* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
           
          [00:00:03]
STAFF. 
          ARE YOU GUYS READY FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED?  AS LONG AS Y'ALL. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          [Reading of the Agenda]
GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS EMILY REED. 
          IT'S SIX O'CLOCK ON MAY 18TH. 
          I'M THE CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. 
          I WANT TO, I'LL CALL THEM ROLE. 
          WELL THAT SOUNDS SNAPPY. 
          JACOB, ANY NIGHTERS HERE? ALEX. 
          CELIA ABSENT. 
          UM, I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA AND LIKE LAST TIME WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS. 
          UM, IF THAT COULD RESOLVE AN ISSUE BEFORE YOU WANT TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, THEN WE WILL HAVE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          THERE ARE SOME FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UM, FOR THE, FOR SOME FACES THAT ARE NOW DISCUSSION. 
          AND LIKE LAST TIME WE WILL HEAR FROM ALL OF THOSE FOLKS IN ORDER OF THE AGENDA AND THEN WE WILL OPEN EACH CASE. 
          UM, THAT IS FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UM, AND FOLKS CAN STAY ON THE LINE IF THEY WISH TO, UM, BE ABLE TO SPEAK AT THAT TIME. 
          UM, JUST THESE MISSIONARY, A LITTLE DRYNESS. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND THEN FOR THOSE GETTING READY TO SPEAK WITH MEGAN ON THE LINE, JUST A REMINDER THAT, UH, YOUR TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. 
          I KNOW IN OUR, IN PERSON MEETINGS WE HAVE A FIVE MINUTE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER OF EITHER SIDE AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THREE MINUTES FOR EVERYONE WITH NO DONATION. 
          [Consent Agenda]
SO THE INCENTIVE AGENDA, UM, I'M ASSUMING THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM LAST WEEK. 
          MMM. 
          ITEM A ONE 24 OH FOUR RIO GRANDE STREET. 
           ITEM B TOO. 
          14. 
          OKAY. 
           OKAY. 
          UH, T TWO 1412 SOUTH CONGRESS, THE THREE 10 18 EDGE FLIP CARROTS. 
          I'M GOING TO PULL THAT ONE. 
          AND THEN HE WON THE SIEBEL'S NEED HOUSE AT 18. 
          OKAY. 
          SO BASICALLY WHEN THE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED, THE REMAINING TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE TWO 14, 12 SOUTH CONGRESS AND  NO ONE STRIVE AS WELL AS THE, UM, FROM LAST YEAR. 
          I'M SORRY, THIS IS KARA BERTRAN CALLING. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT. 
          UM, 1300 EAST FOURTH STREET HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          YOU WERE BREAKING UP. 
          DID YOU SAY 1300? WHAT DID YOU SAY? YEAH, BEFORE THE 1300 EASTBOUND? I'M SORRY. 
          YES, I DID MISS THAT ONE OUT. 
          THE TEXACO DEPOT AT UM, 1,313. 
          OH, TWO EAST FOURTH STREET. 
          UM, NO, ACTUALLY THAT HAS BEEN COLD. 
          THAT WAS PULLED BY, UM, SOME PUBLIC. 
          [00:05:02]
SO THAT IS AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION. 
          WAS THAT PULLED BY MR TAMBURELLO OR WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE? BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE HE WISHES TO SPEAK THERE. 
          YOU'RE REALLY BREAKING UP, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE LIST THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME WAS TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, DAN ALVAREZ AND TOM WALL. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO NOW WE CAN, UH, YOU'RE FROM FOLKS ON THE LINE ACTUALLY FINISHED THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH A MOTION. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          YES, I GUESS WE SHOULD BECAUSE THE LOOKS, WHEN I CAN SEE IT ON A, ON AN ITEM, THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAD TO HAVE SIGNED UP FOR IT. 
          SO, UM, YES. 
          SO I'LL NOTE CONSENT ITEMS AS MENTIONED. 
          I'LL SECOND MOTION. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          THEN I SUPPOSE MOTION PASSES. 
          ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          UM, 
          [Item 3 B1 (Part 1 of 2)]
THE FIRST ITEM WITH SOMEONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WAS THE ONE ONE OH SIX FEEDS SIXTH STREET. 
          I MEAN, I'LL SEE. 
          WELL HORI I'M SORRY, WHERE IS THAT? WELL, SEE ON THE LINE, I THINK THIS OR SHAWN OR BRIAN, IS IT MY TURN TO SPEAK ABOUT LITTLE FIELD BUILDING? UH, THE NEXT PERSON THAT I HAVE FOUND OUT IS GEORGE. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          IN PLACE OF CHELSEA FOR SEAN. 
          YOUR FIRST STEP. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY NOLAN'S STUDIO. 
          THAT WAS UM, SOMETHING ON FRIDAY THAT'S VERY POSTED TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WEBSITE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M USING AS MY GOODBYE. 
          SO IF EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT, THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. 
          UM, WHAT WE HAVE IS, OKAY. 
           OKAY. 
          IT IS A SEVEN PAGE PDF. 
          SO THE, THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS A PHOTO OF THE BUILDING FROM, YEAH, WELL WE THINK OF THE 1920S AND SHOWED THE ORIGINAL FACADE WITH THREE. 
          YEAH. 
          DIFFERENT AWNINGS. 
          THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING IS ON THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING AND THAT AWNING IS RAISED ABOVE ALL OF THE FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS. 
          AND THEN THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONAL SECONDARY INSURANCES, UH, ON THE CONGRESS SIDE AND ON THE SIXTH STREET SIDE. 
          AND THOSE AWNINGS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER AND CREATE A TRANSOM LIGHT ABOVE THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEY'RE ALSO NOTED TO BE VERY DECORATIVE IN THEIR DESIGN. 
          AND SO WE LOSE THAT. 
          AND ALSO WE ALSO FOUND A PRECEDENT FROM, IT LOOKS LIKE THE 1958 FACADE REMODEL WHERE THEY HAD AWNINGS ACROSS THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WAS LARGELY GLAZING AND AT SOME POINT THE BILLING WAS JUST PUT BACK MORE TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION, WHICH IS HOW WE HAVE IT TODAY WITH PUNCHED OPENING WINDOWS. 
          UM, SO THOSE ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE WERE TO FIND, UH, AS PRECEDENT, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          SO TODAY WE HAVE OUR MAIN ENTRANCE, UH, WITH AN AWNING OVER IT. 
          THAT AWNING WAS PUT ON APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS AGO. 
          UM, IT'S ON THE SIXTH STREET SIDE. 
          IT'S THE ONLY AWNING ON THE BUILDING. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ONE ON THE CORNER AND WE DON'T HAVE ONE FACING CONGRESS. 
          AND, UM, WE'RE PROPOSING AN AWNING SIMILAR IN STYLE TO THIS, BUT IT WOULD BE LOWER TO DENOTE THAT IT'S A SECONDARY ENTRANCE. 
          UM, AND IT WOULD, UH, BE JUST TO THE EAST OF THE MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE AND THAT'S REPRESENTED ON THE LAST TWO PAGES OF THE PRESENTATION. 
           AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT SINCE IT'S A SECONDARY ENTRANCE, WE'VE LOWERED, UH, THE SCALE OF IT BROUGHT IT DOWN TO CREATE THE TRANSOM WINDOW OVER THE TOP, SIMILAR 
          [00:10:01]
TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING. 
          UH, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE IS AND UH, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MATCH THE EXISTING AWNING SO THAT UM, THERE'S SOME CONTINUITY IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING. 
           AND THAT WAS THE, THE APPROACH THAT WE TOOK FOR PROPOSING THE ADDITION OF THIS AWNING. 
           OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE WE TAKING QUESTIONS NOW OR DO WE COME BACK FOR QUESTIONS? IF WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PRESENTER? YES, WE CAN ASK IT NOW. 
          COULD YOU PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE METHOD OF ATTACHMENT TO THE BUILDING? I KNOW IN THE STAFF REPORT IT MENTIONED THAT THE ATTACHMENT SHOULD BE TO THE MORTAR, BUT THE EXISTING THAT'S THERE IS NOT TO THE MORTAR. 
          CAN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR METHOD OF ATTACHMENT FOR THE PROPOSED AWNING? OH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WE WOULD PROPOSE, UH, A SIMILAR ATTACHMENT AS THE AWNING THAT'S THERE NOW, WHICH THE CURRENT AWNING IN IT'S CURRENT SIZE ONLY NEEDS FOUR ATTACHMENT POINTS TO AT THE POINT OF THE ACTUAL AWNING AND THEN TWO MORE HIGHER UP ABOVE IT FOR THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT. 
          UM, IT'S MINIMALLY INVASIVE TO THE FACADE INSTEAD OF A FULL CONNECTION ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE AWNING, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A FLASHING IN AND A LONGTERM CHANGE TO THE FACADE ITSELF. 
          IT'S JUST MINIMIZING THE NUMBER OF POINTS. 
          SO THAT'S REPRESENTED ON THE PITCH SHEET OF THE PDF. 
          SO OUR NEW AWNING WOULD HAVE MORE THAN THAN THAT EXISTING AWNING, JUST BASED ON THE LENGTH OF IT. 
          IT'S LIKE ONE, TWO, FOUR, FIVE POINTS WITH AN ASSOCIATED POINT HIGHER THAN, THAN THAT. 
          SO 10 TOTAL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WILL YOU, YES, WE WOULD USE A SIMILAR ATTACHMENT METHOD. 
          IS THAT EXISTING RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHERE IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IF I COULD JUST STATE THAT THE FIRST FLOOR ACCORDING TO THE 1958 DRAGS WAS COMPLETELY REMOVED DURING THAT TIMEFRAME IN FAVOR OF FULL GLAZING FACADE. 
          SO THAT FIRST FLOOR IS NOT THE ORIGINAL FACADE WHILE TRYING TO REPLICATE WHAT WAS THERE IN THE 19 TEENS AT ITS INCEPTION. 
          IT'S NOT ORIGINAL. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER. 
          HI EMILY. 
          I DON'T THINK GEORGE OR TODD HAVE CALLED IN. 
          YOU MIGHT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO JOEL. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I'M HERE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I JUST SHOWED UP TO BASICALLY SUPPORT WHAT SEAN WAS SAYING AND TO UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING EXTRA TO ADD AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THE NEXT ITEM WAS SOMEONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK 
          [Item 3 B4]
FOR 1300. 
          HI. 
          HI. 
          I'M SORRY, UH, CHERRY, THIS IS KARA AGAIN. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THE STAFF AND UM, AND ACTUALLY ALL THE SPEAKERS, I'M SORRY, CARRIE, YOU'RE BREAKING UP ALL THE SPEAKERS, BUT ALL THE SPEAKERS WHO SIGNED UP FOR UBER AND MR WALD DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK. 
          SO IF I DON'T, IF THE COMMISSIONS IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT, I THINK IT COULD BE PASSED ON. 
          IT COULD BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS ONE OF THE, UNLESS SOMEONE ON THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT, WHICH IS ALSO FINE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT BEING PULLED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC  THAT'S BEFORE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          1300 TO 13. 
          OH TWO EAST FOURTH STREET. 
          [00:15:02]
OKAY. 
          DID ANYONE FROM THE COMMISSION WANTS TO PULL THAT ONE? THE TEXACO THOUGH?  OKAY. 
          UM, SHALL I WILL MOVE THAT WE ADD THAT ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM BEFORE 3,000 TO 1302 EAST FOURTH STREET. 
          OKAY. 
          AND GAVE MR  ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL OF THOSE, THE MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION ON OUR END. 
          OKAY, SO 
          [Item 3 C1]
OUR NEXT CASE WITH A SEIZURE IS UM, C1 90 TO 92 RAINY STREET AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS AMANDA SCORE. 
          HI CARE. 
          AMANDA SWORE HERE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, I'M REALLY JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          IF THERE ARE ANY DURING DISCUSSION AND JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I THINK THAT FOR ALL OF THEIR WORK AND RESEARCH THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT. 
          ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER?  UM, PERSON NELSON IS PERSON ON THE LINE. 
           YES, I'M HERE. 
          I'M LIKEWISE JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION. 
          UH, 
          [Item 3 D1 (Part 1 of 2)]
MOVING ON TO D ONE SIX OH ONE WEST 26TH STREET. 
          WE HAVE SCOTT BURNS. 
          YES. 
          HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          SCOTT BURNS FOR LINCOLN VENTURES. 
          UM, WE ARE RESPONDING ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO THE DEMOLITION PERMIT. 
          UH, THIS IS A FOLLOWUP TO OUR MEETING LAST MONTH, UH, AND REALLY WANTED TO, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY HAVE TRANSPIRED OVER THE LAST MONTH. 
          UM, AS WELL AS JUST REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT, UM, THIS PROJECT, UM, WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT AND IN LARGE PART WE'RE EXCITED BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING IN A LOT OF AFFORDABILITY TO THE AREA. 
          UM, AS A RESULT OF THIS APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY, UH, WE'RE LOOKING TO BRING OVER 80 BEDS, AMBER, 22 UNITS, UM, THAT WILL PROVIDE SMART HOUSING IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA. 
          AND WITH THAT SAID, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY ALL GIVE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS MINUTE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          WELL, UM, I APOLOGIZE THAT THERE WERE SOME FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, UM, BUT ONLY IF THE ITEM WAS PULLED AND THEY DID GET HOLD BY, UM, THE COMMISSION. 
          SO THAT WAS ITEM A ONE AND ITEM B THREE. 
          SO I WILL CIRCLE BACK TO YOU GUYS IF YOU'RE STILL ON THE LINE, UM, TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS AFTER WE FINISHED WITH, UH, D ONE AND APOLOGIES FOR STICKING UP FOR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BURNS? ALRIGHTY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IS NICOLE FIERRO ON THE LINE? HI, THIS IS TAYLOR MCENTIRE AND NICOLE FRO. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WE JUST WANTED TO, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU GUYS FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR BELOVED BUILDING THAT WE HAD CALLED HOME FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS OF OUR UNDERGRADUATE CAREER AT UT. 
          THIS BUILDING HAS IN FACT OFFERED COMFORT AND SOLACE, UT STUDENTS AND FACULTY SINCE 1957 AND IF WE DID THE COMMITTEE TO ALLOW THIS HISTORIC BUILDING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY AS A PIECE OF HISTORY CONNECTING WEST CAMPUS TO ITS ROOTS, LIVING IN AN HISTORIC BUILDING SUCH AS THE OLD GROCERY STORE HAS GIVEN MY ROOMMATE AND MYSELF, NICOLE AND I, UM, A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO WITNESS THE POSITIVE IMPACT IT'S HAD ON THE COMMUNITY. 
          JUST LAST WEEK, I FOUND NO LESS THAN THREE SETS OF PEOPLE PHOTOGRAPHING THEMSELVES IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC SIGNAGE AND FACADE. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          YES. 
          SO WE'LL SLOW DOWN. 
          UM, SO LAST WEEK I DID SEE THREE SETS OF PEOPLE PHOTOGRAPHING THEMSELVES IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC SIGNAGE AND FACADE OF THE BUILDING. 
          AND WHEN I SPOKE TO EACH OF THESE GROUPS OF PEOPLE AND TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPENDING DESTRUCTION RESULT, THE RESULTS TO TEAR IT DOWN, THEY ALL EXPRESS DEEP SADNESS AT THE IDEA THAT YET ANOTHER IMPORTANT HISTORIC BUILDING WOULD BE TURNED DOWN TO BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER LARGE SCALE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          UM, SIXTIES, THE 2019 AFFORDABLE RENT FIGURE WHEN COMPARED TO EVERY APARTMENT IN THE VICINITY WITH THE MAJORITY OF 
          [00:20:01]
WHICH STAND AT OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MONTH PLUS PARKING AND UTILITIES. 
          THE FIGURE IS FAR LOWER AND IS WHAT A LOT OF MY ROOMMATE AND MYSELF TO LIVE NEAR CAMPUS, WHICH IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF STUDENT LIFE. 
          I DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASON OUR BUILDING SHADE QUALIFY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HISTORIC AND THAT COMMISSION AGAINST DEMOLITION ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE IT ADDS TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY ENLIGHTENING AS WE DROVE INTO THE PAST OF THE PLACE WE CALL THESE CALLED HOME FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE DISCOVERED THE SAME BORNE MAP FROM 19 HUNDREDS OF PICKING AN OLD GROCERY STORE AT HER OLD ADDRESS ON 26TH AND FOURTH STREET BEFORE WORD BECAME THE RACISM AND THE RACIST BECAME SEATING WITH HELP FROM A HISTORIC BUILDING DEFENDER FRIEND OF OURS. 
          WE READ THE STORIES ABOUT OUR BUILDINGS, PAST SLICES OF GROCERY STORE BEFORE IT BECAME A HOME TO MYSELF, MY ROOMMATE, AND THREE OTHER TENANTS. 
          I SPOKE WITH HISTORY BUFFS AROUND THE STATE WHO HEARD ABOUT OUR CASE FROM THE PETITION. 
          MY ROOMMATE AND MYSELF STARTED TO SHOW THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE SALVATION OF THIS BUILDING, WHICH ARE THE RECORD AS OF ABOUT 3:00 PM TODAY HAD OVER 500 SUPPORTERS. 
          WE SPOKE WITH PEOPLE WHO SHARED RESOURCES, MAPS FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND STARTED ABOUT VISITING THEIR FRIENDS. 
          AND IT'S VERY BUBBLING IN THEIR TIME AS UNDERGRADS AT UT. 
          I PLEAD TO YOU IS THIS, DON'T, DON'T WANT THIS BUILDING THAT HAS FAITHFULLY SERVED THE UT AND GREATER AUSTIN COMMUNITY AND ALL THE HISTORY HERE AND BE REDUCED TO RUBBLE. 
          THAT'S CONSIDERED DENYING A PETITION FOR DEMOLITION AND ALLOW THE OLD GROCERY STORE TO REMAIN AN IMPORTANT HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          BUT HE TEASED STUDENTS AND ALSO I STILL LIKE THANKS AND HOOK THEM. 
          AND DO YOU GET ANY QUESTIONS? HELLO? OKAY. 
          UH, SCOTT BURNS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. 
          UM, NO THANK YOU. 
          EXACT CORRECT STUFF OR IF WE HAVE A ROBOTIC PROCEDURE. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO JUMP IN. 
          NO, GO AHEAD. 
          CARE. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT AFTER ALL OF THE, ANY OTHER SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION, I WOULD LET THEM SPEAK. 
          UM, AND THEN ALLOW THE APPLICANT THREE MINUTES TO, UH, TO READ. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          APOLOGIES. 
          MR. BURNS, WE WILL ALLOW A REBUTTAL AND UM, OKAY. 
          WOMEN WHO JUST GO FOR THE LAST FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. 
          SO IF YOU'RE STILL THERE, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR STATEMENT. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY NOT A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SITE. 
          UM, I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL HAD RECEIVED THE OWNERS, UM, A DESIRE TO NOT HAVE THE UH, PROPERTY, UM, MADE A HISTORIC SITE AND THIS IS THE SAME OWNER THAT HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY, UM, SINCE I BELIEVE THE 1960S. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABILITY, UM, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT, UM, WHILE THERE MIGHT BE FOUR REASONABLY PRICED BEDS AT THE CURRENT SITE, WHICH, UM, I WOULD NOTE ARE ABOVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, LEVEL, UM, THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE, UM, CLOSE TO 80 BEDS IN THAT STEAD. 
          SO, UM, FROM AN AFFORDABILITY STANDPOINT, UM, I SEE THIS AND WE SEE THIS AS A POSITIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE AREA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT. 
          UM, YEAH, I'M AMAZED THAT THOSE IN OPPOSITION WERE ABLE TO GET 500 PEOPLE TO SIGN ON THEIR PETITION AND I COMMEND THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORTIVE PROBATION. 
          [Item 3 A1 (Part 1 of 2)]
UH, SO NOW WE'RE GOING FLIP IT BACK TO ITEM . 
          OTHER, UH, TAPING IS ON THE LINE AND WITH LIKE, YES. 
          UM, THIS IS HOW THEY'RE CHATTING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. 
          I AM THE CASE MANAGER FOR THE PARKER HOUSE CASE, WHICH IS 24 OH FOUR RIO GRANDE STREET. 
          IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED, G O 
          [00:25:01]
H M. 
          P FOR THE FRONT PORTION OF THE TRACKS AND EACH MP OR THE TRACK, I'M CALLING THEM TRACK ONE AND TRACK TWO. 
          SO THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE APARTMENT WHERE THE BUILDING IS TO G, R N U H N. 
          P AND THEN HAVE THE REAR OF THE TRACK GO TO G. 
          R. 
          N. 
          U. 
          N. 
          P. 
          IT'S ABOUT 0.3 ACRES. 
          I BELIEVE YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. 
          LET ME ALL DOWN. 
          UM, AND THERE MY ISSUES SECTION I POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE H DESIGNATION FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ONLY TO ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA. 
          CURRENTLY THERE IS H DESIGNATION ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, UM, AND THEY DO INTEND TO KEEP THE H DESIGNATION WHERE THE PARKER HOUSE OR BUILDING IS LOCATED. 
          UH, THIS WILL ALLOW COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES WITH HAVING THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED OF COURSE BETWEEN 24TH AND 25TH STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIO GRANDE. 
          IT'S IN THE OUTER WEST CAMPUS SUB DISTRICT CAMPUS UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHAT I HEARD FROM THE WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA. 
          UH, THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AS I SAID, TRACKS ONE IS CURRENTLY OFFERED AND HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN USE. 
          THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS S H M P AND IT'S CURRENTLY USED FOR PARKING AREA. 
          THERE IS A GARAGE AND THE GARAGE APARTMENT SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IS A FRATERNITY HOUSE AND A CONVENIENCE BUSINESS. 
          AND C. 
          S M P WEST OF THE PROPERTY IS MULTIFAMILY, THEN HUGHES AND M. 
          P NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS A MULTIFAMILY AREA WITH A MIX OF M S AND P L O N P D L M P AND M S AND P ACROSS RIO GRANDE TO THE EAST OF PROPERTIES. 
          THEN M AND P C S M P AND CS ONE MP. 
          THERE'S A SORORITY HOUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY LAND USES. 
          OKAY. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE THE H FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE PARKING AND APARTMENT UNIT ARE LOCATED. 
          SINCE THIS AREA DOESN'T CONTAIN ANY STRUCTURES OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT SUPPORTS THAT ASPECT OF THE REQUEST AND AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PRESERVING H DESIGNATION ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THE RECOMMENDATION IS THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE MS AND THE G RIGHT NOW DO NOT REFLECT THIS DISTANCE, SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THAT THE BRAKE LINE OF WHERE THE H EXISTS BE 15 FEET OFF OF THE REAR OF THE PARKER HOUSE TO ALLOW IT TO BE WERE MADE FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. 
          I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO STEVE SADOSKY. 
          HE CAN GO OVER THE COMMENTS FROM MRS PRESERVATION OFFICE. 
          OH, I THINK WE, UM, MAYBE GOT A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER THERE. 
          I HAD SEEN THIS HAPPEN AS, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UM, AND DIDN'T REALIZE THAT SHE WAS THE CASE MANAGER ON THE CASE. 
          UM, SO WE'VE JUST GOTTEN A LITTLE PREVIEW OF OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEMS. I DID WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO, UM, 
          [Item 3 B3 (Part 1 of 2)]
FROM, UH, B3 IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE STILL ON THE LINE THAT WANTED TO OFFER THEIR COMMENTS ON THAT, UH, SINCE IT WAS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. 
          HI, DAN WILLIAMS IS THE FIRST PERSON THAT WAS SIGNED UP. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, I AM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. 
          I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AND I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          UH, YES, TERRY, MR. MEYERS. 
          RIGHT. 
          I PULLED THAT ITEM, UM, BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T PHOTOGRAPHS OR DRAWINGS OR ANY REPRESENTATION OF THE PICTURE WINDOW THAT'S PREFERS TO REPLACE THE HISTORIC OPENINGS. 
          AND, UM, I WONDERED IF YOU COULD COMMENT ON THAT. 
          I UH, I HAVE SOME OBJECTIONS TO THAT, BUT MAYBE WHEN IT COMES UP ON YOUR AGENDA, SORRY. 
          [00:30:02]
COULD BE, SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? ME, MEL. 
          LAUREN? YES. 
          OH YES, I'M ON MINE. 
          WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WE DIDN'T GET ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR IMAGES OR DRAWINGS OR SPECS OF THE CHANGES. 
          SPECIFICALLY THE CHANGE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, UH, FROM EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS TO THE LARGE PICTURE WINDOW. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OVER IN YOUR BACKUP. 
          THEY SHOULD BE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE PLAN. 
          UM, YEAH, I'M GOING TO LET HECTOR TALK TO THAT. 
          HE, UH, HE WOULD KNOW. 
          LET ME GET HECTOR, WHOEVER ALLOWS HER HIM TO SPEAK. 
          UM, HE CAN TELL YOU AND NAVIGATE YOU TO WHATEVER DRAWING, UH, WE NEED BUT THAN NOT. 
          HI, THIS IS PROJECT MANAGER. 
          UM, AND THE DRAWING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, SORRY, CAN'T HEAR YOU AT ALL. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          UH, I HOPE THIS IS BETTER. 
          UM, THE DRAWING, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS, UM, ON PAGE 13 AND THAT WILL BE A DRAWING TITLED E N DASH TWO OH TWO THAT, UH, DRAWING CORRESPONDS WITH THE NORTH HOUSE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NORTH ELEVATION AT THE BOTTOM. 
          THE BOTTOM DRAWING IS THE NORTH ELEVATION. 
          UM, AS YOU KNOW, OR AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, UH, THE NORTH ELEVATION WAS, UH, UM, THERE WAS KIND OF A SINGLE DOOR THAT LED OUT FROM, FROM THE NORD HOUSE ON TO, UH, UH, BACK GARDENS. 
          AND SO WE WERE KIND OF REVISING THAT ELEVATION SO THAT IT FUNCTIONS AND IT CONNECTS THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE WITH, UH, WITH A NEW TERRORISTS, UH, BEHIND THE HOUSE. 
          UM, SO THE RATIONALE FOR THE REDESIGN HERE IS TO KIND OF OPEN UP THAT ELEVATION THAT ISN'T VISIBLE FROM THE STREET IN ANY WAY. 
          AND, UM, AND HE REALLY PROVIDES THAT CONNECTION TO THE TERRORISTS AND KIND OF ALLOWS THE INSIDE SPACE KIND OF FLOOR OUT AND REALLY PROVIDE THOSE DRAMATIC VIEWS TO DOWNTOWN. 
          SO THE STRATEGY HERE WAS TO KIND OF RESTORE THE REMAINING, UM, KIND OF BRICK WORK UP TO THAT POINT. 
          AND THEN IN SORT OF KIND OF A SERIES OF THREE, UH, LARGER OPENINGS THAT KIND OF CONTRAST THE EXISTING HISTORIC, UH, DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. 
          IF WE, IF WE CAN GET TO THAT, UM, DRAWING A N DASH TWO OH TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          GREAT. 
          I CAN'T ACCESS THAT BACKUP WHILE I'M IN THIS MEETING, BUT UM, I PULLED IT, I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO REVISIT THAT AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT WHEN IT COMES UP ON THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE ON THE LINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ITEM B THREE PERHAPS? CAMERON CAMPBELL? OH YES. 
          THIS IS CAMERON CAMPBELL, A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON NORWOOD PROJECT AND UM, JUST I AM A PROPONENT FOR THE PROJECT AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE TERRACE. 
          HECTOR SPOKE TO, UM, THE INDOOR OUTDOOR CONNECTION ON THE MORE SIDE, UM, AS WELL AS ANYTHING RELATED TO THE GROUNDS OF THE MARIJUANA STATE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT SUSAN BENZ SIGNED UP AS WELL. 
          HELLO. 
          I'M THIS ADVANCED WITH BENZ RESOURCE GROUP PROJECT MANAGEMENT, WORKING WITH THE NORWOOD PARK FOUNDATION. 
          I SIGNED UP IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT. 
          I DO THINK WE SHOULD ASK COLEEN PERIO 
          [00:35:01]
TO SPEAK BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN BEFORE THIS, THIS, UM, COMMITTEE BEFORE AND HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE NORTH FACADE. 
          MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S CALLING ON THE LINE. 
          YOU MAY NOT BE ON THE LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, HELLO, I'M HERE. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          PAULINE. 
          DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK. 
          HELLO? CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES MA'AM. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY, WONDERFUL. 
          UM, YES, I'M CALLING TERRIO. 
          I'M PRESIDENT OF NORWOOD PARK FOUNDATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT NORTH FACADE. 
          UH, TWO YEARS AGO WE DID VISIT WITH THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE COMMISSION TO GO OVER THAT PARTICULAR WALL BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN GROSSLY, UM, ALTERED IN THE 1960S AND SEVENTIES. 
          AND IN ORDER TO, UH, HAVE THE INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT WE NEEDED FOR THE TERRORISTS, UH, WE, WE HAVE CHOSEN TO PUT THE PICTURE WINDOW AND THE DOORS TO HAVE THE BEAUTIFUL VIEW OUT TO THE TERRACE AND THE INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT WE NEED FOR SAFETY AND, AND, AND TRAFFIC PURPOSES. 
          AND THAT LANGUAGE, WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF THE LANGUAGE ON THAT WALL COULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT IS ALL, IT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW WALL. 
          UM, AND WE WERE GIVEN THE APPROVAL TO DO THAT. 
          SO THOSE WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE PURPOSEFULLY, UH, DIFFERENT. 
          THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THEY ARE NOT THE HISTORIC WINDOWS AND DOORS. 
          SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, UM, I CAN ANSWER. 
          I'M, I'M VERY HAPPY TO. 
          I'M HAPPY TO BE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR, FOR YOUR WORK WITH US OVER THE YEARS ON THIS. 
          YOUR QUESTIONS FOR HER. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST MAKE SURE I REALIZE, ONLY DO ABSTAIN ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR PROCEDURE IS. 
          I THINK THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE SOME FOLLOWUP. 
          I DON'T IF STAFF COULD ASSIST ME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S ITEM, UM, THE UH, B3 RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WHEN WE GET TO THAT CASE, YOU DID STEP OFF THE DIME. 
          YES. 
          WILL WE BE ABLE TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT ITEM? I GUESS WE WILL HAVE QUORUM, IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S SIX OF US, RIGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I STILL HAVE CONCERNS AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN IT COMES UP IN THE MEETING. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON A COMMITTEE AT THE TIME THIS CAME FORWARD, BUT I HAVE STRONG FEELINGS AND RESERVATIONS ABOUT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I WAS GOING TO MOVE TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT ACTUALLY I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF WE NEED TO. 
          UM, OR IF I NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT ITEMS. PB COMMISSIONERS STAYED CLOSE, THE PUBLIC PUBLIC AREA FOR CONSENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE, AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT ITEMS. 
          [Item 3 A1 (Part 2 of 2)]
OKAY. 
          AND WE WILL MOVE TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM A ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE ALREADY HEARD FROM UM, MS CHAFFIN, UM, 
          [00:40:01]
WAS JUST CONFIRMING THAT THAT WAS OKAY. 
          YOUR PRESENTATION THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD OR WE CAN MOVE ON TO STEVE'S PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION PROBABLY ABOUT THAT. 
          THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION, BUT I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO DISCUSS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ASPECTS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO GOOD EVENING COMMERCIALLY. 
          UH, THIS WAS AN INTERESTING CASE BECAUSE IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, UH, THEY HAVE COME UP WITH VARIOUS PROPOSALS TO ADD, ADD SOME VALUE TO THIS PROPERTY. 
          AND AS YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER, ONE PROPOSAL INCLUDED MOVING THE HOUSE FORWARD. 
          UM, BUT THEN WE SETTLED ON A, ON A CONCEPT OF BUILDING A BUILDING ON THE TRACK THAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE REMOVAL OF H LOANING AND B APPLICANT WORKED WITH THE COMMISSION ON THE DESIGN OF THAT BUILDING. 
          UH, AND UH, WE FILLED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I BELIEVE THAT WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. 
          SO, UH, REMOVING THE HISTORIC ZONING AT THIS POINT TROUBLES A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THERE'S NOW NO GUARANTEE OF WHAT WILL GO BACK THERE AND THE COMMISSION BY REMOVING THE HISTORIC ZONING WILL LOSE CONTROL OVER ANYTHING THAT'S BEHIND THE HISTORIC HOUSE. 
          SO THAT BASICALLY IS THE CONCERN THAT STAFF WANTED TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU. 
          UH, ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS A 15 FOOT BUFFER, WHICH IS WHAT WE GENERALLY REQUIRE AROUND HISTORIC BUILDINGS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY AND STAFF GROUP SO THAT IF THE COMMISSION FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT 15 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING AND ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION, THEN THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPROVE OR RECOMMEND THIS ZONING CHANGE. 
          HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. 
          I HAVE TO GET MY DOG OUT. 
          YES. 
          IS THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE STUFF APPROPRIATE NOTICE THAT WAS BRANDED FOR THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION STILL? ANY FACT? YES, IT WOULD NEVER CHANGE. 
          THE APPROVAL WOULD NEVER EXPIRE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN OR RETAIN THE HISTORIC ZONING WAS THAT THE BUILDING GRAVITATED FROM THE BACK OF THE LOT AND REACHED INTO THE HISTORIC ZONE PORTION OR INTO THE LAND THAT THE HISTORIC HOUSE SITS ON. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S STILL A CONCERN. 
          KEEPING THAT ANCIENT ZONING, UM, ALLOWS US SOME CONTROL OVER WHAT GETS BUILT AND HOW MUCH OF IT REACHES INTO THE HISTORIC PORTION. 
          UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, ON THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I'M TRYING FROM THE BACKUP TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHERE THE LINE IS AND WHAT KIND OF GEOMETRY IS THAT REMAINING BACK PORTION. 
          AND, UH, I'M NOT QUICK ENOUGH AT GOOGLE MAPS TO GET OVER THERE AND I DON'T HAVE A CITY, UH, GIS MAPPING MY LIKE DISPOSAL. 
          SO WE'RE VERY, UH, LARGE SCALE, UH, ZOOMED OUT PLANS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. 
          DON'T REALLY SHOW THEM WHAT THE DEPTH OF THE BINDER IS. 
          HOW, HOW BIG IS THE LOT THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING? UH, THE REMOVAL FOR HEATHER PLANNING. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE CALCULATIONS IF 
          [00:45:01]
WE DIVIDE IT AS ATTRACTIVE WOMEN TRACK TOO. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE CALCULATIONS FOR THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET. 
          THE BREAKS BETWEEN, JUST AS A ROUGH MEASUREMENT, I'D SAY IT'S ABOUT THE FRONT 60%, THE GEO AND THE REAR 40% IS THE MULTI FAMILY WITH THE H. 
          AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          SO THE PROPERTY LINE RUNS RIGHT UP TO OR, OR CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT, UH, NON HISTORIC BUILDING, WHICH LOOKS LIKE IT'S BUILT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE, UH, REGARDING THAT. 
          UM, PART OF WHAT WE'RE DETERMINING IS WITH THIS MEETING FOCUSING ON THE VISION OF WHERE THE SETBACK WOULD BE IF THE AGE, IF THE AGE WAS REMOVED, UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE 15 FOOT CHANGE TO BE THE OTHER DIRECTION. 
          AND MS JASON, MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THAT RUNS FROM RIO GRANDE STREET IN. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN THERE IS A PARKING LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY THAT SERVES THE ADJACENT APARTMENT BUILDINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THE OWNER ATTEMPTING OR CONSIDERING A REDEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF SOME OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES? WHAT I'M SEEING LOOKS LIKE IT'S SO SMALL. 
          I DON'T SEE, OKAY. 
          SEE ANY WAY THAT A VERY DENSE DEVELOPMENT WOULD TAKE PLACE IF THIS WAS AN ISOLATED LOT AND I ALSO DON'T SEE HOW YOU WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO IT. 
          UM, SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR THERE TO BE A SUCCESSFUL NON HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. 
          HOWEVER, ONE OF THOSE COULD BE SOME CONTIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH AN ADJACENT PROPERTY. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M SORRY HEATHER TRAVELING AGAIN. 
          I DON'T KNOW OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE EXISTING THAT TOMORROW TO BE, BUT TO US WITH A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, THEY HAVE NOT COME TO THE CITY WITH OTHERS FOR PARCEL THIS. 
          SO AT THIS POINT FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOUT THAT, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY MINUTES THEY COULD FIT PACE, BUT THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US. 
          YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I THOUGHT THERE WAS JUST A PARKING LOT BEHIND THE HISTORIC BUILDING AND UM, I WANTED, I PULLED THIS BECAUSE YEAH, LIKE I SAID, THERE WASN'T AN INTRUSION INTO THE HISTORIC ARENA AS OR IN THE LAST ITERATION AND SEEING WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON SOME RESOURCES LIKE THE GOLD DOLLAR BUILDING THAT'S COMPLETELY, IT'S SURROUNDED ON TWO SIDES AND OVERHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, I'M RELUCTANT TO GIVE AWAY, UM, THE HISTORIC ZONING WITHOUT A DEFINITE PLAN AND WITH A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SETBACK THAT INCLUDES THE AIRSPACE. 
           I'M HEATHER . 
          THE PROPERTY I HAVE IS, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN A PARKING LOT FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS. 
          THERE WERE STILL A SMALL GARAGE APARTMENT WITH TWO CAR PARKING SPACES UNDER ME, BUT THE REST OF IT HAS BEEN PARKING FOR A LONG TIME, A LONG TIME AGO. 
          UM, AROUND THE TURN OF LAST CENTURY, THERE WERE LIVING QUARTERS BACK THERE. 
          BUT OTHER THAN THE GARAGE APARTMENT WITH THE PARKING SPACES UNDERNEATH IT, IT'S 
          [00:50:01]
ALL PARKING LOT. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MYERS. 
          I'M LIVE TO DENY THE REMOVAL OF THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. 
          YEAH, WE CAN ASK THEM TO COME BACK TO COME TO THE WITH SPECIFIC PLANS. 
          BUT I AM VERY HESITANT, UM, BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WHAT'S HAPPENED ABOUT OTHER BUILDINGS. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UM, YEAH, CONNECTED TO THE HEADSET DEVICE. 
          SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY IT STILL SHOWS YOUR HEADSET, YOU WERE GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION GO LIKE THIS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          CAN I SHARE A LITTLE HIGH SECOND TO THE MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I CAN JUST MENTION THAT I HAD TO ADJUST THE VOLUME JUST A LITTLE BIT UP OR DOWN. 
          AND THAT ACTIVATED MY MICROPHONE AT SOME WEIRD THING BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED. 
          COMMISSIONING A LITTLE MY TRY THAT. 
          OH WELL I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER MYERS MENTIONED OTHER PROJECTS, BUT I, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS OF A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS, BUT TO HAVE THESE PROPERTIES GETTING NIPPED AWAY WITHOUT A SPECIFIC PLAN AND WITHOUT A WAY OF GUARANTEEING THE, UH, CONTINUITY OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE LANDMARK. 
          UH, I THINK THAT'S IRRESPONSIBLE OF US. 
          WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB IF WE ARE ADDING TO OR EXPOSING, UM, THE PROPERTIES UNDER OUR CARE TO UNANTICIPATED AND POSSIBLY VERY SIGNIFICANT RISK. 
          I THINK IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY HAD WORKED IN APPROVED EDITION THAT MET AT LEAST THE FIRST ROUND OF OUR, OF OUR APPROVAL. 
          AND I COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR ADJUSTMENTS, BUT, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH, UH, THAT, THAT DOESN'T WHAT THIS OWNER OR THIS APPLICANT IN A VERY GOOD LIGHT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. 
          SO WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT WE KNOW WORKED BUT IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. 
          AND SO NOW THEY DON'T WANT TO SHOW US THE PROJECT. 
          I CAN'T IMAGINE IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MYERS, I DON'T KNOW IF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WORKED TO MY LIKING PARTICULARLY, BUT I, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. 
          I THINK THERE ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT CAN TRANSPIRE. 
          WE DON'T DESIGNATE LANDMARKS LIGHTLY THE UM, IN VIRTUALLY ALL BUT TWO OR THREE CHEESES WE DO, THE APPLICANT IS THE, THE OWNER. 
          APPLICANT KNOWS WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM AND, AND SIGN ON TO THAT AGREEMENT. 
          AND I HATE TO SEE WHEN THEY FIRST CAME TO US AND WANTED TO MOVE THE BRICK BUILDING TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING VERY LARGE, VERY, UM, YOU KNOW, A LARGE SCALE. 
          I HAD MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND I SEE APPLICANTS COMING AND NIBBLING AWAY, UM, AT THE H H PROPERTIES OR WHATEVER IT IS THEY THINK THEY WANT AT THE MOMENT. 
          AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D PROBABLY VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          SEVEN ZERO. 
          BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM AND WHAT LEAD TO THE COMMISSIONING NEAR THAT. 
          UM, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT TO GIVE US THEIR BRIEFING ON A LOCAL CEMETERY, BUT THAT MEMO, A PRETTY DETAILED MEMO WAS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP. 
          UM, SO IF, UH, WE STILL, THEY'RE STILL WILLING TO COME TO PRESENT TO US MAYBE JUNE OR JULY. 
          SO 
          [00:55:01]
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE REQUESTING, OKAY. 
          UM, A LATER BRIEFING OR IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU GOT THE ANSWERS YOU NEEDED FROM THE MEMO, UM, YOU CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT NEED DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          LET ME JUST JUMP IN. 
          I KNOW THE PROPERTY VERY WELL AND SOME OF THE NEW AND OTHER EXCITING THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING THERE, UH, THE BACKUP IS GOING TO TELL ONLY PART OF THE STORY, BUT A FORUM SUCH AS THIS EVEN FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME I THINK EXTENDS THE REACH OF THAT STORY. 
          UH, AND UNLESS IT'S A BURDEN ON THE CREW, I, I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK THAT, UH, THE LOADING SOME OF OUR AGENDA, UH, WE'D ALL LEARN A LOT FOR SURE MORE THAN, UH, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS. 
          BUT I REALLY DO HOPE THE PUBLIC WOULD THEN BECOME AS IMPRESSED AS I AM, JUST KNOWING WHAT'S OUT THERE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I'LL TAKE THAT AS A MOTION TO ADD IT TO OUR AGENDA FOR JUNE IF THAT WORKS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          SECOND. 
          BYE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AS OPPOSED  OKAY. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE REPORT WASN'T APPRECIATED. 
          IT WAS APPRECIATED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL NOW MOVE 
          [Item 3 B1 (Part 2 of 2)]
ON TO, I DIDN'T SEE 106 EAST SIXTH STREET ALSO COMMISSIONING, I'M SORRY TO UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          SORRY. 
          UH, MR SHOULD ASK YOU, I THINK MS BERTRAND WAS TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS, SORRY. 
          THE STAFF PERSON WHO WILL GIVE THE PRESENTATION ABOUT OAKWOOD CEMETERY IS CAN MCKNIGHT AND SHE'S NOT AVAILABLE ON JUNE 22ND SO SHE SAID SHE'D BE HAPPY TO COME IN JULY OR AUGUST, BUT SHE'LL CHECK HER SCHEDULE AND I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW IN REAL TIME THAT IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE AGENDA WHEN, WHEN PARTS STAFF IS AVAILABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WORKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, MR  GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT WHISTLE IS A CASE THAT CAN BE PULLED YOU OUT LAST MONTH AS WELL. 
          IT'S TO INSTALL AN AWNING OVER A SECONDARY ENTRANCE AND A RESTAURANT. 
          NEWS ON THE SIXTH STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UH, STAFF HAD RESEARCHED THE UH, THE BUILDING AND IN THE TEENS TWENTIES THIRTIES THAT THERE WAS NO AWNING OVER THE SECTION. 
          NOW THE APPLICANT HAS UH, PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE 1950S THAT SHOWING ON, UH, BUT IT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE BUILDING. 
          UM, STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH PUTTING AN AWNING AND PROVIDING SHADE AT THIS LOCATION BUT JUST BELIEVES THAT SINCE THIS WAS NOT KIND OF ORIGINAL FEATURE OF THE BUILDING, IT SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM, UH, BE ORIGINAL FEATURES AND THE REPRODUCTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL FEATURES ON THE BUILDING. 
          AND UH, I TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT THIS AFTERNOON AND THE AWNING ON SIXTH STREET NOW INTENDED TO BE A REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOSE DOES BARRY. 
          THAT STAFF FEELS THAT THIS AWNING THAT IS PROPOSED TONIGHT IS ONE THAT HAD A VERY SHORT LIFESPAN WHEN THERE WERE OTHER NO OTHER AWNINGS ON THE BUILDING. 
          AND IF IT IS GOING TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT, IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE OTHER AWNINGS ON THE BUILDING. 
          THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. 
          MISSIONARY MYERS. 
          LET'S JUST SIT L'S GATE. 
          WHEN WAS THE BUILDING DESIGNATED? THE LANDMARK? WHEN WAS IT? HOLD ON. 
          1978 AT THAT TIME THE LINKING FIFTIES PERIOD WAS NOT OKAY. 
          THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE BUILDING. 
          YEAH. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          THE PERIOD OF YEARS BEFORE. 
          MY QUESTION IS THE AWNING THAT IT IS ADJACENT TO AND I REALLY WAS CONCERNED THAT WE WERE BEING PRESENTED THE NEW DESIGN WITHOUT THE CLEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          BUT THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE UPDATED DOCUMENTATION. 
          UH, THE APP, I ASSUME IT WAS THE APPLICANT WHO WAS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, EARLIER, UH, I DUNNO, UH, MR SUDAN IF YOU HEARD HIM, BUT HE SAID THAT THAT PAWNING THAT IT WAS ADJACENT TO WAS ONLY WHAT, SIX 
          [01:00:01]
DID HE SAY SIX YEARS OLD? EIGHT YEARS OLD. 
          IT'S A NEW AWNING. 
          YES, IT WAS A NEW AWNING, BUT IT TAKES THE PLACE OF A, OF AN AWNING THAT WAS ON IN THE TEENS AND TWENTIES BUT IT WAS, IT WAS BETTER DOCUMENTATION OF BUT, BUT IT WAS A REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY OUR PREDECESSORS ON THIS COMMISSION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. 
          AND IT WAS APPROVED NOT AS A RECREATION OF A HISTORIC ELEMENT, SO IT HAS SOME, SOME CLARITIES BUT IT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY A MODERN AWNING AND IT IS DISTINCT FROM THE HISTORIC. 
          WAS THAT, WAS THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION AS IT WAS APPROVED? HONESTLY, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, BUT THE DESIRE WAS TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT CLOSELY APPROXIMATED PERHAPS A MODERN TAKE ON ME ON IT. 
          SO THAT DICTATED ITS DIMENSIONS, MATERIALS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          BUT AS FAR AS IT BEING AN ACTUAL REPRODUCTION, I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW. 
          OH, THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME NEW MODERN ELEMENTS. 
          I GUESS THE POINT I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO MAKE, AND IT MAY NOT CHANGE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF WE WERE TO SEE BOTH COMPOSITIONS TOGETHER, IF THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO US AS ONE ADDITIONAL AWNING SYSTEM, UH, SOME SIX YEARS AGO AND IT WAS PRESENTED AS SOMETHING THAT REFLECTED THE PRECEDENT OF HISTORY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WAS NOT A REPRODUCTION OF HISTORY. 
          UH, THERE WERE AWNINGS THAT WERE ON THE LOWER SECTION. 
          THERE WERE ROUNDINGS THAT DESIGNATED, UH, THE ENTRY. 
          UH, I SEE A FAIRLY SENSITIVE DESIGN THAT WORKS, SO IT'S NOT HISTORIC. 
          AND IF WE ARGUE THAT IT IS AN APPROPRIATE ADDITION TO A, UH, NON HISTORIC ADDITION TO A HISTORIC BUILDING, THERE'S, UH, CERTAINLY AMPLE PRECEDENT FOR DOING IT THAT WAY. 
          UM, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT TO RELATE OR NOT RELATE TO AN AWNING THAT'S ONLY SIX YEARS OLD SEEMS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. 
          I, I, I GUESS I'M SOLD BY THE WAY THE TWO LOOK TOGETHER. 
          UH, AND I, I, I'M INCLINED TO, TO SAY THAT IT'S WORTH ALLOWING THEM, UH, TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL. 
          OH, I JUST MADE A MOTION TO REMIND US THAT WE NEED A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION. 
          BUT THAT SOUNDED KIND OF LIKE A MOTION. 
          IT TURNED INTO A MOTION. 
          THE MOTION WAS TO, UM, APPROVE THE APPLICATION, RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND A SECOND BITE. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ATTACHED. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT WE GET DOES SPECIFICATIONS AND MATERIALS, UM, IN THE, IN THE FILE AND I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION ACTUALLY. 
          WELL, LET ME ASK FOR THAT QUALIFICATION OF, I BELIEVE. 
          DID THIS COME BEFORE THE, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COMMITTEE. 
          AND WAS THAT WHERE THE REQUEST FOR THE ANCHORS TO BE WITHIN THE, THE SYSTEMS? NOT IN THE, IN THE STONE. 
          WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? WELL, IT DID NOT COME BEFORE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW COMMITTEE, BUT OUR GENERAL PRACTICE WAS TO RECOMMEND ANCHORING ANY SIGN OR CANOPY TO WITH BOLTS IN THE MORTAR RATHER THAN THE MASONRY. 
          AND IF A, THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THE SECONDARY. 
          I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT IN MY MOTION. 
          YEAH. 
          MR. HENDERSON. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          I SAYS SEVEN ZERO. 
          OUR 
          [Item 3 B3 (Part 2 of 2)]
NEXT ITEM IS THE REGION 18 EDGE FOR PARIS. 
          I KNOW. 
          MISERY. 
          SEBASKI I'M SORRY. 
          HELLO? YES. 
          A 
          [01:05:01]
10, 18 ED HARRIS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS CAROLYN CONTRAREZ, WHO'S THE CASE MANAGER ON THAT. 
          THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO, UH, RESTORE THE, UH, THE NORMAL WOOD HOUSE, UM, ADDING A TERRACE TO THE REAR, UH, RECONSTRUCTING HIS AND INTERIOR BUILDINGS AND REMODELING THE LANDSCAPE. 
          UM, SO THIS BE A FUNCTIONAL BUILDING ONCE AGAIN. 
          UM, YEAH, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY. 
          ON THE MAIN HOUSE, UM, THE WINDOWS DOORS AND CLATTERING WILL BE RECONSTRUCTED, UH, BASED ON THE HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH, UM, AT THE MAIN EAST AND WEST ELEVATION. 
          UM, THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC SCREENS WILL BE REPAIRED, UM, AND PUT BACK ON THE HOUSE. 
          THE ROOF WILL BE RETIRED WITH PLACING GOALS, UH, MATCHING THE HISTORIC SHINGLES, UH, FROM THE SITE AND SHE WINDOWS WILL SHIFT SLIGHTLY AT THE REST ELEVATION, UM, BUT MAINTAIN THEIR HISTORIC APPEARANCE, UH, AT THE NORTH ELEVATION, UM, THE CENTRAL WINDOWS WOULD BE ENLARGED OR REPLACED WITH SOME FIXED SINGLE PANE WINDOWS, ALUMINUM CLAD DOORS. 
          UH, THE, UH, EXISTING REPLACEMENT DOOR AND WINDOW POSITIONS WILL BE REVERSED ON THAT RIGHT SIDE OF THE ELEVATION. 
          A RAMP WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE MAIN ELEVATION, UM, AND THE TEA HOUSE CAUSE NIVO WILL BE, UH, RECONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE OF THE ORIGINAL  AND THEN IT'LL TAKE DESIGN CUES FROM THE STORE PHOTOS AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          MMM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IS SEEING NEW STORAGE BUILDING, UH, WITH A FLAT ROOF AND FIXED WINDOWS A RESET BACK FROM THE MAIN HOUSE AND THAT WILL BE CONNECTED TO A MATCHING AUXILIARY STRUCTURE BY A STEEL TRAILER. 
          OKAY. 
          MMM. 
          THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, UM, FOR THE EVENT LAWN FOLLOWS THE GENERAL LAYOUT OF THIS HISTORIC FORMAL GARDEN. 
          THE LANDSCAPING INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A LOW CONCRETE FOUNTAIN AND A BRICK RETAINING WALL. 
          RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS TO APPROVE IT PROPOSED, BUT ENCOURAGING THE APPLICANTS ALSO TO EXPLORE SOME OPTIONS FOR INTERPRETIVE MATERIALS AND THE SITE. 
          I'M EXPLAINING THIS HOME TRANSFORMATIONS OVER TIME AND EXPLAINING THE EXPENSE OF RECONSTRUCTION. 
          UM, AND HOW UH, THAT RECONSTRUCTION TOOK PLACE. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE CASE TO OPEN DISCUSSION? I BELIEVE MR. MYERS CALLED THIS ONE. 
          CAN I TALK, UM, I MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANET CONCEPT, BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NORTH ELEVATION. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL SECOND THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION. 
          I THINK WHEN, WHEN THIS HOUSE IS RESTORED AND IT HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF NON RESTORATION FOR THE 30 YEARS THAT I WORKED HERE, A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL COME HERE. 
          A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL VISIT IT. 
          I WANT MORE PEOPLE THAT SEE IT NOW AND PEOPLE WILL BE SEEING IT FROM THE RIVER COMING UP INTO THE GROUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          AND I FEEL STRONGLY THAT A PICTURE WINDOW, A SINGLE SEX PICTURE WINDOW, UM, IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, UM, THAT THE NORTH ELEVATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLY UM, REMODELED, BUT I WOULD RATHER SEE A SERIES OF WOOD, UM, OPERABLE WOOD WITHIN WINDOWS OR SOMETHING ELSE. 
          UM, TO SEE THE VIEWS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE WITHOUT HOW THEY A BIG OLD PICTURE WINDOW THERE. 
          IT WILL BE HIGHLY VISIBLE 
          [01:10:01]
TO PEOPLE COMING UP FROM THE RIVERSIDE, NOT RIVERSIDE DRIVE, BUT THE ACTUAL RIVER AS UH, YOUR MOTION WISE. 
          UM, TO APPROVE IT. 
          UM, BUT WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY REVISIT THE, WOULD WE HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT IF THEY DON'T OR IS THAT JUST A LITTLE LANDMARK? IS IT A LANDMARK NOW? YES. 
          YES. 
          BUILDING COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO STUDY IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AS WELL. 
          THE REASON I SAID APPROVE IT IN CONCEPT TOTALLY FOR THE RESTORATION PROJECT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO DIGEST HERE AND EVEN THOUGH THEY, THEY CAME TO THE COMMISSION SOMETIME IN THE PARENTS AND SORRY, BUT I DON'T RECALL ALL THE DISCUSSION AND I, I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADA RAMP AND ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE AUXILIARY BUILDINGS, ABOUT A NON HISTORIC TRELLIS, UM, ABOUT THE CURVING AND PAINTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON BEFORE GIVING A BLANKET APPROVAL TO EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO MIND. 
          DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR MOTION TO A POSTPONEMENT? IF THE SECONDARY WILL, UM, WILL SUPPORT THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE IT. 
          UM, IF WE CAN TO A TIME WHEN WE CAN OR HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THEM MORE IN DEPTH. 
          UM, THIS CAME TO, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY QUICKLY. 
          UM, AND LIKE JUST, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PROPERTY TO THE CITY, TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED IT OVER THESE MANY YEARS. 
          I DON'T WANT TO, I WANT TO HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT MORE THAN JUST A, UH, A BLANKET APPROVAL WITHOUT STUDYING FURTHER. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I WAS THE SECONDARY IN IOWA. 
          UM, EXCEPT THAT I THINK WE DO NEED TO INCLUDE A, I'M CERTAIN THOUGH WOULD, UH, NEXT MONTH BE ENOUGH TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE THIS CASE UNTIL OUR JUNE MEETING. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UM, COMMISSIONER A LITTLE AND SAYING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T HEAR. 
          UH, YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MOUNDSVILLE, DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE? I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF WHERE WE WILL BE CONVENING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COMMITTEE AGAIN, AND IF SO, IF IT IS WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH, IF WE COULD REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT GO TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MEETING. 
          YES. 
          UH, MR. ROLLINS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DIRECTION ON THAT. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY UNLIKELY THAT WE WILL HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MEETING NEXT MONTH. 
          UM, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A, A SOLID ANSWER. 
          UM, BUT ONCE WE KNOW, UM, I WILL DEFINITELY LET YOU ALL KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          CAN I SEE YOUR MINORS? OF ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE SEND TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COMMITTEE TO REVIEW OR THE DEVELOP WHATEVER COMMITTEE'S NAME IS NOW OKAY. 
          FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          THIS IS CERTAINLY A RESOURCE THAT THAT DESERVES OUR ATTENTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL YEAH, I THINK, UM, WE CAN SEE WHERE WE ARE NEXT MONTH. 
          UM, IT'S HAD A CHANCE TO GO TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OR WE COULD CONSIDER POSTPONING IT AGAIN. 
          IF NOT OKAY. 
          UM, ALL 
          [01:15:01]
IN FAVOR AND PUT THEM INTO THE JUNE MEETING. 
          UH, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. 
          WITH HINDSIGHT BASTARDIZE WELL, HOPEFULLY HE WILL HEAR US AND RETURN. 
          UM, 
          [Item 3 C1 (Part 2 of 2)]
OUR NEXT ITEM IS C1 90. 
          UM, OR BEFORE I DO THAT, UM, I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, UNLESS THERE'S, UM, ANY OPPOSITION TO WHAT WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR B ONE ONE OH SIX 86TH STREET. 
          WE APPROVED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO C ONE 90 92 RAINY STREET IN FISHER. 
          HINDSIGHT HAS REJOINED US. 
          OKAY, COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, THIS IS, UH, THE APPROVAL THAT WE HEARD, UH, LAST MONTH. 
          UM, SUPPOSE THAT YOU DEMOLISHED A 1912 CONTRIBUTING BUNGALOW AND CONSTRUCT A HIGH RISE TOWER IN ITS PLACE. 
          AND DO A QUICK RECAP. 
          UH, THE PROPOSED HIGH RISE IS 606 FEET TALL WITH 53 FLOORS AND MATERIALS INCLUDE A GLASS CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM, PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS, UH, AND TEXTURED STONE ACCENTS, UH, AT THE EAST ELEVATION AND METAL SHIPPING CONTAINER PROJECT FROM THE SECOND FLOOR BAR SPACE. 
          UH, WHOEVER'S THE BED, THE STREET, UM, AND LEVELS EIGHT TO 52 OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ARE STEPPED BACK AT AROUND 177 FEET HIGH. 
          THE EXISTING, UH, STRUCTURE ON THE SITE IS A BUNGALOW, BUT BETWEEN 1911 AND 1912, FIRST OWNER WAS ALONZO COOK, UM, BUT BY NATION 20 AUTO PAINT SHOP OWNER AND NEIL BURROWS AND HIS WIFE EDITH HAD PURCHASED THE HOUSE. 
          UM, BY 1939 THEY HAD SOLD IT TO THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
          THE YOUTH FAMILY WHO HAD LIVED ACROSS THE STREET AT 95, RAINY SINCE 1922 TELLS YOU IT'S GOING BE EARLIEST EMPLOYEES OF THE SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. 
          UM, AND HE AND HIS WIFE CURL HAD ONE MAJOR HIGHLIGHT NEWFEST WHO WAS THE MANAGING EDITOR OF THE BROWNSVILLE HERALD BEFORE HE LEFT, BOUNCED OVER, JOINED THE AIR FORCE AND 1942 A MAJOR YOUTH. 
          THIS IS A FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR. 
          ALL SUPERS BOOKS, MAGAZINES AND MILITARY PUBLICATIONS THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER. 
          AND WHILE IT WAS RETIREMENT AND AFTER LEAVING THE AIR FORCE, MAJOR YOUTH JUST RETURNED TO HIS CHILDHOOD HOME AT 92 RAINEY WHERE HE LIVED UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1975. 
          THIS PROJECT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COMMITTEE, UM, BACK IN MARCH. 
          UM, BUT THEY MADE NO RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT THE BUILDING SCALE, UH, PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPATIBILITY, UM, OR MITIGATION OR DESIGN CHANGES. 
          UH, RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, SHOULD THE COMMISSION CHOOSE TO RELEASE THE CRIMINALS AND, AND ENCOURAGE RELOCATION OVER DEMOLITION AND REQUIRE CITY BOX AND DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE, UM, AND COMMENT ON AND RELEASE THE PLANS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE THE EMOTION? YES, MR JOSE, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. 
          UH, WE HAVE TWO CHOICES. 
          UM, WE EITHER, UM, APPROVE THE REQUEST, WE THIS APPROVE OR WE DON'T APPROVE THE REQUEST, BUT THEN AUTOMATICALLY, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT IS IF IT IS THEN DESIGNATED OR WITHIN THE PROCESS OF BEING DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. 
          SO IN ESSENCE, IT'S EITHER A LANDMARK OR IT'S GONE. 
          AM I, AM I UNDERSTANDING BY THE TIME YOU GET TO IT THAT THAT'S REALLY THE CHOICE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? UH, WE CAN ALSO EXERCISE THE DEMOLITION DELAY 180 DAYS FOR A PROPERTY WITHIN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT AND POTENTIALLY TAKE NO ACTION IN DOING SO. 
          UH, WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT BE THE CASE IF WE JUST TOOK NO ACTION, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER THE ONE EIGHT DAY DELAY OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO INITIATE AND IT'S ALREADY TAKING BECAUSE IT WAS ON OUR AGENDA, UM, LAST MONTH AND WE POSTPONED IT. 
          SO, UM, IT IS TAKING AND WE CAN POSTPONE 
          [01:20:01]
IT AGAIN IF WE WANT TO. 
          UH, YES, COMMISSIONER, LET ME JUST CLARIFY THAT TIMELINE FOR YOU. 
          UM, SO WE SPOKE WITH A LOT OF DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE TIMELINE FOR THIS CASE AND UM, WE HAVE, UH, 75 DAYS TO RELEASE THE CLAMS, UM, BEGINNING OF APRIL AND ENDING ON JULY 11TH. 
          SO THE JUNE MEETING, UM, THE 180 DAYS FOR THE DEMO BEGAN ON JANUARY 29TH, WHICH IS THE DATE OF PAYMENT FOR THE COMPLETE APPLICATION. 
          UM, AND THAT WILL END ON JULY 27TH, WHICH IS OUR JULY HLC DATE. 
          HI, COMMISSIONER MYERS. 
          RIGHT. 
          I JUST, I THINK I GET IT OFF. 
          AM I, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I WOULD PREFER TO DELAY IT RATHER THAN APPROVE. 
          PROVE THAT I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING AND ONE OF OUR EARLIEST AND OLDEST, WE ACTUALLY REGISTER DISTRICTS AND REPLACE IT WITH A HIGH RISE BUILDING THAT EMOTION. 
          YES. 
          AND THEN WE TAKE OUR OPTION TO DELAY THE PERMIT YET AGAIN. 
          YES. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          THANK YOU FOR MR MOUNDSVILLE. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING? I, I'M HESITANT TO, NO MOTION IS GOING TO BE A GOOD MOTION. 
          AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE SAY NOTHING AND DO NOTHING AND THE PERMIT IS RELEASED IMMEDIATELY, THEN WE CAN'T WEIGH IN THAT THIS IS A BAD SITUATION THAT WE DON'T APPROVE. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS. 
          I, THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THIS WOULD NOT MEET SOME OF OUR VERY SIGNIFICANT, NO HIGH LEVEL CRITERIA WHEN IT COMES TO BEING DESIGNATED LANDMARK. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S NO REAL END OUTCOME. 
          NORMALLY I WOULD NOT WANT TO JUST PUT OFF THE INEVITABLE IF THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. 
          LET'S JUST GET IT DONE WITH. 
          BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IF THE WORST CASE HAPPENS, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT IT OUT. 
          THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE AN EASY THING. 
          WE SHOULD NOT TRY TO, UH, EXPEDITE WHAT IS, IS CLEARLY NOT A GOOD SITUATION. 
          UH, CLEARLY THAT, YOU KNOW, 57 VERSUS A LITTLE BUNGALOW, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME'S GOING TO BE. 
          BUT I STILL THINK THAT EVEN IF IT'S A SYMBOLIC GESTURE, I HAVE TO SAY, IT'S NOT NORMALLY SOMETHING I WOULD APPROVE, BUT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. 
          IT'S, IT'S THE BEST OF OUR BAD OPTIONS. 
          I AGREE. 
          I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          YES. 
          MR MONZO. 
          I AGREE. 
          I, I WILL OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          I SECOND SECONDED IT, BUT, UM, I THINK IN JUST LOOKING AT RAINY STREETS, THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS. 
          IT WAS THE LAST, UH, DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL, UM, AREA AND IT WAS, UH, AN EFFORT GETTING THE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION WAS AN EFFORT FOR THE RESIDENTS TO PRESERVE THEIR COMMUNITY. 
          AND IT'S JUST A SHAME THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS LATER WE'RE THERE, WE'RE STILL FACING THE SAME INEVITABILITY OF LOSING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I THINK IT'S A SHAME AND I THINK DEMOLITION DELAY IS OKAY, IS WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR TOOLKIT RIGHT NOW. 
          HOW ABOUT A PRESS CONFERENCE? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UM, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHERE FIVE TO EMOTION. 
          YEAH, THE NEW EMOTION. 
          SORRY, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO UNMUTE. 
          DID THAT, CAN I TALK? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I DON'T KNOW. 
          COMMISSIONER LITTLE WELCOME TO THE PARTY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK ALL THOSE STUFF I REALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IN CLASS, BUT, OKAY. 
          SO DID THE LAST MOTION NOT PASS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, IT DID NOT, IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY, 
          [01:25:05]
YES, MR. HENDERSON. 
          I JUST DON'T, I MEAN LIKE, I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RELEASE, BUT IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL JUST SORT OF, UM, IT SEEMS SUPERFICIAL EITHER WAY AT THIS POINT. 
          UH, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO FROM HERE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S MY FEELING AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL TAKE THAT AS A SECOND. 
          UM, YES, MR. MEYERS. 
          I DON'T THINK IT, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S MEANINGLESS. 
          I THINK IT MEANS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T JUST ROLL OVER AND SAY DEBT AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT IS TO ENACT A DELAY OPTION THAT WE HAVE AS A LANDMARK COMMISSION CONTRIBUTING AND DESIGNATED NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          IS THAT AN I COMMISSIONED RECORD OR YOU'RE ON MUTE? SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. 
          I JUST, UM, I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT VOTING. 
          IT'S A DELAY, BUT I, I'M KIND OF WITH COMMISSIONER FETTERSON THAT JUST FEELS LIKE WE'RE DELAYING, THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A, IT FEELS INEVITABLE AND, AND I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I HAVEN'T HEARD A COMPELLING CASE YET FOR WHAT, WHAT WE WILL ACCOMPLISH. 
          WHAT WILL THIS SET A PRECEDENT, A PRECEDENT, WILL THIS, UM, COMMUNICATE A MESSAGE? WHAT, WHAT WILL WE, WHAT WILL WE ACHIEVE HERE THAT WE CAN BUILD ON IN FUTURE CASES AND OTHER PROJECTS? I THINK IT DOES. 
          I THINK IT DOES SEND A MESSAGE THAT YOU'RE, UM, THAT YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER REDEVELOPMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS. 
          THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO JUST RUBBER STAMP, UM, ANY DEMOLITION IF IT DOESN'T, UM, CLEARLY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUALS. 
          MARK AS A NATION. 
          I THINK THAT THERE'S SHADES OF GRAY HERE TO PAUSE, A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I THINK WE WOULD AGREE THAT, UM, IT NEEDS TO CRITERION FOR ARCHITECTURE. 
          UM, IF THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION. 
          UM, I E NO, NO MOTION WAS SIX VOTES. 
          I HAVE THE SAME EFFECT, UM, OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DEMOLITION PERMIT WON'T BE RELEASED, BUT FINISHING LOOKS DIVIDED AND UM, THAT'S A MESSAGE TOO. 
          SO I THINK THAT SENDING A MESSAGE THAT THE, UM, COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT, UM, THE DEMOLITION DELAYED TOOL SHOULD BE, UM, AND THEN SUCCESSFUL NURSING, UM, SENDS A MESSAGE OR IF WE'RE UNABLE TO, DO YOU AGREE THEN, UM, THE PERMIT IS NOT RELEASED IN, UH, UNTIL THE CLOCK RUNS OUT. 
          UH, MISSIONARY, I HAVE ONE, UM, ONE THING TO SPEAK, UM, TO SPEAK TO IN YOUR, UM, IN YOUR COMMENTS. 
          SAY BEFORE WE CONTINUE, IF YOU WANT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO, UH, THE PHOTOS THAT WERE UP ON THE PRESENTATION, UH, JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. 
          UM, WE DID SOME RESEARCH AND THIS BUILDING WAS THAT PRETTY MUCH DECONSTRUCTED. 
          UM, YEAH, IN 2010 WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND BECAUSE THE FACADE WAS REPLACED, BUT WHEN THEY DID A CHANGE OF USE, UM, THE, UH, THE REST OF THE BUILDING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. 
           I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? DOES THE WORK THAT WAS DONE CHANGE ITS STATUS AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, FOR SOMETHING TO BE DEEMED NON-CONTRIBUTING A NEW TO, UH, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OFFICIAL AMENDMENT TO THE, THE NOMINATION, WHICH THERE WAS NOT AT THAT TIME. 
          UM, HOWEVER IT WOULD NOT, UH, MEET LANDMARK STATUS. 
          [01:30:01]
IT DOESN'T MEET LANDMARK STATUS RIGHT NOW. 
          I MEAN IT LIKELY DOESN'T MEET LANDMARK STATUS RIGHT NOW. 
          I STILL FEEL THERE'S A STRONG SYMBOLIC, I'M NOT HANDING OVER A DEMOLITION PERMIT. 
          SO, UM, JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER THERE, I THINK WE GOT A LITTLE CAUGHT UP. 
          UM, UH, THE MOTION WAS TO, UM, WE THE PERMIT, UM, AND THEN I BELIEVE WE HAD A SECOND AND THEN I ASKED FOR THE EYES AND I THINK I GOT ONE AND THEN WE STARTED TALKING. 
          SO, UM, MAYBE LET'S ALL THAT VOTE AGAIN. 
          I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF RELEASING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, NOT AS OPPOSE. 
          UM, THE MOTION FAILS ONE SIX. 
          UM, SO WE CAN TRY, UM, WHOSE MOMENT AGAIN? UM, FOR OUR WEEKEND. 
          LEAVE THIS CASE WITHOUT HAVING TAKEN ACTION. 
          MATURE MCWHORTER. 
          ARE YOU INCLINED TO SUPPORT? UH, YES. 
          I'LL MOVE TO POSTPONE THE CASE, UM, TO THE JUNE MEETING. 
          THANK YOU MR. MYERS. 
          FOR THE SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          SIX ONE. 
          [Item 3 D1 (Part 2 of 2)]
OKAY. 
          UH, LAST, UH, DISCUSSION ITEMS IS THAT M D ONE 601 WESTERN SIXTH STREET MADE ME COMMISSIONERS. 
          ITEM B ONE IS A DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CIRCA 18. 
          MELODY COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT WAS TRANSFORMED INTO A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BUILDING IN THE 1950S. 
          THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT BY CARL BERRYMAN AS A NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORE. 
          YOU GET ORIGINALLY HAD A GROCERY STORE DOWNTOWN ON CONGRESS AVENUE, UH, AROUND, UH, 1904 HE BROUGHT IN HIS SON WHO HAD THE SAME NAME THAT HE DID AND THEY WERE IN BUSINESS HERE AS GROCERIES AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, UH, UNTIL THE ELDER BERRYMAN DIED IN 1912. 
          UH, THE YOUNGER BERRYMAN TOOK IT, TOOK THE STORE OVER AND OPERATED IT UNTIL ABOUT 1915. 
          THERE WAS A NUMBER OF OTHER GROCERY OWNERS THAT TOOK OVER THE BUILDING. 
          MOST OF THEM WERE LIVING UPSTAIRS IN THE BUILDING. 
          AND, UH, THE LAST LONG TERM, UH, PROPRIETOR OF THE STORE HERE WAS, UH, UH, CARL AND MARIETTA FOWLER, WHO ALSO HAD A CAFE. 
          AND THEY ALSO LIVED UPSTAIRS AROUND 1955. 
          THE BUILDING WAS CONVERTED TO FOUR APARTMENTS AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE INFILL ON THE BUILDING THAT YOU SEE TODAY WITH SMALL WINDOWS, UM, GENERAL APPEARANCE THAT DOES NOT RELATE ITS HISTORY AS A GROCERY STORE, WHICH WOULD HAVE HAD, UH, DISPLAY WINDOWS, UM, PROBABLY OCCURRED AT THAT TIME, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO PERMIT TO INDICATE THAT THE BUILDING WAS LISTED AS A PRIORITY TO IN OUR 1984 SURVEY. 
          UM, STAFF HAS RESEARCHED THE BUILDING AND EVALUATED ITS MODIFICATIONS AND MUST RECOMMEND, BUT THE BUILDING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. 
          UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION DOES INCLUDE COMPLETION OF A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. 
          AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, TO THE FOLKS WHO TESTIFIED AND PEOPLE SIGNING THE PETITION. 
          THIS BUILDING I THINK IS KNOWN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, UM, BUT IT'S HISTORY IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN HIDDEN OVER THE YEARS AND IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND STAFF'S EVALUATION. 
          SO IT'S A RELUCTANT, UH, TO RELUCTANCE RECOMMENDATION. 
          BUT, UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT TO YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MR. IS IT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS 
          [01:35:01]
FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? DID WE HAVE A MOTION? I WAS TRYING TO SAY, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. 
          I KNOW WE ASKED YOU TO SPEND SOME TIME LOOKING FOR MORE INFORMATION AND YOU DID FIND, UM, A 50 ZERO PHOTOGRAPH AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WOULD HAVE SURMISED, WHICH IS THAT THOSE CHANGES THAT FILLED IN THE BOTTOM FLOOR HAD BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. 
          ARE THERE NO PHOTOGRAPHS OR ANY OTHER RENDERINGS THAT WOULD INDICATE WHAT THE ORIGINAL GROCERY LOOKED LIKE? THERE ARE COMMISSIONER, UH, I LOOKED ORIGINALLY AT THE HISTORY CENTER ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT I INCLUDED IN YOUR BACKUP, IT WAS DATED 1965. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS BUILDING THAT I COULD FIND. 
          AND UH, AS FAR AS EVEN CHECKING NEWSPAPERS TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF LINE DRAWING IN AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE STORE, BUT THEY NEVER HAD THEIR OWN, UH, ADVERTISEMENT. 
          THEY WERE PART OF A FRANCHISE ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PAPER. 
          SO NOW REALLY, UH, WE DID, WE DID LOOK AGAIN, I DID LOOK AGAIN AND UH, CAME UP WITH NOTHING NEW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, HONORED TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE PERMIT. 
          UM, I WAS THE ONE THAT, UH, I THINK, I THINK LAST MONTH MADE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS SO WE COULD LEARN MORE ABOUT IT. 
          AND I THINK THAT I, UH, SECOND STAFFS, UH, UH, FEELINGS OF THIS IS A RELUCTANT MOTION TO MAINE, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T MEET THE HIGH HURDLES THAT WE HAVE FOR OURSELVES. 
          AND I BE THE SPEAKER ON BEHALF OF THE OWN EARLIER ALLUDED TO, UH, CLEANSE THAT INVOLVE, UM, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ACTUAL ACCESS TO THOSE. 
          UM, AT LEAST I DIDN'T SEE THEM. 
          I GUESS I'LL, I'LL TRY AND TAKE SOLACE IN BELIEVING HIM THAT THAT IS TRUE AND THAT THE COMMUNITY VALUE OF LETTING THIS ONE GO, UH, IS GOING TO BE REAL. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MISS, UH, COMMISSIONER FINISH THEN, DOES YOUR MOTION INCLUDE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AS WELL? YES. 
          THEN I'LL SECOND THE MOTION THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          UM, TO THE PERMIT. 
          YES. 
          I DID JUST WANT TO SAY I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS TASTE AND I THINK THAT THE INTEREST IS BUILT ON AND REALLY DEMONSTRATES THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCT PRESERVATION AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          BUT DESPITE THAT, THERE IS A VERY HIGH BAR FOR INVESTIGATING AND BUILDING AS A CITY LANDMARK. 
          AND I THINK THAT IT HAS TO HAVE INTEGRITY AND SIGNIFICANCE FOR ITS ARCHITECTURE. 
          AND I AGREE WITH STAFF'S ASSESSMENT THAT IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION THAT THE MODIFICATIONS TO THIS PROPERTY MEAN THAT IT DON'T MEET OUR CITY'S CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION. 
          BUT I, I DO APPRECIATE HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE INTEREST IN PRESERVING THIS BUILDING AND I WISH THAT, I WISH THAT WE COULD. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MYERS, I WONDER IF WE COULD GET COPIES OF THE PETITION TO GO ON FILE WITH THE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE, UH, AT THE HISTORY CENTER. 
          JUST SHARE THAT THERE WAS COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR PRESERVATION OF THIS BUILDING. 
          HMM. 
          OKAY. 
          IF THEY'RE WILLING, IF THE, IF, IF THE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          I MEAN THEY WERE WILLING TO JUST CERTAIN NET THEM TO US. 
          SO IT'S A REQUEST. 
          YEAH. 
          LET ME JUST WEIGH IN. 
          UM, I THINK THAT THE CHANGES THAT TOOK PLACE, SOME THAT LOOKS LIKE MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO ARE PROBABLY THE REASON NOW WHY THE VALUE THAT IT POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE IS A HISTORIC LANDMARK IS JUST NOT THERE. 
          UH, IT HAS POTENTIAL. 
          WHERE ARE WE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE DETAILS WERE AND HAVE SOME CERTAINTY IN THE ABILITY TO REPLACE THEM. 
          A, UH, AN ENTERPRISING OWNER COULD WORK WITHIN OUR SYSTEM AND HAVE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT. 
          BUT, UH, AGAIN, I THINK THAT THAT THRESHOLD WAS PASSED, UH, DECADES AGO. 
          UH, AND THOSE INTERVENTIONS 
          [01:40:01]
REALLY LEFT US WITH A BUILDING THAT, UM, IN ITS CURRENT STATE DOES NOT MERIT PRESERVATION. 
          NOW, CALL THE VOTE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          HI. 
          UH, THE MOTION PASSES SIX ONE WITH MYERS AND OPPOSITION. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS THE LAST OF OUR, MMM. 
          ACTUALLY IN CASES WE 
          [Item 4]
HAVE, UM, MANY OF THE REPORTS FEATURED INTO ITEMS AND THEN THE SPECIAL TAX ABATEMENTS, I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM UM, STAFF ON THAT ITEM. 
          UM, DID YOU HAVE ANY MINI REPORTS? YES, I CAN PASS ON THAT. 
          THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION HAS NOW CANCELED PRE-MEETINGS. 
          EVENTUALLY THEY WILL MEET AND WHEN THEY DO, UH, I HAVE RAISED A NUMBER OF WAYS THE ISSUE OF THE THREAT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITH THE, UH, INCREDIBLE PRESSURE. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, ECONOMIC PRESSURE THAT THE PROPERTY VALUES, THE LAND VALUES ARE PUTTING ON THESE STRUCTURES. 
          UH, WE SEE EVIDENCE OF THAT IN JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE OF OUR AGENDAS. 
          AND I THINK IT'S TIME TO BE MORE PROACTIVE. 
          UH, WE'RE, WE'LL BE ON A LOSING BATTLE OVER AND OVER AGAIN IF WE DON'T FIGURE OUT A BETTER SYSTEM. 
          SO ANYWAY, WHEN WE GET BACK TOGETHER I'LL BE OKAY MAKING THAT PUSH IF I CAN. 
          OH YES. 
          COMMISSIONERS WERE LESS, BUT I THINK IT'S IRONIC THAT AUSTIN BECAME SO COOL. 
          SO KIPP, SO TRENDY THAT A LOT OF OUR HISTORIC BUILDINGS DON'T HAVE THE VALUE TO SURVIVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS? FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? WE'VE ALREADY REQUESTED. 
          UM, PARKS DEPARTMENT TO SPEAK TO US AT THERE. 
          UM, ANY OTHER, UM, ITEMS WE'D LIKE TO PUT SOME FUTURE AGENDA. 
          HI. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER MELANSON. 
          UM, I, I THINK IN MARCH WE BEGAN DISCUSSIONS ON A BUDGET REQUEST. 
          DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THAT? YES, COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, THE BUDGET REQUEST WAS PASSED ON TO, OR THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATION WAS UPGRADED TO GO, THEY'VE IN COMMISSIONS INFORMATION CENTER WITH THE FULL RANGE OF NUMBERS ADDED AND HAS THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO CITY GOVERNMENT SOCIETY TO CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR THEIR RESPONSES. 
          UM, I THINK, I THINK GIVEN THE PROJECTED BUDGET DIFFICULTIES IN FISCAL YEAR 21 MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE, SINCE FEBRUARY. 
          UM, AND IT, IT SEEMS LESS LIKELY THAN IN FEBRUARY THAT UH, A PRESERVATION PLAN WILL BE FUNDED. 
          UM, BUT WE ARE HOPEFUL FOR FUTURE YEARS AND STAFF IS, UM, BEGINNING TO TALK ABOUT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT START A PHASE ONE OF THAT EFFORT IN HOUSE. 
          UM, OKAY, WELL AT LEAST YOU KNOW, EXPLORE CLG FUNDING TO BEGIN A PHASE ONE. 
          NO FINAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN OF COURSE. 
          BUT YEAH. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE A RELATED QUESTION ABOUT THE HERITAGE GRANTS, UM, IS AREN'T THEY SHORTAGE GRANTS? I KNOW THAT WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON THESE NOT ALL THAT LONG AGO, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER. 
          IS THIS THE TYPE OF GRANT THAT NEIGHBOR CAN APPLY FOR, FOR ASSISTANCE WITH LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS OR AM I THINKING OF SOMETHING ELSE? THE HERITAGE GRANTS ARE FUNDED BY TO OCCUPANCY TAXES AND HAVE TO RELATE TO TOURISM. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, HERITAGE TOURISM SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO THERE ARE CAPITAL GRANTS AND THERE ARE WHAT'S CALLED SITE SPECIFIC GRANTS WHICH CAN BE USED FOR PLANNING, EDUCATION AND MARKETING. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          MOST ALVARADO IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY 
          [01:45:01]
ON WHAT COULD BE USED. 
          I THINK PUTTING TOGETHER A HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATION, UM, WOULD PROBABLY BE A LONG SHOT FOR A, A HOT FUNDED GRANT. 
          BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ANY NEIGHBOR INTERESTED IN THE BAR ASSOCIATION FEED THAT TO MELISSA. 
          I THINK IF NEIGHBORHOODS ARE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE TOURISM ORIENTED PROJECTS, PERHAPS IF THEY'RE ALREADY DESIGNATED, IF THERE ARE LANDMARKS THAT THEY WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO IT, THERE MIGHT BE THE POTENTIAL TO APPLY FOR A GRANT. 
          IF THEY WERE DESIGNATED, IT WOULD ATTRACT TOURISM. 
          YEAH, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU TALK TO MELISSA AND SHE'S IN CLOSE COMMUNICATION. 
          IT'S A LOT DEPARTMENT AND OUR STAFF AS WELL. 
          LET ME MOVE ON TO, UM, FORESEE YOU CAN START CASCADING. 
          YEAH. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          SO THIS IS A CHARACTER TRYING AGAIN AND THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS. 
          THIS IS PART OF AN ONGOING EFFORT TO INCREASE CLARITY AROUND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TAX ABATEMENT AND ALSO TO INCREASE USAGE OF THE ABATEMENT. 
          IT HAS BEEN USED VERY LIGHTLY. 
          A STAFF IS PUTTING TOGETHER AN APPLICATION GUIDE AND PLANNING OUTREACH TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHEN, WHEN THAT IS POSSIBLE. 
          UM, AS PART OF OUR EFFORT TO INCREASE CLARITY, WE ARE LOOKING, UM, AT WHAT EXPENSES ARE ELIGIBLE TO COUNT TOWARDS THE THRESHOLD FOR THE ABATEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU'RE KIND OF CUTTING IN AND OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, SOMETHING HAPPENED. 
          I CLOSED THE DOOR. 
          LET ME TRY OPENING THAT AGAIN. 
          ALTHOUGH THIS GIVES MY DOG BACKING YOUR WIFI SIGNAL MAYBE. 
          UM, SO ONE STEP THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING, UM, TO INCREASE CLARITY IS TO ALIGN THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE EXPENSES FOR THE TAX ABATEMENT WITH THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE EXPENSES FOR THE STATE AND FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDITS. 
          AND THE BIGGEST CHANGE THAT THAT WOULD OCCUR FROM THIS IS EXPANDING, UH, INTERIOR WORK THAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR THE ABATEMENT. 
          AND TONIGHT WE WANTED TO, WE HAD A COUPLE OF, UH, QUESTIONS FOR Y'ALL. 
          UH, FIRST WHETHER YOU'RE, WHETHER YOU DO SUPPORT, THE ALIGNMENT, GREATER ALIGNMENT WITH THE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT ELIGIBLE EXPENSES AND MORE SPECIFICALLY YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER ADDITIONS SHOULD QUALIFY FOR THE TAX ABATEMENT ADDITIONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE EXPENSES UNDER HIS DIRECT TAX CREDITS. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE, STEPH HAS VARIOUS THOUGHTS, UM, SOME STAFF WOULD LIKE TO DO AS POSSIBLE TO THE TAX CREDIT FOR CLARITY AND OTHER STAFF FEEL THAT ADDITION SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS A WAY TO EXPAND THE LIVABILITY OF SMALLER HOUSES AND INCREASE THE USAGE OF THE ABATEMENT. 
          UM, IF THE COMMISSION DOES, DOES, WOULD LIKE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS, DIRECTION ON ABATEMENT QUALIFYING, UM, SORRY, ON ADDITIONS QUALIFYING, WE'D BE GLAD TO, UH, HEAR IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON IF AND HOW THOSE ADDITIONS SHOULD BE KEPT. 
          UH, WHETHER BY SIZE, LIKE A PROPORTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, UM, OR BY COST, LIKE THE PROPORTION OF A BUILDING VALUE FOR THE PROJECT COST. 
          EVERYTHING COULD HAVE ROLLED INTO A NUT AND A RULE THAT YOU ALL AT ONCE. 
          UM, BUT THE FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM WAS WHETHER YOU SUPPORT GREATER ALIGNMENT WITH HISTORIC TAX CREDITS AND THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE EXPENSES. 
          YES. 
          MR. HANSEN, YOU'RE ON MUTE. 
          THANKS FOR REMINDING ME. 
          I THINK WE NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. 
          I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TAX ABATEMENTS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND OUR PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT PROGRAM. 
          OH, I APOLOGIZE. 
          YEAH. 
          THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TAX ABATEMENT IS OFFERED TO CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AS WELL AS NON-CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES THAT, UH, ARE RETURNING TO CONTRIBUTING STATUS. 
          AND THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS MUST SPEND A CERTAIN MINIMUM EXPENDITURE AND THAT'S BASED ON WHETHER IT'S A HOMESTEAD PROPERTY OR AN INCOME PRODUCING PROPERTY, AND WHETHER IT IS LOCATED IN THE REVITALIZATION AREA, WHICH IS BASICALLY 
          [01:50:01]
CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AT THAT, AT THIS POINT, SINCE I, YOU MAY HAVE HAD PRESENTATIONS, THIS IS A PROGRAM I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH HOW MANY, HOW MUCH, HOW MANY DOLLARS DO WE COMMIT TO THIS AND HOW MANY PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ARE ENGAGED IN THIS. 
          THERE HAS NOT BEEN A FORMAL COMMITMENT OF DOLLARS TO IT OVER THE PAST. 
          I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHEN THE TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM HAS STARTED. 
          UM, RECENTLY I LOOKED INTO THE NUMBER OF, OF ABATEMENTS, UM, THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT I, THAT I COULD FIND THAT HAD HAPPENED AND I FOUND SEVEN. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS THEN I DON'T FEEL SO NO START A LITTLE FARTHER BACK YET. 
          IT'S A GREAT TOOL FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. 
          UM, IT IS NOT, IT HAS NOT BEEN HEAVILY USED I THINK PARTLY JUST BECAUSE IT IS, IT'S NOT AS WELL PUBLICIZED AS IT COULD BE AND IT'S NOT AS EASY TO APPLY AS IT COULD BE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND LAST QUESTION, AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM SURMISING WHAT YOU'RE HAVING HERE IN YOUR LIST IS THAT THIS IS A ONETIME ABATEMENT BASED ON A SPECIFIC OR PROJECT SPECIFIC. 
          SO IT WOULD BE PARALLEL TO WHAT MIGHT BE THE FEDERAL TAX CREDIT, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT MECHANISM THAT WE ADMINISTER LOCALLY PER PROJECT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND IT'S A, IT'S A, IT IS A PROJECT BASED TAX ABATEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY TAXES AND IT LASTS FROM SEVEN TO 10 YEARS. 
          UM, AND THERE'S A LIMIT ON HOW IT, THERE HAS TO BE AN INTERVAL OF THREE TO FIVE YEARS BEFORE PEOPLE CAN GET IT AGAIN. 
          UM, WITH A DIFFERENT PROJECT. 
          THEY HAVE TO MAKE A MINIMUM EXPENDITURE. 
          UM, THAT'S BASED ON THE PRE REHABILITATION VALUE OF THE BUILDING AND AGAIN, WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND WHAT THE USE IS AND THEN IT GOES FROM, IT LASTS FROM SEVEN TO 10 YEARS AND THEN THEY CAN NOT USE IT AGAIN THREE TO FIVE YEARS LATER. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE BACKGROUND. 
          I'LL HAVE SOME OTHER COMMENTS AT THE END, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          YEAH, OF COURSE. 
          SORRY FOR LEAPING INTO THE MIDDLE. 
          HEADLONG. 
          I ALSO WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR, FOR PREPARING THIS, UM, INDIE TABLE THAT MAKES IT VERY EASY TO COMPARE THE TWO. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT IT'S, UM, SOMEWHAT VALUABLE TO HAVE THEM, UM, ALIGNED SO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, IT MAYBE MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE, UH, APPROACHABLE FOR THE USER. 
          UM, BUT ALSO THINK THAT THERE'S VALUE IN, UM, ALLOWING SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL TAX CREDIT. 
          UM, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BY THEIR RULES AND IF THERE'S WAYS THAT WE CAN INCENTIVIZE CONSERVATION, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS MAY BE JUST BE THE BEGINNING OF A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WITH THE COMMISSION, BUT, UM, SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT I THINK THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ADDING ALL OF THE, UM, ITEMS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE ADDED. 
          AND THEN, UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD WANT TO REMOVE, UM, HISTORIC LANDSCAPING. 
          UM, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT, UH, OFFER AN ABATEMENT FOR THAT. 
          UM, YEAH, IF ONLY TWO, JUST TAKING THAT AWAY JUST TO MAKE IT, UM, WERE EASY TO UNDERSTAND FOR THE PUBLIC DOESN'T EAT, OUTWEIGH THAT BENEFIT FOR ME. 
          AND THEN I THINK HE ADDITIONS AND THE PORCHES OBVIOUSLY ARE MARCHED FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE I'M SURE THOSE PEOPLE HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THAT. 
          IF WE WERE TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED, UM, IT BEING POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT ADDITIONS OF A CERTAIN SIZE ARE ALLOWABLE. 
          UM, ARE WE ALLOWED TO PIN IT TO SOMETHING LIKE, UM, APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW PERMISSION FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, CASE BY CASE CONSIDERATION OF, OF THAT? YEAH. 
          WHERE DOES IT HAVE TO BE A HARD, YOU KNOW, 25% OF THE VOLUME OR SOMETHING? NO. 
          WELL, ALL, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THERE IS A CLEAR PROPORTION THAT SET FORTH JUST FOR CLARITY RATHER THAN A CASE BY CASE ARGUMENTS THAT PEOPLE MAKE TO THE COMMISSION. 
          ANY ADDITIONS WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OR, OR YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE, IF THEY RISE TO THAT LEVEL, IF THEY'RE VERY SMALL, UM, AND STAFF CAN ADMINISTRATIVELY PROVEN BY CODE THAT 
          [01:55:01]
WOULD PROBABLY ACTUALLY SEND EVERYTHING, ALL THE CASES BEFORE YOU FOR APPROVAL. 
          UM, SO ALL OF THIS, THE EXTERIOR WORK WOULD ALL HAVE TO RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AS LIKE USUAL. 
          UM,  BUT I DON'T, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T, I WOULD SET A FIRM AND CLEAR PROPORTION OR, OR YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME SORT OF A CLEAR FIGURE ON WHAT COULD BE COUNTED JUST SO THAT THAT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR PROJECT PLANNING. 
          UM, OR FOR PEOPLE TO FINANCE IT. 
          AND IT DOESN'T SET A LIMIT ON NECESSARILY ON THE SIZE OF AN ADDITION. 
          IT WOULD JUST SET A LIMIT ON THE, ON PRICE PER SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE THAT'S REQUIRED TO MEET THE THRESHOLD. 
          OR IT'S ANOTHER IDEA WOULD BE TO PUT A UH, THRESHOLD ON THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS BASED ON THE PRE REHABILITATION VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, THAT IN ADDITION COULD CONTRIBUTE TO, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THAT PEOPLE, SO THAT UM, IN ADDITION COULDN'T MAKE UP THE BULK OF THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE NECESSARILY. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU KNOW, DEVIATION WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED ANYWAY, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT PORTION OF IT, IF ANY, WOULD WE BE COMFORTABLE? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          YES. 
          I THINK I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT IF ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE COST OF AN ADDITION OR THE PORCHES. 
          AND PORTICOES WENT TOWARDS THAT TAX ABATEMENT INSTEAD OF ALL OF THE COSTS. 
          UM, TOWARDS THAT I WOULD, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I THINK, I MEAN, IN GENERAL OF LINING THIS PROGRAM WITH THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM IN PART BECAUSE THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM IS JUST A WELL THOUGHT OUT COHESIVE PROGRAM AND ALL OF THE WORK THAT IS ELIGIBLE UNDER IT IS THE STUFF THAT'S IMPORTANT TO GOING INTO A HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT IN TERMS OF ADDITIONS, I GUESS I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE IT BUILDING AN AUSTIN THAT SOMEBODY WOULD SHELL OUT MONEY FOR AND NOT WANT TO PUT AN ADDITION ON TO. 
          SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO INCENTIVIZE MAKING THAT ADDITION AS APPROPRIATE AS POSSIBLE. 
          I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. 
          YES. 
          MR. MEYERS, I WANT TO ADD MY VOICE TO CHAIRMAN READS ABOUT HISTORIC LANDSCAPING FEATURES. 
          I THINK REMOVING THEM WOULD, I THINK HAVING AN INCENTIVE TO RETAIN THEM, TO REPAIR THEM, TO MAINTAIN THEM, UM, WOULD BE A GREAT BENEFIT. 
          IN DOING THE SURVEY OF NORTH CENTRAL AUSTIN, WE FIND A LOT OF REALLY GREAT HISTORIC AGE, UH, LANDSCAPE WALLS, ENTRANCE PEERS, UM, BRIDGES AND THINGS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT LET GO BY THE WAYSIDE IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE INCENTIVE OR WEREN'T ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN THEM. 
          AND I WOULD, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SCHEDULED OR PROPOSED TO LEAVE, LIKE SECURITY SYSTEMS, THAT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER. 
          I THINK THE INCENTIVE, UM, TO RETAIN HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT AS A LANDMARK COMMISSION. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? YEAH, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. 
          THIS ISN'T, IT'S A PROBLEM THAT IT'S AN UNDER UTILIZED PROGRAM AND THAT THIS IS ONE OF PERHAPS A LOT OF LEVERS THAT WE REALLY DO NEED. 
          AND IN THINKING OF IT IN WHAT IT COULD GIVE US, PARTICULARLY MAYBE NOT BY ITSELF, BUT AS SOME OFFSETS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DON'T SEE THE VALUE OF MAINTAINING THEIR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE OR THEIR HISTORIC, UH, ASPECTS OF THEIR BUILDINGS. 
          UH, I, I, I THINK THE MORE TOOLS WE HAVE, THE BETTER. 
          I DON'T SEE A VALUE OF, OF, UH, LIMITING US. 
          AND IF WE CAN HAVE A, AN ADDITIONAL REASON TO, UH, PERSUADE AN OWNER TO DO A MODEST ADDITION AND ADD A PORCH, UH, EVEN THEIR SIGNAGE, UH, AS OPPOSED TO SEEING THE EXISTING BUILDING AS A BURDEN NEEDING TO BE REMOVED. 
          UH, LET'S, LET'S GO FOR IT. 
          AND I THINK THE MORE WE CAN PROMOTE THE FACT THAT THIS TOOL IS AVAILABLE, UH, 
          [02:00:01]
SEVEN, SEVEN PROPERTIES MAKING USE OF IT IS NOT NEARLY WHAT SHOULD BE THE CASE. 
          I AGREE. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK IN SUMMARY, I'M IN FAVOR OF, UM, ALIGNING THEM. 
          UM, I MEAN AS MUCH AS WE'RE ADDING THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL TAX CREDIT ALLOWS, UM, BUT I WOULD NOT GO SO FAR AS, UM, REMOVING THINGS THAT IT DOESN'T. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          ANY, ANY, I DON'T, I THINK STAFF WILL TAKE THIS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. 
          IT FEELS LIKE REALLY GOOD AND CLEAR DIRECTION. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP AS TO THE OUTREACH EFFORTS THAT WE DO WHEN THAT IS, WHEN WE'RE BACK TO A LITTLE MORE OF A NORMAL SITUATION. 
          HEY, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO DISCUSS, UM, ADDITIONS ANYMORE. 
          I KNOW WE KIND OF TOSSED THE IDEA AROUND SOME SORT OF THRESHOLDS THAT, I DON'T KNOW, WE REALLY LANDED ON, UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT SOMETHING SPECIFIC. 
          YES, MR. HUNTER. 
          AND I'LL JUST WEIGH IN. 
          I THINK ANOTHER WAY TO DO THIS IS BY AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE SO WE COULD, WE COULD THERE MAKE IT A MORE MODEST ADDITION, UM, SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST, AND MAYBE THAT COULD BE LAYERED OVER SOME SORT OF DOLLAR LEVEL AS WELL, BUT, UH, I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT WAS MISUSED. 
          UH, THE HOUSE WE SAW THIS EVENING, UH, HAVING A MULTISTORY ADDITION IN THE BACK, UH, AS A, AS A, UH, DEFINED AS AN ADDITION, BUT YOU KNOW, REALLY A STANDALONE PROJECT. 
          SO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE, UH, WITHIN, UH, NO MORE THAN 10% OR 20% OF THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT AREA OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING IN SUPPORT OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          YEAH. 
          I WONDER IF IT MIGHT BE THE, THE SORT OF, THE LESSER OF SOME, SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT ALSO CAPPED AT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURES THAT IT MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO. 
          UM, THERE IS, UH, THOSE DO REQUIRE AT LEAST BETWEEN, THEY REQUIRE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF WORK TO BE SPENT ON THE EXTERIOR AND I THINK ADDITIONS WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS THAT. 
          UM, BUT MAYBE WE COULD, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF THERE'S A, CERTAINLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE RURAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALSO THAT, THAT WE WANT THERE TO BE A LOT OF THE WORK ON THE HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          YEAH. 
          UNLESS, AND I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF IT, BUT UNLESS IT IS REQUIRED TO BE TIED TO THE EXPENDITURE IN SOME WAY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE I'M AS SYMPATHETIC AND WELL EXECUTED ADDITION COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE. 
          UM, SO I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE TYING IT TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR, UM, FOOTPRINT IN SOME WAY. 
          OKAY. 
          MR HOMESICK. 
          JUST ONE MORE SUGGESTION. 
          WHAT WE MIGHT DO OR SUGGEST STAFF TOO. 
          WOULD YOU ALL TAKE A LOOK AT SOME SUCCESSFUL ADDITIONS THAT WE'VE RECENTLY APPROVED AND LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST SORT OF VALUE TEST THEM. 
          IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD MEET REASONABLE CRITERIA AND WE COULD ENCOURAGE EVEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE COULD POINT TO THEM AS EXAMPLES OF WHAT THIS INCENTIVE IS ABOUT. 
          NOT NECESSARILY THE, OF COURSE THAT THEY WERE ONE OF THE SEVEN, BUT I'M SAYING IF WE COULD LOOK BACK AT SOME OF THE ADDITIONS THAT WE THINK ARE MORE SUCCESSFUL THAT WERE WITHIN PROPERTIES OF THIS KIND OVER THE LAST, SAY, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. 
          UH, AND THEN HERE'S THAT AS THE TEST. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT, UM, APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, MY COLLEAGUE, MR TEDESCHI, JUST NOTED THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO FRAME SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS IN A A DOODLE POLL OR A GOOGLE SURVEY OR SOMETHING, PROBABLY A GOOGLE SURVEY TO TALK ABOUT NEXT MONTH. 
          SO MAYBE WE CAN DO SOME MORE RESEARCH INTO IT AND THEN DIG MORE INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS NEXT MONTH. 
          UM, FOR AT LEAST WE'RE ALSO PLANNING ON GETTING FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS WHO HAVE USED THE, THE, UM, ABATEMENT IN THE PAST, UM, TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN USEFUL FOR THEM AND POSSIBLY FOR POTENTIAL USERS. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING, BUT, UM, WE'RE SORT OF GATHERING LOTS OF FEEDBACK ON THIS AND WE CERTAINLY WANTED TO GET Y'ALLS, UM, AS PEOPLE WHO WILL HOPEFULLY BE SEEING AND APPROVING MORE APPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENTS IN THE NEAR FUTURE 
          [02:05:01]
AND WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE BETWEEN YOU SO WE CAN COME BACK WITH SOME MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEXT, NEXT MONTH. 
          I THINK THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF OUR AGENDA DISCUSS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I'LL MOVE TO ADJOURN. 
          SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          CAPACITY SEVEN ZERO EIGHT THANK YOU GUYS. 
          SO NEXT STEP. 
          .
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.