[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.
UM, UNDER THE USE REGULATIONS FOR TRACT ONE, THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN A STRUCTURE MAY NOT BE INCREASED.
IF THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN A STRUCTURE IS REDUCED OR THE STRUCTURE IS REPLACED WITH ANOTHER STRUCTURE CONTAINING LESS
[01:20:01]
NUMBER OF UNITS, THE STRUCTURE SHALL THEREFORE THEREAFTER BE LIMITED TO THE LESS NUMBER OF DWELLING.SO WHEN THEY, TO THAT'S THOSE DWELLING UNITS, THEY LOST THE RIGHT TO BUILD THEM BACK, RIGHT? IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, MEAN IF YOU SAID THAT THEY, WHEN THEY DECREASE THE DWELLING UNITS, THEY CANNOT INCREASE THEM.
SO WHEN THEY TORE DOWN THOSE UNITS, TWO OR THREE, WHATEVER THEY WERE, WHEN THEY LEGALLY CAN'T PUT 'EM BACK.
THE, AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, UM, MAY NOT BE INCREASED.
WELL, THAT'S A MOOT THEN THE WHOLE THING'S A DEAD ISSUE THEN THAT WOULD MAKE THE MOTION A LOT EASIER, CORRECT? UH, YES.
AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN'S READY TO MAKE THAT.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF NAIL THAT, OR COMMISSIONER.
BUT YEAH, I, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE RIGHT.
THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO BACK UP IN NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS.
BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT YEAH.
COMMISSIONER SWAN HAS A QUESTION.
BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE TO ME, LIKE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT THE DWELLING UNITS CANNOT BE INCREASED, AND ONCE YOU DECREASE THEM, YOU, YOU HAVE TO GO WITH THE LOWEST NUMBER.
BUT THAT SEEMS A BIT DIFFERENT FROM REPLACING DWELLING UNITS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE, THE BUILDER IN THIS CASE HAS NOT LIKE, UH, SUBMITTED A PLAN WITH FEWER DWELLING UNITS AND BUILT WITH FEWER DWELLING UNITS.
IT WAS A MATTER OF SOME DWELLING UNITS WERE, WERE LOST.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT APPLIES TO WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
WELL, I DEAL WITH THIS EVERY DAY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
OH, IF THEY'RE FIRE SOMETHING DOWN, THEY'RE GONE.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE, UH, RULE AS READ BY KATE SINGLETON WAS WHEN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IS INTENTIONALLY DE DECREASED.
IS, IS THAT WHAT'S, WHAT HAPPENED HERE? OR WERE THE DWELLING UNITS LOST? YES.
THE ISSUE WOULD BE WAS IT TEMPORARILY DECREASED WHETHER THEY REBUILT OR WERE THEY
IN OTHER WORDS, WORDS, IF, IF THEY HAD, IN THAT, IF YOU HAVE A FOURPLEX AND YOU MAKE IT INTO A TRIPLEX, THEN FOREVER ON IN THIS DISTRICT, IT CAN ONLY BE A TRIPLEX.
SO IF THERE WERE THREE UNITS IN WHAT THEY TORE DOWN, THEY CANNOT BUILD SOMETHING BACK WITH FOUR UNITS.
IT HAS TO REMAIN THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WERE IN THE BUILDING AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS REDUCED, WHICH MEANS IT WAS TORN DOWN.
THEY CANNOT BUILD, YOU CAN'T, IF THEY HAD THREE, YOU CAN'T DO FOUR.
IF NOW THEY HAVE ZERO BECAUSE THEY TOLD THE BUILDING DOWN, CAN THEY HAVE ZERO? IS THAT, AND THEY LOST THE RIGHT TO THE THREE AT THIS POINT, I GUESS IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
THIS IS PART OF, THIS IS PART OF THE WHOLE, WHOLE UNIT.
RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS IS, THESE ARE ACCESSORY UNITS TO THE APARTMENT BUILDING.
IT'S LIKE, LIKE A GARAGE APARTMENT.
YOU TEAR THE GARAGE APARTMENT DOWN AND YOU CAN'T BUILD IT BACK.
THE ORDINANCE, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE READS IS IT IS, IF THEY HAD, IF THEY HAD THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN A STRUCTURE MAY NOT BE INCREASED.
SO YOU CAN'T TAKE A FOURPLEX AND ADD ANOTHER UNIT AND MAKE IT FIVE.
IF THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN A STRUCTURE IS REDUCED OR THE STRUCTURE IS REPLACED, OKAY.
OR THE STRUCTURE IS REPLACED WITH ANOTHER STRUCTURE CONTAINING LESSER UNITS, THE STRUCTURE SHALL THEREAFTER BE LIMITED TO THE LESSER NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO IF THEY HAVE THREE NOW, THEN THEY COULD BUILD THE THREE BACK.
BUT THEY CAN'T MAKE IT FOUR UNITS.
THEY CAN ONLY DO WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND WHEN IT WAS TORN DOWN.
AND DOES THAT RIGHT TO DO SO STILL APPLY IF THIS, THESE ACCESSORY UNITS WERE BUILT AFTER THE HISTORIC CONSTRICT CAME TO BE IN WITHOUT APPROVAL? I KNOW YOU FORGOT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
WE TOLD YOU TO DO THAT LAST NIGHT.
UM, YEAH, BUT I DID STAY AT THE HOLIDAY.
AND SO, UM, I MEAN, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THESE WERE ORIGINALLY, UH, DONE LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY, I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF OUR
[01:25:01]
PURVIEW AND WOULD NEED TO BE A FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, KATE.I I DO BELIEVE THAT ALSO, UM, THE, THE, THE SETBACK ISSUE IS, UM, I I, I THINK EVEN MORE AT, UM, UH, MORE RELEVANT OR GERMANE TO THE DISCUSSION BEING THAT THE BUILDING, UM, ACTUALLY SITS CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
SO CLEARLY WE HAVE MANY QUESTIONS WHICH WE CANNOT DEFINITIVELY ANSWER AS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER DIFFICULT QUESTIONS WE'D LIKE TO WRESTLE WITH, I BELIEVE MR. SHERMAN DOES HAVE PROMOTION.
PERHAPS THAT WILL CLARIFY OUR THINKING IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO RESPOND TO IT.
LEMME THROW THIS OUT THERE AGAIN, IN THE MATTER OF D SEVEN CA 2 2 3 DASH 5 51 M W, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 1 0 5 SOUTH WIND MIRROR, I MOVE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PER BOTH STAFF AND TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS DUE TO ITS CRITICAL PLACEMENT ISSUE.
AND FOR THE REASONS CITED, I MEAN, STATED BY STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA CITED IN THE APPLICABLE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SWAN WAS THE FIRST TO SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO CHECK WITH BUILDING INSPECTION ON THE LEGAL USE OF THAT PROPERTY.
'CAUSE I DON'T WANT 'EM TO COME BACK WITH A NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDING A LITTLE DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THOSE DWELLING UNITS CANNOT BE BUILT PER THE ORDINANCE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW THAT BEFORE THIS WE CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN WORK WITH BUILDING INSPECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE SETBACK SHOULD BE AND WHAT LEGALLY THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD, BOTH UNDER OUR ORDINANCE AND UNDER BUILDING, UH, CODE.
WOULD'VE BEEN A GOOD THING TO DO A LONG TIME AGO AND SAVE A LOT OF HEARTACHE FOR EVERYBODY.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
ANY HE OPPOSED THIS MOTION? AYE.
CAN I JUST SAY I A COMMAND THAT CAN KEEP HIS SENSE OF HUMOR? OKAY.
WE, WE, WE APPEAR TO HAVE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE YOUR REQUEST AS A DENIAL.
UM, WE ARE ENCOURAGING YOU TO, WE ALREADY SAID WORK WITH EVERYBODY THAT HAS A INPUT INTO WHAT YOU CAN DO THERE AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN THAT WE CAN PASS.
YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING TO THE C P C FOR A FEE AND APPEALING THIS, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, DID WE RULE? RIGHTLY OR NOT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB, THAT'S OURS.
SO, UM, I WISH, I WISH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER ARE, WELL, IT'S REALLY YOUR EMPLOYER'S, UM, PROBLEM.
YOU'RE JUST DOING WHAT THEY TOLD YOU TO DO AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT WE SAID.
HAVE 'EM TALK TO, UM, THE STAFF TO MARCUS IF THEY WANT TO, TO TRY TO LEARN HOW THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO REMEDY THIS.
THAT WAS D SEVEN, BUT NOW WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT D EIGHT AND WELL, THAT'S OKAY.
ITEM D EIGHT IS 1 0 4 SOUTH WIND DEMEER AVENUE IN WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 2 3 DASH 0 1 4 MW.
THIS IS A RE A CERTIFICATE FOR, UH, DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL TO DEMOLISH A NON-CONTRIBUTING ACCESSORY BUILDING USING STANDARD NON-CONTRIBUTING AND NEWER THAN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE WORK WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT A CD STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH A NON-CONTRIBUTING ACCESSORY BUILDING UNDER STANDARD, NON-CONTRIBUTING, NEWER THAN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE WORK COMPLETED WITHOUT A CD BE APPROVED? THE PROPOSED WORK MEETS CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 H FOUR D, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH A NON-CONTRIBUTING ACCESSORY BUILDING STANDARD, NON-CONTRIBUTING, NEWER THAN PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE WORK COMPLETE WITHOUT A CD BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS, EFFORTS TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE WERE MADE, BUT IT IS STILL NON-CONTRIBUTING AND IT HAD LOST ANY OF ITS CHARACTER ANYWAY.
WHAT A RUDE COMMENTARY ON THAT POOR BUILDING.
WE, WE DON'T HAVE A SPEAKER FOR THIS ONE, BUT I THINK WE'VE ASKED ALL
[01:30:01]
OUR QUESTIONS AS STAFF IF THERE ARE ANYMORE, MR. SWAN? UH, I HAVE A MOTION.ARE THERE ANY, HAVE DISCUSSION? OKAY.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER T HAS A QUESTION.
UH, AND, AND I KNOW WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS BEFORE.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, THE STRUCTURE IS GONE WITHOUT THE, UM, DEMOLITION PERMIT OR WHATEVER.
IF, IF WE AS A COMMISSION OR THE CITY, UM, DENIED A MOTION FOR A DEMOLITION AFTER IT WAS ALREADY DEMOLISHED, WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT THEN HAPPENED IN TERMS OF DO THEY HAVE TO REBUILD WHAT'S THERE? THAT IS ONE OPTION.
I THINK, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IS IF, IF YOU WERE TO HAVE LIKED THE DESIGN FOR THE NEW BUILDING THAT YOU JUST LOOKED AT, YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THAT, BUT YOU COULD DO IT WITH THE CONDITION OF THEM SATISFYING THAT THE DEMOLITION BE APPROVED.
AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY, THE, THE CITY, WE WOULD, WE COULD HOLD ANY PERMITS ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL Y'ALL ARE SATISFIED, UM, WITH THE, THE WAY WHATEVER THE, THE COMPROMISE ENDS UP BEING OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT HA MIGHT HAPPEN.
BUT, UM, YOU, YOU ALL, YOU ALL CAN ACTUALLY HOLD UP ANY FURTHER ON THE PROPERTY AND POSSIBLY YES.
AND POSSIBLY REQUIRE IT TO BE A RE UH, A RE A REPLICA.
IS THERE A QUESTION TO THAT? UM, IS THERE ALSO POTENTIAL FOR A FEE OR A FINE IF SOMEBODY TAKES THE BUILDING DOWN? THAT'S A, THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION FOR OUR ATTORNEY.
OUR ATTORNEY IS ATTEMPTING TO FIND A MICROPHONE,
I MEAN, I WOULD THINK IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TEAR DOWN A HOUSE, THEY JUST TEAR IT DOWN AND WALK AWAY.
THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD DAY AT THE, THE DEAL FOR THEM.
UM, IT MUST BE SOME KIND OF A LEGAL ISSUE THAT WE CAN HOLD THEM TO.
THIS IS MARISSA HINES WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO IF THEY DO A DEMOLITION WITHOUT APPROVAL, THEY ARE LIABLE TO, UM, DAMAGES TO RESTORE OR REPLICATE THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD REFER TO COMMUNITY PROSECUTION AND THEY WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
THE OPTION IS, I HAVE QUESTION BUILDING IT BACK.
I DON'T KNOW HOW COMMUNITY PROSECUTION WOULD FEEL ABOUT A NON-CONTRIBUTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WAS A LAUNDRY ROOM AND THEN SOME RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT NOT DEEM IT WORTH THAT.
DO WE WANT IT BACK? I THINK WE'RE TALKING A LARGER SCHEME OF SOMEBODY ON A BUILDING AND THEY GET AWAY WITH IT.
WELL, THERE, THERE IS THAT ISSUE.
WE DON'T WANT TO SET ANY PRECEDENT IN PEOPLE'S MIND.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR BUILDING, JUST KNOCK IT OVER ACCIDENTALLY AND THEN COME TELL US.
BUT, UM, IT APPARENTLY SEEMS THAT THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS WHO PERHAPS HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THIS BUILDING DID FEEL THAT THEY TRIED TO SAVE IT.
THEY SAY, SO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO SAVE IT AND IT FELL OVER ANYWAY, SO THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO PLACE BLAME OR BE SUSPICIOUS.
I WILL SAY ALSO, I REMEMBER, UH, WORKING WITH HIM IN FEBRUARY AND I TOLD HIM THAT IF THEY, IF THEY'D GO THE ROUTE OF DEMOLITION, THEY'LL LOSE THEIR GRANDFATHERED SETBACKS.
AND HE WAS LIKE, OH, WE DON'T WANNA DO THAT.
WE WANNA SEE STAY IN THE SAME PLACE.
SO IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE MAKING AN EFFORT TO ACTUALLY KEEP EVERYTHING AS MUCH AS THEY COULD.
'CAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD LOSE THAT PLACEMENT.
SO WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THEY REALLY DIDN'T WANNA KNOCK IT DOWN.
NO, BECAUSE I TOLD THEM AND HE WAS LIKE, OH NO, WE DON'T WANNA DO THAT BECAUSE WE'LL LOSE, YOU KNOW, NOW THEY'VE LOST HOW MANY FEET FROM BECAUSE OF THE NEW SETBACK.
SO WE HAVE, AS FAR AS I KNOW, COMMISSIONERS JUAN HAS A MOTION TO MAKE, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN HAD A QUESTION TO ASK OR A COMMENT TO MAKE THAT IS SUITABLE FOR AFTER THE MOTION IS MADE.
WELL, WHAT I WANTED TO DISCUSS WAS, UM, WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR DEMOLITION, FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE THREE DIFFERENT THINGS, RIGHT?
I THINK THAT'S AT THE STANDARD IS FOR BU UH, TO, YOU KNOW, HUMAN SAFETY.
[01:35:01]
CONTRIBUTING, NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, YOU COULD PRETTY MUCH ASK FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION.AND IF THERE WERE NO OBJECTION, YOU'D GET IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRIBUTING ASSET TO THE
WELL, I DISTINCTLY RECALL, UH, CASE WE HAD IN, UH, THE 300 BLOCK OF THE NORTH MONTCLAIR, WHERE A BUILDER WANTED TO TAKE DOWN A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN 1937, PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN 1937, OUTSIDE OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE BY TWO YEARS.
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWED UP IN AN UPROAR AND DEMANDED THAT THAT NOT BE TORN DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS, UM, THEY SAID THERE WERE NON-CONTRIBUTING, BUILDING WORTHY OF DEMOLITION, BUT NOT THAT ONE.
WHAT WAS THE STANDARD THAT HE, WE HAD NO, WE DID NOT APPROVE THAT.
AND SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE DEEM WORTHY OF DEMOLITION.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, WHETHER SOMETHING IS NON-CONTRIBUTING DUE TO THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE OR NOT.
BECAUSE THE BRICK ON THIS BUILDING WAS 1924.
UM, IT ALSO HAD A HIP ROOF, WHICH WAS NOT THE COMMON PRACTICE.
MOST OF THE TIME IT WAS FOR THE OLDER STRUCTURES, NOT THE NEWER STRUCTURES.
AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I DARE SAY THAT HAD THEY COME BEFORE US SEEKING DEMOLITION, WE PROBABLY WOULD'VE NOT APPROVED IT.
SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE CONTENDED IT WAS OF THE, NOT OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SIMPLY 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKED OR SOMETHING, THE STANDARD WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THAT.
I NOW HAVE A QUESTION, NOT A MOTION.
AND SO WHEN DISCUSSION'S OVER I I WILL HAVE A MOTION.
NO, I I I'M NOT SURE THAT I HAVE A MOTION ANYMORE, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
STATE THAT THIS BUILDING HAD APPEARANCE
WELL, THERE IS ONE, THERE'S ONE.
YOU CAN SEE IT IN THIS CASE REPORT.
UM, AND IT'S MODEST, BUT IT WAS BRICK, IT HAD WINDOWS OF THE PERIOD, IT HAD A HIP ROOF.
UM, I'VE LIVED AROUND THE CORNER FROM THIS HOUSE FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND I REMEMBER THAT TO BE A WAS ROOM TO SERVE THE MAIN BUILDING AND THEN PEOPLE STARTED LIVING THERE.
I DOUBT IT WAS EVER A DWELLING UNIT OR PAIR OF DWELLING UNITS.
AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF THESE WERE LEGAL DWELLING UNITS.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY WERE.
BUT, WELL, PERHAPS WHEN HIS PERSON BOUGHT THE PLACE AND DECIDED ON WHAT THEIR, YOU KNOW, RETURN ON INVESTMENT WAS GONNA BE, THEY DECIDED THEY NEEDED THOSE AS LEGAL.
THEY NEEDED THOSE AS DWELLING UNITS, WHETHER THEY WERE LEGAL OR NOT, TO HAVE THEIR CASH FLOW SO THEY COULD LEASE THE PLACE UP AND SELL IT OFF.
WELL THAT, THAT SOUNDS LIKE NORMAL.
LET'S LET COMMISSIONER SWAN ASK HIS QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS, WHO INITIATED THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION? IT'S MARCUS.
WHO DID IT? MARCUS? SO, OH, OKAY.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT CHRISTINA, BUT IT'S NOT JOB STAFF MEMBER.
A THIS IS INSPECTOR MCCLENDON, THE CODE INSPECTOR.
SO THIS WAS A CODE CASE AND THIS WAS SOMETHING WHERE, BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE OF THE CA THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR, UH, I RECOMMENDED THAT THEY SPEAK WITH MARCUS TO SEE WHAT THE OPTIONS WERE.
UH, THIS IS ALSO BEING CLOSELY WORKED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, THIS HAS BEEN A CASE THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A FEW YEARS, UH, TO BRING THE PROPERTY UP TO CODE AND UP TO STANDARDS.
UH, SO, UH, THE FACT THAT THE SCOPE OF WORK CHANGED BECAUSE THE WALL DID FALL.
UH, WE NEEDED TO, IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD AND TO ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CASE, THEY NEEDED TO DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO MOVE FORWARD, WHICH WAS TO GET A CD AND A CA TO MOVE FORWARD.
I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DUMP OR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONSIDERING A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, BUT AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED.
UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BUILDING FELL, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT YOU HAVE ANNOUNCED YOUR INTENTION TO STAFF TO TRY TO PRESERVE SO THAT YOU CAN PRESERVE YOUR SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT.
AND THEN THE BUILDING COLLAPSES.
THAT'S NOT, I MEAN, THEN, THEN THE, UH, O OWNER MIGHT BE MOVED TO REMOVE THE DEBRIS
[01:40:01]
FROM THE COLLAPSE, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE A, A INTENTIONAL DEMOLITION.AND I'M WONDERING IF A OWNER SHOULD FORFEIT THEIR GRANDFATHER, THEIR SETBACK GRANDFATHERING IF THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION FALLS ON ITS OWN OR, OR IN THE PROCESS OF THEIR TRYING TO SHORE IT UP AND, AND SAVE IT.
UM, I WOULD ASK IF MAYBE CHRISTINA COULD ANSWER THIS, BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN WORKING, UH, ON THIS CASE LONGER THAN I HAVE AND KNOWS THE BACK, UH, THE BACKSTORY ON, ON WHAT HAPPENED TO, TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
YEAH, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MORE THAN ONE PERSON.
'CAUSE IT WAS EVEN BEFORE ME, LIKE I PICKED UP YEAH.
BUT WHEN I HAD SPOKE TO HIM, HE DID NOT SEEM LIKE HE WANTED TO LOSE THAT PLACEMENT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE SITE PLAN UP, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THEY'RE LOSING A FAIR AMOUNT NOW THAT THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE NEW SETBACKS, THE PARKING AND EVERYTHING.
IT'S NOT WHAT THEY INTENDED FOR IT TO BE.
SO NOW THEY'VE GOT TO REPLAN THE LAYOUT BASED ON NEW SETBACKS THAT THEY DIDN'T INITIALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, I WASN'T THERE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT.
IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL, BUT JUST FROM THE CONVERSATION I HAD BACK IN FEBRUARY, IT DID NOT SEEM LIKE THEY WANTED TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS AND RE, YOU KNOW, REDESIGN BASED ON NEW SETBACKS.
AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BEEN INITIATED WITHOUT THE C OF A RESPECTS THE GRANDFATHER SETBACKS, I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE THAT WAS PAST ME.
SO I KIND OF ONLY HAD THAT PART OF IT.
AND THEN NOW IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW, I UN I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE PREVIOUS.
BECAUSE I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERING HERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATCH THE NARRATIVE THAT I'M HEARING.
IF YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY WHO SAYS IF SOMEBODY JUST TAKES DOWN A BUILDING 'CAUSE THEY WANT TO TAKE IT DOWN WITHOUT A C UH, YOU KNOW, A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT WITH IMPUNITY.
THAT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THE SITUATION, THE NARRATIVE THAT I'VE JUST HEARD SOUNDS LIKE TO ME NOW THAT IT'S A LOSS FOR THEM.
I MEAN, BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE LOSING THE INITIAL LAYOUT THAT THEY PARTICULARLY HAD IN MIND AND NOW EVERYTHING HAS TO SHIFT OVER TO ACCOMMODATE BRAND NEW SETBACKS AND WERE NOT THE WAY THEY INTENDED TO DO IT.
AGAIN, I CANNOT SAY THAT 110%, I'M JUST GOING BASED ON OF MEMORY OF CONVERSATION.
I, I HAVE A
I THINK OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SOMETHING TO SAY AND SHE'S THE MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW IN THIS ROOM.
THIS IS MARISSA HINES WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, I MEAN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE BUILDING FELL DOWN OR IF IT'S DEMOLISHED, IF THEY'RE HAVING TO DO A NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REBUILD, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE NEW SETBACKS.
AND YOU JUST, THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR, BUT, OKAY.
I HAVE A, THEY, THEY, YEAH, THEY, THEY DID ORIGINALLY.
SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY DIFFERENT CONCERNS TO DISCUSS ON THIS, I THINK WE'VE SORT OF GONE THROUGH ALL THOSE AND REALIZED WE ALREADY IN IMPASSE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
WE REALLY NEED TO GO AHEAD WITH A MOTION.
I'VE HAD TWO COMMISSIONERS INDICATE THEY HAD A MOTION TO MAKE.
DO THEY WISH TO ARM WRESTLE OR MOTION? MY MOTION WAS GONNA BE TO, UH, TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, BUT I FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THAT NOW.
SO YOU DON'T WANNA MAKE A MOTION.
SO COMMISSIONER SHERMAN IS THE ONLY ONE LEFT STANDING WITH THE MOTION.
I, I MEAN, I HONESTLY, I'M WHATEVER THE, I, MY SYMPATHY IS WITH PRESERVING THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER, UM, THAT SEEM TO BE, UM, THAT THEY, UH, SEEM TO BE TRYING VERY HARD TO PRESERVE.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT, UM, PUT IN THIS REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION.
PERHAPS IT'S NOT THE BEST TOOL, BUT IT IS, IT SOUNDED LIKE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ADVISED TO DO AS BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ADVISED TO DO BECAUSE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE WAS GONE.
SO THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN, IT WAS, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY PUT A BRAND NEW ONE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS BASICALLY DOWN TO FOUNDATION AND NOTHING MORE.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, PLEASE PROCEED IN THE MATTER OF D EIGHT, CD 2 23 DASH 14 M W 1 0 4 SOUTH WINDERMERE AVENUE, THE ACCESSORY BUILDING,
[01:45:02]
I MOVE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UM, FOR THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO INDICATE THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE SAVED AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO INDICATE A NEW STRUCTURE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED, UM, MORE COMPATIBLY AND, UM, NO EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED TO INDICATE UNDOUBTEDLY THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.I SECOND, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? IS THAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I HEARD, YES, I SECOND.
NOW FOR COMMENTS ON THIS, I I HAVE ONE IN MY EXPERIENCE ON THE BOARD, ON THE COMMISSION HERE, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WHEN SOMEONE ASKS TO DO THIS, TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S NON-CONTRIBUTING AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING BETTER, FIRST THEY HAVE TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE SOMETHING BETTER AND THEN WE CAN GIVE THEM THEIR, THEIR DEMOLITION REQUEST.
SO SINCE THEY DID NOT GET APPROVAL OF THE SOMETHING BETTER, THE LOGICAL THING, IT ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD'VE DONE IS DENY THEIR REQUEST FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
BUT WE ALREADY KNOW THEY'RE COMING BACK TO TRY TO WORK OUT THIS INCREDIBLY THORNY ISSUE IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'LL PROBABLY BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, WHETHER HAS THIS COMMENT, I JUST WANNA JUST ONE QUICK POINT OF ORDER.
THE STANDARD THAT THEY'RE USING IS FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING.
IT'S, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO, UH, INCLUDE A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE.
UM, IT'S JUST, JUST, JUST NON-CONTRIBUTING.
IT JUST HAS TO SHOW DOCUMENTATION.
SO THEY'RE NOT, NOT USING ANYTHING ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE A BETTER STRUCTURE.
OKAY, THEN I'M WRONG, BUT I'M STILL, I'M STILL RIGHT THAT THEY'RE COMING BACK ANYWAY TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THIS LEARNING ISSUE.
SO I DON'T KNOW THEY CARE AT THIS POINT, WHETHER THEY GET THE CD TODAY OR NEXT TIME, THEY'RE, WHAT THEY REALLY WANNA DO IS BUILD A NEW BUILDING.
IT, IT SEEMS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOWN TO NOW IS JUST CAN WE AGREE ON TWEAKS TO THE BUILDING AS PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED THAT, UH, THAT WE'RE HAPPY WITH? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES UNDERWAY, OR THE BUILDING THAT WAS IMPROPERLY DEMOLISHED, ALLOWED TO FALL.
UH, YOU, YOU'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY RULED ON THE CA THIS IS JUST FOR THE CD.
BUT THE, THE C OF A WAS A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CORRECT.
WITH, WITH A BETTER DESIGN ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT.
I THOUGHT WE COULDN'T PUT IT ON THAT FOOTPRINT 'CAUSE OF THE WRONG SETBACK.
I, I WILL CHECK WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS, BUT I, MY UNDERSTANDING'S THE SAME AS, AS MARISSA, UH, EXPLAINED IS THAT, UM, THIS GOES EVEN BEYOND LANDMARK COMMISSION.
THIS IS A, THIS GOES THROUGH ZONING AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT APPROVED, BUT I WILL CHECK.
I THINK, YES, MR. ANDERSON, I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY MESSY DEMOLITIONS TODAY.
UH, THE ONE ON REGER, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTATION FOR IT.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A, UM, A GUARANTEED AGREEMENT, UH, UH, A BOND, UH, I MEAN WE'LL DISCUSS THAT.
WE HAVE, WE CAN'T JUST DEMOLISH BILLINGS BECAUSE THEY COMING DOWN WE'RE TO THAT CASE.
WE'RE GONNA GET TO THAT CASE AND THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT CASE.
UH, THAT ACTUALLY IS, UH, PART WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND WE'LL BE GETTING TO THAT CASE.
I DIDN'T THINK WHAT IT'S KINDA LOOK KIND OF MESSY TODAY SO FAR.
UH, THIS, THIS CASE IS EXTREMELY MESSY.
SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER NEW INFORMATION TO BRING UP, OTHER THAN FURTHER CONFUSION 'CAUSE WE'RE ALL CONFUSED AT THIS POINT, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT IS BEFORE US, WHICH IS TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED.
SO WE DON'T GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO GO AHEAD AND DEMOLISH THE FOUNDATION.
WE MAY JUST LOVE A NEW ONE WHEN THEY FINISH WORKING OUT THEIR DESIGN.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION.
THIS MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
STAFF, THAT'S MARCUS I'D POINTED YOU IF YOU WERE HERE, WE'LL LET THEM KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND THE ADVICE ABOUT HOW THEY COULD APPEAL.
JUST COME BACK AND TALK TO US.
IT'LL BE EASIER ON EVERYBODY IF YOU JUST DO IT THAT WAY.
ALRIGHT, DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER TWO.
OH, THIS IS CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER TWO, ADDRESS 55 23
[01:50:01]
REGER AVENUE, JUNIORS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 2 3 5 3 4 CMM.REQUEST NUMBER ONE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BUILD A NEW TWO STORY MAIN STRUCTURE IN TRACK D.
NUMBER TWO, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT CEDAR BOARD ON BOARD FENCE NUMBER THREE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO POUR A SOLID BRUSH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS NUMBER ONE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BUILD A TWO STORY MAIN STRUCTURE BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION THREE, EXCUSE ME, SECTION 8.3 D.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT CEDAR BOARD ON BOARD FENCE BE APPROVED.
PROS WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 3.6, THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4, 5 0 1 G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STRUCTURE STANDARDS, EXCUSE ME.
NUMBER THREE, THE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO POUR A SOLID BRUSH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 3.2, THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN AT TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, NUMBER ONE, PER PRESERVATION CRITERIA, SECTION 8.6, THE HEIGHT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AND VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ADDITIONS MUST NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF SIMILAR HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK.
NUMBER TWO, PER PRESERVATION CRITERIA, SECTION 8.9, THE WIDTH OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE WITHIN 20% OF THE AVERAGE WIDTH OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK BASE.
NUMBER THREE, PER PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON INTERIOR LOTS MUST HAVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK THAT IS EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE SETBACK OF OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK FACE, FRONT, REAR, INTERIOR SIDE AND CORNER SIDE YARDS ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT F.
NUMBER FOUR, PORCH MUST BE TONGUE AND GROOVE.
WOOD FLOOR MUST PROTRUDE OVER THE EDGE OF THE FIRST RISE WITHOUT TRIM BOARD.
NUMBER FIVE, MATERIAL OF SIDING MUST BE WOOD.
ONE 17 PINE SIDING AND GABLE SHINGLES USED CEDAR SHINGLES.
NUMBER SIX W WINDOWS BE WOOD FOR THE FRONT 50% OF THE STRUCTURE.
FANCY DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOWS CAN BE USED ON FRONT AND SIDE, BUT NOT USUALLY USED FOR ALL WINDOWS.
AND THAT SIDE WINDOWS BE SIMPLER.
NUMBER SEVEN COLUMN IS NOT TAPERED BUT SQUARE.
SUGGESTING SUPPORTING SIMPLE DESIGN AND TO MEASURE NEIGHBOR'S PORCH TO PROPOSE SOMETHING DEEPER THAN FIVE FOOT NUMBER EIGHT FENCE MUST STOP AT THE REAR.
50% OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND REQUEST IMAGES OF GATE DESIGN.
NUMBER NINE, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK MUST BE NOTED FOR DIMENSIONS AND MATERIAL MUST BE BRUSHED CONCRETE.
NUMBER 10, MATURES SLASH SPECIFICS OF PROPOSED FRONT DOOR PROVIDED.
AND NUMBER 11, INCLUDE PAINT COLORS, BODY.
BENJAMIN MOORE, HC 1 52 WHIPPLE BLUE TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE, HC ONE 70 STONINGTON GRAY PORCH COLUMNS OFF WHITE.
ALSO, I'D LIKE TO ALSO INCLUDE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THESE CHANGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, PER TASK FORCE.
AND I ALSO WANTED TO GIVE TWO EXAMPLES OF SIMILAR BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF JUNIORS HEIGHTS.
THIS FIRST ONE HERE, KEEP IN MIND, I KNOW THE PORSCHE DOESN'T LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT SIMILARITIES, UH, THIS ONE IS AT 5,300 TREMONT STREET.
I TRIED TO GET THE TREES OUT OF THE WAY, BUT I COULDN'T.
AND I KNOW THERE IS A PORCH THERE, BUT SKELETON WISE,
I DO HAVE THE ONE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT ALSO FROM VIRGINIA'S BOOK.
KEEP IN MIND, I KNOW THERE'S A PORTIER AND A PROBABLY LIKE A SUNROOM TYPE ON THIS SIDE, BUT
[01:55:01]
JUST THE SKELETON.SO THOSE OTHER, THIS IS JUST EXAMPLE OF HERS, BUT THE OTHER TWO ARE MOST DEFINITELY INGENIOUS HEIGHTS.
THEY, UH, WE HAVE TO GO WITH OUR SPEAKER.
I I'VE BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING THERE WONDERING WHAT WE'RE DOING TO DO THAT.
KEEP THOSE HANDY IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO IT IS TIME FOR OUR SPEAKER PABLO GARCIA.
WELL FIRST OF ALL, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
UH, ACTUALLY, FIRST OF ALL, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
PABLO GARCIA REPRESENTING 55 23 RIDGE AVENUE.
AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL ME THE TRUTH? JUNE HEIGHTS? YES.
SO YOU GO AHEAD AND TELL US WHAT YOU NEED TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION.
YOU ALREADY HEARD SOME OF OUR COMMENTS.
WELL, BASICALLY, UH, WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH ALL THE, THE INFORMATION WE HAVE AFTER THE MEETING WITH THE TASK FORCE.
UH, I PRESENT ALL THE CHANGES ON THE NEW ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
UH, THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE WE ALSO STARTED WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT BEING APPROVED.
SO WE GOT ALL THE PERMITS, ALL THE PERMITING AND ENGINEERING APPROVED.
WE STARTED WORKING ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND IT WAS PROBABLY WHEN WE WERE ABOUT A MONTH DOWN THE LINE WHERE WE GOT STOPPED.
UH, BECAUSE NOT HAVING A CA APPROVAL, WHICH I DIDN'T KNEW AT THE MOMENT THAT WE WERE IN AN HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
UH, IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING ON REGION BECAUSE ONLY HEALTH OF THE STREET.
UH, I WASN'T INFORMANT ABOUT IT.
UH, BUT THANKFULLY WE GOT, WE GOT TOGETHER WITH THE TASK FORCE AND ALSO WITH CHRISTINA.
UH, THEY'VE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL IN THIS SITUATION, UH, PRO PROMOTING THE CHANGES ON THE MATERIALS AND EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE DESIGN.
SO I THINK, UH, WE PRESENTED THAT IN NEED OF THE, UH, CV AND THE, UH, SEE A CERTIFICATE OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE, UH, FOR THIS BUILDING.
NOW DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT OR STAFF MEMBERS? NOW YOU ALL HUSH.
WHAT
MR. ANDERSON, WHILE WE LOOK UP THIS, IS THE PORCH ACTUALLY SIX FEET DEEP OR WILL IT BE YES, THERE SHOULD BE A RED NOTE TO INDICATE THAT BECAUSE, UH, WE, IT WAS MISSED ON THE PLANS, BUT I DID TALK TO APPLICANT AND HE APPROVED SIX FOOT.
ON PAGE EIGHT THREE ON THE PLANS WE FOUND THE, UH, THE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE PORCH ON THE MATERIAL.
AND IT, IT AT
AND THAT'S ALL BEEN ADDRESSED, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SOUNDS LIKE THE THING WAS A MESS AT ONE TIME.
THEY, THAT'S ALL BEEN STRAIGHTENED OUT.
THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, THE THE WIDTH, YES.
THE, BOTH THE SETBACK ON THE FRONT YARD, THAT'S ALL BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.
SO THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS THERE, IS THERE ANY OF THE OLD STRUCTURE, THE ORIGINAL, THE OLD FRAMING THAT'S BEING USED, ARE YOU TEARING 1 BILLION DOWN A BUILDING ALTOGETHER? WELL, BASICALLY ON THE FACE OF THE CONSTRUCTION, WE WERE, WHEN WE GOT STOPPED, WE WOULD ALREADY RAISED THE FOUNDATION.
WE REPLACED THE PEER PLUS PEER FOUNDATION, WHICH WAS WOODEN AND IT WAS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
WE REPLACED IT WITH, UH, PRESSURE TREATED WOOD AND CONCRETE PIERS THREE, LIKE 42 INCHES MINIMUM.
UH, THEY WERE 12 INCH, UH, WHITE.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE WANT TO KEEP FOR THE, UH, FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
ARE THERE ANY OF THE WALLS OR STUDS, ANY OF THAT BEING RETAINED OR ARE YOU TEARING THE WHOLE BUILDING DOWN? THE BUILDING A NEW ONE? I BELIEVE, UH, I'M TEARING DOWN THE ENTIRE, ALL THE WALLS AND CEILINGS AS WELL AS THE ROOF.
WELL, CONFUSING IS TODAY COMMISSIONER SWAN? YES.
MAY WE RETURN TO THE FIRST OF THE THREE IMAGES THAT YOU JUST SHOWED US? OKAY.
[02:00:02]
I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS THIS ONE OR THE OTHER ONE THAT I, YOU'LL HAVE TO TELL ME WHICH, UH, I'LL OKAY.THE ONE THAT YOU SHOWED US BEFORE.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN ZOOM IN ON THAT LITTLE BIT OR PROBABLY NOT.
I MEAN, I CAN SHOW, BUT IT'S A SCREENSHOT.
I AND THE, I COULDN'T GET AROUND IT.
LIKE I JUST SAW IT IN GOOGLE MAPS, SO I WAS TRYING TO JUST GET AS CLEAR AS I COULD.
IS THAT BIG? THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD.
THE POINT WAS IT'S NOT A HIP ROOF
AND, UH, NO, NO, THIS IS A, I CAN'T IMAGINE A BETTER EXAMPLE.
I THINK IT'S UNUSUAL, BUT IT IS ENOUGH FOR ME.
I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF THE, UH, APPLICANT'S DETAILING COULD MATCH THE DETAILING ON THIS IMAGE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY.
I MEAN, THE MAIN THING THAT I'M SEEING IS THAT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS THREE BRACKETS WHERE IT'S THIS, UH, HOUSE SEEMS TO HAVE FIVE.
IT HAS, UH, UH, A BRACKET MIDS SPIN ON THE BARGE RAFTER, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THIS ONE I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE HIS PLAN.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ON THE, YOU, YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE, WHAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE IMAGE? JUST UNDER THE, UH, BARGE DRAFTER, THERE'S A, UH, A BRACKET AT MID-SPAN ON THE BARGE DRAFTER, WHICH IS NOT IN THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN.
MOST OF MY CONCERNS WITH THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN WERE HOW EVERYTHING COMES TOGETHER AT THE, UH, EAVES AND WHERE THE, IT LOOKS LIKE.
IS THAT A LITTLE PENT PENT ROOF THAT CLOSES THE GABLE? I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD LIGHTEN THAT TO SEE IT.
UH, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE, THAT HOUSE, IT'S A PENT ROOF.
I'M, I'M ASKING ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN.
IS THAT A LITTLE PENT ROOF? YEAH, I'M PULLING THAT UP RIGHT NOW.
SO WE CAN SEE, BECAUSE THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE A VERY SIMILAR DETAIL TO THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU SHOWED US.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE THAT BIGGER, BUT WHATEVER THAT IS, THAT CLOSES THE GABLE ON THE BOTTOM.
IS THAT, IS THAT BIG ENOUGH? YEAH, I REALLY, WITH I PROBABLY WITHOUT A SECTION THROUGH THAT DETAIL.
UH, I CAN'T TELL, BUT HONESTLY, UH, I CAN'T DISCERN ANY BETTER ON THE IMAGE OF THE ACTUAL HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT, IT MAY JUST BE A LITTLE BIT OF, OF TRIM.
BUT HONESTLY IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH.
UH, WERE, WAS ANY EXPLORATION MADE OF HOW TO TREAT THE ENDS OF THE PORCH, UH, OF THE PORCH ROOF? UH, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY JUST END IN A RAKE EDGE, WHICH IS, I DON'T KNOW, I, ON THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU SHOWED US, UH, IT'S ACTUALLY HIPS AND THE HIPS RETURN INTO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING OF THE, UH, INTO THE FACADE, WHICH IS, SEEMS A LITTLE MORE GRACEFUL.
AND OF COURSE, ON, ON THE, THAT'S THE ONE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD IT, YOU HAD IT THE FIRST, THE ONE BEFORE THAT, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND THAT ONE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, UM, RIGHT.
THE COLUMNS ARE MORE INSET FROM THE EDGES OF THE HOUSE.
I DON'T KNOW, I, I GUESS YOU SEE THAT EXAMPLE, IT SEEMS LIKE MORE OFTEN I SEE, UH, PORCH ROOFS THAT ARE HIP AND RETURNED INTO THE FACADE.
IT JUST SEEMS CLEANER THAN HAVING A RAKE EDGE THAT EXTENDS OUT BEYOND THE SIDEWALLS OF THE HOUSE.
UM, I I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE EXAMPLES OF THAT, KIND OF JUST A SIMPLE SHED PORCH ROOF IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ONE LIKE THAT RIGHT OFF HAND BECAUSE ALL THE, NOW THE ONES THAT I'M SEEING HERE, THEY'RE ALL LOOKED AT ME LIKE THEY ARE HIP, UH, PORCH ROOFS THAT RETURN INTO THE FACADE.
UM, SO THAT THERE'S NO, I GUESS A BETTER QUESTION WOULD BE IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO CHANGE THAT INSTEAD OF ASKING.
[02:05:01]
OKAY.AND, AND ON ON THIS EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE US TOO, THE, UH, YOU HAVE EXPOSED RAFTER RAFTER TAILS ON THE PORCH AND THE HOUSE, RIGHT? YES.
DOES IT NEED TO BE, AGAIN, ARE WE JUST LOOKING FOR COMPATIBILITY OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR HAVING EVERY ASPECT OF THIS? YOU KNOW, NO, NOT TRYING TO, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE EVERY ASPECT ANYWAY.
UM, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT AIMING FOR THAT, BUT IT JUST, I, I FEEL LIKE A PORCH TRUTH THAT WHERE THE, THAT THAT HAS A HIT, YOU KNOW, ON EITHER END OF THE PORCH TRUTH THAT RETURNS INTO THE, UM, FRONT FACADE OF THE HOUSE IS A LITTLE MORE IN KEEPING WITH HOW THE HOUSES IN THE DISTRICT ARE DETAILED.
IT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE THE PORCH THAT GOES ACROSS LIKE THIS AND A RAKE EDGE ON EITHER SIDE, THEN WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE BACK, YOU HAVE KIND OF A FLASH CONDITION WHERE YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, I DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE, IT IS KIND OF AN ODD ANGLE TO BE LOOKING AT A LITTLE REMAINDER OF PORCH THAT HAS TO EXTEND OUT A BIT TO GO PAST THE COLUMN IF YEAH, IF, WELL, CONSIDERING THE, UH, THE SIZE OF THE PORCH, IT'S ONLY SITS FIT.
UH, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE WE'RE USING THIS TYPE OF, UH, OF ROOF.
AND CONSIDERING THAT THERE'S NOT LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE HIP, YOU CAN ADD ON SIX SPEED, BUT STILL, IF THAT'S GONNA CONTRIBUTE TO GET APPROVED, I'LL BE, I'LL BE GLAD TO DO THOSE CHANGES.
I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVEN HAS A STRONG FEELING ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, UM, HONESTLY, THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON MY PERSONAL OPINION.
I LIKE THE WAY IT IS 'CAUSE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE ON THE OVERALL CONDITION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BRINGING NEW PROPERTIES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING UP WITH THE, UH, HISTORICAL FIELD.
SO I THINK IT IS THAT, IS THAT CONTRIBUTION, BUT MM-HMM.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS HAD THE QUESTION.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE WINDOWS EARLIER IN MINE, THIS ONE TO MAKE SURE ARE, ARE THESE WINDOWS VINYL, CHRISTINE? NO, THEY'RE WOOD.
I THINK THAT, I GUESS THAT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION OR SOMETHING.
AND THE DIVIDED LIGHT, UH, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT THERE? IS THIS, UH, APPLIED WITH SPACERS? IS THIS TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT? SEMI DIVIDED LIGHT OR JUST WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE APPLIED, UM, MATERIAL THAT'S ON THESE UPPER SASHES? THAT ONE I COULDN'T FIND THAT.
I THINK THE LAST THING I WAS LOOKING AT THAT THESE WERE ANDERSON SERIES E.
WAS THAT CORRECT? OR AT LEAST THAT WAS, THAT WAS SUPPLIED ONCE BEFORE AND WAS JUST APPROVING IT BLANKLY.
A WINTERSON SE ANDERSON SERIES E.
YOU COULD HAVE ANY OF THOSE CHOICES.
YOU COULD HAVE A SPACER BAR TO DIVIDED LIGHT.
YOU COULD HAVE SEMI DIVIDED LIGHT, YOU COULD HAVE THE, UH, LITTLE CHAT CHEAP PLASTIC STUFF THAT'S JUST APPLIED ON A SINGLE PANE OF GLASS.
SO THAT NEEDS TO BE CALLED OUT.
UM, CHRISTINA, I KNOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT.
IT'S THE WINDOWS ON EACH SIDE.
AND I DID SHARE YOUR CONCERNS, COMMISSIONER SWAN ON THE ROOF, THE WAY IT'S OVERHANG, WHETHER IT WOULD BE ENGAGING, JUST DYING RIGHT INTO THE FACADE.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S OUTSIDE THAT.
AND WHAT IS THAT DETAIL? I WAS HOPING TO GET A CLEARER LOOK OF THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD EITHER DIE IN FLUSH TO THE SIDE OR IT WOULD BE HIPPING AROUND IT EITHER WAY.
BUT IT, IT MIGHT NOT BE DOING THIS.
AND FOR IT TO DIE IN FLUSH, THE COLUMN WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY COME IN.
YEAH, IT WOULD COME IN FROM THE, SO I JUST WANTED THE EXAMPLES.
I THINK THAT WAS SHOWN, WHICH YES, WHICH WAS THE, WAS THAT CONDITION.
SO THIS DOESN'T DO EITHER CONDITION.
I WOULD EXPECT IT TO DO, UM, GO.
THOSE WERE MY CONCERNS ON, ON THAT.
I WOULD BE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, APPROVING THAT WITHOUT
[02:10:01]
KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVIDED WINDOW.UM, AND I DID HAVE A SMALL CONCERN ON THE WIDTH OF THAT DOOR.
OH, THAT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN I HAVE, BUT, UH, I'LL LOOK FOR IT.
THE, UM, WINDOW SCHEDULE, WINDOW A ACTUALLY ALL OF THEM DENOTE UH, DIVIDED LIGHTS.
DIVIDED LIGHTS UNDER WHAT CONDITION? DIVIDED LIGHTS.
I MEAN, YOU GO INTO ANDERSON'S SPEC SHEETS, IT SAYS DIVIDED LIGHT AND IT HAS TRUE DIVIDED.
IT HAS DIVIDED WITH A SPACER DIVIDED WITHOUT A SPACER.
THEN IT JUST HAS THE, THE CHEAP GLUED ON PLASTICS.
AND THEY CALL 'EM ALL DIVIDED LIGHTS.
BECAUSE ACTUALLY ON WINDOW C IT CALLS OUT FOR VINYL GEL VINYL, IT STILL CALLS OUT FOR VINYL ON, ON THE AND AND WINDOW.
WHAT ABOUT B? LEMME SEE THIS AND SEE THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN TO B UH, IT'S, IT'S NOT EVEN, IT WAS SHOWING THAT WAY ON THE ELEVATION TOO.
IT WOULD BE EVEN ON THE DIVIDED.
AND ANOTHER CONCERN WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT, LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL IS ON, ON THE SCHEDULE.
IT REFLECTS, I WAS HOPING IT WOULDN'T, BUT IT, IT, ON THE ELEVATION, ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS ON WINDOW B, IT'S NOT AN EQUAL DIVIDED LIGHT.
YOU HAVE, IT'S A THREE OVER THREE OR IT'S, IT'S SIX OVER ONE, BUT IT'S, UH, BUT THE CENTER SECTION IS NARROWER THAN THE TWO, THAN THE OUT TWO SECTIONS OF THE DIVIDED LIGHT.
SO IT'S NOT E EVENLY SPACED ON THAT DI DIVIDE EVEN ON THAT DIVIDED LIGHT.
AND IT, I WAS THINKING, WELL, MAYBE THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED, MISSED UPON GROIN.
BUT ON THE SIDE ONE, THIS MIDDLE IT'S UH, UH, WINDOW B AND WINDOW H.
OKAY, HERE'S H I THINK, UM, AND, AND ON THE SCHEDULE IT REFLECTS THE SAME THAT IT'S NOT, UH, EVEN ON THAT DIVIDED LIGHT.
UM, SO THERE'S A FEW CONCERNS ON, ON THE WINDOWS THAT I'D, I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT STRAIGHT UP.
SO MAYBE THE, YOU COULD, YOU COULD CALL THE ACTUAL SET OF PLANS THAT WE'LL, NOW IS THE, UH, THE PREVIOUS ONE? YEAH.
I'M, THESE ARE THE NEWER ONES.
IS THAT, YEAH, IS THAT MAYBE JUST THE DRAWING OR, WELL, IT JUST SHOWS THAT ON THE DRAWING AS ON THE SCHEDULE AS WELL AS THE ELEVATIONS.
I MEAN, LIKE THE LINE THAT WAS PUT THERE.
IT, IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A MISTAKE, BUT I JUST DOES THAT CLARIFY ALL OF THE WINDOWS ON THE SIDES ARE GONNA BE ONLY TWO LIGHT
SO THAT'S GONNA BE MODIFIED TO BE ONE OVER ONE ANYWAY ON THE SIDES.
WELL THAT WOULD DO AWAY WITH THAT, THAT THAT THEY, THERE WAS MENTION ABOUT HAVING MORE, UH, ORNATE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE.
RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
WELL I, THAT DOES NEED TO BE ANSWERED ON THE, WHETHER THE, IT'S GONNA BE SPACER BAR ON THE DIVIDED LIGHT OR IS IT A CHEAP APPLIED AND WHAT'S THE AND THE DETAIL OF THAT.
I WON'T, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE IT ANYWHERE HERE.
IT, IT NUM, IT ENUMERATES A NUMBER OF VINYL WINDOWS AS WELL.
C, D E I THINK PROBABLY THOSE WERE JUST NOT CHANGED BECAUSE WE AGREED THAT THEY WERE ALL GONNA BE
I HAVE THE, THE, UH, THE NEWEST, THE S YEAH.
'CAUSE THESE, I THINK WERE THE NEWEST.
BUT, UM, IT, LET ME SEE IF I CAN THE LAST, YOU KNOW, WITH, UH, PLANS THAT I SENT YOU.
UM, LET ME SEE, LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN PULL THESE UP FROM HIM JUST IN CASE.
'CAUSE THERE WERE SEVERAL SETS OF PLANS FOR THIS ONE.
ARE YOU, IS IT IN THE CONSTRUCTION? THAT'S THE CONSTRUCTION BID.
HERE'S, I BELIEVE THESE ARE THE SAME, BUT WE'LL PULL UP THEM.
LET ME SHARE, CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE PROPOSED WINDOWS IN REAL LIFE OR JUST SEEN DRAWINGS OF THEM? NO, I JUST SEEN DRAWINGS.
SO NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THIS WINDOW LOOKS LIKE.
[02:15:02]
SO THIS IS THE UPDATED ONES AND THE SIDES STILL SHOW DIVIDED LIGHT THAT I'M SHOWING RIGHT NOW.UM, MIGHT BE A SEPARATE THING.
YEAH, THE PORCH WOULD HAVE A HIP ROOF, WHICH WOULD BRING SHINGLES DOWN ON THE, HE WAS AMIABLE TO THAT ANYWAY.
OH, I SEE THAT GEL WIND SIGHT LINE.
SO THEY WERE CHANGED TO THE GEL ONE, SITE ONE.
THERE'S WINDOW C, THE GEL ONE.
ARE THEY WHAT? YEAH, SO THE, I SEE ON THIS NEW ONE, THEY STILL HAVE THE WIRE ON THE ONE I HAVE, IT SAYS THE
I THINK WE SHOULD JUST SPECIFY WHAT TYPES OF WINDOW WE WANT.
IF THEY'RE DIVIDED LIGHT, IT HAS TO BE A TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT, NOT THE LITTLE SCREEN BETWEEN TWO PIECES OF GLASS.
AND THEY CAN'T BE WOOD CLAD BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS WOOD.
SO YEAH, I CAN DEFINITELY MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE, UH, ON THE PLANS THAT I HAVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY WHO HASN'T ASKED ANYTHING YET? I CAN'T SEE YOU AT HOME.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF TO, UH, TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER CUMMING'S CONCERN ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE DOOR RELATIVE TO THE WIDTH OF THE WINDOWS.
IT WAS GOOD FOR MONGER PLACE 'CAUSE THAT'S OUR NEXT ONE.
THAT'S WHY I WAS, UM, I, I, YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT UP TO ME THOUGH.
THE APPLICANT'S WILLING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.
WELL,
I CAN JUST WIDER THE, UH, THE OPEN IT, IT'S MOST OFTEN TWO SIDELIGHTS IN A SKINNIER DOOR.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE, I CAN KEEP THE SAME STYLE JUST WITH THE, UH, WITH THE SIDE LIGHT.
THAT'S NOT A, NECESSARILY AN ISSUE.
AND PROBABLY I JUST LOOKING AT IT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE SIDELIGHTS SHOULD, UH, MAYBE FOLLOW THE PATTERN ESTABLISHED BY THE DOOR MM-HMM.
AND MAYBE EVEN BE, BE SOLIDLY PANELED FROM THERE DOWN LIKE THE DOOR IS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING RIGHT NOW.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, I LIKE SOMETHING REALLY SIMILAR TO THE ACTUAL DOOR.
IF WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE OF CONCERN, THEN CAN SOMEONE CRAFT A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
UM, IN, UH, THE SUBMISSION CA 2 23 DASH 5 3 4, UM, CMM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 55 23 RE AVENUE THAT, UM, WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, TO BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE FRONT WINDOWS HAVE, UH, TRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS.
THE CONDITION TWO, THAT THE FRONT PORCH HAVE A, UH, HIP ROOF.
AND WHAT WAS THE THIRD CONDITION DOOR.
[02:20:02]
THE WINDOWS ON THE, ON THE SIDES WERE GONNA BE ONE OVER ONE.SO THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A, A PART OF, UM, CONDITION NUMBER ONE.
THE, THE FRONT ONES ARE TWO DIVIDED LIGHTS AND THEN THE SIDES ARE ONE OVER ONE.
UM, CONDITION THREE IS THAT THE, UM, FRONT DOOR HAVE TWO, UH, SIDELIGHTS, TWO MINOR SIDELIGHTS ON EITHER SIDE OF, OF THE, OF THE MAIN DOOR.
UM, THEN ITEM NUMBER TWO, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL EIGHT INCH CEDAR BOARD ON BOARD FENCE BE APPROVED.
UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE, THAT THE REQUEST, UH, FOR CIVIC APPROPRIATENESS TO POUR A SOLID BUSH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED.
UH, MIGHT I ASK THAT THE WINDOWS ALSO BE SPECIFIED TO BE WOOD RATHER THAN WOOD CLAD? YES.
THERE'S OFTEN SO MUCH CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.
SO WHEN I MENTIONED
OH, I GUESS COMMISSIONER SHERMAN SECONDED THAT FIRST.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION OR SOME CONCERN ON THE PART OF OUR ATTORNEY, UH,
AND THE, THE SECOND IS FINE WITH WHAT? OKAY.
THE SECOND IS STILL SECONDING.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THOUGH? I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED A LOT TO WHERE I'M LOSING MY VOICE.
IN THAT CASE, LET'S CALL FOR THE VOTE.
I'M SURE ANY OPPOSED TO THIS? SEEING NONE.
YOU HAVE YOUR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, PLEASE STICK TO OUR RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
I THINK IT'LL HELP MAKE YOUR HOUSE FABULOUS.
AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO SEE US TODAY.
YEAH, SHERMAN WAS THE SECOND ON THAT.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE UP TO D READY TO READ THAT D THREE, WHICH IS THE DEMOLITION REQUEST.
UH, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 3 55 23 REGER AVE, JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CD 2 2 3 0 1 3 CMM.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE.
THE STANDARD USED IS THE NEW STRUCTURE IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH A HISTORIC OVERLAY.
DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 H FOUR A ROMAN ONE FOR CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL TO REPLACE STRUCTURE WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, APPROVE DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REPLACE WITH MORE COMPATIBLE STRUCTURE.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AGAIN, OR, UM, JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT WHEN YOU DO A DEMOLITION, UM, TO REPLACE IT WITH A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE COMPATIBLE, THERE HAS TO BE A BOND THAT, UM, THAT HAS BEEN THAT INFORMATION, THAT DOCUMENT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND JULIA, UM, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING NEEDS TO SIGN IT.
SO, UH, WE'RE IN PROCESS OF GETTING THAT SIGNED RIGHT NOW.
SO ABOUT, ABOUT RIGHT NOW? IT WILL BE FINE, YES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHEN THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE DEMOLISHING WAS BUILT.
THE STAFF OR OUR, UM, SPEAKER? NO, EITHER WAY.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN LOOK IT UP.
I DON'T, BY THE LOOKS OF THE, UM, THE WINDOWS, WHICH WERE A METAL MULTI-PLAN PANE WINDOW.
IT LOOKS TO BE PROBABLY POST WORLD WAR II.
[02:25:01]
MEAN, I'LL LOOK IN DCA IN ONE SECOND TO GIVE YOU WHAT THEY HAVE, BUT AGAIN, WE KNOW THAT D C AD IS NOT ALWAYS, UM, WELL, I CAN'T LOOK.THE YEAR THEY HAVE IN D CDD IS 1938.
AND WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR JUNIORS HEIGHTS? JUNIORS HEIGHTS, UH, DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1906.
UM, LET'S SEE, LET JUST 19 40, 1900 TO 1940.
SO THIS BUILDING IS IN THE PRETTY SIGNIFICANCE? IT IS, BUT IT'S NON-CONTRIBUTING.
WHY? WE CHECKED THE SURVEY MAP AND IT SAID IT WAS NON-CONTRIBUTING.
I WOULD, I'M NOT SURE I WILL
BUT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF, UM, LIKE PLA PLASTER SLURRY OR CONCRETE SLURRY OVER THE BUILDING.
SO IT HAD LOST ITS SIGNIFICANCE.
I, I DON'T WANT TO DWELL ON THIS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WHAT IF THIS BUILDING WAS 1938 AND IT WAS 1940? THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED.
UM, I, I KNOW IT'S BEEN ALTERED SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT I DON'T, WE INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE HAPHAZARDLY DEMOLISHING BILLS BECAUSE SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S PLACED WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION.
AND THIS ONE WAS A VERY PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN EVERY DAY OR EVERY MONTH OR EVERY YEAR EVEN, AND HOPEFULLY WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
UM, I UNDERSTAND IT IS A VERY STRANGE PROPERTY.
THIS IS WHY WE DIRECTED APPLICANT TO TAKE THIS PATH.
IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DOES SOMEONE HAVE A MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF D 3 55 23 RE, AVENUE, CD 2 23 DASH 0 1 3 CMM, I MOVE TO APPROVE FOR BOTH STAFF AND TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SECOND, UH, WITH A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SWAN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN WE'RE READY TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THIS MOTION? ALRIGHT.
SO NOW WE CAN SAY GOODBYE TO YOU, MR. GARCIA.
UNLESS YOU WANNA STAY
OKAY, NEXT STEP IS D FOUR, WHICH MEANS COMMISSIONER GUEST HAS TO HOO HIMSELF AND LEAVE THE ROOM AS HE'S DOING RIGHT NOW, AND THEN STAFF CAN READ WHAT THEY NEED TO READ.
ALRIGHT, THIS, UH, CHRISTINA MANKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FOUR, EXCUSE ME.
52 0 3 VICTOR STREET, MUNGER PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 2 3 5 3 5.
FIRST, REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BUILD A NEW TWO STORY MAIN STRUCTURE IN TRACK.
A SECOND, REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BUILD ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE REAR YARD, MATCHING THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND TRACT.
A THIRD REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT CEDAR BOARD ON BOARD FENCE IN THE REAR 50% OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN TRACK.
A FOURTH, REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO POUR A SOLID 11 FOOT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND TRACK A STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[02:30:01]
FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE.THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BUILD A NEW TWO-STORY MAIN STRUCTURE BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 11 A 11, THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO BUILD ACCESSORY BUILDING IN REAR YARD MATCHING THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 11 A ONE, THE STANDARD OF CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL AN EIGHT FOOT TALL CEDAR BOARD ON BOARD FENCE BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 11 B TWO, THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO, FOR A SOLID 11 FOOT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED.
PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 11 B NINE, THE STANDARDS IN SECRETARY, THE CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4, 5 0 1 6 C TWO FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE, BRICK COLOR SUBMITTED AS TWO PINK.
A MORE APPROPRIATE BRICK COLOR WOULD BE EITHER DARKER AND BROWNER OR REDDER.
THE PINK COLOR TALKS LIKE I TALK, THE PINK COLOR IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT OR PERIOD.
NUMBER TWO, THE FRONT PORCH CEILINGS SHOULD BE PAINTED.
NUMBER THREE, THE BRACKET SPACING SHOULD BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT.
NUMBER FOUR, THE FRONT PORCH SHOULD HAVE RAILINGS.
NUMBER FIVE, THE FRONT DOOR SHOULD BE EITHER A SINGLE WIDE DOOR OR A SINGLE DOOR WITH TRANSOM LIGHTS.
DOUBLE FRONT DOORS WERE NOT USED IN HOMES.
LAST NUMBER SIX, THERE REMAINS A LACK OF FENESTRATION ON THE MUNGER SIDE.
THE LACK OF WINDOWS IS UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR HOUSES THAT WERE CONSTRUCTING CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTED DURING THE DISTRICT'S PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
OKAY, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER WITH US ON THIS.
UH, START WITH GIVING US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR.
IT SAYS PUSH THE TALK, BUT I GUESS I GOT THIS.
I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF 5 2 0 3 VICTOR STREET IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, AND YOU PROMISED TO TELL US THE TRUTH.
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NUMBER, THE TRUTH.
UM, UM, JUST TO ANSWER THE, SO PRETTY MUCH WORKING WITH CHRISTINA IN TASK FORCE, EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID ON THE BACK END OF THAT, UM, SHOULD BE REPRESENTED ON THE UPDATED PLANS FROM THE FRONT.
UM, SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE FRONT DOOR HAS BEEN CHANGED.
THE BRACKETS, THE FRONT DOOR HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A SINGLE DOOR SIDELIGHTS.
THE BRACKETS ARE NOW, UM, PERPENDICULAR WITH ABOVE AND BELOW.
ARE YOU GONNA BRING IT UP FIRST OR YOU WANNA YEAH.
YOU WANNA ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, THESE ARE THE OLDER, I GAVE THEM THE PREVIOUS ONE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THESE CURRENT ONES IN OUR PACKET.
I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP SO HE CAN TALK, SPEAK TO IT AS HE GOES.
UM, THE, EVERYTHING I'M MISSING WITH I YES, YOU GUYS, THIS IS THE DOCKET THAT IS ATTACHED.
SO YOU, YOU HAVE THIS, OKAY, SO THAT IS THE NEW DOUBLE DOOR.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE NEW DOOR WITH THE SINGLE, SINGLE DOOR SIDELIGHT.
UM, THAT WAS THE OLD DOOR, RIGHT? THE DOUBLE DOOR.
UM, YOU GONNA GO THROUGH THE WINDOW? THE HOUSE, YEAH.
ALMOST YOU THOUGHT GOING ON, BUT JUST DISMISS.
YEAH, SO, SO THAT'S, SO THIS THE, SO I'M GONNA HIT EVERYONE HE SAID.
[02:35:01]
SO YOU CAN SEE NOW THAT'S THE MUNGER STREET.HE ADDED FIVE MORE WINDOWS OVER THERE TOTAL.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ONE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
Y'ALL WINDOWS, $3,000 EACH KILLING ME.
BUT
HOW DID THAT LOOK? YOU LIKE ALL THE WINDOWS ON IT? THAT'S A LOT OF WINDOWS.
YOU GO UP MR. COUNTRY, UHHUH,
AND THEN, UM, ON THE FRONT WE ADDED THE FRONT RAIL OF THE PORCH AND WE ADDED THE FRONT, THE TINGLE DOOR.
AND IF YOU SEE THE BRACKETS, THE ISSUE WAS THAT IT SEEMED LIKE THE BRACKETS WERE NOT ALIGNED ABOVE AND BELOW.
BUT YOU CAN SEE NOW MY ARCHITECT UPDATED IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE TOTALLY LINED UP ABOVE AND BELOW.
UM, WHAT WAS THE OTHER, OTHER
AND THEN THE LAST THING WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, I GUESS IS THE BRICK COLOR, RIGHT? SO, UH, MS. MACCO, YOU WANNA SHOW THE THE RED ONE? YES.
NOW THIS ONE, I THINK THAT I HITS EVERY ONE.
SO THIS IS THE ONE THAT MY WIFE AND I KIND OF BASED OFF OF DARKER AND REDDER QUOTE UNQUOTE.
YOU CAN'T GET MORE THAN THIS, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO, SO, UM, THAT WAS THE LAST THING.
SO THAT'S MY EVERYTHING I HAD, THAT'S MY THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU FOR, UM, LISTENING AND FOR COMMISSIONERS AT HOME, THEY'RE DEFINITELY DARK AND RED.
SO THEY DO HIT ON BOTH OF THAT.
ALRIGHT, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? SO I HAVE A QUESTION.
CAN WE SEE THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION PLEASE? RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION.
YEAH, I THINK IT, I THINK IT NEEDS SOME, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD SIR.
THERE'S A LOT OF BLANK WALL THERE.
IT'S KIND OF, WELL, ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE'S, THE STAIRWELL GOING UP.
AND THAT'S ALSO THE HOUSE THAT IS, THAT'S CONNECTED.
THAT'S FIVE FEET FROM THE HOUSE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
SO YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
BUT THAT IS THE STAIRWELL THAT GOES RIGHT UP THE STREET.
SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT ANY WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE.
BUT THAT IS, THAT IS NOT ON THE STREET SIDE.
THAT'S FACING BY INSIDE THE STREET.
INTERIOR OF INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE.
SO WILL THAT BLANK WALL BE SEEN FROM THE STREET? NO, SIR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE KEY CODE, THE STREETSCAPE, UM, YES.
CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT ONE? CAN YOU SEE IT GUYS? SO YEAH, YEAH, GO, GO UP A LITTLE BIT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU COULD ZOOM, UH, NOT THAT ONE.
UH, A LITTLE MORE UH, YEAH, GO DOWN.
YEAH, IF YOU, IF YOU ZOOM IN RIGHT THERE, THAT'S THE HOUSE.
PUT IT RIGHT, THAT'S NEXT TO IT.
AND BASED OFF OF WHERE OUR HOUSE IS NOW SET BACK, OUR HOMES ARE EXACTLY PARALLEL BECAUSE OUR HOMES HAVE TO BE EXACTLY PARALLEL, UM, ON THE ENTIRE STREET.
SO THAT WILL BE, SO THAT'S THE, THAT HOUSE, THAT'S HOW IT'S GONNA LOOK.
BUT THERE IS A DRIVEWAY THERE.
SO THEY HAVE GOT, BUT IF YOU LOOK ON THIS MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE, AND THE FENCE, YEAH.
UNLESS YOU DRIVE UP ON IN THE DRIVEWAY, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE IT BECAUSE THE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I DISAGREE.
I THINK YOU CAN STILL WITH THAT, THAT DRIVEWAY, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT WALL.
I MEAN, IF YOU NOT, IF YOU'RE NOT, IF YOU, IF YOU DROP UP PARALLEL TO IT AND LOOK DOWN THE STREET AND SEE, BUT IF YOU'RE DRIVING UP TO IT, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THAT.
IT'S LEVEL WITH THE OTHER HOUSE TOP.
BUT THAT'S MY
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? IT APPEARS TO BE QUITE A BIT.
IT IT, NO, IT IS LITERALLY RIGHT ON.
LIKE THEY HAVE IT, IT IS LITERALLY LIKE A, MY HOUSE.
MY LOT IS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE BUILT ON MY LOT IS, ISN'T THERE A DRIVEWAY THERE? MY SURVEY, MY SURVEY PEN IS ON THEIR LOT.
BUT IS THERE A DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? YES, THERE IS A DRIVEWAY, BUT THE DRIVEWAY STOPS WHERE THE FENCE IS HALFWAY THROUGH THE HOUSE.
I'M TRYING TO PULL UP, UM, THAT'S ALL.
UM, MS. SINGLETON AND I WERE WONDERING WHETHER IT IS A CODE REQUIREMENT TO NOT HAVE A WINDOW BY ON YOUR STAIR 'CAUSE UM, IN ORIGINAL EXAMPLES OF FOURSQUARES OR YOU KNOW, THE HOUSES LIKE THIS, THERE WOULD USUALLY BE A WINDOW LIGHTING YOUR CLIMB AS YOU WENT UP THE STAIRS.
WELL, USUALLY, WELL NOWADAYS THAT WINDOW WILL BE PLACED AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS FOR THE LIGHT TO COME IN ON THE SIDE OF THE STAIRS BASED OFF OF THE RAIL.
LIKE I CAN'T, I I, I JUST HAD TO PUT A FALSE WINDOW IN IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T, LEMME PUT A WINDOW BY THE STAIRS.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S DIFFERENT WHERE YOU'RE AT, BUT I HAVE A PLAN THAT I, I'M DOING IN NOT TOO FAR AWAY THAT I HAVE A FALSE WINDOW BY THE STAIRS.
[02:40:01]
29 WINDOWS, I THINK ON THIS HOUSE RIGHT NOW, NOT COUNTING THE BACK OF THE, THE BACK OF THE, UH, THE BACK OF THE HOUSE THOUGH.DO YOU WANNA GO TO THE FLOOR PLAN AND SHOW US THE, THE STAIR THAT'S CONFLICTING WITH IT? PAGE? YES.
SECOND FLOOR OR THAT'S ELECTRIC PLAN.
I MEAN WHATEVER, WHATEVER HOUSE.
SO WHEN YOU CAN TELL THE HOUSE, GO RIGHT OFF.
SO I WAS, SO, SO THERE IS A, OKAY, WELL IT THERE, BUT IF STAIRS, ISS NOT ACTUALLY RIGHT THERE, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE CLOSET.
AND THEN, BUT THERE'S A SHOWER, SO BASIC, I CAN'T PUT IT THERE.
MY, MY TAKE SO ABOUT UPSTAIRS OR A SHOT, BUT I JUST CAN'T PUT THE WINDOWS THERE UNLESS I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE IN THE ROOM.
BECAUSE THERE ARE WINDOWS IN THE FRONT OF THE ROOM AND THERE'S WINDOWS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
BUT I COULDN'T PUT WINDOWS IN THAT AREA WHERE, WHERE THAT SHOWER WAS RIGHT THERE YOU CAN SEE.
GO BACK TO THAT FLOOR PLAN THAT ONE OR IS THERE RIGHT THERE YOU LOOKED ALL MY THAT'S FIRST FLOOR.
YEAH, BUT CAN YOU GO TO THE RIGHT.
SO THERE'S, SO WELL THOSE WINDOWS WOULD BE AT, THERE'LL BE RIGHT WHERE YOU SEE ON THE SIDE OF THE CAR AROUND
SO WE ADDED A WINDOW IN THAT BATHROOM, ADDED A WINDOW IN THAT ROOM.
SO THE OTHER WINDOWS WILL BE WHERE? THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
IS THAT UP TO THE BATHROOM? THIS IS UPSTAIRS.
SO IT'S NOT A STAIRWELL THAT'S CONFLICTING.
IT'S SOME RESTROOMS AND PANTRY.
DOLLAR AND TO, THAT'S WHY DID, OKAY, LET ME SEE.
MAYBE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME AS SHEET.
THE, THE NUMBER, THE WINDOWS WILL BE ON THE OUTSIDE A LITTLE A YEAH, LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THAT PAGE.
THE WINDOW REPAIRED WHILE SOMEWHERE AROUND IF YOU WANNA SEE THE TV BASED OFF OF THE
SO WE, SO YOU SEE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE INSIDE OF THE ROOM BASED NEXT TO THE ROOM IS THE BATHROOM IN, IN, UH, IN THE SHOWER.
SO THOSE WINDOWS WOULDN'T EVEN BE THE SAME SIZE.
THEY'LL HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER TO FIT INTO THOSE AREAS.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT THAT THAT'S THE CLOSET RIGHT THERE.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO PUT EXTRA WINDOW IN THERE, I HAVE TO GO IN EITHER THE CLOSET OR WHERE THE WASHER AND DRYER WOULD BE, WHICH I CAN'T PUT A WINDOW EITHER THERE EITHER BECAUSE THAT'S LITTLE CABINETS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CEILING AND A VENT COMING THROUGH THAT GOING UP TO THE ATTIC.
AND THEN RIGHT NEXT TO THAT THERE'S A SINK.
NOW I COULD PUT A WINDOW WHERE THE SINK IS, BUT BELOW THAT I THINK THERE'S A BATHROOM THERE.
THIS IS THE PAGE THAT'S BEING PASSED AROUND.
SO THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO ADD A WINDOW IN THAT ROOM BASED OFF THAT WINDOW BEING THE SAME SIDE AT THE WINDOW BELOW IT.
I JUST WANTED TO SHOW ALSO THE QUESTION WAS HOW CLOSE WAS THE DRIVEWAY? THIS IS GOOGLE MAPS.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHY I SAID YOU CAN'T SEE THE HOUSE IN THE WINDOW BECAUSE MY HOUSE WOULD BE EVEN WITH THAT HOUSE.
AND IT'LL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE THE WINDOW IF MY HOUSE IS BUILT AT THE SAME LEVEL OF THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE.
NOW IF IT WAS PUSHED BACK OR PUSHED FORWARD MAYBE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE AT THE SAME EXACT LEVEL AS THE HOUSE NEXT TO.
ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE A SORT OF AN IMPASSE.
I SUSPECT PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE SOMEWHAT DOWN THERE.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, BUT MY HOUSE, YOU, YOU CAN STILL SEE.
SO I THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE, BUT THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A PLACE TO PUT ANY MORE WINDOWS.
IS THERE ANY PLACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO PUT MORE WINDOWS OR WELL, UM, CAN I SEE THE PASS THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
YEAH, WE, WE'VE BEEN PASSING IT AROUND.
I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD TO PUT ABOVE IT TO BE SYMMETRIC.
UM, IT'S A BIG SORT OF BARE SPOT WHERE THERE'S NO WINDOW.
[02:45:01]
OKAY.UM, ABOVE, BELOW THAT I COULD, SO I COULD DO THAT.
I COULD ADD A WINDOW IN THE GUEST BEDROOM.
BUT THE REASON WHY I DID IT, 'CAUSE I COULDN'T ADD A WINDOW ABOVE IT.
SO IF YOU DON'T MIND HAVING A WINDOW BELOW AND NOT ABOVE IT, IT'S NORMAL FOR THEM TO BE ON BOTH LEVELS.
BUT IF THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THEN WE HAVE TO STEP BACK PERHAPS TO THE NEXT REASONABLE THING WE CAN DO.
AND AGAIN, IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACTLY LIKE A ORIGINAL HOUSE WOULD BE JUST COMPATIBLE.
SO WHAT, WHAT'S DOWNSTAIRS? WHERE? DOWNSTAIRS.
I SAID AT A BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS.
I MEAN I COULD ADD A WINDOW DOWNSTAIRS IN THE BEDROOM.
IF AT LEAST THOSE WERE PAIRED IN THAT GUEST ROOM, WOULD THAT PERHAPS BE BETTER? HERE WE ARE DESIGNING A HOUSE AGAIN.
WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT, BUT, UM, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PAIR 'EM BECAUSE LOOK, LOOK AT THE OTHER ROOM.
REMEMBER I ADDED THE WINDOW ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE THIS, TO LOOK THE SAME ON BOTH SIDES OF OUR HOUSES.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD DO THE SAME THING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
IF I WAS GOING ADD A WINDOW THERE, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT 'EM TOGETHER 'CAUSE IT WOULDN'T LOOK.
BUT I DON'T THINK, DON'T THINK BECAUSE THE BOTH, IT'S, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT WOULD BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
WHY WOULD I DO IT? WHY WOULD I DO IT DIFFERENT ON THE SAME SIZE OF THE HOUSE, ON THE FLOOR.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME ON THE TWO DIFFERENT SIDES.
THAT IS, UM, A A HISTORIC HOUSE THAT YOU DON'T ALWAYS SAY.
SO YOU WANT, DO YOU WANT THOSE ONE TO BE TOGETHER, GAME TOGETHER? WE GOING 'EM GAME TOGETHER OR YOU WANT WELL, NONE OF THE REST ARE SO THAT WOULD BE SORT OF UNIQUE.
SO, AND THEREFORE MIGHT, MAY BE WRONG.
SO WINDOWS WE HAVE NOT ARRIVED TO THE SOLUTION YET.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTION OR ANYTHING YOU COULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD DO TO FIX THE WINDOWS? 'CAUSE I'M OUT OF IDEAS.
UM, REMEMBER IT IS JUST THOSE WINDOWS ON NASA SIDE, CORRECT.
AUTO, THEY'RE JUST SO FEW OF THEM IN SUCH A BIG BLANK SPOT.
AND IF NOBODY HAS ANY MORE FOR ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, THEN IT WOULD BE TIME FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION.
WHY, WHY WAS BRICK CONSIDERED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION WHEN ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION THE BRICK BUILDINGS ARE ON, UH, IN THAT DISTRICT ARE MULTIFAMILY ON THAT STREET ALONE.
CAN YOU GO ON THE STREETSCAPE BRICK? THERE'S LIKE, THERE'S TWO HOMES ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAVE BRICK TOO.
THE ONE, THE ONE CAN YOU GO RIGHT? THERE'S NO, ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT THERE TO THE LEFT IS BLURRED OUT.
SO THAT ONE RIGHT THERE HAS BRICK.
THIS ONE IS, BUT THEN ALSO BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT ON MUNGER, MY WIFE WAS LIKE, I'M GONNA NEED TO HAVE THE, THE MOST SOUND BEARING MATERIAL USED TO LIVE ON THIS STREET.
SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE, NOT ONLY BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S PRETTIER, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT SOUND ON THAT STREET.
AND EVERY TIME WE ADD WINDOWS, THAT'S MORE, THAT'S MORE AIR, THAT'S MORE SOUND COMING IN.
BUT THE BRICK WILL HELP US ELIMINATE A LOT OF THAT NOISE FROM THAT VERY BUSY STREET ON MUNGER.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE REASONS.
I I WOULD STILL CONTEND THAT, UH, MOST OF THE BRICK BUILDINGS ARE EITHER MULTIFAMILY OR STARTED OUT AS MULTIFAMILY.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF BRICK OVER THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF BRICK IN THAT AREA.
IF YOU SCROLL IT OUT, MS, I MEAN THERE SHOW KEEPING THIS TREE.
YEAH, BECAUSE I'M WONDERING IF THAT TREE WILL BLOCK THE SIDE THAT HAS ALL THE WINDOW DISCREPANCIES SO THAT TREES IT BLOCK ITS VIEW, ALL THOSE, SO THOSE TREES WHEN YOU'RE WALKING OR DRIVING BY EVEN, YOU KNOW, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
BUT AS FULLY LEE, WOULD IT LEND THAT MUCH PUBLIC VIEW SIGH UNTIL THE DAY IT DIES?
IT WOULD COVER IT THOUGH, AS I, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY JUST NOT BE A SOLUTION FOR THIS ISSUE THAT PLEASES EVERYONE.
SOMETIMES THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
UH, VINES COULD GO UP, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ADDING WINDOWS.
SO IF THAT'S A DEAL BREAKER, THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
IF IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LET GO, THEN WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND I THINK IT'S GONNA MAKE THAT CORNER LOOK A LOT BETTER WHEN MY HOUSE THAN I BUILT AND I BUILD A HOUSE TOO.
OF COURSE IT'LL BE A LOT BETTER THEN SOMEBODY'S BUILDING THAT HOUSE OVER THERE WHO MIGHT NOT BE
WELL WE WOULD NEVER LET ANYBODY JUST BUILD A HOUSE OVER THERE, YOU KNOW, AND NOT CARE ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW HOW IT IS ON THE INSIDE.
THAT'S OUR JOB BECAUSE IT IS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE INSIDE'S GONNA BE JUST AS GOOD AS THE OUTSIDE.
WELL THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO INVITE IT ALL OVER SO THAT WE CAN SEE THAT BECAUSE WE'LL NEVER KNOW.
WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE THAT PARTY AT MY HOUSE NEXT YEAR.
IS ANYBODY PREPARED TO MOVE TOWARDS THE MOTION AT THIS POINT? IF YOU LEFT YOUR MICROPHONE ON, I MIGHT THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
[02:50:05]
I HAVE A MOTION.REGARDING CASE CA 2 23 DASH 5 35 CMM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 52 0 3 VICTOR STREET, UM, THAT WE APPROVE.
UM, ON ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, WE APPROVE FOLLOWING STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION ITEM NUMBER TWO THAT WE APPROVE FOLLOWING STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION ITEM NUMBER THREE, WE APPROVE FOLLOWING STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WE APPROVE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CANNOT CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL IS IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
WHO WAS THAT? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
SO WE HAVE ONE OPPOSITION, BUT THE MOTION CARRIES.
YOU HAPPY? YOU HAVE A FABULOUS SMILE AND YOU USE IT A LOT.
MY WIFE SAYS, PAT SAY THANK IT TO ALL YOU GUYS.
SO THANK YOU FROM HAVE MY WIFE AND I HOPE THAT WILL IMPROVE YOUR MARRIAGE.
THAT YOU HAVE
THE NEXT ONE UP IS GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME.
AND WHILE I WON'T BE HERE, APPARENTLY THE REST OF YOU MIGHT NEED A BREAK.
OKAY, SO WE ARE SUGGESTING A 10 MINUTE BREAK TO TAKE CARE OF PHYSICAL NECESSITIES.
THAT MEANS WE COME BACK AT 4 0 8 AND THEN I REUSE MYSELF AND THEN YOU HEAR THE COTTON BALL.
[03:03:22]
SEE[03:03:22]
YOU LATER.IT IS TIME FOR US TO DO D ONE.
I AM RECUSED FROM D ONE, SO I WILL BE OUTSIDE.
I WILL HAVE MY PHONE IN CASE I WALK AROUND.
YOU'LL CALL ME IF I'M NOT THERE WHEN I'M,
[03:05:24]
OKAY.SO NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION ITEM ONE.
I WANT TO START BY, UM, MOVING, UH, I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 37 50 COTTON BOWL PLAZA IN THE FAIR PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 23 DASH 5 39 R D.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS TO EXTEND FRONT WEST ELEVATION OF STADIUM TO ADD HORIZONTAL ADDITION FOR CIRCULATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO EXTEND FRONT WEST ELEVATION OF STADIUM TO ADD HORIZONTAL ADDITION FOR CIRCULATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 8 23 23.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA CRITERIA SECTIONS 5.3, SUBDIVISION B ONE D ROMAN ONE, SECTION 5.3 SUBDIVISION B ONE D ROMAN THREE, SECTION 5.3 SUBDIVISION B ONE D ROMAN FOUR, AND SECTION 5.3 B SUBDIVISION B ONE D ROMAN FIVE PERTAINING TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIONS OR AUDITIONS.
THE STANDARDS IN 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 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO EXTEND FRONT WEST ELEVATION OF STADIUM TO ADD HORIZONTAL ADDITION FOR CIRCULATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
MY TURN? YEAH, EVERYBODY LOOKING AT ME? YOU READY? OKAY.
I I'M THE ARC OR PRESERVATION A SORRY, EXCUSE.
I'M THE ARCHITECT, UH, PRESERVATION ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT AND I DO HEREBY, UH, SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH.
UM, OKAY, I HAVE, UH, I HAVE WITH ME TODAY JOHN HUTCHIN, WHO IS A PARTNER WITH OBERLAND PARTNERS, THE, UH, TEAM LEAD AND THE DESIGN ARCHITECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WE'LL BE SHOWING YOU TODAY.
AND ALSO WE HAVE MARCEL QUIMBEE WITH THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT FIRM, AECOM, WHO'S CURRENTLY WORKING AT, UH, AT FAIR PARK AND ON THE COTTON BOWL.
UH, GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.
UH, UH, AS YOU I'M SURE RECALL, THIS IS OUR THIRD TRIP, I BELIEVE, UH, IN A, IN A ROW HERE.
THE FIRST TWO BEING COURTESY REVIEWS.
I'LL DO, I'LL TRY VERY HARD NOT TO USE 30 MINUTES TO TO TO DESCRIBE THIS ALL TO YOU.
THIS AT FOUR IN THE AFTERNOON, UH, I'LL DO MY VERY BEST.
I DO APPRECIATE THE EXTRA TIME 'CAUSE IT IS A COMPLICATED AND A LARGE PROJECT AND, AND THERE'S KIND OF A, A LOT, UH, HAPPENING HERE RIGHT NOW.
UH, IN SUMMARY, AS IT WAS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS, THIS PROJECT IS TO IS, IS NUMBER ONE TO ADDRESS A LONGSTANDING DIFFICULTY WITH, UH, THE OPERATIONS OF THE COTTON BOWL.
THE CONCOURSE AT THE GROUND, AT THE MAIN LEVEL AND AT THE, UH, UPPER DECK LEVEL HAVE BEEN, UH, ARE WELL NOTED IN VARIOUS NEWS REPORTS, ALL AS HAVING BEEN TOO SMALL SINCE THE 1960S.
THEY WERE BUILT FOR THE 1948, UH, ADDITION TO THE COTTON BOWL, AND, UH, HAVE REALLY BEEN UNCHANGED SINCE
[03:10:01]
THAT TIME, EVEN THOUGH THE COTTON BOWL CAPACITY HAD BEEN INCREASED MANY TIMES DURING THOSE DECADES.UH, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT ADD ANY SEATING.
IT SIMPLY ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF, UH, UH, TERRIBLY INADEQUATE CIRCULATION SPACE, UH, TO THE POINT THAT THAT, UH, IN, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CONSIDER THE THE FACILITY UNSAFE.
A TYPICAL NEW STADIUM TODAY HAS A GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO BE EVACUATED IN ABOUT NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES.
RIGHT NOW, THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE COTTON ROLL OUT ARE 45 MINUTES TO EVACUATE.
THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM EVERYWHERE.
UH, IT IS RESTRICTED TO WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE WEST SIDE OF THE STADIUM.
UH, IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE EAST SIDE OF THE STADIUM BACK AT SAN HOUSTON PLAZA.
THERE'S NO WORK SCHEDULE FOR BACK THERE.
AND THAT REMAINS, UH, BRIEFLY IN TERMS OF HISTORY.
THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE GOES TO 1936, UH, 37 AT AT FAIR PARK.
WE, HOWEVER, OUR FOCUSING ON, UH, ADDITIONS AND THAT WERE MADE IN 1940, UH, SEVEN AND 48, UH, I THINK, UH, I THINK, UH, DR.
DUNN REFERRED TO THOSE THIS MORNING IN THE BRIEFING AS THE HOUSE THAT DOPE BUILT.
UH, THEY CAME TO ACCOMMODATE THE CROWD OF DOPE WALKER PLAYING FOR S M U AT THE COTTON BOWL.
UH, SO EVEN THOUGH THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, THEY REALLY ARE THE MOTIVATION.
THEY ARE WHAT CREATED THE THIRD DIMENSION FOR THE COTTON BOWL, AS WE'VE KNOWN IT SINCE THAT TIME.
THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE EXTERIOR OF COTTON BOWL WAS CREATED, UH, AND THAT AT THAT TIME, AND WE ARE TREATING IT AS HISTORIC AND TRYING TO PRESERVE THAT IMAGERY THAT WE'VE ALL, UH, SEEN AND AND KNOW AS AS COTTON BOWL.
AND I'LL TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT OUR CONCEPT.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ABOUT ADDING TO THE OUTSIDE OF IT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT YOU WE EXPECT, UH, TO BE DONE UNDER THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AND INTERPRET, UH, AND PRESERVE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
WIDENING THOSE CONCOURSES WOULD TAKE US OUT INTO THE SEATING, WHICH WOULD IMPACT THE HISTORIC SEATING ANYWAY.
BUT IT REALLY ISN'T A PRACTICAL WAY TO DO IT.
WE HAVE TO COME BACK TOWARDS THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT IS THE SOLE MOTIVATION FOR DOING IT THIS WAY.
IN RETURN FOR THAT, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING THAT ARE STILL VERY CONSISTENT WITH HISTORIC GOOD PRESERVATION PRACTICE.
NUMBER ONE BEING THAT WE MADE THE DECISION THAT THE ADDITIONS WOULD BE, AS, YOU KNOW, VERY HIGHLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD, UH, RELY HEAVILY ON THE DETAILING ON THE FORMED AND ON THE SOLID VOID RA VOID RATIOS THAT YOU SEE IN THE 1948, UH, EDITION.
SECONDLY, UH, THAT BY DOING SO, THEY WILL REMAIN SUBSTANTIALLY OPEN SO THAT YOU WILL BE, AND WE WILL ILLUSTRATE THAT IN THE DRAWINGS YOU'LL SEE IN A MOMENT, THEY WILL, UH, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIALLY SEE THE, THE 1948 UH, UH, FACILITIES, EVEN THOUGH WE WILL HAVE CONSTRUCTION IN FRONT OF THEM.
UH, THIRDLY, WE ARE TAKING AN APPROACH THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN USED AT THE COTTON BOWL IN THE PAST.
THE, UH, CENTRAL TOWER WE CALL IT, WHERE IT SAYS COTTON BOWL ON IT.
YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR DRAWING, IN THIS DRAWING HERE, UM, UH, THAT IS A FORM THAT WAS CREATED IN 1948.
IN 1992, A SUB, A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE COTTON BOWL.
THAT CR THAT CREATED THE TOWER.
YOU SEE TODAY, THAT IS NOT THE HISTORIC FACADE THERE.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY A REPLICA OR VERY NEARLY A REPLICA THAT WAS MOVED OUT 20 FEET.
THE ORIGINAL 1948 WALL IS STILL IN THERE BEHIND THERE, AND IN SOME PLACES CAN BE VIEWED FROM INSIDE THAT TOWER.
SO THEY MAINTAINED THE 1948 FACADE, BUT THEY, THEY EXTENDED THAT IMAGERY OUT 20 FEET.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SIMILAR APPROACH HERE, AND IT WILL BE EXTENDING THAT IMAGERY OUT 20 FEET, BUT IT'S GONNA BE COMPATIBLE, NOT NOT A REPLICA, IT'S GONNA BE LOWER, AS LOW AS WE CAN MAKE IT.
UM, UH, BUT IT WILL REESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL CENTRAL TOWER AND THE SIDEWALLS, WHICH WERE REALLY QUITE CLOSE TOGETHER, ALMOST IN THE SAME PLANE, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOWER BEING PROJECTED THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN FINALLY I'LL SAY THAT, WELL, WELL NOT FINALLY, BUT I'LL SAY THAT, UH, WE ARE EMPLOYING TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, THE IDEA OF REVERSIBILITY IN THAT THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE, UH, AND I'LL SHOW YOU THIS IN THE DRAWINGS, WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND NEAT ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC FACADE, BUT WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY
[03:15:01]
IMPACTED.IT'S, IT'S GONNA HAVE ITS OWN STRUCTURE.
IT'S GONNA BE STANDING OUT FRONT OF IT AND COULD BE REMOVED IN THE FUTURE, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT.
BUT IT COULD BE REMOVED WITH LITTLE IMPACT ON THE, UH, ON THE, UH, HISTORIC FACADE.
ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THING, THE TWO THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING THAT ARE NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE NOT, THAT YOU THINK OF AS REVERSIBLE, NUMBER ONE IS THE, UH, THE STAIRS AND RAMPS YOU SEE AT THE TWO GATES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE TOWER, UH, A GATE B AND M.
UH, THOSE, UH, THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED, CANNOT BE REPLICATED BECAUSE AS THESE DRAWINGS START TO IN ILLUSTRATE, THERE'S VERY LITTLE ROOM.
ONCE THE WALL IS MOVED OUT, THERE'S VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR PASSAGE AROUND THERE FOR SERVICE VEHICLES.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED DURING DAY AND DAY GAME DAY.
AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT HERE BEFORE.
WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE CAN TO TO, TO KEEP THOSE GATE AND STILL EXPRESS 'EM, BUT NOT IN THE SAME WAY.
AND THE OTHER THING THAT WE'LL BE DOING THAT, THAT I KNOW YOU ALL DISCUSSED AND WE'LL DISCUSS AGAIN TODAY, IS WE HAVE TO REMOVE THE SLOPE RAMPS THAT ARE, THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH, UH, THIS, THIS ILLUSTRATION HERE.
THEY ARE AN IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE, OF THE BUILDING, BUT THEY DON'T WORK ANYMORE.
THEY'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM, BOTH IN THE WAY THAT THEY MOVE PEOPLE AND THE FACT THAT WHICH ISN'T EFFICIENT AND STADIUMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE REMOVED, HAVE BEEN REMOVING THEM FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
THEY JUST, THEY AREN'T, THEY DON'T WORK WELL ANY LONGER, UH, WITH THE MODERN TECHNOLOGY.
TWO, THEY EXIST EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED TO EXPAND THE CONCOURSES SO THAT TO CREATE THE SPACE THAT WE NEED TO MOVE PEOPLE THROUGH THE STADIUM, THEY, WE HAVE TO TRADE OUT FOR THOSE.
AND, AND THEN FINALLY LOOKING AT WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO LEAVE SOME EXPRESSION OF THAT ANY, ANY RAMPS THAT AREN'T BEING USED, UH, I THINK WILL BE, WILL NOT BE A CONTRIBUTING ISSUE TO THE, UH, UH, CONTRIBUTING FEATURE FOR THE REMAINING, UH, PARTS OF THE STADIUM.
WELL INSTEAD BE A KIND OF AN ODD THING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE READILY SUPPORTED BY THE REMAINING STRUCTURE.
AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY ON THAT SUBJECT IS THE OTHER SIDE OF, OF THE STADIUM HAS THE RAMPS AND THOSE ARE NOT THEY IMPACTED AT ALL.
SO, UH, THAT FEATURE, SOME OF THAT FEATURE DOES STILL REMAIN AT THE COTTON BOWL WHEN WE'RE FINISHED.
OKAY, SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE SLIDES HERE RIGHT NOW.
NOW THIS IS A PICTURE OF IT TO, THIS IS A DRAWING OF IT TODAY.
THE YELLOW REPRESENTS 1948 CONSTRUCTION.
IT DOESN'T REPRESENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO PAINT IT THAT COLOR.
IT'S JUST GIVEN A COLOR SO THAT YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE SUBSEQUENTLY.
UH, THIS, THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY.
THE BLUE REPRESENTS THE NEW ADDITION THAT ARE GONNA BE PUT ON.
THAT'S, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA PAINT 'EM THAT COLOR, IT'S JUST SO THAT YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE THE NEW FROM THE HISTORIC AND YOU CAN GET SOMEWHERE SOME SENSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO, THE, UH, THE, THE, THE POROUS FACADES, THE ABILITY TO SEE BACK INTO AND, AND CLEARLY DISCERN AND APPRECIATE WHAT WAS THERE IN 1948 VERSUS WHAT IS NEW TODAY.
THE TOWER FEATURES ON THE ENDS, WHICH WE CALL THE KNUCKLE, UH, ARE, ARE EXISTING LOCATIONS FOR STAIRS THAT WE ARE HAVING TO EXPAND TO, TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY FOR VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION AND TO ADD ELEVATORS AND THINGS THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD IN THE PAST.
THOSE NEEDED TO GO UP HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATORS ESPECIALLY.
BUT THE FRONT, THE PART BETWEEN THE TOWER AND THE KNUCKLES ON THE END IS KEPT AS LOW.
IF WE CAN, THAT THAT ROOF REPRESENTS THE, UH, THE, THE UPPER CONCOURSE THAT SERVICES THE UPPER DECK.
AND THAT'S AS HIGH AS WE NEEDED TO GO WITH WALKING SURFACES.
SO THAT'S WHY WE STOPPED THIS THERE.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT THE APP PARAPET FOR THOSE REEFS ARE THOSE ARE DETAILED, UH, DR.
DUNN ON PAGES, UH, 38, 42 AND 43 OF THIS PACKAGE.
WE'VE GOT DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS INDICATIONS OF, OF, UH, YOU KNOW, RELATIONSHIPS AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE.
SO WE'VE GOT THAT THERE FOR YOU.
OKAY, NEXT SLIDE CAN, ALRIGHT, THIS, WE ADDED THIS TO THE PACKET.
IF YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR PACKET, IT JUST, WE TAKE THOSE TWO DRAWINGS AND PUT THEM ON THE SAME PAGE.
SO YOU CAN SET THERE AND LOOK AT THEM, UH, TOGETHER.
WE DO THAT SEVERAL TIMES AND WE'LL JUST FLIP THROUGH THOSE NEXT PAGE PLEASE.
THIS IS A RENDERING THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO GIVE YOU A, A SENSE FOR HOW THE, UH, NEW ADDITION TO THE COTTON BOWL WOULD LOOK
[03:20:01]
AND HOW MUCH OF THE ORIGINAL PERCEPTION OF, OF THAT FACADE OF THE COTTON BOWL IS, IS MAINTAINED.UM, IT'S A LITTLE SCHEMATIC STILL, BUT YOU SEE THE IDEA THAT THE MATERIALS, COLORED FORMS ARE ALL, UH, VERY, VERY SIMILAR AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE 1948 AND THE 1992 EDITION.
THIS IS A, UH, WE, WE'VE HAD A REQUEST FOR ELEVATIONS ONCE THIS IS AN EXISTING ELEVATION.
AGAIN, THE YELLOW COLOR COATING MEANING 47 48 NEXT PLEA, AND THEN AN ELEVATION OF WHAT THE, THE ADDITIONS WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THE NEXT ONE IS A COMBINATION OF THOSE AND, UH, COUPLE MUCH RIGHT HERE.
I SEE WE'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH.
HERE'S JUST A SIMPLE, A DIFFERENT VIEW IF YOU DON'T REALLY GET, THIS IS TAKEN FROM IN, WOULD BE TAKEN FROM INSIDE THE MIDWAY, BUT IT GIVES US A GOOD VIEW OF BOTH THE TRANSITION TO THE MODERN ADDITIONS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT AND ILLUSTRATES THE, THE, THE TICKET BOX WINDOWS WITH THE RAMPS IN THE STAIRS THAT ARE UNDERNEATH THAT GATE.
AND THEN HERE'S THAT SAME VIEW WITH THE, UH, THE NEW ADDITION.
ALL RIGHT, UH, TWO SLIDES PLEASE.
THE NEXT ONE WILL BE JUST A COMBINATION OF THOSE.
IF YOU SLIDE BACK, YOU CAN SEE THE EXPRESSION OF THE GATE VERY SIMILAR, MOVING THE SAME SIGNAGE OUT, USING THE SAME KIND OF GRAPHICS AND, UH, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT WE HAVE THERE TODAY IN THE NEW ONE.
AND THEN ANOTHER RENDERING COMING UP HERE IN A MOMENT.
SHOWING THAT SAME VIEW IN A MORE PHOTOREALISTIC, UH, VERSION.
OKAY, I WON'T BELABOR THESE 'CAUSE YOU'VE HAD THEM AND, UH, WE'VE GOT 40 SOMETHING SLIDES, SO WE'LL BE GOING NEXT ONE, PLEASE.
HERE, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THESE FAIRLY QUICKLY ALSO.
THESE ARE THE, UM, UH, STARTING WITH PLANS OF WHERE THE CHANGES WILL BE.
WE ALSO HAVE IN THIS, IN THESE, UH, THESE IMAGES, THE DATA ON THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER THAT STARTS TO REFLECT, OKAY, I HAVE THAT ONE HERE AHEAD AND INSERT THAT ONE.
UM, IT STARTS TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE, THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE AREA PER OCCUPANT OF THE COTTON BOWL.
AND BY HAVING GREATER CIRCULATION SPACE PER OCCUPANT, OBVIOUSLY WE RELIEVE A LOT OF CONGESTION THAT HAVE BECOME SUCH A PROBLEM, UH, FOR, UH, THOSE WHO BOTH WHO, THOSE WHO USE THE COTTON BOWL, THOSE WHO ATTEND EVENTS THERE AND TRY TO TRY TO FUNCTION, UH, IN MODERN EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT BE AT A, AT A LARGE EVENT SUCH AS THIS, UH, THIS WILL, THIS WILL IN SOME CASES DOUBLE THAT AREA PER PERSON OR MORE, UH, AND WE'LL STILL BE SHORT OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER MODERN STANDARDS WHERE WE BUILDING A NEW STADIUM, UH, FROM THE GROUND UP.
THE, THIS, THIS ILLUSTRATES AGAIN, THE, THE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S SMALL, IT MAY BE HARDER, EASIER TO SEE IN YOUR OWN PACKAGE, STARTS TO DIS TO SHOW HOW WHERE THE, THE TAN AREA IS, THE NEW AREA THAT'S BEING ADDED.
THE LINES BETWEEN, THAT'S THE ORIGINAL 1948 FACADE.
IT'S, IT DOESN'T READ THAT WAY UP TO SMALL SCALE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY, IT'S VERY POROUS BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE OPENINGS YOU'VE SEEN IN THE OTHER, IN THE OTHER DRAWINGS.
AND WE'VE GOT BETTER IMAGES OF THAT IT FEATURED LATER IN THE, IN THE PACKAGE.
DETAILS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THAT GATE WITH DIMENSIONS, AGAIN, WITH, UH, WE KNOW WE NEEDED DIMENSIONS THAT OF SOME OF THE KEY FEATURES SHOWS THE EXISTING STAIRS, THE EXISTING RAMP AT THAT GATE, AND THE STEPS THAT COME UP AND DOWN WITH THE, THE DOORS IN THE CENTER OF IT THERE REFLECT THAT, UH, THAT OLD TICKET, UH, UH, BOOTH.
AND THEN THIS, THIS IS WHERE THE GRAY AND THE BLUE REPRESENT NEW, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
FOR THOSE THAT THAT TICKET BOOT THING HAS BEEN REMOVED, UH, THE WALL HAS BEEN MOVED OUT.
WE HAVE MOVED RESTROOMS DOWN FROM THE UPPER LEVEL, THE MAIN CONCOURSE LEVEL DOWN TO THIS GRADE LEVEL CONCOURSES, UH, TO, TO FREE UP A LOT OF OF SPACE ON THE MAIN CONCOURSE LEVEL.
UH, AND AT THE LEFT YOU'LL SEE THE KNUCKLES WHERE THE STAIRS HAVE EFFECTIVELY BEEN DOUBLED AND, AND AN ELEVATOR HAVE BEEN ADDED.
AGAIN, IN YOUR PACKAGE YOU'LL FIND THESE, WHERE THOSE TWO DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN COMBINED UNDER ONE
[03:25:01]
SHEET.SO WE'LL KEEP GOING TO THE NEXT ONE.
THIS IS THE SAME VIEW UP AT THE MAIN CONCOURSE.
SO, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE LARGE RESTROOMS ON THE LEFT, THOSE ARE MOVED DOWN.
YOU CAN SEE THE RAMPS BEGINNING ON THE RIGHT.
UH, THOSE WOULD BE REMOVED AND ALL OF THAT SPACE, BUT, UH, ALONG THAT CONCOURSE YOU EXAMINE.
I CAN'T READ THE NUMBER FROM HERE.
I'VE GOT IT HANDY, BUT THAT NUMBER'S 20.
THERE'S A 25 FOOT RED, RED DIMENSION THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING PRACTICAL WIDTH AS PEOPLE TRY TO MOVE THROUGH THERE.
AND OF COURSE, YOU CAN SEE IT NARROWS DOWN AT THE RESTROOMS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
WITHOUT THE RAMPS AND WITH THE ADDITION THAT 25 FEET BECOMES 75 FEET OF SPACE AND CIRCULATION, UH, AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT IS JUST A MEASURABLE HELP FOR, FOR, FOR MAKING OUT A COMFORTABLE FUNCTIONAL SPACE.
AND THAT'S JUST THOSE TWO PUT TOGETHER AGAIN.
ALRIGHT, AND THIS IS UP AT THE, AND THIS IS THE, UH, THIS IS THE MID CONCOURSE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING.
THAT'S, THERE ARE WHERE, WHERE STAIRS ARE.
WE DO HAVE CONCOURSE LEVEL THINGS THERE.
THE, THE RAMPS, MOSTLY SERVICES THERE IN THE RAMP WE'RE BEING PROPOSED TO REMOVE BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE WAY WITH THEM BEING OUT, WE'RE ABLE TO GIVE CIRCULATION SPACE FOR THE MID CONCOURSE THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
THAT'S JUST THE TWO SLIDES, THOSE TWO, THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EXISTING PUT TOGETHER, WHICH IS THE, UH, UPPER CONCOURSE.
OKAY? SO THAT'S UP THAT, THAT'S THE CONCOURSE THAT SERVICES THE UPPER DECK.
YOU CAN SEE THE VOMIT GOING OUT THE ENDS OF THE RAMPS AS THEY COME UP, UH, AND PROVIDE JUST A VERY SMALL 11 FOOT, UH, SPACE FOR CIRCULATION BEHIND THE SEATING AND WHERE THE RAMPS START.
THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE ILLUSTRATES THAT THE, UH, UH, WITH THE RAMPS REMOVED, UH, IT'S NOT SHOWN AS PAGE, BUT THEN THE BASE PART, WHICH IS THE NEW ADDITION COMING OUT.
THAT, THAT, THAT WHAT WAS A, A CLEAR SPACE OF 11 FEET, UH, CIRCULATION SPACE IS NOW 48 FEET, FIVE INCHES, WHICH IS, AGAIN, MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR THIS PART OF THE, UH, THIS PART OF THE, UH, STADIUM.
AND THAT'S JUST A COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO SLIDES.
NOW I'M GOING TO BEAR WITH ME THERE.
THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE HERE.
THIS IS THE SAME PROCESS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I'LL NOT BURN YOU WITH A STEP BY STEP UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO.
UH, THERE ARE SOME SLIGHT DIFFERENCES.
THE KNUCKLE ALONG THE RIGHT IS LARGER BECAUSE IT HAS MORE ELEVATED.
UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, UM, THIS ILLUSTRATES EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
THE BLUE AREA ARE RESTROOMS THAT HAVE BEEN MOVED DOWN FROM THE MAIN CONCOURSE LEVEL TO THE PLAZA LEVEL CONCOURSE TO FREE UP SPACE.
DUNN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF FLIP THROUGH HERE, UH, UNTIL WE GET TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SAME DETAIL PLAN THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME CONCEPT, ALMOST PRECISELY THE SAME CHANGES.
THERE'S MINOR DIFFERENCES, UH, THAT I'M HAPPY TO GO BACK OVER AND DETAIL IF YOU FEEL IT, YOU KNOW, CONCERNED ABOUT THEM.
BUT OTHERWISE THE SAME CONCEPT SHOWING HOW WE REMOVE SOME THINGS, ADD SOME THINGS, AND COME UP WITH A, UH, A MUCH, MUCH BETTER CONDITION AT THE END.
THINK WE'RE GONNA DO THIS UNTIL WE'RE OUT.
WE GET TO THE SECTION, WE GO TO THE SECTION, YOU SEE SOME, BUT THERE YOU GO.
AND IN THIS SCALE, WITHOUT, I MEAN THIS, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT.
IT'S A COMPLICATED BUILDING AND IT'S, AND IT'S HARD TO FIND A, A PRESENTATION THAT, UH, THAT IT MAKES IT ALL CLEAR IF YOU CAN SEE IT IN YOUR PACKET OR ON YOUR, IN WHAT YOU WERE GIVEN.
THIS, THIS FIRST ONE SHOWS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IT DOTS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REMOVE SOME, SOME MATERIALS, UH, THAT SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DECKS AND THE 1948 WALL.
AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE TOWER EXTENSION IN THE BACKGROUND, THAT LIGHT LINE ON THE FAR LEFT NEXT IMAGE, PLEASE.
AND THEN THIS ONE STARTS TO SHOW, AND THERE ARE DIMENSIONS ON IT THAT SHOW HOW THE, THE CONCOURSES
[03:30:01]
HAVE GREATLY EXPANDED BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONS THAT WE'RE DOING AND THE REMOVALS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING FOR.AND HOW IN A SIMPLIFIED FORM THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES THE, THE, UH, THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE CIRCULATION SPACES, UH, UNDER THE, THE, THE MAIN SIDE OF THE GOAL.
AND THAT'S JUST A COMBINATION OF THOSE THINGS.
SO THIS IS A RENDERING OF GATE M, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT OF THE TOWER.
THAT WOULD BE A VIEW TAKEN TODAY GOING UP THE RAMP.
UH, THE TICKET PROOF THING IS UNDERNEATH THAT.
AND THE ORIGINAL, THE ZIPPING GATE M IS AT THE MAIN CONCOURSE LEVEL AT THE TOP OF THIS RAMP.
AND WE'RE LOOKING INTO THE SIDE OF THE TOWER BEYOND, RIGHT, THAT SAME VIEW WITH THE ADDITION IS IN THE NEXT IMAGE.
SO IF YOU COME UP, THIS IS THAT SAME LOCATION, THAT SAME VIEW, WHERE WE HAVE COME OUT WITH THE NEW ADDITION TO THE LEFT AND OPEN UP A LITTLE BIT THE, UH, UH, THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL WALL THERE TO THE RIGHT.
YOU, THIS ILLUSTRATES PRETTY CLEARLY WHERE THE STRUCTURE COMES DOWN, SHOWING A, A SPACE BETWEEN THE NEW STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING 1948 FACADE SHOWS THE SIMILARITIES AND FEATURES, FORMS, DETAILS, COLORS BETWEEN BOTH THE, THE, BETWEEN THE 1948 AND A BEYOND TO THE RIGHT.
AND THEN THE, THE, UH, THE NEW WORK THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON THE LEFT.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF TA SHEETS OF, OF DETAIL HERE.
FOR INSTANCE, THE UPPER RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE, UH, NEW HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS THAT WILL NEED TO BE, UH, INSTALLED AS DOCUMENTS HERE THAT THOSE WILL BE MADE OF, UH, OF, UH, THE GALVANIZED METAL LEFT UNPAINTED AS THE HANDRAILS AND FENCING AND THINGS INSIDE THE COTTON BOWL ARE CONSTRUCTED TODAY.
THE FORM YOU SEE IS ACTUALLY TAKEN FROM THE FOLDS OF THE DRESS ON THE SPIRIT OF TEXAS STATUE OVER IN FRONT OF THE CENTENNIAL BUILDING.
THE ONE THAT THE LADY WITH THE STAR ON BEHIND HER HEAD THAT REPRESENTS, UH, TEXAS IN THE SIXTH STATUES OF THE, UH, COUNTRY THAT, THAT, UH, CLAIMED TEXAS IN THE PAST.
AND SO WE SAW THAT AND WERE FASCINATED WITH THAT WAS A BEAUTIFUL FORM, REALLY ALMOST PLANT-LIKE.
AND THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED AS A FORM TO BE CONVERTED INTO METAL AND USED INTO GUARDRAILS AND HANDRAILS IN THE, IN THE, THE STADIUM ADDITION.
WITHOUT GETTING INTO IT, IT'S, IT'S CAST IN PLACE.
CONCRETE AS THE ORIGINAL IS THE, UH, AGAIN, UNPAINTED UNPAINT, GALVANIZED UNPAINTED METAL FOR ALL THE DETAILS.
THE SIGNAGE IS STILL PROPOSED TO BE THE BODEGA SANDS, UH, FONT, UH, AND AN ALUMINUM THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S GOT THE, THE SILVER APPEARANCE THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
UM, AND WITHOUT BELABORING IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL OF THIS ARE, ARE ALMOST CONSTRUCTION LEVEL DETAILS SO THAT WE CAN DOCUMENT FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR SATISFACTION, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE INTEND TO BE DOING MOVING FORWARD.
UH, IF YOU WOULD, UH, UH, APPROVE OUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION.
NO, AND THESE ARE JUST SOME MORE ISSUE, UH, UH, IMAGES THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON.
THE CANOPY, THE SMALL CANOPY THAT'S OVER THE, UH, ESCALATORS.
IF WE GET TO THE TOP LEVEL AT THE MEZZ, THE UPPER MEZZANINE LEVEL, UM, WE HAD A LARGER CANOPY, BUT WE REDUCED IT TO JUST THESE OVER THE, THE, THE ESCALATORS.
THE ESCALATORS CANNOT BE COMPLETELY OPEN TO THE SKY.
THEY NEED SOME PROTECTION FROM THE WEATHER.
SO A, A SIMPLE METAL, VERY SIMPLE METAL, UH, CANOPY IS PROPOSED.
THIS WOULD INDEED BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE, UH, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A HANDRAIL OR A GUARDRAIL PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE CONCRETE, UH, AROUND, UH, AND IT WOULD BE PROTECTED.
THE, THE ESCALATOR WOULD BE PROTECTED BY, UH, SCREENED POLYCARBONATE, UH, PANELS AND THE CEILING, WHICH WOULD LET SOME LIGHT THROUGH MAKE, MAKE THESE STRUCTURES SEEM LIGHTER, BUT KEEP THE, KEEP THE MOISTURE AND OTHER THINGS OFF OF THE ESCALATOR.
AND THESE ARE JUST CONSTRUCTION LEVEL DETAILS FOR A LOT OF THE PIECE, A LOT OF THOSE PIECES.
UH, NEXT ONE, IT ALSO SHOWS THE HANDRAILS THAT IT WOULD GORE AROUND THE, UH, UH, THE ESCALATOR.
THIS IMAGE IS PROVIDED IF 'CAUSE ONE OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS IN THE LANDMARK ORDINANCE IN THIS PRESERVATION
[03:35:01]
CRITERIA IS THAT FROM A VANTAGE POINT AT THE END OF THE ESPLANADE FOUNTAIN, LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE HALL OF STATE, THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THE, TO THE COTTON BOWL BEHIND THE HALL OF ESTATE CANNOT DIMINISH THE PERCEPTION OR THE APPRECIATION OF THE BEAUTIFUL HALL OF ESTATE.UH, THAT GREEN TONE THAT YOU SEE IS THE VIEW SHED, IF YOU TAKE THAT VANTAGE POINT THAT WE, I JUST DESCRIBED AND LOOK BACK TOWARDS THE HALL OF STATE, THIS SHOWS WHERE THE PAN OR THE, THE KIND OF THE, THE YELLOWISH, UH, ADDITIONS ARE OVER ON THE RIGHT, THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T SEE ANY OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT.
AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE WILL BE A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWS THAT SAME VANTAGE FROM THAT POINT.
AND YOU CAN SEE HERE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE STADIUM, UH, UH, JUST ABOVE THE, THE HALL OF STATE AND THE, THE, UH, THE LAST PORTICO ON THE RIGHT REALLY BLOCKS ANY OF YOU AROUND THE CORNER OF THE NEW ADDITION.
ALRIGHT, WHAT DO WE HAVE LEFT, DR.
DUNN? ANYTHING? I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THIS, ON THIS, YES.
AND THERE MIGHT BE A GAME PLAYED THERE ONCE IN A WHILE IF WE CAN GET ALL THIS STUFF FIXED.
I'M, I'M, I'M OPEN TO, TO, TO, TO QUESTIONS.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE JUST ONE MORE MINUTE OF ME YAKING, TO GET OUT IN FRONT OF ONE THING THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT, ABOUT OUR PROCESS.
ABOUT OUR PROCESS AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING.
I MADE IT IN, WE, WE ARE BURDENED WITH, UH, A VERY DIFFICULT SCHEDULE.
WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO GET, UM, UNDER CONSTRUCTION AFTER THE CURRENT STATE FAIR.
THE STATE FAIR THAT STARTS AT THE END OF THIS MONTH WHEN IT'S OVER SOON THEREAFTER.
WE WOULD LIKE TO GET UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO DO THAT.
UH, BUILDING PERMITS ARE NOT, ARE NOT LIKE GOING TO JACK IN A BOX HERE.
IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT IN DALLAS.
AND SO WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THAT SCHEDULE.
UH, WE CANNOT, AS YOU KNOW, CANNOT EVEN APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND THAT PUTS Y'ALL IN, UH, ON THE, AT THE FRONT OF THE LINE FOR OUR EFFORTS AT THE, AT THE COTTON BOWL.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PUSHED AND HAD AND, AND, AND HAVE BROUGHT Y'ALL IN SO EARLY INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS.
UH, THAT'S ALSO, AND BECAUSE YOU ARE A CRITICAL PATH ITEM, UH, WE HAVE FOCUSED ON, ON GETTING YOUR BUY-IN AND APPROVAL FIRST.
THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND EVEN TO APPOINT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
CERTAINLY THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS.
WE HAVE BEEN TO AUSTIN TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THEM ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THEY HAVE, UH, BEEN UP HERE AND, AND ATTENDED, UH, WELL BOTH IN PERSON AND THEY'VE ATTENDED THE TASK FORCE MEETING.
LAST TASK FORCE MEETING OR TWO, I DON'T REMEMBER.
UH, THEY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN OUR TASK FORCE MEETINGS.
THEY ARE WELL AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THEY HAVE BEEN GIVING US SOME INPUT, BUT WE HAVE NOT MADE FORMAL APPLICATION TO THEM BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT MORE TIME TO WORK WITH THEM THAN WE DO WITH Y'ALL.
THIS IS A CRITICAL, VERY CRITICAL PATH PROCESS WE ARE ASKING TODAY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE, WE CAN UNDER THE TIMEFRAME TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AS MUCH INFORMATION AND THE KIND OF THING THAT YOU NEED TO GIVE US SUCH A THING.
WELL THAT'S, THAT'S TOO EASY, ISN'T IT?
I WOULD ASK THAT YOU NOT, UH, THAT YOU, WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO GIVE UP ANY OF YOUR REVIEW AUTHORITY OR ABILITIES.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
AND IF I, IF, IF I CAN'T GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, 'CAUSE I'VE GOTTA WAIT FOR THE T H C THAT, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC FOR THE OVERALL SCHEDULE.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL SHUT UP AND LET Y'ALL ASK QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MR. AUSTIN, BEFORE WE BEGIN TAKING QUESTIONS AMONGST THE GROUP TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES, UM, WITH THE TIMELINE IN PARTICULAR, MS. SINGLETON, WOULD YOU, UM, DISCUSS WHAT IS NEEDED FROM THE GROUP IN TERMS OF IS IT A, UM, AN APPROVAL FOR EVERYTHING PRESENTED TODAY? IS IT A PARTIAL APPROVAL THAT WOULD ENABLE THEM TO GO IN AHEAD AND START THE PERMITTING PROCESS? SO TO DO THIS, THEY WOULD NEED YOUR APPROVAL FOR WHAT'S LISTED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ON THE SCREEN IN PRESENTATION.
AND SO FOR, UM, ALL THE ITEMS, SO THE, THE COMMISSION HAS TO APPROVE EVERYTHING.
IF THEY DENY ANY COMPONENT, WELL, THEY CAN APPLY FOR A PERMIT.
NO, THEY CAN DENY, YOU CAN DENY CERTAIN ASPECTS OF, UM, OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, SUCH AS IN LOOKING AT THE LIST.
SO, UM, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT, UH,
[03:40:01]
MR. ALSTON AND, AND FAIR PARK FIRST WOULD LIKE THE WHOLE THING TO BE APPROVED.BUT YES, I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE AWARE MUCH LIKE YOUR, UM, OTHER CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
IF, IF THERE'S SOMETHING, IF THERE'S A LIST OF SIX THINGS AND FIVE OF THEM ARE FINE, BUT SIX NEEDS TO BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT CAN BE, IT CAN BE PULLED APART.
I WOULD LIKE TO, IF I COULD NOTE ONE THING, THERE HAD BEEN A QUESTION, UH, BEFORE IN THE FAIR PARK, UM, ORDINANCE, THERE ARE SOME HISTORIC INTERIORS THAT ARE NOTED IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE COTTON BOWL IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
SO I JUST WANNA SAY THAT OUT LOUD AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.
UM, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL WHEN IT COMES TO THE COTTON BOWL.
WELL LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS, UH, IN PERSON, UH, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? ACTUALLY, MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I DO HAVE A MOTION THAT I THINK WILL, UM, NOT BE PERCEIVED IN THE LEAST BIT OBSTRUCTIONIST AND BE SENSITIVE TO THE TIMEFRAME AND GET US OFF AND RUNNING IF IT'S SECONDED AND APPROVED.
UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO LET PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ENTERTAINING A MOTION, IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PPLICANT VOTE? NO.
YES, MR. OLSON, JUST TO DISPOSE OF A FEW THINGS RIGHT OFF THE TOP, THE RAMPS THAT ARE PRESENT ON THE SAM HOUSTON PLAZA SIDE YES.
WERE THOSE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE RAMPS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL IN THIS? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE HAVEN'T STUDIED THEM MUCH.
'CAUSE WE HAVE NO WORK PLANNED ON THAT SIDE.
AND I, UM, BUT SO WE CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN IF THEY REPRESENT THE SAME KIND OF, UH, FEEL, TEXTURE, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES THAT WE WERE OH, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
I'M FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THEM THAT THERE'S NO NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE RAMPS THAN THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND OUR AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS.
I, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
I CAN'T SAY I'VE CONFIRMED IT, BUT YEAH, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND I THINK, I THINK WE HAD TALKED, UH, LAST TIME ABOUT MAYBE EXPLORING SOME IDEAS OF PRESERVING SOME OF THE RAMPS THAT ARE SLATED FOR REMOVAL, BUT I THINK I HEARD IN YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY THAT YOU'VE DETERMINED THAT THAT IS NOT PRACTICABLE.
WE, WE DIDN'T DOCUMENT IT HERE, BUT THAT'S CORRECT.
AND YOU KNOW, I, AND I USED TO, I'VE ALWAYS HATED IT WHEN PEOPLE SAID, NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT.
BUT REALISTICALLY, WHERE THEY COME DOWN, WHERE THEY HIT ON THE GROUND AND AT THE MEZZANINES ARE THE VERY AREAS THAT WE'VE GOT THAT WE NEED THE EXPANSION, THE SPACE, AND WE CAN'T HAVE A RAMP.
UH, SO WHAT'S LEFT BETWEEN, THOSE ARE SORT OF FLYING RAMPS AND DOES THAT REALLY BENEFIT US? WELL, I DON'T THINK SO.
BUT THEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE FACT HOW DO WE KEEP THEM THERE? WILL THEY SUPPORT THEMSELVES IF WE'RE CUTTING OFF BIG PIECES OF THEM? DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT? RIGHT.
ARE WE REALLY HELPING THE BUILDING IF WE DO THAT? AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALREADY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A HUGE PROJECT THAT OVER $110 MILLION, WE STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR A LOT OF THE STUFF WE'D LIKE TO DO.
THAT'S SUCH AS THE, THE CANOPY AND ALL, UH, THE EXTRA COST THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GO IN AND REINFORCE AND FIND A WAY TO SECURE THOSE.
WHAT'S LEFT OF THOSE RAMPS, ONCE WE START QUACKING OUT PIECES OF 'EM, WOULD BE A FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT WE'D RATHER NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT.
WE JUST DON'T SEE IT AS A VERY VIABLE WAY FORWARD FOR THE BUILDING.
AND WE'RE SORT OF OFFERING UP THE OTHER SIDE
AND THEN FINALLY, UM, THIS IS A LIVING BUILDING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP, UH, VIBRANT AND FUNCTIONAL FOR EVOLVING USES.
AND, UM, AND CERTAINLY IT HAS NOT BEEN UNTOUCHED SINCE RIGHT.
THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE IN 1937.
HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW IN TERMS OF, UH, IS IT, IS IT A MUCH LARGER CHANGE THAT HAS MADE IN THE PAST? IS IT A SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PAST? DOES IT BRING US CLOSER TO THE, UH, THE, UH, SORT OF THE, UH, ORIGINAL, UH, INTENTIONS AND FEEL OF THE COTTON BOWL? IT'S SUBJECTIVE, I REALIZE, BUT NO, BUT I, NO, WE THINK ABOUT THAT, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLY ON WAS, WAS WHAT IS THE APPROACH? IS THE APPROACH FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW, UH, THAT IS CLEARLY AN ADD-ON.
UH, AND WE ARE OBLIGATED UNDER, UNDER THE STANDARDS TO, TO BE ABLE TO CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATE OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION FROM OUR OLD, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALWAYS THE, THE ISSUE WITH PRESERVATION IS WHERE'S THAT LINE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING BEING AN ADDITION, BEING OF ITS TIME YET COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUILDING OF THE PAST.
AND SO WE'VE TAKEN THE APPROACH THAT THE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, IS WE'RE, IF WE
[03:45:01]
ERR ON ANYTHING, IT'S GONNA LOOK MORE ORIGINAL THAN IT'S GONNA LOOK NEW.BUT WE INTENDING TO MAKE IT LOOK DIFFERENT ENOUGH THAT WE KNOW THAT IT'S NEW.
IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE, ESPECIALLY ON THE FRONT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AS SUBSTANTIAL AS THE TOWER EXPANSION.
I REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING NEARLY AS, AS SUBSTANTIAL AS THE ADDITION OF FILLING IN THE ENDS OF THE UPPER DECKS.
AND THAT'S WHEN THE, UH, THE ART PIECE, THE SCREEN VEIL WAS ADDED.
THAT IS AN APPROACH THAT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN THERE PREVIOUSLY.
AND, AND I, I FIND IT VERY ATTRACTIVE.
BUT IT IS, IT IS PROBABLY, TO ME, THE BIGGEST CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN ROCK UPON THE COTTON BOWL AFTER ALL THESE YEARS.
AND WE DIDN'T TAKE THAT APPROACH.
WE DIDN'T TRY TO EXTEND THE ART VEIL OR USE PIECES FROM THAT MAJOR CHANGE WHEN WE CAME AROUND THE FRONT.
WE MADE THE DECISION TO USE PIECES FROM THE 19 48, 49, 47, 48 POSITION.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? RIGHT, IN TERMS, WHEN YOU SAY USE PIECES OF THEM, YOU MEAN LIKE REPLICATE OR, OR, OR BE INSPIRED BY? YEAH.
INSPIRED BY SAME OPENING, SAME PROPORTION, THE SAME MATERIAL, SAME COLOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, THE INFILL OF THE, OF THE, UH, OF THE END ZONES.
DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS OTHER THAN CONTINUE THE BASIC FORM OF THE UPPER DECK AROUND OTHERWISE THE MATERIALS AND THINGS.
IT'S EXPOSED STEEL, NOT CONCRETE.
IT'S GOT THE VEIL, UH, INSTEAD OF BEING OPEN OR YOU TRYING TO REPLICATE ANYTHING ELSE.
OUR, I THINK IT'S A LESS OF A, I THINK IT'S A LESS, I IN, IN A LESS INDIVIDUALISTIC APPROACH TO AN ADDITION TO THE COTTON BOWL THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST.
MORE, MORE TAKEN FROM THE VOCABULARY OF THE 1948 CORRECT EDITION.
AND THEN THAT KIND OF INSPIRED ONE LAST THING.
UH, THE, THE RAMPS, WHICH HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF AIR IN THESE CONVERSATIONS SO FAR MM-HMM.
UM, IS, WILL THERE BE ANY ECHO OF THAT EXTERIOR EXPRESSION IN THE, UH, ESCALATORS? OR IS THAT JUST SIMPLY FALLING OUT? YEAH, THE ESCALATORS ARE NOT IN POSITION TO DO THAT.
THEY'RE NOT ON THE EXTERIOR WALL, AND THEY HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RAKE TO THEM.
UH, WE HAVE ADDED, I DIDN'T REALLY POINT IT OUT.
WE'VE ADDED A COUPLE OF SORT OF FOE UH, UH, RAMP SIDES TO THE EXTERIOR AND THEY, THEY'LL GET THAT DETAIL, THAT HANDRAIL DETAIL I SHOWED EARLIER.
THEY, THEY AREN'T EVOKING THE RAMPS THEMSELVES.
UH, AND, AND, BUT THEY AREN'T FUNCTIONAL EITHER.
THEY DON'T, IF SOMETHING COMES UP TO THOSE RAILS, THEY'RE NOT PROTECTING ANYTHING INTO THE BAR THAT COMES ACROSS.
AND THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF THEM.
IT IS A, IT IS A NOD, IF YOU WILL, TO THE RAMPS, BUT CERTAINLY NOT AN INTERPRETATION OF THE RAMPS.
DO YOU SEE A FUTURE MAJOR, UH, LIKE, UH, UH, ADAPT TO REHABILITATION IN THE COTTON BULLS FUTURE ON THE ORDER OF THIS ONE? OR DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S REACHING THE LIMITS OF WHAT YOU CAN REASONABLY DO? WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO.
THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE, TO THE PRESS BOX THAT ARE, THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THAT PEOPLE ARE NOODLING ON AT, AT THIS TIME.
THERE'S NO MONEY, SO, SO, UH, THAT'S NOT A PRIORITY, UH, THING.
UH, WE HAVE, WE HAVE SIMILAR ISSUES ON THE OTHER SIDE, UH, BUT WE HAVE MUCH GREATER CONSTRAINTS ON THE SAN HOUSTON PLAZA SIDE ON THE EAST SIDE.
AND WHETHER THAT EVER GETS ADDRESSED OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.
UH, IT, THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION RIGHT NOW OF MAKING THOSE CHANGES.
THERE'S GONNA BE CHANGES TO THE, TO THE, UH, UH, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S, THERE, THERE'S SOME, THERE IS A LOT OF MOMENTUM TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE LOCKER ROOMS. THEY, THEY DON'T MEET ANYTHING LIKE MODERN STANDARDS AND, UH, THAT MAY HAPPEN ONE OF THESE DAYS.
BUT, UH, SO THERE'S A LONG TERM, SORT OF A LOT OF PLANS BEING DREAMED ABOUT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING, UH, NOTHING BEYOND THIS ON THE ACTUAL SCHEDULE RIGHT AWAY.
I DO EXPECT THOUGH, THERE'LL BE CHANGES OF SOME KIND, ALWAYS GOING ON AT COTTON BOWL, ESPECIALLY IF WE CAN REACTIVATE IT, START GENERATING MORE INCOME OUT OF IT, WE'LL DO MORE STUFF, MAYBE SMALLER INCREMENTS IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE IT MORE, UH, UH, COMFORTABLE.
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AROUND THE CIRCLES AND GOING BACK TO THESE RAMPS, WHETHER HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE OR NOT, UM, HAD IT BEEN CONSIDERED FROM THE TEAM OR THE APPLICANTS, UM, ANYTHING TO WHEN THEY'RE REMOVED TO LEAVE? I KNOW THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE KNEE WALL THAT'S ENGAGED RIGHT THERE AT THE EXTERIOR PART OF THAT BEING SAW, CUT AND TREATED, AND THAT TO BE REMAINED TO SHOW THE IMPLICATION AND THEN THE, UH, THE REMNANT OF WHERE THAT WAS.
AND THEREFORE YOU HAVE THE OPEN SPACE THAT YOU WOULD NEED, BUT YET THAT, THAT WHAT HAS BEEN DEEMED IN A CERTAIN CIRCLE OF BEING AN IMPORTANT FEATURE CAN REMAIN.
HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT, WE'RE, WE'RE COMING OVER AT A COUPLE DIFFERENT LEVELS AND WE'RE GONNA BE CUTTING INTO THE MIDDLE OF THOSE,
[03:50:01]
UH, NO, WE HAVEN'T STUDIED IT TO THE POINT THAT I COULD SHOW YOU A DRAWING THAT WE'VE DONE THAT SAID THIS CAN STAY AND THIS IS GONE AND THIS CAN STAY AND THAT'S GONE.AND THAT, I MEAN, THE, THE WHOLE RAMP, THE WHOLE KNEE, THE KNEE WALL AND THAT RAMP, THE WHOLE THING, THAT ALL STAYS, BUT THE WHOLE RAMP'S GONE.
BUT THAT EDGE OF WHERE IT'S, IT CONNECTING INTO THE, THE EXTERIOR FACADE, WHAT YOU SEE FROM THE OUTSIDE.
SO IF, I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING, WE WOULDN'T KNOW IF THERE'S A RAMP IN THERE OR NOT, BUT YOU SEE THAT FACADE THROUGH THE OPENING STATION.
SO I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.
THE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE IT'S WALKING SURFACES COME THROUGH THERE, THAT PART CAN'T REMAIN IN SOME LARGE AREAS TOO, BECAUSE IT WOULD IN IMPEDE PEOPLE WALKING THROUGH THE OPENINGS WHERE THEY ARE EXPRESSED.
CAN I TELL YOU EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, IF 20%, IS IT 50%, IS IT 80% GET? WELL, HOW, WHY WOULD IT IMPEDE PEOPLE WALKING IF IT'S JUST ENGAGED FROM COLUMN TO COLUMN AND THROUGH THE IN INDUSTRY FENESTRATION, THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT WE'RE TAKING THE CONCOURSE AND COMING THROUGH THOSE OPENINGS WHERE THOSE GRANTS ARE NOW.
SO FOR, FOR THE CONCOURSE DECK TO COME OUT TO THE NEW ADDITION AND PEOPLE TO WALK FROM UNDERNEATH THE SEATING TO THAT OUT BY PARK, THEY'VE GOT TO WALK THROUGH THOSE OPENINGS.
AND MANY OF THOSE COMPANIES HAVE THOSE RAMPS CUTTING ACROSS THIS WAY.
AND SO EVEN IF YOU LEFT THAT PART, I, I, I, A RELATIVELY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM WOULD'VE TO BE TAKEN OUT.
I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THAT EXACT SAME LINE OF THINKING.
AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IT'S ONLY THE, THE LOWEST LEVEL THAT ACTUALLY IMPEDES CIRCULATION.
I MEAN, IF I'M LOOKING AT THE SECTIONS CORRECTLY, IF WE WERE TO ONLY KEEP THE STRINGERS ON THE VERY OUTSIDE MM-HMM.
THE OTHER THING I WAS WONDERING TO ADD TO THAT WOULD BE THE CANOPY THAT'S ABOVE, UH, GATE M AND THEN IT'S IT'S SISTER ON ON MM-HMM.
UM, ANYWAY, JUST THOSE, THOSE TWO ELEMENTS TO POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO REMAIN.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE HERE IN PERSON? NOPE.