[00:00:01]
[Landmark on February 3, 2025.]
THE MEETING OF THE AFTERNOON, MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION OF DALLAS.WE ARE BEGINNING THIS PORTION AT 1 0 6, AND WE HAVE A FORUM OF LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS HERE TO HEAR OUR CASES.
UH, COULD ELAINE PLEASE MAKE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER SHERMAN PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO.
COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR PRESENT, DISTRICT FIVE.
DISTRICT SIX, COMMISSIONER HENO HOSA WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
DISTRICT SEVEN, COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON, DISTRICT EIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ACY, DISTRICT NINE.
COMMISSIONER COX, DISTRICT 11.
UH, COMMISSIONER GAY WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON PRESENT.
UM, WE BEGIN WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, AND FOR THAT, OUR VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER ACY HAS, UM, A MOTION TO MAKE WITH NO, UH, UM, CONFLICTS, UH, GIVEN OUT OR, OR NOTIFIED BEING NOTIFIED OF.
IN THE BRIEFING, I MOVE TO APPROVED CONSENT ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT.
THE SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER REEDS.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MEANS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT HAVE BEEN, UM, WE HAVE APPROVED THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY GO FORTH WITH, WITH WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE RULE.
NOW, COMMISSIONER SP UH, THE ORDERING OF OUR AGENDA, IF YOU ARE, UM, IN THE GALLERY AND HAVE NOT SIGNED UP PREVIOUSLY OR COMPLETED A YELLOW SLIP, BUT DO INTEND TO SPEAK ON ONE OF THE ITEMS, UM, I NEED YOU TO LET US KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE, UH, DAVID, ER, AND TRACY WILLIAMS SIGNED UP.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I MOVE THAT WE ARRANGE THE AGENDA TO BEGIN WITH D SEVEN, FOLLOWED BY D ONE THROUGH D SIX IN ORDER ENDING WITH D EIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? SECOND? COMMISSIONER REEVES, COMMISSIONER REEVES HAS SECONDED THAT, UH, ALL ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THEN WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
STAFF NEEDS TO READ THAT IN AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKER, OH, WHO IS GOING TO READ TASK FORCE TODAY? COMMISSIONER POSI IS A RELIABLE COMMISSIONER.
DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS LOCATED AT ONE 11 NORTH WINDERMERE AVENUE IN THE WINNETKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 45 DASH 2 25 MW.
AND I'M MARCUS WATSON PRESENTING FOR STAFF.
THE REQUEST IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL ASBESTOS CEMENTITIOUS SIDING WITH ONE, WITH NUMBER ONE 17 NOVELTY WOOD SIDING.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL ASBESTOS CEMENTITIOUS SIDING WITH NUMBER ONE 17 NOVELTY WOOD SIDING BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SIDING BE WOOD SHAPED TO MATCH KNOWN ORIGINAL SIDING UNDER THE NON HISTORIC SIDING AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND A FINDING OF FACT THAT CHANGING THE SIDING TO NUMBER ONE 17 NOVELTY SIDING AS PROPOSED WOULD BE CONJECTURAL AND THAT WHILE PRESERVATION CRITERION 51 P DASH 87.1 11 A 10 C DOES NOT ALLOW SHAKE SIDING AS A PRIMARY SIGHTING.
THE KNOWN HISTORIC SIGHTING ON THIS HOUSE WAS SHE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION TASK FORCE
[00:05:01]
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL ASBESTOS CEMENTITIOUS SIDING WITH NUMBER ONE 17 NOVELTY WOOD SIDING BE APPROVED.APPLICANT SHOULD DO MORE EXPLORATORY WORK TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS.
APPLICANT SHOULD CONSIDER COMPROMISE SUCH AS SHAKE INSTEAD OF SHINGLE OR USE OF SHINGLES ONLY AS ACCENT.
ALRIGHT, NOW WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR THIS ITEM.
YOU WOULD COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND PLEASE, LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S ON, BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S NOT, DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT.
STAFF HAVE A GREEN LINE TEST, TEST, TEST.
ALRIGHT, MR. ER, WE, UM, ALWAYS BEGIN BY ASKING YOU TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOUR, AND TO SWEAR OR AFFIRM OR PROMISE THAT YOU WILL TELL THE TRUTH.
CERTAINLY DAVID, ER ONE 11 NORTH WINDERMERE, DALLAS, TEXAS, I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH.
OKAY, SIR, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO, UM, FURTHER ENLIGHTEN US WITH WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU FEEL WILL HELP US ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION.
THANK YOU FOR THE, UH, TE UH, LANDMARK COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ON DECEMBER 2ND.
I AM BACKED AGAIN AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND WISH TO PRESENT YOU ADDITIONAL AND NEW INFORMATION.
I HAD A VERY FAVORABLE MEETING ON JANUARY 15TH WITH, UH, UH, PRES PRESERVATION PLANNER WATSON AND THE TASK FORCE COMMITTEE IN WHICH THEY ENDORSED MY RECOMMENDATION AND THEY GAVE ME VERY HELPFUL TIPS ON HOW TO PRESENT THAT INFORMATION TO YOU TODAY.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY, UH, WHICH YOU HAVE IN YOUR HANDOUT ON THE, UH, FAR LEFT IS THE EXISTING CONDITION.
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER EAST FACES THE STREET.
THAT'S THE, UH, WHITE PAINTED, UH, CEMENT SHINGLE, UH, ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER AND ON THE MAIN BODY OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
UH, THE MIDDLE PHOTO SHOWS THE, UH, UNCOVERING THAT WE DID AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, AS I SUSPECTED AND PRESENTED TO YOU ON DECEMBER 2ND.
UM, THE MAIN BODY OF THE HOUSE IS COVERED WITH A, UH, 18 INCH CEDAR SHINGLE, AND IT IS A SHINGLE.
IT IS THIN WITH A TAPER DOWN TO ONE FOUR INCH.
I SUSPECT THAT IS WHAT LED THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO PUT THE, UH, CEMENT SHINGLE OVER IT.
AND WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE FAR RIGHT IS THE EXISTING GARAGE, WHICH USES THE ONE 17 WOOD SIDING, UH, ON IT.
SO, UH, IF YOU'LL SCROLL DOWN, PLEASE.
MY RECOMMENDATION AND MY REQUEST IS APPROVAL OF THE ONE 17 PATTERN WOOD SIDING ON THE, UH, ON THE HOUSE PLACEMENT TUBE, THE WOOD SHINGLE.
UH, WHAT I WILL SHOW YOU IS A LITTLE, UH, ARCHITECT'S, YOU KNOW, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION GUIDE IN TABLE ONE THAT SHOWS, UH, THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE, UH, SIDING MATERIAL ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND FOUND ON MANY CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT, THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT I WILL FOCUS ON TODAY IS THAT ANY, UH, CONSIDERATION OF RESTORING IT TO THE ORIGINAL WOOD SHINGLE SIDING WITH THE NATURAL FINISH IS NOT AN OPTION DUE TO ADVERSE CONDITIONS, ADVERSE IMPACTS, AND A FOR POOR EVALUATION, UH, BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, UH, SELECTION CRITERIA.
UH, AS YOU HAVE ALREADY NOTED, UH, IT IS, UH, THE WOOD DROP SIDING ONE 17 ALLOWABLE.
THE, UH, WOOD SHINGLES ARE NOT PERMITTED AS A PRIMARY FACADE MATERIAL, UH, THAT'S WRITTEN INTO THE LOCAL ORDINANCE AVAILABILITY.
UH, THE ONE 17 IS READILY AVAILABLE ON TWO INQUIRIES.
UH, ONE, UH, OUTFIT, UH, DID NOT CARRY IT.
UH, THE WOOD SHINGLE WOULD NOT ORDER IT.
UH, OUR FRIENDS AT DAVIS HAHN DID FIND IT.
THEY'RE WILLING TO SPECIAL ORDER IT, BUT THERE ARE NO RETURNS.
IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR APPLICATION.
AND I HAVE DETAIL FROM INDUSTRY WEBSITES, UH, TO, UH, TO SUPPORT.
BUT THE WOOD SHINGLE IS NOT APPROPRIATE AS A SIDING MATERIAL.
IT'S DURABILITY IS LESS THAN ONE 17.
THE BASELINE COST OF THE, UH, ONE 17 IS, HEY, SIR, I BELIEVE YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT GIVE US A SECOND.
ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN AT LEAST TWO MORE MINUTES.
FIRST YOU HAVE TO BE FAST TO BEAT COMMISSIONER REEVES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF GIVING THE APPLICANT TWO MORE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, SIR, YOU HAVE TWO MORE MINUTES AND ELAINE IS RUNNING TO SET HER TIMER.
ABSOLUTELY NEVER SEEN ELAINE RUN.
SO THE, UH, CAPITAL COST AND THE LIFECYCLE COST, UH, UH, FOR MOVING FROM THE ONE 17 SIDE INTO THE WOOD SHINGLE REPLACEMENT SHINGLE WOULD BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT, UH,
[00:10:01]
FOR THE HIGHER COST.AND IF YOU'LL FINALLY SCROLL DOWN, I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED THE BUILDING CODE YET TO MAKE SURE THE WOOD SHINGLE IS COMPLIANT, BUT I HAVE REACHED OUT TO MY HOME INSURANCE UNDERWRITER.
RVOS DID ISSUE ME A STATEMENT AFTER COVERING ME SINCE 1991.
THEY WILL NOT COVER ME IF I CHANGE, UH, AND USE A WOOD SHINGLE OR WOOD SHAKE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE.
UM, THIS COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION.
I, UH, UH, VERY MUCH APPRECIATED THE INPUT FROM THE TASK FORCE, THEIR SUPPORT AND THEIR, UH, GUIDANCE IN APPROACHING YOU TODAY ON THIS ISSUE.
NOW WE WILL BE PREPARED TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS AND COMMISSIONERS, LET US REMEMBER ALL THE CONCERNS THAT WE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT EARLIER IN OUR BRIEFING THAT NEEDS TO BE STA DISCUSSED HERE, PREFERABLY WITH THE APPLICANT.
SO EVERYBODY HAD A LOT TO SAY.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE FIRST QUESTION HERE? COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? ACTUALLY, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I DO HAVE NO.
BUT WE, WE DID TALK A LOT AND WE, WE LEARNED, ONE THING WE DID IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, WHICH YOU WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND DURING, DUE TO, UM, FEELING ILL THIS MORNING, WAS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE SAY EVERYTHING HERE THAT WE, WE WERE REALLY THINKING ABOUT AND NOT JUST WASTED ON THE MORNING MEETING.
BECAUSE HERE IT'S OFFICIALLY ON THE RECORD AND THE APPLICANT HAS DIRECT BENEFIT OF HEARING IT.
SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, MR. ICKER, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED REMOVING ALL OF THE ASBESTOS SIDING TO SEE WHAT THE CONDITION OF ALL THE SHINGLES ARE UNDERNEATH? NOT UNTIL I HAVE CONSIDERED THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO IT UNTIL I AM READY TO INSTALL THE FINAL SIDING.
HAVE YOU ALSO CONSIDERED REMOVING THE DAMAGED SHINGLES AND PUTTING IN NEW CEDAR SHINGLES AND PAINTING THEM? IF I CAN, LET ME REPHRASE.
HAVE I CONSIDERED REMOVING JUST THE DAMAGED CEMENT SHINGLES? NO.
THE, THE DAMAGED CEDAR SHINGLES? NO, I HAVE NOT FOR THE REASONS I'VE INDICATED.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CEDAR SHINGLES ARE A CONCERN WITH INSURANCE AND ALSO THEY ARE NOT HAVE LONGEVITY.
HOWEVER, I BELIEVE IF YOU PAINT THOSE SHINGLES APPROPRIATELY, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME, I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE A CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF THAT IS UNPAINTED, IT'S A, IT'S A FIRE CONCERN.
BUT I WOULD ASSUME IF YOU HAVE WOOD SHINGLES LIKE WOOD SIDING AND YOU PAINT THE WOOD SHINGLES, THEY'RE, THAT REMOVES PROBABLY THE, THE LONGEVITY WOULD BE LONGER.
AND ALSO I BELIEVE THE, UM, FIRE INSURANCE WOULD BE GONE.
I MEAN, ABATED BECAUSE WOOD IS WOOD.
THE THING IS, WHEN YOU HAVE A CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF AND SOMETHING LANDS ON LIKE AN EMBER, IT, IT GOES UP.
BUT I, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THERE'S A WAY WE CAN COME AROUND 'CAUSE YOU HAVE AN EXTRAORDINARY, YOU FOUND AN EXTRAORDINARY TREASURE.
YOU KNOW, MAY, MAY I SEE THE TREASURE.
YOU MIGHT SEE IT AS AN EXPENSE, BUT I LOOK AT THIS AS BEING AN EXCITING OPTION.
SOMETHING WE NEVER KNEW EXISTED IN WINNETKA HEIGHTS.
SOMETHING YOU AS AN ARCHITECT SHOULD BE EXCITED ABOUT.
MAYBE YOU'RE NOT, BUT, UM, I JUST THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A REALLY SPECIAL ADDITION TO WINNETKA HEIGHTS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED BEFORE.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY WE COULD REPAIR AND REPLACE THE CEDAR SHINGLES AND PAINT THEM AS OPPOSED TO TAKING ALL THE SHINGLES OFF AND PUTTING IN JUST ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO GONNA LOOK LIKE ALL THE REST OF 'EM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S.
MR. ANDERSON, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHAT IS UNIQUE AND UNUSUAL SHOULD BE THE ISSUE HERE.
I THINK WHAT IS, UH, AND I DO APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE SHINGLE STYLE FROM THE CITY'S OWN WEBSITE, A TRANSITIONAL STYLE FROM THE VICTORIAN PERIOD TO THE PRAIRIE PERIOD.
UM, THE, THE HOUSE ON, ON CEDAR SPRINGS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE SHINGLE SIDE, UH, STYLE BUILT IN 1904.
UNLIKE MY HOME BUILT IN 1923, UH, I THINK IT WAS AN OUTLIER THAT USED AN INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL, UM, FOR EXTERIOR SIDING AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE, FOR THE, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THE, AS AN ARCHITECT, I, I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO, UH, THE DESIRE TO CONSIDER GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL.
BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA GO BACK TO THE EXACTLY ORIGINAL MATERIAL THAT IS
[00:15:01]
PROHIBITED BY THE LOCAL ORDINANCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, THEN I THINK THE POWER OF THE MATERIALS SHOULD BE OPEN FOR OUR SELECTION.I THINK THE REASON IT, I KNOW THE REASON IT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS AND YOURS WAS COVERED, THE ASBESTOS SIDING, BUT IT'S A VERY SPECIAL HOUSE AND WE COULD EASILY WIGGLE.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE AN ALLOWANCE TO LOOK AT THINGS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE ORDINANCE AND THAT COULD EASILY BE OVER, OVER, UH, DONE ON THAT.
SO I WOULD TAKE THAT OUT OF THAT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE OUT.
'CAUSE THAT REALLY IS KIND OF A RED HERRING.
WELL, WE CAN'T TAKE THAT OUT OF THE ORDINANCE, MR.
WELL, YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN SAY THERE IS AN EXISTING SHINGLE HOUSE TO NO EXISTED BEFORE, AND THIS IS SO EXTRAORDINARY.
WE'RE GONNA OVERRIDE THE ORDINANCE AND GIVE YOU YOUR SHINGLE, YOUR SHINGLES BACK, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN, THAT CAN EASILY BE DONE TODAY.
I WOULD, UM, I WOULD PREFER TO ABIDE BY THE LOCAL ORDINANCE.
UH, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO INSTALL AS THE PRIMARY, UH, UH, UH, UH, MATERIAL ON THE, THE MAIN BODY OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING A MATERIAL THAT'S PROHIBITED BY THE LOCAL AUDIENCE.
THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS IS HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WE HAVE FOUND AN ORIGINAL MATERIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY USE OF IT THAT DID NO, DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO RIP IT OFF AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ALL THE REST.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION THEY WISH TO ASK? UH, COMMISSIONER PRE SO THE SHINGLES THAT WERE DISCOVERED UNDERNEATH THE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING, WERE THOSE STAINED OR WERE THOSE PAINTED? UH, THIS IS, THIS IS IT? OH, IS THAT IT? UNSTAINED.
AND IN PIECES, I HAD TO GLUE THIS BACK TOGETHER.
ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I I DO HAVE ONE THAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IN YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR HOME INSURER, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING WE'RE PROBABLY REALLY CONSIDERING IN OUR DECISION, YOU DID MAKE CLEAR THAT THE SHINGLES WERE GONNA BE ON THE WALL, NOT THE ROOF.
AND WHAT WAS THEIR REASONING WHY A WOOD SHINGLE IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN A LONG PIECE OF WOOD? I DID NOT INVESTIGATE OR INTERROGATE THEM FOR, THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU.
I WAS JUST DISMAYED THAT AFTER A 30 YEAR RE RELATIONSHIP, THEY WOULD TAKE THIS POSITION.
THEY, THEY MADE ME SEND 'EM A PICTURE OF MY POOL AND SAID, IT'S NOT FULL ENOUGH.
WE'RE GOING TO CANCEL YOU IF YOU DON'T FILL IT ENOUGH
SO, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW THAT.
BUT I, I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER THEY SEE IT AS A GREATER FIRE HAZARD TO HAVE SHINGLES OR NOT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASONING, THE COMMUNICATION FROM, UH, THE INSURER IS, UH, WORD FOR WORD IN THE DOCUMENT.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN HAD A MOTION TO MAKE, UM, I HOPE THIS SOUNDS RIGHT AND COMES CROSS WELL IN THE MATTER IN, IN THE MATTER OF D 7 1 11 NORTH WIND WINDERMERE CA 2 45 DASH 2 25 MWI MOVE, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE SECRETARY AND INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO INSTALL ONE 17 SIDING WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THAT ONE, THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF NECESSARY TO INDICATE THE ORIGINAL SIGHTING, WHILE NOT TYPICAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MAY HAVE VERY WELL, UM, AMOUNTED TO IT.
A MISTAKE, A MISTAKE AT THE TIME INSTALLED.
IT IS PROVEN NOT ONLY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN BUT DELETE DELETERIOUS TO THE STRUCTURE.
AND 2 1 17 SITING IS APPROPRIATE TO THE DISTRICT.
AND THREE, THE USE OF ONE 17 WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THIS STRUCTURE OR BLOCK NOR THE DISTRICT AS A FULL.
AND THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA FOR PD 87.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
SECOND IT WAS COMMISSIONER SP IT WAS JUST AS FAST AS TIME
SO COMMISSIONER SP IS OUR SECOND ON THAT ONE.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CUMMINS.
UM, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE THIS MEASURE.
UM, THE, IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE POSSIBLY AN EXISTING ORIGINAL MATERIAL THAT'S UNDERNEATH THAT HAS BEEN FOUND.
I, I, UM, FULLY UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S COMMENTS AND, AND SUPPORT A LOT OF HIS APPROACH ON, ON, ON THIS.
BUT I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THIS BASED UPON YOUR FINDINGS OF FACT THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED.
I DO HAVE ONE, UH, THOUGHT THAT THE DAMAGE TO MATERIAL IS MOST LIKELY PROBABLY NOT
[00:20:01]
BECAUSE IT WAS, UM, DAMAGED AND THEN ENCASED, BUT IT WAS DAMAGED PROBABLY 'CAUSE IT WAS ENCASED.I BELIEVE THE ASBESTOS SALESMAN CAME IN TOWN AND DECIDED, UH, THAT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE BEEN AN AESTHETIC REASON.
THAT'S CONJECTURE, BUT, UH, WE DEFINITELY KNOW THE, UH, ENCASEMENT OF THAT DAMAGE, THE, THE MATERIAL FURTHER.
SO THE MORE YOU FIND, THE MORE YOU'RE GONNA FIND MORE DAMAGED MATERIAL.
SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE BECAUSE OF ALL OF THIS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
I, I TOO WILL, WILL SUPPORT THIS MEASURE BECAUSE IT SEEMS THE ONLY PRACTICAL OPTION.
BUT I'M REALLY SAD THAT IT DIDN'T TURN OUT THAT THE SHINGLES WERE CHEAP, EASY TO PUT ON AND WOULD LAST FOREVER SO THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY NICE TO PRESERVE THAT LOOK.
SOMETIMES PRACTICALITY DOESN'T LET US HAVE WHAT WE WANT, BUT WE TRY TO KEEP THAT TO A MINIMUM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, THEN.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
I'LL OPPOSED THIS MOTION SAY NO.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION.
WAS ANYONE AT HOME OPPOSED AND I MISFIT? APPARENTLY NOT.
SO, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, SIR.
UH, YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF PRESENTING AND, UM, IF YOU NEED A NEW INSURANCE AGENT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY SOMEBODY OUT THERE THAT LIKE SOME NEW BUSINESS
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER ONE.
SO STAFF NEEDS TO READ THAT IN AND THEN WE HAVE A SPEAKER FOR IT.
OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS IS DR.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 2214 EUGENE STREET.
UH, IT'S WITHIN THE QUEEN CITY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER PRE PRE DESIGNATION MORATORIUM.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 45 DASH 2 26 RD.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A PRE DESIGNATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A PRE DESIGNATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 1 16 20 25 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, THAT MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION BE 15 INCHES ABOVE GRADE TWO.
THAT BOTTOMS OF TWO PART FRONT PORCH COLUMNS B OR REST ON GRADE OR GROUND LEVEL THREE THAT ARE RECTANGULAR LOUVRE VENT BE INSTALLED AT TOP OF FRONT GABLE WALL FOUR THAT EXPOSE RAFTA TAILS ARE TO BE EXPRESSED.
FIVE, THAT EXTERIOR SIDING BE EXTENDED TO SIX INCHES ABOVE GRADE OR GROUND LEVEL.
AND SIX THAT DRIVEWAYS WALKWAYS AND STEPS BE BE OF BRUSH FINISHED.
CONCRETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO MEET THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBDIVISION SUBSECTION D FIVE B FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A PRE-DESIGN CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGE BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, RAISE THE FOUNDATION TO 15 INCHES ABOVE GRADE TWO.
RECONFIGURE THE ROOF, UH, ROOF LINE ON BOTH SIDES OF MAIN BUILDING THROUGH CONFIGURATION IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ROOFS IN CLEAN CITY.
INSTALL FREEZE BOARD, UH, ABOVE PUNCH PORT, PUNCH PORT COLUMN FOUR, REMOVE SIDELIGHTS FROM BOTH SIDES OF FRONT DOOR.
NOTE APPLICANT HAS REVISED DRAWINGS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS TASK FORCE CONSIDERATIONS OR CONCERNS.
ARE, ARE YOU TRACY WILLIAMS? YES.
WE ASK YOU SIR TO START OFF BY GIVING US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND SWEARING, AFFIRMING OR PROMISING TO TELL US THE TRUTH.
[00:25:01]
MY NAME IS TRACY WILLIAMS AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR MY PERSONAL ADDRESS? YES.SO 1829 RIVER RUN DRIVE, DESOTO, TEXAS.
AND I, UH, SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES INITIALLY TO TELL US ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.
UH, IF PERHAPS YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF, WELL, YOU KNOW, ARE AWARE OF SOME OF WHAT WE SAID ABOUT IT OR YOU'D LIKE TO JUST LET US KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, DALLAS CITY HOMES WE'RE EXCITED TO BUILD THIS HOUSE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
UM, WE HAVE HEARD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE DO NOT HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
UM, LATER THIS WEEK, WE CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS FROM OUR ARCHITECT THAT WILL SHOW, UM, ADDITIONAL PITCHES IN THE ROOF AND ACCOMMODATE FOR THE HALF STORY.
IS THAT IT? I I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YET.
WELL, WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
UM, WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST IN ASKING QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER RENO.
YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, ABILITY TO, UH, BE ABLE TO REWORK THE SECOND FLOOR.
I THINK IT, IT WILL FIT IF IT'S REORIENTED.
I I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.
UH, AND POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, ALSO CONSIDER DORMERS TO BE ABLE TO GET THE ADDITIONAL PIPE.
UM, THE ONLY OTHER THING I SAW MISSING FROM THE ELEVATIONS WAS THERE'S NO ROOF OVER THE, UM, OVER THE BACK PORCH.
UH, THERE'S JUST A COLUMN STICKING UP BY ITSELF, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATIONS, THERE'S NO ROOF COVERING IT.
UM, SO THE ARCHITECT CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL WHEN, WHEN HE REWORKS IT.
UM, I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU'D BE ABLE TO PICK UP ALL THE OTHER, UH, UH, UH, CONDITIONS, UH, WHICH IS TERRIFIC.
THE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE DETAILS IN PARTICULAR OF, OF A CRAFTSMAN HOME, UH, YOU KNOW, THE EXTENDED OR THE EXPOSED RAPTOR TAILS, UM, FREEZE BOARDS, UH, UH, UH, VENTS OR WINDOWS AND, AND THOSE GABLES, UM, I THINK WILL, WILL HELP REINFORCE THE FACT THAT IT IS A, A CRAFTSMAN STYLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE WINDOWS.
IS, UM, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE FIBERGLASS AS A POST TO ALUMINUM OR VINYL? IT'S JUST THE SPECS THAT OUR ARCHITECT PROVIDED US THERE WAS DOUBLE HUNG FIBERGLASS WINDOWS.
UM, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO WOOD.
UM, IT, IT IS JUST WHAT WAS A PART OF THE SPECS? YOU SAID YOU WERE FINE WITH WOOD.
UM,
UM, IN THAT CASE, SIR, I WAS CURIOUS, MAYBE THIS IS AN ACCIDENT, BUT THERE IS ALSO A SPECIFICATION FOR AN ANDERSON WINDOW IN YOUR SUBMISSION SUBMISSION THAT SAYS IT IS WOOD WITH VINYL EXTERIOR.
AND THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE ABOUT YOUR VINYL WINDOW.
SO PLEASE STATE FOR THE RECORD WHICH ONE YOU MEANT,
AT THIS TIME IT'S DOUBLE HUNG FIBERGLASS WINDOWS.
AND, UM, YOUR OH, UH, STAFF TOLD US THEY THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS OPPOSED TO DOING ACTUAL WOOD WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE.
IT'S NOT LIKE THE PERCENT WE'VE HEARD IT, BY THE WAY.
BUT HOW IT FEASIBILITY WHEN WE'RE BUILDING AND AS THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE, IT WOULD BE NICE, BUT, UM, IF IT'S A A HURDLE THAT WE NEED TO JUMP NOW, THEN WE CAN AGREE.
WE JUST, WE JUST WANTED TO KNOW HOW, HOW YOU FELT ON, ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS HAS THIS LIGHT ON.
I CAN BARELY SEE YOU OVER THERE.
YOU GOTTA KEEP THE LIGHT UP HIGHER.
UM, I WAS JUST GOING TO RE-EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS I HAD FROM THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING.
AND, AND THAT'S WITH THE, THE, UH, SCALE.
UH, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE SCALE, IT'S JUST, IT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE MAIN ROOF STRUCTURE AND HOW THE SPACE, EMPTY SPACE ABOVE YOUR GABLED ROOF PORCH.
AND THAT CREATES JUST KIND OF A LARGE SCALE, UH, R ROOF AREA.
UM, GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT SOME OF YOUR HEIGHTS, UH, IT SEEMS TO BE, UH, MAYBE EXASPERATED AND ACCENTUATED, I SHOULD SAY, UM, BY YOUR, YOUR CEILING HEIGHTS AT THE SECOND FLOOR BEING ABOVE, UH, EIGHT FOOT.
[00:30:02]
AND SEEMS LIKE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER THOUGHTS THAT WE'RE HEARING, THERE MAY BE NEEDED SOME, THE CONCERN IS THE ROOF MAYBE NEED THE, THE PLANNING AND THE DETAILING NEEDS TO BE FURTHER, UH, BROUGHT ALONG AND MAYBE, UH, RE UH, WE, UH, PUT BACK IN FRONT OF US SO WE CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE ROOF AND, AND, AND ALL THIS.BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE SCALE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LARGE ON YOUR MAIN STRUCTURE OF YOUR ROOF AND THAT'S ACCOMMODATING THAT, UH, HIGHER THAN EIGHT, THE CEILINGS.
I KNOW THINGS PROBABLY HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT ON THERE AND THE SUGGESTIONS OF DORMERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, UM, AND EVEN, EVEN THE INCREASE OF THE 15 INCHES JUST GONNA MAKE THE OVERALL STRUCTURE BIGGER.
BUT, UM, IT WILL ALL GO TOGETHER ANYWAY.
UH, I, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE OVERSCALED ON THE MAIN, THE MAIN ROOF AREA IN, IN MY OPINION.
MAYBE IT'D BE SOMETHING WE COULD SEE LATER.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT.
UM, AND WHEN YOU SAY LATER, AGAIN, I'M, I'M GUESSING IT COULD BE THIS WEEK.
UM, IT'S OUR INTENTION TO ADD DORMERS, UM, AT THIS TIME.
IF WE NEEDED TO REMOVE THE BATHROOM THAT'S UPSTAIRS TO SHOW THE SUPPORT OF THE, THE ROOF HEIGHTS AND WHAT WE INTEND TO BUILD, WE COULD DO THAT.
BUT, UM, WE WOULD JUST LIKE, AT LEAST CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, AND THERE, AND YOU MAY GET THAT HERE TODAY, UH, I'M NOT CERTAIN, IN MY OPINION, UH, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF TAKING CARE OF AND I'M SURE THEY WOULD DO A GOOD JOB ON THIS AS WELL.
BUT ALSO, I, I PERSONALLY, WHEN THERE'S MULTITUDES OR A LAUNDRY LIST OR A LARGE IMPLICATION THAT COULD, A ONE DESIGN CHANGE COULD DOMINO A LOOK.
I PERSONALLY PREFER IT TO COME BACK HERE AND, AND, UH, SEE IT TOGETHER AGAIN WHEN IT, WHEN IT, WHEN IT MAKES AN IMPACT STATEMENT, OTHERS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LESS AND NOT REGARD, YOU KNOW, UH, GUARDED UPON THAT.
MY PERSONAL OPINIONS, I ALWAYS LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN BECAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA GET.
UM, SO YOU VERY WELL MAY GET THOSE APPROVALS AND THOSE CONDITIONS.
BUT MY OPINIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN AND IT WORKED OUT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE AT HOME? WE WILL JUST HAVE TO, UM, SHOUT OUT TO ME TO LET ME KNOW.
ALRIGHT, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THEN I'LL BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
UM, MARCUS, DID HE STOP SHARING? IS THAT WHAT
IT'S A LITTLE HARDER WITH THESE NEW BUILDS, SO THEY'RE THINKING I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT WORDIER THAN THAT.
SO WE NEED YOU TO STATE IT WITH THE USUAL GOBBLEDYGOOK.
I THINK YOUR MIC IS NOW OFF JUST TRYING TO FIND THE CORRECT, UH, DISCUSSION TOPIC.
RIGHT? IT'S DISCUSSION NUMBER ONE.
FOR DISCUSSION TOPIC NUMBER ONE AT 2 2 1 4 EUGENE STREET.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
ARE YOU INTERESTED IN MAKING ANY SUGGESTED CHANGE ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE UPSTAIRS FLOOR TO CEILING AND HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE? AND DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON WINDOWS? YES, FOR THE WINDOWS, I AM FINE WITH THE FIBERGLASS.
I KNOW THEY SAID THEY WERE CONSIDERED OVER WOOD WINDOWS.
I AM OPEN TO THE WOOD WINDOWS AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT.
I BELIEVE ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS GAVE A MORE SPECIFIC TERMINATION FOR THE HEIGHT REQUEST.
I BELIEVE IT WAS EIGHT FOOT FLOOR CEILING INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT NINE FOOT.
BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY IT, NOT ME.
WITH THE HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT OF EIGHT FOOT FOUR.
ALRIGHT, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I MO SECOND.
COMMISSIONER REEVES, ONCE AGAIN WON THE CONTEST TO SECOND THE MOTION.
[00:35:01]
SO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR MADE THE MOTION.COMMISSIONER REEVES IS OUR SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
OH, YOU, OH, WHICHEVER ONE OF YOU.
WELL, IN MY MIND, UM, THE CEILING DOESN'T MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE, UM, IT'S ALREADY TAMPERED ANYWAY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT GOES UP PROBABLY FIVE FEET AND THEN IT PITCHES.
SO AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT, THE MORE IMPORTANT PART IS HOW HIGH IT IS, UH, BEFORE IT FIRST BREAKS, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE ROOM TO MOVE INSIDE AND, YOU KNOW, GRANTED THESE, THESE POINTS DON'T REALLY AFFECT THE EXTERIOR EXCEPT FOR THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE PITCH.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A FUNCTIONAL HOUSE TOO.
SO, UH, SO THAT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE CONSIDERING IT, YOU KNOW, WHY WE'RE MAKING THESE ADDITIONAL POINTS.
I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A COMMENT OF SAYING I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE, UH, THE, FOR THE PROPOSAL HERE.
UM, BASICALLY I THINK THERE'S THINGS THAT SH THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.
AND WHEN THOSE THINGS GET WORKED OUT, UH, THEY COULD DOMINO EFFECT AND COULD CHANGE, UH, THE EXISTING.
AND WHEN YOU START WORKING THINGS OUT, UH, BASED UPON SOME, SOMETIMES CONDITIONS AND THOSE CAN DOMINO, UH, AND EX THE EX EXTERIOR, WHETHER YOU'RE ADDING MORE DORMERS AND YOU'RE, AND YOU'RE CHANGING ROOF PITCHES, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, UM, OF LAUNDRY LIST AT TIMES AND A CERTAIN THRESHOLD ON HOW THINGS CAN DOMINO AND THEN WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEE IT.
AND I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BEHOOVE US TO PAUSE ON THIS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE BY NOT ACCEPTING THIS AND SEEING AFTER YOU DEVELOPED THIS A LITTLE FURTHER ON WHAT IT WOULD LOOK AT LOOK LIKE, UH, IN THE NEXT, NEXT GO AROUND.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WOULD HAVE TO OKAY.
I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
I ALSO CANNOT SUPPORT THIS FOR THE SAME REASONS HE MENTIONED.
AND ALSO I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE WINDOWS.
THESE TYPE OF WINDOWS HAVEN'T BEEN USED IN THE PAST IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND WEREN'T EVEN IN EFFECT OR WEREN'T EVEN AVAILABLE IN THE PETER SIGNIFICANCE.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, ON COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS REMARKS, I, I OFTEN HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT IT IS WHEN WE MAKE AN APPROVAL WITH MULTIPLE CONDITIONS.
I WORRY WHETHER THE CONDITIONS AS APPLIED WILL EQUAL WHAT WE IMAGINED THEY WOULD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A DRAWING AND WORDS DO NOT CONVEY AESTHETICS VERY WELL.
THAT WHAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT FOR OUR CODE INSPECTOR TO KNOW WHETHER WHAT THEY ARE SEEING IS WHAT WE MEANT.
UM, AND SO I DO TEND TO WANT PEOPLE TO COME BACK AND, AND RESUBMIT WITH THE ACTUAL DRAWINGS THAT WE'RE APPROVING THAT UNDERSTOOD.
THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO GET SOMEONE TO DO THE DRAWINGS IF YOU DON'T HAPPEN TO BE PERSONALLY THE ARCHITECT.
AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR EXTRA TROUBLE AND POSSIBLY EXPENSE FOR OUR APPLICANT NONETHELESS, IF WE DON'T ASK FOR THOSE DRAWINGS.
AND ALONG THE WAY SOMETHING IS BUILT THAT SIMPLY CANNOT BE APPROVED AND HAS TO BE REDONE, THAT'S EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE.
SO IT'S LIKE ON ONE HAND, ON THIS HAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THAT HAND, BUT I THINK PROBABLY WE, I MIGHT NOT BE SUPPORTED THIS EITHER, BUT THEN ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING ARE SITTING HERE MAKING THEIR OWN JUDGEMENTS AND THEY WILL MAKE THEIR DIS OWN DECISIONS BASED ON THESE MANY ISSUES WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT.
I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT.
WE'LL ASK OUR ATTORNEY THOUGH.
I WILL TELL YOU I WANT SECONDED A MOTION THAT I CAME TO REGRET AND VOTED AGAINST IT, BUT I REMAINED THE SECOND AND NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THAT
WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU MAKE A SECOND, FIRSTLY, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPLY APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE MOTION JUST ENCOURAGES DISCUSSION, WHICH IS HAD.
SO YOU CAN MAKE A SECOND AND THEN VOTE AND VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER.
SO WE NEED TO STAND WITH YOU AS A SECOND, COMMISSIONER CO.
UM, THIS IS ALSO A SORT OF A, UM, AN INTERESTING POSITION THAT YOU FIND YOURSELF IN.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOME THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE UNDER A, UM, THE PRE DESIGNATION MORATORIUM FOR QUEEN CITY.
WE ARE SO EXCITED ABOUT THE QUEEN CITY DISTRICT AND THE EXCITEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT ALSO MAKES YOU PUT YOU IN THE LINE AS FIRST EXAMPLE OF BIG BROTHER.
AND SO WHEN WE AC APPROVE SOMETHING FOR YOU THAT WE THINK IT'S MAYBE NOT JUST
[00:40:01]
YOUR RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA, THAT'S GONNA COME BACK TO US EVERY TIME WE DO A HOUSE FIT.SO IF WE DON'T LIKE YOUR WINDOWS, WE'RE NOT GONNA LOCK OUT THOSE OTHER WINDOWS EITHER AND PEOPLE ARE GONNA TELL US WE NEED TO DO THEM THE SAME.
AND BOY, THAT REALLY HURTS WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
SO, UM, I'M NOT GOING TO SPLIT THIS.
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR EFFORTS AND I WANT THIS HAS TO BE PL THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? COMMISSIONER SHERMAN, I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMENT THAT, UM, I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A LONG TIME AND I THINK WE'RE VERY, VERY FORTUNATE NOW TO HAVE PRESERVATION ARCHITECTS SITTING AMONGST US AND WE'RE AT A POINT WITH QUEEN CITY WHERE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GET THIS RIGHT AND I THINK BY HAVING FURTHER REVIEW, IT ALLOWS US TO DO QUEEN CITY JUSTICE AND GET THIS PROGRAM MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY GONNA TURN UP JUST GREAT, BUT I THINK WE NEED MORE WITH YOU.
ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, IN THAT CASE, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY, YES.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS INDICATING YES.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY NO.
SO IS IT ONE FOUR AND EVERYBODY ELSE SAID NO.
PLEASE CONFIRM IF I'M WRONG ON MY INTERPRETATION.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT WAS ALSO FOR THE MOTION.
SO IT IS TWO FOR TWO OR FOR THIS MOTION AND THE REST OF US ARE IN OPPOSITION.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN I CONFIRM THAT THE MEMBERS VOTING FOR THIS WERE COMMISSIONERS, OFFIT AND COMMISSIONERS TAYLOR? YES.
AND THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS ALL VOTED YES.
THAT THAT IS WHAT EVERY NO ONE HAS SPOKEN UP TO SAY OTHERWISE.
SO, SO NOW I NEED ANOTHER MOTION.
OPPOSING THIS MOTION SORT OF PUT A DUTY ON ONE OF US TO HAVE ANOTHER MOTION READY TO GO.
SO I KNEW THAT DISCUSSION ITEM 1 22 14TH OF JUNE STREET BE DENIED THE PREJUDICE.
UH, WE DON'T WANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT, WE DO NOT WANT TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WE WANT THEM, 'EM TO COME BACK AND BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS HOUSE CAN COME BACK.
SO YOU VOTE THAT IT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
YOU NEED TO TELL US THE BASIS FOR THIS VOTE OF THIS MOTION, THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED WORK IS NOT COMPLETE, NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT, WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OVER.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? A SECOND.
THE SECOND HAS COME FROM COMMISSIONER RENE.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, HE HAS COMMISSIONER OFFIT.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT IS NOT COMPLIANT.
COMPLIANT IS A DIFFERENT, DIFFICULT WORD IN THIS CASE SINCE WE DO NOT YET HAVE AN ORDINANCE FOR QUEEN CITY.
UM, I BELIEVE OUR MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE PLANS AS PRESENTED, SOME OF OUR ARCHITECTS ARE NOT SURE THAT THE UPSTAIRS WOULD ACTUALLY LOGICALLY AND PRACTICALLY WORK BECAUSE IT'S UNDER SUCH THIS, THIS STEEP WORK ROOF THAT MAYBE IT JUST CANNOT BE BUILT THE WAY IT WAS SHOWN TO US TODAY.
AND A CHANGE WILL BE REQUIRED.
AND WE HAD MANY SUGGESTIONS LIKE ADD A DORMER OR, OR, OR CHANGE YOUR FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT WE, SOME OF US HAVE EXPRESSED THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE SO MANY CHANGES WE'RE REQUESTING.
IT'S REALLY BETTER TO SEE A DRAWING THAT DEFINES HOW THOSE CHANGES TURN OUT.
THAT IS WHAT SOME OF US HAVE STATED AS OUR REASONING.
OTHERS OF COURSE HAVE OTHER REASONINGS.
IS THERE, HAVE I COVERED THAT? THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO.
BUT IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE OR I HAVEN'T DONE WELL ENOUGH SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER? YES.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT THING AT THIS POINT IS THAT I'D STILL LIKE A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THAT EXPLANATION WAS BECAUSE IF THERE'S NOT SPECIFICALLY AN ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT, WHAT WERE OR SOME PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS THAT IT'S NOT COMPLIANT BASED UPON THEIR PREFERENCE.
IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? NO, NO.
WHAT WE ENDEAVOR TO DO IN THIS
[00:45:01]
SITUATION IS TO LEARN AS MUCH AS WE CAN ABOUT THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE IN QUEEN CITY AND EVALUATE EACH REQUEST AS HOW WELL, HOW MUCH COMPATIBLE IT IS WITH WHAT IS THERE.SINCE WE ASSUME THE ORDINANCE WILL BE MAKING AN EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING DONE THERE IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND WE ARE ALL ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS WHATEVER WE DO WITH THESE FIRST TWO THAT COME THROUGH NOW MAY HAVE SOME SORT OF EFFECT ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE EXPECT TO DO IN THE FUTURE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE ON THIS? UM, MARCUS I WANNA AMEND MY MOTION THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE DISTRICT FOR THEM TO COMPLY.
OKAY, SO DOES THE SECOND APPROVE OF THIS AMENDMENT THAT THAT PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.
I'M
OKAY, SO WE HAVE ACCEPTED THAT ADDITION THAT OUR MAIN PROBLEM IS THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION RIGHT NOW TO, TO APPROVE WHAT WE EXPECT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY YES.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? NO.
I SEE WE HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OFFIT IS IN OPPOSITION.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS IN OPPOSITION? ALRIGHT, SO THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED, SO THIS, THIS WAS A NOW BUT I THINK SIR, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEANT WAS WE LIKE THE HOUSE A LOT EXCEPT FOR THESE FEW ISSUES.
AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAVE GIVEN YOU AND FOR YOU TO COME BACK AND SHOW US THOSE PLANS.
AND THEN WE REALLY HOPE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD SO YOU CAN BUILD THIS NICE HOUSE TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING TROUBLE AFFORDING HOUSING IN THE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE CITY WHERE WE LIVE.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WE DID TODAY, AND THAT'S A BAD WAY TO START.
IF YOU THINK WE DID SOMETHING IN ERROR AND WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE LAW, YOU COULD APPLY TO CPC.
YOU HAVE TO PAY A FEE THAT YOU DON'T WANNA PAY, BUT YOU ARE HAVE THIS OPTION AND THEY WILL REVIEW.
BUT WHAT THEY REVIEW IS WHETHER WE WERE OUTSIDE THE LAW OR NOT.
AND HOSPITAL DIFFICULT NOW IN QUEEN CITY, ISN'T IT? BUT I DON'T THINK WE WERE WHAT WE REALLY LIKE YOU TO DO, WE LIKE YOU, WE LIKE THE WORK YOUR NONPROFIT'S DOING.
WE EVEN LIKE THE HOUSE IS COME BACK AND LET US SEE IT AGAIN.
SO JUST STAY THERE 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA DO D TWO NEXT ANYWAY, SO YEAH.
DISCUSSION ITEM, WHICH IS ALSO YOU D TWO, DISCUSSION ITEM D TWO.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 2214 EUGENE STREET.
UH, AGAIN, IT'S IN THE QUEEN CITY DISTRICT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER PRE DESIGNATION MORATORIUM.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 45 DASH 2 26 RD.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE $500 NEW CONSTRUCTION FEE.
APPLICANT IS A DOCUMENTED NONPROFIT 5 0 1 C3 DEDICATED TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN UNDERSERVED NEIGHBORHOODS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT FEE APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THE APPLICATION FEES PER STANDARDS.
AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 1.105.
AND WE DON'T HAVE A TASK FORCE ON THIS ONE.
NO, I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONER'S POLICY WAS THE FIRST TO INDICATE HER DESIRE TO SPEAK UNLESS I'M WRONG.
COMMISSIONER
SECOND, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER.
UM, HAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? COMMISSIONER PERI, SINCE THE REQUEST HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED, I MEAN, CAN WE VOTE? I GUESS THIS IS THE QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
UM, CAN WE VOTE ON IT ANYWAY AND WAIVE THE, OR REIMBURSE THE FEE? 'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROCESSED AND IT'S STILL COMING BACK TO US IN THE NEXT, WE HOPE IT'S FOR THE RECORDS
[00:50:02]
WHEN HE, WE WILL NOT CHARGE HIM AGAIN NEXT MONTH ANYWAY.LIKE HE'S PAID ONCE AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME HE HAS TO PAY.
SO THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU COULDN'T GO AHEAD AND SAY THIS FEE FOR THIS APPLICATION IS WAIVED.
UM, BUT I WANT, I IF THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION THAT IF WE WE'LL BE REIMBURSED, NOT WAIVED.
AND THE SECOND, MY, MY QUESTION WOULD BE THE, THE CASE WAS NOT HELD OVER.
SO IT, WHEN IT COMES BACK, WON'T IT HAVE TO HE PAY ANOTHER FEE THAT, THAT, THAT PROBABLY WON.
SO, SO THIS REIMBURSEMENT, SO NEEDS HOLDING IT OVER TILL MARCH WON'T HE'LL STILL HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER FEE IN MARCH? I BELIEVE IT, IT IT, IT WOULD BE THIS CASE IS CLOSED TODAY.
THE, THE THIS THIS LAST AGENDA ITEM.
THE LAST AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE IT WASN'T HELD OVER.
SO HOLDING OVER THE REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE SO I, YES, I I I SPOKE IN ERROR.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE HIM AGAIN.
SO I, SO I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR STAFF AS SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION.
UH, WELL, NO, NOT BECAUSE THE MOTION RIGHT NOW WAS TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
SO WE WOULD NEED TO, UM, RE RESCIND IT ESSENTIALLY.
OR SHOULD WE VOTE IT DOWN? WHATEVER
SO WITH THIS NEW INFORMATION, THE STAFF HAS JUST GIVEN US THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE 'EM TO PAY ANOTHER ONE WHILE NOT HAVING GOTTEN THIS $500 BACK YET.
YOU JUST TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU VOTE ON THIS MOTION TO PUT OFF DECIDING UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
CAN WE, MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE JUST VOTE ON IT FOR TODAY AND THEN VOTE ON IT AGAIN? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
WE'LL JUST DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.
I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN VOTE ON THIS MOTION, BUT PLEASE LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS PERFECTLY.
HE PAID $500 TO PUT IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE JUST DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ENCOURAGE HIM TO COME BACK.
HE WILL HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $500 TO BRING BACK THE ALTERED PLANS TO US IN ANOTHER HEARING.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? BUT TO NO, FIRST OFF THAT IF YOU FOLKS TO REIMBURSE HE GETS US 500.
WHICH THEN ESTABLISH WHICH TO TURN BACK AROUND I GUESS.
SO IF WE, IF WE, HE'S GONNA HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $500 TO COME BACK AS WE JUST SAID, HE REALLY NEEDS TO DO.
SO THIS MAKES IT SORT OF HELPFUL IF WE WERE TO GIVE HIM BACK HIS FIRST $500 THAT, THAT CORRECT.
SO WHAT WE CAN DO IF WITH THIS NEW UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S WHAT WE WISH TO DO, WE COULD VOTE DOWN THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, BUT WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR OR COMMISSIONERS.
THE IAN AND ROTHENBERGER COULD, UM, PULL THEIR MOTION.
THAT MOTION WOULD BE OFF THE FLOOR AND THEN A NEW MOTION COULD BE MADE BEFORE WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TO VOTE ON A MOTION ONCE IT WAS MADE.
WHETHER WE CHANGE OUR, I I HAVE A QUESTION CLARIFICATION.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD TO THIS MOTION TODAY THAT WE WOULD REFUND THIS $500 AND A FUTURE $500? WE COULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE WAIVE THE FEE ALTOGETHER SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO NO, BECAUSE HE HASN'T PAID A FEE.
HE HAS TO, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T REIMBURSE A FEE HE HASN'T PAID.
WE COULD WAIVE THE FEE FOR THE NEXT ONE.
BUT THE ISSUE WAS THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS THAT ALTHOUGH YOU DENIED THE PREVIOUS ITEM AND THEORETICALLY HE CAN COME BACK AND HOPEFULLY HE DOES COME BACK, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL COME BACK.
UM, COULD WE, COULD WE, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA TO WAIVE A FEE ONLY TO REIMBURSE A FEE.
SO SINCE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, WE CANNOT WAIVE THE FEE BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
THERE'S A SEPARATE, SEPARATE, UH, REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER THAT COMES BEFORE THE CASE.
THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND HIS FEE HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID.
SO WE REIMBURSE THE FEE, GIVE HIM HIS MONEY BACK VERSUS A WAIVER, WHICH IS WHERE WE SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY US ANY MONEY AT ALL.
SO AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW AND I HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION.
ALRIGHT THEN, THEN PLEASE MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
SO I MOVE THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND ITEM CA 2 4 5 2 2 6 ON APPLICATION OF JASON BROWN.
GRANT THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER.
ANY COMMENT UPON THAT ONE BY OUR ATTORNEY? OUR ATTORNEY LOOKS HAPPY.
SO THE MOTION, IT JUST SAYS WAIVE, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT, I THOUGHT IT SAID THAT REIMBURSEMENT, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST READ EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SAYING.
I KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
SAYS IT DOES SAY WAIVE INSTEAD OF REIMBURSEMENT.
WELL THAT'S WHY YOU SAY PAID
[00:55:01]
YOU WANT ME TO HOWEVER WITHDRAW? I DON'T THINK, JUST REPHRASE.SO I JUST NEED TO RE SO I CLARIFY THAT THE WORD WAIVE
OKAY, SO I, I, UH, MOVE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO STATE GRANT THE REQUEST TO REIMBURSE THE FILING FEE.
AND THE SECOND HAS ACCEPTED THAT.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE NOW? LET US ALL VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
VICE OR MADAM CHAIR? UH, AS VICE CHAIR PEL, THE MOTION WAS AN AMENDMENT.
THE VOTING WAS ON THE AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.
SO NOW THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED AND NOW WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH WAS WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE, WHICH IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING FOR.
ALRIGHT, YOU GUYS ARE AHEAD OF THE GAME.
ALRIGHT, SO WE NEVER GOT TO THE PART WHERE ANYBODY OPPOSED SAYS NO.
ALRIGHT, SO IT APPEARS WE ALL SAID YES IT WAS UNANIMOUS.
SO WE ARE REIMBURSED YOUR $500 AND YOU CAN WORK OUT WITH STAFF EXACTLY HOW YOU NEED TO HANDLE THAT
I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND OUT MY SOUND.
I, I AND YOU'VE GIVEN THEM SOMETHING EXCITING AND NEW TO DO.
NOW WE CAN DO DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER THREE.
RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 27 0 6 LYNNWAY STREET.
IT'S IN THE QUEEN CITY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER PRE DESIGNATION MORATORIUM.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CA 2 4 5 DASH 22 7 RD.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A PRE-DESIGN CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A PRE DESIGNATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 1 20 20 25 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT ALL PAIRED WINDOWS BE SEPARATED BY A MILLION.
IN OTHER WORDS, A TRIM PIECE WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF FOUR INCHES WIDE THAT A FREEZE BOARD BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE FRONT PORCH.
COLUMNS, UH, THREE THAT PAIRED FRONT WINDOWS AND FRONT EXTERIOR DOOR BE CENTERED BETWEEN CORRESPONDING PORCH COLUMNS.
FOUR, THAT A RECTANGULAR LOUVRE VENT BE INSTALLED AT TOP OF FRONT GABLE WALL, AND FIVE THAT DRIVEWAYS WALKWAYS AND STEPS VIA BRUSH FINISHED CONCRETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO MEET THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 SUBSECTION D FIVE B FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR GUIDELINES FOR SETTING DISTRICT AND OR NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A PRE-DESIGN CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, COMPLETE THE LARGE GABLE, REMOVE THE SMALL GABLE AND EXTEND, UH, PROJECT GABLE, UH, ROOF TWO FEET FROM THE HIP ROOF.
TWO, ADD WINDOWS ABOVE BRICK ROW LOCK IN CARPORT.
THREE, CHANGE PAINT COLORS TO A HISTORICAL PALETTE.
RECOMMENDED SHER WILLIAMS SW 0 0 2 9, UH, FOR THE BODY AND SW 2 8 2 8 FOR THE TRIM NOTE.
APPLICANT HAS REVISED DRAWINGS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS TASK FORCE CONCERNS.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER FOR THIS TODAY.
NOEL LIVINGSTON, IS THAT YOU? YES, MA'AM.
ALRIGHT, SO WE NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME, WHICH I JUST STATED, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN SWEAR, AFFIRM OR PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
MY NAME IS NOEL LIVINGSTON, ADDRESS 9 0 9 CHELSEA DRIVE, MESQUITE, TEXAS.
OKAY, SIR, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO GIVE US FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR REQUEST ON MS. PROPERTY.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M, UM, VERY HONORED TO BE HERE.
UH, I WON'T WASTE MUCH TIME BEING GRA GRACIOUS, BUT I'LL, UH, UH, THE, UH, WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT, UH, THIS FIRST PROPERTY GOING UP IN QUEEN CITY.
UM, DR. DUNN AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION FOR ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS ON THIS GETTING, GETTING ALL THE PARTICULARS, UH, BECAUSE IT'S OUR FIRST BUILDING IN QUEEN CITY.
UM, I THINK WE HAVE MET, UH, EACH OF THE REQUEST, UH, THROUGH REVISIONS
[01:00:01]
WITH OUR ENGINEER.UM, WE ARE NOT, UH, AN OBJECTION TO ANY OTHER REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.
UM, AND I THINK I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF DR.
MOHAMMED RUM AND MYSELF AS MYSELF AS THE BUILDER AND DR.
UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS PRO PROJECT, UH, IT'S, IT'S CLOSED IN BY THREE DIFFERENT ADDRESSES, SO THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE BACK OF A PROPERTY.
SO WE REALLY HAD TO COME UP WITH, UH, LOGICAL PLACEMENT OF EACH OF THESE ITEMS IN QUESTION.
UH, THE CARPORT, FOR INSTANCE, UH, THE, THE HOME FIRST STARTED WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE BECAUSE TWO PROJECT, TWO HOUSES DOWN, TWO ADDRESSES DOWN TO THE LEFT.
THERE WAS A HOME BUILT THERE WITH A GARAGE FROM THE FRONT END.
SO OUR PLANS WERE DIVINE WITH THAT.
THE GARAGE DID NOT PASS, SO WE WENT TO THE CARPORT.
WE HAD A FULL FACE ON THE BRICK AT FIRST, AND THEN THAT DIDN'T PASS.
AND I THINK, UH, THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS AS FAR AS THE WINDOW BEING ABOVE THE BRICK ROLL-OFF THAT WAS MET, UH, BY OUR ENGINEER AS WELL, GETTING THE GABLE AND THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET TO THE FRONT PORCH.
SO IT COULD BE AT SIX FEET IN DEPTH.
I THINK WE'VE MET THAT AS WELL.
THE, THE PORT'S HANDRAILS WILL BE IDENTICAL OR SOMEWHAT IDENTICAL TO 2,700.
SO WE'RE, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH HOMES IN, IN THE DESIGN OF THIS STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE IN, IN BETWEEN THE COLOR OF BRICK IS GOING TO BE A, A RED TONE.
UM, THAT AGREES WITH THE COMMUNITY OF EXISTING HOME.
THERE IS NO OTHER CARPORT, BUT THERE IS, THERE'S CAPABILITIES OF CARPORTS BEING AT THE HOMES THAT SURROUND THIS RESIDENCE.
I MOVE THAT IF MR. STAND THE LIGHT FOR MORE MINUTES.
COMMISSIONER REE SECONDED FIRST.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY YES.
ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, SIR, GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS EXTRA TIME.
UH, LIKE I SAID, DUE TO ALL THE REVISIONS THAT WE FINALLY GOT TO THIS FINAL VICE PART THAT AT WHAT, THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE, UH, ACCEPTED UP TO THIS POINT.
BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, I'M OPEN AND WILLING TO ACCEPT THEM AT THIS TIME.
LET'S SEE WHAT COM QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER CUMMINS.
YEAH, I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE BRICK.
UM, THE, YOU, YOU ORIGINALLY, I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE YOU ORIGINALLY, UH, SUBMITTED IT TO THE FULL HEIGHT, UH, BRICK.
AND THEN YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND YOU GUYS WERE WORKING OUT, UH, THIS, WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING TODAY OF BEING HALF BRICK.
UM, THE, WHERE IS THE NEAREST EXAMPLE OF A BRICK FACADE? IS IT ON THIS STREET OR A STREET OR TWO OVER, OR IS IT JUST IN THE, IN THE DISTRICT? UH, WHERE WOULD BE SOME, SOME SORT OF EXAMPLE OF THIS? I HAVE BRICK FACADE WOULD BE TWO STREETS DOWN WOULD BE PAST MURDER.
THAT WOULD BE IN THE 2,600 BLOCK.
AND MOST OF THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE STREET ARE WITHIN THE NEXT STREET.
YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS ALL WOOD FRAME OR WOOD UH, SIDING? YES, SIR.
ALL WOOD? NO, WITH EXCEPTION TO THE 27 10, WHICH WAS JUST PREVIOUSLY BUILT.
JUST BUILT WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.
AND IT'S ONLY SHOWN ON THE FACADE.
ARE THOSE OTHER EXAMPLES, A FEW STREETS AWAY, ARE THOSE IN SIMILAR CONTEXT WHERE IT'S JUST THE FRONT FACADE OR IS THAT A HALF BRICK THAT WRAPS THE, THE WHOLE HOUSE OR IS IT JUST AS YOU'RE SHOWING JUST AT, AT THE FRONT FACADE?
[01:05:01]
HOW ARE THOSE OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLES? IT'S JUST A FRONT FACADE.IT WRAPS AROUND FIVE FEET IN AND THEN THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORING FENCE CLOSES OFF TO GATES.
AND IS IS THAT THE IMPRESSION OF STAFF? IS THAT THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT LIKE THAT ON THE EXISTING SAMPLE, UH, UH, HOUSES THAT ARE BEING USED AS AN EXAMPLE? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ADDED LATER TO A WOOD SIGHTED HOUSE? THOSE THAT I'VE SEEN, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE BEEN BUILDING CONSISTENT YOUR OPINION.
UM, AND DO WE HAVE, AND IT'S EITHER, EITHER OR BOTH OF YOU.
DO WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE BRICK THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED TO STAFF? WELL, I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T BRING IT IN, BUT I HAVE PHOTOS.
I, I, I HAD ACTUALLY HAD THE BRICK WITH ME, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF SECURITY WOULD ALLOW ME, WELL, WE COULD ALWAYS PASS IT AROUND
WE'D LIKE TO LOOK AT ACTUAL SAMPLES WHEN, WHEN POSSIBLE AND PRESENTED.
AND DID YOU SUBMIT A, UH, A MORTAR, UH, A COLOR, A MORTAR COLOR AND, UH, SAND? THE COLOR OF THE MORTAR WOULD, WOULD BE, IT WOULD COINCIDE WITH THE TAN OR THE SAHARA OF THE TRIM ON THE, THE WOOD FONT.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE SPEC OR, OR, UH, NOTE NOTED UP ON THE APPLICATION? NO, SIR.
I, I, I CAN'T SAY THAT I'VE SEEN THE COLOR OF THE MORTAR.
BECAUSE TO, TO ME, THE BRICK AND THE MORTAR ARE EQUAL IN, IN WHAT, HOW IT'S GONNA PRESENT ITSELF.
THE MORTAR IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME.
UM, I'LL BACK OFF IF ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER PRESI, DID YOU HAVE YOUR ALARM, YOUR LIGHT ON? YES.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF UNDERCUT CARPORTS, UH, WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR SURROUNDING STREETS WITHIN THE TWO STREETS THAT I SCANNED OVER LUNCH? NO, THERE ARE SOME I KNOW TOWARD EUGENE STREET, WHICH IS FURTHER SOUTH FROM WHERE HE IS.
BUT AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, WHERE I'VE SEEN THE CARPORTS AS BEING ORIGINAL TO THE BUILDING WAS WITH THE RANCH STOP.
WHICH IS TYPICAL OF RANCH STYLE.
WHICH IS TYPICAL OF RANCH STOP.
I NEEDED, UM, MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE, THE HALF BRICK DESIGN.
UH, WHAT STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE WAS THAT ON? WAS THAT ON CRAFTSMAN HOUSES LIKE THIS? OR WHAT STYLE WAS THE HALF BRICK, AND THIS IS FOR STAFF.
THE HALF BRICK WOULD BE ON A COLONIAL.
UH, THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE WAS THE REQUESTED, UH, FINISH AT THE FRONT ENTRY.
I THOUGHT THAT THE HALF GOES ON RANCH HOUSES.
WELL, I KNOW FOR SURE ON RANCH, BUT I'M NOT, I MEAN, HE'S THE BUILDER.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE THE HOUSES HE'S REFERRING TO TWO STREETS OVER, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THOSE.
I HAVE AN OVERALL CONCERN THAT THIS HOUSE IS SOME KIND OF A HYBRID BETWEEN ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT MAY BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE KIND OF A CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSE, YET WE HAVE A UNDER THE BUILDING CAR, UH, CARPORT, AND WE GOT THE MULTIPLE COLUMNS OF THE IS OWN COLUMNS.
THE FRONT PORCH SEEMS TO BE TOO SHALLOW.
UM, AND IT ALSO, THE HOUSE APPEARS TO BE TOO WIDE FOR THE LOT.
TYPICALLY DON'T YOU HAVE DRIVEWAYS THAT GO INTO THE BACKYARD AND MOST OF THE HOUSING QUEEN CITY FOR THE OLDER HOMES, YES.
THERE'S A DRIVE THAT GOES TO THE REAR, LIKE ALIGNS WITH THE REAR WALL OF THE HOUSE.
SO THIS HOUSE IS TOO WIDE FOR THE LOT, SO YOU CAN'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY GOING TO THE BACK, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CARPORT, IN MY OPINION.
IF THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY TO THE BACK, YOU HAVE A GARAGE IN THE BACK OR A CARPORT IN THE BACK.
YOU COULD, I THINK THIS BUILDING IS GOT A LOT OF, LOT OF PROBLEMS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME BACK ANOTHER TIME.
I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION AT THAT TIME, MINUTE AT THE RIGHT TIME.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? I HAD A QUESTION.
JUST GENERALLY, THIS MAY BE FOR THE ATTORNEY OR FOR THE STAFF, THE MORATORIUM.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT NOTHING CAN BE BUILT AFTER THE PRE DESIGNATION UNTIL THAT IS LIFTED? OR WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY MORATORIUM
[01:10:01]
IN THIS CASE? IT MEANS BEFORE ANYONE CAN BUILD ON A LOT.THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS.
SO ONCE APPROVED, THEY CAN IMMEDIATELY GO TO PERMITTING AND WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS AND START BUILDING.
SO THAT DOESN'T REFER TO THE ORDINANCE BEING UPDATED FOR THE, A NEW OVERLAY FOR THIS DISTRICT.
AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M JUST WANTING TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF MORATORIUM.
I I THINK IT'S BECAUSE WE, WE HAD TO USE A DIFFERENT WORD BECAUSE IT'S, IT IS NOT AN OVERLAY DISTRICT YET.
WE CAN'T SAY THAT IT FALLS UNDER THE OVERLAY.
UH, MORATORIUM JUST IS IS A WAY OF SAYING THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE RULE.
YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME RULES AS THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT FULLY DESIGNATED YET.
YEAH, JUST GENERALLY THAT MEANS NOTHING CAN BE DONE WHILE THERE'S A MORATORIUM.
THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED, BUT THANK YOU.
UM, ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? AND IF NOT, THEN IT'S TIME FOR A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON CA, EXCUSE ME.
CA 2 4 5 DASH 27 RD 27 0 6 LEWAY IN THE QUEEN CITY PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I MOVE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE STRUCTURE WITH THE CARPORT AS DESIGNED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ALSO, THE LOW BRICK WALLS IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO OFF ARCHITECTURE, BUT TO A 1950 STRUCTURE WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THIS HOUSE IS TOO WIDE FOR THE LOT AND SHOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR FOR GARAGE AND CARPORT PLACEMENT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TIME? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
THE SECOND IS COMMISSIONER POSI.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS MOTION? NOT THAT HAS BEEN MADE.
I I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND THE APPLICANT ON THE NUMBER OF, UM, UM, ALTERATIONS YOU'VE MADE TO THE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION SO FAR.
I, I DO, UH, COMMEND ALL YOUR EFFORTS THERE.
UM, I THINK WHERE THE PROBLEM ARISES IS WHEN WE TRY AND PICK AND CHOOSE FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STYLES OF HOMES AND TRY AND PUT THAT ALL INTO ONE.
UH, IT CAN BE DIFFICULT IF NOT TROUBLESOME, AND GOING, GOING DOWN THAT ROUTE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE NOT ONLY THAT YOU'RE BUILDING A HOME IN, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS, IT'S TERRIFIC.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, UM, YOU DESERVE TO BE APPLAUDED FOR, FOR DOING THAT.
UM, UM, IT'S JUST BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR, OUR FIRST, UH, YOU KNOW, ATTEMPTS AT, UM, DOING A A A, A COMPATIBLE, UH, HOME, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBLE INFILL, UM, THAT WE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT IT SO CLOSELY.
SO, UM, I HOPE, UH, BOTH TOGETHER WITH, WITH YOU AND, AND STAFF THAT, UM, THAT WE CAN COME, UH, TO SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN REALLY BE PROUD OF.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HARPER.
UH, MR. LIVING ALSO ALSO WANTED TO COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND, AND DEFINITELY WANT TO BE, WANT TO BE ABLE TO AB APPROVE SOMETHING, UM, THAT YOU PUT IN FRONT OF US.
MY COMMENTS WERE LESS STYLISTIC COMMENTS AND REALLY MORE FUN FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF PARKING.
ALONG THE LINES OF MR. ANDERSON'S COMMENTS, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE THREE CHOICES IS EITHER TO HAVE A FORWARD FACING PARKING GARAGE, WHICH I HEARD THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONCERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MAYBE ABOUT THAT.
TO HAVE A REAR PARKING GARAGE OR CARPORT HOME HAS TO BE NARROW TO BE ABLE TO BYPASS IT IN THE DRIVEWAY.
SO CURRENT HOME DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT.
I AM A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT OF HAVING A, A FRONT FACING CARPORT ON A BUNGALOW STYLE HOUSE WHERE THE CARS WERE PARKING UNDER THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE ROOF.
THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, PRETTY UNUSUAL.
BASICALLY, THE CAR COULD BE PARKED WITH WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE THE LIVING ROOM, IS WHAT IT MAY LOOK FROM THE STREET.
SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PRECEDENT SINCE WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS JUST FOR THE STAFF NOT KNOWING WHAT THE HISTORY HAS BEEN ABOUT FORWARD FACING GARAGES, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT MAY BE FORTHCOMING IN THE ULTIMATE ORDINANCE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH PARKING IN POINT CITY? WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THE RESIDENTS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IS NO FORWARD FACING ATTACHED GARAGES.
SO AS YOU'RE SAYING, THE OPTIONS ARE,
[01:15:01]
AS WE SAW WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE, TO BASICALLY INSTALL A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO THE REAR YARD AND HAVING A DETACHED GARAGE THERE, OR A CARPORT THERE.NOW, THE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME IN LAST MONTH, WHAT HE'S ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO GET A VARIANCE TO ALLOW HIM TO, OR HIS CLIENTS TO PARK IN A PRETTY WIDE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT 20 FEET.
SO WE'LL SEE IF THAT GOES THROUGH.
THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER THURMAN, DID YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON AND NOT FIT? CALL CLERK COMMISSIONER CHRIS YOON.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR WORKING TO BUILD IN THIS DISTRICT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO INFILL THESE VACANT LOTS AND BRING THE VIBRANCY BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I'M SO EXCITED ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STATUS THAT'S BEING, UH, APPLIED FOR, FOR, UH, FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I, I, I, I ECHO IN EARLIER, I THINK IT WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE MASHING UP OF THE STYLES OF THIS, OF DOING SORT OF, WE'VE GOT THIS, UM, SORT OF, UH, RANCH STYLE WITH THE BUNGALOW STYLE.
SO MAYBE IF YOU GO RANCH STYLE INSTEAD OF BUNGALOW STYLE, THEN THE UNDERCUT CARPORT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE, UM, AND MIGHT MEAN MORE PALATABLE TO THE, TO THE COMMISSION IF WE, IF YOU WENT WITH THAT STYLE INSTEAD OF DOING BUNGALOW.
BUT I KNOW YOU SAID YOU, THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE WAS REQUESTED FOR THE, FOR THE FRONT OF THE, UH, UH, FRONT OF THE FACADE.
UM, SO THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS ON IT.
A RANCH HAS TO BE WIDER THOUGH, RIGHT? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN FIT THAT.
YOU CAN HAVE, YOU CAN HAVE A MINIMAL TRADITIONAL RANCH THAT THAT'S SMALLER THAN, I MEAN, WE ONLY GOT SO MUCH, WE ALL GOT SO MUCH LAND TO WORK WITH AS FAR AS WIDTH, BUT I THINK YOU COULD MAKE IT WORK IF WE TAKE 14, I'M SORRY SIR, IF WE TAKE 14 FEET OFF OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE A PATHWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES SO THAT, THAT LEAVES ME WITH ABOUT 18 FEET OF HOUSE FOR A VERY LONG RANGE.
I, I, I MEAN, I, I THINK MY POINT WAS JUST SORT OF PICKING ONE STYLE AND GOING WITH IT.
IF YOU WANNA STICK WITH THE BUNGALOW STYLE, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A, A, A VIABLE OPTION.
IF YOU WANT THE WIDTH OF THE HOUSE, THEN MAYBE IT'S A RANCH, RANCH LOOKING HOUSE WITH THE UNDERCUT, UM, UH, UH, CARPORT, WHICH WE MAKE IT A TWO STORY INSTEAD JUST TO HAVE THE PATHWAY TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
TAKE THE REST OF THE LIVING AREA AND STACK IT ON TOP OF THE OTHER 12 FOOT WIDE SECTION.
UH, WELL, I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO SOME DESIGN DETAILS NOW,
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ON THE FLY, DESIGNING THE QUESTION OF THE HEIGHT ON IT WOULD, WOULD AS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE BE IMPACTED BY WHAT YOU CAN SEE AROUND IT AND WHAT KIND OF HEIGHTS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE UNUSUAL WITHIN ITS SETTING WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I WOULD SUGGEST LOOKING AT THE CONTRIBUTING HOUSES IN THE QUEEN CITY AREA AND REPLICATING ONE OF THOSE, IF THERE ARE ACTUALLY 1950S RANCH HOUSES WITH THIS KIND OF BRICK AND THAT KIND OF AN UNDER BUILDING OR, UM, CARPORT, THEN YOU NEED TO USE THAT AS YOUR STYLE.
SO TAKE A PICTURE OF THE ONE YOU LIKE, TAKE IT TO STAFF AND VERIFY THAT IT IS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, AND THEN YOU CAN GO WITH THAT STYLE.
WHAT YOU'VE DONE HERE IS YOU'VE TAKEN TWO STYLES AND MIXED THEM TOGETHER, AND THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING A CONCERN.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I JUST WANTED TO OFFER A LITTLE BIT MORE OBSERVATION.
JUST LOOKING AT 27 14 AND 27 10 NEXT DOOR.
WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU HAVE THE SITE PLANS NEXT TO EACH OTHER, UM, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THOSE HOUSES ARE RIGHT AROUND 30 FEET IN WIDTH AS OPPOSED TO THE 18 THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING.
BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT DRIVEWAY CAN GO CLOSER TO THE SIDE, THE PROPERTY LINE THAN, THAN A PHYSICAL BUILDING CAN.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD AT, AT LEAST LET YOU GET PAST THE HOUSE AND HAVE A WIDER HOUSE THAN 18 FEET, YOU KNOW, UH, IN THE PROXIMITY OF 25 TO 30 FEET.
SO THERE'S NO EASEMENT REQUIREMENT ON THE DRIVEWAY SIDE, BUT THERE IS AN EASEMENT REQUIREMENT ON THE, I'M NOT CERTAIN ON THAT, BUT I WOULD SUSPECT THAT, UH, A DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE IT HAS NO ELEVATION THAT YOU CAN GO, UM, A LOT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ZONING IS CALLING FOR IN, IN THIS, IN, THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW HERE TODAY.
BUT, UM, BUT I WOULD INVESTIGATE IT FOR SURE.
UM, I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH QUEEN CITY AS, AS YOU MAY, OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU ARE, THEY ARE THE 1950S BUILDINGS IN KIND OF A, A TRACT IN AN AREA
[01:20:02]
OR THEY SPREAD OUT.SO I, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU WANTED TO DO A 1950S RANCH HOUSE ON THIS BLOCK, WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE? OR ARE THE RANCH HOUSES IN SECTIONS WHERE WE WANT TO KIND OF KEEP THEM IN GROUPS? NO, THEY'RE SCATTERED ABOUT, IN OTHER WORDS, LIKE, AS LOTS BECAME EMPTY, THEY FELT THEIR INFIELD.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T PUTTING IT OR SOMETHING FROM THIS SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY ON THIS MOTION? ALRIGHT, IN THAT CASE, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH VOTING ON THE MOTION.
MR. ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY OR JUST GETTING READY TO VOTE? I'M READY TO VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? Y YES.
WHAT IS IT?
IT'S BEEN SO LONG SINCE WE HEARD THE MOTION.
MR. ANDERSON WILL MAKE I'LL, I READ THE MOTION BACK IN THE ESSENTIAL PARTS MOTION.
I MOVE THE, UH, DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE STRUCTURE WITH THE CARPORT AS DESIGNED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ALSO, THE LOW BRICK WALLS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE THE STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE, BUT OF A 1950S RANCH HOUSE.
THE FINDING OF FACT THIS HOUSE IS TOO WIDE WHERE THE LOT AND SHOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR FOR GARAGE AND CARPORT PLACEMENT.
I RARELY GET BLANK FACES WHEN I CALL
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY
HISTORIC DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M LOOKING AT OUR ATTORNEY TO SEE WHAT SHE LIKES, BUT I THINK THAT LANGUAGE OF PROPOSED DISTRICT IS ADEQUATE.
SO I WOULD CHANGE, I WOULD CHANGE TO, UH, COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER REEVES, I THINK YOU SHOULD FIGURE OUT WHATEVER IT WAS THAT I SAID ON MY MOTION ABOUT THE SAME NON-DISTRICT SO IT COULD BE CONSISTENT.
UM, WHO, YOU MEAN THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT YOU USED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR MOTION? I PASSED IT ON SO I DON'T HAVE IT IN.
DEPENDS ON IF, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, 22.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EUGENE, RIGHT? YEAH.
YOU SAID THAT FINDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION PRESENTED TO, TO BE ABLE TO DEEM IT COMPATIBLE TO THE HISTORICAL
IT'S NOT AN OVERLAY, BUT PROPOSED OVERLAY, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S, OUR ATTORNEY HAS PROPOSED THAT WE USE PROPOSED.
SO I THINK WE'RE GONNA GO WITH, WITH PROPOSED IT SOUNDS REASONABLE AND ACCURATE.
SO MR. ANDERSON DID AGREE TO SAY IT'S THE PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE'RE ALL, WE'VE HEARD IT, WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
I THINK NOW WE'RE READY TO VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
ANY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY NO? NO.
WAS THAT COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN? THAT WAS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE ONE NO VOTE AND THE REST ARE YESES.
THEREFORE, THIS MOTION CARRIES.
COMMISSIONER, UH, OFFIT HAS HIS HAND RAISED.
COMMISSIONER OFFIT, DID YOU ALSO VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION OR I DID.
THE MOTION HAS, HAS STILL CARRIED.
UM, UM, MR. LIVINGSTON, I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE EARLIER WHEN WE DISCUSSED WITH THE, THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN WHO HAD THIS SAME NEWS.
IT WASN'T WHAT HE REALLY WANTED, BUT EVERYTHING I SAID BEFORE COUNTS FOR YOU TOO.
YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE GLAD THAT THIS IS HAPPENING.
OKAY? WE JUST NEED IT TO CHANGE SOME AND WE NEED IT TO CHANGE TOO MUCH TO ACTUALLY JUST SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA CHANGE IT.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE YOUR DRAWINGS COME BACK WITH YOUR RETHINKING SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS WE'VE MADE, OR OTHER FABULOUS SUGGESTIONS OR IDEAS THAT YOU COME UP WITH, PERHAPS IN CONSULTATION WITH DR. DUNN ARE THAT WILL HELP YOU, UM, GET IT CLOSER TO WHAT WE'RE REALLY HOPING TO SEE BUILT IN QUEEN CITY TO MAINTAIN ITS HISTORIC CHARACTER.
UM, AND WE, LIKE EVERYBODY SAID, WE'RE HAPPY YOU'RE DOING THIS.
IT'S SOMETIMES CHALLENGING AND DIFFICULT.
WE LIKE YOUR PROJECT FINE THAT YOU'RE DOING IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE VERY POPULAR HERE, SO PLEASE COME BACK AND SEE US AGAIN.
YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION OF APPEALING TO THE, UH, PLAN COMMISSION THAT DOES COST A FEE JUST TO APPEAL.
AND THEIR RULING WILL BE ASKING
[01:25:01]
WHETHER OR NOT WE STAYED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR LAW OR NOT.THAT'S YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
SMILE DR. DUNN TO HELP YOU IN ANY WAY THAT SHE CAN BECAUSE SHE IS A WONDERFUL PERSON.
SHE'S BEEN MENTORING ME FOR SEVEN MONTHS ON THIS ADDRESS.
WELL, SHE WILL KEEP UP DOING THAT.
YOU KNOW, SHE USED TO TEACH COLLEGE STUDENTS, SO YOU'VE GOTTA BE EASIER TO WORK WITH THAN THEM.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
NEXT UP IS D FOUR ON JUNIOR STREET.
CHRISTINA PEREZ ON BEHALF OF STAFF.
THIS IS DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 4 54 0 6 JUNIOR STREET JUNIORS HEIGHTS, HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 4 5 2 1 16 CP REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING ON MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ONE 17 PINE SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING ON MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ONE 17 PINE SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT MORE, NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE WOOD IS REPLACED AFTER EXPLORATION OF EXISTING CONDITION IS REVEALED BY MEANS OF PAINT REMOVAL METHODS.
REPLACING HISTORIC WOOD FEATURES INSTEAD OF REPAIRING OR REPLACING ONLY THE DETERIORATED WOOD IS NOT RECOMMENDED PER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS OR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 4.3 PERTAINING TO FACADES THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX CI FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ONE 17 PINE SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL BE APPROVED AS SHOWN.
I DO BELIEVE THERE IS SOMEONE ONLINE.
OKAY, WHAT I WAS SAYING WHEN MY MICROPHONE WAS NOT YET ON IS THAT SALLY WELSH'S ONLINE TO SPEAK TO THIS APPLICATION.
SO SALLY WELSH, WE DO NEED TO SEE YOU.
THAT IS A STATE LAW IN ORDER TO VERIFY THAT IT'S REALLY YOU THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR CAMERA ON.
ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT OR TO HEAR ME ADRIAN? SHE'S NOT MUTED, SO, OH, THERE, SHE'S RAISING HER.
THAT'S THE UNIVERSAL SIDE OF MY COMPUTER IS BEING COMPUTERY.
AND SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MS. WELSH, I MEAN, YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET YOUR CAMERA ON.
BUT MS. WELS, IS YOUR MICROPHONE WORKING BECAUSE WE DO SEE YOUR NAME ON YOUR HAND.
OR, OR APPARENTLY EITHER YOU'RE NOT HEARING US OR WE'RE NOT BEING ABLE TO HEAR YOU.
[01:30:44]
ADRIAN, SHE LOOKS LIKE SHE'S BACK ON AS AN ATTENDEE.IT LOOKS LIKE SHE'S BACK ON AS AN ATTENDEE.
SHE WAS GONE AND NOW SHE'S BACK AS AN ATTENDEE.
MAYBE SHE RESIGNED ON, OKAY, MS. WELSH, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? HIM PEOPLE? OKAY, NOW HER MICROPHONE IS SHOWING MUTED BEFORE THAT IT DID NOT SHOW THAT.
YEAH, SHE'S ON HERE TWICE NOW.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR, BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS, SO, AND THEY TALKED.
PLEASE TRY AGAIN TO UNMUTE AS THEY HAVE CHANGED YOUR STATUS TO ATTENDEE, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO UNMUTE MS. WAL.
MS. WELCH, ARE YOU THERE? YES.
OKAY, THERE SHE'S, CAN YOU HEAR ME? ALL RIGHT.
YOU KNOW HOW DIFFICULT, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
PETITIONERS, PLEASE RETAKE YOUR SEATS AND LET'S GET BACK TO ORDER.
NOW WE ALL HAVE, WE ALL RELAXED AND WE MUST STOP THAT.
ALRIGHT, MS. WELSH, YOU'RE YOU, WE READ IN YOUR, UM, REQUEST INTO THE RECORD.
SO NOW IS YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TELL US ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO DO WITH YOUR PROJECT.
AND THEN WE ASK YOU QUESTIONS FIRST.
YOU HAVE TO WAIT FIRST, I FORGOT.
YOU HAVE TO TELL US YOUR NAME, LIKE WE DON'T KNOW THAT ALREADY, AND YOUR ADDRESS AND SWEAR AFFIRM OR PROMISE THAT YOU'RE GONNA TELL US THE TRUTH.
I'M AT 9 7 7 4 WARD DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 8.
AND I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH.
WELL, AND I WON'T LEAVE THE THREE MINUTES.
UM, WE HAVE NOTHING REALLY FURTHER TO ADD TO OUR APPLICATION.
WE ARE JUST ATTENDING THE MEETING AS AN APPLICANT.
UM, BUT AS OUR APPLICATION HAS STATED, WE INTEND TO REPLACE THE SIDING TO MATCH THE EXISTING AND WE'RE, UM, ONLY, WE ARE ONLY NOW REPLACING IT DUE TO DAMAGE, UM, FOUND AS WE BEGAN INVESTIGATING THE HOME.
BUT THE HOMEOWNERS, UM, ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN AND INTEND TO REMAIN AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE NOTHING MUCH MORE TO ADD OTHER THAN, UM, WHAT WAS IN OUR APPLICATION.
NOW LET'S ASK COMMISSIONERS TO, UM, ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE ABOUT THIS COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER, POSI, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT IT'S ONLY THE SIDING ON THE TOP PART OF THE HOUSE AND NOT THE BOTTOM.
'CAUSE THE BOTTOM SIDING IS DIFFERENT.
UM, SORT OF THE WATER TABLE OR RAINCOAT SIDING, THAT'S A DIFFERENT PATTERN THAN THE ABOVE.
THE WAY YOU'VE READ IT IS CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS? YEAH, THIS IS TO, UH, I GUESS TO BOTH OF YOU, UM, FIRST THE APPLICANT, I GUESS CAN ADDRESS THIS AND THEN TO STAFF, UM, TRYING TO GET A HAND, UH, A HANDLE OF THE, UH, TRYING TO FIND THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGED SIDING.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN A EXISTING SURVEY TO DETERMINE A MORE CLOSE, CLOSER, UH, UNDERSTANDING OF A PERCENTAGE OF DAMAGE? UM, WE SAW A FEW PHOTOS.
I JUST, JUST A COUPLE, UM, BUT, UH, BEEN IN THIS LONG TIME AND IT'S HARD TO PINPOINT AND ASCERTAIN MORE CLEAR UNDERSTANDINGS, UH, WITHOUT AN EXISTING SURVEY OF, UH, CONDITIONS.
[01:35:01]
SO MY FIRST QUESTION, HAS THERE BEEN AN EXISTING SURVEY TO TRY TO, TO DETERMINE THE, A MORE ACCURATE PERCENTAGE OF, OF DAMAGED MATERIAL FOR THAT APPLICANT? THERE HAS NOT, NO, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN OFFICIAL SURVEY DONE THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.UM, THE INTENTION WAS TO REPLACE A HUNDRED PERCENT IN ORDER TO BE SURE THAT IT ALL MATCHED.
UM, ONCE ANY DAMAGED SIDING WAS REPLACED, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ESSENTIALLY PIECEMEAL IT, UM, OUR APPROACH WAS TO JUST REPLACE ALL OF IT.
UM, AND THAT WAY IT WOULD ALL BE, OF COURSE, PAINTED THE SAME COLOR.
UH, AND LOOK, IT WOULD PRESENT AS, UM, COMPLETELY THE SAME.
AND THIS IS AN, THIS IS EXISTING ONE 17 NOVELTY SIDING.
UH, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AT THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WOULD JUST BE BEST TO TAKE IT ALL OUT.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE TRY TO PROVIDE, UH, A, UH, TRY TO NOT REMOVE HISTORIC AND, AND ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
UH, AND THAT'S WHY WE TRY NOT, WE TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM ASSUMPTIONS.
IT'S SOMETIMES DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE ARE GRAY AREAS OF THIS TYPE OF WORK, BUT WE TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN DO NOT TO ASSUME THAT IT'S ALL 100% DAMAGED.
AND, UH, THERE'S PROBABLY BEEN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN YOU AND STAFF ABOUT TRYING TO COME UP WITH PERCENTAGES ON, ON THAT AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE A STAFF'S POSITION ON THE REPLACEMENT.
AND ALSO WHAT POSSIBLY COULD BE THE, A DETERMINATION OF A PERCENTAGE OF THAT, OF REPLACEMENT STAFF'S, UH, POSITION IS TO APPROVE A CONDITION THAT NO MORE THAN 50% IS REMOVED.
UM, JUST BASED ON THE PICTURES THAT WE'VE SEEN.
AGAIN, YEAH, NO SURVEYS BEEN DONE TO SHOW THAT ALL IS NEEDED.
UM, AND THERE VERY WELL BE, COULD BE A, A LARGE AMOUNT THAT ONLY NEEDS TO BE, UM, PAINT REMOVED AND LIGHTLY PREPPED.
UM, WHO KNOWS WHAT IT COULD BE.
IT, IT COULD BE ONLY 20% THAT'S DAMAGED, THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
YOU MAY HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT THAT ONLY NEEDS TO BE PAINT REMOVED AND, AND LIGHTLY PREPPED, AND IT COULD BE EVEN A LARGER AMOUNT ON THAT.
UH, AND IT'S JUST AN LARGE ASSUMPTION, FIRST OF ALL TO GO FROM A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE SAYING, WELL, MAYBE 50% AND WITHOUT, WITHOUT AN ARCHITECT OR A PRESERVATION MINDED, UH, SPECIALIST THAT ACTUALLY HAS WALKED THE BUILDING TO, TO DETERMINE A SURVEY TO SAY, MY, MY BEST PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS SOMEONE THAT DOES PRESERVATIONAL SURVEYS IS BASED 20%, 30%, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
WE'RE GRABBING NUMBERS HERE OR WE'RE GRABBING A HUNDRED PERCENT, WE'RE GRABBING 50%.
UM, THERE MAY BE EVEN COST SAVINGS TO YOU ON GOING THAT DIRECTION.
ON LEAVING, THERE MAY BE STUFF THAT SAYS, HEY, JUST REMOVE THE PAINT IN THIS HAND AND JUST REPLACE, UH, IT COULD BE A 15% ONLY REPLACEMENT THAT'S NEEDED ON HERE.
UH, ONE SEVENTEEN'S NOT HARD TO FIND.
IT'S SOMETHING TO BE EASY TO, TO GET IN HERE.
SO I JUST HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT EVEN 50%, UH, REMOVAL OF HISTORIC, UH, MATERIAL.
UH, SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS AND THAT'S MY QUESTION ON THIS.
UM, AND SIR, IF I MAY ADD, WE DID ATTEMPT TO REMOVE PAINT AND THEREFORE TOUCH IT UP.
THAT IS ALSO THE HOMEOWNER'S, UM, ORIGINAL DESIRE WAS TO NOT REPLACE ANY OF THE SIDING.
UM, BUT DUE TO THE, THE, THE AGE, I SUPPOSE, OF THE PAINT, UM, IN ELASTOMER PAINT, IT WAS AN ELASTOMER PAINT.
MY BUSINESS PARTNER IS HERE NEXT TO ME,
UM, IT WAS AN ELASTOMER PAINT.
IT WOULD NOT COME OFF IN A WAY IN WHICH WE COULD THEN PRESERVE THE ACTUAL SIDING, UM, IN ORDER TO JUST STRIP THE PAINT.
SO IS THIS THE FIRST THAT YOU'VE HEARD THAT THERE WAS AN ER PAINT THAT WAS HARD TO REMOVE? YEAH.
AND THAT THUS MAY BE CREATING THE FURTHER DAMAGE WHEN IT IS WASN'T, YEAH, IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T IN ATION.
AND SO ARE THERE PHOTOS? THERE SEEMS TO BE NO NOTIFICA NOTES ON THAT.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW IS AT FIRST LIGHT HERE, IS THERE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE OF PHOTOS? IS THERE A LAR, IS THERE PHOTOS OF AN ENTIRE ELEVATION ON THE EAST, ENTIRE ELEVATION ON THE WEST, ENTIRE ELEVATION GOING AROUND AND THEN PINPOINT A LOT OF THESE INSTEAD OF JUST USING ONE OR TWO EXAMPLES? UH, THESE ARE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE'RE TEND TO WANT TO SEE IS MORE, MORE SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY SHOW US THE STORY INSTEAD OF JUST PINPOINTING A COUPLE OF THINGS AND SAY, WELL, THERE YOU GO.
YOU SEE WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT MORE UNDERST MORE KNOWLEDGE AND LESS ASSUMPTIONS.
[01:40:01]
AND, AND THAT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE.UM, WE DID SEND QUITE A FEW PHOTOS TO CHRISTINA P UM, YES, THEY'VE SEEN THEM.
THOSE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN US.
UM, PERHAPS WE NEED TO ADD MORE DETAIL.
IS, IS THAT WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING? THIS IS OUR FIRST APPLICATION OF, OF THIS NATURE.
SO, UM, CERTAINLY OPEN TO MAKING ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED.
UM, IN ORDER TO GET THIS SPECIFIC, AND, OR A QUESTION I NOW HAVE IS IF, UH, 50% COULD BE ADJUSTED AND WE WERE TO DETERMINE LATER THAT DUE TO THIS TYPE OF PAINT WE WOULD NEED TO DO MORE THAN 50%, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO COME BACK THEN IF THIS COULD BE APPROVED AT 50% OF THE SIDING, 50% OR LESS OF THE SIDING BEING CHANGED? OR IS IT PREFERABLE TO NARROW, YOU KNOW, PINPOINT THE PERCENTAGE AND IF THIS ELASTOMER PAINT IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE ACROSS THE BOARD TO HAVE THAT ADDRESSED FROM THE GET-GO? UM, UM, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IN THE FIELD WORK THAT WE LIKE TO DO MOCKUPS, UH, AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THROUGH A MOCKUP UNDERSTANDING THAT HEY, WE HAD THIS EIGHT FOOT AREA, EIGHT FOOT BY EIGHT FOOT AREA WE FOUND AT THIS EIGHT FOOT EIGHT FOOT AREA, WE FOUND, UH, IT WAS ALL MERIC PAINT PAINTED.
UH, WHEN WE WENT TO REMOVE IT TO TRY TO DO A TEST AREA, WE FOUND 40%, 30% OF IT DAMAGING THE WOOD AND THEN HAVE THAT KIND OF NOTIFICATION BACK TO STAFF.
AND THAT WAY IT COULD BE PRESENTED TO US HERE.
UM, WE DO, UH, THINGS BASED UPON CONDITIONS, BUT WHEN YOU START TO GET INTO LIKE, WELL, WE DID THIS AMOUNT, AMOUNT, CAN WE HAVE APPROVED UP TO THIS? AND IF IT'S LESS THAN THAT, WELL THEN SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO OUT AND APPROVE, LOOK AT THAT AND APPROVE.
AND IT'S A LONG, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW WE TYPICALLY DO.
I JUST WAS TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS HERE AND THEN, AND THEN TRYING TO CLARIFY ASSUMPTIONS AND, AND, AND THAT NATURE.
I'LL BACK UP AND MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A DIFFERENT QUESTION OR, OR, OR GO WITH IT AND CHRISTINE HAS TO WANNA YEAH, I GO FOLLOW, I JUST, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT I LOVE THE IDEA OF MY, OF THE MOCKUP, BUT HONESTLY, IF A NEIGHBOR SAW SOMEONE DOING ANYTHING TO AN EIGHT FOOT BY EIGHT FOOT SECTION OF THEIR HOUSE, ADRIAN'S GONNA GET CALLED RIGHT AWAY.
SO THEY WOULD BE DINGED WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING, WITHOUT A CA.
WE COULD DO A ROUTINE FOR PAINT REMOVAL.
I WAS JUST, UH, WANTING TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION WITH THE MOCK-UP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO SAY, WELL, WE HEARD IT ON THE MEETING AND WE COULD DO IT WITHOUT A CA AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I AGREE WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS CONCERNS.
UM, I'VE LOOKED AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU SUBMITTED, AND THERE'S PROBABLY THREE REASONS THAT THE, THE BOARDS ARE BAD OR TWO REASONS ACTUALLY THAT THEY'RE SPLITTING AND BREAKING OR THAT THEY'RE ROTTEN.
WHAT I SEE IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE PAINT, HAVE BOARDS HAVE BEEN OVERPAINTED.
I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU TRY AS HARD AS POSSIBLE TO GET THAT PAINT OFF BECAUSE THE WOOD YOU HAVE ON THAT HOUSE, THAT SIDING IS PROBABLY ABOUT ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND IT'S AN EXTREMELY GREAT WOOD TAKING ALL THAT OFF AND PUTTING ON NEW WOOD THAT IS CRAPPY, CHEAP WOOD TODAY IS GONNA ROT FASTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
SO YOU'RE MUCH BETTER OFF KEEPING THE WOOD YOU HAVE.
AND I DON'T SEE A GREAT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE WOOD.
I SEE A LOT OF PAINT THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
I KNOW YOU SAID THAT THERE'S AN ELAS, ELASTIC MERIC PAINT, BUT YOU MIGHT TALK TO A PAINT SPECIALIST, SEE IF THERE'S WAYS TO GET THAT PAINT OFF OF THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THEY HAVE TODAY BESIDES THE OLD FASHIONED SCRAPING.
THERE'S SANDING, THERE'S HEAT SOURCES, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WAYS TO GET THE PAINT OFF AND YOU CAN HAVE A MUCH BETTER PRODUCT IN THE END AND THEN TAKING ALL THE WOOD OFF, THROWING IT AWAY AND PUTTING IN NEW WOOD.
YES, WE'VE DEFINITELY TAKEN MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND, UH, HAVE ATTEMPTED ON SMALLER, ON SMALLER SCALES, UM, WHICH IS WHAT LED US TO EVENTUALLY MAKE THIS APPLICATION.
UM, THEREFORE, UM, WHILE WE COMPLETELY APPRECIATE AND AGREE WITH THE, UM, OF COURSE THE EMPHASIS ON RETAINING THE, THE, THE WOOD THAT'S THERE AND UM, DO TEND TO AGREE THAT PRODUCTS WERE, WERE MADE A LITTLE BIT BETTER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO THEN, THEN THEY SOMETIMES ARE NOW, UM, IN DISCUSSING WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AND WHO, WHO VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, RETAINING THE HISTORICAL QUALITY OF THEIR HOME.
[01:45:01]
THIS, THIS OPTION THOUGH, THE LAST KIND OF OUR, THEIR, THEIR LAST, UM, OPTION FELT TO BE THE, THE RIGHT ONE TO, TO MAINTAIN THE HOME AS A WHOLE.UM, BUT THAT SAID, IF THERE IS AN OPTION TO POTENTIALLY GET APPROVAL FOR A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THAT WE CAN DO PERHAPS A SMALL AREA OF A MOCK-UP AND MAKE SOME ATTEMPTS, UM, AND THEN, UH, I I, FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, PERHAPS WE WOULD TAKE PHOTOS OF THOSE AND IF THOSE ATTEMPTS, UM, WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL AND WE FOUND THAT WE WERE, UM, LEFT WITH THE ONLY OPTION OF REPLACING, WOULD THAT, UH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT THING TO DO AT THIS STAGE.
UM, MY CONCERN WOULD ALSO JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE WORKING WITH STAFF ON WHAT YOUR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON REMOVING THAT PAIN IS AND NOT DOING SOMETHING IN REMOVAL THAT WOULD FURTHER DAMAGE THE HISTORIC WOOD AND MATERIALS.
'CAUSE THEY'RE, WE DON'T WANNA GO DOWN THAT APPROACH.
AND THEN YOU, UH, AND STAFF IS BLIND.
WE DON'T WANT STAFF BEING BLIND ABOUT HOW THE APPROACH WAS THAT YOU SURE.
YOU WENT AND THEN YOU ONLY SHOW EVIDENCE AND SAY, WELL SEE.
AND, AND AS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WAS STATING, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY OF THE WOOD THAT WAS USED BACK THEN IS MUCH HARDER AND MUCH, MUCH BETTER.
UH, ANKLE WITHSTAND MUCH MORE.
SO WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD THING.
SO WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT QUALITY IS THAT WE CAN, AND SO AS LONG AS STAFF IS GONNA BE ABLE NOT TO BE BLIND ON THEIR, THEIR WHAT THEY USED MM-HMM
AND WE WOULD UH, CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF AND, UM, IN, IN, IN MAKING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, UM, ATTEMPTS TO POTENTIALLY GET THE PAINT OFF AND BE ABLE TO JUST, UH, USE THE CURRENT SIDING AND, AND REPAINT.
ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? YES.
UM, 'CAUSE I NOTICED IN THE APPLICATION, UH, OR AT LEAST WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM STAFF, THERE IS NO MENTION OF, UH, UH, BRICK OR REPLACEMENT OR, YOU KNOW, REPOINTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS IN FACT NOT A PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT'S NOT, THAT WAS ROUTINE.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I'M READY FOR MOTION AT THE APP TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS A QUESTION TO ASK ABOUT THIS? APPARENTLY NOT.
IN THE CASE OF CA 2 4 6 DASH 2 1 16 CP FOR 54 6 GENIUS, UH, STREET, I MOVE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, REPLACING ALL THE SIDING WILL HAVE A ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE STRUCTURE IN THE DISTRICT.
I SUGGEST SCRAPING PAINT OFF THE SIDING AND A 10 BY 10 PER SQUARE SECTION OF THE DISTRICT AND THEN RESUBMIT EITHER TO STAFF OR TO THE LANDMARKING DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH SIDING NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AT THAT TIME.
SECOND, THE SECOND CAME FROM COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS.
IS THERE ANY COMMENT ON THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER PRESEN, IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE THE APPLICANT, UH, WOULD BE OKAY WITH USING THE 50% AND THEN COMING BACK LATER IF IT WAS GONNA BE MORE, THEY NEEDED MORE THAN 50%.
UM, IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING THIS FORWARD AND ALLOWING THEM TO WORK, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED.
I KNOW THIS NOT IN THIS MOTION, SO I WANNA MAKE THAT POINT.
YEAH, THAT IS NOT IN THIS MOTION, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT WOULD ALLOW ALSO FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND DO AT LEAST A TEST AREA BECAUSE THAT WOULD INVOLVE REPLACING LESS THAN 50%.
BUT, UM, HOW WAS THAT, HOW WOULD THAT BE MONITORED? WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO GO OUT THERE AND VISIT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 50% IS BEING ALLOCATED? IT WOULD BE ADRIAN, YES.
THAT WOULD BE PART OF HER JOB.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE CITY'S NOT BLIND ON THE APPROACH AND WHAT'S GOING ON AND, AND, 'CAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES CONSTRUCTION CAN, CAN GO DOWN ONE PATH AND THEN IT CAN BE EXPLAINED LATER.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT CAN BE DONE.
I THINK CHRISTINA HAS A COMMENT ON, WE UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE THE STEP TO MONITOR ALL PROJECTS, BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE IS WE HAVE OFFICER MCCLENDON TO CHECK IT AFTER IT'S DONE TO MAKE SURE IT WAS NO MORE THAN 50.
SO WE WILL ASK FOR THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT AND PROCEED.
I I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP IT MOVING, MY SUGGESTION WAS FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD.
I'M ACTUALLY EMAILING THEM AS WE SPEAK TO
[01:50:01]
GO AHEAD AND SEND ME THE APPLICATION FOR YOUR PROPOSED PROCESS OF PAINT REMOVAL.I CAN APPROVE IT AS A ROUTINE AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE APPLICATION IS, I WILL GO AHEAD AND PUT THEM ON MARCH'S AGENDA.
SO THEY'RE ALREADY SET FOR NEXT MONTH.
SO THAT GIVES THEM A MONTH TO REMOVE THE PAINT AND THEN IF THEY WANNA COME BACK WITH ALL SIDING OR NEW PICTURES OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT'S ALMOST SEAMLESS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT BACK AND FORTH.
I MEAN, IF THAT'S, UH, ALSO TO, I DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO WAIT EITHER.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ADRIAN TO GO OUT THERE DURING THE PROCESS JUST TO, JUST TO DO, DO A DOUBLE CHECK HOW IT'S, HOW IT'S, HOW IT'S WORKING OUT DURING, DURING, DURING A CERTAIN 30, 40, 50% OF THE, OF THE, UH, PROCESS DURING THIS NEXT, DURING THIS MONTH.
I MEAN, SHE HAS ONLY ONE, ONE HER IN ALL OF OUR HOUSES.
I NEVER WANNA PUT A EXTRA LOAD ON HER, SO I UNDERSTAND JUST BEING, COMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION WORLD, IT'S NICE TO HAVE VS ON THE GROUND.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT UM, CHRISTINA WAS JUST SUGGESTING WAS THAT SHOULD WE VOTE WITH THIS MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE, SHE WOULD STILL APPROVE BY, IN HER LIMITS FOR THEM TO START REMOVING PAINT AND THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY HAD UNDERNEATH THE PAINT AND HOW PAINT REMOVAL WAS GOING TO WORK AND SHE HAD ALREADY PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH.
SO THERE'S NO WAY THEY'RE GONNA BE TOO LATE TO GET ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH.
TO ASK AGAIN, IF THEY NEED TO REPLACE A LOT OF SIDING, THEY'LL KNOW HOW MUCH THEY NEED TO REPLACE BY THAT.
AND IF THE CASE MAY BE THAT THEY DON'T NEED ALL, UH, YOU KNOW, SIDING REPLACED, IT'S EASY FOR US TO REMOVE HER THE, FROM THE AGENDA THAN TO PUT HER ON.
SO YES, IF IT TURNS OUT THEY NEED HER ON THERE AND JUST TAKE, YOU KNOW, REMOVE HER AND DO A ROUTINE AT THEY ONLY SOUNDS GOOD AND PROACTIVE.
35% VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
SO AS IT IS, AS A ROUTINE, WE WILL DO UP, WE WILL USUALLY APPROVE UP TO 30%.
UM, IF, IF YOU WANTED TO GO WITH THE 50% OFFICER MCCLENDON SAID THAT WE COULD, I MEAN YOU COULD MAKE A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, CONTACT US AT WHEN THEY'RE ABOUT HALFWAY DONE AND SHE CAN GO LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WANT TO PUT IN ANY AT ALL RIGHT NOW, YOU'VE JUST GOT A DENIAL, BUT YEAH, RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO SINCE WE'VE LEARNED THAT YOU COULDN'T TAKE BACK A MOTION, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA DO? HOW DOES COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FEEL ABOUT THIS? OR YOU MADE THE MOTION? YOU LIKE YOUR MOTION? OH, I THOUGHT YOU MADE, YOU WERE THE SECOND.
SO MR. ANDERSON WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH VOTING ON HIS MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND CHRISTINA HAS LET US KNOW HOW SHE CAN USE OUR SYSTEM TO MAKE THAT NOT BE TOO ONEROUS UPON THE APPLICANT THAT THEY CAN BEGIN WORKING TO PAINT.
TAKE THAT PAINT OFF AND SEE WHAT THEY REALLY HAVE UNDER.
THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING WONDERFUL WE NEVER KNOW.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU READ THE MOTION? YEAH, WE JUST HAD TWO REQUESTS FOR THAT.
SO I GUESS MR. ANDERSON WILL NOW READ HIS MOTION.
I MOVE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, REPLACING ALL THE SIDING WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE STRUCTURE.
SCRAPE PAINT OFF ALL SIDING ON A 10 BY FOOT, 10 FOOT BY 10 FOOT SECTION AND RESUBMIT TO STAFF OR THE COMMISSION FOR SIDING REPLACEMENT AT THAT TIME.
COMMISSIONER REEVES, DIDN'T THAT NUMBER GO UP? UM, UH, COMMISSIONER REEVES IS ASKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE WE'RE DISCUSSING.
UH, THE, THE REQUEST WAS FOR 100% REPLACEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDED 50% NO MORE.
AND THEY SAID THAT IF IT TURNED OUT TO BE ONLY 30%, THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN DO WITH STAFF APPROVAL ON WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK TO US.
AND AT THE MOMENT, BECAUSE THE PAIN IS STILL ON, NEITHER US NOR THE APPLICANTS KNOW HOW MUCH THE PERCENTAGE IS REALLY NEEDED TO REPLACE.
I'D LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE THING.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DONE A DUE DILIGENCE OF TRYING TO REMOVE THE PAINT TO ANY EXTENT THAT I CAN SEE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DONE BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER.
THE FIRST THING THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IS TAKING THE PAINT OFF, BUT THEY JUST CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AND YOU CAN'T ALL RIGHT.
AND WE CANNOT MAKE PART OF A DENIAL, A CONDITION OF SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO, BY THE WAY,
SO THAT, THAT THAT PART WAS A RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR PART.
WE CANNOT HOLD THEM TO DO SOMETHING WE SAID DURING A DENIAL.
SO WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON, WILL WE DO A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON THE REQUEST BEFORE US TODAY? I THINK IT'S TIME TO CALL AND VOTE FOR THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.
COMMISSIONER REEVES, ARE THERE ANY MORE? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA DO A ROLL CALL.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? YES.
[01:55:02]
DISTRICT TWO COMMISSIONER, UH, MONTGOMERY? YES.COMMISSIONER COX? DISTRICT 12.
COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER? NO.
DISTRICT 13 COMMISSIONER POSI? YES.
COMMISSIONER UH, ANDERSON? YES.
WE HAVE NINE YESES AND FIVE NOS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED, UM, MS. WELCH AND YOUR PARTNER THERE.
UM, I, I MUST ALWAYS TELL YOU IN THAT CASE THAT THERE IS AN OPTION FOR, UM, APPLYING FOR A FEE TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW WHAT WE DID HERE, AND THEY WILL SEE IF WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF WHAT OUR ORDINANCE AND OUR RULES TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
OF COURSE, STAFF IS ALREADY LAID OUT FOR YOU.
WHAT WOULD BE A REALLY HELPFUL WAY TO PROCEED WITH HOPEFULLY MINIMAL DELAY WHILE YOU'RE BUSY SCRAPING PAINT OFF, WHICH I KNOW TAKES A LONG TIME.
SO PERHAPS YOU MIGHT, LIKE I SAID, EVEN FIND A NICE SURPRISE THAT THERE'S SOME GREAT WOOD UNDER SOME OF THAT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO RIP IT OFF AND THROW IT AWAY AND PUT NEW ON.
AND WOULDN'T THAT BE BETTER EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED FOR.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH US AND YOUR CLIENT DOES TOO, TO TRY TO GET THIS HOUSE DONE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE IN AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND THE FEEDBACK, AND WE WILL, UM, WE'LL GET TO WORKING ON A, A LARGER AREA AND OTHER OPTIONS FOR PAINT REMOVAL ASIDE FROM WHAT, WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR, OR ALL RIGHT? MM-HMM
ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP IS D FIVE ON ER AVENUE.
DO WE WANT TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE WE PURSUE B FIVE? A BRIEF BREAK FOR ABSOLUTE NECESSITIES ALL.
SO WE'RE COMING BACK AT THREE 10.
WE ARE LATE, BUT WE ARE BACK LANDMARK PERMISSION BACK IN SESSION.
WE'RE READY TO HEAR DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FIVE, IF IT IS CURRENTLY THREE 15, WHICH IS FIVE MINUTES LATE, BUT YOU KNOW CHRISTINA PEREZ ON BEHALF OF STAFF.
UH, DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 5 56 0 2 REGER AVE, JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 4 5 2 1 8.
THE REQUEST, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FENCE AND RETAIN EXISTING LOCATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FENCE BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD FENCE BE MOVED BACK TO.
THE 50% LINE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 3.6 PERTAINING TO FENCES THE STANDARDS AND CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1 G SIX C ROMAN I FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE EXISTING FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS APPROVE THE FENCE SIZE CHA CHANGE FROM SEVEN FEET TO EIGHT FEET AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LOCATION OF THE INTERIOR SIDE OF THE FENCE FOR SECTION 3.6 OF THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
UH, YES, I SEE THAT WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THIS.
I'M NOT SURE FROM THE NOTES I RECEIVED, WHETHER IT IS KAITLIN TOLIN OR PRESTON, THEY WERE BOTH ON TOLIN BUT NOW ONE IS ON AND NOW AND NOW WE LOST OUR COMPUTER SO WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
YOU CAN LOOK ON YOUR MONITORS.
ALRIGHT, DO I SEE CAITLYN TOBIN ON MY SCREEN? UH, WELCOME MA'AM.
UM, WE NEED YOU TO BEGIN BY GIVING US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND SWEARING, AFFIRMING OR PROMISING TO TELL US THE TRUTH.
[02:00:01]
RYER AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4.AND I PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
ALRIGHT MA'AM, YOU HAVE, UM, THREE MINUTES TO GIVE US ANY INFORMATION YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT ABOUT YOUR REQUEST.
UM, SO THE REQUEST IS JUST TO REPLACE OUR EXISTING FENCE AND INCREASE IT BY ONE FOOT IN HEIGHT AND THEN MAKE IT BOARD ON BOARD.
UM, THE ONLY LIKE ISSUE THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE FENCE ELIGIBLE FOR JUST, UM, AUTOMATIC APPROVALS BECAUSE, UM, THE, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOME, THE FENCE EXTENDS UP TO THE, UM, FRONT OF THE HOME, WHICH I THINK IT'S THE CODE IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE BACK 50% OF THE HOME.
HOWEVER WE HAVE, UM, THAT THAT FENCE HAS WAS LIKE THAT WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOME.
AND I'M NOT SURE FOR HOW MANY YEARS IT'S BEEN THIS WAY SINCE THE, UM, CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME ITSELF OR EVEN THE FENCE.
BUT, UM, THE, WE HAVE WINDOWS, TWO OF THEM, ONE IN OUR DINING ROOM, ONE IN THE KITCHEN THAT FACE OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME, WHICH IS ABOUT SIX AND A HALF FEET, UM, SEPARATING US BETWEEN US AND OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME.
AND THEN THAT FENCE IS BETWEEN OUR TWO PROPERTIES.
UM, BUT THOSE TWO WINDOWS, THE DINING ROOM AND THE KITCHEN WINDOW, BOTH LOOK INTO WINDOWS IN MY NEIGHBOR'S HOME.
SO RIGHT NOW THE FENCE IS BLOCKING ABOUT HALF OF THE VIEW IN THOSE WINDOWS.
IF WE RAISE IT A FOOT, IT'LL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY.
BUT THE ISSUE IS IF WE BRING THE FENCE BACK THAT 50%, IT'S UM, I THINK OF THE CODE SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE, WE'D HAVE FULLY EXPOSED WINDOWS ON BOTH SIDES LOOKING INTO EACH OTHER'S PROPERTIES.
AND, AND NOW AT THIS POINT COMMISSIONERS WILL ASK QUESTIONS OF YOUR STAFF TO CLARIFY THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS REQUEST COMMISSIONERS.
OR IF THEY HAVE NO QUESTIONS
I HAVE A MOTION, UM, DISCUSSION ITEM 5 56 0 2 LEGAL AVENUE.
OKAY, GIMME JUST A MOMENT TO VERIFY THERE IS NOBODY WHO WANTED TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION.
DISCUSSION ITEM 5 56 0 2 REGER AVENUE IN THE GENIUS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 4 5 DASH TWO 18 CP.
I MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD FENCE WE MOVED BACK TO THE 50% LINE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED COMM CONDITION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
UM, SECTION 3.6 PERTAINING FENCES, THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY CODE FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TIME MOTION? SECOND IS SECOND.
THE FIRST SECOND CAME FROM COMMISSIONER REEVES.
SO COMMISSIONER REEVES IS THE SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? UM, I KNOW THERE WAS, I NEVER KNOW.
UM, A GOOD AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION EARLIER IN THE, UH, THIS MORNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF REDUCING THE 50% OR YEAH, REDUCING THE 50% REQUIREMENT TO FIVE FEET WITHIN THE, UH, FROM THE FRONT CORNER.
UM, ALSO, UH, MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, RAISING THE, UH, THE REPLACEMENT, UM, NOT REPLACEMENT BUT REFURBISHMENT OF THE EXISTING FENCE TO RAISE IT TO EIGHT FEET WITHIN 50% OF THE, THE FRONT OF THE HOME TO, UM, JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION, UH, AGAIN OF THE GROUP.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR A, FOR A COMPROMISE TO HELP, UH, PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE, UH, WINDOWS, NOT NOT ONLY SECURITY, BUT JUST PRIVACY BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES? THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION AND I'M NOT IN ANY WAY CALLING YOU OUT, COMMISSIONER RENO OR ANYBODY ELSE OR TRYING TO BE RUDE, BUT I DID EXPECT A BIT OF QUESTIONING OF THE APPLICANT AND UH, SOME OF OUR IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO COME TO A COMPROMISE SITUATION.
BUT NOBODY SAID ANY OF THAT AND I DIDN'T WANNA ALWAYS BE THE ONE WHO JUMPS IN AND SAYS ALL THAT STUFF.
DON'T TALK SO MUCH IN THE BRIEFING IF WE'RE NOT GONNA THEN DO IT OUT HERE, BUT YOU DON'T WANNA DO IT AGAIN 'CAUSE YOU ALREADY DID IT ONCE.
SO ALL THE GOOD STUFF NEEDS TO BE SAVED FOR NOW SO THAT WE CAN TALK TO OUR APPLICANTS ABOUT STUFF.
'CAUSE NOW THAT EMOTION'S ON THE TABLE, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
I WOULD BE WILLING TO ASK THE, UM, UH, THE GIVER OF THE MOTION AND THE SECONDER TO
[02:05:01]
RE UM, MAKE A, UH, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE 50% REQUIREMENT TO FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT CORNER.ALL RIGHT, THEN WE MUST PROCEED WITH THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US AND VOTE UPON THAT ONE.
ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE UPON IT? ALRIGHT THEN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
WE WILL HAVE THE ROLL CALL BECAUSE I HAVE NO CLUE HOW MANY NOS YESES THERE WERE.
ELAINE
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SHERMAN? YES.
DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY.
UH, DISTRICT THREE COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN? NO, NO, NO.
UH, DISTRICT FOUR COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? YES.
DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER OFFIT? NO.
DISTRICT EIGHT COMMISSIONER ACY? NO.
DISTRICT NINE COMMISSIONER RENO? NO.
DISTRICT 10 COMMISSIONER COX, WHAT WAS THAT? NO.
DISTRICT 12 COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER? NO.
DISTRICT 13 COMMISSIONER POSI NO.
DISTRICT 14 COMMISSIONER HARPER? YES.
LATE, WE'LL NOW COUNT THAT UP.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THIS MOTION FAILED.
AND TO CLARIFY MY POINT EARLIER WAS THAT IF WE TALKED A LOT IN THE BRIEFING ABOUT SOMETHING, IF WE HAVE IDEAS AND SOMEONE ACTUALLY SHOWS UP OF THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS WITH US, WE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION FOR THEM, EVEN IF IT'S, WOULD YOU BE REAL HAPPY IF WE SAID YOU GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FINE TOO.
OR IF IT'S ANY COMPROMISE THAT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE PALATABLE TO US.
JUST UNLESS WE, WE ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE WHOLE APPLICATION, WE SHOULD HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO HELP THEM FIND A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN WHAT WE MIGHT IN AN IDEAL WORLD PREFER AND WHAT THEY IN AN IDEAL WORLD PREFER.
SO NOW WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A NEW MOTION.
BUT FIRST WE COULD DISCUSS WITH OUR, WITH OUR APPLICANT HERE.
I STARTED TO CALL HER OUR CLIENT, BUT SHE KIND OF IS, SHE'S SORT OF OUR CLIENT BECAUSE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO HELP HER DO HER WORK.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ANSWER.
COMMISSIONER RENO HAS A QUESTION.
MS. TOBIN, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, UM, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE FENCE AS IT IS TODAY, UM, TO, TO PUSH IT BACK AT FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT CORNER, UH, OF THE HOME, I BELIEVE THAT'LL STILL FALL IN THE FRONT OF THAT FIRST WINDOW.
I CAN'T QUITE TELL FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT OR NOT.
UM, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A TAPE MEASURE.
I CAN'T NECESSARILY MEASURE, BUT I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE.
AND I THINK IT WOULD GIVE DEFINITE, IT WOULD DEFINITELY GIVE PRIVACY IN THE, UM, KITCHEN WINDOW INTO THE, OUR NEIGHBOR'S BEDROOM.
UM, AS FAR AS THE LIVING ROOM INTO THE DINING ROOM, THAT WOULD BE THE WINDOW IN WHICH IT MIGHT ENCROACH ON.
BUT I DEFINITELY WOULD PREFER THE PRIVACY WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR LIVING, LIKE BEDROOM QUARTERS IN OUR, UM, KITCHEN VERSUS THE DINING ROOM INTO THE LIVING ROOM.
SO I WOULDN'T MIND NECESSARILY PUTTING, PUSHING THE FENCE BACK FIVE FEET.
I WAS GONNA SUGGEST THAT IT GO, UM, WHATEVER THAT DISTANCE IS BETWEEN THE CORNER AND THE RIGHT BEFORE THAT, THAT WINDOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE PICTURE LOOKING I GUESS TOWARDS THE FRONT PORTION IS THAT THE
WE HAD A ALMOST SPILL HERE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED.
UM, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SCARE EVERYBODY BY GOING, THAT COULD BE PART OF THE MOTION THAT IT, IT GO BEFORE THAT WINDOW WOULD 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FIVE FEET OR WHAT.
AND I THINK TOO, IT'S ONLY A SMALL SECTION AND WHEN YOU MOVE IT BACK A FEW FEET, IT'S GONNA LOOK, I THINK, FURTHER BACK THAN, THAN IT DOES JUST BECAUSE IT'S, THAT'S NOT A VERY WIDE SECTION AND YOU ALREADY HAVE A SECTION, THE NEIGHBOR'S SECTION THAT'S STAYING WHERE IT IS.
SO IT'S GONNA BE AT THAT LEVEL, I GUESS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD BE, IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE THAT IT'S CONSTRUCTED ALL THE WAY ACROSS BOTH PROPERTIES AND HOW YOU DETERMINE HOW YOU'RE GONNA, WOULD BREAK THAT FENCE
[02:10:01]
UP, I GUESS, UH, THAT FRONT SECTION TO, TO MAKE IT WORK IF YOU HAD TO MOVE IT BACK AND THAT, IS THAT A QUESTION FOR YOU? HANG.UM, WE'VE TALKED, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT WHAT YOUR AGREEMENT WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR IS ON, ON REBUILDING THE FENCE AT THE NEW HEIGHT AND POTENTIALLY MOVING IT.
YES, AND WE'VE TALKED WITH OUR NEIGHBOR.
THEY'RE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THE, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE FENCE WITH THE FENCE LINE THAT WE SHARE.
AND IT ALSO, THEY WERE FINE WITH, UM, THE EXISTING, UM, WHERE IT IS NOW, LIKE REPAIRING THAT AS WELL, INCLUDING THE TINY PIECE THAT CONNECTS OUR FENCES.
UM, WHICH TO HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S ONLY ABOUT A FOOT OR TWO, MAYBE A FENCE THAT CONNECTS FROM THEIR HOUSE AND PROPERTY TO THE GATE WE HAVE ON OUR SIDE.
UM, AND THEY WERE FINE WITH US ALSO REPAIRING THAT BIT AS WELL.
WE WEREN'T JUST GONNA LEAVE THAT UNINTENDED TO, WE WERE JUST GONNA COMPLETE IT WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECT, BUT IF WE ARE MOVING THE FENCE BACK WAS A NEW DISCUSSION WE NEED TO HAVE WITH THEM, UH, TO CONFIRM THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THEY ARE OKAY WITH.
BUT OF COURSE WOULD LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS MEETING OCCURRED AND JUST SORT OF, UM, KIND THE INFORMATION THAT WE TOOK AWAY FROM THIS MEETING.
AND I, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE OCCURRING FROM THERE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR PRIVACY WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE WINDOWS THAT WE BOTH CAN SEE INTO IN BOTH OF OUR PROPERTIES.
I, I DON'T THINK THEY WILL HAVE THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE, BUT WOULD NEED TO ACTUALLY LIKE, HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM AS FAR AS MOVING THE FENCE BACK TO BE SURE.
UH, COMMISSIONER REEVE, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER AZI, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MOVING IT ABOUT HALFWAY BACK BETWEEN THE GUTTER AND THE WINDOW? YES, I WAS SAYING MOVE IT UP TO, RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE WINDOW.
THE FAR BACK? YEAH, THE LEFT BACK WINDOW FRONT.
THE FIRST WINDOW IN FRONT OF THE FIRST WINDOW OR BEHIND THE FRONT, IN FRONT OF THE FIRST WINDOW SO THAT THAT FRONT WINDOW COULD HAVE THE PRIVACY THAT THE, IN THE FRONT, SORRY.
SO THAT, THAT, THAT WAS MY SUGGESTION YES.
SO THE CLOSEST TO THE EDGE OF THE, UM, OF THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE.
SO WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS WE ALREADY HEARD THAT THE ORDINANCE HERE SAYS IT SHOULD BE FIVE, FIVE FEET BACK NO MATTER WHAT THE STRICTEST ORDINANCE READING IS THAT AND NO, IT SAYS NO MATTER WHAT, THEY DON'T WANT IT MORE THAN FIVE FEET FORWARD IN THIS ORDINANCE.
THE THE QUESTION IS THE FIVE FEET MIGHT BE IN SO IN BETWEEN YEAH.
SO HE IS OFFERING A SLIGHT VARIATION ON THAT TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR WINDOW.
CAN, CAN I POINT OUT THAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS FIVE FEET FROM THE PORCH, NOT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THEIR PORCH IS SMALL, COULD THAT GIVE THEM THAT ONE THAT, THAT SHOULD GIVE ENOUGH ROOM.
'CAUSE THE PORCH IS WHAT ABOUT LIKE THREE FEET? WHATEVER OR SOMETHING.
COULD WE SAY IT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE BACK OF THE PORCH? OKAY.
OH, FROM THE BACK OF THE PORCH.
BUT ALL, ALL I WOULD SAY IS YOU COULD, YOU COULD WORK SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'D BE PLACED WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THREE INCHES OF THE FRONT OF THAT WINDOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND JUST GIVE, I WOULD NEED A, NEED YOU TO GIVE A REASON THAT IT IS, THAT IT WOULD STILL BE, UH, IN KEEPING OR COMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE DISTRICT, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
SO THAT THERE, YOU, YOU HAVE A REASON THAT YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT FIVE FOOT RULE.
IF IT IS, WE, SHE DOESN'T KNOW SHE'D HAVE TO TAKE A MEASURE AND TAKE IT.
WE JUST CAN'T TELL FROM THE PICTURE.
WITHOUT HER KNOWING, YOU KNOW, MEASURING FROM FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE WINDOW.
ALRIGHT, SO WITH THAT CLARIFIED, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION.
UH, WHAT IS THE LIVING SPACE AT THIS FRONT WINDOW? IS THAT A LIVING ROOM AREA? IS IS THAT A BEDROOM? I MISSED THAT POINT.
IS THERE THE NEIGHBOR'S LIVING ROOM AND IT'S TAKEN FROM THEIR DINING ROOM AND THE SECOND WINDOW'S TAKEN FROM THEIR KITCHEN SINK INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S BEDROOM.
BUT, BUT THE NEIGHBOR'S WINDOW WILL STILL HAVE THAT FENCE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THEIR FRONT.
THAT'S WHY SHE'S SAYING SO YOU, THE, THE LOWERING OR MOVEMENT, WHAT AM SHE'S SAYING? AM I MISSING? SHE'S SAYING THAT THEY THERE HAVE THAT SHE HAS SPOKEN TO THEM, BUT THEY, SHE'D HAVE TO JUST REITERATE WITH THE NEIGHBOR THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY TO MOVE IT BACK TO THAT FIVE FEET.
FACADE PART OF THE FENCE PANEL AS WELL AS THE SHARED PANEL YES.
SHE WOULD, SHE'S WILLING TO DISCUSS ON, ON THEIR PROPERTY AS WELL AS OKAY.
SHE WELL SHE'S, SHE DOESN'T WANNA GIVE A DEFINITE YES, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING SHE WILL DISCUSS WITH THE NEIGHBOR IF THAT IS THE CONDITION THAT IS APPROVED AT THIS POINT IN TIME SINCE THAT'S SHARED, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO? NO.
WELL, NO, WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER ONE SEPARATELY, BUT UM, YEAH, THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH THAT ONE THING.
ONE THING THAT, THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER SP BROUGHT UP EARLIER, UM, WOULD BE THAT THAT EXISTING FENCE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO
[02:15:01]
RIGHT.SO THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE, YOU KNOW, THAT LITTLE L SHAPE OF FENCE CAN STAY RIGHT.
SO THAT WOULD STILL TAKE CARE OF THE PRIVACY CONCERNS, RIGHT.
OF THE NEIGHBORS LOOKING INTO THEIR BEDROOM AND ALL THAT STUFF.
WHAT IT MAY, MAY BE, BECAUSE THAT FENCE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THAT FRONT PANEL, THE FACADE FRONT PANEL IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE PUSHED BACK AND BY THE ORDINANCE TO 50% RULE.
JUST TO, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY CONFUSING HER 'CAUSE I, I'M ALMOST GETTING CONFUSED.
JUST TO CLARIFY, CAITLIN, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY IS IF BY CHANCE THAT THEY APPROVE YOU THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT AT THE 50%, TECHNICALLY YOU DO NOT.
IF YOU DO NOT REMOVE THAT FROM THE 50% LINE ALL THE WAY TO WHERE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THE FRONT FENCE, IF YOU LEAVE IT AT A SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT AND DON'T TOUCH IT.
IT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION AND YOU CAN RAISE THE EIGHT FEET YES.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN.
BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE, YOU BOTH, YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BUT SHE WASN'T.
UM, THAT'S JUST AN OPTION IF THAT'S THEIR DISCUSSION.
WELL THAT'S WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY SAYING WAS THAT EVEN IF IT COMES AS COMMISSIONER KOSI HAS SUGGESTED THAT IT COME IN FRONT OF THAT FRONT LIVING ROOM WINDOW, THAT EVEN WHATEVER THAT SMALL AMOUNT OF L-SHAPE THAT WOULD BE LEFT BY THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE COULD STAY THERE BECAUSE NO MOTION I WAS MOTION WE MAKE ABOUT THIS AFFECTS WHAT THE NEIGHBORS DO ABOUT THEIR RIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS KIND OF CONCERNED.
'CAUSE I WAS LIKE, IF THAT'S A, THAT FRONT WINDOW IS ONLY A LIVING AREA AND THE OTHER FENCE IS GOING TO REMAIN THAT KEEPS A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY INTO THEIR AREAS THEN MY THOUGHT WAS, WELL IT DOESN'T THEN IT WOULDN'T BE, IT WOULDN'T BE BAD IF IT WAS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT WINDOW IF THAT PANEL GOT MOVED BACK BECAUSE IT'S A MORE PUBLIC WINDOW AND IT'S NOT A PRIVATE WINDOW AND IT, 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IT AT THE FRONT OF THAT WINDOW AND I WOULD SAY WELL JUST BE A CAUTION AND ERROR ON THE FIVE FOOT RULE AND GO AHEAD AND PUSH IT BACK TO THE BACK OF A PUBLIX KINDA WINDOW.
WELL SHE WAS JUST, THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
THAT WOULD BE MY, IT COULD BE A CONDITION THAT AT LEAST FIVE FEET THAT'S NOT ON TABLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE MOTION'S MADE WITH WHAT DAVID SAID.
NO, WE'RE WAITING FOR MOTION NOW.
HER, WE'RE WAITING FOR A SECOND MOTION.
I WAS JUST COMMENTING, HER THOUGHT WAS CURRENTLY AT THE SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT THAT IT'S IN.
SHE, SHE, SHE REITERATED WHEN SHE STARTED SPEAKING THAT IT ONLY COVERS HALF THE WINDOW AND THEY'D LOVE IT TO COVER ALMOST THE WHOLE WINDOW.
THAT'S WHY THEY WANNA BRING IT UP TO 50%.
THAT'S THE, JUST TO EVEN CUT THE WHOLE VIEW OF THE WINDOWS.
ARE YOU AT HOME RIGHT NOW? YES.
FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE FIRST WINDOW.
ACTUALLY JUST GRAB YOUR TAPE MEASURE AND RUN OUT AND DO THAT.
THAT'S, I HOPE SHE KNOWS WHERE HER TAPE MEASURE IS.
NOT EVERYBODY DOES MEASURE AS OFTEN AS SOME HAPPENS.
I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE MINE IS BECAUSE I OFTEN HAVE TO MEASURE THOSE NEW ONE.
I WE'RE ON RECESS FOR TWO MINUTES.
EXCEPT WHEN MY MUSCLES GET, MEANWHILE CHRISTINA IS SHOWING US THE HOUSE AGAIN.
THAT WOULD PROVE THAT SHE MEASURED IT, RIGHT? WE WOULD KNOW C SO YOU CAN GO LEFT A LITTLE BIT AND SHOW THAT WALL.
CAN I WHAT? CAN YOU MAYBE GO LEFT A LITTLE BIT? LEMME SEE THE WALL THAT SHE'S MEASURING.
THE TREE DOESN'T LET US SEE IT.
BUT YOU DON'T SEE A WINDOW RIGHT AWAY.
WELL YOU STILL, OKAY, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE TOP OF THE WINDOW RIGHT HERE.
I'M BETTING IT'S FIVE FEET BEFORE YOU HIT THAT
[02:20:01]
TO GAMBLE.WHAT DID YOU DISCOVER WHEN YOU MEASURED? IT'S ABOUT 7.5.
SO HAD I TAKEN THE BET SOMEONE OFFERED, I WOULD'VE WON 'CAUSE I SAID IT WOULD BE AT LEAST FIVE.
WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE IN HAND THAT IT IS SEVEN FEET AND A LITTLE BIT TO THE FRONT OF THAT WINDOW.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE I, I GUESS I'LL TRY
YOU HAVE TO WAIT TO HEAR IT GO.
OH, I GOTTA GO BACK TO MY ADDRESS.
UM, OKAY, SO IN THE CASE, UH, CA 2 4 5 2 18 CP 56 0 2 GER AVENUE.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE, UM, CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS AS REQUESTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FENCE IS ALLOWED TO, LET ME LOOK RIGHT HERE.
UM, THAT THE FENCE IS REQUIRED FOR MORE FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING OR PRIVACY AND THAT, UH, WE MAY ALLOW A FENCE THAT IS LOCATED FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PORCH OF THE HOUSE REQUESTING THE FENCE.
SO I'LL, I'LL CLEAN THAT UP, BUT YEAH.
OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER REEVES TO COMMISSIONER PREZI'S MOTION.
ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? THAT'S NOW ON THE TABLE.
I SEE NO ONE WHO SEEMS TO WISH TO DISCUSS THIS SO WE SHALL MOVE TO VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
AND HE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION PLEASE SAY NO.
NO, THAT WAS COMMISSIONER SHERMAN.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION? OKAY, WITH ONLY ONE NO VOTE THIS MOTION HAS CARRIED.
SO, MS. TOBIN, UM, YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE, WE HAVE ALLOWED YOU TO DO WHAT WE ARE GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO DO AND YOU CAN DISCUSS WITH STAFF HOW TO MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW THIS PERFECTLY.
BUT YOU'VE ALREADY MEASURED THE DISTANCE AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SPACE OUT THERE.
SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN WORK ON THAT AND TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBOR AND WE'LL BE IN TOUCH AND, AND STAFF WILL BE IN TOUCH TO MAKE SURE AND EXPLAIN ANYTHING THAT YOU MISSED IN ALL OF OUR ENDLESS TALKING.
BUT WE WISH YOU WELL WITH YOUR PROJECT.
AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION ITEM SIX.
AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO ONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE.
CHRISTINA PEREZ ON BEHALF OF STAFF DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 6 59 14 VICTOR STREET, JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CA 2 45 2 20 CP FIRST REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING OF MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ONE 17 WOOD SIDING.
SECOND, REQUEST A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING ON ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH ONE 17 WOOD SIDING.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN NOTE THIS CITY ATTORNEY.
THIS, THIS WAS BASED ON I WOULD HAVE ALL THE VINYL SIDING TAKEN OFF.
AT ANY RATE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR NUMBER ONE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING OF MAIN STRUCTURE B WITH ONE 17 WOOD SIDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MATERIALS SUBMITTED 12 21 20 24.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 4.3 PERTAINING TO FACADES THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN I FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING ON ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH ONE 17 WOOD SIDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MATERIALS SUBMITTED 12 21 20 24.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
SECTION 4.3 PERTAINING TO PERTAINING TO FACADES THE STANDARD IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN I FOUR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION.
ONE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING OF MAIN STRUCTURE,
[02:25:01]
BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SIDING WITH NEW ONE 17 WOOD SIDING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXISTING SIDING IS CONFIRMED TO BE 1 17 2, THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE ALL SIDING ON ACCESSORY BUILDING BE APPROVED.AS SHOWN, THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE EXISTING.
AND WE, WE DID HAVE DISCUSSION OF THIS WITH STAFF AND HEARD SOME STAFF CONCERNS.
SO THERE'S, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TO ASK OF STAFF? IF THAT'S ALL YOU CAN ASK.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, IS YOUR LIGHT ON FOR A REASON? I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS, YOUR LIGHT IS ON.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION.
UH, I'LL ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS ON THAT.
UH, THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW, KNOW WHAT'S UNDERNEATH HERE.
NO, THAT'S WHY I'M SEEING SOME JOINT LINE HERE AND SOME EXPOSED.
I THERE IS SOMETHING THERE, BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT IT IS.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? RIGHT.
BECAUSE HE, THEY ALREADY HAVE A ROUTINE CH REMOVE ALL THE VINYL SIDING.
REMEMBER THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE CITY SHUT THEM DOWN FOR SOME REASON.
AND I WAS HOPING TO HAVE ALL PICTURES OF EVERYTHING THIS WEEKEND.
SO WHAT'S THE PROCESS OF THEM REMOVING THE SIDING? WHERE ARE THEY ON THE VINYL SIDING? UM, THEY HAVE THE CA IN HAND, BUT THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERMITTING BI HAS STOPPED WORK ORDER, SO I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM TO MISUNDERSTAND THE THEY CAN REMOVE THE VINYL SIDING.
NO, THEY CAN ONLY AND ARE THEY GONNA MISUNDERSTAND? NO.
AND JUST START REMOVING ALL OF IT? NO, HE KNOWS.
I MEAN HE IS VERY MUCH IN CONTACT WITH ME AND THEN COME BACK IN AND SAY, OH, THAT'S NOT, I WAS MISUNDERSTANDING.
WHAT? NO, HE IS UNDER NO MISUNDERSTANDING.
HE WANTS TO DO EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY.
HE CALLED ME THIS MORNING BEFORE MEETING INSTEAD.
SO WE'RE EXPECT YEAH, I COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY STOPPED US AND I DIDN'T WANNA WORK WITHOUT, OKAY.
SO WE'RE EXPECTING ALL THE VINYL SIDING BE REMOVED.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE PHOTOS, COMPLETE PHOTOS AND THEN UNDERSTANDING OF SOME SORT OF PERCENTAGE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING TO, ALONG WITH WINDOWS.
SO THERE'S NOTHING TO DO ON PROVEN WHAT COULD BE ADDED, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT CONDITION.
I WOULD SAY THEY CAN DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THIS PART.
HE IS COMING BACK NEXT MEETING FOR WINDOWS.
BUT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER THING WE'LL ADD ON THERE.
UH, AGAIN, HE'S DOING EVERYTHING HE CAN TO DO EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY AND WE'RE KIND OF TRYING TO GUIDE HIM AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
BUT HE'S, WE'RE VERY IN TOUCH WITH HIM.
UM, I'M ACTUALLY SURPRISED HE'S NOT ON BECAUSE HE WAS A LITTLE BIT PANICKED THIS MORNING.
UM, MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON AT THE PROPERTY WITH THE THEY HAVE SOMEBODY OUT THERE.
I JUST KNOW THAT I GOT AN EMAIL FROM BUILDING DEPARTMENT AT THE EXACT TIME.
SHE HAS IT NOW BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE.
AND IT'S, AND WHAT I'M READING IS IT'S SAYING TO RE REPLACE WITH ALL, REPLACE ALL SIDING.
BUT THAT'S STEPH RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT WE'RE, THAT'S WHAT I SAID WE CAN'T DO THAT.
NO, THAT'S IF WE DON'T HAVE, THAT'S WHY I SAID BEFORE I STARTED READING THAT ALL I GOT I WAS UNDER THE I GOTCHA.
THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS WHEN WE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE MORE FOR YOU WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA HAVE MORE.
ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONER REEVES, YOU JUST NEED A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I NEED A MOTION OR IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THEN I NEED A MOTION.
UM, ON, UM, CA 2 4 5 DASH 2 2 0 5 9 14 VICTOR STREET IN JUNIUS HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PRECEDENCES.
UM, WITH THE FINDING THAT IF WE WOULD, IF THE, THE APPLICANT WOULD PROCEED TO GO WITH WHAT IS STATED AS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT THAT WOULD CREATE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OF THE UNKNOWING CONDITIONS AND THE UNKNOWING MATERIALS THAT COULD BE, UH, REMOVED, UH, FROM THE STRUCTURE.
SO ON THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT'S, UM, CREATING AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE HOUSE.
IF, IF YOU COULD ALSO PLEASE JUST USE THE WORD THAT IT WON'T BE THAT IT, I BELIEVE IT CREATES AN ADVERSE EFFECT.
THE WORD PROPOSED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
I ALSO WILL INCLUDE, IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, UH, CREATING AN ADVERSE EFFECT.
AND THEN MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION IS, THAT'S ON BOTH ITEMS OR JUST YES.
[02:30:01]
ON BOTH ITEMS. NUMBER ONE AND TWO.DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX GETS THAT ONE
COMMISSIONER COX IS THE SECOND COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS'S MOTION ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR CAN WE VOTE ON THIS? MARTHA, IT IS TIME FOR A VOTE ON THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY YES.
AND HE OPPOSED THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY NO.
I THINK WE HAVE PASSED THIS MOTION.
STAFF WILL CONFER WITH THE APPLICANT WITH EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CPC, BUT OBVIOUSLY MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
UH, PLEASE COME BACK WITH THIS.
STAFF PLEASE TRY TO WORK WITH BUILDING INSPECTION TO GET THEM TO LET THEM TO TAKE THE SIDING OFF BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS OKAY AND WE ALL AGREED.
AND PLEASE LET 'EM KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, IN THE MEANTIME, IF THEY WANNA TRY TO COVER IT WITH PLYWOOD OR PLASTIC OR SOMETHING, THIS IS ALWAYS TEMPORARY AND DOESN'T STAY.
COMMISSIONER COX WAS THE SECOND.
THANK YOU, IZZY, TO SPELL ONLY THREE LETTERS.
THAT LEAVES US WITH JUST ONE ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.
ALL RIGHT, THIS IS THE MICHAEL FLOWERS ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF.
THIS IS, UH, DISCUSSION ITEM D 8 4 5 7 7 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, MOUNTAIN CREEK INTERURBAN BRIDGE.
UH, REQUEST A LANDMARK COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO CONSIDER A HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE MOUNTAIN CREEK INTERURBAN BRIDGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND INTERSECTING CHALK HILL TRAIL.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
AND, UH, WE KIND OF HAD, WE DON'T HAVE A TASK FORCE, BUT UH, WE HAVE THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE.
MR. PRESI, PLEASE AS A MEMBER OF THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE TOO, PLEASE READ WHAT THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE HAD TO SAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO PRESERVATION CRITERIA, DESIGNATION COMMITTEE, MINOR EDITS TO NOMINATION AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
ALRIGHT THEN DO I HAVE A MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IN CASE OR WELL A CASE NUMBER, UH, FORD FOUR, UH, 45 77 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, KNOWN AS MOUNTAIN CREEK OR INTERURBAN BRIDGE THAT WE APPROVE, UH, THE REQUEST FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
WHO SECONDED IT? COMMISSIONER REYES GETS THAT ONE.
SHE GETS THE RECORD NUMBER OF SECONDS TODAY.
WE ALL HAVE TO BE FAST IF WE WANNA BE HERE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE IN OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? WE'RE ALL JUST SMILING THOUGH, 'CAUSE WE, WE DO LOVE TO HAVE LANDMARKS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES.
ANY OPPOSE THIS MOTION? WELL THEN IT HAS CARRIED AND, YES.
THAT'S, THAT'S NICE THAT WE HAVE THAT.
WE DO HAVE ONE MORE ORDER OF BUSINESS.
WE HAVE TO DISCUSS OUR MINUTES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE BEFORE WE APPROVE THE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT, THEN PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION.
THIS WHO, WHOEVER WILL SECOND.
COMMISSIONER COX HAS SECONDED THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION THAT WE APPROVE OUR MINUTES FROM JANUARY? YES.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDE CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF TODAY.
AND THEREFORE, THIS MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED AT 3 52.