[00:00:01]
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS LANDMARK COMMISSION.
IT IS 1 0 3 ON AUGUST 5TH, 2024, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
I AM THE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER COURTNEY SPIES, OUR VICE CHAIR, AND WE DO HAVE A NICE QUORUM OF DEDICATED COMMISSIONERS.
IF ELAINE WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ROLE DISTRICT ONE.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
DISTRICT FOUR, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, DISTRICT FIVE.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT, DISTRICT SIX.
COMMISSIONER OSA, DISTRICT SEVEN, COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
DISTRICT EIGHT, COMMISSIONER ACY, DISTRICT NINE.
COMMISSIONER COX WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
DISTRICT 11, COMMISSIONER GAY PRESENT DISTRICT 12.
COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER PRESENT DISTRICT 13.
DISTRICT 14 COMMISSIONER GUESTS WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER REEVES? I'M HERE.
COMMISSIONER CPC LIVES ON JOANNA HAMPTON.
PRESENT THE DISTRICT FOUR COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, DISTRICT FIVE.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US OKAY IF SOMEBODY ON STAFF OR SOMEBODY COULD TEXT HIM OR LET HIM KNOW THAT WE CAN HEAR SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH HIS AUDIO? HAVE YOUR SPEAKER OFF.
WELL, WE'LL, WE'LL TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM THAT HE NEEDS TO SEE.
COMMISSIONER T ARE YOU TO HEAR US? I CAN'T HEAR YOU ALL.
UM, SO I BELIEVE TO BEGIN WITH WE NEED OUR VICE CHAIR HAS A MOTION, PLEASE.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, REORGANIZE THE AGENDA AS FOLLOWS, COVERING CONSENT ITEMS ONE THROUGH SEVEN, CONSENT ITEMS NINE AND TEN FIRST FOLLOWED BY CONSENT ITEM EIGHT.
THEN DISCUSSION ITEM 1, 3 4 WITH DISCUSSION ITEM TWO AT THE END SECOND.
AND, AND BEFORE WE ACTUALLY MAKE THAT MOTION, IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM WHO NEEDS TO GIVE US ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE RATHER THAN JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT'LL BE WHAT YOU WRITE THROUGH.
THAT INCLUDES WHAT'S HIS NAME? OKAY.
MR. CLAYBORNE FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE YOU IF THERE'S ANYTHING ADDITIONALLY YOU WANTED TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR REQUEST BEFORE WE VOTE.
WE HAVEN'T FINISHED THE MOTION YET.
A ELAINE, WE DECIDED TO BE EXTRA COMPLICATED IN ALL TODAY.
SO I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONSENT ITEMS ONE THROUGH SEVEN IN CONSENT ITEMS NINE AND 10.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERG WERE DID THAT.
IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL OF THOSE CONSENT, UH, AGENDA ITEMS HAVE, UM,
[00:05:01]
MOVED FORWARD ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF WILL NOTIFY PEOPLE OF, OF THIS HOPEFULLY GOOD NEWS OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH THEIR REQUESTS.NEXT ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE CONSENT ITEM EIGHT WITH THAT, UM, MOTION TO BE MADE BY COMMISSIONER SHERMAN WITH A, A FINDING OF AN ADDITIONAL FINDING OF FACT.
MADAM CHAIR, I WANTED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT, UM, TO FOLLOW THE APPROVAL PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION INDICATING THAT WHILE THE BLACK COLOR TO BE PLACED ONLY ON THE WINDOW SASHES AND FRONT DOOR DOES AMOUNT TO A FOURTH COLOR, THE AMOUNT OF THIS FOURTH COLOR COUPLED WITH THE LIMITED PLACEMENT PROPOSED POSES NO ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE STYLE OF THE STRUCTURE NOR THE BLOCK OR THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
AND COULD YOU REITERATE THE CASE NUMBER AND AN ADDRESS AND ALL THAT STUFF AND SAY THAT YOU MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF DIRECT IN THE MATTER OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH YOUR ADDITIONAL 400 SOUTH WILLAMETTE? OKAY.
AND YOU MOVE THAT WE FORWARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADD, ADD YOUR FINDING OF FACT? YES MA'AM.
ANY SECOND, SIR? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS FOR YOUR SECOND, IF THERE IS NO COMMENT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THIS MOTION IS CARRIED AND THAT TAKES CARE OF ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
RIGHT? I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ORGANIZE THE AGENDA FOR THE REMAINDER BEGINNING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM ONE AND THREE FOUR WITH DISCUSSION ITEM TWO AT THE END.
I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ORGANIZE THE AGENDA IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION.
ITEM ONE, FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION ITEM THREE AND THEN FOUR ENDING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM TWO.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA SECONDED THAT INITIALLY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THEN WE WILL BEGIN STAFF WITH DISCUSSION ITEM ONE AND COMMISSIONER SHERMAN HAS TO REUSE HERSELF FROM THIS ONE AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NOTED IT IN THE EARLIER BRIEFING, SHE WAS ALSO RECUSED DURING OUR DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM.
RHONDA DUNN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
UH, STARTING WITH DISCUSSION ITEM D ONE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 1800 NORTH MARKET STREET IN THE WEST END HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 3 4 DASH 4 2 8 RD.
THE REQUEST ARE AS FOLLOWS, ONE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE DETERIORATED WOODSIDE PATIO WITH RAMP AND RAILINGS ON SOUTH ELEVATION OF MAIN BUILDING REQUEST.
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ACCESS.
STAIR METAL STEPS WITH SQUARE STEEL TUBE GUARDRAILS ON WEST ELEVATION OF MAIN BUILDING.
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPAIR WEST EXTERIOR DOOR ADJACENT TO PROPOSED ACCESS STAIR.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS, TO REQUEST ONE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE DETERIORATED WOODSIDE PATIO WITH RAMP AND RAILINGS ON SOUTH ELEVATION OF MAIN BUILDINGS BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THAT TWO ACCESS STAIRS WITH GUARDRAILS BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCES ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, MATCHING THE PROPOSED ACCESS STAIR ON THE WEST ELEVATION AND THAT AN A DA COMPLIANT REPLACEMENT ACCESS RAMP BE INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO MEET THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 SUBDIVISION G SIX C ROMANT ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION.
TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ACCESS STAIR METAL STEPS WITH SQUARE STEEL TUBE GUARDRAILS ON WEST ELEVATION OF MAIN BUILDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 7 24 24.
[00:10:01]
PROPOSED WORK MEETS 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 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION.THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPAIR WEST EXTERIOR DOOR ADJACENT TO PROPOSED ACCESS THERE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 7 24 24.
THE PROPOSED WORK MEETS 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 NUMBER ONE, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTI CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE DETERIORATED WOOD SIDE PATIO WITH RAMP AND RAILINGS ON SOUTH ELEVATION OF MAIN BUILDING BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMENT BECAUSE NO ACCEPTABLE DESIGN HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND NO LENGTH OF TIME HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND NO INDICATION OF SCOPE OF WORK TO SITE HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT ACCESS STAIR METAL STEPS WITH SQUARE TUBE GUARDRAILS ON WEST ELEVATION OF MAIN BUILDING BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NUMBER THREE AT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPAIR WEST DOOR, WEST EXTERIOR DOOR ADJACENT TO PROPOSED ACCESS STAIR BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NOTE, APPLICANT ALTERED ACCESS STAIR DESIGN FROM A TEMPORARY STAIR TO A PERMANENT STAIR WITH CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF THE TASK FORCE, BUT THAT WAS ON THERE.
I THINK THAT WAS FROM STAFF ACTUALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS
OKAY, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THIS.
NORM ALSTON, I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THE DRILL OF HOW WE START HERE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS NORMAN ALSTON, 5 0 6 MONTE VISTA, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE APPLICANT TODAY.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HEARING OUR REQUEST TODAY.
WELL, I'M SUPPOSED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH.
OH, AND I AM TELLING THE TRUTH.
I I WILL THANK YOU FOR YOUR CROSS.
UM, ANYWAY, THE, UH, TO SUMMARIZE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, THE, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT AFTER 1921.
IT'S A THREE STORY CONCRETE STRUCTURE CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, THE DECK IN QUESTION, IF NOT HISTORIC, IT WAS BUILT SOMETIME PROBABLY IN THE EIGHTIES.
THE CADILLAC BAR WAS THE LAST TENANT IN THAT BUILDING AND THEY HAVE LONG SINCE BEEN GONE.
THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY UNOCCUPIED AND THE TENANT, THE OWNER IS SEEKING A NEW TENANT.
THE INTENTION HERE IS TO REMOVE THE DECREPIT DECK, UH, BECAUSE IT IS NOT ENTIRELY SAFE, BUT THROUGH THE WOOD DETERIORATION.
AND AT SOME POINT PUT A NEW STRUCTURE OUT THERE IN COLLABORATION WITH A TENANT.
AT SOME POINT IT'S 'CAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A TENANT.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO DESIGNS PROPOSED FOR A REPLACEMENT DECK.
IN FACT, HISTORICALLY FROM LOOKING AT THE SAND BARNS, THERE WAS A RAILROAD TRACK ACROSS THERE.
IT'S LIKELY THERE'S NEVER ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING ANYWAY.
UM, AND SO, AND, AND, AND TO, BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS UNOCCUPIED.
I WILL NOTE THAT WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS OR THE A DA BECAUSE IT'S UNOCCUPIED.
IF WE COME BACK FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE FUTURE, OF COURSE WE'D HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PROVISIONS.
AND OF COURSE, ANYTHING WE DO TO, TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, WE COME BACK TO HERE WITH ANOTHER CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ONCE WE HAVE A DESIGN, UH, DESIGN SET.
SO THE TASK FORCE DID HAVE A COUPLE OF GOOD OBSERVATIONS.
NUMBER ONE IS WE DID HAVE A, WE DID HAVE A, A MINIMAL STEP SET OF STEPS COMING UP TO THAT, UH, WESTERN ENTRANCE.
UH, BUT IT IT, BECAUSE IT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WITHOUT ANY SUBSEQUENT PLAN PRESENTED, UH, WE WENT BACK AND MADE REVISIONS AFTER THE TASK FORCE MEETING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT MUST REFLECT THE INDUSTRIAL RAILROAD AESTHETIC THAT IS TYPICAL TO THE WEST END.
AND SO WE CHANGED IT TO AN ALL STEEL AND ALL METAL, UH, UH, UH, STAIR AND LANDING, UH, AND, AND PROPOSED TO PAINT IT A GLOSS BLACK TO MAKE IT LOOK AS INDUSTRIAL AS WE AS WE CAN.
UM, AND THEY ALSO, ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROVISIONS IN OUR C OF A FOR WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN ON THE GROUND ONCE THIS DECK
[00:15:01]
WAS REMOVED.AND SO WE AGAIN, COME BACK AND, AND, AND ADDED, UH, NOTES THAT, THAT IT WILL BE SODDED OVER WITH, UH, WITH GRASS EITHER SOLDER OR, OR ONE OF THOSE, ONE OF THOSE TECHNIQUES.
AND THAT WILL MATCH JUST TO THE WEST OF THE BUILDING.
THERE IS A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL AREA THERE THAT IS VACANT, THAT DOES, THAT IS GRASS AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL SIMPLY MAKING THAT PART LOOK LIKE THE PART THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND SO WE TRIED TO RESPOND TO THE, THE TASK FORCE, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? OUR SPEAKER COMMISSIONER, GAY.
UH, JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE RESISTANCE AT THIS POINT TO HAVE AN AADA, A COMPLIANT RAMP IN THERE? I, I KNOW IT'S NOT OCCUPIED AND YOU COME BACK IN A FUTURE TIME.
WHAT IS THE YES, THERE IS RESISTANCE BECAUSE WE'LL INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE FINAL DESIGN AND NO SENSE IN BUILDING IT TWICE IF WE DON'T NEED IT.
NOT REQUIRED, WE DON'T NEED IT FOR A OCCUPANCY OR WE DON'T NEED IT FOR ACCESS TO THE BUILDING.
UH, AND BASICALLY DON'T WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T NEED.
AND WE'LL PROBABLY WIND UP REPLACING AND THEN NOT FOR THIS IN FUTURE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
UM, UM, THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS REQUESTING, THAT THERE WAS A SECOND STAIR PUT IN, WAS THE SECOND STAIR OFF OF THE, THE NEW SPACE TO BE RENOVATED LATER OR IS IT ACTUALLY OFF OF UM, THE OTHER EXIT DOOR THAT COMES OUT ON THAT SAME ELEVATION TO THE LEFT OF THE PAGE? OKAY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ON THE SCREEN, STAFF IS JUST BASICALLY ASKING FOR THESE TWO EXITS SLASH ENTRANCES TO HAVE AN ACCESS STAIR BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ON-GRADE BUILDING.
UM, 'CAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATION, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE THIRD FLOOR THERE WAS ALSO AN EXIT.
THERE WAS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A FIRE EXIT IN THE, IN THE PAST THAT MAY HAVE HAD A METAL STARE.
I DUNNO IF I CALL IT A FIRE EXIT.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY A SPIRAL, A METAL SPIRAL STARE THE FIRST TIME I EVER SAW THE BUILDING WENT UP THERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL FIRE EXIT ANYMORE.
AND IT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED.
AGAIN, ANY DOORS THAT GO TO THE OUTSIDE BEEN SECURED WILL BE SECURED.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, OPENING THE DOOR AND STEPPING OUT THAT IT'S A BIT HECK OF A FIRST STEP.
UH, BUT, BUT, UH, AGAIN, OUR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IN DEBATE FOR SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND FOR, YOU KNOW, PLANNING FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS WHENEVER THAT MAY COME ABOUT.
WE HAVE, UH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ACCESS.
THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH BACK ON THE OTHER SIDE, SO YOU CAN GET INTO THE BUILDING, BUT WE'VE ALSO THOUGHT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE OVER HERE, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT MEETS MODERN CODE, BUT IT'S NOT ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T NEED ACCESS.
UH, MR. UM, WOULD YOUR PREFERENCE BE TO, UM, HAVE SOMETHING PASSED TODAY FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT ACCESSIBILITY OR TO GO BACK TO THE TASK FORCE, GET THEM ON BOARD WITH THE LACK OF A NEED, UH, FOR THAT ACCESSIBILITY SO THAT YOU'RE THEN COMING BACK WITH A TASK FORCE THAT POTENTIALLY DISAGREEING WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY IS MAKING? I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT ENTIRELY.
I CAN, I CAN OUTLINE MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE TO AN UNOCCUPIED BUILDING.
AND SO OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE NOT TO, NOT TO BUILD ANY RAMPS EITHER NOW OR GOING BACK OR GO BACK TO THE TASK FORCE AND ASK THEM ABOUT IT.
WOULD WE BELIEVE WHAT WE HAVE MEETS THE LAW, MEETS THE CODE AND MEETS THE INTENTION OF THE
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR A MOTION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND HOW THEY'RE, UM, DI DIFFER FROM TASK RECOMMENDATIONS.
CAN YOU JUST KIND OF GO OVER THAT AND EXPLAIN THAT JUST A LITTLE FURTHER? I KNOW THERE'S BEEN ADDITION OR ADDED, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE THAT THEY HAD THAT.
CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? UH, BASICALLY WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE TASK FORCE, THERE WERE NO PLANS FOR WHAT TO DO IN THE FRONT AREA OF THE BI OF THE BUILDING WHEN THE SIDE PATIO WAS REMOVED.
[00:20:01]
SO THAT'S THE BIGGEST THING.ALSO ON THE STAIR, INITIALLY THE STAIR WAS REFERRED TO AS TEMPORARY AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A WOOD STAIR.
AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED TO A PERMANENT ACCESS STAIR WITH CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTINGS AND IT'S NOW METAL AS OPPOSED TO WOOD THE DOOR.
THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE IN PROPOSAL WITH RESPECT TO THE WEST SIDE DOOR.
COMMISSIONER GAY HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS.
UM, I GUESS IN LIGHT OF THE, THE TESTIMONY WITH THE A DA COMPLIANT, UM, AND, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STIPULATION WITHIN THE TECH, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT'S ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.
IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE THAT AN A DA COMPLIANT RAMP COULD BE PLACED? 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.
IF THE PLANS AREN'T FINALIZED AND DEVELOPER GOES WITH ANOTHER DIRECTION, HOW THEY'RE REDO THIS AND THAT WE SORT OF TIED THEIR HANDS ON, I'M OKAY WITH US REMOVING THE CONDITION OF A RAMP BEING PLACED AT THIS TIME.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT AS THE PLANS STAND NOW, IF YOU WALK OUT OF EITHER, EITHER OF THOSE TWO SOUTH DOORS, IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S AT LEAST, WHAT IS IT? TWO FEET? IT'S MUCH FARTHER THAN THAT.
IT'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST FOUR, FIVE FEET ABOVE THE GRADE.
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN THAT MM-HMM,
I MEAN, IN MY MIND, IF I'M THINKING THREE DIMENSIONAL, I'M WALKING OUT OF ONE OF THESE TWO SOUTH SIDE DOORS AND I'M GOING TO HAVE A TERRIBLE FALL AND WIND UP IN THE HOSPITAL.
AND IT IS OF COURSE, NOT REALLY IN OUR PURVIEW WHETHER OR NOT A BUILDING IS COMPLYING WITH A DA BY HAVING A RAMP BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T CARE, BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO, WHO WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPER THING IS DONE WITH MS B.
I HAVE A A QUESTION FOR THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE FOR STAFF OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS? SO LET'S SAY IF YOU, UM, DO HAVE A, UM, A MOTION TO DO THIS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAS THIS REQUIREMENT THERE, UH, APPLICANT'S CONTENTION IS THAT IT ISN'T NECESSARY.
DO THEY HAVE THE, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF HANDLE THAT WITH FUTURE PERMITTING WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK BEFORE LANDMARK AGAIN? OR, OR WHAT YOU MEAN? DO WE EVER GET TO TELL 'EM THEY NEED A RAMP? WHAT WE DO GET TO REVIEW? NO, I'M, I'M SAYING THE LOOKS OF THE RAMP, WHATEVER IT'S APPROPRIATE.
NO, BUT I'M SAYING, SO IF YOU WERE TO PASS IT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH CALLS FOR A DA COMPLIANCE THAT THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THEY'RE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, UM, DO THEY HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY? TO YOUR POINT IN TERMS OF IT NOT BEING WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION AROUND A DA COMPLIANCE IS, DO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT WITH OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK BEFORE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND INSERTING, WELL, HERE'S OUR ATTORNEY
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND HOW THE CAS WORK WHEN THEY DO COME AND GET A PERMIT.
WELL, OKAY, JUST TO GO BACK, I'M OKAY IF WE DON'T DO A RAMP IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE TWO ACCESS STAIRS THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT FACADE, THE MAIN ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING AND AS MR. EL SMITH SAID, I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO OR THREE FEET EAST SAYING IT'S FOUR FEET OFF THE GROUND.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT WINDOWS THERE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF DOORS, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT AS IT STANDS NOW, IT'S NOT SAFE.
MR. ALSTON? YEAH, LET ME HELP WITH, WITH THE COMMISSIONER SP'S QUESTION.
NO, WE CAN'T PUT ANYTHING UP THERE NO MATTER WHO ELSE APPROVES IT LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, IF WE PUT A RAMP ON THIS BUILDING, IT HAS TO COME HERE AND GET APPROVED BEFORE I CAN EVEN APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO DO SO.
AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS WHEN WE HAVE A TENANT, WE'LL DO A COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN OF EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED FOR THIS BUILDING AND COME BACK FOR HOWEVER MANY CFAS WE NEED TO GET ANY WORK DONE, UH, UH, APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION PRIOR TO ACTUALLY DOING IT.
JUST, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PROJECT.
AND GENERAL BUILDING PERMITTING WOULD NOT ALLOW ONE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT A RAMP WHEN RAMP, WHEN A RAMP WAS NEEDED, RIGHT? THEY WOULD THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND VENDOR AND, AND, AND PERMITTING WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO EVEN APPLY FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT COMING HERE AND GETTING AN APPROVED C OF A YEAH.
SO THERE'S LOTS OF LAYERS OF PROTECTION PLUS COMMON SENSE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE FALLING OUT BY, UH, FALLING OUT AN OPEN DOOR ABOUT FOUR FEET IN THE AIR ANYMORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE DOES.
SO THERE WILL BE PROVISION FOR THAT JUST LIKE THERE ARE TODAY.
[00:25:02]
I HAVE A QUESTION AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WE'RE TAKING OFF A ROTTING FALLING DOWN DECK AND WE'RE ADDING A TEMPORARY STAIR.
SO BE IT, ITS METAL TO ALLOW PEOPLE ACCESS THE BUILDING, BUT THERE IS NO INTEREST IN IT OR NO APPLICANT OR NO TENANT FOR THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW.
SO PUTTING IN A RAMP WOULD BE NOT NECESSARY.
SO I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CONVERSATION'S ABOUT.
WE ARE TRYING TO GET A BAD OUT OF THE WEST STANDARD TEMPORARY STAIR, WHICH IS METAL.
IN MY OPINION, ALL WE NEED IS ACCESS TO THE BUILDING.
SO A PROSPECTIVE, UH, OWNERS CAN GO IN THERE AND LOOK AT IT.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE WHERE WE ARE.
WELL THEN WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A RAMP THAT'S NOT NEEDED? THERE'S NO, UNLESS SOMEBODY'S COMING TO THE BUILDING THAT'S HANDICAPPED TO GO LOOK AT IT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A RAMP.
THAT IS, I BELIEVE WHAT MR. ALSTON IS CONTENDING THAT UNTIL IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR, AND OR A TENANT NEEDS A RAMP THAT THE A DA DOES NOT APPLY.
IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THERE'S NO TENANT TO WANT ANYTHING YET.
HE'S JUST ASKING TO GET RID OF THE OLD, THE OLD FALLING DOWN PATIO OVER SEEMS LIKE.
AND PUT TWO STAIRS INTO THE ANCHOR.
ONE, ONE STEP TO THE DANGER STAR
SO WE NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF CA 2 3 4 4 2 8 RD 1800 NORTH MARKET STREET, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS EXCEPT FOR REMOVING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE A DA RAMP NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED.
COMMISSIONER BEI HAS SAID SHE WILL SECOND THAT COMMISSIONER GAY.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER REEVES, I THINK I LIP READ YOU SAYING NO, BUT YOUR, MY PHONE WASN'T ON IN THAT CASE.
IT'S TIME TO CALL FOR THE VOTE.
OH, YOU HAVE FURTHER, I HAVE A COMMENT BECAUSE ACTUALLY THE CONDITION CALLS FOR TWO STAIRS WITH GUARDRAILS AND ALL WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE REMOVED ONE ACCESS RAMP.
SO WE STILL HAVE TO TAKE OFF THE SECOND STAIR FROM THE CONDITIONS.
WHY DO WE NOT NEED TWO STAIRS? MS. DAWSON? IF THERE ARE TWO DOORS, ARE THERE TWO DOORS? YES.
BUT THE DOORS AREN'T GONNA BE USED.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE TWO, WE HAVE TWO STAIRS.
ONE I DON'T SHOW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH IT.
IT'S AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
WE'RE ADDING ONE ON THIS SIDE, UH, TO EASE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING FOR THE NON OCCUPIED ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT
IT IS DR. DUNN WHO IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE TWO BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DANGEROUS DOORS THERE.
UH, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHILE A VALID CONCERN, IT'S PROBABLY NOT OUR CONCERN THAT THERE'S A DOOR WITH NO STAIRWAY OUTSIDE OF IT.
IT'S A GENERAL LIFE SAFETY AND HOLD COMPLIANCE CONCERN AND THE OWNER'S LIABILITY.
SO ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THE TWO STAIRS? COULD WE DO TWO STAIRS OR JUST TWO STAIRS? YES.
I WON'T, I ONLY WANT ONE STAIR.
I WILL LET THE MAKER OF THE MOTION DECIDE WHETHER TO GO WITH ONE STAIR OR TWO STAIRS.
UH, I WOULD BE FINE WITH AMENDING MY MOTION TO REMOVE THE SECOND STAIR REQUIREMENTS AND JUST PUTTING THE WEST EXTERIOR DOOR AND ACCESS STAIRS TO THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER REEVES SECONDING THAT.
ALRIGHT, IF WE'RE DONE DISCUSSING STEERS,
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
THIS MOTION AS A HAS CARRIED, GO OFF AND BUILD THAT STEER RIGHT AWAY, MR. ALL AYE, I AND SHE'LL DO SO.
[00:30:01]
YEAH, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO COAST ALONG.
ALRIGHT, I, I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW READY FOR DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS RIVER COUNT BOOK.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 35 0 5 MAPLE AVENUE.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE INITIATION OF THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR 35 0 5 MAPLE AVENUE, HON.
AND WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER FOR THIS ONE.
MR. KESSLER, IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY HERE, AND PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
STEFAN KESSLER, I WORK FOR THE PARK AND REC DEPARTMENT.
I LIVE IN DALLAS, 2 9 1 5 CHAR.
I WORK AT CITY HALL SIX F SOUTH.
I AM THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION OF THE BALL FIELD.
AND SINCE THE, UH, OUR PREVIOUS HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXPERT AT PARK AND RACK HAS RETIRED RECENTLY, IT SEEMS I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT DESIGNATION FOR RIVER SEAN.
AND WE AS A DEPARTMENT SUPPORT THE DESIGNATION.
WE HAVE HIRED AS PART OF OUR PROJECT, A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ARCHITECT TO, TO DO THE SAME.
AND, UM, WE JUST NEED TO COORDINATE TO TOGETHER TO SEE HOW THE JOINT EFFORTS CAN GO FORWARD.
AND YOU WOULD NEED TO COORDINATE WITH DR. DUNN.
MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT WHO'D LIKE TO COME TO THE DESIGNATION MEETINGS ABOUT THIS AS WE CRAFT THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY ARE AWARE AND YOUR ARCHITECT IS AWARE AND READY TO WORK WITH THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
SHE IS THE STAFF MEMBER WHO OVERSEES A COMMITTEE AND WE MEET THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF ALMOST EVERY MONTH.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR OUR SPEAKER? ALRIGHT, AS I, WAS THAT YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? OR IS EVERYBODY JUST ITCHING? WELL, I, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, THANK STAFF FOR BEING HERE AND, UM, COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR MONTGOMERY FOR INITIATING THIS REQUEST.
FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE, THIS HAS BEEN A MULTI-YEAR EFFORT, UM, INCLUDING, UH, FANYA MANDEL, WHO IS THE DISTRICT TWO PARK BOARD REPRESENTATIVE, AND MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY, UM, TO HELP ADVOCATE FOR RIVER SEAN PARK.
AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS MOVING FORWARD.
SO LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ON THIS.
UM, IT, IT'S BEEN A QUITE A LONG ROAD OF WORKING WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO MEET THEIR NEEDS AS WELL AS THE IMPORTANT NEEDS OF PRESERVING THIS, THIS VERY UNIQUE PLACE WITH ITS STONE WORK AND THIS BALLPARK AND ALL THE, THE IMPORTANT MEMORIES THAT, THAT DALLASITE HAVE OF THIS PLACE AND THE REASON WHY THEY WANT, WELL, MANY PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, IT MAINTAIN AND, AND IT GO FORTH HANGING ONTO ITS HISTORIC APPEARANCE SO THAT WE CAN ALL DEPRECIATE WHAT IT HAS MEANT TO DALLAS.
SO I'M VERY PLEASED THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY TO DO THIS.
AND WITH THAT, THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS.
I MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE MOTIONS, SO I'LL DO THAT.
ITEM NUMBER 3 35 0 5 MAPLE AVENUE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS REV SEAN PARK.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE INITIATION OF THIS LOCATION.
REV SEAN PARK AS THE CITY OF DALLAS LANDMARK.
LET, LET, LET COMMISSIONER HINOJOSA, WHO WAS ALWAYS ALSO THERE THROUGH A LOT OF THIS, BE THE SECOND ON THIS AND WE KEPT FORGETTING TO MENTION HER 'CAUSE SHE'S SO TINY ON THE LITTLE SCREEN THERE,
SO COMMISSIONER HENO HOSA HAS SECONDED THIS MOTION.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER COMMENT, I CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
I DIDN'T WANNA HAVE TO ARGUE WITH ANY ONE OF THEM.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO MOVING ON WITH THIS PROCESS.
THANK YOU STEFAN, FOR COMING AND TALKING TO US AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU AT OUR DESIGNATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
THEY'RE LONG AND TEDIOUS, BUT WHAT, WHAT MORE CAN I OFFER YOU THAN THAT? YOU KNOW,
NEXT UP IS, UM, WHAT WE MUST HEAR ABOUT THE BELMONT HOTEL DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
[00:35:01]
SOME DEGREE FULFILLING A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RE HEAR THIS ONE TODAY.SO,
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 9 0 1 FORT WORTH AVENUE.
IT IS THE BELMONT MOTOR HOTEL.
THE REQUEST IS A LANDMARK COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO CONSIDER A HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE BELMONT MOTOR HOTEL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FORT WORTH AVENUE AND WEST OF SYLVAN AVENUE.
AT THE INTERSECTION THE OWNER'S DIAMOND BELMONT HOLDING LLC.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO PRESERVATION CRITERIA, AND WITH DESIGNATION COMMITTEE EDITS TO NOMINATION REPORT AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
NOTE THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ON JULY 1ST, 2024, AND IS SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION ON AUGUST 5TH, 2024.
AND THE REASON WHY IT'S ON THE AGENDA AS POSTED IS BECAUSE LAST MONTH THIS COMMISSION DECIDED TO DEFER THIS MATTER UNTIL THIS MEETING.
SO YOU JUST PUNTED THE SAME AGENDA ITEM FROM LAST MONTH TO THIS MONTH.
AND THAT'S WHY THE POSTING IS THE SAME.
AND, UM, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE I ALL MAKE MOTION TO DO ABOUT THIS, BUT WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO STEP UP AND CHOOSE WHO GOES FIRST.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SUZANNE KEDRON.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERSHIP ENTITY.
YOU ALSO HAVE MR. FORD HERE TO ADDRESS YOU AS WELL AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
WE WERE REALLY EXCITED LAST MONTH.
WE FINALLY GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE A LOT MORE WORK TO DO.
AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR TODAY IS SOME, UM, MORE TIME TO GET THAT DONE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR CPC ON THURSDAY.
WE WILL BE THERE IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL.
WE WILL BE SUPPORTING IT TO BE RE DESIGNATED OR NOMINATED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEAR PERIOD.
AND, AND SO WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET THIS WORK DONE.
UM, WE HAD A GOOD MEETING, AS I SAID WITH THE LANDMARK, UH, DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
UH, AND WE DO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH STAFF SET UP FOR MID-AUGUST SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE WORK.
I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MR. FORD.
HE'S GONNA TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE ROUNDING OUT THE TEAM IN ORDER TO GET THIS WORK DONE AND GET IT DONE CORRECTLY.
AND IT'S, AND IT'S GETTING REINITIATED IS WHAT THE WORD IS, LIKE I'M SO GOOD AT FINDING THE RIGHT WORD.
BUT HELLO MR. FORD, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? 'CAUSE THAT'S HOW WE DO THINGS.
UH, JORDAN FORD SEVEN, UH, 1717 ARTS PLAZA, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
UM, WELL I THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE AND ALLOWING US TO GET THE WORK DONE THAT WE DID LAST MONTH.
UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UH, DISCUSSIONS ALL BENEFICIAL IN MY MIND TO GET US BACK ON A TRACK.
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE CPC THIS WEEK, AND OF COURSE, MEETINGS NEXT WEEK TO REALLY FOCUS IN ON WHAT THE AGENDA IS FOR THIS PROCESS.
UH, I HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS AND, AND THE LIKE TO COME ON BOARD AND, AND, UH, DIG BACK INTO WHAT WE STARTED, UM, MANY YEARS AGO AND GET IT DONE.
AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR GREAT CONCERN FOR THIS BUILDING.
I, I, I KNOW YOU, YOU VIEW IT NOT JUST AS A, A BUSINESS DEAL, IT'S MADE, YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR YOU ALSO RESPECT THE HISTORY AND SEEM TO HAVE A CERTAIN AFFECTION FOR THE PROPERTY.
A BELOVED HISTORIC BUILDING IS A SAFE HISTORIC BUILDING.
NOW LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS WHO OUR STAFF COMMISSIONER RES YES.
I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD TABLE THIS SO THAT WE COULD WAIT UNTIL THE PLAN COMMISSION DEALS AND, AND THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE DEAL WITH IT AND THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH IT WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS. THAT IS AN OPTION THAT WE HAVE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED DURING THE BRIEFING.
THE OTHER OPTION THAT I AM THINKING I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PURSUE, OF COURSE YOU COULD ALL VOTE AGAINST IT OR OFFER ME A DIFFERENT IDEA, IS THAT WE SIMPLY SEND THIS BACK TO THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE TO DO THE WORK THAT THEY NEED TO DO WITH THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE THAT OPTION AND THEN IT CAN RETURN WHEN THEY SAY THEY ARE READY TO ASK US AGAIN TO VOTE UPON WHATEVER THEY COME UP WITH.
WHAT DO YOU THINK, I THOUGHT YOU SAID LAST MONTH THAT WE HAD TO ACTUALLY ACT ON IT BECAUSE IT EXPIRED
[00:40:01]
THIS MONTH.AND THAT IS WHY ON THURSDAY IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR CPC, FOR ITS REINITIATION THREE CPC MEMBERS HAVE REQUESTED THAT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR REINITIATION.
THE INITIAL, THE FIRST, THE INITIAL INITIATION DID NOT COME THROUGH LANDMARK.
IT CAME THROUGH CPC AND THEY ARE WANTING TO BE THE ONES WHO RENEW IT OR WE WOULD'VE DONE IT.
BUT
MAY I MAKE A MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A QUESTION ACTUALLY.
BEFORE ANY MOTION IS MADE, WE MUST, UM, LISTEN TO SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
OH, WHAT IF WE GO DOWN THE PATH OF, UM, UH, REMOVING IT BASICALLY FROM, UH, LANDMARK AS DECISION AND WE GO, UH, AND WE GO CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS OF THE DESIGNATION, UM, FINDING THE FACTS AND LOOKING AT THINGS AND WORKING WITH THE CLIENT AND APPLICANT.
UM, AND IT, IT GETS REINITIATED.
UH, WHAT IS OUR TIMEFRAME, WHAT'S OUR, WHAT'S WHAT IS OUR INITIATION LASTS FOR TWO YEARS, SO IT'S GOING TO OPEN THIS UP FOR TWO YEARS.
IT WILL BE A TWO YEAR PERIOD OF WORK UP TO TWO YEARS, HOPEFULLY NOT TWO YEARS, BUT IT WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF UP TO TWO YEARS WORKING WITH THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE, WHICH ALREADY HAS COME UP WITH THE HISTORY AND A HISTORIC OVERLAY.
BUT NOW THE, THIS, THIS OWNER HAS STEPPED FORWARD WHO WAS NOT ACTIVE IN THAT PROCESS BEFORE.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE ACTIVE IN THAT PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE TIME TO DO.
AND THERE'S A, BEEN A MAJOR CONCERN OF IT BEING MOTHBALL MOTHBALLED AND BASICALLY ONGOING DETERIORATION, OR IS, THAT IS NOT A QUESTION FOR ME, BUT WE DO HAVE THE ORDER RIGHT HERE.
UM, WHAT IS THE CONCERNS RIGHT NOW OF THE STATUS OF, OF WHERE IT IS AND WHAT'S YOUR ONGOING TROUBLES OR PROBLEMS OF TRYING TO MAINTAIN IT? NOT TO DILAPIDATING ANY FURTHER, I GUESS JUST KIND OF A STATUS REPORT ON YOUR END.
UM, WELL, IN 2020 WHEN WE WERE IN RENOVATION, WE DID SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF, UH, UPGRADES TO THE STRUCTURAL BASIS.
WE, WE REPLACED ALL THE ROOFS WITH A THIRD 30 YEAR WARRANTY.
UH, WE, WE DID ALL THE CONCRETE AND STUCCO FIXES ON THE EXTERIOR AND REPAINTED.
UH, SO ALL OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT WAS, I GUESS THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO NOW.
BUT TO ME THE, THE INTEGRITY IS THERE, UH, ONGOING AND, AND VANDALISM, MAINLY GRAFFITI AND, AND BROKEN WINDOWS, WHICH WE REPAIR, UH, ON CONTINUALLY.
UM, AND I HAVE A, A MAINTENANCE TEAM, I GUESS IT'D SAY, BEEN NOTIFIED QUITE QUICKLY FROM CITI WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OF, OF GRAFFITI OR VANDALISM OF THAT TIME.
I HAVE OVERNIGHT, UH, SECURITY, UH, MAINLY FOR, UM, TRANSIENT, UM, SO THAT NOBODY'S SPENDING THE NIGHT THERE.
UH, AND THERE'S ACTIVITY, LIKE I SAID WITH MY, I HAVE LAWN AND MAINTENANCE, I HAVE, UH, FREE MAINTENANCE.
I HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT I ATTEND TO IN THE BUILDING AND, UH, UH, SO IT, IT HAS EYES ON IT EVERY DAY FROM, FROM MY SIDE.
SO YOU HAVE A SUPER MAINTENANCE YEAH.
UH, AT, IS THAT THE SITE DAILY? YEAH.
YEAH, I WAS THERE THIS MORNING AND MET WITH THEM TO CHANGE SOME LOCKS ON THE GATE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHAT, WHAT WE'VE GOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM A COMMISSIONER? UH, COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, MY QUESTION IS FOR MR. FORD.
UM, A LOT OF US IN THE COMMUNITY ARE VERY RELIEVED TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE, UM, EAGER TO WORK OUT SOME DESIGNATION EFFORT AND, UM, NOW THAT YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THROUGH THE DRAFTED CRITERIA AND BEGUN IN EARNEST A DIALOGUE WITH THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE, DO YOU THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT THE REST OF IT'LL BE HAMMERED OUT? YOU KNOW, IN FAR LESS THAN TWO YEARS? CERTAINLY, UM, ONE, THE, THIS PROCESS JUST IN THE LAST MONTH HAS REINVIGORATED, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE, BUT ALSO CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC'S, UM, AND THE PRESS.
SO IT'D BE BEST, I THINK IT BEHOOVE ME, UH, TO ACT ON THIS MOMENTUM THAT WE HAVE NOW, UH, AND NOT, NOT REST ON IT.
I, I HAVE CERTAINLY LEARNED QUITE A BIT SINCE 2019 WHEN WE STARTED THIS AND WE GOT QUITE, UH, YOU KNOW, QUITE, QUITE A DISTANCE IN, IN CREATING THIS ORDINANCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT THE TIME.
BUT, UH, WITH COVID AND, AND AND THE LIKE, THAT, THAT WAS NO LONGER VALID.
[00:45:01]
TO PUT TOGETHER THE ADDITIONAL ASSETS THAT NEED TO BE ON THIS TEAM AND, UM, AND SPEND THE MONEY TO GET THIS DONE.ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND, UM, I, I KNOW COMMISSIONER REEVES HAS A MOTION TO MAKE, UM, APPARENTLY PROBABLY DIFFERENT THAN MINE AND THAT'S WHY SHE WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MAKING IT.
SO WE'LL CALL ON HER, BUT I WILL ASK THE ATTORNEY IF THERE'S ANYTHING SHE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, OH, JIM? YES.
SORRY, MR. ANDERSON, I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO CALL YOU JIM HERE.
UM, I JUST WAS, I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS EXPLORED NATIONAL REGISTERED AND MITIGATION IN THE TAX CREDITS FOR THAT.
THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO THE RESTORATION OF THIS PROPERTY.
I, I EXPLORED THEM IN, IN 2019 AND WAS IN DISCUSSION IN THE LAST ITERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO, UH, I WANT THIS PROCESS TO THE CITY TO A, ALLOW THAT TO, UH, BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN, IN, IN DEVELOPMENT.
SO YES, THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.
AND, AND THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD OF INTEREST, UH, CITY, STATE AND, UM, AND FEDERAL AND COMPLYING TO THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES.
UM, I'M SURE ALL OF YOUR ADVISORS WILL LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TAX CREDIT OPTIONS IF YOU ARE ABLE TO GET NATIONAL.
DO YOU HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION JUST NOW, COMMISSIONER C*M ANOTHER QUESTION.
JUST A FOLLOW UP, FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
UM, SPEAKING WITH THE, A LOT OF THE GOOD POSITIVES THAT, UH, TEXAS CENTER FUNDING CAN CREATE GOING THROUGH NATIONAL REGISTER AND THE, UH, THE GOOD POSSIBILITY THROUGHOUT, DO YOU HAVE A PRESERVATION, UH, ARCHITECT OR, OR ANYBODY IN THAT ROLE? UH, CURRENTLY? UM, WELL, I MEAN DISCUSSIONS, I GUESS IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SAY THAT I'VE SIGNED UP WITH ANYBODY, BUT, UM, UH, I'VE KIND OF NARROWED IT AND WOULD HAVE PEOPLE I PREFER TO WORK WITH ON THIS.
UM, I GUESS SAFE TO SAY IT'S LIKE THE ARCHITECTURAL DUO THAT PARKED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE BELMONT ROAD RAIN.
IT WAS JUST AN INTEREST, INTERESTING QUESTION JUST TO SEE YOU, YOU'VE GOT THAT ON, YOU KNOW, IN IN YOUR FOCUS MM-HMM.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER REEVES, I DEFER TO YOU.
MY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT I HAVE.
SINCE THE PLAN COMMISSION'S GONNA MEET THURSDAY AND THE, UH, DESIGNATION COMMISSION DOESN'T MEET TILL THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH, IS THERE ANY WAY TO MOVE IT ALONG? UH, THE COMMISSION, THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE ACTUALLY WILL MEET ON THE 15TH OF THIS MONTH.
THAT'S THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF AUGUST, RIGHT? NO, THE 21ST OF AUGUST.
BUT WE MEET EVERY MONTH AND, UH, WE'LL BE WORKING, GETTING TO ADDRESSING IT AS SOON AS WE CAN.
THEN I'LL DEFER TO YOUR MOTION.
AND AS FAR AS EVERYTHING WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR SPEAKERS AND FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY, WHAT WE ARE ON SITE TO HAVE ON TRACK TO HAVE HAPPEN IS IF WE WERE TO SAY WE'RE SENDING BACK THIS BACK TO, WE SEND THIS BACK TO, UM, THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
THE NEXT STEP IS CPC VOTES ON THIS ON THURSDAY.
APPARENTLY OUR TWO SPEAKERS HERE WILL BE THERE TO AGAIN AFFIRM THEIR WISH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
SO THAT SHOULD HELP IT GET APPROVED.
ONE WOULD EXPECT, AND THEN IT WILL BE THAT MAKE, AT THAT POINT IT'S REINITIATED AND THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE CAN ACT ON THAT AS SOON AS THE, UM, APPLICANT AND THE COMMITTEE ARE READY TO DISCUSS SOME MORE.
SO WE SEEM TO HAVE A NICE STEP BY STEP PROCESS GOING HERE WITH NO FORESEEABLE POTHOLES IN OUR JOURNEY.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER REEVES, I WANT YOU TO BE COMFORTABLE.
SO IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS HAVE, HAVING DISCUSSED WITH STAFF WHAT THEY THOUGHT BEST FOR ME TO DO, I DIDN'T JUST THINK OF THIS, PROBABLY DIDN'T THINK OF THIS.
UM, ON THE MATTER OF DISCUSSION, ITEM NUMBER 4 9 0 1 FORT WORTH AVENUES, THE BELMONT MOTOR HOTEL.
I MOVE THAT IN LIGHT OF CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW INPUT THE OWNER WISHES TO HAVE IN THE PROCESS THAT WE SEND THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORDINANCE BACK TO THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE IN ORDER TO CRAFT THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION FOR HIS BUSINESS NEEDS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THIS IMPORTANT STRUCTURE.
COMMISSIONER REEVES, I BELIEVE SECONDED ME FIRST.
[00:50:01]
IT WAS ME, COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY, AND THEN IT WAS COMMISSIONER REEVES.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? I THINK WE ALL ARE AWARE OF HOW IMPORTANT THIS HISTORIC LOCATION IS TO BEING PRESERVED AND JUST HOW CUTE IT IS TOO.
YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A WONDERFUL PLACE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
I'M SURE YOU ALL ENJOY, ENJOY THEIR MEETING ON THURSDAY.
AND WE'LL SEE AT DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
THAT LEAVES US WITH DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER TWO, STAFF DISCUSSION ITEM TWO IS 4 0 8 SOUTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE IN THE WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 34 DASH 4 27 MW.
AND I AM MARCUS WATSON PRESENTING THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS 16 IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS 16 IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ORIGINAL DETAILS AND MATERIALS SHOULD BE RETAINED WHENEVER POSSIBLE, AND THAT THERE'S INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY OF THE WINDOWS ARE BEYOND REPAIR AND THAT THE PROPOSED VINYL WINDOWS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE STRUCTURE OR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
BECAUSE VINYL WINDOWS ARE NOT A PERIOD DESIGN OR MATERIAL.
THE PROPOSED WORK, THEREFORE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTIONS 51 P DASH 87.1 11 A THREE, OR A 17 F CITY CODE SECTION 4.501 G SIX ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, OR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR SETTING NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS 16 AND THE MAIN STRUCTURE BE DENIED.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY WINDOWS ARE BEYOND REPAIR.
WE HAVE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS ONE, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO ASK OF STAFF, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT.
IF NOT, THEN SOMEONE MUST COME UP WITH A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SP WITHOUT COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER? SP THEN, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSIONS.
COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER, YOU ARE CONFUSING ME.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN IS WAVING AT US.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UH, NO MA'AM.
I WAS, I WAS OFFERING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT BEFORE I COULD HIT THE BUTTON, UH, COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER OFFERED UP, SO I'M GOOD ACTUALLY.
AND COMMISSIONER'S POLICY, WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO GO FIRST IF YOU WANT.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF DISCUSSION, ITEM 2 4 0 8 SOUTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE CA 2 3 4 DASH 4 2 7 MWI MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SORRY, I'M JUMPING THE GOVERNOR SECOND.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER FOR MAKING THE MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS FOR SECONDING THE MOTION, WHICH IS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
CLARIFY EVERYTHING THERE ON THE RECORD.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR SHALL I CALL FOR A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
WHAT IS LEFT FOR US TO DO AT THIS POINT IS VOTE ON OUR MINUTES FROM LASTED LAST MEETING.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE MINUTES? THEY NEED A ELAINE TO CHANGE BEFORE WE, HEY, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MINUTES, CAN I REQUEST THAT WE DO GET AN UPDATE, UH, FROM, UH, THIS, THE, THE DESIGNATION PROCESS WITH THE, THE BELMONT AND ALL THAT? I'D LIKE TO HAVE AN UPDATE, UH, INTO THE AGENDA FOR NIXON OR NEXT, NEXT MONTH.
UH, TO PLACE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
YOU COULD EMAIL ANYONE OR, OKAY.
IS IT OKAY IF HE DOES IT NOW? JUST REQUEST THAT THERE BE AN UPDATE ABOUT DESIGNATION COMMITTEE ON NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA.
I'VE, I HAVE ALREADY MADE NOTE OF IT, SO, ALRIGHT.
FROM THE OUTCOME OF THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE, UH, FINDINGS OF THE CPC AND ALL THAT ON THIS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THIS PROJECT.
SO WE WILL ASSIGN THAT TO COMMISSIONER PRESI AND STAFF
NOW IS SOMEONE, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION ON
[00:55:01]
THOSE MINUTES.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, WE, THAT THE MEETINGS THAT THE MINUTES ARE, UH, AS, UH, WRITTEN BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER RENO FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AND SO THAT HAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND IT IS 1 58, NOT YET TWO O'CLOCK, AND WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED.
WE ARE ADJOURNED BEFORE TWO O'CLOCK.
I REALLY WOULDN'T HOLD MY BREATH FOR THAT AGAIN, BUT IT'S AUGUST.
NO ONE WANTS TO WORK ON THEIR HOUSE IN AUGUST.