[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