[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