[00:00:01]
[Landmark Commission Meeting on September 5, 2023.]
TO THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE DALLAS LANDMARK COMMISSION.IT IS SEPTEMBER 5TH AT 1 0 7 AND I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER.
OUR VICE CHAIR IS COURTNEY SPELL, AND WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FASCINATING THINGS TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IN, IN OUR AFTERNOON MEETING.
LET'S BEGIN BY HAVING ELAINE CALL A ROLL CALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS PRESENT.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A QUORUM AND ALL IS GOOD.
UH, LET'S QUICKLY, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS ABOUT THE MINUTES? THERE NEVER ARE.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S QUICKLY SEE IF WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS A CORRECTION TO MAKE ON THEM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SWAN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE APPROVED OUR MINUTES.
UM, COMMISSIONER PEL, UH, NOW HAS SOME MOTIONS TO MAKE REGARDING THE ORDER IN WHICH WE WILL TAKE OUR CASES TODAY.
THAT'S 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING YET.
I'M JUST GONNA READ, UH, THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE HAVE AS BEING HERE IN PERSON.
STARTING WITH OR WHO WILL HAVE AT SOME POINT, NORM ALSTON, PABLO GARCIA, CALVIN LAMONT, CELIA RAMIREZ, ARTURO PALACIOS, FERNANDO MARTINEZ, JOHN HUTCHINGS, AS WELL AS FRANK HONG AND GARY SCOTT.
NICK, UH, AS WELL AS JEFF ELDER DID, IS ANYBODY PRESENT WHOSE NAME WAS NOT CALLED? OKAY, GREAT.
SO THEN I, UH, UH, DO, DO THE CONSENT ITEMS FIRST AND THEN
SO, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE CONSENT ITEM 12 TO DISCUSSION.
SO, UH, FIRST I MOVE TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS ONE, THREE THROUGH 11, 13 AND 14.
SECOND, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SWAN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THAT HAS CARRIED THOSE, THOSE WILL BE, UH, RULED ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF ANYONE WAS PRESENT FOR ONE OF THOSE THAT WE JUST APPROVED, WE'RE ACTUALLY ALL DONE AND CONGRATULATIONS,
ELAINE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YES, THAT WAS CONSENT ITEMS ONE THREE THROUGH 1113 AND 14.
NEXT, WE'LL TAKE UP CONSENT ITEM TWO, BUT WE'LL NEED COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO, UM, EXCUSE HIMSELF, MOVE TO APPROVE CONSENT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
THAT MOTION IS ALSO CARRIED ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE CAN ASK MR. ANDERSON TO COME BACK.
WELL, HE CAN HOPE HE COMES BACK.
OH, STAFF WOULD LIKE ME TO ASK IF FRANK WONG IS HERE.
[00:05:01]
IS NOTTHAT WILL BE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, REARRANGE THE AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON.
I MOVE THAT WE, UH, DISCUSS THE ITEMS AS FOLLOWS, STARTING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM SIX, FOLLOWED BY CONSENT ITEM 12, THEN OUR COURTESY REVIEW, THEN DISCUSSION ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT.
THEN DISCUSSION ITEMS TWO AND THREE.
DISCUSSION ITEM FOUR, ONE ENDING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM FIVE SECOND.
WAS THAT A SECOND I HEARD? YES.
DO WE NEED TO REPEAT THOSE FOR ANYBODY? YES.
AND WE NEED TO REPEAT THOSE FOR PEOPLE.
D SIX, CONSENT 12 COURTESY REVIEW, THEN D 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 1, 5.
ALRIGHT, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THEN WE ARE GOOD TO GO.
BEGINNING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM SIX, WHICH, UH, THE STAFF NEEDS TO READ AND WE HAVE NOT ASKED SOMEBODY TO READ.
UM, TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE CALLED UPON TO DO THAT? COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS IS WILLING TO BE BURDENED WITH THIS.
HE ASKED ME TO MAKE HIM DO IT.
UH, COULD, UH, COULD YOU SPELL IT FOR THE C 12? WHAT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT? AND WAS THAT A MOTION? I MOVED THAT TO DISCUSSION, SO WE'LL TAKE THAT AFTER DISCUSSION.
IT'LL BE THE SECOND ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.
OKAY, ARE WE READY? YES, WE'RE READY FOR D SIX.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 34 18 JEFFREY STREET, IN THE WHEATLEY PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 2 3 DASH 5 4 0 R D.
THE REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL FREE STANDING METAL CARPORT IN REAR CORNER SIDE YARD WORK DONE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THE STAFF RECOMME RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL FREESTANDING METAL CARPORT AND REAR CORNER SIDE YARD WORK DONE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS INCONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERION.
SECTION 3.5 PERTAINING TO BUILDING SITE AND LANDSCAPING.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 SUBDIVISION, G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT ARE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL FREESTANDING METAL CARPORT AND REAR CORNER SIDE YARD WORK DONE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE, APPROPRIATENESS BEING DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CARPORT CAN BE SEEN, BE SEEN FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON JEFFREY STREET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
UM, SO FOR D SIX, WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
THE FIRST OF WHOM IS CELIA RAMIREZ IS C UH, IS MS. RAMIREZ HERE IN PERSON OR ONLINE? OKAY.
UH, IF YOU COULD GO UP TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
UH, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE MICROPHONE IS ON.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE A GREEN LIGHT IF IT IS.
UH, WE'D LIKE YOU TO BEGIN BY SAYING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS ELIA RAMIREZ AND I LIVE IN 3 4 1 8 JEFFY STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 15.
I HAVE TO ASK YOU BEFORE WE BEGIN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM OR PROMISE THAT YOU'LL TELL THE TRUTH? YES, MA'AM.
[00:10:01]
UM, YOU, YOU MAY BEGIN AND, UM, TELL US WHATEVER YOU NEED TO PRESENT TO US TO SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST.LIKE, UM, WE HAVE A SMALL PATIO AND LIKE THE PERGOLA OR CARPORT WAS BUILT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE.
AND UH, SO WHEN I, WHEN WE GOT THE HOUSE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY TREES AND SO THAT'S WHY SHE BUILT IT AND YEAH, WE GOT THE PERMIT.
SO, SO PRIMARILY YOU ARE IN NEED OF SHADE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, THAT'S THE MAIN SHADE FOR ALL OF US.
AND FOR MY DOG I HAVE A LITTLE CHIHUAHUA AND SHE LIVES OUTSIDE.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE A, ANOTHER SPEAKER, ARTURO PALACIOS.
AND, UM, OKAY, MR. PALACIOS, I ALSO NEED, UH, YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
STREET 3 4 1 8 JEFFERS STREET.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU WILL TELL THE TRUTH? YES, OF COURSE.
UM, UH, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS.
IT'S THE SAME THING THAT SHE SAID EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID.
UM, THEN THE NEXT THING WE WOULD DO IS HAVE COMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS OF BOTH SPEAKERS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, SWAN.
ALRIGHT, THIS IS FOR, UH, EITHER OF THE SPEAKERS.
UH, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT FROM THE GROUND TO THE CEILING OF THE CARPORT? 10 FEET.
IS ALL OF THAT 10, 10 FEET NEEDED? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE PARKED OR PLACED UNDER THAT CARPORT THAT, UH, REQUIRES THAT MUCH CLEARANCE?
SO THE ADDITIONAL CEILING HEIGHT IS TO, UH, ALLOW THE HEAT TO RISE.
AND, UH, IS THAT A CORRUGATED METAL SURFACE THAT MAKES UP THE ROOF? I, I JUST HAD AN IDEA.
MAY I KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS OR DO WE NEED TO HEAR THE IDEA?
I'M ARE YOU JUST SAYING SO THAT THE, UH, THE, THE HOT SURFACE OF THE CEILING WOULD BE FARTHER AWAY FROM PEOPLE BELOW? YES.
UH, AND DOES, WHICH WAY DOES THE ROOF CURRENTLY DRAIN? NEATH, UH, TOWARD THE INSIDE OF THE PATIO.
TOWARD THE INSIDE OF THE PATIO.
I'M LOOKING AT THE, WHAT LOOKS LIKE A PATTERN OF CORRUGATION ON THE ROOF.
AND I, I HAD THOUGHT THAT THE DRAINAGE MIGHT BE TOWARD THE BACK BECAUSE THE CORRUGATION SEEMS TO RUN FROM BACK TO FRONT, DOESN'T IT? NO, IT'S ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE.
UH, BECAUSE I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN IS THE HEIGHT THAT IS NEAREST THE STREET.
[00:15:03]
SO IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO PUT THE ROOF AT A TILT SO THAT, UM, IT COULD BE DROPPED MAYBE A COUPLE FEET ON THE STREET SIDE.SO IT WOULD BE A, A HEIGHT OF ABOUT EIGHT FEET ON THE STREET SIDE, BUT YOU COULD HAVE THE FULL 10 FEET ON THE HOUSE SIDE, NEAREST THE HOUSE, THEN I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE FOUND ACCEPTABLE.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS WORTH DOING TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU HAVE.
UH, THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CANAL THAT THE WATER RUNS THROUGH, UH, THE CORRUGATION OF THE MATERIAL IS AT THAT CERTAIN DISTANCE.
IF WE DID THAT, WE'D HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING.
WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR LOWERING THE STRUCTURE ON THE, ON THE STREET SIDE? THE SIDE THAT PEOPLE SEE, IF WE LOWER IT TO EIGHT FEET, IT WILL BE TOO LOW AND THE HEAT WILL PENETRATE AND GET TOO CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE.
BUT IT WOULD ONLY BE EIGHT FEET ON.
ITS AT ITS LOWEST POINT, IT'S JUST ONE FOOT.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THE CLEARANCE WAS 10 FEET.
UH, THE BACK OF IT IS 10 FEET IN THE FRONT OF IT IS NINE FEET.
WHAT IS THE HEIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE? WHERE WOULD THAT BE? UH, ALONG THE FENCE LINE, CORRECT? YEAH, ALONG THE FENCE.
UH, IT'S, UH, FROM 10 TO NINE FEET.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY THE SLANT IS IN THAT DIRECTION? IT'S THE, THE, UH, THE LINE OF DRAINAGE IS PARALLEL TO THE FENCE? YES.
AND THE FENCE, THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IS HOW TALL? SIX FEET.
UM, THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, IS THAT IF WE WERE TO EXTEND THE FENCE, LIKE SAY WITH AN OPEN LATTICE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD MITIGATE THE VIEW OF THE CARPORT, THEN IT WOULD STILL BE 10 FEET TALL RIGHT AT THE FENCE LINE? I THINK SO.
IT WAS LESS, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND.
UH, I BEL UH, YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH HAVING A CARPORT, BUT THE PROBLEM
[00:20:15]
ALTERNATIVELY, SOME SCREENING COULD BE PROVIDED ON THE FENCE SIDE, BUT I, I CAN'T SAY THAT THAT WOULD MEET, UH, THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY TASK FORCE AND CONCERNS THAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE.SO JUST TO ADDRESS THE DESIGN STANDARDS, 3.5 SAYS CARPORTS OR GARAGES ARE PERMITTED IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD IF THEY ARE HISTORIC IN APPEARANCE.
SO THEY NEED TO SOMEHOW REFERENCE THE HOUSE THAT'S THERE IN, LET'S SEE, FORM MATERIALS, GENERAL APPEARANCE.
CAN'T PUT A HIP ROOF REALLY ON A CARDBOARD.
I THINK I'LL DEFER TO THE ARCHITECTS ON THAT ONE.
BUT IF THE ROOF LINE COULD BE CHANGED TO MAYBE HAVE A SMALL GABLE, I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE THE INTRODUCTION OF MATERIALS, LIKE A PIECE OF SIDING, EVEN A SIDING PANEL.
IT'S NOT ELEGANT, BUT ARE YOU SAYING, UH, SAY WOOD CLAD AROUND THE, UH, SUPPORTS AND MAYBE A WOOD, UM, FASCIA BOARD AROUND? I MEAN, I DON'T FERTILITY FEEL COMFORTABLE DESIGNING FROM THE DAIS RIGHT.
ON THIS, IT'S HARD NOT TO DO IT ON A PROJECT, ON A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WOULD IT BE BETTER, DO YOU THINK, DR.
DUNN, TO REFER THIS BACK TO THE TASK FORCE AND TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE MORE APPROPRIATE? YES.
THE GUIDANCE THAT TO LOOK AT THE ROOF FORM AND MAYBE SOME MATERIALS? YES.
THAT WAS MY SUGGESTION IN MY CASE.
NO MORE? NO, NO MORE QUESTIONS.
I, I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCERN IS ABOUT THE THING THEY ACTUALLY ALREADY BUILT.
FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS REPORTED THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION RULES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE IT SO MUCH AND IT DOESN'T LOOK HISTORIC.
IT LOOKS LIKE A METAL CARPORT, WHICH PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE LONG AGO.
SO THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THIS IS TO HIDE IT SOMEHOW OR MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A HISTORIC BUILDING.
DO ANY OF THOSE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE THINGS? IT'S, IT'S KIND OF TOO TALL AND IT'S TOO METAL LOOKING RIGHT NOW.
MAY THE INTERPRETER EXPLAIN IN HER OWN WORDS SHIRLEY WOULDN'T WANT TO USE MINE.
IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT NORMALLY IT'S NOT VERY TALL.
UM, WELL, YEAH, WE WONDERED IF THE PICTURES MADE IT LOOK EXTRA TALL, BUT STILL APPARENTLY IT'S AT LEAST TWO FEET TALLER THAN THE FENCE SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT.
MAY THE INTERPRETER REMIND THAT A TASK FORCE WAS RECOMMENDED FOR, I ASSUME THAT THAT'S AN IN, UH, ONSITE TASK FORCE THAT'S RECOMMENDED.
THEY, THEY MEET, UM, BEFORE WE HAVE
[00:25:01]
OUR MEETING, UH, UH, ONE OR TWO WEEKS BEFORE AND THEY GO OVER THEM ALL AND CAN TALK MORE CLOSELY WITH THE APPLICANT.IF, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS TODAY AND WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH SOMETHING YET, IT WOULD THEN WE WOULD ASK YOU TO RESUBMIT PERHAPS WITH AN IDEA TO KIND OF HIDE HOW THIS THING LOOKS AND THEN THE TASK FORCE COULD TALK DIRECTLY TO THEM.
I THINK THERE CAN BE AN INTERPRETER AT TASK FORCE, CORRECT? YES.
SO THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE CONVERSATION.
IT'S KIND OF HARD HERE TO, TO HELP YOU WITH PLANS, UH, FOR THE INTERPRET INTERPRETER'S CLARIFICATION.
IS THE TASK FORCE HERE AT CITY HALL OR IS IT ONSITE AT THE HOME? NO, NO, IT'S, IT'S AT, UH, PRESERVATION DALLAS.
UH, WHAT IS IT, 29 22 SWISS AVENUE? YEAH, IN EAST DALLAS.
SO THEY WOULD MEET AT A LOCATION IN EAST DALLAS WITH THE TASK FORCE? YEAH, THEY WOULD GET AN INVITATION IN ORDER TO GET HERE.
THEY HAD TASK FORCE IF THE INTERPRETER COULD, UH, INFORM THEM THAT THAT IS AN OPTION.
WOULD THE COMMITTEE LIKE ME TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YEAH, IF THEY HAVE ANY.
DID THEY SAY THE TASK FORCE ROUTE WAS, THERE WAS NO COMMENT.
OH, WELL PLEASE DO ALSO ASK THEM IF THEY THINK THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
WE'VE ALREADY MET WITH THE TASK FORCE AND THEY SAID EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW THAT IT DOESN'T MATCH WITH THE DISTRICT THAT WE'RE IN.
IN WHAT WAY DOES IT NOT MATCH THE DISTRICT? DO THEY MEAN THERE ARE OTHER CARPORTS? BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE LEGAL CARPORTS JUST 'CAUSE THEY'RE THERE.
AREN'T THERE OTHER, THERE ARE OTHER CARPORTS.
BUT THE POINT THAT THE, UH, TASK FORCE WAS MAKING IS IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT'S THE DESIGN OF, IT'S THE DESIGN AND THE MATERIALS OF THE CARPORT THAT ARE AT ISSUE AND THAT IT WAS DONE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WITH THE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION.
AND THEY ARE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
DID THEY HAVE ANY REPLY? WE WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH A PERSON AGAIN AT SWISS AVENUE.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, UH, THAT, THAT IS WHERE WE STAND, THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO GO BACK AND TALK TO TASK FORCE AGAIN AND PERHAPS TASK FORCE, LET'S EMPHASIZE TO COME UP WITH A PRACTICAL WAY TO TRY TO REDESIGN THIS CARPORT.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF.
DOES THE WHEATLEY PLACE ORDINANCE SPEAK TO THE PROXIMITY TO AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES ON THE POVERTY LINE? IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE WE REDESIGN THE STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH A 10 FOOT STRUCTURE? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THIS IS BACK FROM THE FENCE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S RIGHT ON THE FENCE ALMOST.
THERE IS SOME ISSUE WITH SETBACK BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE STRUCTURE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THE CARPORT, THAT'S OKAY.
[00:30:01]
RIGHT, BUT THEY STILL, BUT THEY, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE LATITUDE TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE HOUSE.IT'S, IT'S EIGHT FEET FROM THE HOUSE.
I MEAN, THEY CAN GET AS CLOSE AS EIGHT FEET TO THE HOUSE.
THEY CAN GET AS CLOSE AS EIGHT FEET TO THE HOUSE, BUT THEY WOULD JUST BASICALLY BE SCOOTING IT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE, IN ITS CURRENT ORIENTATION.
BUT, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO GET AT IS, IS THERE A CURRENT PROBLEM WITH ITS PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE? YES.
THEN NO AMOUNT OF DRESSING IT UP IN HISTORICAL GARB IS GONNA FIX THAT PROBLEM, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO WE REALLY SHOULD BE ADDRESSING THAT PROBLEM PROBABLY RIGHT NOW.
SHOULDN'T WE? I MEAN, 'CAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE SENDING THEM ON, ON A, A FOOL'S ERRAND TO, TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL BE REJECTED FOR OTHER REASONS NEXT TIME.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ASK THE INTERPRETER TO RELAY THAT THE BUILDING, THE CARPORT NEEDED A BUILDING PERMIT ALSO.
WHICH WOULD'VE, WHICH WOULD'VE SENT IT TO US FIRST TO THE, TO THE PRESERVATION DIVISION FIRST AND TASK FORCE.
AND, UM, DID YOU SUCCESSFULLY TRANSLATE FOR THEM THE ISSUE THAT IT MAY BE IN THE WRONG PLACE, NOT JUST BY OUR RULES, BUT THE BASIC RULES OF, OF WHERE BUILDINGS CAN GO? THE INTERPRETER USED HER OWN WORDS.
SO IS THE POINT THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT AT ALL? IT WOULD SURE HELP IF NOBODY COULD SEE IT, BUT THERE'S THAT SEPARATE RULE.
YOU CAN'T BE TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH SOMETHING YOU BUILD AND THAT'S ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, IT CAN, IT CAN BE SEEN.
BUT THERE AGAIN, THERE ARE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT THE SIDE YARD, IT HAS TO BE SET FOOT, UH, SET THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE SIDE.
REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS TWO FEET SIX INCHES WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG ENCROACHMENT PERMITTED.
SO IN, IN THE BACK THEY HAVE TO BE SET BACK TWO AND A HALF FEET AND THEY MAY BE IN VIOLATION AGAIN OF OTHER CITY ORDINANCES.
IT DOES HAVE TWO FEET ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE.
IT IS NOT, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO THE FENCE.
ALRIGHT, THEN THAT MIGHT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
AND IT DOES LOOK TALLER IN THE PICTURE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT TALL.
UM, WE, WE, I, WE HAVE THE DIMENSION.
SO THAT DOES TELL US HOW LONG IT IS COMMISSIONER SWAN AND RIGHT.
UM, THERE SEEMS TO BE A DOCUMENTATION PROBLEM BECAUSE WHAT'S OFFERED AS A SITE PLAN IS AN AERIAL VIEW.
AND WITHOUT A A MEASURED SITE PLAN, IT'S VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE ORIENTATION OF THIS STRUCTURE ON THE SITE.
SO A MEASURED SITE PLAN WOULD HELP THAT SHOWS THE DISTANCES
[00:35:01]
FROM, ARE YOU READY? ALL THE SURROUNDING CONTEXTS.IS THERE A QUESTION? UH, THE, NO, I THINK HE, UM, JUST COMMERS WA JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
GIVING US AN ACTUAL DRAWING THAT SHOWS WHERE EVERYTHING IS WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND.
'CAUSE IT'S HARD FROM PICTURES TO TELL MA'AM, I HAVE THE DRAWING HERE.
DOES IT HAVE DIMENSIONS ON IT? SHOW US.
THIS IS FOUR FEET FROM THAT, FROM HEIGHT ON THE SIDE OF THE FENCE IS 10 FEET TALL.
AND AT THE OTHER SIDE, THE, THE ONE BY THE, TO THE PATIO TO THE INSIDE IS NINE FEET.
AND, AND WE ALSO WANNA KNOW WHERE IT IS ON THE LOT, LIKE HOW FAR FROM EVERYTHING.
UM, BUT THAT'S JUST ONE OF YOUR, YOUR, ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS IS WHERE IS IT AND IS IT LEGAL TO BE WHERE IT IS LOOKING DOWN? IS IT TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE? AND, AND YOUR HUSBAND, I ASSUME THIS IS YOUR HUSBAND, THE GENTLEMAN THINKS THAT IT IS NOT.
AND THEN THERE'S THE ISSUE OF HOW IT LOOKS.
PROBABLY WHERE WE ARE NOW IS WE CANNOT, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GONNA MOTION TO APPROVE THIS TODAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH OUR LAW.
BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE STILL RECOMMEND YOU NEED TO SUBMIT IT AGAIN SO THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE PEOPLE AT THE TASK FORCE ON SWISS AVENUE AND THIS TIME TRY TO THINK OF WAYS TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE HISTORIC AND ASK THEM TO HELP YOU DO THAT.
I THINK THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER SWAN, PLEASE MAKE THE MOTION, UH, IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 2 3 DASH 4 5 5 4 OH RD.
UH, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 34 18 JEFFREY STREET, IN THE WHEATLEY PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I MOVE THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR REASONS CITED BY STAFF.
GUESS COMMISSIONER, GUEST FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY, AYE.
I CANNOT SEE THE PEOPLE AT HOME, SO IF ANY OF YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE OPPOSED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW ALL THOSE IMPOSED.
A MOTION IS CARRIED, WHICH MEANS YOU DID GET A DENIAL.
WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS, STARTING WITH THE TASK FORCE PEOPLE BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY CAN TALK TO YOU MORE LIKE FRIENDS AND SIT THERE AND DO IT.
UM, YOU COULD APPEAL THIS TO THE, THE PLAN COMMISSION FOR A FEE, BUT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF SILLY BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO PAY TO DO IT.
WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO HELP YOU FIX THIS CARPORT.
SO I HOPE WE SEE YOU BACK AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.
I'M SORRY THIS HAS TURNED INTO SUCH A PROBLEM FOR YOU.
I, I, I KNOW THAT WE VOTED QUICKLY WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
THERE'RE JUST, UH, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS, UH, AND WE CAN'T DETERMINE THIS WITHOUT A SITE PLAN, BUT DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM AROUND THE STRUCTURE TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO SCREEN IT OR MAKE IT TO, TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE HISTORICALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL IF WE HAVE, WE DON'T KNOW, PLEASE ENOUGH SPACE AROUND THE STRUCTURE.
DUNN AND ASK HER QUESTIONS AND HAVE HER GIVE YOU ADVICE, OKAY? BECAUSE SHE CAN ADVISE YOU ALL DAY.
THE NEXT CASE WE'LL BE CALLING IS C 12.
ITEM NUMBER C 12 IS 27 0 1 STATE STREET IN THE STATE, THOMAS HISTORIC HISTORIC DISTRICT C A 2 2 3 DASH 5 56 MW.
THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW PORT CASHIER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW PORT CASHIER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA SECTIONS 51 P DASH 2 25 0.109 A TWO, AND 51 P DASH 2 25 1 0 9 A THREE CITY CODE SECTION 51 A 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TASK FORCE
[00:40:01]
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY REQUEST FOR A CERTI CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW PORTICO SHARE ON NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE.ALL RIGHT, WE DO HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR THIS, AND THAT'S GARY SCOTT.
NICKY, IS THE MICROPHONE ON STILL? YES, IT APPEARS TO BE YES.
UH, SO IF YOU COULD START WITH YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
I LIVE AT 43 10 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD.
AND NOW PLEASE, UM, PRESENT US WITH ANY INFORMATION YOU THINK WOULD HELP US IN OUR DETERMINATION OF THIS.
AND AFTER THAT WE'LL ASK YOU QUESTIONS.
UM, WELL, I'M NOT SURE AS TO WHAT INCOME, UM, OBJECTIONS WERE TO THE DESIGN
THEN WE CAN ASK YOU AND YOU CAN RESPOND.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS, WE HAD MANY.
SO, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF JIM ANDERSON RAISED HIS HAND FIRST, BUT I DO SEE COMMISSIONER RENO, SO LET'S LET HIM GO.
UM, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON THE MATERIALS, UH, BEING PROPOSED FOR THE, FOR THE ADDITION, ARE THEY THE SAME AS THE FRONT PORCH IN TERMS OF LIKE, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED OR IN THE DRAWINGS AS MENTIONED? THE SIX BY SIX TUBE STEEL, UH, WITH THE SAME PROFILE AS THE, AS THE FRONT PORCH COLUMNS, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THE SAME MATERIAL.
IT WOULD BE THE SAME MATERIAL.
YOU KNOW, THE COLUMN ITSELF WOULD BE A TURNED WOOD COLUMNS LIKE THE FRONT PORCH.
I MEAN THAT THIS WAS, UH, THE OWNER'S REQUEST I SENT, UH, I THINK, UH, TO START WITH, UM, TO UTILIZE THE FRONT PORCH AS THE MODEL.
BUT STEEL TUBE IS REALLY A BALLER TO PROTECT THE WOOD COLUMN FROM AN ERRANT CAR FENDER.
SO IT'S JUST AT THE BOTTOM SECTION THAT'S ABOUT THREE FEET TALL.
THAT, THAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO DO THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA AND IT WOULD BE PAINTED TO LOOK LIKE A WOOD BASE.
DID YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YOU'RE MUTED.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT YOU
UM, QUESTION I HAD IS IT APPEARS THAT THE BORDER, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WAS THERE EVER A PORTICO SHARE THERE IN THE PAST? IS THERE ANY HISTORIC DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT? NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT DRIVEWAY WAS, HAS BEEN THERE.
MY CONCERN IS YOU'RE DOING A REPLICA OF THE FRONT PORCH AND PUTTING IN A FEATURE THAT WAS NEVER THERE BEFORE.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT IT, IT STARTED TO LOOK LIKE HE WAS THERE IN 1890 WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM TO ME.
DO YOU SEE THAT CONCERN? UM, WELL THIS, THIS WAS THE MAIN POINT OF DISCUSSION, UH, AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD, UH, UTILIZE THE FRONT PORCH AS A MODEL OR NOT.
AND SO WE ENDED UP DECIDING THAT WE SHOULD, WE DON'T HAVE TO.
IT COULD BE SIMPLIFIED CLEARLY, UH, BUT THIS IS WHERE WE ENDED UP.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. SWAN? UH, YES.
WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE STATE THOMAS HISTORIC DISTRICT? OH, WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK.
YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO BEAT ME TO IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE ORDINANCE SPEAKS TO PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT DOES, BUT I'M LOOKING AS WELL.
I IT'S GONNA LOOK AT THE DESIGNATION REPORT.
I'M GONNA LOOK AT THE DESIGNATION REPORT.
[00:45:03]
I'M SORRY IT'S A LITTLE, LITTLE SLOW.IT LOOKS LIKE THE DESIGNATION START 1890.
I I WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN THE UPPER LIMIT, LIKE WHEN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE ENDS
UH, I DON'T HAVE A DESIGNATION REPORT HERE.
HOPEFULLY, MAYBE KATE CAN FIND IT THERE.
UM, UM, THE, THE YEAR OF DESIGNATION MIGHT HELP IF IT'S JUST 50 YEARS BACK, WHICH IS, WELL, IT IT WAS DESIGNATED IN 90 86.
SO WE'D BE LOOKING AT 1936, UH, CORRECT.
FOR THE THAT'S THAT'S REASONABLE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S REASONABLE FOR THE DISTRICT TOO.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE HOUSES OF I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE THEIR HOUSES ABOUT THAT IS.
UM, NOW THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, UH, UM, OH, WHAT'S THE WORD THAT WE USE? UH, COMPATIBILITY.
UM, DEVELOPMENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS? NO, LIKE
UM, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNCOMMON FOR PEOPLE TO ATTACH CARPORTS ONCE THEY ACTUALLY GOT CARS.
NOW I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING HOW WE ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE THAT IN AS MUCH AS WE DON'T ALLOW, WE DON'T DISALLOW THE ADDITION OF CARPORTS.
AND, AND THE, UM, THE DESIGN STANDARDS DO ALLOW ADDITIONS, UH, AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO BE, THIS IS A FEW THAT ALLOWS, UH, ADDITIONS EVEN ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE SO MANY HISTORIC DISTRICTS DON'T ALLOW FOR SIDE ADDITIONS.
ALSO, THIS IS A, I SHOULD POINT OUT THIS IS A VERY STRANGE, UM, PROPERTY IN THAT THEY REALLY HAVE, THEY HAVE NO PARKING OTHER THAN THIS DRIVEWAY THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
UM, AND THEY HAVE NO BACKYARD EVEN.
AND WHILE, WHILE DIFFERENTIATION IS A CONCERN IN A RESIDENCE LIKE THIS, DON'T WE, DOES THE ORDINANCE NOT ENCOURAGE ADDITIONS TO BE, UH, LIKE EXECUTED IN THE STYLE OF THE, OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE FOR THE MOST PART? OR DOES IT SPEAK TO THAT AND, AND DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN OLD AND NEW C CERTAINLY EVERY, CERTAINLY EVERY, THE, NOT ONLY IN THAT ORDINANCE, BUT IN EVEN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WOULD WANT IT TO BE COMPATIBLE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS, UH, UH, ANOTHER STRONG VIEW, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ARCHITECT HAS DONE WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT THE ARCHITECT TO DO UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
CONCERNS ABOUT CONJECTURE ASIDE,
MR. ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY ABOUT SHARE? GO AHEAD.
THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT THEY ARE REPLICATING, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, QUEEN, AND THIS IS A EX EXCELLENT EXAMPLE, QUEEN AND VICTORIAN COTTAGES, NOT A LOT OF THEM IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEY WERE VERY VERTICAL, VERY UPLIFTING.
QUEEN AND VICTORIAN COTTAGES DID NOT HAVE PORTICO SHARES ATTACHED.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANY THAT HAVE PORTICO SHARES IN THE CITY.
UM, WE'RE ADDING A FEATURE THAT WAS NEVER THERE, AND HE IS REPLICATING THE PORCH TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS THERE IN 19 0 18 90.
I DON'T SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND DAVID DEAN'S SECOND FLOOR, UM, CLOSET ON IN SWISS AVENUE WHERE THEY SAID THEY WERE REPLICATING THE HISTORY AND KIND OF FAKING IT.
SO IF WE CHOOSE TO DO A PORT RICO SHARE IN THIS BUILDING, WHICH I WOULD NOT SUPPORT, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE, IN MY OPINION, DISCERNIBLY NEW, JUST LOOK LIKE A SPACESHIP LANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
BUT IT NEEDS TO DRIVE BY AND SAY, OH, SOMEBODY ADDED A, A, A FEATURE ON THAT BUILDING AT SOME POINT IN THE HISTORY.
SO YOU DON'T COME UP AND SAY, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A 1901 OR 1899 ORIGINAL FEATURE.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A PORTA SHARE? BUT THERE NEVER WAS ONE BEFORE AND IT NEVER WOULD'VE
[00:50:01]
HAD ONE.AND IF WE APPROVE THAT, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE A REPLICA OF WHAT WAS THERE BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU, THAT IT GOES AGAINST SECRETARY CHAIR STANDARD NUMBER THREE, THAT YOU'RE ADDING A CONTEXTUAL FEATURE THAT CONFUSES PEOPLE AS TO WHAT WAS THERE HISTORICALLY AND WHAT WAS ADDED.
UM, MR. ANDERSON, ARE YOU ASKING OUR SPEAKER IF HE WOULD CONSIDER A DIFFERENT APPEARANCE TO THE PORT CHER SO THAT IT WILL LOOK, BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE MAIN, MAIN BUILDING? YES.
UH, I, I WAS RETAINED, UM, INITIALLY, UH, AND WAS IN, UM, THE, THE OWNER HAS OWNED THIS HOUSE SINCE THE EIGHTIES, PRETTY MUCH WHEN THE DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED.
HE'S PARKED IN THAT DRIVEWAY, I THINK, ALL ALONG.
AND HE JUST WANTED TO COVER THE CAR FINALLY.
UM, THAT HE'S BEEN PARKING IT.
UH, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE ADDITION WAS STUCK ON, ON THE SIDE IN THE REAR.
UH, BUT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE FINE WITH SIMPLIFYING THIS TO MAKE IT MORE SPARTAN.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE WHEN WE STARTED, UM, AND THE OWNER HAD DONE SKETCHES GOING TO TURN COLUMNS AND PREP WORK.
AND I HAD THE SAME CONCERNS THAT YOU HAD ABOUT THAT.
BUT, UH, AFTER DISCUSSING WITH, UM, THE OWNER AND STAFF AND MYSELF, UM, WE ENDED UP THINKING, UH, THE OWNER KIND OF PREFERS THE TURN COMM AND FRET WORTH LOOK MM-HMM.
HOWEVER, IF, UH, LANDMARK COMMISSION WANTS TO MAKE A MORE CLEAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW VERSUS WHAT WAS DONE IN 1890 SOMETHING, THEN I THINK WE'D BE OKAY WITH THAT.
UH, I MEAN, I THINK THE OWNER WOULD BE ALL RIGHT WITH THAT IF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING.
I THINK THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, IT'S SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS AS TO, UH, WHETHER THIS WOULD BE BEST, UH, TO BE INSPIRED BY THE FRONT PORCH OR NOT, BECAUSE I THINK IF WE DID A SPARTAN CARPORT, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A SPARTAN CAR.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE A BETTER END RESULT OR NOT.
I REALLY, I, I MEAN I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MYSELF, SO, BUT WE'RE PRESENTING IT AS SHOWN AND WE CAN GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU THINK IS BEST.
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UM, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ARE PERMITTED IN THE REAR YARD AND THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD AND MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH SCALE, SHAPE, ROOF FORM, MATERIALS DETAILING AND COLOR OF THE MAIN BUILDING.
ADDITIONS, ADDITIONS TO A MAIN BUILDING ARE ONLY PERMITTED ON THE SIDE AND REAR FACADES, EXCEPT THAT A PORCH MAY BE ADDED TO THE FRONT FACADES.
ALL ADDITIONS TO A BUILDING MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE DOMINANT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
SCALE, SHAPE, ROOF FORM, MATERIALS, DETAILING AND COLOR OF THE BUILDING, ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL MATERIALS, COLORS, STRUCTURAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE USED, APPLIED, OR JOINED TOGETHER MUST BE TYPICAL OF THE STYLE AND PERIOD OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS, IF ANY, ON THE BLOCK BASE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS HAS A QUESTION.
UM, WOULD YOU OR THE OWNER CONSIDER, UM, DOING A, THE DETAILING, MAYBE NOT IN SPARSE OR STARK CONTRAST, BUT SOMETHING PERIOD LIKE, BUT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THE EXACT DETAILING OF THE PORCH, THEREFORE IT WOULD SPEAK TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY OR TO THE BUILDING.
SO IT WOULDN'T BE A EXACT REPLICA OF THE DETAILING, BUT IT MIGHT BE A VICTORIAN TYPE OF DETAIL OR COIN END DETAILING, BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE SEPARATE AND IT WOULD SHOW THE IDEA OF SOMETHING WAS CHA SOMETHING WAS ADDED OR SOMETHING WAS CHANGED HERE AND MAYBE, UH, THAT WOULD SUFFICE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT? YES, I WOULD ELIMINATE THE FRET WORK AND JUST HAVE A BRACKET GO BRACKET AND, AND THEN THE, THE COLUMNS KEEP AS THEY ARE.
I THINK I'D KEEP A BRACKET AND YEAH.
AND DO IT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE STYLE OF THE HOUSE AND MAYBE TURN THE COLUMN, I, I THINK I'D TURN THE COLUMN.
SO IT'S STILL RELATING PERIOD.
[00:55:01]
BUT WE COULD, WE COULD MAKE A DELIBERATE MOVE TO MAKE IT DISTINCT FROM THE FRONT PORCH.IF THERE, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? 'CAUSE IF NOT, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SWAN HAS A MOTION TO MAKE, SO ALL OR NOW IF YOU'RE AT HOME AND DON'T WANNA ASK A QUESTION.
I HAVE A MOTION AFTER WHICH WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION PERIOD, UH, IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 23 DASH 5 37 CM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 5 6 5 0 SWISS AVENUE.
UH, WAIT, I'M SORRY, I'M IN THE WRONG.
DID THAT HAPPEN? OKAY, ONE PAGE OFF.
I KNOW IT'S, HE'S, UH, IT'S AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.
IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 2 3 DASH 5 56 MW, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 27 0 1 STATE STREET IN THE STATE THOMAS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I MOVE THAT WE, UH, APPROVE AS SUBMITTED OR REASON CITED BY STAFF.
NOW, WHO, WHO WANTS TO DISCUSS? I, I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF THE DISCUSSION.
YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS FIRST OKAY.
I, I, WELL UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WITH REGARD TO CONJECTURAL FEATURES AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT THE ADDITION OF A PORTICO SHARE WAS SO COMMON IN THE TEENS AND TWENTIES, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, YOU KNOW, BECAME AFFLUENT ENOUGH TO OWN CARS.
THAT I THINK WE EXPECT IT, WE DO NOT SEE IT AS PART OF AN 1890 HOUSE.
UM, I THINK THAT THE DESIGN AS SUBMITTED FOLLOWS THE ORDINANCES INSTRUCTION PRETTY MUCH TO THE LETTER.
AND I THINK WHEN WE START PLAYING THAT WITH THAT TOO MUCH, UH, WE, IT, WE ARE NO LESS CONFUSING THAN IF WE ARE TO PUT SOMETHING THAT SIMPLY FOLLOWS THE RULES OF DETAILING ALREADY ESTABLISHED ON THE STRUCTURE.
UM, FOR THAT REASON, I, I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE ADDITION.
OTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? WELL, MY CONCERN IS IF YOU WOULD BE PUTTING SOMETHING ON IN THE 1920S, IT WOULDN'T LOOK LIKE THE NINETIES.
AND MY BIG CONCERN IS WHEN WE DRIVE BY THIS BUILDING, THEY'VE DONE SUCH A GREAT JOB OF REPLICATING THAT NO ONE ON EARTH, EXCEPT THE PEOPLE THAT KNOW ABOUT THIS MOTION WILL KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT AN 1890S FEATURE.
I THINK WE'RE FAKING HISTORY AND PUTTING SOMETHING ON WHICH IS SORT OF MAKE-BELIEVE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION SHOULD BE REAL, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE CON CONTEXTUALLY ADDED TO.
SO I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THE PORTICO SHARE SHOULD, COULD BE PUT ON THE BUILDING.
REPLICATING IT AS IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IS A BIG MISTAKE.
ANYBODY ELSE? CAN I ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IF, UM, ASKING THAT THEY LEAVE OFF THE HORIZONTAL FRE WORK, BUT KEEP THE COLUMN IS A COMPROMISE ON THIS? UH, IN MY VIEW, THAT SHOULD BE THE ARCHITECTS AND THE HOMEOWNER'S DECISION, REALLY, BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT INDIVIDUALS DO WHEN THEY ADD TO THEIR, THEIR HOMES, UNLESS THEY WANNA DEPART RADICALLY AND INTENTIONALLY, THEY GENERALLY TRY TO MAKE IT MATCH WHAT, WHAT THEIR HOUSE ALREADY LOOKS LIKE.
AND THAT, THAT WAS A NORMAL PROGRESSION.
I, WHEN I LOOK AT CRAFTSMAN HOMES, IT HAD PORTICO SHARES ADDED TO THEM IN 10TH STREET.
THEY FOLLOW THE RULES OF, OF DETAILING AND CONSTRUCTION ALREADY ESTABLISHED ON THE HOUSE.
AND THIS IS TRUE IN NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE, YOU KNOW, CARS BECAME THE THING AND PORTICO SHARES WERE ADDED.
I JUST THINK, OKAY, IT'S 2023 AND NOT 1923.
BUT TO DO OTHERWISE, I THINK IS IN SOME WAYS JUST AS CONJECTURAL IT, IT'S ALL CONJECTURAL AND A VALID POINT.
AND, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT BY THE TIME THEY HAD A CAR, THEY MIGHT WELL HAVE DECIDED TO JUMP THAT FRET MARK ACROSS THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE, UM, IT WAS OUTTA STYLE.
BUT, BUT, BUT THEY DIDN'T EITHER.
AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT PERSON DID.
THEY MAY HAVE PAINTED THE HOUSE BLACK
I MEAN, AS SOON AS YOU PUT A CAR IN FRONT OF IT, WE'RE AL HOUSE.
WELL, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M GONNA CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? A OKAY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION.
WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
[01:00:02]
OKAY, THE MOTION IS CARRIED.SO YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED, SIR, WITH WHAT YOU SUBMITTED.
SO GOOD LUCK WITH BUILDING YOUR FORT CROCHET.
ALRIGHT, NEXT UP IS OUR COURTESY REVIEW.
ONE IS SIX 12 EAST FIFTH STREET IN THE LAKE CLIFF, HISTORIC DISTRICT ITEM NUMBER C R 2 23 DASH SIX M W.
THIS IS A COURTESY REVIEW FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY THREE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PROPOSAL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY THREE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING 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.
REVIEWED TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS COURTESY REVIEW, NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN.
COMMENTS ONLY SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS NEEDS SITE PLAN, LARGER AND MORE WINDOWS.
WOOD SIDING BETWEEN BALCONY FLOORS.
BRICK IS STRUCTURALLY INAPPROPRIATE.
ALIGNMENT ON BALCONIES DOES NOT MATCH UP.
PUMP OUTS ON LEVEL ONE SHOULD CONTINUE ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH LEVEL THREE WINDOWS IN THIS ERA OR IN GROUPS OF TWO TO THREE, NOT INDIVIDUAL NEED SPEC SHEETS, BRICK FOR BRICK, WINDOWS, DOOR PAINT, ET CETERA.
MATERIALS AND BOARD SHOW PHOTOS OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES SHOWING WHAT ZONING WOULD ALLOW NEXT DOOR OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT STREET SCAPE ELEVATION.
I ALRIGHT, AS, AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE AND MY VICE CHAIR CAN DETERMINE, THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS HERE ON THIS ONE, WHICH COMMONLY PEOPLE DO LIKE TO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT CURRENCY REVIEWS WITH US.
SO IN THEIR ABSENCE THIS WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT.
UM, UM, SO I GUESS COMMISSIONERS SHOULD JUST DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS WITH THIS WHILE STAFF DUTIFULLY NOTES THOSE TO PASS ON TO THE APPLICANT OR HANG ON.
UM, IN, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE, WE DON'T HAVE A SPEAKER AFTER ALL, UH, I MOVE THAT WE PLACE THIS, UM, UM, LAST ON THE AGENDA AFTER DISCUSSION.
THAT SECOND EXPECTATION THAT SOMEBODY'S GONNA SHOW UP.
SO THAT IS A DIFFERENT MOTION.
IT'S NOT JUST TABLING EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY READ INTO THE RECORD.
WE ALREADY READ INTO THE RECORD.
SO DOES THAT MOVE JUST, UM, TABLE IT FOR LATER RATHER THAN MOTION? OKAY.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING IT TO THE END.
THAT ALLOWS US TO SKIP ON TO D SEVEN FOR WHICH WE DO HAVE PEOPLE TO SPEAK.
IF THE STAFF COULD PLEASE READ D SEVEN IN SURE.
D SEVEN IS 1 0 4 SOUTH WINDERMERE AVENUE IN WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT C 2 2 3 DASH 5 5 1 MW W THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE-STORY ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH DWELLING UNITS AT THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY.
NEW BUILDING PARTIALLY BUILT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE-STORY ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH DWELLING UNITS AT THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY.
NEW BUILDING PARTIALLY BUILT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS LOCATED IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD AND THEREFORE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 51 P DASH 87 1 1 1 A ONE AND 51 P DASH 87 1 1 1 A FIVE CODE, UH, CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON CONSTRUCT NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES OR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS
[01:05:02]
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUESTS OR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY MAIN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BE APPROVED.AND WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER FOR THIS.
IF YOU'LL BEGIN BY GIVING US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY ADDRESS OR THE, YEAH, YOUR ADDRESS.
UH, 2033 BESS SHIRE CT, UH, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL US THE TRUTH? I DIDN'T ASK THAT LAST GUY THAT.
YES, BUT I'M SURE HE TOLD US THE TRUTH.
SO
I MEAN, PAST RECOMMENDATIONS WERE READ
OKAY, LET'S GO BACK A SECOND AND YOU READ THE RIGHT ONE.
AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR SPEAKER.
SORRY ABOUT THAT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION.
THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE STORY ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH DWELLING UNITS AT THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY.
BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS SPECIFY WINDOWS MUST BE WOOD BY WINDOWS WITH TALLER BOTTOM SASH RAIL.
LOOK AT HERITAGE LINE REFERENCE FOR HIP ROOF INSTEAD OF GABLE.
PROVIDE PICTURE OF COMBINATION OF BRICK COLORS.
NEED CLEARER COPY OF ELEVATIONS.
IF THIS WERE BEING PROPOSED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE, WOULD THIS BE APPROVED? IS THIS IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD? DOES IT MEET, DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? IS IT FAR ENOUGH? BACK ELEVATIONS NEED TO MATCH THE ACTUAL ACCESSORY BUILDING AND THE MAIN BUILDING AND ADD PHOTOS OF THE MAIN BUILDING.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE ALL CAUGHT UP.
MR. MARTINEZ, UH, WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO PRESENT TO US TO BEGIN YOUR, YOUR PLEA OR YOUR APPLICATION TO THE DESK.
UH, SO, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DETACHED UNIT.
UH, IT'S NOT THE PRIMARY BUILDING, UH, BUT BASICALLY, UH, WE HAVE, UH, APPROVED BUILDING PERMITS AND WE ORIGINALLY HAVE A CA THAT WAS DONE NOT BY ME, BUT SOMEONE THAT WAS IN OUR COMPANY BEFORE ME.
UH, BUT IT WAS, UH, I GUESS IT WASN'T VERY SPECIFIC TO WHAT ALL CONSTRUCTION WE WERE GONNA BE DOING TO THAT DETEST UNIT.
UM, SO I CAME BY TO TALK TO THE TASK FORCE BACK IN FEBRUARY ABOUT A CD BECAUSE OUR ENGINEERS AND US AT THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM DETERMINED THAT THE, THAT, THAT THE BUILDING THAT'S DETACHED, UH, WAS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE FOR IT TO BE RENOVATED AS IS.
UM, SO LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A NEW FOUNDATION TO BE POURED UNDER THE, UNDER THE CURRENT BUILDING.
UM, AND SO WE JUST SAY, HEY, LET'S GO BACK TO THE TASK FORCE AND SEE IF, IF, IF WE CAN GET A CD APPROVED, UH, TO DEMO IT AND BUILD IT, UH, BACK, UH, WITH THE SAME, WITH THE SAME BLUE, UH, BLUEPRINTS AND FOR PLANTS, UH, JUST, UH, A NEWER BUILDING, UH, WITH, OF COURSE WITH THE HISTORIC, UH, LOOK ON THE OUTSIDE.
UM, SO, UH, BACK IN FEBRUARY I WAS, UH, LIKE I WOULD SAY TURN AWAY, UH, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE BUILDING, UH, AND TRY TO, UH, WORK AROUND THE HISTORIC, UH, ITEMS IN THE STRUCTURE.
UH, THAT WOULD BE THE BRICK WALLS THAT WERE, UH, THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IN THE BUILDING.
WE WENT BACK AND, UH, CONTINUED OUR WORK.
UH, WE DEMOED A COUPLE OF WALLS AND, UH, WE, WE, WE COMPLETED DEMOED THE ROOF AND WE WERE SHOWING UP THE WALLS THAT WERE SOME WOULD SAY HISTORIC.
UM, WHILE WE WERE SHOWING UP THIS WALLS, UH, I THINK THEY WERE SHORED UP FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS AND THEY ENDED UP FALLING.
UH, SO THAT TRIGGERED US, I GUESS LIKE A NEW BUILDING THAT WAS BEING DONE INSTEAD OF A RENOVATION.
UM, SO, UH, WE CONTINUE OUR WORK AND THEN WE GOTTA STOP WORK ORDER, UH, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
UM, AND WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE TASK FORCE, UH, THE BUILDING.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK, UH, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE PRIMARY BUILDING.
UH, WE WENT AROUND AND SHOPPED AROUND FOR THE BRICK ITSELF.
[01:10:01]
EXACT SAME ONE, BUT WE DID FIND ONE THAT HAS THE SAME TEXTURE SIZE.UH, SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE TASK FORCE TO, UH, TRY TO FIND A, A COLOR SCHEME THAT WE CAN, LIKE MATCHING IT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
UM, BUT UM, I THINK THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE TASK FORCE SAW THAT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING THAT WAS THERE WAS IN A AREA WHERE IT TRIGGERED SOME KIND OF SETBACK, UH, RULE, UM, FROM ZONING.
UH, NOW COMMISSIONERS CAN VOICE THEIR QUESTIONS TO YOU, BUT PLEASE LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING.
I MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
I COULD SWEAR YOU SAID THAT IN FEBRUARY YOU WENT TO THE TASK FORCE AND THEY TOLD YOU TO KEEP GOING.
UH, I GUESS I DIDN'T EXPLAIN IT WELL.
I WENT TO APPLY FOR A CD BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANNA WORK WITH THE BUILDING AS IS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE PICTURES OR ANYTHING.
UH, BASICALLY DOESN'T HAVE A FOUNDATION FLOOR.
IT WAS, UH, LIKE ALL CRUMBLED UP.
UM, IT, IT WAS REALLY BAD, SO WE WANTED TO DEMO IT AND BUILD IT NEW WITH THE HISTORIC PRE UH, WITH THE HISTORIC LOOK AS WELL MATCH EVERYTHING AS WE WERE BEFORE, BUT JUST A NEW BUILDING.
UM, SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT, UH, YOU CAN TRY TO SALVAGE IT WITHOUT DEMOING IT.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE DID, THEY BASICALLY, THEY DIDN'T LET ME GO THROUGH THE CD PROCESS.
UH, 'CAUSE THEY SAID THAT IT WOULDN'T GET APPROVED BECAUSE WE TRIED TO SOLVE IT, THE HISTORIC PAPER.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS HAD TOLD YOU TO JUST DO STUFF WITHOUT APPROVAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE VERY BAD ADVICE AND THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT.
ALRIGHT, WELL, COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, UM, REQUEST.
WE HAD QUESTIONS EARLIER, COMMISSIONER RENO.
UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
SO THE NEW BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE THAT THE ONE THAT WAS, THAT FELL OVER WAS? YES.
IN FACT, UH, THERE'S STILL A PORTION OF THE FOUNDATION THAT, THAT WAS HOLDING UP THE BRICK BEFORE AND, UH, PORTION OF ONE OF THE BEDROOMS, UM, IS ATTACHED TO IT.
SO AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
SO, BUT WHAT WE'VE FOUND NOW IS BECAUSE THE, THE BUILDING DID IN FACT FALL, UM, IT DOES NEED TO MEET NEWER ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE ON THE, ON, ON THE SITE SO THAT IT MEETS ALL ITS SETBACKS.
SO MR. MARTINEZ, YOU ARE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND NOT THE OWNER, CORRECT? YES, BUT I WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE OWNER.
UM, I SEE HIM ALMOST EVERY DAY.
AND DID THIS OWNER INDICATE TO YOU THAT, UM, THIS BUILDING WAS EVER COMPOSED OF LEGAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE FIRST PLACE? NOT THAT PEOPLE LIVED THERE AT SOME POINT, BUT THAT THESE WERE LEGAL DWELLING UNITS WITH SEPARATE ADDRESSES? UH, SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
IS IT IF HE TOLD ME THAT, UH, YEAH.
DID THE OWNER EVER INDICATE TO YOU THAT THESE, THIS BUILDING REPRESENTED LEGAL DWELLING UNITS? UH, YES.
THAT, NOT JUST THAT PEOPLE HAD LIVED THERE, BUT WERE THEY AUTHORIZED AS LEGAL DWELLING UNITS EXISTING? YEAH, YEAH.
I THOUGHT SOMEBODY WAS GONNA TALK.
UM, YEAH, I, I GUESS IF YOU'RE ASKING ME IF HE TOLD ME THAT THESE WERE LEGAL DWELLING UNITS, UH, THAT PEOPLE USED TO LIVE IN AND THERE WERE ITS OWN ADDRESSES AS WELL, THEN YEAH, I WAS AWARE AND HE TOLD ME THAT IS WHAT HE SUGGESTED TO YOU.
UM, AND DID HE SUGGEST THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND JUST DEMOL THE BUILDING AND THEN DEVISE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ROOF ON THIS BUILDING, GO WITH THE, THE GABLE ROOF INSTEAD OF A HIP ROOF? OR WHAT DID HE SUGGEST YOU DO? WE BASICALLY BUILT IT THE SAME WAY THAT IT WAS BEFORE, AND THE TASK FORCE, UH, SAID THAT THEY WOULD'VE LIKED FOR IT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, FOUR DROPS TO IT AND STUFF.
AND WE CAME BACK AND SAID, WE'RE WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO MEET LIKE BETTER,
[01:15:01]
UH, I GUESS TO MATCH THE, THE PRIMARY BUILDING BETTER.UH, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
UM, BUT WE, WE BASICALLY WANTED TO, UH, HAVE LIKE THE SAME BLUEPRINT THAT THE, THAT THE OLD, THAT THE OLD BU THAT THE OLD BUILDING HAD, UH, WE DIDN'T WANNA MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS AS I THOUGHT THAT WOULD TRIGGER THINGS, BUT HERE WE ARE.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND NOW THAT BY DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING, YOU'VE LOST YOUR RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT SITE.
UM, AND BASICALLY THAT'S WHY I CAME TO GET A CD BACK IN FEBRUARY WHEN I WAS TURNED AWAY.
AND TO WORK ON THIS BUILDING AS IS, UH, WHICH REQUIRE A LOT OF DEMOLITION TO HAPPEN, UH, AS A LOT OF THE FRAMING, YOU HAD ONE BY FOURS, TWO BY FOURS IN THE CEILING JOIST AND RAFTERS AS WELL.
UM, SO WE DEMO BASED ON OUR PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY, WHICH IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE PLANS DON'T GET APPROVED UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH THE HISTORIC DEPARTMENT FIRST.
SO I HAVE A FULL SET OF PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED AND WE WERE SET TO POUR A NEW FOUNDATION.
UH, WE WERE, UH, SET TO DO NEW FRAMING CHANGES IN THE INTERIOR ROOF WALLS, EXTERIOR WALLS, AND WE WERE TO, TO REPLACE THE SIDING MODIFICATIONS DONE BY PREVIOUS OWNERS WITH BRICK, UH, TO MATCH THE PRIMARY BUILDING.
BUT YES, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHENEVER YOU DEMO SOMETHING, UH, THAT WAS GRANDFATHERING FOR, UH, TO MEET SOME SORT OF REGULATION, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE, YOU'VE TRIGGERED SOME KIND OF, UH, RULE ON THERE.
SO NOW I KNOW THAT THE SETBACK THING, IT'S A PROBLEM.
BUT Y'ALL KNEW THAT BEFORE YOU DEMOLISHED OR YOU FOUND THAT OUT AFTER? UH, I ACTUALLY FOUND THAT OUT AFTER, UH, SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT IN MIND THAT WE WERE GONNA GET RED TAG, UH, ABOUT IT.
WE HAD A FEW INSPECTIONS DONE, UH, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, UH, UNDERGROUND PLUMBING, UH, FOUNDATION REBAR, THE, UH, PARTIAL FRAMING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL.
SO WE GOT ALL OF THOSE THINGS PASSED.
SO WE JUST DIDN'T THINK ABOUT, WE DIDN'T SEE IT AS A COMPLETE DEMOLITION.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
UM, IT WAS, IT NEVER CROSSED OUR MINDS THAT WE COMPLETELY DEMO IT BECAUSE WE WERE SHORING UP THE BRICK WALLS FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS.
UM, I HAD SOME OF THE TASK MEMBERS, UH, SAID TO ME THAT YES, THEY, THEY SAW THAT WE MADE THE EFFORT.
AND I THINK WHEN I MET WITH THEM BEFORE THIS MEETING, UH, SOME OF THEM WERE, UH, WILLING TO APPROVE THIS UNTIL THEY FIND OUT ABOUT THE, UH, THE SETBACK REGULATIONS AND THEY WANTED TO, UH, SEE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
BUT YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO BE HONEST, I, IT DIDN'T CROSS MY MIND THAT WE WERE GONNA TRIGGER SOME KIND OF SETBACK ISSUE, UH, ABOUT IT BECAUSE, UH, I NEVER SAW IT THAT WAY.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION WITH THAT MOTION, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT JUST OCCURRED TO ME.
DID YOU HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DID DO? YES.
BEFORE YOU GOT GREEN TAG? UH, SORRY, REPEAT THAT LAST PART BEFORE THEY CAME AND SAID STOP.
DID YOU HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT? OH, YES, YES.
BUT DID THEY HAVE A CA UH, WE DID HAVE A CA THERE'S SOME KIND OF, THE CA IS NOT AS DETAILED AS I WOULD'VE LIKED IT TO BE, AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION THERE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN HAS A MOTION, IF NOT, I I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, I'M KIND OF PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT COMMISSIONER SHERMAN MENTIONED THERE ARE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT TRACKS IN WINNETKA HEIGHTS AND I QUESTION FOR STAFF OR MAYBE, UH, MS. SHERMAN KNOWS, IS THIS AN ATTRACT THAT ALLOWS FOR MULTI-FAMILY OR IS IT A SINGLE FAMILY TRACK? YOU KNOW, OFFHAND, UH, IT, IT ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY.
BUT CAN THEY INCREASE THE DENSITY IN THAT MULTIFAMILY? I I THINK WE SHOULD, I KNOW THIS IS THE BUILDING INSPECT ISSUE.
I KIND OF WAS TOUCHING ON IT WITH PARKING BEFORE.
BUT IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CREATE MORE DENSITY, AND IF THESE UNITS WERE NEVER OFFICIAL BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, I MEAN THE CITY WILL SAY IF IT'S AN EIGHT PLEX, A 10 PLEX, WHATEVER, I'M EVEN WONDERING IF THESE LEGAL DWELLING UNITS, THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T BE REBUILT AT ALL, IS MY COMMENT.