1 THROUGH C NINE, AS WELL AS DISCUSSION ITEM NINE, UH, AS AS PRESENTED SECOND.
I'M NOT SURE WHO'S GONNA COUNT FOR THE SECOND ON THAT.
YES, COMMISSIONER? NO COMMISSIONER GUEST IS BEING ALLOWED TO CONS COUNT A SECOND ON THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? I ASSUME THAT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WAS NOT OPPOSED, HE WAS JUST SLOW TO RAISE HIS HAND, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER? YES, MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE TO REORDER OUR AGENDA INTO THE FOLLOWING ORDER, STARTING WITH COURTESY REVIEW ONE.
DISCUSSION ITEMS 3, 4, 2, 6, 7, 1, 5,
[00:05:02]
AND EIGHT.DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS? SECOND? UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SWAN FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
SHOULD WE VOTE ON THE MINUTES BEFORE WE BEGIN GOING THROUGH THE DOCKET? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO OUR VOTE ON LAST TIMES, MINUTES.
IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THOSE.
SECOND AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
AND SO WE HAVE ACCEPTED OUR MINUTES FROM LAST TIME, AND THAT MEANS IT IS TIME FOR COURTESY REVIEW NUMBER, COURSE REVIEW.
ELAINE, GET SOMEONE THROUGH, UH, TASK FORCE READING.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS IS TAKING HIS TURN AT READING OUR TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS THIS TIME.
ALL RIGHT, FIRST UP IS THE COURTESY REVIEW.
I MUST RECUSE MYSELF ON THE COURTESY REVIEW, SO COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER WILL ENJOY LEADING YOU IN THAT DISCUSSION.
FIRST ITEM IS COURTESY REVIEW NUMBER ONE, STAFF, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF COURTESY REVIEW ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 37 50 COTTON BOWL PLAZA IN FAIR PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS SIERRA 2 23 DASH 0 0 4 R D.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A COURTESY REVIEW TO EXTEND AND REPLICATE FRONT FACADE OF STADIUM FOR CIRCULATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PROPOSAL TO EXTEND AND REPLICATE FRONT FACADE OF STADIUM FOR CIRCULATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FINAL DESIGN AS WELL AS ANY ASSOCIATED SITE PLANS, ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS, AND DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEW.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION COURTESY REVIEW, NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN.
COMMENTS ONLY, SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS.
MUST THE EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE AND FACADE BE REPLICATED? COULD A NEW DESIGN BE CONSIDERED? IF SO, HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORICAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING? THANK YOU.
FOR THIS ITEM, WE HAVE, UH, I BELIEVE THREE SPEAKERS REGISTERED.
THE FIRST SPEAKER ON MY LIST IS MR. NORM AUSTIN.
HOW'S THAT FOR TIMING? IT'S EXCELLENT TIMING.
NO, IT'S REALLY TERRIBLE TIMING, BUT IT'LL HAVE TO DO FOR TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, AND SO MR. RALSTON, FIRST, UH, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? NORMAN ALSTON, 5 0 6 MONTE VISTA, DALLAS, 75,000 2 23.
AND DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY? I DO INDEED.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, UM, I DO HAVE SOME MATERIALS HERE.
I WAS REAL QUICKLY, I WAS LISTENING INTO THE, UH, BRIEFING EARLIER.
I REALIZE I'M AWARE OF THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP PREPARED TO ADDRESS THOSE.
UH, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE FOLKS THAT ARE WITH ME REALLY BRIEFLY WHILE I'M AT IT.
UH, I'M NORMAN AUSTIN, CONSULTING PRESERVATION ARCHITECT TO OVERLAND PARTNERS, THE PRIME ARCHITECTS FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE COTTON BOWL.
WE HAVE WITH US TODAY MR. JOHN HUTCHINGS, WHO'S A PRINCIPAL WITH, UH, WITH OVERLAND.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE WITH US TODAY MARCEL QUIMBEE, UH, WHO IS WELL CONSULTING ARCHITECT WITH AECOM, THE PROJECT MANAGER, AND ALL OF US WORK FOR FAIR PARK FIRST.
AND WE HAVE WITH US ALSO BRIAN LOU ALLEN, THE CEO OF FAIR PARK.
FIRST, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD INDULGE JUST A LITTLE BIT IF, UH, MR. LOU ALLEN IS, UH, ALSO A REGISTERED SPEAKER, AND IF, IF POSSIBLE, WE'D LOVE FOR HIM TO STEP IN AND GET, TAKE HIS TIME, SETTING THE CONTEXT AND EVERYTHING BEFORE I COME IN AND ATTEMPT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND MAKE THE PRESENTATION.
WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT? ANY CONCERNS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
BRIAN LU ALLEN, 25 25 ELM STREET,
[00:10:01]
AND ALSO THE CEO OF FAIR PARK.FIRST, THE NONPROFIT PARTNER, UH, THAT OPERATES AND MANAGES FAIR PARK.
SO WE'RE GONNA LET MR. LOU ALLEN SPEAK FIRST IN LOU, AND THEN MR. AUSTIN CAN SPEAK SECOND.
SO, MR. UH, LOU ALLEN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY? I DO.
UM, IT HAS BEEN MY GREAT PLEASURE IN MY CAREER TO HELP, UH, NURTURE AND HELP REACTIVATE A NUMBER OF HISTORIC ATTRACTIONS ACROSS OUR GREAT NATION.
NONE OF THEM HAD THE SCALE OF THE COTTON BOWL STADIUM, A HISTORIC FACILITY WITH AN UNRIVALED HISTORY OF SPORTING EVENTS, SOCIAL EVENTS, UH, ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS ACROSS MANY DECADES IN THOSE DECADES, THIS FACILITY HAS BEEN IMPROVED A NUMBER OF TIMES.
IT HAS MORE THAN TRIPLED ITS CAPACITY OVER THE YEARS.
HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN NO MEANINGFUL EFFORT, UH, AT THAT TIME TO, UH, TRIPLE RESTROOMS, CONCESSIONS, INGRESS POINTS, EGRESS POINTS, AND THERE ARE NUMBER OF CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING THE FACILITIES.
IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REINTRODUCE, UH, THROUGH OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH SEVERAL, UH, LARGE SCALE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, STADIUM SCALE EVENTS, RANGING FROM CONCERTS BY COLDPLAY, BTS, UH, THE ROLLING STONES, UH, TO MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SOCCER TOURNAMENTS.
I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT LAST YEAR THE COTTON BOWL HOSTED MORE INTERNATIONAL SOCCER TOURNAMENTS THAN ANY OTHER, UH, STADIUM IN THIS HEMISPHERE.
AND IN FACT, WAS ONE OF THE 30 BUSIEST, UH, STADIUMS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
NOT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF EVENTS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE.
IT IS A VERY, VERY LARGE STADIUM, ONE OF THE 11 BIGGEST IN THE NATION.
THE PROPOSAL YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, IT COMES OUT OF THE FAIR PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT BY THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD, AS WELL AS, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL JUST OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.
IT CONTEMPLATES WHAT IT TAKES TO TAKE A HISTORIC VENUE LIKE THE COTTON BOWL STADIUM, AND THEN MOVE THAT FORWARD TO ADDRESS TODAY'S VISITORS' CONCERNS, WHILE STILL BEING VERY SENSITIVE TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE VENUE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PLACES, AND ALSO THE CONTEXT OF IT WITHIN FAIR PARK.
UH, WE'VE TRIED TO BE, UH, AS THOUGHTFUL AS POSSIBLE IN MAKING AS FEW AND AS SUBTLE CHANGES AS POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS A GREAT MANY PROBLEMS THAT ARISE FROM THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE.
THERE IS ALSO, UH, A BIT OF A SENSE OF URGENCY BEHIND THIS PROJECT, AND UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT WHY.
UH, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND I PROMISE THE NEXT TIME THERE ARE SOME MAJOR EVENTS THAT MAY BE, UH, LURKING IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE COTTON BOWL.
MAYBE IT'S, UH, MAJOR INTERNATIONAL, UH, SOCCER EVENTS THAT WILL BE COMING TO DALLAS IN 26.
MAYBE IT IS RELATED TO THE RENEWAL OF CERTAIN COLLEGE RIVALRY GAMES.
UM, ODDS ARE THINGS ARE MOVING WELL, HOWEVER, THAT GIVES US, UNFORTUNATELY, A REDUCED TIMELINE, AND IT MEANS WE NEED TO BE VERY PRAGMATIC.
AND PART OF THAT IS ENGAGING IN AN OPEN AND HONEST CONVERSATION WITH YOU, OUR COMMISSION MEMBERS ABOUT INTENTION.
AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THIS, OUR PURPOSE TODAY IS REALLY TO VISIT, GIVE YOU AN INITIAL OVERVIEW, FIND OUT IF THERE'S ANY SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS THAT MAKE HER TAIL WHAT IS ALREADY A VERY TIGHT TIMELINE TO TURN AROUND, SUBSTANTIAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS AHEAD OF MAJOR EVENTS, UH, THAT WILL FOREVER HELP PRESERVE FAIR PARK, UH, FOR POSTERITY.
THIS IS OUR GREATEST REVENUE DRIVER, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTFUL ATTENTION.
UM, NOW I'LL CALL ON, UM, MR. NORMAN AUSTIN.
UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, AGAIN, I HEARD THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED DURING THE BRIEFING.
I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THOSE AS, AS BRIAN ALLUDED TO IT, WE'RE ONE ON A TIGHT TIMEFRAME.
AND TWO, WE ARE REALLY JUST GETTING STARTED WITH THE DESIGN OF THE NEEDED MODIFICATION TO THE COTTON BOWL.
AND SOME OF THOSE MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN NEEDED SINCE THE 1960S.
UH, I'LL ADDRESS THOSE SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT STUFF.
THE, UH, THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE BRIEFLY IS, I'M NOT SURE FROM THIS MORNING WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTATION AT THIS POINT.
DID I DID SEND OVER, UH, A, A REVISED SET OF DRAWINGS ON FRIDAY.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF? OR DO WE HAVE THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION FROM THE TASK FORCE, OR DO WE HAVE ANY OF THAT AVAILABLE FOR THE PRESENTATION THIS MORNING? I PREVIOUS SUBMISSION FROM, OKAY.
UM, WELL, SINCE WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WHO ARE NOT, UH, PRESENT AND CAN'T HO CAN'T TAKE PART, CAN'T PARTICIPATE WITH THE PAPERWORK, COULD WE, COULD WE LOOK AT THAT PRESENTATION THEN? SO WHILE SHE BRINGS IT UP, WHAT I'M GONNA, WHAT
[00:15:01]
I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THE, THE, UH, A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN A, A CONCERN FOR EVERYBODY FOR A LONG TIME, AND THAT IS, UH, THE CAPACITY OF THE CONCOURSES, THE PLACES WHERE THE PEOPLE GATHER, NOT SITTING IN THE SEATS, BUT WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY, THEY, UH, WHERE THEY GO IN BETWEEN THE, THE, UH, ENTERING AND EXITING THE STADIUM MOVING UP AND DOWN ALONG THE STADIUM THAT HAS BEEN INADEQUATE FOR OVER 50 YEARS.IT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED AS AN ADEQUATE FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
AND BY TODAY, TODAY'S STANDARDS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT IS EVEN CONSIDERED SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS.
THE TIME THE SPACE ALLOTTED IS, IS TOO NARROW FOR THE VERY LARGE CROWDS THAT WERE, UH, THAT TYPICALLY COME TO A FULL EVENT AT THE COTTON BOWL.
UH, THERE IS ONLY TWO WAYS FOR US TO GO, AND THAT'S IN TOWARDS THE FIELD, UH, WHICH WE CANNOT DO, OR THAT'S, UH, THAT'S OUT, UH, WHICH IS, WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO DO, BUT THAT IS, THAT IS WHERE WE'RE HEADED WITH THIS.
AND WHAT WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU, UH, BRIEFLY, UH, FOR THOSE WHO DO HAVE THE DRAWINGS OF THE COVER SHEET, IS A, IS A IMAGE OF THE 1948 ADDITIONS, UH, TO THE COTTON BOWL.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT ROSE ABOVE THE GROUND AND HAD A THREE DIMENSIONAL EFFECT.
OTHERWISE, IT WAS JUST A BOWL.
THAT IS THE VISUAL KEY THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH ON THE COTTON BOWL EVER SINCE.
AND THE, THE, THE, THE IMAGERY THAT WE HAVE PROTECTED, UH, IN, IN THE PREVIOUS, UH, MODIFICATIONS, UH, LET'S SEE.
LET'S GO, YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF THESE IS, THESE DRAWINGS WOULD BE FINE.
CAN WE, YEAH, NO, LET'S SEE'S, GO BACK UP.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE HERE ANYWAY.
THE, I NEED A GROUND FLOOR, EXISTING GRADE.
IF I COULD STOP BACK WITH THE YELLOW.
THIS IS, THIS WILL BE CLOSE ENOUGH HERE.
AND THOSE
AND THIS CAN BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THOSE WHO HAVE THE DRAWINGS IN FRONT OF THEM.
UH, THE IDEA IS THIS, THAT THE WE'RE, WE ARE TODAY COMING FORWARD WITH, WITH IDEA OF EXPANDING THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THE FRONT CONCOURSE, UH, BUT IN TWO WAYS.
ONE IS BY THE REMOVAL OF THE RAMPS THAT EXIST IN THAT AREA.
NOW THOSE ARE IN 1948 CONSTRUCTION.
UH, AND SO THOSE ARE PART OF, PART OF THAT IMPORTANT DATE IN THE, IN THE STADIUM'S DEVELOPMENT.
THE OTHER PART IS, UM, IS AN ADDITION THAT WOULD EXTEND THE, UH, CONCOURSE ANOTHER ABOUT 20 FEET AND RESTORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXTERIOR WALL AND THE FACE O OF THE, OF THE CONCOURSE SIDE AND THE FACE OF THE, UH, THE MAIN ELEVATION YOU SEE IN THE FRONT.
UH, THAT WE ARE USING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION TO, UH, GUIDE US IN THESE, IN THESE MODIFICATIONS, UH, AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
TYPICALLY THOUGH YOU WOULD GET, UM, YOU WOULD NOT PUT YOUR ADDITION ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
AND THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY.
UH, THE IDEA IS TO TAKE, UH, IS TO EXTEND OUT PAST THE EXISTING FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
WE WOULD CALL THAT, WE CALL IT THE SOUTH, PERHAPS, OR THE WEST ELEVATION.
AND BRING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE, OF THE SIDE WALLS BACK TO THE SAME RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CENTER PART THAT IT HAD ORIGINALLY IN 1948.
THE CENTER PART WAS MOVED OUT ABOUT 20 FEET IN 1992.
SO THAT RELATIONSHIP HAS CHANGED.
AND THE FRONT OF THE COTTON BOWL YOU SEE NOW IS NOT THE ORIGINAL.
THEY PROTECTED AND RETAINED ALL OF THE 1948 WORK, BUT JUST ADDED ONTO IT.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING ON THE SIDES, BRINGING THE CONCOURSES OUT, UH, PUT A, A COMPATIBLE, NOT A REPLICA, BUT A COMPATIBLE, UH, FACADE ON IT THAT REFLECTS THE DETAILS AND THE, AND THE, THE VOIDS TO SOLID, UH, MASSING OF THE ORIGINAL 1948.
BEHIND WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR, UH, IN THE PACKAGE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS FULL HEIGHT WALLS BEING BROUGHT OUT.
THOSE WHO HAVE THE PAPERWORK CAN LOOK AT THE SAME ISSUE AND SEE THAT WE ARE NOW, WE ARE ALSO HAVE THE IDEA OF THOSE WALLS NOT BEING AS TALL AS THE ORIGINAL, HELPING DEFINE THE, THE LENGTH, UH, THE SCOPE OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION CONSISTENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS
[00:20:01]
BY BEING NOTICEABLY SMALLER, NOTICEABLY LOWER.UM, AND THEN ALSO THOSE WHO HAVE THE PAPERWORK, THERE ARE ELEVATIONS.
I KNOW THAT THOSE WERE MISSED EARLIER TODAY, THAT WE HAVE THEM IN THIS, IN THIS PACKAGE HERE.
THAT'S SORT OF THE FIRE HOSE VERSION OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
CUZ I KNEW THAT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR EXPOUND UPON ANY OF THOSE POINTS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, THE TICKET BOOTH THAT'S GETTING SWALLOWED UP ON THE NEW DESIGN THAT'S ENGAGED INTO THAT RAMP AND THE STAIRS.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT, UH, EXPRESSING THAT IN ANY WAY INTO THE NEW DESIGN? UH, THERE HAVE BEEN THE, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THOSE RAMPS ON THE SIDES WITH THE, THE NEW ADDITION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.
AS I SAID, WE ARE EXTRAORDINARILY EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND WE DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT AT THIS POINT YET.
BOTH THE STAIRS THEMSELVES AND THE TICKET BOOTH ARE ALL KIND OF WHAT WE WOULD CALL ON THE TABLE ITEMS THAT, UH, IF IT'S DETERMINED ARE IMPORTANT TO THE, TO THE, UH, HISTORIC AUTHENTICITY OF THE SPACE.
WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE, UH, AGREEABLE TO, TO, TO FIGURING OUT A WAY TO DO THAT.
SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY TO EXPRESS THAT INTO THE NEW DESIGN.
THERE, THERE IS, AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER THOSE STAIRS GO INSIDE THE NEW EDITION OR WHETHER THEY ARE PROJECTED OUT.
AGAIN, WE DO HAVE SOME OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT THE, THE, THE, THE BLUE BONNET LOOP CIRCLE AROUND THE, AROUND THE, UH, THE BUILDING.
AND IF WE START PUSHING OUT TOO FAR, THEN WE SORT OF DIMINISH THAT EFFECT AS YOU GO BY.
SO AGAIN, WE EXPECT TO BE BACK NEXT MONTH.
I, I'M MORE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THIS MORNING'S CONVERSATIONS, I'M ABSOLUTELY GOING TO FILE FOR ANOTHER OF THESE, UH, COURTESY REVIEWS FOR THE NEXT MONTH BECAUSE OF COURSE, THIS IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS ENGAGE THE COMMISSION AS WE DEVELOP THIS DESIGN.
WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE, WHAT YOUR NEEDS ARE, SO THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN, WE CAN DO THIS WITH SOME CONFIDENCE.
THIS IS AS CLOSE TO SITTING DOWN AND HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH Y'ALL AS WE CAN GET.
AND IT'S A LITTLE AWKWARD AND I RECOGNIZE IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN IT CAME THROUGH.
BUT WE JUST WANNA TALK TO YOU, TELL US WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND, TELL US WHAT YOU THINK, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS IN FRONT.
UM, IS THIS GOING TO GO THROUGH THCS? YES.
AND WE WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THEIR REMARKS BEFORE THE NEXT TIME YOU COME IN YES.
IT'S, IT'S A ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK.
UH, WE ARE ALSO GONNA BE SEEKING HISTORIC TAX CREDITS FOR THIS, WHICH IS A WHOLE NOTHER STORY.
WE'RE PROBABLY ON A MUCH TIGHTER TIMEFRAME WITH GETTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAN WE ARE WITH WORKING THOSE ISSUES OUT WITH THEM, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO SET A MEETING WITH THEM NEXT WEEK, SO WE'LL GET, AND THEY'RE AWARE THIS IS COMING, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS LEVEL OF DISCUSSION WITH THEM.
ANY OF QUESTIONS? I THINK FIRST PRESENTATION, MY QUESTION IS, YOU'VE REFERENCED SOME OF THE OLDER, UH, DRAFTS THAT WERE DONE IN THE LATE FORTIES BASED ON WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE, UH, BEEN WORKING ON, IS THERE A SHELF LIFE OR WITH, WITH THE NEW PROPOSAL THAT YOU THINK AS FAR AS THIS, THESE CHANGES AS FAR AS LASTING HOW BEFORE THEY'RE ALSO KIND OF OUTDATED WITH BEST PRACTICE? WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE'RE HOPE, WE'RE EXPECTING AND HOPING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT REALLY DON'T GET INTO THIS PROCESS WE'RE DOING FOR THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE TO MAKE IT MORE FUNCTIONAL.
WE THINK IT'S JUST THESE KINDS OF AMENITIES AND MOVEMENT THAT WE WOULD BE, ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO I CAN'T SAY THERE'S BEEN A SPECIFIC SHELF LIFE.
THERE IS OF COURSE THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, UH, THIS WILL, WE'RE ALMOST REALLY MORE LIMITED TO, TO SPACE THAN WE ARE ANYTHING ELSE.
AND, AND SO THIS GONNA, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE AND SUBSEQUENT PHASES OF MAYBE PERHAPS SIMILAR ADDITIONS AND, AND THINGS HERE IS, IS GONNA LIMIT WHAT WE CAN DO.
BUT WE DO THINK FOR AS FAR AS ANY OF US CAN PROJECT THAT THIS WILL BE, THIS WILL MAKE THE COTTON BOWL A A, A COMPETITIVE VENUE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE AFTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ONE OTHER QUESTION ON LOOKING AT THE INSIDE, THE OVERHANG MM-HMM.
THE, IS THAT MATERIAL CHANGES? IS THAT, IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE ON THE DRAWINGS NOW? YEAH.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT EXISTING COMPARED TO RIGHT.
THE PRO, THE PROPOSED OR THE RENOVATED.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GET INTO THAT.
BUT YEAH, THAT'S, UH, THE, THE, WHAT THAT IS
[00:25:01]
TO ILLUSTRATE, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THIS ORGAN, THAT THIS BODY WOULD REVIEW IT.IS THAT, BUT WE JUST WANNA BE UPFRONT WITH THERE'S, THERE'S ANY SITE CHANGES, SIGHT LINE CHANGES OR ANYTHING.
BUT YES, THE INTENTION IS TO BRING THE FRONT OF THE PRESS BOX OUT FOUR FEET.
WE CAN DO THAT AND MEET THE MODERN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESS BLOCK LEVEL, PRESS BOX LEVEL FUNCTIONS, AND DO THAT WITHOUT REMOVING ANY OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE FROM 1948 AND WHOEVER'S UNDERNEATH AT THE SIGHT LINES.
AND, UH, YES, THE SIDELINE, THE SIDELINE THING FROM UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY WILL BE GREATLY IMPROVED UNDER THE OVERALL SCHEME.
WE'RE GONNA PUT SOME OTHER FUNCTIONS UP UNDER THAT CANOPY IN THE MIDDLE.
CAUSE THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE 50 YARD LINE SIDELINE SEATS AND UH, THERE'S OTHER USES WE CAN PUT UP IN THERE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
COMMISSIONER SCHWAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? UH, YES.
WE, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, GUESS AND I, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT A, UH, A PHOTOGRAPH DATE UNKNOWN, BUT, UH, I, I BELIEVE IT REFLECTS A CONDITION WHERE THE, UH, FRONT PORTICO HAS NOT BEEN PULLED FORWARD YET.
DID YOU SAY THAT THAT WAS 1948? THE PORT? NO, THE, THE PORTICO AS YOU SEE AT, YOU GOT THE PHOTO.
THE ONE THAT'S SHOWN IN THE THING THAT I GIVE YOU IS 48.
THAT THAT HAS BEEN PULLED, THAT WAS PULLED FORWARD.
THE CENTRAL PORTION WAS PULLED FORWARD 20 FEET IN 1992.
AND, AND THE PHOTOGRAPH WE WERE LOOKING AT, IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE THE PORTICO WAS PULLED FORWARD THERE, THE, THE RAMPS, UH, WERE SYMMETRICALLY PLACED THAT THERE WAS A, A, LIKE A MORE STRICT CEMETERY, UH, AROUND THE CENTER.
UH, DO, DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? WELL, I, I DON'T, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH AN ASYMMETRY AROUND, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN THE RAMPS ON THE SIDES? WELL, YES, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN IMAGE WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE RAMPS ARE, ARE GENUINELY SYMMETRICAL.
LIKE THE, LIKE MIRRORED RIGHT.
AND THAT'S BEEN MODIFIED AT SOME POINT.
AND I, AND I WAS WONDERING IF, UH, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, ABOUT EXPRESSING THOSE AND UH, I WAS WONDERING IF ANY CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN MADE TOWARD RETURNING TO THE SYMMETRICAL CONDITION OR SOMETHING MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATING THE, THE SYMMETRICAL CONDITION THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT HERE IN RIGHT.
WELL, WE'RE ALL ARCHITECTS, SO WE'RE, WE'RE AUTOMATICALLY WIRED FOR SYMMETRY, I HAVE DISCOVERED.
SO I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN, HOW WE'RE GONNA TREAT THOSE RAMPS, HOW WE ACCOMPLISH THOSE SAME FUNCTIONS THERE HAS NOT REALLY BEEN ADDRESSED YET.
WE'RE SO EARLY IN THE, UH, RIGHT.
AND I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE WOULD BE CERTAINLY MOTIVATED TO DO 'EM SYMMETRICALLY.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT EATING INTO THE, THE BLUE BONNET, UH, CIRCLE, BUT, UM, IT, THESE RAMPS NOT ONLY ARE THE SYMMETRICAL, BUT THEY, THEY HAVE A KIND OF SINUOUS UH, UH, APPEAL THAT, THAT THESE CHUNKIER ASYMMETRICAL RAMPS DON'T HAVE.
SO, UH, I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU A DATE ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
IT'S IN THE PORTAL TO TEXAS HISTORY.
WE'LL, IT, YOU'VE PROBABLY CONSULTED ALREADY.
I HOPE YOU WOULD GIVE THAT SOME CONSIDERATION.
UM, AS MUCH AS YOU'VE PULLED OUT THAT AND GET TO GET THAT CONCOURSE, UM, SOME MORE BREATHABILITY AND ARE YOU AT THE MINIMUM THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO, I MEAN, AT THE MAXIMUM SHIFT TO SAY WHEN YOU PULL OUT, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE CENTER POP-UP AND THE, THE DISTANCE YOU'RE, YOU'VE GOT JUST LOOKS LIKE A SMALL SHADOW LINE.
CAUSE YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO, I GUESS WHAT YOU CAN GO, BUT WHAT I'M, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS CAN IT BE PUSHED IN A LITTLE FURTHER TO CREATE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE CENTER POPUP BEING MORE EXPRESSED? WE, IT COULD BE.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HOW MUCH, I MEAN HOW MUCH I JUST, IF THERE WAS LIKE A, THE, THE ROOM AND THE, AND THE EGRESS AND ALL THAT THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH.
NO, THE MOTIVE, THE, THE, THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH IS THE HISTORIC CONDITION.
THE, THE VERY SLIGHT OFFSET FROM THE POP-UP TO THE SIDEWALL WAS IT, WE'RE MIMICKING WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY IN 1948.
WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT ON SITE.
IT'S ABOUT A TWO FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT ELEVATION AND THEN BETWEEN THE TALL PART, UHHUH
THAT'S WHAT WE USED TO LOCATE THAT WALL.
IT WASN'T A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IF IT WERE A MODERN STADIUM, THAT WALL WOULD PROBABLY COME OUT FURTHER THAN THAT.
BUT WE KNOW WE CAN'T GO THAT ROUTE.
WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO STOP WITHIN THE, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE LIMITS OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT.
WHICH IS ANOTHER CONCERN ABOUT ALSO IF YOU START EXPRESSING THE RAMPS AND THE STAIRS AND YOU DO SOMETHING BEYOND WHAT THEY'VE DONE, NOW YOU'RE PULLING ALL THAT FORWARD.
AND DOES THAT WANT TO BE FORWARD OR DOES THE ORIGINAL MONUMENT BE YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S SO, AND IT MIGHT BE SOME WAY TO EXPRESS MAYBE THE TICKET BOOST AND STUFF ENGAGED INTO
[00:30:01]
WHAT YOU HAVE AND NOT COMING OUT FURTHER.THOSE ARE THINGS TO CONSIDER AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
SEE, AND THIS, AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT MUCH ABOUT THE RAMPS.
Y'ALL CLEARLY ARE THINKING A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE RAMPS.
AND SO WHEN WE COME BACK WE'LL HAVE MORE DETAIL ABOUT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW THOSE RAMPS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND CAN ANSWER BETTER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS.
IT'S A PROCESS, AND I'M SORRY FOR THE QUESTIONS WE CAN'T ANSWER, BUT IT'S A PROCESS AND WE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND NOT MUCH TIME.
THIS IS JUST TO ADDRESS WHAT, UH, THE POINT COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS RAISED IN THE, THE, UH, PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE JUST WERE CHECKING OUT.
THE RAMPS ARE ACTUALLY FORWARD, FORWARD IN THE MONUMENT OF THE PORTICO.
IN FACT, ON ONE SIDE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MAY ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THE, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE APPROACH TO THE, TO THE PORTICO.
WELL, I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY HEADS EXPLODE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TOTALLY OFF TRACK HERE.
YOU'VE GOTTA PUT ALL THAT STUFF SOMEWHERE,
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, SO WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA BE WEARING RAINCOATS WHEN WE GO TO AUSTIN OR MAYBE A FEW EXPLODING HEADS THERE.
BUT NUMBER ONE IS HERE, I, I'LL GIVE YOU A QUICK ONE.
WE EXPECT TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH ANOTHER COURTESY REVIEW TO DO SIMILAR THING WITH DIFFERENT AND BETTER DETAILS.
AND WE DO EXPECT TO COME BACK IN TWO MONTHS FOR THE ACTUAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND WE WANNA BE VERY COMFORTABLE THAT YOU'RE VERY COMFORTABLE BECAUSE WE REALLY CAN'T AFFORD TO DO IT AGAIN, WHAT WE BRING TO YOU AND THE C OF A NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE ALL ARE AGREEABLE TO.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S OUR MOTIVATION.
AND THAT'LL NATURALLY INCLUDE TASK FORCE REVIEW AS WELL AND TASK FORCE.
WE'LL GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
AND THEN I CAN TALK TO, BUT Y'ALL, I CAN'T.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? ALRIGHT, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THIS COMMISSIONER OSA? YES, MA'AM.
COMMISSIONER, UH, SPEAKING OF TASK FORCE, MR. AUSTIN, HOW DID Y'ALL, UH, UH, OR WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT POSSIBLY NOT REPLICATING IN THE MAIN FACADE AND MAYBE A NEW DESIGN? WELL, WE, WE'VE CONSIDERED THAT, BUT WE THINK THE, UH, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS, THE, THE, THE FACADE OF THE BILLING IS SO ICONIC.
UH, AND, AND THE DIFFERENCE THAT WE'RE MAKING IS, IS, UH, UH, IT'S POSSIBLE TO PUT THAT ADDITION ON MIMIC, UH, REF BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC ONE AND STILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO.
WE ARE, WE ARE NOT AS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT INTRODUCING A NEW, UH, UH, ELEMENT TO THE, TO THE, THE MAIN FACADE OF THE BUILDING.
AND THE ONLY OTHER ELEMENT WE COULD DRAW UPON WOULD BE THE SCREENING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS GREAT.
IT'S, IT'S AN ART PIECE THAT, THAT ENCLOSES THE REST OF THE STADIUM, BUT REALLY DON'T THINK BRINGING THAT FURTHER AROUND WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH EITHER.
THAT WAS LOOK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO HIDE THE ORIGINAL PART AS IT IS WE'RE, WE'RE RETAINING ALL OF THE 1948 WORK AND MAKING IT WHERE IT'S AS TRANSPARENT AS WE CAN STILL BEING COMPATIBLE SO YOU CAN SEE IT AND TOUCH IT AND IT'S ALL STILL THERE.
WE'VE MADE, WE'RE RETAINING HISTORIC MATERIAL.
WE'RE JUST HAVING TO PUT STUFF IN FRONT OF IT.
SO WE THINK IT NEEDS TO LOOK MORE LIKE THAT THAN, THAN DIFFERENT.
UM, ANY OTHER CONCERNS? JUST, YEAH, KIND OF ONE LAST THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE REST OF THE COMMISSION FEEL THE SAME WAY, BUT SINCE THE TASK FORCE HAS ADVANCED, LIKE A PROPOSAL FOR MAYBE CONSIDERING SOMETHING FRESH FROM WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BETWEEN 60 AND 71, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FUTURE OF THIS THING REALLY MIGHT BE IN ITS PAST, UH, IN TERMS OF, OF, UH, IN AS MUCH AS PART OF IT'S ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.
THIS IS NOT, IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS A BUILDING THAT'S BEEN LEFT ALONE, RIGHT? YEAH.
I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING YOU.
HOWEVER, UH, WHAT IS IT? WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE SEEMED TO BE GOOD CUES FOR THE NEXT MOVES MM-HMM.
AND IT, IT SEEMED TO HAVE, UH, A LOT OF COHERENCE IN, IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN SOMEWHERE LIKE PROBABLY IN THE SIXTIES.
UH, AND, AND ADDRESSED A LOT OF THOSE CIRCULATION PROBLEMS. BUT OF COURSE, DIDN'T HAVE THE KIND OF, UH, VOLUME THAT YOU NEED.
NOW, IF THERE'S SOME WAY I COULD GET SOME KIND OF REFERENCE TO WHAT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE, UM, CURIOSITY IS EATING ME ALIVE
[00:35:01]
AT THAT POINT.I I WAS ABOUT TO ASK IF YOU CAN SEND THEM OVER TO ME AND THEN I'LL PASS THEM ON.
IT'S THE, WHAT'S THE, THE STR COLLECTION? YEAH, THE ST STR COLLECTION.
THE PORTAL TO TEXAS HISTORY PORTAL TO TEXAS HISTORY STR COLLECT.
WE, WE'VE BEEN IN IT, BUT I MAY KNOW THESE IMAGES, BUT LIKE I SAID, I NEED TO SEE THEM TO GET THE, TO GET THE INSPIRATION THAT YOU'RE FINDING.
WE'LL, WE'LL BE SURE THAT THEY GET TO YOU, BUT THERE'S, UH, SOME NICE STUFF GOING ON.
UH, IT'S DIFFICULT TO GRASP IT WITHOUT BEING THERE, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE AND OUR EFFORTS TO DO THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, ANYBODY ONLINE? I KNOW THEY WERE A BIT HAMSTRING BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THESE ELEVATIONS, THESE ELEVATIONS THAT YOU PASSED OUT WERE VERY HELPFUL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE IN OUR PACKET.
I CANNOT FIND, SO I THINK MOVING DON'T SO FORWARD AT THE NEXT ONE.
JUST MAKE SURE NEXT TIME YOU'RE BEFORE US WE'LL MAKE SURE TO HAVE EVERYTHING WELL GIVEN, GIVEN THE WAY THINGS HAPPENED THIS TIME.
W WE THE APPLICATION NEXT TIME WILL BE HANDLED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.
UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE IN PROCESS, BUT WE CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES FOR SURE.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING FOR US TODAY.
AND I WILL GO, WE'LL GET OUR S**T.
I BELIEVE WE ARE READY FOR NEXT FOUR D THREE.
UH, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER THREE AT SEVEN 18 GLENDALE STREET IN THE JUNIORS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 2 3 4 0 9 CM VIA R THREE REQUEST.
REQUEST NUMBER ONE IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW COMPATIBLE GARAGE REQUEST.
NUMBER TWO, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW FENCE, NEW WOOD FENCE REQUEST NUMBER THREE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT WOOD DECK AND NEW INSTALL NEW LANDSCAPING IN REAR YARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW COMPATIBLE GARAGE WILL BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 61 20 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION NINE, PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY BUILDING STANDARD IN CITY CODE SECTION 51, A 5.4 0.501 G SIX C I FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW WOOD FENCE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3.6 A.
HOWEVER, UH, IN LIGHT OF THE NEW SITE PLAN THAT MY MIGHT CHANGE BASED ON SPEAKER'S COMMENTS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM THREE THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT WOOD DECK AND INSTALL NEW LANDSCAPING IN REAR YARD BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 20 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION SEVEN, PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW COMPATIBLE GARAGE BE APPROVED AS SHOWN.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND INSTALL NEW WOOD FENCE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NUMBER THREE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A WOOD DECK AND INSTALL NEW LANDSCAPING AND REAR YARD BE APPROVED AS SHOWN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT INCLUDE THE DECK MEASUREMENTS.
AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER REGISTERED FOR THIS.
[00:40:01]
NETVIEW, YOU KNOW THE DRILL, SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOU'RE GONNA TELL US THE TRUTH AND THEN YOU GET THREE MINUTES.UM, LESLIE NVU AT SEVEN 18 DUMAS, DALLAS, TEXAS.
YOU DO KNOW THE DRILL EVEN IF I FORGOT TO TELL YOU
AND HERE'S YOU, CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN? YES.
UM, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UM, THE GARAGE IN QUESTION.
UH, THE SANDBORNE MAP SHOWS, UM, AN OLD L-SHAPED BUILDING WITH A DWELLING.
UM, SO WE THINK IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT'S NOT ORIGINAL, UM, TO THE HOME, PROBABLY BUILT IN THE SEVENTIES.
UM, THIS IS THE BACK OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
UM, IT'S LIKE ONE AND A HALF STORIES, UM, AIRPLANE BUNGALOW.
UM, AND IT IS, MAIN HOUSE IS 23 FEET TALL.
UM, OUR PROPOSED GARAGE IS 18 AND A HALF.
UH, SO THE SITE PLAN, UM, PROPOSING, UH, ONE CAR GARAGE WITH SOME STORAGE OFFICE SPACE, UM, NEW DECK, AND I HAVE THE WRONG SIDE PLAN IN HERE.
UM, BUT NEW WOOD DECK COMING OFF THE BACK OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND THEN A LITTLE, UM, DECK ON THE, UH, TO THE SIDE OF THE NEW GARAGE.
UM, THE STYLE OF THE NEW GARAGE WOULD MIMIC THE HOUSE.
UM, IT HAS THESE KIND OF CHED ROOFS ON THE END.
UM, AND UM, THE SIDING WE ARE PROPOSING IS, UH, SHIPLAP ONE BY SIX, UM, WITH ALLWOOD WINDOWS AND DOORS.
WELL, I'LL FIND IT IN A MINUTE.
CAN I, IS THAT IT ALL RIGHT? YOU'RE LOOKING FOR YES, I'M DONE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS? UM, YEAH, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS HERE.
UM, WHAT'S, UM, WHAT'S PUSHING THE HEIGHT OF THIS, OF THE BUILDING? IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S FOR A SINGLE FLOOR.
AND THE MASSING NOT JUST TO THINK ABOUT, UH, VERTICALLY, BUT UH, HORIZONTALLY TOO.
THE MASSING IS A, IS QUITE A BIT.
UH, SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S DRIVING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING? UH, TO BE SO TALL, UM, IT'S TO HAVE, UM, THE HEIGHT IS TO HAVE A STORAGE SPACE, LIKE A HALF A, A TALLER ATTIC SPACE FOR STORAGE.
UM, AND IT AT THE BACK REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE IN THE BACKYARD, IT IS A VERY TALL SPACE, UM, ON THE MAIN HOUSE.
SO IT IS MIMICKING SOME OF THAT HEIGHT.
UM, AND THEN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE IS, UM, IS THE SIZE OF A TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT WE'RE JUST USING, OCCUPYING IT FOR ONE CAR AT THE MOMENT.
[00:45:06]
COULD I JUST ASK HER A QUESTION RIGHT QUICK? YEAH.WERE YOU DONE COMMISSIONER FOR A SEC? OKAY.
UH, I KNOW THAT WE EMAILED BACK AND FORTH, UM, TRYING TO, UH, CLARIFY.
INITIALLY THE HOMEOWNER WAS PERHAPS WANTING THE FENCE TO STAY EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, FACING THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
AND WITH THE NEW SITE PLAN, IT SH IT READS THAT IT'LL FALL AT THE 50% LINE.
UM, IS THAT WHERE HE NOW WANTS IT? HE'S WILLING TO PUSH IT BACK BECAUSE THAT CHANGES THE WHOLE, UM, HOUSE STAFF RECOMMENDS IT OR NOT AS WELL AS HOW TASK FORCE WOULD'VE IF, UH, HE WAS AT THE, UH, AT THE TASK FORCE MEETING AND HE SAID HE WOULD BE WILLING TO MOVE IT IF, YOU KNOW, IF IT CAME DOWN TO THAT.
SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF HE HAD SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT IT AND THEN THAT WOULD, IF WE COULD APPROVE IT AT THAT, THAT WOULD PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING TO COME BACK AGAIN.
CAN I SHARE MY SCREEN AGAIN? SURE.
SO HERE'S THE 50% LINE AND UM, WHERE I THINK BEFORE THE, WE WERE SHOWING THE FENCE AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH WAS JUST MY MISTAKE.
UM, BUT WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IT AT THIS FIRST BIG BUMP OUT.
IT'S, THIS ROOM HERE IS A DINING ROOM AND THERE'S LIKE THREE GANG WINDOWS ON THIS SIDE AND IT FEELS ODD IF THE WINDOW, THE FENCE CAME AT THAT 50% LINE IN FRONT OF A WINDOW.
UM, SO WE'RE ASKING IF WE CAN MOVE IT UP TO THE, UM, THERE WHERE THE, UM, AT THE END OF THE, THAT LINE BEFORE THE BUMP OUT.
UH, FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS HERE.
THE, UM, THERE'S A FEW QUESTIONS HERE AND I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT 'EM ALL IN HERE AND WE'LL JUST KIND OF GO BY THEM.
UM, I HAVE QUESTION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE, UH, PROPOSED.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, 118 FEET, SEVEN INCHES TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE.
UM, AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE EXISTING HOUSE, YOUR MAIN STRUCTURE IS.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE'RE WANTING TO TRY TO MAKE SURE OUR, OUR RIDGE LINES, OUR, OUR ROOFS ARE EXPRESSED, NOT OVERTAKING THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
SO WHAT, SO ONE QUESTION IS WHAT IS YOUR MAIN STRUCTURE HEIGHT? I'M ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE, UM, THE, UH, THE SETBACK AS IN RELATIONSHIP TO ANY, UH, ROOF OVERHANGS IS IF YOUR SETBACK IS GOING RIGHT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, ARE WE GONNA HAVE, IS THERE ANY ENCROACHMENT THAT GOES OVER THAT? AND I BELIEVE THAT ORDINANCE DOES TOUCH UPON A LITTLE BIT OF THE SETBACKS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK STAFF ON THAT.
UM, SO FOR, IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT, 9.8 OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS, IT SAYS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY, A THREE FOOT SETBACK MUST BE PROVIDED.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ON THE, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE PLAN.
AND WHAT, WHAT ABOUT THE SIDE, THE PROPERTY, THE PR, THE SIDE PROPERTY STYLE, NOT THE ALLEY SIDE.
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORIES STRUCTURE.
UH, WITH A ONE AND A HALF FOOT ALLOWED ROOF OVERHANG ENCROACHMENT.
ARE WE ADHERING TO THAT ON YOUR PLAN OR ARE YOU LOOKING INTO THAT AT, AT THE MOMENT? YEAH, IT'S BOTH ON THE SITE PLAN AND ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION FORM.
IT, UH, IT'S THREE FEET, UM, FOR THE REAR SETBACK INSIDE SET BACK ON THE, UM, ON I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE DRIVEWAY SIDE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE? YES.
IT'S THREE FEET AND THEN THE SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IS THREE FEET ALSO.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD BE SAFE ON, UH, ANY ROOF OVERHANG.
AND I GUESS JUST GOING BACK TO, UH, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN MAIN STRUCTURE AND, AND THE, UH, CUZ IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD NEAR ABOUT BE A TWO-STORY, UM, STRUCTURE WITH, UH, I MEAN YOU'VE GOT WHAT,
[00:50:01]
UH, NINE FOOT NINE DIFFERENCE FROM YOUR TOP PLATE TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE.SO THAT ATTIC SPACE, YOU'RE LOOKING LIKE, YOU PROBABLY HAVE EIGHT AND A HALF FOOT CLEAR HEAD CLEARANCE BASICALLY FOR YOUR ATTIC SPACE.
AND THAT'S A, I KNOW WE ALL WANT MORE STORAGE, MORE STORAGE ROOM.
UH, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A, A WALKING ATTIC IN THIS, IN THIS AREA.
SO I'M KIND OF CONCERNED THAT THE, UH, HEIGHT OF THAT IS GONNA BE IMPEDING ONTO THE, UM, THE MASSING OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
SO WHAT IS THE HOUSE, WHAT IS THE H DO YOU KNOW THE HOUSE HEIGHT? 23? IT'S 23.
I WILL PULL IT UP, UH, FOR HER CAUSE I HAVE IT.
OH, SHE PULLED IT UP RIGHT THERE.
IT'S 23 FOOT AND THE PROPOSED WILL BE 18.
AND ON THIS, ON THE ELEVATION IT SET LISTS, THE EVE OF THE MAIN HOUSE IS AROUND 16 AND A HALF FEET AND THE EVE OF THE GARAGE WOULD BE 12 AND A HALF, ROUGHLY 12 FOOT FIVE.
UM, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE FOR STAFF OR APPLICANT? OKAY.
I HAVE A, JUST A, A A QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCE
UM, THE 50% LINE HITS IN THE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR BUMP OUT.
WE ALWAYS PREFER IF THE FENCE DOES NOT COVER UP THE BUMP OUT AND LEAVES IT FREE TO BE OBSERVED BY PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE SUCH A KEY PART OF, OF THE STYLE OF THE HOME.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE OWNERS WOULD GO FOR MOVING THE FENCE BACK BEHIND THE BUMP OUT INSTEAD OF MOVING IT FORWARD? POSSIBLY.
UM, I HONESTLY, I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE THE UM, AC CONDENSERS ARE ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
UM, BUT I, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH MOVING IT BACK TO, I ASSUME YOU MEAN THIS LINE? YEAH.
OH, HOW HANDY YOU CAN DO THAT.
WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
NO ONE WANTS TO PEEKING YOUR DINING ROOM.
UH, JUST BECAUSE OF WHERE THE FENCE SITS AT THIS POINT, IF IT DOES COVER THE AC UNIT, IS THE UNIT SOMETHING WE'D WANNA SEE, YOU KNOW, MOVING IT BACK? DO WE HAVE A RULE ABOUT THAT? I, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST CURIOUS CUZ I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A RULE ABOUT IT, BUT I I DON'T THINK WE DO.
I'VE BEEN VIOLATING IT FOR YEARS IF WE DO, BUT I I WAS JUST WONDERING.
NO, PEOPLE OFTEN WANT TO CONCEAL THEM, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE REQUIRE THAT.
JUST FOR MY, MY I WAS JUST THINKING OF SECURITY, NOT NECESSARILY VISUAL.
SO YOU'RE THINKING THE AC UNITS ARE ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF THAT BUMP OUT OR I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE.
I WAS ACTUALLY ASKING MS. LE YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW, BUT IF YOU DID KNOW, THAT WOULD BE NICE.
I THINK THERE'S SOMEWHERE OVER HERE, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE SOMEWHERE IN THAT GENERAL SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
3.4 OF THE DESIGN STANDARD SAYS ANY NEW MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE GROUND MUST BE ERECTED IN THE CIDER REAR YARDS AND MUST BE SCREENED.
OKAY, SO WE, WE CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE ON GOOGLE VIEW.
HOWEVER, JUST TO MAKE NOTE THOUGH, IF THE, IF WE DENIED IT HERE, FENCE COULD JUST COME BACK BY ITSELF AS ROUTINE.
SO THE THOUGHT IS IF, IF IT'S THERE AND WE PUSH IT BACK TO WHERE WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE ON THAT BEFORE THE BUMP OUT MM-HMM.
IS THAT RIGHT? GO AHEAD AND EXTEND IT.
YEAH, BUT THEN YOU'RE, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF JUGGLING WELL WHAT WE CAN'T BALANCE EVERYTHING.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO REVEAL THE BUMP OUT.
I SUPPOSE AIR CONDITIONERS AREN'T ATTRACTIVE TO BUMP OUT AND NOT THE THING AND BY RIGHT.
THEY CAN REPLACE IT WHERE IT ALREADY IS IF THEY WANT TO, CUZ THAT'S ROUTINE.
WE'LL JUST JUGGLE ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS.
AND SO UNDER 3.6, UH, A TWO, UH, LOCATION, A TWO EXCEPT AS PROVIDED AN ITEM 3.6 A FOUR FENCES IN THE ANTERIOR SIDE YARDS MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR 50% OF THE SIDE YARD AND BEHIND THE FRONT PORCH OF THE ADJACENT, UM, HOUSE.
[00:55:01]
IF MORE SCREENING IS REQUIRED FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY OR PRIVACY, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MAY ALLOW A FENCE THAT IS LOCATED FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PORCH OF THE HOUSE REQUESTING THE FENCE.SO THANK YOU FOR ADDING MORE CONFUSING TO OUR CONSIDERATIONS.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND IF NOT, THEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO HAVE A MOTION.
THE THE APPLICANT HAS YES, THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO HAVE A, UH, A COMMENT.
UH, WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION, MS. NEPHEW? THAT WAY I'VE ASKED YOU A QUESTION.
THE HOMEOWNER SAYS THEIR CONDENSERS ARE BETWEEN THE DINING ROOM WINDOWS AND THE KITCHEN WINDOWS.
SO I I BELIEVE THEY'RE BEHIND THAT BUMP OUT LINE.
AND WERE THEY AMENABLE TO MOVING THE FENCE TO BE BEHIND THE BUMP OUT JUST BECAUSE IT WILL LOOK BETTER FOR THE STREET SCAPE AND THE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR HOMES? YES.
I'M SO GLAD THAT THEY'RE COOPERATIVE AND UNDERSTANDING.
NOW SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MOTION.
WHAT, LET ME JUST SAY, I, I I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, DO WE HAVE DRAWINGS THAT SHOW THE FENCE IN THE, UH, UH, MOVED BACK OR ANYTHING THAT, THAT REFLECTS THAT CONDITION? SHE JUST, UH, MOVED BACK? NO, JUST THE ONE SHE PROVIDED
HE, THE OWNER WANTED TO SEE IF HE COULD KEEP IT IN THE SAME LOCATION.
SO THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN THE DOCKET SHOWS IT BEFORE THE BUMP OUT.
UM, SO THE NEW SUGGESTION THAT SHE JUST PROPOSED, SHE JUST, YOU KNOW, SHOWED IT TO YOU ON THAT SITE PLAN.
AND THAT, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DESCRIBE IT ACCURATELY OR WHAT I SHOULD REFERENCE.
UH, WELL IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE MOST MAJOR BUMP OUT ON THAT SIDE.
AND TO, TO THE BACK OF IT SO THAT IT ALL SHOWS INCLUDING THE THREE WINDOWS, WHICH IT APPARENTLY HAS THE DINING ROOM BUMP OUT, RIGHT? THE DINING ROOM.
SO YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT AS THE, TO THE BACK OF THE DINING ROOM BUMP OUT, RIGHT? YES.
IN THAT CASE I THINK I'VE GOT A MOTION.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 23 DASH 4 0 9 CM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS SEVEN 18 GLENDALE STREET, UH, IN THE JU IIS SWORD DISTRICT, I MOVE THAT, UH, ON THAT WE APPROVE ITEM ONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECS DATED 6 1 20, UH, 23.
ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, I REMOVE THAT WE APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FENCE BE MOVED TO THE BACK OF THE DINING ROOM BUMP OUT.
UH, ON ITEM THREE, I MOVE THAT, UH, WE APPROVE THE REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYBODY WISHES? ALL RIGHT, THEN I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
IT APPEARS THAT YOUR MOTION HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, MS NET PU CONGRATULATIONS AND OF COURSE STAFF WILL WORK WITH YOU ON ANY PAPERWORK OR ANYTHING YOU NEED, BUT DON'T GO AWAY BECAUSE YOU'RE ON THE NEXT ONE.
YOU CAN'T LEAVE YET, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, LET'S NOTE THAT ONE'S OVER WITH AND MOVE ON TO YOUR NEXT ONE.
UM, ARE WE READY? DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
UH, AGAIN, THIS IS CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF SEVEN 18 GLENDALE STREET IN JUS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 23 0 0 9 CM.
THE REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO REPLACE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING.
THE STANDARD USED IS TO REPLACE WITH A MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE STRUCTURE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO REPLACE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS DATED 61 20 23.
[01:00:02]
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A 4.501 H FOUR D TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW COMPATIBLE GARAGE BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.ALL RIGHT, AND ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, LESLIE NPU, WHO I THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY HER NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, BUT WE'LL, YOU KNOW, JUST CONTINUE TO KEEP TELLING THE TRUTH.
LESLIE NFU SEVEN 18 DUMAS, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE NO QUESTION, BUT I DO HAVE A MOTION.
UM, DISCUSSION ITEM 4 7 18 GLENDALE STREET IN THE JUNIORS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 23 DASH 0 0 9 CM.
I MOVE THAT WE, UM, ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO APPROVE, UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SPECIFICATION DATED 61 223 AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SWAN.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS THEN WE CAN HAVE OUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ONCE AGAIN, CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE IT ORDERED SO THAT NEXT WE'RE DOING NUMBER TWO.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 5 0 8 PARK AVENUE IN THE HARWOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 DASH FOUR 50 R D.
THE REQUEST ARE AS FOLLOWS, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW HORIZONTAL ADDITION TO NORTH ELEVATION ON LEFT SIDE OF MAIN BUILDING, A CERTIFICATE OF A OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL CONCRETE HEARTSCAPING INCLUDING WALKWAYS IN THE SIDE YARDS NORTH AND SOUTH, AND A PAD IN REAR YARD EAST.
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL ALL WINDOWS AT GROUND LEVEL, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY INFILLED.
ITEM FOUR, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL ALL EXTERIOR ENTRY DOORS AT GROUND LEVEL, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY INFILLED.
ITEM FIVE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON FRONT FACADE AND IN SOUTH YARD, SOUTH SIDE YARD.
ITEM SIX, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL SIX FEET TALL METAL PERIMETER FENCING INCLUDING FOUR GATES.
ITEM SEVEN, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO EXTEND EXISTING ELEVATOR OVERRUN ON ROOFTOP.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW HORIZONTAL ADDITION TO NORTH ELEVATION ON LEFT SIDE OF MAIN BUILDING BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS INCONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERION SECTION 4.5 PERTAINING TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS, THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO OR ON ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL CONCRETE HEARTSCAPING INCLUDING WALKWAYS IN THE SIDE YARDS NORTH AND SOUTH AND PADDING REAR YARD EAST BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK MEETS THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM THREE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL ALL WINDOWS AT GROUND LEVEL, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY IN FILLED, BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23
[01:05:01]
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT NEW AND REPLACEMENT WINDOWS BE ALL WOOD WITH EXTERIOR MUNTONS OR GRILLS THAT NEW WINDOWS BE INSTALLED ONLY IN LOCATIONS WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ORIGINAL OPENINGS HAVE BEEN INFILLED AND THAT GLASS AND GLAZING BE CLEAR.IN OTHER WORDS, NOT TINTED OR REFLECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERION.
SECTIONS 3.2 A 3.2 B AND 3.2 C PERTAINING TO FENESTRATION AND OPENINGS THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR A REHABILITATION.
ITEM FOUR THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL ALL EXTERIOR ENTRY DOORS AT GROUND LEVEL, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY IN FIELD, BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, THAT NEW AND REPLACEMENT DOORS BE SOLID WOOD, THAT NEW DOORS BE INSTALLED ONLY IN LOCATIONS WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ORIGINAL OPENINGS HAVE BEEN INFILLED AND THAT GLASS AND GLAZING BE CLEAR.
IN OTHER WORDS, NOT TINTED OR REFLECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 3.2 A 3.2 B AND THREE TWO C PERTAINING TO FENESTRATIONS AND OPENINGS.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY AND THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION REQUEST NUMBER FIVE OR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR REQUEST NUMBER FIVE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON FRONT FACADE AND IN SOUTH SIDE YARD BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERION, SECTION 2.4 PERTAINING TO SITE AND SITE ELEMENTS, THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODES SECTION SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM SIX, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE OR INSTALL SIX FEET TALL METAL PERIMETER FENCING, INCLUDING FOUR GATES BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK MEETS THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORIST GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD ITEM SEVEN, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO EXTEND EXISTING ELEVATOR OVERRUN ON ROOFTOP BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23.
BUT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT EXTERIOR CLADDING OF EXTENSION BE OF SALVAGED RED BRICKS TO MATCH EXISTING NOT HORIZONTAL METAL SIDING AS PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERION.
SECTION 3.3 A PERTAINING TO ROOFS THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION STAFF IS DONE.
WE WERE ALL ENJOYING A BIT OF RESTFUL MOMENT THERE, LISTENING TO YOUR LOVELY VOICE IF YOU READ THAT.
BUT, UM, LET US MOVE ON TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, NO QUORUM COMMENTS, ONLY COMMENTS NUMBER ONE, NON-SUPPORTIVE, ALL BUILDING FACADES ARE PROTECTED IN THE HARWOOD DISTRICT.
REASONS TO JUSTIFY PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF NORTH FACADE AND NEW ADDITION TO BUILDING WAS NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE DETAILS FOR THE STEEL WINDOWS AND DOORS AS WELL AS THE BRONZE DOOR ON THE PARK AVENUE FACADE.
NUMBER FIVE, NON-COM, NO COMMENT.
[01:10:02]
AND NUMBER SEVEN, SUPPORTIVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT BRICKS BE USED FOR EXTERIOR CLADDING.ALL RIGHT, WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR THIS.
UM, MR. GREEN, PLEASE BEGIN BY GIVING US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TELL IF IT'S ON GREEN LIGHT.
I LIVE AT 47 11 WILDWOOD ROAD.
AND DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL US THE TRUTH TODAY? YES.
WELL, EVERYBODY ALWAYS SAYS YES.
I, I WON'T TELL YOU THE TRUTH.
UM, YOU GET THREE MINUTES NOW TO PRESENT ANY INFORMATION YOU FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE AND THEN WE CAN ASK YOU QUESTIONS.
WELL, I'M HERE, UH, IN THE ABSENCE OF BEN RIVAS, WHO MADE THE PRESENTATION TO THE, UH, ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AND BEN IS IN EUROPE ON A FAMILY VACATION.
AND SO I AM STANDING IN HIS PLACE.
I WAS NOT A PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.
UH, SO I MAY BE A LITTLE VAGUE ON THE DETAILS OF, BECAUSE I GOT THE RECOUNT SECONDHAND, BUT I AM HERE PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS THE NON-SUPPORTIVE RESPONSE FOR NUMBER ONE.
UH, YOU WILL NOTICE IT SAYS MORE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED, AND SO I HAVE COME TO SOMEWHAT EXPLAIN THE SITUATION.
THE ADDITION ON THE NORTH SIDE WAS GENERATED FROM A PROGRAMMATIC, UH, DESIRE ON THE, THE CHURCH, THE OWNER'S SIDE, UH, TO HELP, UH, THE AMPHITHEATER.
THE AMPHITHEATER IS, IS, IS OUTDOORS, AND THEY HAVE BEEN HAVING TROUBLE, UH, MAKING IT, UH, REASONABLY AND COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE.
UM, PART OF THE YEAR IS COLD, THE REST OF THE YEAR IS UNPREDICTABLE.
AND SO WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF HAVING A EVENT SPACE INSIDE 5 0 8.
UM, 5 0 8 IS CONFIGURED THE WAY IT IS.
THERE ISN'T A LOT OF ROOM ON THE, ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
SO WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF USING THE BACKSTAGE OF THE AMPHITHEATER AS THE BACKSTAGE OF THE EVENT SPACE IN 5 0 8.
SO THERE IS SOME, I SH SHALL CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS REALLY AN ADDITION TO THE AMPHITHEATER OR 5 0 8, AND I SAY IT IS A HYBRID.
THE ADVANTAGES OF DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS THAT IT GIVES ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO 5 0 8 IN SEATING.
IT ACCOMMODATES ALL OF THE MECHANICAL AND TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT THAT COMES WITH A PERFORMANCE, UM, AND REMOVES IT FROM HAVING TO BE PLACED INSIDE 5 0 8.
SO IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.
UM, THAT EQUIPMENT IS, UH, SEVERAL UNITS OF, UH, AIR CONDITIONING, LIGHTING CONTROLS, UH, ALL SORTS OF CONDUITS AND LIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE THIRD THING IS THAT, THAT THIS SPACE ACCOMMODATES ACCESSIBILITY.
UH, NOW HOW'S THIS SUPPOSED TO WORK? WELL, SOMEONE COMES TO THE CHURCH AND THEY RENT THE SPACE FOR A WEDDING OR AN EVENT, AND THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO PIVOT THEIR EVENT FROM THE OUTSIDE SPACE TO THE INSIDE SPACE BY USING THE SAME BACKSTAGE SETUP.
UH, I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE APPLICANT AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES.
YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES.
SO THIS IS A BIG DEAL WITH THE PEOPLE WHO BOOK THESE EVENTS.
UH, IT ALLOWS THEM TO BOOK EVENTS THAT JUST WOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER THE SPACE, AND IT ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO BE FLEXIBLE AND ON THE FLY WITH THE KIND OF EVENTS THEY HAVE AND THE WEATHER, UM, AND TIMING.
SO IT'S AN ADVANTAGE TO BOTH BUILDINGS THEIR USE IN THE FUTURE.
AND THE SOLUTION EXISTS IN A PLACE WHERE, LET'S SAY THE SUN NEVER SHINED, THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, UM, WHEN ANOTHER BUILDING WAS ADJACENT TO IT, AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THE BRICKS HAD TO BE PUT IN WITH NO ACCESS TO THE BACK.
SO THE GROUT IS SHOWING OUT THE BACKSIDE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION.
SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS SIMPLY TO PUT AN ADDITION, IF YOU WILL, ON THE AMPHITHEATER, AND THEN OPEN IT UP TO THE INSIDE OF
[01:15:01]
5 0 8 BY REMOVING THREE OH OPENINGS.I'M SURE SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
UH, I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU, BUT WERE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE GROUT ON THE BRICK OR THE, THE MORTAR JOINTS ON THE BRICK.
UH, WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE WALL THAT REQUIRES PARTIAL DEMOLITION FOR THIS ADDITION TO WORK IS A WALL THAT WAS, UH, UH, ORIGINALLY ABUTTED, AN ADJACENT BUILDING? YES.
SO THIS WAS NOT PART OF A FACADE THAT WAS EVER APPRECIATED AS A FACADE DURING A PERIOD OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, ON THE MATTER OF, SO THAT, THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF DEMOLITION BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT, UH, WHILE WE'RE DEALING WITH, UH, ORIGINAL MATERIALS, HISTORIC MATERIALS, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE LOSS OF A CHARACTER DEFINING VIEW.
AND IT IS CON IT IS CURRENTLY WHEN IT IS BUILT, IT WILL BE, UM, NOT, IT WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
NOW, HOW ARE YOU ADDRESSING THE MATTER OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN OLD AND NEW? WHERE, WHERE THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SEPARATION, WHERE THE OLD STARTS AND THE NEW, UH, WHERE THE OLD ENDS AND THE NEW BEGINS IN THE MATERIALITY.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO USE PAINTED METAL PANELS INSTEAD OF BRICK, SO THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE PAINTED METAL, UH, PANELS, IS THAT THE SHEETING OF THE ENTIRE EDITION? YES.
UH, NOW THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WAS THERE A, DID THE, THE USE OF THE METAL PANELS CREATE A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE FOR STAFF? IT DID BECAUSE, UH, CURRENTLY THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS MASONRY.
IT'S EITHER CASTSTONE, LIMESTONE, UH, THERE'S ALSO MARBLE ON THE FRONT, AND THEN THE REST IS RED BRICK OR TAN BRICK.
AND THE METAL SIDING THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN, THAT'S BASICALLY TO MATCH THE AMPHITHEATER AS OPPOSED TO, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
UM, WAS ANY, UH, THAT, THAT OPENS UP A WHOLE LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS, REALLY, BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A, A LITTLE PIECE THAT IS KIND OF, THAT IS SHARED BY BOTH BUILDINGS, IT'S, IT GETS A LITTLE TOUGH TO FIGURE OUT WHICH BUILDING YOU SHOULD DEFER TO WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING COMPATIBILITY.
AND OF COURSE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISCUSSIONS WERE MADE WHEN THE AMPHITHEATER WAS BUILT AND, AND WHAT THOSE MATERIALS MIGHT BE.
BUT WAS ANY CONSIDERATION MADE TO, UH, UH, A CHANGE OF MATERIALS THAT ACTED MORE LIKE A, YOU KNOW, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, A HYPHEN OR A, UH, I MEAN THOSE, THE KIND OF CONNECTIVE TISSUE THAT'S OFTEN USED FOR DIFFERENTIATION WHERE YOU MIGHT RESUME WITH AN ORIGINAL MATERIAL OR SOMETHING CLOSER TO, UH, THE, THE CHARACTER DEFINING MATERIALS OF THE LANDMARK BUILDING ITSELF, THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? UM, IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND I WILL TELL YOU, I HAVE OWNED THREE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND I PUT TWO OF 'EM ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
UM, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE IDEA THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE LOOK NEW IN MATERIALITY AND DIFFERENTIATE ITSELF FROM THE ORIGINAL SO THAT THE, THE, UM, PERCEPTION IS CLEAR WHAT IS NEW AND WHAT IS OLD, AND THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, UH, IN CHOOSING THE METAL CLADDING? UM, YES.
I IMAGINE IT'S QUITE A BIT LIGHTER ALSO, MAYBE.
WHO ELSE HAS QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HUD YOU OH, YOUR POINT.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS
WHAT'S THE GAUGE? UH, THIS WAS CONCERNED WITH OIL, OIL CAN AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UH, I DON'T, NOT, I DO NOT KNOW THAT DETAIL.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD NOT WANT IT TO DO WHAT YOU CALL
[01:20:01]
OIL CAN, WHICH IS RIPPLE.I, I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE FOR THE ELEVATOR OVERRUN.
UH, WHERE THERE IN NUMBER SEVEN, THERE'S A SUGGESTION THAT WE USE RECLAIM BRICK TO MODIFY THE EXTERIOR ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, BUT WE ELECTED TO USE THE SAME NEW MATERIAL THERE JUST FOR CONSISTENCY.
SO THERE WASN'T A HODGEPODGE OF MATERIALITY.
I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT, ACTUALLY.
IF WE USED SIMILAR BRICK, IT'S, THAT WOULD PROBABLY STAND OUT.
WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT, AT LEAST THAT WOULD STAND OUT AND SHOW THAT THAT'S DIFFERENT AND NEW? I MEAN, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW HOW IT IS, YOU GET, UH, SAME BRICK, BUT FROM TWO DIFFERENT, UH, TIMES, TWO DIFFERENT BATCHES, THEY'LL, THEY'LL, THEY WON'T QUITE LOOK THE SAME, BUT YOU'LL KNOW SOMETHING'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT.
SO I, I CONCUR FULLY ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION AND BEING, UH, YOU DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE VIEWER ABOUT, UH, WHETHER'S WHAT'S HISTORIC AND WHAT'S NOT, WHAT'S NOT, UH, CONCUR WITH YOUR STATEMENTS EARLIER.
I, I GUESS IT JUST GETS INTO, IF, IF THINGS ARE SYMPATHETIC AND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THAT SYMPATHY RULE AS WELL AS TRYING TO MAKE THAT, BUT ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD STAND OUT SO MUCH THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE OF A, WELL, WHEN THINGS STAND OUT LIKE THAT, IT IT, YOU, YOU BRING THE VIEWER'S ATTENTION TO IT.
AND THEN I THINK WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS, THAT, THAT MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE ON THAT.
BUT, SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF YOU USE SIMILAR BRICK ON THAT PARTICULAR THING, IT WOULD STILL STAND OUT, WOULDN'T YOU THINK? TO AT LEAST A VIEWER THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT? THAT'S A, THAT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION.
IT, IT'S GOT INFINITE LEVELS OF DETAIL.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NORTH FACADE OF THIS BUILDING, IT HAS TWO DIFFERENT BRICKS, LIGHT, LIMESTONE, COLORED BRICK, AND THE RED BRICK.
AND YOU KNOW, AS AN ARCHITECT, I JUST KIND OF HAS HAD TO ANSWER, WHAT IS THAT ALL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FROM THE DESIGN STANDPOINT.
SO THERE'S CERTAIN, THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS OF CONFUSION WITH THE BRICK TO BEGIN WITH, IS MY POINT.
AND WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT WAS DONE IN OUR AGE AND TIME AND THE COLORATION.
WE WOULD INTEND IT TO BE SYMPATHETIC.
IT WOULD NOT BE, IT WOULD MATCH ESSENTIALLY THE TONE OF THE BRICK.
UH, I GUESS WHAT YOU COULD DO IF WE'RE, IF, IF WE'RE STAFF, IF WE'RE HAVING AN ISSUE OF MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT WANT TO CONFUSED WHERE IT WAS AND THEN WHAT'S BEEN ADDED, MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE A, A, A NEW BRICK BAND, JUST VERY, VERY SMALL, YOU KNOW, JUST A SMALL LITTLE TWO INCH BAND OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
SO MAYBE THAT COULD TELL SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I JUST HAVE CONCERNS WHEN YOU, IF WE'RE DOING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATERIAL UP THERE, IT'S JUST, AND IT LOOKS REALLY OUTTA WHACK, THAT TYPE OF THING.
AND IT'S NOT BEING SYMPATHETIC TO THE, TO THE HISTORIC BUILDING ANYMORE.
BUT I DO THINK IF YOU EXPRESS SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE COULD SAY, WHY IS THAT DIFFERENT? WELL, IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THAT'S THE HISTORIC AND THEN THAT'S THE NEW, AND THEN TRYING TO GET THAT SYMPATHETIC, UH, APPROACH TO PUT YOUR ARMS AROUND.
SO MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE A SMALL BAND OF SOMETHING COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY AT HOME? YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP.
CAUSE I CAN'T SEE ANYBODY FROM HERE.
WELL, I, I, I HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE, UM, THE MATERIAL OF THE, UM, ADDITION.
OBVIOUSLY WE, UM, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
IF NOT, YOU DON'T SEEM ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT BRICK AND WE DON'T SEEM ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE METAL.
IS THERE ANY OTHER IDEA? WELL, A PAINTED MATERIAL WOULD BE FINE.
UH, WE COULD PAINT WOOD, BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE DURABLE.
AND THEN THERE'S PAINTED METAL.
SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS MY DEFAULT ARCHITECTURE THOUGHT IS THAT WHEN IN DOUBT PAINT IT.
WELL, PAINT HIDES A WORLD OF SINS.
THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHY WE WEAR MAKEUP, YOU KNOW, IT'S A HIDES A LOT OF PROBLEMS WE MIGHT HAVE.
UM, THE THING WITH THE METAL IS IT SEEMS VERY AN QURAN STYLE STATEMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU APPLY IT TO BOTH THE ADDITION,
[01:25:01]
THE ELEVATOR THING ON THE TOP AND SOME OF THE FENCE.IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE ADDING SOMETHING THAT'S VERY NOW AND WILL BE DATED SOON.
AND WE DO NOT REVERE THE THINGS OF NOW YET.
WE WILL 20 YEARS FROM NOW, 30 YEARS, BUT WE DON'T YET.
SO WHATEVER IDEAS YOU THINK ARE JUST AS GOOD FOR YOU BUT AREN'T THE METAL, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO, TO TELL US IF THAT WAS ONE YOU COULD CONSIDER.
SO YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO GO WITH PAINTED BRICK, OKAY.
ANY OTHER OPTION? ALWAYS GIVE US MORE CUZ WE'RE SO PICKY, YOU KNOW? HMM.
YEAH, I KNOW
SCREENING MATERIALS AND METHODS MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROOF IS DETERMINED THROUGH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS.
AND I REALIZED THAT THE ADDITION, THE OVERRUN DOESN'T QUITE, UM, THIS SPEAKS TO SOMETHING BEING INSTALLED, UH, PROBABLY LIKE A, A BOXCAR.
BUT THIS DOES, I THINK, SPEAK TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING THE COMMISSION'S TRYING TO GET TO AS FAR AS MATERIALS.
SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU ALL.
AND, UM, ALSO, ARE WERE, DID I HEAR SOMEWHERE IN HERE THAT YOU WERE SEEKING TAX CREDITS THROUGH TC? YES, WE ARE.
AND DO YOU THINK THAT THE MEDAL WOULD FLY WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY, THEY DON'T CARE WHAT WE SAY? I CAN TELL YOU THAT.
SO WE CAN GIVE YOU APPROVAL TO BUILD IT IF WE WANTED TO, BUT THAT WOULD NOT HELP YOU GET YOUR TAX CREDITS.
OUR ADVISOR, UH, JAY FURNISHING, FURNISHING, UH, HAS WE ALL KNOW JAY? YES.
WELL, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A COUPLE VIEWS OF PROPER MATERIALS FOR THIS, THIS LITTLE EDITION YOU'RE PROPOSING.
AND IT IS IN ADDITION, WE'RE LATER GONNA CALL A LITTLE CLOSET OUTSIDE IN ADDITION.
SO, UM, IF ANYBODY DOES, IF NOBODY HAS ANY MORE QUESTIONS, WE DO NEED A MOTION.
I'VE GOT A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO, UH, GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF TWO THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS THE, UH, A QUESTION WAS RAISED ABOUT THE MASSING WITH REGARD TO THE APPROPRIATENESS ALSO? UH, WHAT IS THE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS THE BACK STAGE OF THE AMPHITHEATER, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO HOW DEEP IS THAT? UH, LIKE IN OTHER WORDS, AS, AS A LIKE WORKING FROM FRONT TO BACK, HOW DEEP IS THAT? IT VARIES FROM ABOUT SEVEN FEET TO NINE FEET.
IT THE WALL ON THE AMPHITHEATER UNDULATES.
AND SO IT VARIES IN DISTANCE AND IT DOES IT AND IT FALLS BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE AMPHITHEATER AND THE STREET? NO, THE BACK OF THE AMPHITHEATER IS UP AGAINST THE NORTH FACADE OF 5 0 8.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO IS THIS, DOES THIS, UH, THE, THE NEW ADDITION RUNS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE AMPHITHEATER, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
THE BACKSIDE OF THE AMPHITHEATER.
IT'S ON ITS PROPERTY, IF YOU WILL, WHERE IT USED TO BE PLATTED SEPARATELY.
AND IT'S HOW MANY STORIES TALL? THE NEW EDITION? HOW ONE, IT'S ONE STORY TALL.
AND THE AMPHITHEATER IS PRIMARILY MADE OF CONCRETE BLOCK AND, UH, WOOD DECK AND STRUCTURE.
YOU CAN SEE THE ARC OF IT AS THE DOTTED LINE, RIGHT? THAT'S IT'S BACKEND PROFILE AND THEN IT EXPANDS OUT INTO THE YARD IN THAT SPACE.
I MEAN, OUR GOAL WAS TO CONNECT THOSE TWO VENUES, IF YOU WILL, AND HAVE THEM SHARE THE BACKSTAGE, WHICH ALLOWS THE PIVOTING OF THE PERFORMANCE TO HAPPEN ALMOST SEAMLESSLY.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS TO HAVE MULTIPLE PERFORMANCES, WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE IN WITH THE SAME CROWD.
[01:30:01]
IS THERE A RENDERING OR SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT, THAT, UH, YEAH, THAT'S IN OUR PRESENTATION.YEAH, NO, I WAS JUST WONDERING, I'M HAVING TROUBLE TOGGLING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, UH, ON MY OWN COMPUTER.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD PUT SOMETHING UP ON THE, THE MAIN SCREEN THAT WOULD SHOW REALLY HOW MUCH OF THIS IS GONNA BE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
CUZ I THINK PEOPLE IN THE AMPHITHEATER, IT'S NOT REALLY GONNA BE AN ISSUE TO THEM.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE BACK OF 5 0 5 0 8 PARK AVE.
AND, AND PRESUMABLY THEY'LL BE SEEING LIKE, THE FACADE OF THIS ONE STORY EDITION, LIKE THE INTERIOR.
WELL, THEY, THEY WON'T BECAUSE IT'S COVERED UP BY THE BACK PLANE OF THEIR STAGE.
UH, AND WHAT WOULD BE PERCEIVED FROM THE INSIDE OF 5 0 8 WOULD BE OPENINGS IN A BRICK FACADE, INTERIOR FACADE.
I THINK WE HAD RENDERINGS OF IT, UH, IN THE PRESENTATION.
IS THIS STREET VIEW, THIS IS FROM THE FRONT.
THIS, THAT'S THE OLD PICTURE OF IT.
THAT'S IT FROM, HOLD ON A MINUTE.
I THINK WE INCLUDED RENDERINGS SHOWING WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE STREET IN FRONT, WHICH I RECEIVED.
WHICH, UH, WHICH THIS WOULD BE, IT WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
WELL, IT DID SHOW VISIBILITY FROM PARK AVENUE, BUT NOT FROM YOUNG STREET.
YOU, YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THIS FROM THE STREET.
I DON'T HAVE THE FULL DOCKET, BUT, UH, I DO HAVE MY CASE REPORT, WHICH DOES HAVE WHAT WAS SENT IN SAYS PAGE EIGHT.
WHAT, WHAT PAGE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE ON? 4 72.
UH, DO YOU HAVE LIGHT OKAY GOING? YEAH.
I'M, ANY TROUBLE SCROLLING? OH, YOU TELL ME WHEN TO, TO STOP MR. GREEN.
IS THAT THE END? NO, IT'S NOT THE END.
I WAS THINKING WE HAVE, WE HAVE 3D RENDERINGS THAT SHOW IT IN PLACE OR THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
EVERYTHING I HAVE, UM, THAT I RECEIVED FROM KYLE, LIKE I SAID, I RECEIVED THIS.
I RECEIVED THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE THREE D RENDERINGS.
JUST BE, OH, I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
I'D LIKE, I'VE KEPT ON THE WRONG PHONE, SO TELL ME WHEN TO STOP.
YEAH, I THINK WHAT YOU JUST PASSED.
SO THAT, THAT THE ADDITION, THIS IS FROM OKAY.
SO THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE STREET.
THAT WOULD BE WHAT YOU SEE ON PARK.
AND THEN THE PART THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR BRICK, THE ELEVATOR, UH, IT'S UP RIGHT THERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE ELEVATOR ON DRAWING TWO, I GUESS ON MY SCREEN ON THE RIGHT AND ON THE LEFT IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING THE STREET RENDERING WOULD LOOK LIKE, I GUESS.
WHERE WOULD YOU BE STANDING ON PARK AVENUE? UM, SO, OKAY, SO I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE ON FOUR 17 RIGHT NOW.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE, UH, IS THAT A, LIKE A CANOPY OVER THE AMPHITHEATER OR OVER THE STAGE? YES.
THAT APPEARS TO BE FAR MORE PROMINENT FROM THE STREET THAN ANY YES.
AND, AND, AND HONESTLY, THE, UH, ELEVATOR, WHAT'S THE LITTLE PIECE THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO OVER THE ELEVATOR? THE ELEVATOR.
I MEAN, I HAVE TROUBLE IMAGINING AN ANGLE FROM WITH WHICH THAT'S REALLY
[01:35:01]
GOING TO BE PROMINENT.I MEAN, CERTAINLY NOT FROM PARK AVE.
NO, NOT FROM, MAYBE FROM SOME REAR ELEVATION.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT NEGLIGIBLE ELEMENTS OF THE OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE BUILDING.
AND UH, HONESTLY, UH, I, I DON'T SEE A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.
IF, UH, I WOULD LOVE TO, BEFORE I DIVE INTO A MOTION THAT SAYS THIS IS, LOOKS PRETTY GOOD AS IT IS, UH, IF ANYBODY HAS SOME SERIOUS HARD QUESTIONS TO RAISE, I'D LIKE HEAR 'EM RAISE NOW.
ANYBODY HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT, WELL, WE'VE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITION SO FAR AT THE YEAH.
WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT ANYTHING LIKE THE DOORS OR WINDOWS YET, BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I THINK WELL, YEAH.
UM, ASK NOW, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TASK FORCE CONCERNS AND THERE ARE STAFF FORCE, UH, STAFF CONCERNS AND I, I RESPECT THAT, BUT I'M JUST NOT SEEING THE INCOMPATIBILITY, THE, THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.
I THINK THAT, UM, HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AND, AND MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING.
I MEAN, IT'S TAKEN ME A MINUTE TO GET A SENSE OF, OF EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ADDING HERE.
BUT IF SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PROVE SOMETHING TO MY ATTENTION, I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE SHELL ON THAT BACKSTAGE SHELL.
WHAT'S THE DISTANCE ON THAT FROM THE, UH, I GUESS THE PARK, UH, PARK STREET.
APPROXIMATELY HOW FAR SETBACK IS THAT? I MEAN THAT'S 20 PLUS FEET.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A MOTION, UM, BEFORE WE GET TO A MOTION, LET'S, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, UM, YOU, YOU WERE, UM, WE WERE SUGGESTED TO APPROVE YOUR DOORS IF YOUR DOORS WOULD BE WOOD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE ON THAT? I MEAN, THE BRASS WAS LOVELY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF IT EVER HAD BRASS OR JUST BRASS IS LOVELY? NO, I, I'M ADMITTEDLY SHOOTING A BIT FROM THE HIP HERE CUZ I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE BRASS DOOR STORY, BUT I BELIEVE AT ONE POINT IN TIME THEY DID HAVE BRONZE DOORS IN THERE.
UM, AND WE WERE SEEKING TO REPLICATE THEM.
BUT IF IT'S A MATTER OF PUTTING WOOD DOORS IN, I'M SURE WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT.
IT'S JUST THE DURABILITY, UH, ISSUE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THE STREET LIFE THERE IS PRETTY ROUGH.
I MEAN, I'M SURE WE, I GUESS I ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE IT TODAY, BUT IF WE APPROVE IN WOOD AND I WOULD LOVE FOR BACK INFORMATION TO BE FOUND AND THEN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE RIGHT LATER.
BUT WELL, THAT THERE ISN'T ANY, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.
I I CANNOT PUT MY HANDS ON IT AND, UH OKAY.
AND YOU'RE ALSO FACING THE SAME STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR WINDOWS THAT THEY SHOULD BE WOOD? YES.
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR YOU.
WE ASKED YOU ABOUT ALL THE ONES WHERE IF WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, IT WILL NOT BE WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR.
IF YOU COULD COMMENT THE, THE ISSUE OF THE DOOR JUST RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION.
MAY I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? THE APPLICANT.
THE, THE SCONCES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE MAIN DOOR, UM, NOW I DON'T, ARE THOSE ORIGINAL OR ARE THOSE PRESENT? YES, AND THEY WERE RESTORED IN THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT WAS DONE.
THIS PROJECT IS BEING DONE IN PHASES AND THIS IS YET ANOTHER PHASE.
WE'RE NOT EVEN ADDRESSING FLOOR TWO OR THE ROOF AT THIS POINT.
AND IF I RECALL FROM MY OWN IMPRESSION CORRECTLY, THOSE ARE SOMEWHAT MASSIVE SCONCES.
THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL AND THEY'RE MASSIVE AND THEY ARE METAL.
AND WHAT METAL ARE THEY MADE OF? UH, WELL IT IS, IT IS NOT A FERRIS METAL THAT I'M AWARE OF.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE EITHER BRONZE OR COPPER.
UM, AND, BUT I CANNOT SAY FOR SURE.
AND, AND I JUST WAS JUST, THE REASON I'M ASKING IS THAT FROM MY IMPRESSION OF THE SCO IS THEY SUGGEST A MATERIALITY FOR THE DOOR.
YEAH, MAYBE EVEN PAINTED, I DON'T KNOW.
[01:40:01]
FINAL QUESTION FOR STAFF CUZ UH, STAFF AND TASK FORCE RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, ELEVATOR, UH, OVERRUN AND THE CHANGE OF MATERIALS MM-HMM.BUT HOW, HOW WOULD THAT NOT BE THE METAL CLADDING? HOW WOULD THAT NOT BE, UH, CONSIDERED A PROPER DIFFERENTIATION OF MATERIALS? SINCE WE'RE ACTUALLY ADDING HEIGHT TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE BY CLADDING THAT IN, UH, A SIMILAR BRICK IS SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OR PART OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING ENVELOPE.
AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENTIATION, THAT THE, ACTUALLY THE HORIZONTAL METAL IS A PRETTY REASONABLE MOVE.
I JUST, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, LIKE I WAS EXPRESSING EARLIER, I THINK IT IS MORE ALARMING THAT IT'S A DIFFERENT MATERIAL AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.
TO ME, I THINK YOU'D WANT TO STILL USE BRICK, BUT EXPRESS WHERE THE NEW BRICK STARTED BY A MAYBE A SHADOW LINE, UH, BAND BRICK OR SOMETHING.
SOMETHING THAT WILL SUGGEST WHERE THE NEW AND THE OLD SENSE.
BUT I THINK IF YOU WENT WITH A COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR MATERIAL, I THINK IT IS MORE ALARMING.
I THINK IT, IT'S MORE OF A SUDDEN IMPACT THAT I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO AVOID CUZ YOU'RE TRYING TO SOFTEN THE BELOW A LOT OF THESE DAYS.
YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE A SYMPATHETIC, UH, APPROACH AND NOT AN ALARMING APPROACH, YOU KNOW.
WELL, I I, TO ME THAT A LOT OF THAT, LET'S REMEMBER, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING CROSS CAUSE OTHER CROSS RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, COMMISSIONER C*M SAYS, CLARIFIED WHAT HE MEANT BY BRICK.
HE DIDN'T JUST MEAN CONTINUE THE BRICK THAT'S IN THE BUILDING.
HE MEANT SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
AND YOU ARE SAYING IF, WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S DIFFERENT ENOUGH, I GUESS, BUT
AND AGAIN, WHAT COLOR IS IT? UH, BROWNISH RED, REDDISH BROWN TO MATCH IN THE SAME COLOR RANGE AS THE BRICK.
AND IT'S, UH, IT'S A, A LIKE FLAT, FLAT AND SMOOTH.
AND IN OTHER WORDS, NO ARTICULATION.
SO IT DOES NOT CALL ATTENTION TO ITSELF? NO.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR, YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT DID YOU CALL IT? BENIGN MR. GREEN.
WOULD IT BE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S SENT IN AS THE, THAT IS, I CAN'T READ THE SEAT TO THE RIGHT YES.
I CAN'T READ THE BOTTOM ON IT.
SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CLADDING FOR THE ELEVATOR OVERRUN AND FOR THE YES, BUT THAT'S NOT THE COLOR.
DID YOU SEND IN A DIFFERENT COLOR? UH, WE CERTAINLY COULD.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY AT HOME COULD HEAR THAT, BUT, UM, DR.
DUNN WAS DISCUSSING WITH THE APPLICANT WHAT EXACT COLOR, NO COLOR HAD BEEN SUBMITTED FOR WHAT THAT THAT METAL WOULD END UP LOOKING AFTER IT WAS PAINTED.
YEAH, WE UNDERSTAND THE RANGE.
IT'LL BE KINDA LIKE THE BRICKS, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF COLORS IN THAT RANGE.
I'D LIKE TO, UM, MAKE A STATEMENT.
UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY QUESTIONING TIME, BUT UM, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA.
I JUST WANNA EXPRESS MY SUPPORT OF THE BRONZE DOORS, UH, BECAUSE OF A SECURITY ISSUE WITH THE TRANSIENT AND THE HOMELESS POPULATION.
WITH THE HOMELESS SHELTERS AROUND THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE MILLING AROUND.
I THINK IT'S A SECURITY ISSUE.
AND, UH, SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE BRONZE DOORS VERSUS THE WOOD DOORS.
YEAH, THEY'RE PRETTY, BUT THERE ARE MANY CONSIDERATIONS LIKE COMPATIBILITY WITH, THEY, THEY LOOK GREAT ON THE HEARST BUILDING, BUT
BUT NO, THAT'S THE RIGHT BUILDING.
COMMISSIONER SWAN, YOU WERE NOT YET DONE.
AND, AND YEAH, I JUST WANTED ONE LAST THING.
THE, UM, THE AMOUNT OF CLADDING, IT'S ONLY THAT BAND ON THE TOP OF THE ELEVATOR, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THEY, THEY REALLY AREN'T PANELS, THEY'RE PLANKS, TO BE HONEST.
I MEAN, THEY COULD BE WOOD PLANKS OR HARDY BOARD PLANKS.
[01:45:02]
YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE MUCH TEXTURE AND WE WOULD JUST MAKE IT, WANT, WANT IT TO JUST BE VERY BENIGN.SO THAT WAS OUR INTENTION FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT.
AND, AND APPROXIMATELY HOW FAR SET BACK IS THAT FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING? OH, UM, WELL IT'S CLEARLY IN THE BACK 80%.
RIGHT? IT'S WHERE THE SERVICE ELEVATOR WAS.
SO IT IS REALLY, UH, WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE FLUSH WITH THE BACK OF THE BUILDING? FLUSH? UH, NO, I THINK IT'S, BUT IT'S FLUSHED WITH THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THERE, THERE IS A STAIRWELL BEHIND IT, SO IT'S OKAY.
SO IT'S ONLY FLUSH WITH THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING? THAT'S CORRECT.
WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM WHAT, WHAT STREET WOULD THAT BE? WOOD, YOUNG.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE FIVE WAS.
UH, IT'S CARWOOD ON THAT SIDE.
YEAH, THIS IS PARK AVENUE FROM CAPTAIN.
AND I WILL SAY IF WE COULD MAKE THAT SMALLER, WE WOULD, BUT THE ELEVATOR ENGINEERS HAVE NOT BEEN, UH, ACCOMMODATING.
SO, AND WHAT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT MADE THE ADDITION OF THAT PIECE NECESSARY? OKAY.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A TWO ELEVATOR BUILDING.
AND THE HISTORIC ELEVATOR, WHICH WE CANNOT FIND A WAY TO RESURRECT.
UH, WE HAD TO MOVE IT AND USE THE ENLARGE THE SHAFT WHERE THE SERVICE ELEVATOR WAS IN THE BACK.
SO THE FUTURE USE OF THE BUILDING WILL BE, HAVE TWO ELEVATORS FOR SERVICE.
UH, THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN IN A BUILDING WHERE THAT HAS ONE ELEVATOR AND IT ALWAYS GOES DOWN.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING WHERE YOU WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
UH, SO IT WAS JUST A DIFFERENCE IN, UH, THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT REQUIRED TO SUPPORT CORRECT.
AND THE, THE ORIGINAL ELEVATOR, THE CAB WILL BE PARKED PERMANENTLY AT THE FIRST FLOOR AND LEFT OPEN FOR PEOPLE TO SEE RIGHT.
AS ON DISPLAY? ON DISPLAY, YES.
I'M, ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? IF YOU ARE
IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 23 DASH FOUR 50 RD, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 5 0 8 PARK AVENUE IN THE HARWOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT, I MOVE THAT ON ITEM ONE, UH, REQUEST FOR A NEW HORIZONTAL ADDITION, UH, THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED, UH, PER DRAWING SUBMITTED, UH, WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED WORK, UH, WILL NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA FROM A STANDPOINT OF MASSING OR COMPATIBILITY, UH, OR DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
ON ITEM TWO, UH, I MOVE THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS.
SPECS DATED 6 16 23, AND FOR REASON CITED BY STAFF, UH, ON ITEM ANOTHER THREE, I MOVE THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS.
SPECS DATED 6 16 23, UH, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE NEW AND REPLACEMENT WINDOWS BE ALL WOOD WITH EXTERIOR MUTTONS, I E GRILLS, THAT NEW WINDOWS BE INSTALLED ONLY IN LOCATIONS WHERE THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT ORIGINAL OPENINGS HAVE BEEN INFILLED AND THAT GLAZE AND GLAZING BE CLEAR.
UH, I E NOT TINTED OR REFLECTIVE, UH, FOR REASONS CITED BY STEP ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR, I MOVE THAT, UM, ALL EXTERIOR ENTRY TOWARDS THE GROUND LEVEL, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY INFILLED, UH, BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 16 23.
UH, AND WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT, UH, BRONZE DOORS WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS APPLICATION, UH, AND THAT THE NEW DOORS BE INSTALLED ONLY IN, IN LOCATIONS WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ORIGINAL OPENINGS HAVE BEEN INFILLED, UH, AND THAT GLASS AND GLAZING BE CLEAR, I E NOT TENDERED OR REFLECTIVE, UH, AND THAT ALL OF THIS BE APPROVED FOR REASONS CITED WITH REASONS FOR REASONS CITED BY STEP.
[01:50:01]
UH, I MOVE THAT, UM, THE REQUEST BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECS DATED 6 16 23 FOR REASONS CITED BY STAFF ON ITEM SIX.UH, I MOVE THAT THE REQUEST FOR, UH, LET'S SEE THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS.
SPECS DATED 6 16 23 FOR REASONS SIGNED BY STAFF.
ITEM ITEM SEVEN, I MOVE THAT, UH, THE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE EXISTING ELEVATOR OVERRUN ON THE ROOFTOP BE APPROVED, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS.
SPECS DATED 6 16 23 WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE, UM, METAL CLADDING PROPOSED, UH, WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA, UH, AND FOR REASON CITED BY STAFF.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD AMONG THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE, UH, DEMOLITION REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITION ON THE, UH, REAR OF THE BUILDING, UM, THAT, UH, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT, UH, A PART OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN EXPOSED AND VISIBLE, UH, DURING THE, UH, PERIOD OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
SECOND, WE SECONDED, COMMISSIONER GU SECONDED.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE AT HOME I'M NOT SEEING.
IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UM, AND YOU DIDN'T REALLY GET ANY DENIALS AT ALL.
YOU'VE GOT APPROVALS WITH CONDITIONS, BUT, UM, SO NO NEED TO APPEAL.
ALL RIGHT? SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR WORK ON THIS IMPORTANT BUILDING, AND WE HOPE IT TURNS OUT LOVELY.
UH, I HAVE RECEIVED ONE REQUEST WITH WHICH I AGREE THAT WE TAKE A BRIEF BREAK BEFORE WE BEGIN, NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN.
CUZ THEY MAY BE SOMEWHAT TIME CONSUMING AND WE'VE BEEN HERE TWO HOURS AND WE ARE BUT HUMAN, SO, OKAY.
WE'LL GO BE HUMAN AND WE WILL RETURN IN 10 MINUTES.
SO WE SHALL RETURN AT 3 0 3 BY THIS CLOCK HERE.
I MEAN, COMMISSIONER VIN, THIS, THIS IS ELAINE BELVIN.
I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT I'VE BEEN HERE ALL THE TIME.
UH, WE JUST DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T HEAR US WHEN WE WERE ASKING YOU TO CHECK IN, BUT I KNEW YOU WERE HERE.
WE ALL SAW YOU, CORRECT? I JUST, UH, ELAINE WANTED IT ON THE RECORD THAT I HAVE BEEN HERE THE WHOLE TIME SO THAT A QUORUM IS MET.
AND I ATTEST TO HAVING SEEN YOU THERE.
SO,
WHAT DO YOU MEAN I SHARE? OKAY.
I CAN, I DON'T, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
I GUESS WHY YOU MAY NOT SHOW UP.
WE MIGHT HAVE TO ASK, UH, YOU KNOW.
BUT, UH, YEAH, I DID SEE YOUR PEOPLE.
NOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE LITTLE, LIKE, UM, THIS IS ONE OF MY, THIS IS ONE OF MY FIRST, OH, SHE, OH, SHE WAS A CONSENT ITEM ALREADY.
HOW DID, HOW DID YOU SAY TELL HER? UM, I DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS THERE ALL THIS TIME.
WHICH ONE? CHRIS? CHRISTOPHER PICK.
SEE IF HE CAN, I DON'T HAVE PHONE.
[01:55:03]
CAN ADRIAN CHAT WITH THEM? MAYBE ADRIAN CAN CHAT WITH THEM BECAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WITH BEEN SITTING THERE.THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO WITH CLICKING.
SO LET ME REFRESH AND MAKE SURE YOUR PEOPLE ARE STILL HERE.
I WANT TO PUT UP A SIGN THAT SAYS GO HOME.
GO HOME AND CHRISTOPHER, GO HOME.
I WISH I HAD KNOWN THEY WERE THERE THIS WHOLE TIME.
[02:01:09]
I, YES.WE'RE ALL BACK HERE IF WE COUNT ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE PEOPLE AT HOME ARE ON SCREEN CUZ I CANNOT SEE THEM RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DO HAVE NINE PEOPLE HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO RESUME.
YEAH, I CAN'T SEE MUCH UP THERE, BUT, UM, OKAY.
YEAH, I SEE COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA.
THERE, EVERYBODY'S COMING BACK.
SO WE ARE READY TO PROCEED WITH D SIX.
I'M MARCUS WATSON, REPRESENTING STAFF ITEM DISCUSSION SIX IS 47 0 2 JU STREET IN PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION
[02:05:01]
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 DASH FOUR 15 MW.OR THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE AND A HALF STORY.
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW 1.5 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 23 AND DRAWINGS DATED 6 12 23 WITH A FINDING THAT WHILE THE PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK DOES NOT PRECISELY MEET CRITERION 4.8, IT IS IDENTICAL TO THE SETBACK OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE APPROPRIATE THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION STANDARDS.
SECTION FOUR FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND MEETS THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SEC SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, NO QUORUM COMMENTS ONLY SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS.
A GANG WINDOWS TO MATCH ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS.
B BAND OF SHINGLES ABOVE THE WINDOWS NEEDS TO BE WIDER.
C, USE THE REMAINING FRONT PORCH SOFFIT TO MEASURE AND REPLICATE THE DEPTH OF THE SOFFIT TO THE OTHERS.
D TOP PLATE SHOULD BE 12 FEET FROM FLOOR PROPORTIONS DO NOT SEEM TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
E APPROXIMATE, APPROXIMATE THE ROOF PITCH FROM THE REMAINING RAFTERS.
F SHINGLES SHOULD BE OFFSET, NOT FLAT.
EDGE G WINDOWS MUST BE WOOD ON WOOD, NOT CLAD.
H SIDING MUST BE ONE 17 WOOD SIDING TO MATCH ORIGINAL.
WE NOTICE THAT THE DIMENSIONS AND SCALE TO BE OFF FROM THE ORIGINAL.
WITH RESPECT TO THE ROOF, THE SOFFITS AND THE BANDS OF SHINGLES AROUND THE HOUSE.
WE RECOMMEND, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE ARCHITECT CAREFULLY MEASURE THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THESE ITEMS FROM WHAT REMAINS OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY.
OKAY SIR, WOULD YOU START BY TELLING US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? ERIN TRI CARTON, 7 21 RIDGEWAY STREET IN DALLAS.
AND DO YOU, UH, SWEAR OR, OR PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH TODAY? I DO.
YOU HAVE, UH, TO START WITH THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS, UM, THIS, THIS PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SHALL I, UH, SHARE MY SCREEN? IT LOOKS LIKE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON.
I'M THE ARCHITECT OF THE PROPOSED WORK.
UM, I'VE CERTAINLY SIGNED UP FOR A CONTROVERSIAL ONE HERE, UM, AND HAVE MY OWN PERSONAL CONCERNS ABOUT SEEING THE DEMOLITION, BUT MY GOAL, UH, AND INVOLVEMENT IS FORWARD LOOKING AT THIS POINT AND TO TRY TO HELP THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, NAVIGATE THIS PROCESS.
BUT AS I SEE IT, PROPOSE A DESIGN FOR THE, THAT OUR COMMUNITY, UM, CAN GET EXCITED ABOUT, UH, DESPITE THE UNFORTUNATE DEMOLITION.
SO, UH, FIRST I WANT TO JUST POINT OUT THAT THE MANDATE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM O H P, FROM THE GET GO WAS WE DO NOT NEED TO REPLICATE THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE, UH, ELEMENT BY ELEMENT.
I WAS ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT WE HAD SOME LATITUDE, UH, AS SUCH.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT WE JUST NEED TO CERTAINLY STICK WITH THE SAME STYLING AND DETAILING, UH, AND MAJOR ELEMENTS, UH, SUCH AS ROOF FORMS. UM, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM ABOUT FRONT DOORS.
YOU KNOW, CAN WE CHANGE FROM TWO FRONT DOORS TO A SINGLE FRONT DOOR? THE ANSWER IS YES.
BUT ANYWAY, DESPITE THAT, WE DIDN'T NEED TO EXACTLY REPLICATE.
UM, I'D SAY WE, WE TOOK UNUSUAL EFFORT TO STILL REPLICATE EVERYTHING WE COULD.
THERE WAS A FEW MAJOR ASPECTS THAT WE HAD TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT WAS THERE.
AND SO I'LL, I'LL QUICKLY TRY TO RUN YOU THROUGH WHAT THOSE WERE SO YOU KNOW, KINDA WHERE THE DEVIATIONS OCCURRED VERSUS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO REPLICATE EXACTLY.
JUST SO YOU HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE AND WHY WE MADE THOSE DESIGN DECISIONS.
SO, UM, LET ME GO TO THE ELEVATIONS HERE.
SO FIRST THE, WELL ACTUALLY NOW I NEED TO STAY ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO FIRST, THE, THE, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE, AND THAT WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE NEED TO ACHIEVE THE PROPER SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE RIGHT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, AND SO THE BUILDING'S A LITTLE BIT MORE NARROW, BUT IT'S CENTERED ON THE EXISTING LEAD
[02:10:01]
WALK THAT LEADS UP TO THE HOUSE AND JUST LEANING INTO A SYMMETRY THAT WE'RE REINFORCING WITH MULTIPLE DESIGN ELEMENTS.THE SECOND KINDA HIGH LEVEL DEVIATION THAT WE TOOK, UM, IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WINDOW AND DOOR PLACEMENT IS JUST SIMPLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
AND THAT'S A CONSEQUENCE OF, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM A DUPLEX TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS A SINGLE FAMILY HAVING JUST A DIFFERENT FLOOR PLAN.
UM, AND SO THE, THE STREET FACADE IS PRO IS PROPOSED TO HAVE A CENTERED FRONT DOOR AND SIDE LIGHTS, UH, AND SYMMETRICAL WINDOWS THAT FLANK EACH SIDE, WHICH IS VERY CHARACTERISTIC OF THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WE SEE ON THE BLOCK, SUCH AS, UH, THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
UM, THOSE WERE KIND OF THE, THE BIGGEST DEVIATIONS.
AND NOW TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES TO THE PREVIOUS BUILDING.
AND I, I'D SAY GENERALLY THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO REPLICATE EXACTLY THE KEY DIMENSIONAL QUALITIES THAT WERE SEEN ON THE PREVIOUS BUILDING.
SOME OF THOSE, UM, SOME OF THAT SUGGESTION CAME FROM TASK FORCE, UH, AND WE'VE VERIFIED AND UPDATED THE DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.
SO EVERYTHING FROM AND YOUR TIME HAS RUN OUT, BUT HANG ON A SECOND.
I MOVE THAT, UH, MR. TAGGAR BE ALLOWED.
UM, THREE MORE MINUTES ACTUALLY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF GIVING HIM THREE MORE MINUTES? AYE, AYE.
UM, SO THE, THE KEY DIMENSIONAL QUALITY, SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TYPICAL WALL ELEVATION HERE, UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOWER BAND OF SHINGLE SIDING THAT THEN TRANSITIONS INTO THE WATER TABLE STILL THAT WRAPS AROUND THE HOUSE TO THE TYPICAL WINDOW HEIGHT WITH THE LAP SIDING ADJACENT TO THAT AND KIND OF WHERE THAT FORMS THIS HEADER BAND AND THEN THIS SHINGLE BAND, UH, SHINGLE SIDING BAND UP ABOVE.
SO ALL THOSE DIMENSIONS, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE VERIFIED, LUCKILY WE WERE ABLE TO VERIFY WITH WHAT WAS LEFT AND UM, EXACTLY REPLICATE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PORCH COLUMN HEIGHT AND THE DROPPED HEADER.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE DIMENSIONS, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S KIND OF THIS TOLERANCE OF GETTING IN THERE AND CORRECT, BUT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD SAY THERE ISN'T.
AND THE FACT THAT WE MATCH EXACTLY WHAT WAS THERE, UM, I THINK IS WHAT CREATES SOMETHING THAT'S PROFOUNDLY, YOU KNOW, UM, A RESEMBLANCE OF WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, ANOTHER DIMENSION, THE ROOF OVERHANG, UM, THAT WAS A COMMENT ALSO FROM THE TASK FORCE, BUT UM, I WENT OUT THERE AND MEASURED THE PORCH, UH, OVERHANG.
UM, AND WE CAN SEE FROM PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT THE PORCH OVERHANG AND THE MAIN ROOF, UM, OVERHANG SEEMS TO BE THE SAME, WHICH IS VERY TYPICAL OF THESE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS ACTUALLY 18 INCHES AND, AND SO, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, LESS OF OVERHANG THAN WE TYPICALLY SEE ON THESE BUILDINGS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, YOU KNOW, MATCHING UH, TO WHAT WAS THERE, UM, IN OUR DESIGN HERE, UM, THE DORMERS ARE A VERY PROMINENT DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE.
CERTAINLY REINCORPORATING THOSE HERE, THEY'RE OF A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DESIGN THAN WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY, WHICH, WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY SET PRETTY LOW IN THE ATTIC CUZ IT TRULY WAS JUST AN ATTIC.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE ARE INHABITABLE AREA, UH, WITHIN THE DORMERS.
AND SO JUST A BIT DIFFERENT BUT VERY HANDSOME DESIGN.
AND THEN AS WE TURN THE CORNER HERE, UM, THE SIDE ELEVATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S THESE STEPPED WINDOWS AT THE GABLE AT THE UPPER LEVEL, WHICH IS MEANT TO PAY HOMAGE TO THE, UH, STEPPED ATTIC LUS THAT WERE THERE PREVIOUSLY.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE HIGH LEVEL STUFF.
I'M SURE THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS, UH, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM.
FIRST WE NEED TO HEAR FROM, UM, OUR OTHER SPEAKER, ANDRE MATHIS.
ARE YOU WITH US? YES, I AM WITH YOU.
THAT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT THEY WROTE DOWN.
AND WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS, SIR? MY ADDRESS IS 1 47 FOREST STREET IN MONTCLAIR, NEW JERSEY.
UM, I'M TERRIBLE WITH FACES AND NAMES, BUT I SWEAR I'VE SEEN YOU BEFORE.
HAVE YOU BEEN BEFORE US IN THE PAST? YOU HAVE SEEN ME? UH, SO I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND ARE THE ORIGINAL.
I'M ALWAYS SAYING HEY TO PEOPLE AND THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T KNOW ME, SO I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA DO THAT AGAIN.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DISCUSS THIS NEW HOUSE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING BUILDING.
UM, I'M REMINDING EVERYONE, INCLUDING MY COMMISSIONERS, THAT WE ARE KEEPING COMPLETELY SEPARATE AS IS OUR PRACTICE, THE ISSUE OF THIS HOUSE.
AND THEN LATER WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE DEMOLITION.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THIS HOUSE IS A PROPER HOUSE TO PUT ON THIS SPOT.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST IN, IN CONVERSATION WITH ERIN, SO ERIN AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION A LOT OR, UH,
[02:15:01]
JUST AS WE'RE GETTING READY TO PRESENT THIS PROPERTY TO YOU ALL.SO, I MEAN, I THINK AARON TALKED TO A LOT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, YOU KNOW, FROM MY STANDPOINT AND MY HUSBAND'S STANDPOINT AS THE OWNERS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO US TO PURELY MAKE SURE WE ARE RECREATING THE SAME HOME AS CLOSE AS WE COULD TO REPLICATING THE HOME THAT WAS EXISTING THERE.
AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE TALKED TO YOU GUYS LAST YEAR.
WE, WE ARE BIG LOVERS OF HISTORIC HOMES.
I WAS BROUGHT UP AND THE KING, UH, WILLIAMS DISTRICT IN SAN ANTONIO.
WE LIVE IN MONTCLAIR, NEW JERSEY, WHICH IS A MASSIVE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE LIVE IN A, IN A HISTORIC HOME.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US TO RETAIN, YOU KNOW, A A PIECE OF HISTORY AND TIME.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THESE DESIGNS HERE.
AND AS YOU SAID, I OBVIOUSLY HAVE MORE ON, ON THE OTHER TOPIC, BUT I WILL HOLD THAT FOR, FOR, FOR THE NEXT SECTION AS WE GET TO IT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND HANG ON FOR QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME.
COMMISSIONERS, WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS NEWLY DESIGNED HOUSE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? UM, MR. TEEGARDEN, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE O H P, WAS THAT BY, UM, STAFF, THE STAFF HANDLING THIS CASE OR, UH, THE CHIEF PLANNER, WHO WAS IT THAT SAID THAT YOU'RE NOT TO DO A REPLICATION? UM, YES, IT WAS STAFF.
AND DID THEY HIGHLIGHT WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID DOING A REP REPLICATION? NO, IT WAS, IT WAS CAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE OR WHAT, UM, NO.
THAT IT WAS, IT WASN'T, UH, SPECIFIED.
SO THAT THE PRESERVATION PRINCIPLE BEHIND THAT INSTRUCTION WAS NOT CLEAR TO YOU? UM, IT, YEAH, I I WAS TOLD THAT THERE, THERE, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, RECREATE WHAT WAS THERE.
OH, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT, YOU WEREN'T INSTRUCTED TO AVOID IT.
YOU WERE JUST INSTRUCTED THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT.
IS THAT IT? YES, THAT'S, YEAH.
I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S CHARACTERISTIC OF WHAT WAS SAID.
SO YOUR GOAL WAS TO BE, UM, YOU WERE STRIVING TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT WAS COMPATIBLE ENOUGH TO BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISTRICT? YES, OF COURSE.
WITHOUT MUCH OF A INTENT TO PAY HOMAGE TO WHAT WAS THERE OR WHAT'S THERE NOW.
AND, AND WE CERTAINLY PAY HOMAGE TO WHAT'S THERE, THERE'S SOME KEY PLACES WE HAD TO DEVIATE, WHICH I MEAN, JUST STARTS CREATING A SNOWBALL EFFECT.
I MEAN, JUST EVEN THE, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, HAS, HAS A LOT OF CONSEQUENCES ONCE YOU HAVE TO CREATE THAT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
YEAH, I, I, I GUESS THE, THE ELEMENT THAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST HERE IS I, I CAN SEE THAT THERE'S, UM, AN ATTEMPT HERE WITH THE, UM, SYMMETRICAL DORMERS, ET CETERA.
BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, REGARDLESS OF THE FLOOR PLAN, IS WHY NOW WE HAVE A CENTER DOOR, UM, AS OPPOSED TO, UM, WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FLOOR PLAN NOW, IT BEING SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO NEED NOR REQUIREMENT NOR INTENT TO SORT OF, UH, ACHIEVE MORE OF THE CHARM THAT WAS THERE.
UM, WE, LIKE I SAID, THERE, THERE SEEMED TO BE NO REQUIREMENT TO, IN, IN FACT, WE, THIS WAS A PHONE CALL, SO I HAVE MY NOTES FROM THE PHONE CALL, BUT THE, THE PHONE CALL WAS THAT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO, UM, UH, LOCATE DOORS AND WINDOWS WHERE THEY PREVIOUSLY WERE IN INCLUDING THE, THE FRONT DOORS ITSELF.
AND SO WAS THE INSPIRATION TAKEN OTHER THAN THE TWO DORMERS, UM, WAS THE INSPIRATION TAKEN, WAS YOUR CUTE TAKEN FROM THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT? YES.
I, I I COULD SAY A LOT OF IT IS, YEAH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? LOT OF SILENCE GOING ON.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK SOMETHING.
UM, I, I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE CENTER DOOR AND THE WINDOWS AS YOUR DRAWING SHOWS ARE NICE.
IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING RETURNING TO MORE LIKE THAT ORIGINAL FORMATION OR IS THAT JUST, UH, THERE'S NO WAY YOU
[02:20:01]
WOULD WANT TO DO THAT? I'LL, I'LL LET ANDRE, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER SPEAK TO THAT.YEAH, I, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE RETURNING TO THE, THE ORIGINAL, YOU KNOW, WITH THE DOOR.
UH, I, THERE WERE TWO DOORS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND TWO WINDOWS TO THE CINDER MM-HMM.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH RETAINING, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, LOOK, I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION, AND WE CAN DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, I CAN TALK WITH ERIN THROUGH THIS TOO, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE WAS JUST HAVING A DOOR ON, ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT THAT WASN'T BEING UTILIZED.
LIKE IT WAS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO MAKE IT LIKE AN OFFICE, BUT I THINK THERE'S LIKE A BIT OF A SECURITY ELEMENT TO IT, LIKE HAVING TWO DOORS, ONE DOOR ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND ONE DOOR ON THE LEFT SIDE.
SO I'D BE HAPPY IF WE CAN RETAIN ONE OF THE DOORS AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAYBE PUT A WINDOW IN PLACE OF THE OTHER DOOR OFF TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT, WHICHEVER, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL IS MORE ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.
BUT HAVING THE TWO DOORS, BOTH HAVING ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE AND ONLY ONE BEING UTILIZED WAS JUST A BIT OF A CONCERN.
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT YOU GUYS WILL LIKE US TO DO, MAYBE IF WE HAVE LIKE A DOOR ON THE EXTERIOR, BUT IN THE TER IN THE INTERIOR, IT'S ACTUALLY A DRYWALLED AND YOU KNOW, IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE A DOOR.
WE ACTUALLY ADVISED SOMEBODY ONCE WHO HAD A FORMER DUPLEX, IT WAS NOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO JUST MAKE, LEAVE THE DOOR VISIBLY, BUT NOT, UM, ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE TO OPEN.
THE ONLY POINT IN HOPING THAT WE MIGHT GO THAT DIRECTION WAS THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS TRADITIONALLY A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, DUPLEXES AND THE OCCASIONAL EVEN, YOU KNOW, VERY SMALL APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF NICE TO KEEP THE VISUAL LEGACY OF THAT, THAT FORMER MODE OF LIVING WHERE PEOPLE DIDN'T MIND SO MUCH LIVING WITH PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN SMALLER UNITS.
IT IS NOT THE CONCERN OF EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION.
THEY OFTEN DON'T LISTEN TO ME.
SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ARCHITECT.
UM, SPEAKING OF DOORS, STAYING ON THERE, THE SIDE IS, WAS THAT A SIDE ENTRY DOOR? AND IF SO, WAS THERE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF KNOWING THAT THAT WAS ORIGINAL? IT'S, UM, YEAH.
SO DID IT'S IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO GANG, THOSE, THOSE DOUBLE WINDOWS THAT'S IN BETWEEN THOSE? YES.
THERE DOES SEEM TO BE, OR THERE DID SEEM TO BE A, A SIDE DOOR, YES.
BUT, UM, OF COURSE THE, THE WINDOW PLACEMENT THAT YOU SEE HERE DOESN'T CORRELATE OBVIOUSLY WITH, WITH WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE MISSING TWO DOORS APPARENTLY OUT OF THE THREE THAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE OLD PHOTO.
BUT IT'S HARD TO AS ASCERTAIN ON THE HISTORIC ORIGINALITY ON THAT.
ARE YOU ASKING IF THEY THINK THE DOOR WAS ALWAYS THERE OR WAS A LAY IN ADDITION? YES.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF ANYBODY COULD FIGURE OUT THE POSSIBILITIES OF THAT BEING ORIGINAL SIDE DOOR, SINCE THIS WAS ALREADY, UH, DIVIDED AS A DUPLEX WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT.
IT VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER ORIGINAL DOOR THAT WE'RE MISSING.
SO I, I WILL SAY THAT IN, IN OUR UNDERSTANDING, THE SIDE DOORS WERE, WERE ORIGINAL IN TERMS OF THE, THE DOOR OPENINGS.
I KNOW WHEN WE LAST PRESENTED THE PROJECT TO EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD ALL BEEN REPLACED WITH INTERIOR DOORS.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT'S COMMENTS IS THAT, ARE THESE ACTUAL EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR DOORS? BUT THERE WERE, UM, THERE THE SIDE DOORS WERE ORIGINAL PER HOUR UNDERSTANDING.
THERE WAS ONE ON THE LEFT AND THEN THERE WAS A STORAGE DOOR ON THE RIGHT THAT ALSO HAD AN INTERIOR ENTRANCE AT THE BUMP OUT THAT, THAT WE HAD REMOVED DUE TO THE FOOTPRINT CHANGE.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF JUST OTHER QUICK QUESTIONS.
THE DEPTH OF THE PROPOSED PORCH, UH, COMING OUT FROM THE, UH, FRONT, IT MIGHT JUST BE SPATIAL, UH, DIFFERENCES BY THE JUXTAPOSE OF THE, UH, OF THE PHOTO AND, AND THE PROPOSED, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, UH, ON THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT PORCHES DEEPER IN DIMENSIONS THAN WHAT'S BEING SHOWN ON THE OLD PHOTOS.
IS THAT A CORRECT OBSERVATION OR IS THAT SOMETHING I'M SEEING IN MY MIND'S PLAYING TRICKS ON ME? IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE.
I, I WENT OFF OF THE PROPERTY SURVEY IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE VERY ACCURATE.
UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I PULLED THAT EXACT
[02:25:01]
DIMENSION.I WAS, I WAS PULLING HEIGHTS WHEN I WENT OUT THERE.
I GUESS IF IT'S, IF WE'VE GOT THIS RIGHT FALLEN, UH, THE FALLEN RISE OR THE PITCH I SHOULD SAY, OF THE ROOF, I ASSUME ONCE WE HIT THAT PROJECTED BANDING THAT IT WOULD BE THE SAME.
SO I GUESS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT PITCH ON THAT PORCH ROOF, IT WOULD COME OUT PROPER.
I GUESS I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS WELL.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE SITE CUZ I'M ZOOMED IN ON THE PHOTO AND I FIGURED IF I ZOOMED OUT AND TRIED TO FIND THE SITE PHOTOS OR SITE, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND MY PLACE AGAIN.
SO I'M JUST GONNA ASK THE PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE.
UM, IS IT IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THAT? AS MUCH AS IT COULD BE? IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE IT'S SET BACK OFF THE STREET A LITTLE BIT, BUT I KNOW WE ALSO HAVE THAT WHERE THE HOUSES TRY TO LINE UP WITH EACH OTHER, BUT THIS ONE SEEMS A LITTLE DEEPER TO THE, UH, HOUSE, TO THE RIGHT OF IT.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE, IT SEEMS LIKE A FURTHER, A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE STREET.
UM, SO WE'VE, SO I'M WONDERING WHERE IT IS TO ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION.
WELL, WE'RE PROPOSING THE EXACT SAME FRONT YARD SETBACK TO WHAT IS THERE OR WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AND ON THE SIDE PARTICULAR IN THE FRONT PARTICULAR, NO, NO FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO WE'RE PROPOSING THE EXACT SAME FRONT YARD SETBACK AS, UH, WHAT WAS THERE, UH, THERE PREVIOUSLY.
UM, THIS BLOCK IS A BIT PECULIAR.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE, THE RED.HERE IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT OF IT, UM, HAVE INCONSISTENT FRONT YARD SETBACKS, BUT THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOCK IS SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT.
AND, UM, AND SO IT'S A BIT PECULIAR, YOU KNOW, SCENARIO RIGHT HERE.
BUT, UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR BUILDING IS ALIGNED WITH MOST OF THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE BLOCK.
IT'S JUST THE HOUSE IS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF IT SEEM TO BE RIGHT.
THE WINDOWS WIDTH ON THE FRONT, JUST FROM THE, UH, RENDERED, UH, ELEVATION, THEY SEEM TO BE PRETTY WIDE.
UM, WHAT ARE THE WIDTH OF THOSE WINDOWS? UH, AT, AT LEAST ON THE FRONT, THOSE DOUBLE HUNGS? YES.
AND, AND THAT WAS ENTIRELY INTENTIONAL.
UM, WE, WE SEE THAT A LOT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WHEN WE HAVE THIS VERY SYMMETRICAL DESIGN AND A, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FRONT DOOR, YOU STILL HAVE KIND OF THIS, THE REST OF THE ELEVATION TO FILL UP, SO TO SPEAK.
AND IT'S, IT'S QUITE TYPICAL TO SEE THESE KIND OF, IF IT'S A SINGLE, I'LL SAY KIND OF FAT WINDOWS YEAH.
BUT, BUT WOULD YOU CONCUR THAT ON THE ORIGINAL PHOTO THAT THOSE WINDOWS W WERE THAT WIDE THAT YOU'RE, THAT'S BEING SHOWN NOW OR NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
BECAUSE THOSE WIN, THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS SEEM TO BE, UH, NOT AS WIDE AS THE PROPOSED ONES.
AND I CAN UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THE SINGLE ENTRY POINT, UH, GIVEN ON SOME OTHER EXAMPLES MAY HAVE HAD THOSE FRONT WINDOWS WIDER.
BUT IN THIS CASE, IF WE'RE, IF WE'VE HAD A DOUBLE ENTRY POINT, THOSE WINDOWS LOOK LIKE THEY'RE NOT AS WIDE AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
IT WAS INTENTIONAL, BUT YES, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS HOUSE? ANYBODY AT HOME? SHOUT OUT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, IF THERE APPEAR TO BE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH A MOTION.
IN, IN THE MATTER OF 47 0 2 JUNIOR STREET CA 2023 DASH FOUR 15 MW, I MOVE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE AND A HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS INCORPORATED AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 20 23 AND DRAWINGS DATED 6 16 23 23 WITH FINDINGS, UH, CITED.
WHO WAS OUR SECOND ON THAT? COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, GIVEN MY CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT WHO'S GOING TO LIVE HERE, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION THAT THE, THE, UM, MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THE SECOND MIGHT CONSIDER ADDING SOMETHING ABOUT REDOING THE TWO DOOR FORMAT? SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS SAID HE MIGHT, HE WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT.
[02:30:01]
THAT'S FOR COMMISSIONER MAHOEN? I WOULD NOT CONSIDER IT.I PREFER THE, I PREFER THE, THE WAY IT IS NOW.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? UM, MADAM CHAIR, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I DO RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, THE GOAL WAS MERELY TO FIND SOMETHING COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT OVERALL AND THAT THE QUEUE IS TAKEN FROM THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT, ALTHOUGH, UM, THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT HAS A HIP ROOF AND THIS ONE HAS A SIDE GABLE ROOF, WHICH OF COURSE REFLECTS WHAT'S THERE ORIGINALLY OR WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY.
UM, I HONESTLY THINK THAT, UM, THIS NEW, UM, DESIGN WHILE YES, IT MIGHT, UM, UM, ACHIEVE THE INTENT, I THINK IT TENDS TO DISRESPECT THE CHARM THAT THIS STRUCTURE AFFORDED THE BLOCK AND AFFORDED THE DISTRICT.
AND, UM, I AM OPPOSED BECAUSE OF THE, UM, THE OPENINGS ON THE FRONT FACADE.
AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY USE NOW IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL USE.
BUT, UM, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE RECOGNIZE THESE THINGS AS CHARACTER, CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES.
AND, UM, I THINK THE NEW DESIGN IS, UH, MORE GENERIC THAN, UH, WHAT'S BEING LOST HERE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, UH, YES, REALLY FOR THE SAME REASONS.
SIDE BY COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I THINK THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMNS, UH, THE DORMERS AND THE DOORS, UH, IS CHARACTER DEFINING ON THIS, ON THE STRUCTURE.
ANYBODY ELSE? I HAVE JUST A STATEMENT AS WELL JUST ON THIS PERMISSION PERIOD.
I TOO, I SEE THESE AS DEFINING CHARACTER AND THEN THESE CONSIDERATIONS I THINK THAT WERE GIVEN.
I DON'T BELIEVE I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE BASED UPON WHAT'S BEEN SAID HERE.
ANYBODY ELSE KIND OF CLEAR WHAT I THOUGHT ALREADY? SO,
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME TO CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
DO NOT HAVE A VIEW OF ANY OTHER ONLINE COMMISSIONERS.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
DO WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL? ESPECIALLY CUZ I CANNOT SEE ANYBODY, SO I DON'T KNOW.
ERIN, WOULD YOU MIND SHARING YOUR SCREEN PLEASE? I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EVEN RAISED THEIR HAND OR ANYTHING.
LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL SINCE IT WAS CONFUSING.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN OPPOSED.
DISTRICT TWO COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY OPPOSED.
DISTRICT THREE COMMISSIONER FOGLEMAN OPPOSED? DISTRICT FOUR COMMISSIONER SWAN OPPOSED? DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER OFFIT FOUR.
DISTRICT SIX COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA AYE.
DISTRICT SEVEN COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON.
DISTRICT 10 COMMISSIONER DU OPPOSED.
COMMISSIONER GIBSON OPPOSED? DISTRICT 12 COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER OPPOSED? DISTRICT 14 COMMISSIONER GUEST OPPOSED? DISTRICT 15 COMMISSIONER BELVIN OPPOSED DISTRICT, UM, APOLOGIZE.
UH, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR FOR AND COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS OPPOSED? I COUNTED ONE, FOUR.
THAT MEANS THAT THIS MOTION HAS FAILED TO WIN A MAJORITY.
UM, SO WE WISH TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION LIKE VICE CHAIR
I COULD PLAY TUNE WHILE I WAIT.
I CAN TAKE A STAB AT IT, BUT I MIGHT NEED SOME HELP, SOME CLARIFYING
[02:35:01]
AND DEFINING HELP FROM, UH, OUR PRESERVATION ARCHITECTS HERE AT THE TABLE.OR OUR STAFF OR OUR ATTORNEY OR STAFF.
ANYBODY WHO HEARS SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK IS INAPPROPRIATELY PHRASED, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
UM, DISCUSSION ITEM 6 47 0 2 JUNIOR STREET IN THE PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION NEIGHBORHOOD, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2023 DASH FOUR 15 MW.
I MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT, UM, THE FRONT FACADE, UM, FEATURE TWO DOORS AS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AND TWO WINDOWS AS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE EXISTING HOUSE.
DO ANY STAFF OR OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OR ANYBODY HAVE A REPHRASING THEY WOULD WISH TO HEAR IN THAT? I, I'M NOT SAYING I DO, BUT, ALRIGHT THEN DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH, MAR I WAS JUST GONNA THROW OUT ALSO THE POSSIBILITY IF, IF IT WERE TO COME TO ANOTHER, UH, POSSIBILITY IS THAT THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND GIVE THEM THE CHANCE TO COME BACK WITH THE DESIGN, UM, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GUESS AT IT.
THAT, THAT IS OFTEN THE WAY WE DO CHOOSE TO GO.
UM, THAT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION AT LARGE.
UH, WE DO HAVE AN EXCELLENT RECORD OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL LOOKED LIKE,
SO IF, IF WE THOUGHT WE COULD, UM, AND WE DO TRUST STAFF, IF WE THOUGHT WE COULD TRUST STAFF TO REVIEW THE SPECIFICS OF THE DESIGN THAT FOLLOWED THIS RECOMMENDATION, I THINK WE'D BE WILLING TO TRUST YOU, MARCUS, TO DO THAT.
AND THE SECOND I TOO AM COMFORTABLE WITH, UM, INTERESTING STAFF TO ASCERTAIN IF THESE, UM, ORIGINAL ELEMENTS ARE, UM, REPLICATED, ACTUALLY.
DID WE HAVE A SECOND? AND I DID NOT NOTE IT.
BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND, I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHAT FINE TUNING WOULD.
OH, COMMISSIONER FOGLEMAN HAS SECONDED IT.
UH, GIVEN THE RELUCTANCE TO SECOND, I CERTAINLY EXPECT A COMMENT FROM SOMEBODY
UM, THE, I THINK THAT OUR, OUR HESITATION REALLY CENTERED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DOORS AND THE DORMERS.
IT DIDN'T ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS.
AND I, IT'S KIND OF MADE ME FLASHBACK TO THE DISCUSSION TO, UH, ASCERTAIN HOW MANY OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY TASK FORCE SPECIFICALLY WERE ADDRESSED IN THE DESIGN AS IT CAME TO US TODAY.
BECAUSE I, I JUST LOOKING BACK, I WASN'T CERTAIN, UH, AS FOR INSTANCE, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, UH, H UH, SIGHTING MUST BE ONE 17.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT ON HOUSES OF THIS SCALE BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM A, UH, KIND OF TEXTURE THAT THEY NEED WHEN OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, UM, UH, HOW ABOUT WE ASK MARCUS TO ADDRESS HOW MUCH YOU THINK THE MOST RECENT AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS REFLECT WHAT THE TASK FORCE SPECIFICALLY SAID? IT, IT IS.
I, I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE, UH, MASSING AND SCALE MOST OF, MOST ALL OF THE, UH, TASK FORCE, UH, SUGGESTIONS.
THE ON, THE ONLY THING THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS AFTER WAS THAT I THINK IT STILL CALLS FOR CLAD WINDOWS.
TASK FORCE SAID NO CLADDING ON THE WOOD WINDOWS.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK AARON BECAUSE HE CAN TELL SAY FASTER THAN I CAN FIND IT IN THE DRAWING WHAT THE SIDING ENDED UP BEING.
ALL RIGHT, MR. KARTEN, ARE THEY WOOD CLOUD WINDOWS AND WHAT SIDING IS IT? YES.
SO IT'S, THAT'S BEEN REVISED TO SHOW, UH, SOLID WOOD.
UM, AND ALL THE OTHER TASK FORCE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED, UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT.
WAS IT A ONE 17? I'M HAPPY TO SIGNING, YES.
SO I'M, I'M HAPPY TO POINT ANY OF THAT STUFF OUT, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALL BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED.
AND, AND HAVE WE, UH, DETERMINED THAT THE WINDOWS MUST BE WOOD ON WOOD, NOT CLAD? YES.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT ON THE RECORDING NOW, GIVEN ALL THAT I, YES, WITH ALL THAT IN PLACE, I COULD SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
SO ARE YOU THE SECOND THEN WE HAD, WE ALREADY HAVE SECOND.
WE HAD A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER.
[02:40:01]
OKAY.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. COLEMAN? ONE LAST DISCUSSION.
THIS DID ADDRESS, UM, THE TWO WINDOWS AN AND THE DOOR BEING PROPER SIZED, RIGHT? THE WINDOWS BEING PROPER SIZED.
MY MOTION WAS THAT THEY BE, UM, SIZED AS THE EXISTING, UH, SIZED AND POSITIONED EXACTLY AS THE EXISTING RIGHT MOVING WINDOWS.
YES, THE TWO DOORS AND THE TWO WINDOWS.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
AND WE CAN POINT OUT THAT THE, UM, THE FACADE WHICH CONTAINS THE DOORS AND THE WINDOWS IS STILL STANDING.
THEY'RE ALREADY QUITE EASY TO GO OUT AND MEASURE THEM AND KNOW PRECISELY WHAT, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.
THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHAT PART WE GOT.
IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I SHALL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION IS NO ONE OPPOSED, SO IT HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UM, WELL THEN IT'S CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
SO THAT ENDS THIS DISCUSSION OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.
NEXT, WE MOVE FORWARD TO DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AND WE WILL BE VISITED BY A MEMBER OF THE CITY'S, UM, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHO WILL DISCUSS WITH US SOME OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE INTERESTING HISTORY OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS EXISTING HOUSE.
ITEM NUMBER 7 47 0 2 JUNIUS STREET IN PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION, HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 23 0 1 0 M W.
AND I AM MARCUS WATSON, UH, REPRESENTING STAFF.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL TO DEMOLISH AND REMOVE REMAINING STRUCTURE FOLLOWING A COLLAPSE IN SIGNIFICANT DEMOLITION PERFORMED WITHOUT A CD.
THE STANDARD IM IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH AND REMOVE REMAINING STRUCTURE FOLLOWING COLLAPSE AND SIGNIFICANT DEMOLITION PERFORMED WITHOUT A CD UNDER THE DEMOLITION STANDARD, IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, WITH MATERIALS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
SUBMITTED 6 1 23 AND DATED 6 12 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 H FOUR C.
NO QUORUM COMMENTS, ONLY COMMENTS ARE THE TASK FORCE STATED.
WE FIND THAT THE FACT THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED, THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED PROCEDURES TO BE IN AN EGREGIOUS ACT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE WARNING THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE OWNER CONTRACTOR AT THE TIME OF THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT IT WAS EMPHASIZED AT THAT MEETING THAT THE STRUCTURE HAD SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE GABLES OF THE ROOF AND THE DORMERS.
THIS TASK FORCE WAS ADAMANT THAT THESE AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE EXTENT OF REHAB NEEDED AND THE PROCESS OF RECONSTRUCTING THE ROOF.
THERE IS NO STRUCTURAL SUPPORT GIVEN TO THE RAFTERS, NO PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS.
ACCORDING TO A ROOFER WHO LIVES NEARBY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO FREQUENTLY DROVE BY THE STRUCTURE THIS WAS STATED, IT IS NO WONDER THAT THE ROOF COLLAPSED EITHER DUE TO WILLFUL NEGLECT OR COMPLETE INCOMPETENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR.
WE HAVE LOST ANOTHER HISTORIC HOUSE IN PEAKS SUBURBAN ADDITION.
ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE ENDANGER OF SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT WHEN NO ONE DEEMS IT MORE PROFITABLE TO RAISE A STRUCTURE THAN TO RESTORE IT.
DEMOLISH FIRST, ASK PERMISSION.
SECOND, CONSIDERING THIS, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY PURSUE TO THE HIGHEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, ANY FINES APPLICABLE DUE TO THE LOSS OF THIS HISTORIC TREASURER.
THANK YOU FOR THAT LOVELY READING OF A VERY LONG PARAGRAPH.
WE, UH, WE STILL HAVE OUR SAME TWO SPEAKERS ADDRESSING THIS ONE.
UM, AND WE WILL HAVE MR. DI CARTON GO FIRST AGAIN, YOU GET, YOU GET THREE MINUTES AND YOUR, UM, YOUR INTRODUCTION AND YOUR PROMISE TELL THE TRUTH BOTH STILL HOLD.
UM, YES, I WAS NOT INVOLVED AT THE TIME OF THE DEMOLITION, BUT I WENT AHEAD AND MADE MYSELF AN APPLICANT OF BOTH APPLICATIONS TODAY.
UM, BUT YEAH, I'M, I, MYSELF AM A STAKEHOLDER OF THIS PROCESS, UM, MULTIPLE FRONTS.
I'M A RESIDENT OF A NEARBY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I'VE REGULARLY PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE,
[02:45:01]
UH, IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AND I'VE, UM, BEEN A LONG TIME MEMBER OF MULTIPLE NEARBY, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCES.AND SO, UM, IRONICALLY, EVEN THOUGH I'M A, UM, APPLICANT, I, I PERSONALLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEMOLITION, UH, AS I THINK MANY IN THE COMMUNITY DO.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S A LOOPHOLE FOR OTHERS IN THE FUTURE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, IF THIS BUILDING, UH, AGAIN, QUITE FRANKLY, IF THIS BUILDING HAD BEEN A MORE SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE, I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, UM, ON ALL FRONTS FROM THE CITY, FROM OUR DESIGN TEAM, AND IN TERMS OF, UM, TRULY RECREATING WHAT WAS THERE.
BUT I'M, I'M CURIOUS KIND OF WHAT THE OFFICIAL CITY STANCE OF THAT IS, UH, FOR THE FUTURE.
UM, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK I, I, I PUT IN THE APPLICATION, AT LEAST THE INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME.
UM, SO THERE'S GOOGLE VIEW IMAGES AT LEAST.
UH, I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE IMAGES, YOU CAN SEE JUST HOW, UH, DETERIORATED THE STRUCTURE IS.
THE, THE ROOF BEAM IS SAGGING.
I, I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN ANYTHING SO, SO BAD.
AND CERTAINLY JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG OF OTHER ISSUES.
AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S TOTALLY UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT THIS BUILDING JUST POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION HAD THERE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND EXPERTS INVOLVED AND PROCESSES FOLLOWED.
BUT I THINK MOST OF THE COMMENTS TODAY WILL BE THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS WEREN'T DONE, UNFORTUNATELY.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, FROM AN ARCHITECT STANDPOINT, WE STILL HAVE THE, THE FRONT PORCH AND A PARTIAL FRONT WALL STILL STANDING.
BUT FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT AND THINKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION, I THINK STILL, EVEN THOUGH WE HATE TO SAY IT, BUT THE THING BEST THING TO DO MIGHT BE TO, UH, FULLY DEMOLISH THIS STRUCTURE AND START ANEW AT THIS POINT.
UM, I JUST DON'T SEE A VALUE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN KEEPING WHAT LITTLE IS LEFT.
AND WE CAN SAY IT'LL BE RETAINED, BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY WILL BE ESSENTIALLY REBUILT ANYWAY.
ALL RIGHT, MR. BULAKI, YOU ALSO HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN TO BE QUITE HONEST.
I MEAN, APOR, A PORTION OF ME IS QUITE, I GUESS, A ATTACHED TO THIS HOME AS I, AS I TALKED TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS ORIGINALLY.
YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AS WELL.
AND SO THESE HOME PROJECTS WEREN'T ORIGINALLY, MY HUSBAND'S LIKE, LET'S GO BUILD IN HISTORIC DISTRICT, JUST CUZ THEY USUALLY TAKE A LONG TIME.
BUT IN PART OF WHAT WE DO IN OUR BUSINESS, I DO LIKE TO TAKE THESE THINGS ON AS, AS A PASSION PROJECT.
WE EVEN HAVE A FEW THAT WE HAVE HERE IN MONTCLAIR.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR AS TO HOW WE GOT TO THIS SITUATION.
YOU KNOW, I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMUNITY ON LARGE.
YOU KNOW, IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY AS THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS DONE ACCORDINGLY AND IT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, AND SO I'M QUITE EMBARRASSED FOR MYSELF AND, AND MY COMPANY CUZ I FEEL LIKE NOW WE'RE PRESENTING SOMETHING TO YOU GUYS AND WE'VE LOST A BIT OF TRUST IN YOU GUYS, WHICH ISN'T WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE, YOU KNOW? UM, AND SAYING, AND AND WHAT AARON SAID, YOU KNOW, THE HOME WHEN WE PURCHASED IT WAS IN A SIGNIFICANT, DETERIORATED POSITION.
YOU KNOW, WE DID PULL TOGETHER A TEAM OF WHAT WE FELT WAS WERE EXPERTS.
AND, AND, AND EVEN YOU GUYS LAST YEAR WHEN WE TALKED, YOU GUYS ASKED VERY POINTED QUESTIONS AS TO HOW WE WOULD RESTORE FROM OUR GC AS TO HOW THE PROPERTY WOULD BE RESTORED AND WHAT PROCESS WOULD BE TAKEN.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I AM SAD AND EMBARRASSED TO SAY THAT THOSE THINGS WEREN'T, YOU KNOW, APPLY THE WAY THAT THEY WERE EXPLAINED TO YOU ALL OR MYSELF.
AND THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE GC, YOU KNOW, MAKING A UNILATERAL MOVE TO DEMOLISH HALF OF THE STRUCTURE AND THEN PULLED DOWN THE SECOND HALF OF THE STRUCTURE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'VE DONE NOW IS, YOU KNOW, I'VE CONTACTED GREG JOHNSON OF MCCOY WHO WORKS WITH PRESERVATION AS AN ARCHITECT.
WE ALSO GOT THROUGH GREG, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A GC AS WELL AS A CONSULTANT THAT, THAT SPEC SPECIALIZES IN HISTORIC, UM, PRESERVATION, BOBBY HARRIS OF HARRIS COMMERCIAL GROUP.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TRIED TO DO THE BEST BY REVAMPING THE ENTIRE TEAM TO REALLY, YOU KNOW, UNDO WHAT WE'VE DONE.
BUT THERE OBVIOUSLY IS NO WAY AND NO CONSTELLATION FOR THAT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WE ARE PREPARED TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND, AND WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, CONSEQUENCES COME AS A RESULT OF WHAT WE'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, FULLY WILL ACCEPT THOSE.
AND I, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU, THAT YOU ARE SAD FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO, AND THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN A NEW CONTRACTOR.
CUZ OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY JUST MADE A MISTAKE
BEFORE WE BEGIN ASKING QUESTIONS ON THIS, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN HEAR FROM BOTH OUR OWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER ADRIAN, WHO CAN TELL US WHAT SHE HAS DONE ONCE SHE DISCOVERED WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
AND WE ARE HAVING, I GUESS, LAURA,
[02:50:01]
IS SHE READY? SHE'S JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.WELL, LET US MEET HER THEN SO WE CAN ASK HER ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD A ADRIAN FIRST.
I AM THE CODE INSPECTOR ADRIAN MCLENDON.
AND, UH, I HAD THIS CASE, UH, BASED ON SITE VISITS THAT WE WERE DOING IN THE AREA, AND ME AND ONE OF THE PREVIOUS PLANNERS, UH, DID SEE FROM THE REAR THE ROOF DAMAGE.
SO THIS IS HOW WE ENDED UP PICKING UP THIS CASE, UH, BEF.
AND THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE INITIAL, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND I THINK THAT KIND OF LED TO SOME OF THAT PROCESS PREVIOUSLY.
UH, SO ONCE WE HAD THIS CASE OPEN, THEY DID GET THE CAS FOR THE, UH, FOR THE PREVIOUS RENOVATIONS THAT WERE REQUESTED.
AND IN DOING RE-INSPECTIONS, UH, IN THE AREA, I DID WITNESS THAT THE ROOF HAD FALLING.
AND SO WE DID, UH, CHECK WITH THE PLANNERS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WAS FINE.
A FEW WEEKS LATER, I THINK WE WENT BACK THROUGH FOR RE-INSPECTIONS AND THAT'S WHEN WE NOTICED THAT THE WHOLE, UH, THING HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT FRONT FACADE.
SO, UH, I HAD ISSUED NOTICES ALREADY PRIOR.
UH, BUT THIS CASE HAS ALSO BEEN HANDLED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT'S INTENSIVE CASE RESOLUTION, WHO HAS ALSO ISSUED CITATIONS, UH, AFTER THE WALLS HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN.
SO THEY HAVE BEEN ISSUED, UH, CITATIONS THAT HAVE FINES OF $651.
UH, IT COULD GO UP TO $2,000 DEPENDING ON, UH, THE COURTS OF WHAT THEY DEEM THE CORRECT FINDING IS.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S SHOWING IN THE SYSTEM AS $651.
UH, AND THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED ONCE WE DID SEE THAT IT WAS REM, THAT THE WALLS HAD BEEN REMOVED.
UH, AND WE SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND STARTED THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND DEMOLITION, UH, PROCESSED.
AND THEN WE ALSO WANT TO HEAR, IS IT JILL HANGING THAT I'M SAYING OUT HERE? SHE'S HERE.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S, IS THAT WHO I'M ASKING QUESTIONS OF? OKAY, MS. HANNING, WE, OH, THERE YOU ARE.
UH, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR POSITION IS WITH THE CITY? OH, UM, MY NAME'S JILL HAING.
I'M THE CHIEF OF COMMUNITY PROSECUTION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
AND COULD YOU, UM, THE OTHER COMMISSION MAY I HAVE QUESTION, BUT JUST TO START WITH, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE? WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN OF IT SO FAR AND, AND LEARNED ABOUT IT? I, I AT THIS POINT DON'T REALLY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP TO THE CASE.
UM, I FIRST LEARNED ABOUT IT THIS MORNING.
WE HAVE OFTEN HERE AT LANDMARK COMMISSION WONDERED WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER SOMETHING IS DONE THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH OUR RULINGS ON ORDINANCES.
WE, WE SOMETIMES JUST DON'T FIND OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE PRO UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT A A CITATION HAS BEEN ISSUED AND, AND THERE IS A FINE ATTACHED.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT? WHAT WOULD THE PROCESS BE? UM, SO THE CITY GENERALLY USES, YOU KNOW, AN ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, UM, TO GAIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE.
UM, SO NOTICE OF VIOLATION CITATION, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF CODE COMPLIANCE IS UNABLE TO GAIN COMPLIANCE, THEN, UM, THE CODE, THE CODE INSPECTORS THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND CODE COMPLIANCE, THEY'LL REFER CASES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, I THINK FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND OF THIS SITUATION, IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE IN THAT, UM, THE DAMAGE, THE, THE DEMO, UM, IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO, UM, ABATE THE VIOLATION, UM, BECAUSE IT'S IN, IT'S IN THE PAST.
UM, IS, IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR WHAT YOU DO IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHEN SOMETHING IS DEMOLISHED WITHOUT A PERMIT? YEAH, SO, UM, I MEAN, THE CITY HAS MOVED FORWARD WITH ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT AND LITIGATION AND, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY BECOMES AN ISSUE OF DAMAGES.
UM, AND SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA GO TOO MUCH INTO LEGAL STRATEGY, BUT, UM, AN ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY.
BUT THERE ARE, UM, STATE STATUTES THAT,
[02:55:01]
UM, WHILE DON'T, CAN'T BRING, YOU KNOW, A STRUCTURE BACK, UM, THEY, UM, CAN ADDRESS THE, UM, TASK FORCE AND THE COMMISSION'S CONCERN REGARDING, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS GETTING THE SENSE THAT, UM, IT'S EASIER TO JUST DEMO A PROPERTY RATHER THAN MOVE, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UM, APPROPRIATE PROCESS.THAT, THAT IS A STATED CONCERN BY OUR TASK FORCE, WHICH IS APPRO APPOINTED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO DO INITIAL REVIEWS AND COMPOSED OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN QUESTION.
AND IT IS ALSO A CONCERN OF MINE, WHAT PREVENTS THIS FROM BECOMING A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PEOPLE TO, UM, TO DO SOMETHING WRONG.
AND I'M NOT ACCUSING MR. PAWLOWSKI OF ANYTHING, IT'S JUST THAT THIS HAPPENED SINCE THIS HAPPENED.
OTHER PEOPLE COULD BE ON THE SIDELINES LOOKING AND SAYING, OOH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, $651, I GET RID OF THAT OLD HOUSE.
WHAT IS PROTECTING US FROM THIS BEING A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE BEHAVIOR THAT WE WOULD, WOULD VIOLATE OUR ORDINANCE? I MEAN, THIS IS A COMMON CONCERN WITH, AS IT RELATES TO ANY CODE PROVISION.
UM, NOT TO DIMINISH THE VALUE HERE, BUT I MEAN, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME AND THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE NOT, UM, ENSURING COMPLIANCE, THEN PEOPLE ARE, YOU KNOW, BECOME AWARE OF THAT.
UM, SO ONE WAY IS MERELY THROUGH THE ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE, UM, THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A SPECIFIC SECTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT A PROPERTY OWNER BEING, OR A PERSON BEING LIABLE PURSUANT TO THE STATE CODE TO RESTORE OR REPLICATE, UM, THE STRUCTURE AND THAT THE, THE DAMAGES IS EQUAL TO, UM, THE COST TO RESTORE THE STRUCTURE.
I WAS UNAWARE OF THAT PROVISION.
DO OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE FAILED TO ASK OR GET ANSWERS TO? THEN? LET'S GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, MS. HANDING MY QUESTION? EXCUSE ME.
I'M ALSO WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO UNDER THAT PROVISION, IT IS SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 N, UH, FOR ANY, IF ANYONE WANTED TO LOOK IT UP AND UNDER THAT PROVISION, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE LIABLE FOR THAT COST AS WELL AS, UM, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS OR BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE, UM, CAN BE DENIED EXCEPT TO RESTORE OR REPLICATE THE STRUCTURE.
THANK YOU THAT THAT IS INDEED WHAT I HAD NOT EVER HEARD BEFORE.
NOT THAT THIS HAS EVER COME UP EXACTLY, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE HEARD IT, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, WHAT DID YOU WISH ADDRESS? OF COURSE, I ALSO, UM, I ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH WANTING TO DETER PEOPLE FROM VIOLATING, UM, THE ORDINANCES.
AND OF COURSE, AS JILL MENTIONED, A WAY TO DO THAT IS ENFORCEMENT.
UH, I DID ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISIONS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THEY DO NOT, UM, SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER APPLICANTS.
SO, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, YOUR DECISION WITH THIS SPECIFIC CASE DOES NOT, UM, MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT OR DENY THE NEXT ONE IF ONE DOES OCCUR IN THIS SITUATION.
I WAS MORE THINKING OF WORD ON THE STREET PASSING, THE HISTORIC STREET PASSING FROM HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER TO HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, IT'S, IT'S HELPFUL TO BE REMINDED THAT, UH, EACH CASE IS, UM, ITS OWN CASE.
UM, AND WE, WE SELDOM EVEN USE THE WORD PRECEDENT, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, PROLIFERATION OF PROBLEMATIC SITUATIONS.
UM, MS HANDING, MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS, WHEN WAS THAT CHAPTER OF THE CODE 51 A, UM, UM, ADOPTED? WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? IT WAS LIKE 19 77, 19 72.
SO WE HAVE, CAN Y'ALL TELL US THAT HOW LONG THAT THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A NEW CODE, THAT'S A LONG STANDING CODE.
NO, I CAN'T, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW.
ANYONE NOT SAY IT? UH, THIS IS MARISSA.
YEAH, I'M, UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT TELL YOU, UM, THE DATE, BUT THE, THE CODE ITSELF DOES NOT MENTION, UM, DOLLAR AMOUNTS.
IT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, THE COST IT WILL TAKE TO, UM, RESTORE, REPLICATE.
IT'S JUST WHATEVER THE PROJECT TAKES.
AND WHERE, WHERE ARE THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE CODE? THIS, I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE $651 EVER
[03:00:01]
AROSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.THE ONLY DOLLAR AMOUNT I EVER SAW REFLECTED IN THE CODE WAS THE $2,000 ITEM, BUT, UM, IT'S NICE TO KNOW WHAT OTHER IMPLICATIONS THERE ARE.
I'M SORRY, I'M TALKING OVER YOU.
I, I, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE REFERENCING, UM, UH, THE, THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH A CITATION AND THAT'S JUST, THERE'S A, A MAXIMUM FINE OF $2,000 AND THEN IT'S SET, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE LESS THAN THAT AND SET BY THE JUDGE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CUMINGS QUESTION? YEAH, I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE SAYING THE DEFINITION WAS THE COST TO REBUILD IT, AND THAT'S ONLY TO REBUILD IT.
THERE'S NO THAT, AND THE ONLY PENALTY IS UP TO A THOUSAND, UP TO 2000.
SO THERE WOULD BE A PENALTY COST OF UP TO 2000.
AND THE OTHER COST IS JUST WHATEVER IT TAKES TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE LIKE IT WAS.
I WOULD SAY YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO I GUESS MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR ADRIAN.
IT'S MORE THE PROCESS OF THE CITATION AND THEN THE ELEVATION TO THE INTENSIVE CASE OR WHATEVER THE NEXT STATUS IS.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE PROCESS FROM THE FIRST CITATION TO WHATEVER WAS IT WAS ELEVATED TO? SO THEY'VE BEEN RECEIVING CITATIONS AND USUALLY IN ORDER FOR IT TO GET TO THE INTENSIVE CASE RESOLUTION, CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CODE HAS HAD TO, UH, ISSUE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CITATIONS OR DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD PRIOR TO TRIAGING IT.
AND WHEN THEY TRIAGE IT, IT EITHER GOES TO, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR TO THE INTENSIVE CASE RESOLUTION, UH, TEAM.
AND SO THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE IS TYPICALLY BASED ON, THERE'S A FINE LIST ON THAT THE CITY HAS BASED ON WHICH CITATION IS WRITTEN.
AND SO IT CAN BE FROM THAT PRICE ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL $2,000, AND THAT'S PER DAY UNTIL THAT, UH, VIOLATION IS ABATED.
SO IN THIS, SO WE COULD CITE THEM MULTIPLE TIMES UNTIL THEY ABATE THE VIOLATION, UH, IF DESIRED.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS, THIS ADDRESS, DO YOU KNOW THE NUMBER OF CITATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED AND THE DATES? I DO NOT.
I DID TRY LOOKING UP THE CITATIONS AND I'M ACTUALLY WAITING ON THAT INSPECTOR TO GET BACK WITH ME ON ALL OF THE CITATIONS THAT SHE HAS PERSONALLY ISSUED.
UH, I HAVE NOT ISSUED ANY CITATIONS ON IT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THEY HAVE BEEN KIND OF HANDLING IT AND THEY'RE A HIGHER, UH, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO ISSUE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER ENFORCEMENT.
AND SO WITH THIS ONE, SOME OF THE FINES OR CITATIONS MAY HAVE PREDATED THIS OWNER ALSO.
AND SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO LOOK UP, UH, WHEN I LOOKED UP THIS COMPANY NAME AND THIS OWNER, I WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND, UH, ANYTHING BUT THAT ONE CITATION.
SO THE GENTLEMAN HAD HIS HAND UP? YEAH.
JUST TO MAYBE RESPOND TO MR. P**I.
DID YOU HELP CITATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP? YES.
SO THE, UH, FIRST, SO WE RECEIVED TWO CITATIONS.
WE RECEIVED ONE ACTUALLY THE MONTH THAT WE PURCHASED THE HOME.
UH, AND THE HOUSE HAD ALREADY BEEN ESCALATED TO THE INTENSIVE, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NAME.
IT HAD ALREADY BEEN ESCALATED TO THERE BECAUSE OFFICER, OFFICER CORTEZ IS THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT WE SPEAK TO DIRECTLY BECAUSE THE ROOF HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY COLLAPSED AND IT WAS DEEMED AN UNFIT STRUCTURE.
AND SO IT HAD ALREADY BEEN ESCALATED BY THE NEIGHBORS OF BOTH HOUSES BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS ALREADY LEANING TOWARDS BOTH OF THOSE.
AND SO IN THE MATERIALS, WE ACTUALLY DID ATTACH A NOTE FROM THE PREVIOUS, THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OF OURS.
SO THIS HOUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE INTENSIVE, UH, UNIT.
WE JUST HAD TO COMPLY WITH THEM AND LET THEM KNOW HOW THE PROGRESS OF THE HOUSE WAS, WAS TRACKING.
AND SO WE RECEIVED THE LATEST ONE LAST MONTH, UM, BECAUSE WE HAD ISSUED THE CD, BUT WE DIDN'T FOLLOW UP WITH THEM.
SO IF WE DON'T KEEP IN CONTACT WITH THEM EVERY MONTH, WE WILL RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL CITATION.
THEY JUST WANNA SEE THAT THE PROJECT IS AT LEAST, UM, PUSHING FORWARD.
UM, AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE WAY THE STRUCTURE'S SITTING, THEY COULD ISSUE UP TO 2000 AUTOMATICALLY.
THEY HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN US THE 6 51 CITATION BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING ISSUE.
SO YOU RECEIVED THE, SO I DO SPEAK WITH SIX, THE 6 51,
[03:05:02]
AND THEN BEEN PROMPTED TO DO DOCUMENTATION UPDATES OTHER THAN THAT FIRST 6 51, SO CORRECT.AND WE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY DOING THAT, BUT ONCE WE ISSUED THE CD, WE, I, I, WE HADN'T FOLLOWED UP WITH OFFICER CORTEZ, SO THEN SHE ISSUED ANOTHER ONE AND SHE DID CALL ME AND SHE SAID, HEY, YOU NEED, YOU NEED TO KEEP UP WITH ME EVERY MONTH.
I NEED TO HEAR SOMETHING FROM YOU.
SO I GUESS NOW BACK TO THE ATTORNEYS, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY GET INVOLVED AS FAR AS INCORPORATING ANY ENFORCEMENT BASED ON THAT KIND OF STATUS.
THAT CAN GO FROM THREE MONTHS TO SIX MONTHS, OR MULTIPLE OWNERS.
CAN THE ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS SPEAK TO THAT? HI, JILL HANEY AGAIN.
UM, SO LIKE OFFICER MCCLENDON MENTIONED CODE COMPLIANCE WILL REFER A CASE TO US IF USUALLY THIS IS RELATED, WE WANT PEOPLE TO MAKE, MAKE THIS REPAIRS.
UM, IF THEY'RE NOT MAKING REPAIRS, THEY'LL, THEY'LL REFER, UM, PROPERTIES TO US.
UM, OR IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT A PROPERTY OWNER NEEDS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, UM, AND THEY'RE NOT OBTAINING THE PERMIT, THEY'LL REFER THE CASE TO US.
UM, AGAIN, I, I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
UM, WE WILL CERTAINLY GO BACK AND, AND LOOK AT IT, UM, FOLLOWING THE MEETING.
AND, UM, IF, AND, AND DEPENDING ON THE EVALUATION, WE, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, UM, MERELY ON THE, THE DEMOLITION WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, UM, AND OR, UM, TAKE THE CASE OVER ENTIRELY.
I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION, I GUESS IS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING OF CODE.
WAS THIS CASE OF, OF RESPONSE TO THE, THE ASSOCIATION, THE NEIGHBORS CALLING IN KIND OF A REACTIVE, OR WAS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF WORK OF CODE ENFORCEMENT? OKAY, SO IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ORIGINAL CASE STARTED.
UH, I ENDED UP LOOKING AT IT BECAUSE WE WERE OUT DOING SITE VISITS AND SAW THE, THE ROOF FO FAILING.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH IT.
SO I DID, UH, FIND OUT THAT IT WAS ALREADY AN OPEN CASE WITH THE INTENSIVE CASE RESOLUTION, UH, TEAM.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING AND GIVING EACH OTHER UPDATES AS WE GO ON IT.
UH, WE DO TRY TO, UH, LIKE HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE SEEING PROGRESS, YOU KNOW, WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT PROGRESS BY NOT ISSUING CITATIONS AND DISCOURAGING PEOPLE FROM GOING THROUGH THE CORRECT PROCESS AND GIVING THEM THAT DUE PROCESS TO GO AHEAD AND, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND TRUST THE PROCESS.
UH, AND IF THEY DO NOT, OR IF THEY FAIL TO, THEN WE CAN WRITE 'EM A CITATION EVERY DAY OR EVERY WEEK OR EVERY MONTH, YOU KNOW.
BUT, UH, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS HAS GONE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN GIVING THOSE UPDATES AND BEING, YOU KNOW, UPFRONT WITH GETTING THOSE APPLICATIONS IN AND GIVING UPDATES.
AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER OWNER PRIOR, CUZ HE GOT ONE WHEN HE PURCHASED AND THEN HE'S JUST BEEN DOING THE COMPLIANCE UPDATES.
SO WE DON'T KNOW EITHER IF THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO HIM WAS ALSO GETTING CITATIONS, THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS ALSO, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE VOLUME.
HE'S GETTING CITATIONS BECAUSE TYPICALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN DO, INCLUDING ISSUING CITATIONS TO EVEN REFER IT OR TRIAGE IT TO THAT TEAM.
THAT FRONT FACADE STILL HAS CITATIONS POSTED TO THE DOOR THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.
AND I WOULD ADD THAT IN YOUR PACKET, THERE WERE TWO PREVIOUS CITATIONS, ONE IN 2018 TO REPLACE THE ROOF SHINGLES AND REPAIR THE SIDING AND PAINT THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND ONE IN 2022, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN TO MODIFY THE FENESTRATION ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE, UM, TO REPAIR AND REPLACE WOOD DOORS AND WINDOWS IN KIND AS NEEDED AND TO REPAIR AND REPLACE WOOD SIDING AND TO PAINT THE EXTERIOR.
APPARENTLY THESE MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE I WAS AT, I'M TRYING TO, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, PROBABLY TRYING TO GET THE TIMELINE.
I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE, LIKE, WE,
[03:10:01]
WE HAVE SOME DATES THROWN AROUND AND WE HAVE SOME THOUGHTS HERE AND THERE AND TRYING TO, IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE A STEP-BY-STEP BULLETIN POINT TIMELINE GOING BACK TO WHAT THE OWNER SAID YOU HAD BOUGHT THIS AND THEN A MONTH LATER IS WHEN THE ROOF COLLAPSED.SO THE ROOF, NO SIR, THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
THE ROOF HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY COLLAPSED WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE.
THAT, THAT AARON INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE WAS AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT WE HAD ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE HOME.
UM, AND WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOME, WE IMMEDIATELY WENT INTO THE CA GOTCHA.
AND, UH, THE CA PROCESS AND CORRESPONDING WITH THE DISTRICT, UH, OR SORRY, THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION, WHICH WAS QUITE A PROCESS JUST CAUSE WE HAD NEVER PURCHASED THE HOME IN THIS DIRE OF A SHAPE.
SO, BUT SORRY, YOU KNOW, I GOTCHA.
I, SO WHEN YOU GOT IT, YOU HAD, UH, A RISK ASSESSMENT AND A STRUCTURAL REPORT FOR WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT.
AND WERE THOSE, AND HAVE THOSE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY? THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY, BUT THEY WERE DONE BY OUR ORIGINAL ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING TEAM.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE TO TAKE ANYTHING DOWN FURTHER, YOU WOULD BE HAVING YOUR STRUCTURAL REPORTS AND YOUR RISK ASSESSMENTS TO MAKE SURE, UH, TO MAKE SURE THOSE, THOSE REPORTS WOULD BE PASSED TO EVERYBODY.
TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'VE GOT, UM, I HAD SOMETHING ELSE I CAN'T REMEMBER AT THE MOMENT.
I YIELD, I JUST WANNA JUMP BACK IN ONLY BECAUSE I'VE DONE PERMITTING AND REMODELING OF HOME HOMES AND SEEN PROPERTIES NEGLECTED IN, UH, IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE TIMING ON THE PROCESS CUZ I, YOU KNOW, I COULD NAME FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES RIGHT NOW THAT LOOK LIKE THAT PHOTO.
SO I'M WONDERING WHAT THE PROCESS IS TO INCENTIVIZE OWNERS TO MOVE ON REPAIR, UM, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE A COUPLE OF THOUSAND DOLLARS AND IT'S A LOT CHEAPER JUST TO, LIKE YOU SAID, LIKE SOMEONE SAID, UM, JUST ASK FOR FORGIVENESS LATER.
SO, UM, I I GUESS MAYBE WE'LL CONCLUDE OUT OF THIS PROCESS OR THIS DISCUSSION SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH.
BUT I'M AFRAID TO SAY THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN DISARRAY, UM, THAT I HOPE ARE ON THE RADAR OF CODE AND LEGAL.
UM, BUT, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES, UM, IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UM, ALL THE TIME.
SO, UM, I GUESS THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT AND FRUSTRATION.
THAT IS OUR, OUR GENERAL CONCERN.
AND I HAVE SOMETHING TO ASK STAFF AND ASK THE ATTORNEYS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
BUT FIRST I WANT TO REITERATE, I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU MR. PULASKI, OF DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
MY FEAR IS THAT PEOPLE WILL OBSERVE WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU AND THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETIME IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS DURING COVID, CUZ WE WERE ALL DISTANT, WE VOTED FOR A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUTTING IN CAS AND CDS AND THEY PARTICULARLY CHARGED MORE IF YOU'D ALREADY DONE THE WORK WITHOUT GETTING A CA FIRST.
AND THEY, WE RAISED THE SIGNIFICANT, THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION ONE AND IT NEVER WENT THROUGH.
WE FIRST HEARD BECAUSE THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE, THE CITY DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO DO THE COMPUTER SET UP SO THAT THE PAYMENTS COULD TAKE PLACE, BUT IT STILL HASN'T HAPPENED.
MAY I ASK WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT? ANY STAFF MEMBER WHO WOULD CARE TO COMMENT? MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I MAY DEFER TO ADRIAN ON THIS, IS THAT, UH, WE HAVE NOT SET UP THE SYSTEM TO AGAIN, COLLECT THE FEES, ALTHOUGH THE FEE SCHEDULE IS IN PLACE AS IN IT IS POSTED ONLINE.
AND IS THE STATED FEE SCHEDULE THAT I DON'T KNOW AS FAR AS IF IT'S POSTED ONLINE AS FAR AS THE FEE SCHEDULE? UH, I DON'T KNOW IF RHONDA HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PART, BUT, UM, I DO KNOW THAT WE WERE TOLD ORIGINALLY THAT WE WERE GONNA START COLLECTING, I THINK AT ONE POINT THEY SAID FEBRUARY AND THEN APRIL AND THE, IT'S KIND OF BEEN MOVING FORWARD UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT THAT.
BUT IT HAS BEEN, LIKE I SAID, APPROVED ALREADY AND WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THAT GO AHEAD TO GO AHEAD AND, AND ACTUALLY GIVE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY STARTING, UH, AND THEN COLLECT THEM ALL RIGHTY.
AND I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY A COMPLICATED PROCESS AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD 100% TURNOVER IN STAFFING SINCE WE ORIGINALLY APPROVED THIS.
I JUST REALIZED THAT MIGHT HAVE SOUNDED BAD, BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT I MEANT.
IT'S, IT'S TIME TO CATCH UP WITH, UM, WHAT WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA THAT
[03:15:01]
WOULD HELP CUT DOWN ON SOME OF THIS.OR AT LEAST INTIMIDATE PEOPLE FROM THINKING THE ASKING PERMISSION LATER WON'T COST 'EM ANYTHING.
WILL IT COST YOU SOMETHING IF WE IMPOSE THESE, THESE FEES TO, TO DO YOUR CAS? AND, AND IT WAS MINIMAL FOR A NORMAL CA THAT YOU WOULD PUT IN JUST TO DO YOUR CHANGE.
ONE MIGHT EVEN SAY, I'M SURE THAT WORD HAS A LEGAL MEANING BEYOND WHAT I INTENDED, IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING SEMI NAUGHTY AND WITHOUT STRICTLY ADHERING TO THE THE ORDINANCE.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I KNOW WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THIS FOREVER, BUT IT WAS OUR ONE CHANCE WE'VE EVER HAD TO TALK TO PEOPLE IN LEGAL AUTHORITY TO TELL US WHAT TEETH ARE IN OUR ACTIONS HERE.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? YES, I, UM, I DO RECALL WHEN THE, UM, UH, THE FEES WERE PUT INTO PLACE.
I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS DURING COVID.
UM, AND THEN WHEN THE O H P WAS PUT UNDER PLANNING, I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH, UM, THE DIRECTOR, UM, JULIA, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS SHOCKED TO LEARN THAT THE FEES EXISTED AND NONE HAD BEEN COLLECTED AND THAT THAT WAS GONNA BE LOOKED INTO AND DEALT WITH.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS WE HAVE HAD TOOLS IN OUR PRESERVATION TOOLBOX, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO BE USED, NAMELY DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, MR. MILLER DID WORK ON TWICE WITH GOOD RESULTS.
THAT BEING THE OAK CLIFF METHODIST CHURCH ON JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, WHICH ACTUALLY BURNED, UM, AFTER THE DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT ACTION WAS TAKEN.
BUT IT HAS SINCE BEEN PURCHASED, UM, BY A RESTORATION AND IT WILL BE SAFE.
THE OTHER ONE IS, UM, ONE, UM, CADDY CORNER ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY OWN HOME THAT HAD BEEN, UM, IN RACK AND RUIN FOR FAR TOO LONG, DECADES, IN FACT, WITH RACCOONS LARGER THAN DOGS CLIMBING IN AND OUT OF THE ROOF.
MR. MILLER WENT OVER THERE AND ASCERTAINED EXACTLY HOW MUCH WATER PENETRATION, ET CETERA WAS TAKING PLACE.
AND HIS REPORT IS PART OF OUR DOCUMENTED HISTORY HERE ON THAT CASE.
AND THAT CASE WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AT LEAST TO STOP THE WATER PENETRATION.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, KATE CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO WHAT CAN HAPPEN, UH, TO BRING ABOUT MORE DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT CASES SO THAT THEY ARE ON THE RADAR AND ARE BEING ACTED ON.
AND I THINK, AM I RIGHT IN THAT ANYONE, UM, ANY COMMISSIONER OR ANYONE CAN PETITION THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE TO SAY, I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE ASCERTAINED AS A DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT CASE AND HERE'S THE ADDRESS AND HERE'S WHY.
YES, THAT CAN HAPPEN AND IT'S LABORIOUS.
CORRECT? IT'S A LABORIOUS PROCESS.
IT IS, UM, OUR PROCESS IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST IN OUR CODE.
IT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO THINK ABOUT A CODE AMENDMENT THAT MIGHT MAKE IT A BETTER PROCESS.
BUT AT THIS TIME, WE CAN USE WHAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS, UM, DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
SO YES, ANY, ANY COMMISSIONER OR ANY PERSON IN THE PUBLIC CAN BRING IT FORWARD AND ALERT THE OFFICE.
AND SO I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE A LOT OF US, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT LIVE IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS OR HAVE BUSINESS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WE SEE THIS GOING ON.
WE SEE THAT OUR STANDARD APPROACH TOWARDS CODE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT EFFECTIVE, LARGELY NOT EFFECTIVE.
IN EXTREME CASES LIKE THIS, WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS COMMISSIONERS TO TALK ABOUT THE PROGRAM, ITS EFFECTIVENESS, HOW IT CAN BE ENHANCED.
WE CAN MAKE, UM, STATEMENTS, WE CAN ADOPT RESOLUTIONS, WE CAN ASK FOR REPORTS COMING BACK TO US.
UM, WE HAVE NOT DONE MUCH OF THAT.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT BY AND LARGE ARE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONER, THOSE THAT ARE, UM, IN AN APPEAL PHASE.
BUT WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT AS COMMISSIONERS TO LEAD AND TO THINK AND TO DISCUSS AND TO, UM, TAKE ACTION.
UM, AND WE HAVE THE, UM, OBLIGATION AND THE RIGHT TO ASK THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.
AND, UM, SO, UM, DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER AND HOW TO FOR, UH, ENFORCE, UM, WELL, HOW TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF THING IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY IS ALSO SOMETHING WE CAN DO.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, THAT WAS VERY ELOQUENT.
I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY OUR ATTORNEY, LAURA MORRISON, THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AT A TIME WHEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS.
AND I APPRECIATE HER FORBEARANCE IN LETTING US DISCUSS THIS LONG BECAUSE IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK, FOR US TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE LONG WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT.
AND IT WAS VERY CONSIDERATE OF MS. HAING TO COME DOWN AND DISCUSS THIS WITH US AND GIVE US SOME INSIGHTS FROM HIGHER UP IN THE PROCESS THAN WE'VE EVER BEEN AFFORDED BEFORE.
[03:20:01]
BUT AT THIS POINT, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN COVERED THAT'S BURNING TO GET OUT OF THEM, WE SHOULD PROBABLY MOVE TO DISCUSSING THIS ACTUAL DEMOLITIONYOUR QUESTION, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S BEFORE US IS RECOGNIZING WHETHER OR NOT THIS POSES, UM, A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE TO THE POINT WHERE WE WANT TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF THIS PROPERTY, OR DO WE HAVE OTHER COURSES OF ACTION THAT WE CAN TAKE? CAN WE, FOR EXAMPLE, DEEM THIS PROPERTY TO BE REPLICATED OR RESTORED, REHABILITATED AND REPLICATED EVEN IN ITS CURRENT STATE? THAT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION FOR AN ATTORNEY.
UM, THE, THE STANDARD IS FOR IMMINENT, UH, THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
WELL, I KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD IS.
MY QUESTION IS WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE? CAN YOU BE DIRECT ENOUGH TO TELL US THAT IF YOU PLEASE? YES.
SO, UM, THE DECISION NEEDS TO BE BASED OFF THAT STANDARD, UNFORTUNATELY, BESIDES REFERRING IT TO COMMUNITY PROSECUTION AS, UM, IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, UM, THAT'S THE ACT THOSE ARE THE ACTIONS.
AND WHAT, WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, OR WHAT IN THE CODE STATES, UM, HAS TO BE PRESENT TO, UM, CONSTITUTE IMMINENT HEALTH AND SAFETY? IS IT LIKE THE BUILDING NOT BEING BOARDED UP? I MEAN, CAN IT, CAN IT COLLAPSE FROM THE TOP DOWN AND STILL BE BOARDED UP AND NOT BE CONSIDERED A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE? UM, IF YOU CAN GIMME ONE SECOND, I CAN PULL THE COPY TOO.
SO ACCORDING TO THE CODE, UM, FOR AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC, THERE NEEDS TO BE A DOCUMENTED THREAT THAT DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE THREAT, AND THAT THERE IS NO OTHER REASONABLE WAY TO ELIMINATE THAT THREAT TIMELY.
AND WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTATION MIGHT THAT BE? PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, OR ARE WE JUST LEFT TO OUR IMAGINATION? OR ARE WE JUST, SO THE CODE MENTIONS RECORDS DEPICTING THE CURRENT CONDITION, UM, INCLUDING DRAWING PICTURES, WRITTEN DESCRIPTIONS, A STUDY REGARDING IT, AS WELL AS, UM, YOU KNOW, A STUDY REGARDING RESTORATION AND, UM, THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT RESTORATION BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS MR. TEEGARDEN TELLING US THAT, UM, UH, GREG JOHNSON WAS CONSULTED AND NANCY MCCOY WAS CONSULTED AND NEITHER OF THEM ARE HERE TODAY, BUT IT'S HIS TESTIMONY THAT, UM, THAT WAS MR. PULASKI THAT TESTIFIED THAT HE MENTIONED THOSE TWO.
I THOUGHT MR. TEEGARDEN MENTIONED THOSE TWO CARTON.
YEAH, TRIAR, I THINK
OR WAS IT MR. TRIAR? ONE OF YOU? RAISE YOUR HANDS AND WAVE AT ME.
SO I, YEAH, I REFERENCED GREG.
UM, BUT THAT WAS, LET'S LET COMMISSIONER SHERMAN FINISH HER QUESTION AND SEE WHAT, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I WANNA KNOW WHAT MR. MR. JOHNSON SAID.
I WANNA KNOW WHAT NANCY MCCOY SAID.
AND IS THERE A WRITTEN REPORT? SO GREG WAS, GREG WAS FOLLOWING, SO THAT WAS AFTER THE DEMOLITION WHEN, WHEN WE NEEDED TO FIRE THE ENTIRE TEAM AND FIND SOMEONE ELSE.
THAT'S WHEN WE HAD ACTUALLY CONTACTED GREG, BUT GREG DID ACTUALLY GO OUT TO THE STRUCTURE.
UM, PRIOR TO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO THE, THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR ACTUALLY DOES, SHE IS AN ARCHITECT, A LICENSED ARCHITECT, AND SHE ACTUALLY WROTE A STATEMENT AS SHE'S BEEN LIVING
[03:25:01]
IN THE NEXT DOOR HOUSE, UM, FOR I THINK SINCE 2019, SHE ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED THE HOUSE AND SHE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO CALL CO COMPLIANCE ABOUT THE ROOF COLLAPSING AS WELL AS THE HOUSE LEANING TOWARDS HER, TOWARDS HERS.UM, AND THAT'S DOCUMENTED AND IN INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE, UH, PACKAGE THAT AARON SENT ACROSS.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE CAN, UH, PULL THE CA SO WHEN WE FIRST PURCHASED THE HOUSE, WE DID GET THOSE CODE COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE UNFIT FOUNDATION, UNFIT ROOFING STRUCTURE, UNFIT BUILDING STRUCTURE.
IT WAS A, IT WAS A LIST OF VIOLATIONS THAT RELATED TO THE PROPERTY THAT FIRST MONTH THAT WE PURCHASED IT.
AND THEN IN, IN THE INITIAL CA THAT WE DID FOR THE PROJECT, PART OF IT WAS TO, UM, REPLACE THE ROOF, INCLUDING THE ROOFING, UM, UH, STRUCTURE AS A RESULT OF THE ROOF ALREADY COLLAPSING IN.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE GOT ALL THOSE CITATIONS FOR RELATED TO THE SAME TYPE OF THING.
AND SO WHAT WE HAVE IS THE RESULT OF AN INEPT CONTRACTOR BECAUSE YOU DID ATTEMPT TO REPLACE THE ROOF AND RESTRUCTURE THE ROOF, BUT THE CONTRACTOR WAS INEPT.
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? YES, THAT IS, THAT IS MY, I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA SHIFT THE BLAME, BUT, BUT, BUT YES, I MEAN, I WASN'T THE ONE ACTUALLY CA YOU KNOW, CARRYING OUT THE WORK, UH, PER SE.
BUT, BUT YES, I, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION REAL QUICK ON IT.
I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT REAL QUICK.
I THINK COMMISSIONER SWAN OKAY.
UH, I BELIEVE THIS IS FOR MS. HINES.
UH, I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS MS. HENNING OR YOU, BUT IN THE EARLIER PRESENTATION I HEARD SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
I MAY NOT GET THIS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT I THINK YOU'LL KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
COULD MAKE THE GRANTING OF A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION CONTINGENT OR CONDITIONAL UPON THE RESTORATION OR REPLICATION OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, COULD, COULD YOU KIND OF, UH, REPEAT THAT AND EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THE MECHANISM FOR AFFECTING THAT IS? BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT NOW, THE STANDARD BEFORE US IS, UH, THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
HOW DO, UH, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN OUR, UH, THE LAST MOTION, WE EFFECTIVELY APPROVED A REPLICATION OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO HOW DO WE CONNECT THE DOTS HERE? YES, THAT WAS, UH, ME, MARISSA HINES.
SO THE CODES IS REFERENCING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AS WELL AS BUILDING PERMITS.
UM, WHEN IF IN REGARD TO YOU CAN ACCEPT THOSE AND APPROVE THOSE ONLY IF THEY'RE TO RESTORE OR REPLICATE THE STRUCTURE, IT DOES NOT REFERENCE A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION.
SO FOR THE DEMOLITION, THAT IS, UM, BACK TO THE STANDARD THAT WE DISCUSSED BRIEFLY PREVIOUSLY.
I'M JUST, I'M, IM JUST ASKING HOW WE DO THIS SO THAT WE HAVE EFFECTIVELY, UM, ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT REQUIRES THE REPLICATION OF THE STRUCTURE.
IT, IT, IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT, UH, OUR, OUR OPTION HERE IS SIMPLY TO, UH, GRANT THE CERTIFICATE UNDER THE CURRENT STANDARD AND THAT IN TANDEM WITH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT EFFECTIVELY IS A REPLICATION OF THE STRUCTURE AUTHORIZED OR, UH, REPLICATION OF THE STRUCTURE AFFECTS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES, SIR.
SO YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE, UM, THE CA THAT WILL, YOU KNOW, REPLICATE OR RES AND RESTORE THE HOUSE.
SO THE, THE DEMOLITION IS BASED ON THE STANDARD.
IT JUST, IN SOME WAYS IT SEEMS THAT IF WE HAD KNOWN THAT BIT WHILE WE WERE DOING THE C OF A, WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT AND USED WORDS LIKE REPLICATION.
I, SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT LEAVES US RIGHT NOW.
I, I, I MEAN IT LEAVES ME WANTING TO REVISIT THE C OF A PROCESS ON THAT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY HAD A MOTION AND VOTED ON IT, SO I'M NOT SURE.
BUT WE HAVE ALL LEARNED SOMETHING FOR FUTURE.
WE HAVE, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE, I THINK THERE ARE, UH, MECHANISMS FOR RECALL.
I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT'S MOST APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW.
UH, I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD, HONESTLY, IT SEEMS THAT THE, THE BEST OUTCOME WOULD BE OKAY IF THIS, WE'VE LOST ANOTHER STRUCTURE, BUT IF WE COULD BE ASSURED THAT
[03:30:02]
ONLY, UH, THAT ALL WE HAVE APPROVED IS REPLICATION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS LOST, I THINK WE COULD FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT THAT.WELL, I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION COMING FROM MR. CUMMINGS, BUT I, I DID FEEL COMFORTABLE AS WE PASSED THE DESIGN, IT'S PRESENTED TO US THAT IT WAS PRETTY DARN CLOSE TO A REPLICATION WITH THE DOORS PUT BACK IN PLACE.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS CLOSE AS THEY COULD GET, THEY CAN'T REPEAT THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T SET BACK AS FAR AS IT SHOULD ON THE SIDES.
WELL, ONE THING THAT, THAT WOULD, I THINK, PUT IT, PUSH IT A LITTLE CLOSER IS RETENTION OF ORIGINAL MATERIALS WERE APPROPRIATE.
WHICH GOES, WHICH GOES TO MY QUESTION, THERE'S STILL MATERIALS OUT THERE, THERE'S STILL A FOOTPRINT OUT THERE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE OWNER.
WAS THE CONTRACTOR, GIVEN ALL THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM LANDMARK, FROM LANDMARK CODE ENFORCEMENT, WAS HE GIVEN YOUR STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENTS WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT? I MEAN, YOU'RE, WERE WE'RE PUTTING THIS ONTO THE CONTRACTOR AS BEING INEPT.
WHAT, WHAT DID ARE WHAT ARE WE SURE, WHAT ARE WE SURE THAT HE HAD IN HIS HANDS IF HE WAS GOING OFF ON NOT HAVING INFORMATION OR HE WAS, DID HE HAVE THIS INFORMATION? NO, HE HAD THE INFORMATION.
I MEAN, HE, HE WE, HE PRESENTED THE LAST CA WITH US AND YOU GUYS ASKED VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS TO HOW HE WOULD RETAIN THE GABLES AND HOW HE WOULD EVEN BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDING.
BECAUSE WHEN WE, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED THE PROJECT, WE PRESENTED THAT THE PROJECT WAS ALREADY, AND, AND A VERY DETERIORATED POSITION.
AND SO THERE WAS A TON OF QUESTIONS AS TO HOW HE WOULD RETAIN THE EXTERIOR WALLS.
AND HE TALKED TO THE GROUP ABOUT, HE WOULD PUT A CERTAIN, HE WOULD PUT, YOU KNOW, TWO BY SIXES ON THE INSIDE AND ACTUALLY PULL THE WALL INTO THE NEW FRAMING AND THAT HE WOULD REMOVE THE, THE, UM, HE WOULD REMOVE THE ROOF BY DOING THE NEW DECKING AND EVERYTHING AND STILL TRY TO RETAIN THE GABLES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
SO HE ACTUALLY TALKED YOU GUYS THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND ALL THAT HAD BEEN AFTER HE HAD BEEN, UH, DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE, UH, DIRECTLY CORRESPONDING WITH THE ARCHITECT TO PULL ALL THE MATERIALS, PULLED THE, THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO HE HAD BEEN MORE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT THAN WE WERE AT THAT POINT.
AND THAT THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT SOUNDS LIKE A PROGRESSION.
HE'S, HE'S EXPLAINING THE PROGRESSION OF WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION'S GOING TO BE.
WHERE WAS THERE A BUILDING ASSESSMENT? WHERE WAS THERE A STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT? WHERE ARE THOSE BEFORE WE EVER DROPPING ANYTHING, WE'RE CERTAINLY GONNA WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE LIFE SAFETY, THE BUILDING ASSESSMENT, THE RISK ASSESSMENT.
AND BEFORE WE, WE DECIDE, OH, WE'RE OKAY, WE'RE GONNA DROP THIS BUILDING.
I MEAN, WE DON'T DO THOSE THINGS BASED UPON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'M HEARING.
I MEAN, IF THIS, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCUSS ONE BECAUSE OF THE OTHER, THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE.
BUT IF THIS BEING SEPARATE AS IT IS THIS DEMOLITION, I WOULDN'T APPROVE ANYTHING BEING DEMOLITION WITHOUT THESE BUILDING ASSESSMENTS THAT I'M ASKING FOR.
AND THESE STRUCTURE ASSESSMENTS AND, AND, AND THESE THINGS.
AND, AND IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A CONSTRUCTION, UH, A CONTRACTOR THAT WAS GIVING YOU WHAT THE STEPS WOULD BE, BUT THERE WAS NEVER A BUILDING ASSESSMENT, STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT, ANY KIND OF LAY SAFETY ASSESSMENTS ON THIS.
THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM EITHER PRIOR, BEFORE YOU GOT IT AND THAT HANDED OVER TO YOU OR, OR THAT YOU GUYS ASCERTAINED AND DID THE ASSESSMENTS ON HERE ARE MISSING, WHAT'S HAPPENED HAS HAPPENED AND WHAT HE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT COULD HAPPEN AS YOU WERE GONNA GO THROUGH IT WAS EXPLAINED, BUT I GUESS WE'RE JUST MISSING WHAT I'M ASKING FOR ON THE REPORTS.
I I, I UNDERSTAND WHY, IF WE WERE, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THE, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO RULE ON WHETHER IT CAN BE DEMOLISHED, WOULD NOT REALLY BE COVERED BY THOSE PREVIOUS ENGINEERING REPORTS BECAUSE THE REST OF THE HOUSE IS GONE THAT PRESUMABLY WAS HELPING HOLD UP THIS VERY FRONT PART.
BUT THERE'S STILL MATERIALS, THERE, ARE THERE NOT MATERIALS THERE TO REUSE THEM WOULD CERTAINLY BE WHAT WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO.
AND, AND SOME OF THE LEGAL THINGS I'VE BEEN HEARING GOING BACK AND FORTH SEEMS TO BE, WELL, WE NEED TO BE WORKING ON THESE.
SO SOMETIMES MAYBE IT'S A DECISION MIGHT NEED TO BE MADE THAT YOU POSSIBLY DON'T APPROVE A DEMOLITION OF WHATEVER STATE IT'S IN UNLESS YOU HAVE THE LIFE SAFETY AND THE ASSESSMENTS ON THERE.
AND THEN YOU WORK OUT A LOT OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS AND PENALTIES AND WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
AND WE DO NOT, AND WE DON'T HAVE THOSE IN PLACE.
WE, WE, SO NOT, THEREFORE IT MIGHT BE A GOOD DECISION NOT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
WE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US ANY CERTIFYING THAT THE REMAINING BUILDING IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION.
WHAT, HOW, IN WHAT WAY? IT IS A STRUCTURAL HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC.
[03:35:01]
AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY FENCE.SO IT LOOKS BETTER THAN SOME HOUSES THAT COME IN FRONT OF US.
SO IT MIGHT BE PERFECTLY SAFE, BUT THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO SAY.
UM, DO WE, SO YOU'RE ASKING SHOULD WE REQUIRE THEM TO GET SUCH A REPORT ON THIS REMAINING FRAGMENT OF A BUILDING? I, THAT IS UP FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION TO COMMENT UPON WHETHER THEY NEED TO DO THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT MR. TRIAR, WHO HAS EXAMINED THE BUILDING, IS A LICENSED ARCHITECT.
WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO ASK HIM HAVING, HE'S BEEN THERE, HE LOOKED AT IT, WE CAN AT LEAST ASK HIM.
WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS, BUT WE COULD ASK HIM, MR. CARTON, DO YOU, IN YOUR VIEW, AS A LICENSED ARCHITECT HAVING VISITED THE SITE, IS IT POSE A HAZARD? I, I'LL SAY THAT I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE TO WALK ONTO THE PORCH.
UM, SO, UM, I THINK THAT AT LEAST SAYS A LOT ALRIGHT FOR US RIGHT NOW, HAVING, YOU KNOW, OH, GO AHEAD.
AND, AND BEYOND THAT, I MEAN, UH, JUST FROM A COMMON STINT, UH, SENSE STANDPOINT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU CAN SEE IT MAY NOT LAST THAT LONG.
UM, YOU KNOW, WITH A, WITH A GOOD STORM THAT COMES THROUGH, I MEAN, UM, I SAY THAT FROM MY PROFESSIONAL, PROFESSIONAL, UM, EXPERIENCE, BUT ALSO JUST FROM A COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT.
YEAH, WE'VE ALL SEEN THE STORMS, SO WE KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO.
THANK YOU MR. DI CARTON FOR, FOR YOUR INPUT.
I REALIZE YOU MAY NOT ON THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT, WISH TO MAKE AN EXTREMELY, UM, DEFINITE PROFESSIONAL
AND I MUST REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT, UM, WE HAVE TO DECIDE ON THIS DEMOLITION BASED ON THAT STANDARD, WHETHER OR NOT IT, IT PROPOSES A HAZARD AND WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED A REPLACEMENT HOUSE THAT WE ALL APPARENTLY THOUGHT WAS PRETTY GOOD GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE HOUSE ISN'T THERE.
WELL, AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE APPROVED, WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH IS ONE OF TWO COURSES.
WE EITHER, IN MY OPINION, WE GO WITH A CONSTRUCTION DUE TO A DEMOLITION THAT WE DON'T APPROVE OR WE GO WITH A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I, UM, I MUST ASK STAFF WHAT THEY WOULD SEE AS, AS WHAT THAT MEANS.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY FOR? IT'S NOT WHAT DOES IT MEANS.
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANT, BUT, WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION IS THAT THERE WERE CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, BUT THERE WAS NOT ONE FOR DEMOLITION.
AND THE DEMOLITION OCCURRED AND WHAT WAS TAKEN OUT WAS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DO OTHER WORK.
AND I, YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, I THINK EVEN I AM ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE WAS DONE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION AND DID NOT FOLLOW THE, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS, UH, THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUS SUBMIT, PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS A DEMOLITION WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, THEN CAN THE COMMISSION SAY WE WANT THE BUILDING RECONSTRUCTED? AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT, WE, DO WE WANT TO MAKE A POINT BY DOING THAT OR DO WE CONSIDER THAT IT'S MORE PRACTICAL TO GO WITH, WITH THE, THE BUILDING THAT WE ALREADY APPROVED? I'M NOT SURE OF WHAT I THINK OF BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS, WHICH, WHICH IS BEST BOTH FOR, WE MUST CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF THIS, THIS APPLICANT WHO I'M, I'M, I'M PRETTY WELL CONVINCED, DIDN'T, DIDN'T DO THIS ON PURPOSE.
I THINK THE CONTRACTOR, THEY DON'T EVEN GET LICENSES, BUT IF THEY DID, THEY SHOULD HAVE HIS LICENSE REMOVED.
BUT I, I, I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF THE APPLICANT AND WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF OUR PROGRAM GOING FORWARD AND THE PRECEDENT WE SET.
MARCUS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD TO KATE'S, UH, COMMENT ON THE, THE QUESTION OF, UH, REBUILDING THE STRUCTURE TO REPLICATE THE STRUCTURE.
UM, REPLICATION TO THE VERY INCH ISN'T NECESSARILY, UM, SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE JUST BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THE SETBACK AND SOME OTHER THINGS.
UM, BILL CURRENT BUILDING CODES WON'T NECESSARILY ALLOW IT TO BE REPLICATED TO THE INCH.
UM, I BELIEVE MY, MY MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION STAFF OPINION ON THIS IS THAT WHAT'S THEY'VE PRESENTED, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THE, THE CA WITH THE, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE, THE WIND, THE FRONT WINDOWS AND
[03:40:01]
DOORS ARE GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION, UM, I WOULD BE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS ESSENTIALLY NOW THEY'RE, THEY ARE REPLICATING THE HOUSE AS CLOSELY AS IT CAN BE.ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND I ALSO MUST THROW IN THAT SOMETIMES THINGS DON'T GO THE WAY WE'D LIKE THEM TO, BUT IF WE DO GET A LEARNING EXPERIENCE OUT OF THIS FOR NEXT TIME, SOMETHING HAPPENS, AND I, FOR ONE, I'M GLAD OF THE KNOWLEDGE I HAVE GAINED TODAY, NO MATTER HOW THIS VOTE GOES.
SO ANY MORE QUESTIONS THAT ARE PERTINENT OR A MOTION? I WAS JUST GOING, YOU KNOW, WELL, IT WAS JUST FOLLOWING UP.
I MEAN, WE HAD A PRETTY BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATION.
THE CLARITY COMMISSIONER, UM, DID ABOUT WHETHER WE WERE, WHETHER THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPLICATE, YOU KNOW, EARLIER ON.
SO, AND IT WAS THAT ANSWER TO THAT THAT KIND OF GAVE US THE POSITIONING THAT, UM, WHICH IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT NOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, I, I FEEL THE SENTIMENT OF OF, OF TAKING MOTIONS OUT OF IT.
I THINK THE SENTIMENT OF WHAT WAS CHANGED WITH THE AMENDMENT, UH, OR THE CHANGED, UH, MOTION, I THINK THAT THOSE CHANGES WITH THE FRONT AND ALL THOSE, THAT'S WHY THAT WAS MY UNREADINESS AT FOUR AT AND EARLIER.
SO, UH, I DO AGREE WE'VE LEARNED A LOT, UM, TIMELY, UH, ABOUT THE CLARIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT THAT WE, THAT WE HAVE.
SO COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, MS. HENNING OR, UM, OUR OTHER ATTORNEY PRESENT HERE TODAY.
IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS DEMOLITION, UM, DO ALL, UM, FINES JUST DISAPPEAR? ANY POTENTIAL FOR FINES JUST DISAPPEAR BECAUSE NOW THERE'S NOTHING TO FIND ANYONE FOR.
JILL HAING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, UH, THE APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRO APPROPRIATENESS, OR THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION WILL ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MOVE FORWARD AND ABATE CERTAIN VIOLATIONS.
IT WON'T, YOU KNOW, RETROACTIVELY ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OCCURRED WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS OR APPROVALS.
FINES FOR CITATIONS ALREADY ISSUED, YEAH, WON'T GO AWAY.
AND ANY, UH, ELIGIBLE, UM, FINES ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMIT, THOSE ARE STILL TH THEY'RE AVAILABLE.
CAN THEY ASK FOR FORGIVENESS TO, TO WHOMEVER IT MAY BE, TO, UH, WHEN THEY PAY THOSE FI WHEN THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PAY THOSE FINES? CAN THEY STILL GO A ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE, AND THEN HOW IS THAT HANDLED AS IT RELATES TO THE CITATIONS? I I, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THE STATUS OF THEM, BUT IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE COURT, THE FINE, UM, REMAINS THE SAME.
I MEAN IT, BUT IT'S JUST LIKE A TRAFFIC TICKET.
UM, SO THAT, THAT FINE IS SET.
UM, AS IT RELATES TO ANY FINES THAT MAY OR PENALTIES THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH, YOU KNOW, F FUTURE ENFORCEMENT.
UM, I MEAN, I THINK COURT'S ALWAYS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, THE CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, AND KIND OF THE PETITION FROM, UM, THE DEFENDANT, I CAN ANSWER THE STATUS THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN.
UH, CURRENTLY IT'S STILL IN PRE-HEARING STATUS.
I THINK THEY HAVE UNTIL THE 14TH TO REQUEST A HEARING, UH, TO BE VIEWED FOR THAT.
SO I DON'T SHOW THAT IT'S BEEN PAID AS OF YET.
UH, BUT IT DOES STILL STAND THAT IT WAS IN VIOLATION AT THE TIME OF THE CITATION, SO IT DOES STILL HOLD WEIGHT.
UM, I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD NOW REMEMBERING THAT WE MUST SEPARATE THIS CASE FROM THE LARGER CONCERNS, WHICH WE HAVE PLENTY OF.
IF NO ONE ELSE VOLUNTEERS, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION ON THIS ONE BECAUSE NO ONE, NO ONE'S VOLUNTEERING AS FAR AS I CAN SAY.
OKAY, ON THE MATTER OF CD 2 23 DASH 0 1 0 MW, THAT'S 47 0 2 JU STREET, PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
[03:45:01]
APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THEIR REASONS GIVEN.AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN INCLUDE, OR AT LEAST EVERYBODY HERE WHO IS A WITNESS, WILL MEMORIZE THAT WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED
THIS IS PAID BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AND BY THE COURTS AND BY THOSE FINDING AGENCIES.
WE WANT TO SEE THIS UNFORTUNATE, INNOCENT, THIS UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT ENDED THE WAY IT OUGHT TO BE ENDED, REPLACE THE HOUSE AS WE HAVE APPROVED AND, AND SOME SORT OF, UM, APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT, I GUESS IS THE WORD FOR, FOR, FOR BEHAVIOR.
SO I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ACCORDING TO, ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE WHAT IS LEFT IS A DANGER TO PEOPLE.
SECOND, UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, YEAH, JUST A LITTLE BIT.
UM, HONESTLY, UH, OUR MAIN INTEREST HERE IS THAT THIS NOT HAPPEN REPEATEDLY AND THAT THE LAW STRUCTURE IS REPLACED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE.
UM, I AM REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL THE EXPENSE GO BACK INTO IMPROVING THE DISTRICT, AND THAT MAKES ME LESS INTERESTED IN PUNITIVE MEASURES, FEELING THAT THE REPLICATION OF A STRUCTURE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT A STRUCTURE BE REPLICATED, RECONSTRUCTED, UM, SERVES US BETTER AS A DETERRENT THAN PUNITIVE FINES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. SHERMAN? I'LL BE BRIEF, I PROMISE.
UM, THERE IS ALSO A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT VERY FEW OF US KNOW ABOUT OR KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE PRESERVATION FUND BY CODE.
THERE WAS A PRESERVATION FUND CREATED INTO WHICH SUCH FEES AND FINES COULD BE PUT AND THAT WOULD ACCRUE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE THAT MONEY TOWARDS PRESERVATION IN WHATEVER FORM WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO BENEFIT THE PRESERVATION PROGRAM IN THE DISTRICTS AND THE PROTECTED PROPERTIES.
NOT ONE SINGLE DIME HAS GONE INTO THE PRESERVATION FUND IN ALL THESE YEARS.
IT'S ALLOWED, BUT IT ISN'T UTILIZED.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD ADOPT A RESOLUTION.
UM, MAYBE NOT HERE AT THIS MOMENT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ADOPT A RESOLUTION ASKING OUR, UM, CHIEF PLANNER TO LOOK INTO THIS AND REPORT BACK TO US.
UM, UH, MAYBE IN CONNECTION WITH MR. BROACH OR WHOEVER HAS TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE KIND OF THINGS BECAUSE WE HAVE TOOL IN THE TOOL TOOLBOX AND WE DO NOT USE THEM.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, BUT IT'S THERE AND I CAN GIVE YOU THE LINK TO IT IF YOU WANNA READ IT AND, UM, IT MAKES SENSE AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES USE IT AND DO IT SUCCESSFULLY, BUT WE DON'T.
I BELIEVE KATE SINGLETON HAS A COMMENT TO THAT.
UNDER OUR ORDINANCE IT SAYS, UH, THAT THE PRESERVATION FUND IS COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING FUNDS.
I WON'T READ THEM ALL, BUT ONE OF THEM IS DAMAGES RECOVERED PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION THREE 15.006, FROM PERSONS WHO WILL LEGALLY DEMOLISH OR ADVERSELY AFFECT HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
UM, SO THEY'RE, UM, IT IS IN, IT IS IN OUR CODE, SO I CAN, UM, FOR THE NEXT MEETING, I CAN BRING BACK SOME MORE INFORMATION IF YOU'D LIKE THAT ON THE AGENDA.
I THINK WE WOULD LIKE THAT ON THE ADD AGENDA.
WAS MUST ONE OF US GIVE YOU, UM, WRITTEN REQUEST ADDED TO THE AGENDA, OR IS THIS SUFFICIENT? THIS IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR HER.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN DO THAT AT THIS POINT.
IF THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS, I'M GONNA CALL FOR THE VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE, ON THE TABLE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[03:50:01]
AYE.ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY OPPOSED.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO REGISTER A VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION? I SEE NOTHING AT HOME AND HEAR NOTHING HERE, SO THE MOTION HAS CARRIED BUT NOT UNANIMOUSLY.
UM, MR. PULASKI, I'M, I'M SO SORRY THAT EVERYTHING'S BEEN SUCH AN OR ORDEAL SINCE YOU STARTED THIS WHOLE PROJECT.
WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST IN INVESTING MONEY AND IMPROVING THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS OF DALLAS, AND I HOPE EVERYTHING ELSE GOES VERY SMOOTHLY AND THAT THE HOUSE TURNS OUT LOVELY.
THANK YOU AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME AND APOLOGIES AGAIN.
AND AS A RESULT, I, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO WHAT MATCH WHATEVER WE'VE PAID IN FINES AND PENALTIES TO PUT INTO THE FUND.
CUZ ORIGINALLY WHEN I SPOKE TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, THE ONLY REASON THEY SOLD THE HOUSE WAS BECAUSE THEY GOT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF FUNDS AND WERE UNABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE, THE MAINTENANCE THAT WAS REQUIRED OF THE HOME, WHICH IS WHY IT GOT TO SUCH THE POSITION THAT IT GOT TO, WHICH THEY WERE LITERALLY LIVING IN A HOME WITH WATER JUST POURING IN.
SO I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DONATE WHAT WE'VE GOTTEN BY WAY OF FINES TO START THAT FUND SO THAT HOPEFULLY OTHER HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE FACING A SIMILAR THING.
JUST AS YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN SAID CAN HOPEFULLY BE DISSOLVED OF SOME OF THOSE HEARTACHES FINANCIALLY SINCE WE ARE IN A POSITION TO DO SO.
AS VERY GENEROUS OF YOU AND STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.
AND AGAIN, I I NEVER MEANT TO ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING, I MEANT TO ACCUSE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD OF A NEGATIVE INSPIRATION CUZ YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT CROSS A HUMAN'S MIND.
BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR EFFORTS.
OUR NEXT ONE IS D ONE FOR WHICH I AM AGAIN RECUSED, RIGHT? THAT'S FAIR PARK AGAIN, RIGHT? YES, CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT, I'LL, I'LL, ALL RIGHT.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF STAFF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 37 50 COTTON BOWL PLAZA IN FAIR PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 DASH 4 23 R D.
THE REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO UPGRADE OR INSTALL CELLULAR ANTENNAS THROUGHOUT THE STADIUM.
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MOUNTED STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO UPGRADE OR INSTALL CELLULAR ANTENNAS THROUGHOUT THE STADIUM, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MOUNTED BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERION SECTION THREE POINT 12 UNDER GENERAL PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN NET ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ONLY NON-SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS ARE 4G ANTENNAS ARE PRESENTLY INSTALLED, 5G ANTENNAS ARE LARGER AND WILL DUPLICATE 4G ANTENNAS.
SINCE TECHNOLOGY IS CONTINUINGLY TO CHANGE, NEED, NEED TO DISCUSS WAYS TO MAKE ANTENNAS LESS VISIBLE.
I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
UM, MY QUESTION IN THIS CASE WOULD BE, CUZ WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND THERE'S BEEN CONCERN ABOUT THIS BEFORE AND WE'RE STILL BACK TO SQUARE ONE, THAT BEING THE MULTIPLICATION OF THESE, UM, CELL TOWERS, THERE'S NO PROVISION IN THIS REQUEST THAT THEY BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 4G AFTER THEY INSTALL THE UPGRADE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
CAN WE ADD THAT AS A CONDITION? SEE, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND.
THERE SEEMS TO BE, BECAUSE I WAS TOLD WHEN I FIRST RECEIVED A CELLULAR UPGRADE CA APPLICATION THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY BY THE TELECOM COMPANIES SUCH THAT WE HAD TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE, I MEAN, I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT THE IDEA, BUT, UH, I WAS TOLD THAT WE HAD TO APPROVE IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE A CONDITION SUCH THAT THEY NEED TO TAKE DOWN THE EXISTING ONES.
I MEAN, I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THAT IF WE CAN.
[03:55:01]
WHO SAID THAT? I'M SORRY, I'M LOST.UH, WHEN I RECEIVED MY FIRST CELLULAR UPGRADE, UM, APPLICATION, I ASKED WHAT'S OUR STANDARD ORAL POLICY FOR THIS? AND I WAS TOLD THAT THE CITY IN THE PAST HAD RECEIVED SOME TYPE OF LEGAL ACTION AGAINST IT SUCH THAT WE NOW HAVE TO APPROVE THOSE REQUESTS WHEN THEY COME ACROSS YOUR DESK.
I MEAN, I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY WITH DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT ANYWAY, IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO PUT A CONDITION ON IT, I AM FINE WITH THAT.
IT'S JUST I'M TRYING TO STICK WITH THE POLICY I WAS GIVEN.
WELL, UM, HONESTLY, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I WOULD APPROVE IT.
I DO WOULD PREFER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, AND THE REASON BEING THAT, UM, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT IT ON A, ON A STANDARD OF THE VISIBILITY FROM THE PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THAT'S A BIG BAG OF WORMS BECAUSE I CAN DRIVE DOWN THE FREEWAY AND SEE THE TOP OF THE COTTON BOWL.
AND SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT MY SIGHT LINE IS NEGATED BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT FROM A DISTANCE? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK IN A PARK LIKE THIS, IN A, YOU KNOW, NATIONAL DISTRICT LIKE THIS, UM, I THINK WE HAVE A HIGH STANDARD.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY THAT I WOULD APPROVE IT IS IF IT HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY REMOVE THE 4G, BUT WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT, CAN WE, UH, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT'D HAVE TO ASK LEGAL.
I I WAS GONNA SAY THAT A POSSIBLE MOTION COULD REQUEST MORE INFORMATION ABOUT REMOVING, YOU KNOW, CAN THE 4G BE REMOVED, UM, WHAT ARE THE SIGHT LINES, A LITTLE BETTER INFORMATION ABOUT SIGHT LINES AND, AND, UH, THOSE ISSUES THAT YOU THINK YOU ALL THINK ARE IMPORTANT.
SO I'M JUST LIKE, SAY PUTTING THAT OUT THERE AS STAFF THAT THAT MIGHT BE A CONSIDERATION FOR A MOTION AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER.
WELL, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE ENERGY THAT YOU HAVE TO DEVOTE TO THIS THING BECAUSE I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMEBODY COMING HERE TO TELL US EVEN MORE.
UM, SO WE'RE NOT LEFT TO OUR OWN DEVICES TO ASCERTAIN WHAT'S, WHAT'S A GOOD DECISION, WHAT'S NOT A GOOD DECISION.
UM, SO ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE ELSE? I, I DO JUST, YES.
MY ONLY QUESTION, BUT I WAS READING THROUGH THERE, IS THERE AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT'S NOT REPLACING THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF THE 4G? IS THAT THE ASSUMPTION? IT'S NOT AN ASSUMPTION.
IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUPPLIED, HE SHOWS CURRENT, WHICH IS ONE ANTENNA, THEN HE SHOWS PROPOSED, WHICH ARE THE TWO ANTENNAS SIDE BY SIDE.
SO UNLESS HE TOTALLY MISREPRESENTED EACH INDIVIDUAL PICTURE OF, I THINK THERE'S LIKE FIVE OF THEM, THEN IT'S DUPLICATION, IT'S NOT REPLACEMENT.
AND THEN THE NEW ANTENNAS ARE ALSO LARGER THAN THE ORIGINAL.
SO YOU'LL SEE THE SMALL BOX AND THEN NEXT TO THE SMALL BOX, HE'S PUTTING A BIG BOX.
AND I JUST REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION WHEN THEY CAME IS MONTHS AGO.
AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USE FOR THE WHOLE REASON, THE RATIONALE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY.
THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM BEFORE.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, IS THIS THE MINIMUM THAT THEY COULD DO TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM? OKAY, THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THEY CAME BEFORE THEY WERE ACTUALLY INSTALLING AROUND, NOT THE COTTON BOWL STADIUM, BUT AROUND FAIR PARK, THESE CELLULAR NODES THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE, UM, ACORN LIGHTS.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT FROM THIS ONE.
AND THIS PROJECT, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY COME TO TASK FORCE OR AS YOU SEE TODAY TO DISCUSS, IS THERE A WAY WE COULD POSSIBLY
[04:00:01]
MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF OKAY, YES MA'AM.DUNDON, DID YOU SAY DUPLICATION WITHOUT REMOVAL? WAS THAT YOUR YEAH, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
IT'S DUPLICATION WITHOUT REMOVAL.
SO IT'S NOT REPLACEMENT, IT'S INCREMENTAL.
UM, I KNOW THAT DUE TO THESE UPGRADES EVENTUALLY THE FORMER VERSION ROLLS OUT.
DO WE HAVE, HAVE THEY PROVIDED ANY KIND OF A SCHEDULE FOR THAT AND CAN WE NO.
ADD TO ANY MOTION WE MAKE, EVEN IF IT'S A DE DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK FOR APPROVAL, WE NEED A SCHEDULE OF WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO ROLL THAT 4G OUT SO THAT WE CAN HOLD THEM TO REMOVING THE 4G ANTENNAS.
NO, I MEAN THAT, YES, I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THAT, BUT NO, THERE'S BEEN NO STATEMENT FROM THEIR SIDE ON WHEN THEY COULD POSSIBLY ROLL OUT THE 4G ANTENNAS BECAUSE THE OBVIOUS CONCERN IS THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK WITH 6G ANTENNAS VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE YES, MY PHONE ALREADY DOES 6G
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE READY FOR A MOTION? COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, I WANNA OH YEAH.
UH, COMMISSIONER FOGLEMAN, BUT I THINK THEY MISUNDERSTOOD.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THEM LOWER ON THE POLE OR PUT BOTH DEVICES ON ONE POLE? I DO NOT KNOW.
SEE, THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THE TELECOM COMPANY WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? I'M READY.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO DISCUSSION ITEM 1 37 50 COTTON BOWL, P L Z IN THE FAIR PARK, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 DASH 4 23 RD, I MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, AND UM, WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THIS DUPLICATION, UM, LEADS TO AN INCREMENTAL AMOUNT OF, UM, TOWERS AND, UM, WITHOUT REMOVAL WILL HAVE, UH, AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE STADIUM AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE SECOND.
AND THAT COULD PROBABLY BE WORDED BETTER.
I THINK SOMEBODY COULD MAYBE HELP ME WORD THAT BETTER.
IS THAT OKAY? WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
I DO JUST WANNA MAKE A QUICK COMMENT AND THEN ANYBODY ELSE IF THEY'D LIKE TO.
UM, IN MY LINE OF WORK AND PLANNING, I'M STARTING TO SEE MORE AND MORE OF, UM, DESIGN BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OF THESE CELL NODES AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF, OF EQUIPMENT THAT'S BEING PLACED ON VARIOUS BUILDINGS.
IT'S REALLY DISAPPOINTING WHEN SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO ATTACH SOMETHING TO THEIR BUILDING SUCH AS THIS AND THEY'S SIMPLY COPYING WHAT'S THERE BEFORE.
SO I REALLY, AND I I SAID THE SAME THING WHEN THE CELL NOTES CAME BEFORE US LAST YEAR TO, TO MR. ALSTON.
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CONVEYED TO THE APPLICANT.
LET'S NOT JUST COPY WHAT'S THERE JUST BECAUSE IT'S THERE.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANY DESIGN STANDARD THAT COULD BE MADE THAT'S OVER AND ABOVE THE BARE MINIMUM, WHICH IS ATTACHING THESE NODES TO THE END OF A POLL AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE.
SURELY THERE CAN BE SOMETHING BETTER THAN THIS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, UH, I'LL TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO TELL THAT THEY CAN, UH, APPEAL FOR A FEE, BUT WE'LL LET THEM KNOW.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP IS DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FIVE FOR WHICH WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS.
ITEM NUMBER 5 44 0 9 WIRTH STREET IN PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 23 DASH FOUR 11 CM.
I'M MARCUS WATSON, REPRESENTING STAFF.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE PORCH BEAMS WITH NEW LAMINATED STRUCTURAL MEMBERS WRAPPED IN PINE TWO.
[04:05:01]
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE PORCH COLUMNS, SEVERAL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY REPLACED WITH NEW FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER COLUMNS.A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO SAND PRIME AND REPAINT EXISTING FLOORS, PORCH CEILINGS W 6 47 TIDEWATER AND PORCH FLOORS W 9 1 75 DEEP FOREST BROWN.
NUMBER FOUR, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT YARD USING VINTAGE FENCING FOUND IN THE BACKYARD THAT MATCHES EXISTING HISTORIC IRON FENCING.
AND FIVE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PAINT PORCH ELEMENTS TO MATCH EXISTING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE AND AS FOLLOWS, COLUMN C S W 7 0 0 9 PURLEY WHITE COLUMN ACCENT S W 60,024 DRESSY ROSE COLUMN BASE AND CAP S W 64 80 LAGOON PORCH CEILING S W 6 47 TIDEWATER PORCH FLOOR S W 91 75 DEEP FOREST BROWN STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE PORCH BEAMS WITH NEW LAMINATED STRUCTURAL MEMBERS WRAPPED IN PINE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 23 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL EXPOSED MATERIAL BE WOULD IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 3.19, 3.20 AND 3.22 CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE PORCH COLUMNS, SEVERAL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY REPLACED WITH NEW F FIBER REINFORCED CO POLYMER COLUMNS BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE PROPOSED FIBERGLASS COLUMNS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 3.19, 3.20 AND 3.22 AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A 4.501 G SIX ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
NUMBER THREE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO SAND PRIME AND REPAINT EXISTING PORCH, CEILING, AND FLOOR BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECI, SORRY SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA, SECTIONS 3.7, 3.19, 3.20, AND 3.22 CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT YARD USING VINTAGE FENCING FOUND IN THE BACKYARD THAT MATCHES EXISTING HISTORIC IRON FENCING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DATED 61 23 WITH A FINDING THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXACT ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE IS UNKNOWN, THE FENCE APPEARS TO BE HISTORIC AND LIKELY ORIGINAL TO THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
CITY CODE SECTION 51 A 4.501 G SIX ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
AND FINALLY, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PAINT PORCH ELEMENTS TO MATCH EXISTING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE AND AS FOLLOWS, COLUMN SIX, UHS SW 7 0 0 9 PURLEY WHITE ACCENTS W 6 0 24 DRESSY ROSE COLUMN BASE AND CAPS SW 6 48 0 LAGOON PORCH CEILINGS SW 6 47 TIDEWATER PORCH FLOOR SSW 9 1 75 DEEP FOREST BROWN BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS DATED 6 1 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 3.7, 3.19, 3.20 AND 3.22.
CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX ROMAN AT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
TASK FORCE
REPLACE PORCH BEAMS SUPPORT L L V L BEAM TO SUPPORT THE FRONT PORCH ROOF.
NUMBER TWO, REPLACE PORCH COLUMNS WITH FIBERGLASS DO NOT SUPPORT,
[04:10:01]
ALTHOUGH WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEED OF A MORE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION TO THE CONSTANT DECAY OF THE WOOD COLUMNS, THE PROPOSED MATERIAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE.NUMBER THREE, REPAINT PORCH FLOOR SUPPORT.
NUMBER FOUR, INSTALL ORIGINAL IRON FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT YARD THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED SUPPORT.
AND NUMBER FIVE, THERE WAS NO COMMENT.
UH, THERE IS UH, NO APPLICANT TO QUESTION.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MOTION OR DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I GUESS, UM, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD.
UM, THE PAINT TIDE WATER SHOULD BE S W 64 77.
WHAT A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE YOU BRING
YOU JUST KNEW THAT AT THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, I HAVE A MOTION.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF D 5 44 0 9 WORTH STREET CA 2 23 DASH FOUR 11 CM, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, APPROVE ITEM ONE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE ITEM TWO AND URGE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF IN A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE MANNER THAT MIGHT, UM, ACCOMPLISH THE BETTER OBJECTIVE NUMBER THREE TO APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
NUMBER FOUR, TO APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND NUMBER FIVE, TO APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CORRECTION TO THE TIDE WATER.
THANK YOU MR. CUMMINGS FOR YOUR SECOND.
IF THERE ISN'T ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
STAFF WILL RELATE OUR FINDING TO THE APPLICANT NOTING THAT THEY DID GET A DENIAL AND THEY COULD APPEAL IT IF THEY WANTED OR THEY CAN DISCUSS WITH YOU FURTHER AND COME BACK TO US.
AND THAT IS OUR LAST CASE, BUT WHICH THERE IS ALSO NO SPEAKER ITEM NUMBER 8 48 26 SWISS AVENUE AND PEAK SUBURBAN EDITION CA 2 23 DASH 4 4 13 MW UH, MARCUS WATSON.
AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ENCLOSURE TO CONCEAL ELECTRICAL AND OTHER UTILITY PANELS CITED TO MATCH THE HOUSE WORK COMPLETED WITHOUT A CA.
NUMBER TWO, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE SEVERAL ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND ONE NON-ORIGINAL WINDOW ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE HOUSE WITH TINTED PLATE GLASS WINDOWS WORK COMPLETED WITHOUT A CA.
ONE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ENCLOSURE TO CONCEAL ELECTRICAL AND OTHER UTILITY PANELS CITED TO MATCH THE HOUSE WORK COMPLETED WITHOUT A CA BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS DATED 61 23 23.
THE WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA, SECTIONS 4.2 AND 4.4.
CITY CODE SECTION 51 A 4.501 G SIX ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
AND ITEM NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE SEVERAL ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND ONE NON-ORIGINAL WINDOW ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE HOUSE WITH TINTED PLATE GLASS WINDOWS WORK COMPLETED WITHOUT A CA BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE AND THE REMOVAL OF ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND REPLACEMENT WITH SINGLE LIGHT TINED GLASS WITHOUT A CA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 3.10 3.13, 3.14 AND 3.15 WHICH STATES 3.3 0.15 WHICH STATES THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS SHOULD BE REFERRED TO FOR ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF HISTORIC FENESTRATIONS.
WE FAILED TO NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER LEFT.
HE'S HAVING A PARTY IN 45 MINUTES.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, NO QUORUM COMMENTS, ONLY COMMENTS.
CONSTRUCTION ENCLOSURE AROUND ELECTRICAL PANELS DO NOT SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF REQUEST HAS
[04:15:01]
BEEN PREVIOUSLY DENIED FOR OTHER APPLICANTS AS IT ALTERS THE HISTORIC PROFILE OF THE STRUCTURE AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.SEE PREVIOUS DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR NINE 12 MORELAND AVENUE REPLACED WINDOWS ON THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST SIDES OF THE HOUSE DO NOT SUPPORT.
THE WINDOWS WERE INSTALLED WITHOUT A CA ARE NOT HISTORICALLY COMPATIBLE AND DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
THE WINDOWS SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WOOD ON WOOD WINDOWS IN THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR A MOTION? I HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, PERSONALLY I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, LITTLE UTILITY BOX, THE UTILITY BOX AMOUNTS TO AN ADDITION BECAUSE MY, WELL, MY DEFINITION OF AN ADDITION WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT THAT INCREASES THE SQUARE FOOT FOOTAGE OF A STRUCTURE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS AMOUNTS TO.
UM, SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD NOT WANT TO APPROVE THAT.
UM, BECAUSE IT SIMPLY CONCEALS A MESS OF ELECTRICAL WIRES THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE REPLACED AND MOVED TO A BETTER POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND I DO THINK IT ILL AFFECTS THE, UM, UM, THE VIEW OF THAT PROTECTIVE FACADE FROM THE STREET AS IT IS.
AND, UM, OTHERWISE I CONCUR WITH STAFF.
ANYTHING ELSE OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
YOU COULD HAVE JUST DONE THAT.
OKAY? I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE I'VE WRITTEN UP, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO OUT WITH SOME APPLAUSE TODAY.
UM, UM, IN THE MATTER OF D 8 48 26 SWISS AVENUE IN THE PEAK SUBURBAN DISTRICT CA 2 23 DASH FOUR 13 MW, UM, I MOVE THAT WITH RESPECT TO, UM, ITEM ONE WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ALSO ITEM TWO THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, AND THAT WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT IN ADDITION THAT NO WITH FINDING OF FACT THAT, UM, WHAT'S CONSTRUCTED TO CONCEAL THE ELECTRICAL WIRES AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN A UTILITY BOX.
UM, AND THAT WITH RESPECT TO ITEM TWO, UM, IT'S UM, FOR ALL THE REASONS, UM, STATED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THANK YOU MR. SWAN FOR YOUR SECOND.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE ON THIS.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
STAFF WILL OF COURSE CONFER WITH THE APPLICANT, LETTING THEM KNOW THEY DID RECEIVE DENIALS AND THEY COULD APPEAL OR THEY COULD RE RETHINK AND COME BACK AND PRESENT US WITH SOME NEW INFORMATION.
WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL OF OUR BUSINESS.
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAY, IF I HAVEN'T, IT'S GOOD.
UM, IT IS FIVE 20, JULY 30, JULY 3RD, AND, UM, WE ARE ADJOURNED AND PREPARED FOR OUR HOLIDAY TOMORROW.