* 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] SINCE WE HAVE A QUORUM, UH, IF STAFF IS [CALL TO ORDER] READY AND THE COMMISSIONERS ARE SET, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL FIRST. I WANT TO WELCOME THOSE OF YOU. THE 50, SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE, UM, ONLINE, UH, WAITING TO SPEAK. I WANT TO WELCOME YOU TO THE MEETING. THIS IS THE MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, MAY 24TH, 2021. THIS IS OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING AND WE WILL BE TAKING UP HOW LONG WE'LL BE TAKING UP THE AGENDA IN JUST A SECOND. BUT I WANT TO LET EVERYONE WHO IS ON THE LINE, KNOW THAT WE WILL BE LISTENING TO THE SPEAKERS ON ALL CASES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. UM, WE WON'T BE HEARING THEM WHEN THE CASES COME UP. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ODD, BUT THIS IS THE WAY, UM, THIS IS THE CITY PROTOCOL FOR A VIRTUAL MEETING. OKAY. I'LL CALL THE ROLL. THEN I'M SET. ANNISA CASTILLO WIT FEATHERSTON, UM, SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKELY BE ABSENT. KEVIN COOK ARE A LAROCHE KELLY. I'M HERE BLAKE TO LET THAT FELL ON. SUELA BETH FELONS, WILLA RAISED HER HAND. SHE'S HERE. AND CAROLINE RIGHT HERE IS HERE. WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START, UM, START THE MEETING, THE FIRST ITEM. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK FOR CITIZEN CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. AS ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION, MADAM CHAIR, WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. OKAY. HEARING NONE. WE'LL GO ON AND GO THROUGH THE AGENDA. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH FOR THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THE AGENDA AND IDENTIFY [Consent Agenda: 1, B3, B4, B8, B9, B10, C1, C2, C4, C5, D6, D7, D9, D10, D12, D14, E1] WHICH CASES WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TONIGHT, WHICH CASES ARE ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH MEANS IF WE HAVE THEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THEY'RE NOT PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY SOMEONE, EITHER A COMMISSION MEMBER OR SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE, THEN THEY WILL BE APPROVED WITH, WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF IT'S A DEMOLITION, A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE IS REQUIRED CONSISTING OF A NARRATIVE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING OR PROPERTY, AND, UH, PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALL ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING FOR ARCHIVING AT THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER. THERE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAY COME WITH, UH, WITH, UH, CONSENT ITEMS. AND I URGE YOU TO TAKE NOTE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS EITHER BY THE COMMITTEE, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STAFF OR BOTH. SO ITEM NUMBER ONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, THIS WILL BE A CONSENT ITEM. NUMBER TWO, PRESENTATIONS DISCUSSIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION. WE HAVE NO BRIEFINGS OR PRESENTATIONS TONIGHT, WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA. THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON YOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC ZONING APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND REQUESTS TO CONSIDER INITIATION OF HISTORIC ZONING ITEM, A ONE NINE OH FIVE EAST SECOND STREET. THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, A TWO 1304, BOB HARRISON. THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM UNDER B DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS ITEM D ONE NINE OH SEVEN, NINE OH NINE AND NINE 11 CONGRESS AVENUE WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER B2, 1501 NORTH ROAD. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO THE JUNE 28 MEETING. UM, SO THIS WILL BE ON THE POSTPONE LETTER AGENDA [00:05:01] ITEM B3 SIX 12 HIGHLAND IS, IS A CONSENT ITEM. THE COMMITTEE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWED THESE PLANS WITH THE APPLICANT AND THIS, THESE PLANS ARE REFLECTED IN THE AGENDA. AND THIS IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT ITEM BEFORE 1100 EAST EIGHTH STREET, THE LINDEMANN HOUSE. THIS IS A CONSENT ITEM. ITEM B FIVE 24 OH SIX HARRIS BOULEVARD. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. THE SIX 1805 EAST THIRD STREET IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. B SEVEN 4,006 AND A HALF AVENUE. B IS A DISCUSSION ITEM E EIGHT 1113 IS NINTH STREET THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT BEING NINE, EIGHT, 10. LYDIA STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. TEN SIX, 11 WAS 22ND STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF SIGNS. THE SIGNS ARE OFFERED FOR CONSENT, EXCEPT FOR THE PICKUP SIGN OVER THE ENTRANCE ITEM B 11 IS, IS AN ADDENDUM TO THE, THIS SECTION OF THE AGENDA. THIS IS THE STANLEY HOMESTEAD. WE WILL SEE A PRESENTATION BY THE STAFF AND DISCUSS THIS ITEM UNDER SEA DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS WITHIN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS C ONE NINE OH TWO, WILLOW STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. TWO 32 OH FOUR. BEVERLY ROAD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. THREE 1805 WATERSTON AVENUE WAS OFFERED FOR CONSENT, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S SOMEONE WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT. AND IF NOT, I WILL PULL THE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION C4. 1602 WESTOVER ROAD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT ITEM C FIVE 25 18 HARRIS BOULEVARD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. I DIDN'T SEE SIX 71 RAINY STREET. THIS WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. C7 2308. WOODLAWN IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. SEE, 1603 WAS SIXTH STREET. UM, THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED THAT WE POSTPONE THIS TO, UH, JUNE 28TH. IF THE, UM, IF THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE AND WISHES TO, UH, DISCUSS THIS ITEM, THIS WILL BE ON OUR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT AGENDA. IF THERE ISN'T APPLICANT NOW HE OR SHE MAY REQUEST, OKAY, COME BACK TO THAT ITEM. C NINE 600 CONGRESS AVENUE. THAT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM UNDER D DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION. D ONE 47 14. ROWENA IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. THE TWO 2040 ISAS OR CHAVEZ IS A DISCUSSION ITEM D THREE 1807. BRECKENRIDGE WAS OFFERED FOR CONSENT, BUT SOMEONE HAS PULLED THAT, UM, TO DISCUSS. SO IT'LL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. TWO, A ONE WEST 30TH STREET. THE FIRE STATION IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, D FIVE THREE OH SEVEN EAST SECOND STREET. AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. THESE SIX 2100 CHICAGO WILL BE OFFERED, OFFERED ON CONSENT. 1709 WILLOW STREET. THAT'S A CONSENT ITEM D NINE. WE SKIPPED DA UH, THAT NUMBER WAS NOT USED. THE NINE 28 OH SEVEN. BONNIE ROAD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. THE 10 1601 CANTERBURY STREET [00:10:01] IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. THE 1127 OH EIGHT SCENIC DRIVE WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM D 12 FIVE OH TWO EAST 42ND STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. 13, 1100 1109. TRAVIS HEIGHTS BOULEVARD WAS OFFERED FOR CONSENT, BUT THAT HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION D 14, 1202 BETTAS STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT UNDER ITEM E DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT E ONE. THE SEABORN SNEAD HOUSE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT TO REMAIN ON THE AGENDA. ITEM OF DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR TAX ABATEMENT. WE HAVE NONE AND WE'LL GO ON TO COMMISSION AND STAFF ITEMS AT THE END OF THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE HERE AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON THE LINE, IF YOUR, IF YOUR ITEM WAS OFFERED FOR CONSENT AND WE APPROVE IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STAY ON THE LINE. THAT MEANS IT WAS THAT IT WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT. AGAIN, IF THERE, IF THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IF IT IS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITIONS TO, UM, PREPARE A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING DONE, TO PHOTOGRAPH ALL FACADES AND WRITE A NARRATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. ANY QUESTIONS STAFF? OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? OKAY. WAS THAT COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? YES. OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCWHORTER, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED IS UNANIMOUS. THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. WE HAD ONE [Postponed Items: B2, C8] ITEM POSTPONED, AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT. THAT WAS, UH, ITEM BEACHY, 1501 NORTHWOOD ROGUE. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE POSTPONED AGENDA? WE'LL MOVE AGAIN. OKAY. COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. IS THAT A SECOND COMMISSIONER? RIGHT. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING, THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 28TH. OKAY. I'LL I'LL I'LL AGREE. IT PASSES THAT ONE WILL BE POSTPONED. NOW WE HAVE AN ITEM, UM, THAT SOMEBODY HELPED ME OUT ON THE ITEM WHERE WE HAD AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT. THAT'S A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT D ONE, I BELIEVE. UM, I'M SORRY. C E C EIGHT. OKAY. 1603 WEST SIXTH STREET. THAT WAS THE STAFF, UH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. YOU'RE FROM THE OWNER. OKAY. DO WE HAVE THE OWNER ON THE LINE OR 1603 WEST SIXTH STREET. WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM C S C H. OKAY. I'LL MOVE THE, WE POSTPONE THAT THEN TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO OUR JUNE 28TH MEETING. DO I HEAR A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ITEM C EIGHT, 1603 WAS SIXTH STREET WILL BE POSTPONED TO THE JUNE 28TH MEETING. THEN WE HAVE ITEM D ONE 47, 14 ROWENA. I WANTED TO ASK THE PROPERTY OWNER IF HE OR SHE IS ON THE LINE, UH, IF YOU WANTED TO POSTPONE THAT ITEM, UM, WE THOUGHT THERE MAY BE A REQUEST TO POSTPONE IT. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT STAFF? CAN YOU HELP OUT? I DON'T KNOW WHO THE OWNER IS [00:15:01] PERHAPS CALLED THEIR NAME OWNER IS, UH, JOSH WILSON. UH, WE'VE HAD SOME MORE RECENT EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. I BELIEVE THAT I, MR. WILSON WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CASE HEARD TONIGHT. HE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE OKAY, THEN THAT, THAT WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. SO GOING BACK, STARTING BACK WITH THE PUBLIC SHARINGS UNDER A ONE EIGHT [3.A.1. GF-2021-050281 – 905 E. 2nd St. – Discussion Council District 3 (Part 1 of 2)] ONE NINE OH FIVE EAST SECOND STREET, THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. OH, I'M SORRY. WE NEED TO HAVE SPEAKERS. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ON THE LINE APPLICANT? AND YOU WENT IN FAVOR AND YOU WANT TO POST SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? A ONE NINE OH FIVE EAST SECOND STREET FOR ITEM A ONE NINE OH FIVE EAST SECOND STREET. WE HAVE BRIAN THOMPSON. MR. THOMPSON, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? YES. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTS. UM, I'M THE OWNER AND CAN YOUR RESIDENCE, SO THE PROPERTY CAN TALK TO THE SECOND I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. SO THE HISTORIC ZONING INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION, BUT IN FAVOR OF THE COMMISSION'S ENDORSEMENT AND APPROVAL OF A VERSION OF OUR REVISED PLAN AND RELEASE FOR THE PARKING COMMISSION PERMIT AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, HEATING, STARTING LACK OF DETAILS, THE FRONT ELEVATION AND ABOVE PAINTED THE PLANS, REFLECT OUR INTENT TO PRESERVE THE STORE, FEATURES THE POSTS, THE BRACKETS RAILING, ET CETERA. AND WE INTEND TO REPAIR THESE FEATURES WHERE NECESSARY AND REPLACE IN KIND THAT THEY CAN NOT BE REPLACED, UH, OR I'M SORRY IF THEY CANNOT BE REPAIRED. UH, STAFF ALSO INDICATED THAT THE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING IS NOT COMPATIBLE, UM, WITH HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT EMPHASIZE THE HIGHEST OF THE SECOND STORY, BUT WE'VE PROVIDED UPDATES, THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND THE BACKUP IS A.ONE DOT THREE, THE OPTION ONE ELEVATION THAT ADDRESSES BOTH THE HISTORIC FOLK, VICTORIAN ELEMENTS IN THE SIDING. WE FEEL LIKE THIS PLAN BETTER REFLECTS OUR ORIGINAL INTENT. UM, WE ALSO RECEIVED FEEDBACK AT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETING AND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING, UH, ABOUT THE, THE SECOND STORY WINDOW PLACEMENT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FRONT, UH, THE NUMBER AND THE PROPORTIONS. UH, WE'VE ALSO, UH, SO WE'VE UPDATED OUR PLAN TO ALSO REFLECT THIS FEEDBACK. AND I'VE INCLUDED A FURTHER REVISED ELEVATION IN THE BACK OF THE DATA. ONE TO FOUR, WHICH IS OPTION TWO ELEVATION. THIS IS OUR PREFERRED VINYL ELEVATION, AND WE WERE SEEKING OUR ENDORSEMENT OF THIS OPTION. UH, WE'RE WE'RE ALSO FINE WITH OPTION ONE IF THE COMMISSION HAS TO FOR IT. UM, I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THAT, THAT WE ORIGINALLY BEGAN OUR DESIGNED AS A SINGLE-STORY ADDITION TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, BUT SEVERAL CONSTRAINTS, INCLUDING THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE TO IMPERVIOUS COVER OR THE FOOTPRINT ITS PROXIMITY TO THE REAR ALLEY AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG WITH THE COST CAUSES THE TO CHANGE COURSE AND REDESIGNED TO THE TWO STORY PLAN. WE'VE PUT FOUR, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE INCLUDED TWO PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGS, UH, EIGHT.ONE.ONE AND 801 DOT TWO IN THE BACKUP. UH, IT'S OUR HOPE THAT THEY WILL COMMUNICATE, HELP COMMUNICATE THE MAP FORM OF THE SECOND STORY. THE SECOND FOURTH EDITION IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND THAT THE ADDITION WILL APPEAR SUBORDINATE TO THE, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UM, YOU KNOW, THESE RENDERINGS HAVE, HAVE THE SECOND STORY WINDOW PLACEMENTS FROM, FROM OPTION TWO. SO, SO FORGIVE ME, YOU'LL HAVE TO USE YOUR IMAGINATION FROM THE OPTION TO PLACE IN THAT. AND WE ONLY, ONLY GOT ONE, ONE RENDERING, UM, AND IT HAS THE ORIGINAL PLACEMENT. UM, W WE WANT OUR HOUSE TO CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE FEEL LIKE THIS REVISED PLAN DOES SHOWCASE THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WHILE ALLOWING US TO BRING IT UP TO MODERN LIVING STANDARDS. SO, UM, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE COMMISSION MOVES TO ENDORSE OPTION TO, UH, ELEVATION AND OF OUR PLAN AND, AND RELEASE THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. THOMPSON. UH, THE COMMISSION I'M SURE. APPRECIATES YOUR EFFORT AND GIVING US THESE OPTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WE ALSO HAVE LUCIANA CORWIN ON THE LINE. IS THIS APPLICANT, UH, ON THE LINE HERE? ARE YOU IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION? WHO'S YOU GUYS ARE AN ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT. OKAY. IS SHE ON THE LINE? I'M [00:20:01] NOT SURE IF SHE'S, IF SHE'S ABLE TO MAKE IT. OKAY. OKAY. UM, THEN IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE, WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM UP FOR DISCUSSION IS EIGHT TWO [3.A.2. HR-2021-044151 – 1304 Bob Harrison – Discussion Council District 1 (Part 1 of 2)] 1304, BOB HARRISON STREET IS, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? WE HAVE A MR. WILL FOX. OKAY. THE APPLICANT, MR. FOX, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? YES, I AM. HOW ARE YOU GUYS? OKAY, WE'RE FINE. I GET I'M SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE. THIS IS THE COLLECTIVE FINE. UM, GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE. OKAY. RIGHT. YEAH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. UM, BASED ON, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE HAD EARLIER IN THE MONTH, MID MONTH, UM, WE'VE MADE SOME UPDATES TO THE DESIGN PER THE CONVERSATION, UH, WHICH WE HAVE, WE HOPE, UM, YOU KNOW, MEETS THE, MEETS YOUR APPROVAL. UH, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF HISTORIC, UM, ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY OR LANDMARK STATUS. UM, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE, THE PRESENTATION THAT I THINK WAS SUBMITTED EARLIER THIS MORNING, UM, UH, IT'S THE BOB HARRISON HLC DESIGN REVISIONS, NOT PDF. UM, I'LL GO THROUGH A FEW OF THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE BASED ON THE CONVERSATION. UM, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE CLIENT, ERICA AND PATRICK RODMAN, WHO I BELIEVE WERE ON THE LINE, UH, WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROJECT AND THEY HIRED ME TO DO THE DESIGN, UM, THEY APPRECIATED THE HOUSE. WE DID NOT, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF IT. UM, WE, YOU KNOW, THEIR INTENTIONS FROM THE BEGINNING HAVE BEEN TO PRESERVE AND REALLY RESPECT THE HOUSE JUST BECAUSE THEY APPRECIATED IT. AND THEY KNEW THAT IT, UM, HAD BIG IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN TERMS OF ITS FABRIC. UM, AND SO THAT WAS THEIR KIND OF MAIN INTENT. AND SO WE DESIGNED THE ADDITION, UM, TO REALLY RESPECT THE MAIN HOUSE. SO SOME OF THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE SINCE THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS WE'VE TAKEN, UM, THE COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATION TO SWITCH THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ON THE FRONT, ON THE HISTORIC HOME, UH, TO A, TO OVER TO DOUBLE HUNG ONECLOUD WINDOW, UM, WHICH YOU CAN, IF YOU GO TO PAGE, UH, LET'S SEE, UM, YOU GO TO PAGE NUMBER SIX ON THE PDF, UH, SORT OF, UH, A RENDERING THAT SHOWS SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE. UM, SO WE WERE REPLACING THOSE WITH THE TWO OVER TWO WINDOW, WHICH LOOKED MORE APPROPRIATE, UH, FOR THE PERIOD OF THE HOME. UH, WE'VE REMOVED A PROPOSED GLASSDOOR AND SIDELIGHTS THAT WE HAD PROPOSED ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS. AND WE WILL REPLACE THAT WITH A HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE WOOD DOOR. UH, WE WILL KEEP THE ORIGINAL SIZE AND DESIGN OF THE, OF THE PORCH WE HAD ORIGINALLY WANTED TO ENLARGE IT, BUT WE WILL KEEP IT AS IT'S AS IT IS NOW. AND WE WILL REBUILD AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. WE'VE MOVED THE SKYLIGHT THAT WAS ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE ROOF. UM, AND WE MOVED THAT TO THE SIDE FACADE. WE WILL KEEP, UM, THERE WAS A SMALLER CHIMNEY, A SECONDARY CHIMNEY. WE WERE KEEPING THAT UNLESS IT WAS TO BE FOUND ON TO BE NON ORIGINAL, I WAS THINKING IT MAY BE A PLUMBING THAT, UM, AND THEN I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE, UM, A LOW-PROFILE METAL ROOF. AND IF YOU GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE ON A PDF PAGE FIVE, I DID SOME RESEARCH SINCE THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WAS HELD TWO WEEKS AGO, AND I WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS AND DOCUMENTED SOME OTHER ROOFS, UM, WITHIN, IN THE SAME FABRIC AND, UH, UH, SPECIFICALLY 12, 11 EAST 13TH STREET, WHICH IS JUST ONE BLOCK AWAY. UM, IT SEEMS TO BE AT HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN A SIMILAR ERA AND THE ROOF THERE SEEMS TO BE APPROPRIATE AND 1208, BOB HARRISON ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE PAGE ALSO HAS A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DESIGN TO OUR HOUSE. AND IT HAS A, WHAT SEEMS TO BE A MOSTLY ORIGINAL, UH, SORT OF CORRUGATED, UH, WEATHERED CORRUGATED ROOF, THE OTHER OWN, UH, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENCY THE HOUSE AT 1707 NEWTON STREET, WHICH WAS, UH, RECOMMENDED TO BE LOOKED AT BY THE COMMITTEE, UH, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UM, THAT ROOF ACTUALLY IS PROBABLY THE CLOSEST TO WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE FOR THIS CURRENT DESIGN, UM, WHICH AGAIN, NOT THE EXACT TYPE OF BUILDING, BUT IT SEEMS FROM A VERY SIMILAR TIME PERIOD AND SEEMS TO BE VERY APPROPRIATE. UM, AND I THINK THAT DOES IT MOSTLY FROM MY END, UH, THE OTHER P PAGES ON A PDF WERE STUDY MODELS SHOWING THAT KIND OF MAPPING THAT WE DISCUSSED, UH, DURING OUR LAST MEETING, JUST TO SHOW THAT THE MAIN HOUSE REMAINS KIND OF, [00:25:01] UM, SPECIAL AND, AND HAS ITS OWN CHARACTER. AND THE REAR ADDITION IS MEANT TO BE SECONDARY TO THAT AND NOT SORT OF TAKE AWAY FROM, UM, THE CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL HOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MISS ERICA BROSNAN. MS. BROWSER, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? HI, YES, THIS IS ERICA BRADMAN. UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT PROPOSAL. UM, MY HUSBAND, LIKE WILL SAID BEFORE, UM, WE, YOU KNOW, CAME INTO THIS RENOVATION FULLY WITH THE INTENTION OF MAINTAINING THIS HOUSE, KNOWING THAT, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSES ON THE EAST SIDE BEING TORN DOWN AND WE KNEW THE HOUSE WAS OLD, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF IT. SO THAT'S BEEN A REALLY NEAT THING TO LEARN ABOUT. UM, AND SO, UM, YEAH, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL AND WE'RE HAPPY TO, UM, MAKE THE CHANGES IF YOU GUYS DO DECIDE TO MAKE IT A LANDMARK HOME. UM, WE WERE KIND OF PLANNING, I GUESS, WITH OUR DESIGN TO GIVE THE HOME KIND OF A, AN HONORARY LANDMARK STAMPS. SO THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING CONSIDERED FOR A REAL ONE IS VERY COOL TO US. UM, SO THANK YOU BY HONORARY. DID YOU MEAN ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT SAY IN 1856, THE COMANCHE'S WENT TO THIS AREA, BUT NOTHING HISTORIC HAPPENED HERE. OKAY. UH, MAYBE SOME, YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE JUST MADE A LITTLE PAPER STAMP OR SOMETHING KNOWS YOU MAY GET THE REAL THING. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ELSE REGISTERED. OKAY. MOVING AHEAD. UM, WE GO ON TO [3.B.1. C14H-1986-0015, C14H-2004-0008 – 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. –Discussion (postponed April 26, 2021) Grandberry Building and Mitchell-Robertson Building Congress Avenue National Register District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] ITEM BEING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES AS APPROPRIATE AS NINE OH SEVEN, NINE OH NINE AND NINE 11 CONGRESS AVENUE, A FREQUENT FLYER. THERE WE HAVE A MISS LEAH BO JO. HELLO COMMISSIONERS. UH, THIS IS WITH JENNER GROUP HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, IS MY APPLICATION IS MY PRESENTATION APP. YES, GO AHEAD. OKAY, GREAT. THANKS. THANK YOU. SO I'M JOINED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR CONSULTANT TEAM. UM, ZACH ROBINSON FROM CARTER DESIGN, JERRY GARCIA FROM STRUCTURES ENGINEERING AND CHARLIE. ALSO A VENDOR GROUP. UM, WE'RE HERE AGAIN TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE SO FAR AND REQUEST DIRECTION FROM YOU. AND WE'RE PLANNING TO BRING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH TO YOU IN JUNE. AND SO OUR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE HERE TONIGHT IS TO PROVIDE HER AN UPDATE ON THE ITEMS WE DISCUSSED WITH YOU LAST MONTH AND GET YOUR FEEDBACK AS TO WHETHER THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE ON JUNE 28. ON NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, UM, TO GIVE A VERY QUICK REMINDER AS TO WHERE WE ARE, UH, THERE WAS A COMPLAINT FILED ON THE PROPERTY LAST FALL, AND WE HIT, WE HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES. AND WE'VE BEEN WITH, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU SEVERAL TIMES AS WELL, HOPING TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. YOU NEED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH OUR PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH AND RECONSTRUCT THESE BUILDINGS AS A RESULT OF THE CONDITION THAT THEY'RE IN RIGHT NOW. UM, WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER AN ORDER BY THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION TO EITHER DEMOLISH OR FULLY REPAIR THE BUILDINGS, WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY CANNOT DO WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL. UM, WE HAVE CONTINUED OUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUILDINGS AND, UH, ONLY FURTHER CONFIRMED THAT THE PLAN TO DECONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE PATH FORWARD. IF WE WANT TO HAVE ANY HISTORIC REPRESENTATION LEFT AT ALL, UH, WHICH WE'LL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HERE LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. UM, LIKE I SAID, THE PLAN IS TO BE BACK BEFORE YOU IN JUNE WITH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PAIRED WITH THE, UM, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UM, AS WELL AS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE SITE WHEN IT WAS LANDMARKED, WHICH WE'VE HAD A LITTLE TROUBLE TRACKING DOWN BECAUSE THE CITY'S RESEARCH GROUP IS CLOSED DUE TO COVID, BUT WE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AGAIN IN JUNE. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, TO THREE. UM, AGAIN, WE ARE, UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS SITUATION WHERE THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS ORDERED THAT WE RECEIVE ALL PERMITS BY JUNE 22ND. SO EVEN WITH OUR PLAN TO BRING THIS PERMIT TO YOU IN JUNE, WE WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ORDER. UM, WE'RE DEFINITELY GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN APPROXIMATELY YEAR LONG SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS, AS I THINK YOU ALL KNOW IN ORDER TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AND, AND RECONSTRUCT THIS SIDE, UM, THAT SAID WE'RE DOING AS MUCH AS WE, UM, TO HEAR FROM YOU AND GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH OUR PROPOSAL. AND TONIGHT IS, IS REALLY OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT FEEDBACK. BEFORE WE BRING THE APPLICATION TO YOU NEXT MONTH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, SINCE THE PREVIOUS HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING, THE DESIGN TEAM HAS CONDUCTED SEVERAL ONSITE VISUAL ASSESSMENTS, WE'VE ACQUIRED PRELIMINARY [00:30:01] LASER SCANS AND BEGUN A DIGITAL 3D MODEL TO BE USED IN THE FUTURE DOCUMENTS FOR EACH OF THE THREE PROPERTIES. THE TEAM HAS ALSO BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER. LIKE I MENTIONED, TO TRY TO FIND ADDITIONAL ARCHIVE DOCUMENTATION OF THOSE PROPERTIES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS SOME INFORMATION THAT WE DID GET FROM THE HISTORY CENTER. THESE ARE DOCUMENTS FROM BELTLINE AND HOFFMAN, UM, OF WHICH ONE MEMO WRITTEN BY THEM ABOUT NOT BUILDING AT THE BUILDING AT NINE OH SEVEN STATES THAT THE BRICKS APPEARS TO BE FIRE DAMAGED IN AREAS AFTER THAT IT WAS STUCK OUT IN SCORED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, ADDITIONALLY TO THE HISTORY CENTER PROVIDED US WITH SIGNAGE DRAWINGS FROM THE 1982 FROM 1982 PERMIT SHOWING THE ELEVATIONS OF NINE 11 AND NINE OH NINE. WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS TELL US IS THAT BOTH NINE 11 AND NINE OH NINE, AND I'M SORRY, NONE OF THE SEVEN HAVE BEEN COVERED IN STUCCO FOR OVER 50 YEARS. UM, AND IT WAS THE NEXT SLIDE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ZACH ROBINSON TO DISCUSS THE VISUAL EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE BUILDINGS. AND HE SHOULD BE ON THE LINE AS WELL. THANK YOU. THIS IS ZACH ROBINSON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN GO AHEAD. OKAY. UH, SO ON BUILDING NINE 11, ALL, UM, ALL ORNAMENTATION AND PROTRUDING ELEMENTS, INCLUDING THE SILLS HEADERS AND CORNERS WERE REMOVED AND THE BRICK WAS SCORED IN ORDER FOR THE STUCCO TO BE ADHERED TO THE FACADE, UH, THE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE DONE TO THE FACADE AND THE YEARS OF WATER INFILTRATION DUE TO THE FAILED STUCCO WOULD REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT REPLACEMENT OF THE BRICK STONE AND MORTAR AND ARCHITECTURAL OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS BASED PURELY ON KNOWN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION. NEXT SIDE, PLEASE ON BUILDING NINE OH NINE, IT APPEARS TO BE IN THE BEST CONDITION OF THE THREE BUILDINGS. THE MODERN INTERVENTIONS OF THE STEEL HEADER AND COLUMNS HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF THE EXTERIOR FACADE AT THE GROUND LEVEL. THE STEEL HEADER IS RUSTED AND HAS MINOR DEFLECTION OVER 20, OVER THE 21 FOOT SPAN, LIKELY REQUIRING REPLACEMENT. THERE IS NO NOTICEABLE CRY OR SORRY. THERE IS NOTICEABLE CRACKING AND MOISTURE IN THE UPPER FLOOR WALLS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, ON NINE OH SEVEN, VERY SIMILAR TO NINE 11. MOST, IF NOT, ALL OF THE ORNAMENTATION OF THE EXTRA FACADE IS DAMAGED OR MISSING DUE TO THE ADDITION OF STUCCO ADDED IN THE SIXTIES OR SEVENTIES, THE FAILURE OF THE STUCCO IS ALSO CAUSING SIGNIFICANT WATER INFILTRATION THAT IS JEOPARDIZING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDINGS. EXTERIOR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, ALONG WITH THE DAMAGE TO THE EXTRA FACADE, THERE IS MAJOR WATER INFILTRATION THAT IS SHARED, UH, IN THE SHARED WALL BETWEEN NINE OH SEVEN AND 905 THAT IS LIKELY CAUSED BY THE ROOF FAILURE. THESE TWO BUILDINGS NEED TO BE SEPARATED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PROPER WATERPROOFING AND SUPPORT AT THE SHARED WALL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, WE HAVE, UH, STARTED INITIAL SCANS AND PRELIMINARY DIGITAL 3D MODEL, UH, WERE UNDERTAKEN LAST WEEK. UH, WE ALLOWING US TO COMPARE WHAT WAS BOAT, UH, TO A RECTIFIED MODEL IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ANY MAJOR STRUCTURAL ISSUES ALONG WITH LOCATING MOISTURE INFILTRATION, UH, ADDITIONAL SCANS WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE FRONT FACADE AFTER THE PLYWOOD AND MESH COVERINGS ARE REMOVED IN ORDER TO FINALIZE THE 3D MODEL, WHICH WE WILL BE USING FOR THE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, UH, BASED ON THE ROUGH DATA RECEIVED, UH, THIS PAST FRIDAY EVENING, UH, THESE IMAGES JUST DEPICT A FEW POTENTIAL ISSUES IN THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, SUCH AS AN APPROXIMATE ONE AND A HALF INCH DEFLECTION AND THE FORWARD JOYCE, IF EACH BUILDING A THREE-EIGHTHS INCH DEFLECTION AND THE STEEL HEADER OF THE BUILDING, IF BUILDING NINE OH NINE AND THE EXTERIOR FACADE OF 909 OR NINE 11 BEING ABOUT THREE INCHES OUT OF PLUM, UH, WE'RE HOPING THAT THE, UH, FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE SCANS WILL HELP TO DETERMINE THE STRUCTURAL CRACKS AND MOISTURE WITHIN THE WALLS. UH, NEXT SLIDE, WHERE JERRY, JERRY GARCIA WILL SPEAK ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL AND ACCESS ISSUES. COMMISSIONER. THIS IS JERRY GARCIA SPEAKING. UM, HI THERE. UM, I'M A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HERE IN AUSTIN. I, UM, STARTED MY FIRM FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF STRUCTURES WHEN I STARTED 31 SHORT YEARS AGO. AND WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY, MANY OF, UH, PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP AS MUCH HISTORICAL FABRIC AS POSSIBLE. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PRODUCT PROJECT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ALL, UH, TO TRY AND SEE IF THERE'S WAYS TO KEEP THIS IN PLACE AND REPAIR IT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. NOW, [00:35:01] ALTHOUGH THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS, THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE ANY AMOUNT OF INTEGRITY REMAINING IS A, THE 909 CENTER BUILDING. UM, WE DON'T KNOW THE, WHAT THE FABRIC OF THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS ARE. ONCE THE STUCCO COMES OFF IN GREAT CONCERN AS TO WHAT REALLY THERE IS TO SAVE NOW, UH, I'M IN, UH, I AGREE WITH THE NOTION OF REMOVING IT CATALOGING, REPLACING IT APPROPRIATELY. ONE OF THE CASES, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I REALLY AM CONCERNED ABOUT IN KEEPING IT AND REPAIRING IT IN PLACE IS THAT ON THE SLIDE YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS PROPOSED IN SOME FASHION OR OTHER. THAT'S GOING TO GO ON IMMEDIATELY BEHIND IT. THERE WILL BE EXCAVATIONS BELOW THE CONGRESS, UH, ELEVATION OR PARKING. THERE WILL BE, UH, CRANES AND SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS BEING BROUGHT ONTO THE SITE ALL THE WHILE THESE FACADES WOULD NEED TO BE PROTECTED. AND IT CONCERNS ME THAT IF INDEED WE KEEP IT IN PLACE, THE VIBRATIONS WOULD DAMAGE. IF NOT DESTROY IT AFTER WHICH IT'D BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT IT BACK TOGETHER IN AN APPROPRIATE FASHION SHORT IF INDEED NO ONE GOES IN THERE TO PROPERLY CATALOG THE MATERIALS IN PLACE. SO I THINK IT IS THE BEST, UM, SUGGESTION RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE PROPERLY REMOVED AND STORED SAFELY AND BRING IT BACK TO ITS INTENDED, UM, FABRIC, UH, ONCE THE COMPLETION OR DURING THE, DURING THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWER BEHIND IT. AND I BELIEVE AFTER THIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SEPARATE SPEAKER RIGHT BEHIND ME. SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT TO THEM. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE THAT? YES, YES. THIS IS CHARLIE WITH THE JENNER GROUP. SO IF YOU'LL TURN TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS SLIDE 14, CAN PLEASE SEE OUR LIST OF NEXT STEPS. SO WHAT WE PLAN TO DO BETWEEN TODAY AND WHEN WE COME BEFORE YOU AGAIN IN JUNE WITH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS, AS WELL AS ACCOMPANYING DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION PLAN. SO WE WILL COORDINATE ACCESS FROM CONGRESS AVENUE THROUGH A SCAFFOLDING CONTRACTOR THAT CAN PROVIDE SAFE PASSAGE ADJACENT TO AND ON TOP OF THE BUILDINGS EXPOSE EXTERIOR FACADES FOR FINAL LASER SCANNING ENGAGE A FORENSIC TESTING COMPANY FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE BRICK, MORTAR, STONE, STEEL, AND OTHER ELEMENTS LOCATED ON THE FACADE. AND WE WILL INTEGRATE THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION AND COMMENTS INTO THE ARCHITECT'S PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, WITH ALL THIS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE ANY DIRECTION REGARDING THE ARCHITECT'S SCOPE OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS BACKUP BOTH TONIGHT AND THAT YOUR APRIL MEETING THAT YOU LET US KNOW, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PAIRED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR THE PROPER PERMITS TO ACHIEVE THE DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, AND THAT YOU LET US KNOW THAT IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR DETAIL THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE AS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION IN JUNE DUE TO THE TIMELINE DESCRIBED EARLIER, WE WILL BE REQUESTING THAT YOU TAKE ACTION ON THE PERMIT AT THAT MEETING. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO BE SURE YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THANK YOU. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR DIRECTION AND QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MIST OF HOLOCAUST, PAULA. OKAY. AND THIS KAUFMAN POLAR COPLIN. I THINK SHE HAD SAID SHE WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL LATER ON. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS, BUT I'M HERE. I'M SPEAKING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE YOUR, UH, MY NAME IS PAULA POSTMAN AND I SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS CASE. THESE PROPERTIES ON CONGRESS AVENUE ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE VISUAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF AUSTIN. WHEN THE OWNER PURCHASES PROPERTIES, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES AND THEY SHOULD HAVE DECIDED WHAT THEY COULD DO ABOUT THEM DURING THAT DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD. [00:40:02] AND I ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE THEM BEING DEMOLISHED TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED. I AM NOT CONDENSED. I LIVED IN A THOUSAND YEAR OLD BUILDING AND AUSTRIA FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK THIS BUILDING CAN BE REPAIRS THERE WHERE IT IS, AND WHEN THE OWNER PURCHASED IT, THEY DID AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND WHAT DOES, WHEN, WHEN WE BUY PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WE, WE HAVE CERTAIN PROMISES THAT WE MAKE WHEN WE BUY THOSE PROPERTIES. AND SO IF THE COMMISSION CAN HELP THEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT CAN BE REPAIRED ON SITE WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATIVE. I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD REWARD PROPERTY OWNERS TO BUY HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND THEN LET THEM FALL INTO DISREPAIR BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF THEIR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. AND IF THIS OWNER HAS HAD ANY TAX BENEFITS BASED ON IT, HISTORIC VALUE, THEN THEY SHOULD BE PAYING BACK ANY OF THOSE TAX ABATEMENTS OR OTHER BENEFITS THAT THEY GOT BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT A HISTORIC PROPERTY. IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEMOLISHING IT, THAT'S NOT THE DEAL THEY MADE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR COMMENTS, MS. COOKMAN, DOES THE, DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO REBUT? UM, SURE. THIS IS . UM, I, UM, AS PART OF OUR, OF THE RESEARCH THAT I KNOW HAS BEEN DELAYED, LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE THE RESEARCH CENTER IS NOT, UH, OPEN. WE HAVE HAD TROUBLE PIECING TOGETHER ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THE, OF THE HISTORY OF THESE BUILDINGS. UM, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO REPORT, UM, ON THAT, LIKE THE CONDITION THAT THEY WERE IN, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY WERE LANDMARKED, WHEN THEY WERE PURCHASED, ALL OF THAT, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT THAT TO YOU IN JUNE, WHEN WE PRESENT OUR PERMIT APPLICATION, WE JUST HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET VERY LIMITED INFORMATION FROM THE HISTORY CENTER. AND THEN THE, THE RESEARCH, UM, THE RESEARCH CENTER HAS BEEN CLOSED. I I'M AWARE OF THAT TOO. I, I CAN'T GET ACCESS EITHER, SO. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING, UM, WHAT YOU FIND AT OUR JUNE MEETING. OKAY. MOVING ON. WE HAVE, UH, POSTPONE 1501 NORTHWOOD SECOND. [3.B.5. HR-2021-144747 – 2406 Harris Blvd. – Discussion Jackson-Novy-Kelly-Hoey House Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] OUR NEXT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS 24 OH SIX HARRIS BOULEVARD. THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND PERIMETER FENCE, AND WE RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE BACKUP FROM STAFF ON THIS ITEM. AND THE APPLICANT, UM, IS AVAILABLE NOW TO SPEAK TO US, MR. KENNY, GOOD EVENING. THIS IS ROBERT KENNEY. I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF 24, SIX HARRIS, ALONG WITH MY WIFE AND I, WE GO INTO THIS HOUSE FOR 12 YEARS. WE EXPECT TO OWN IT AS LONG AS WE'RE ALLOWED TO BE ON THE, OR, UM, IF SLIDES, ONE OF OUR PRESENTATION IS UP. THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF OUR HOME, UH, WITH A PATIO IN FRONT OF OUR HOME. AT THE TIME IT WAS LANDMARK. THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE HERE, UH, IS TO, UH, HAVE A SWIMMING POOL, THE SWIMMING POOL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. UH, IF THIS IS THE, WE HOPE THIS IS A CULMINATION OF A NINE MONTH PROCESS DURING WHICH WE LISTENED TO AND, UH, EXECUTED ON, UH, SIGNIFICANT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE AND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEES AND THE COMMISSION WE'VE GONE FROM HAVING, UH, A PLAN FOR A POOL THAT WE THOUGHT WAS QUITE CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, EXISTING PRECEDENTS. UH, HOWEVER, WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THE FEEDBACK. THE POOL WE ARE NOW PROPOSING IS INVISIBLE FROM THE STREET VIEWS. THE ONLY VIEW THAT'S RELEVANT IN THE CODE IN AUSTIN. UM, THIS POOL IS INTENDED TO BE AN ADULTS POOL. WE ARE ADULTS, OUR CHILDREN ARE ADULTS. IT'S A SMALL COCKTAIL. COOL. THAT'S BEEN MOVED OFF AWAY FROM THE FACADE. SO ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS TO BE AROUND THE POOL, WOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF THE FACADE AND AGAIN, THE POOL ITSELF AND ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION AROUND IT WILL BE INVISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE STAFF REPORT IS OUTSTANDING ON THIS PROPOSAL. UH, ELIZABETH BRUMMETT, UH, W UH, REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS COMES OUT, I HAVE TO SAY HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING [00:45:01] JOB WITH A 12 PAGE REPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF OUR PLAN, UH, BASED ON ALL OF THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY THERE'S SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENT FOR A POOL, LIKE WE ARE PROPOSING EVEN A VISIBLE VERSION OF THE POOL. WE'RE PROPOSING. AGAIN, WE ARE PROPOSING AN INVISIBLE POOL FROM THE STREET. UH, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR DECISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OH, SORRY. I SHOULD SAY WE HAVE A FENCE THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE AROUND THE STREET AROUND THE TOOL. AND WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE COMMISSION SPEED BACK ON WHAT THAT FENCE WOULD LOOK LIKE. UH, IF YOU GO TO SLIDE THE LAST SLIDE OF OUR LITTLE DECK, WE HAVE TWO IDEAS, UH, THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK ON THE FIRST ONE ON THE LEFT IS A FENCE DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE, UH, HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, UH, IN FRONT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK IN 2012. UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SHORTER VERSION OF THAT SORT OF FENCE. UH, THE OPENINGS MIGHT NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER DEPENDING ON WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES. UH, WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S A NICE OPEN DESIGN THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE A WALL. WE SIMPLY WANT AN OPEN DESIGN FENCE WITH MASONRY PILLARS, PERHAPS. AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION, UH, FENCE. UH, WE DO NOT WANT SOMETHING AS TALL AS THE GOVERNOR'S MATCHING FENCE. HOWEVER, THIS IS A DANGEROUS STREET. WE'VE HAD ONE DOG DIE. WE DEFINITELY DID A FENCE IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE. UH, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK IS ON THE FENCE VERSION THAT WE MIGHT CHOOSE TO SURROUND OUR INVISIBLE POOL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MR. KENNEY, UM, WITH TINA CONTRAS ON THE LINE AS WELL, OR WAS IT JUST YOURSELF? OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS HEARING? NONE. WE HAVE NO OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR . OKAY. UM, LET'S MOVE ON TO BASICS [3.B.6. HR-2021-067051 – 1805 E. 3rd St. – Discussion Herrera House Council District 3 (Part 1 of 2)] 1805 EAST THIRD. THIS IS THE HERRERA HOUSE. WE HAVE A MR. WILLIAM HODGE. OH. UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. UM, MY NAME IS WILLIAM HYGIENE AND THE APPLICANT FOR 1805 EAST THIRD STREET. UM, I'LL ASK, I HAVE A VERY PRECINCT DECIDED THAT I, I DO WANT TO ASK PARDON? I AM WATCHING MY THREE-YEAR-OLD. WELL, WE A WHILE MY BISON, THANK YOU VACCINATED. SO IF I GET INTERRUPTED, PLEASE, PLEASE FORGIVE THEM. UM, AND, AND OR IF I HAVE TO INTERRUPT MYSELF, UM, YOU KNOW, WE PRESENTED THIS PROJECT BEFORE THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND, UM, THE, I WON'T GO TOO FAR INTO, UM, BECAUSE THOSE ARE SHOWN IN OUR DRAWINGS, BUT, UM, OUR INTENT IS, UH, TWOFOLD IS TO RE RESTORE THE, THE HISTORIC, THE HISTORIC PORTIONS OF THE HISTORIC CAREER HOUSE AND IS TO OUR OTHER INTENT, IS TO DO AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE. UM, WE ARE PROPOSING A TWO STORY ADDITION, UH, AND WE ARE DOING THIS, UH, BECAUSE THE KIND OF, UM, LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IS THAT TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING HERRERA HOUSE, WHAT MY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO AT SOME POINT IS TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT, UH, ANOTHER HOUSE. UM, THAT HOUSE WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE PRIMARY USE IN A TRUE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS REGULATED BY, UM, DELAYED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION, UH, 25 TO 77 FOUR. UH, THE INTENTION WOULD BE THAT WITH, IF WE HAVE LIVING SPACE ABOVE A GARAGE, AS THE STATE IS IN THE CODE, THAT WE CAN MAKE THEIR CAREER HOUSE INTO WHAT IS TECHNICALLY AN ADU AND THUS MAKE A LARGER PRIMARY HOUSE POSSIBLE. AND, UH, TO BE ABSOLUTELY BLUNT THAT PRIMARY HOUSE WILL, UH, WILL HELP TO FIGHT IN THE RECONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE HORIZON HOUSE. UM, WE HAVE, THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF, UH, COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF AND, UH, THEY'VE GIVEN, UH, THEY HAVE GIVEN INPUT AS TO CHANGES TO MAKE, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THE DETAILS, WE ARE COMPLETELY ABLE TO, UH, TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. THEY HAVE RE THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT A ONE-STORY ADDITION, UM, WOULD BE DESIRABLE. UM, WE WOULD NEED A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE FOR THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO PERCEIVE AS MINIMALLY, VISUALLY [00:50:01] INTRUSIVE AS A, OF A TWO-STORY ADDITION AS POSSIBLE. UM, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE. AND, UM, I, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HODGE. UM, ARE THERE ANY, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS. OKAY. WE'LL TAKE THIS UP. UM, IN THE ORDER, IT APPEARS ON THE AGENDA GOING ON TO THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE, UH, MR. ERIC LARSON FOUR, B SEVEN, B SEVEN [3.B.7. PR-2021-058680 – 4006 ½ Avenue B. – Discussion Hyde Park Historic District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] HAS, IS 4,006 AND A HALF AVENUE B. I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING BEFORE MR. LARSON, UH, SPEAKS. THERE WAS, UM, THE FRIENDS OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS SIGNED UP IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, THIS WAS IN OUR BACKUP THAT GROUP FAN, UM, SAYS THAT IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT IT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF HYDE PARK. UM, GO AHEAD, MR. LARSON. HELLO. MY NAME IS ERIC LARSON. I'M THE OWNER OF 4,006 AND A HALF AVENUE B. I'VE LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR EIGHT YEARS. UM, I'VE BEEN PLANNING THIS EDITION FOR A LONG TIME, AND I'VE ALWAYS INTENDED THE PLAN TO COMPLY AND RESPECT THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ADDITION WAS DESIGNED BY MY NEIGHBOR AND ARCHITECT, JIM DUNAWAY, AND HE WORKED ON MANY PROJECTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING HIS OWN HOME NEXT DOOR. UM, ON FRIDAY, I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH CAITLIN CONTRERAS FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, FOLLOWING HER REVIEW OF THE PROJECT. AND AFTERWARDS I HAD 3D RENDERINGS PREPARED OF THE EDITION. UH, SO THERE COULD BE BETTER, BETTER VISUALIZED THE 3D VIEW, AND I'VE ALSO INCLUDED STREET VIEWS OF HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE SIMILAR ADDITIONS, AND THAT'S IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS THAT I SUBMITTED ON SUNDAY. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE PLANTS. THANK YOU, MR. LARSON. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WE HAVE NO, UH, NO MORE SIGNED UP. OKAY. UM, THEN MOVING ON OUR NEXT. OKAY. HEY, WE HAVE THE REST OF, UH, ITEM B. WHAT ALL WENT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA UNDER C OUR FIRST ITEM IS WE HAVE CAMP, SORRY, SORRY. WE HAVE AN ITEM B 11, 1809 AND 1811 NEWTON STREET. I'M SORRY. I KNEW THAT WAS ON HERE. I JUST PASSED IT BY. OKAY. B 11 [3.B.11. C14H-1993-0024, C14H-2000-0012 – 1809 and 1811 Newton – Discussion Stanley Homestead and Outbuilding Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] STANLEY HOMESTEAD. DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER ON THAT? WE HAVE MR. JAMES STOCKBAR. OKAY. MR. STOCKBAUER ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? ARE YOU ON THE LINE, SIR? SEEMS HE IS NOT ON THE LINE. WE MIGHT MOVE ON. OKAY. LET'S ON. THEN WE HAVE A MEGAN KING WHO WAS AN OPPOSITION. WHO'S AN OPPOSITION. OKAY, MS. HI, THIS IS MEGAN KING. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF, UM, PRESERVATION, AUSTIN. THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSIONERS. UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS A, UM, COVENANT ON THIS PROPERTY. AND WHEN WE WERE ALERTED TO THE VIDEO IN DISCUSSION TONIGHT, WE WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE SAW. SO WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING MORE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION ON THIS VIDEO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. KING. OKAY. NOW GOING ON TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS. WHERE'S OUR FIRST CASE. UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE ITEMS C THREE [3.C.3. GF-2021-060230 – 1805 Waterston Ave. – Consent Clarksville National Register District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] 1805 WATERSTON AVENUE. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? WE HAVE A MS. MARY REED. OKAY. MS. REED, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? MARY I'M HERE. OKAY. STATE YOUR NAME, MARY MARY STATE. YOUR DAYS. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, UM, MY NAME IS MARY REED. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE CLARKSVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHERE [00:55:01] THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION FOR STORE CLARKSVILLE, WHICH IS A NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, I AM ASKING THAT YOU DELAY MAKING A DECISION ON DER'S REQUEST FOR A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 1805 WATERSHED AVENUE. IT'S A FULLY RENOVATED UPSCALE HOME THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE DISTRICT. I SHARED THE ZILLOW LISTING FOR THIS HOUSE, WITH ALL OF YOU IN AN EMAIL, I SENT YOU A DAY OR TWO AGO, BUT I'LL DELAY. WE'LL GIVE THE CCDC TIME TO CONTACT NOL CUSTOM HOMES, WHICH WE'VE JUST RECENTLY LEARNED IS THE NEW OWNER OF 1805 WATERSTONE, UH, THE HOUSE BY THE WAY, SOLD FOR OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. UM, WE WANT TO TALK TO NOW CUSTOM HOMES ABOUT NOT KNOCKING IT DOWN, KNOCKING THE HELL DOWN AND FEELING THAT I'M DESIGNING A NEW HOME. THAT WOULD BE IN CHARACTER WITH CLARKSVILLE. WE WOULD HAVE CONTACTED NOT EARLIER, BUT THE PERMIT APPLICANT IS DAR STAFF WOULD NOT TELL US WHO THE OWNER'S NAME WAS. AND THE NAME OF THE OWNER DID NOT APPEAR ON THE TICKET UNTIL LAST THURSDAY. UM, AND AS A FINAL NOTE, THE CCDC BELIEVES THAT THE DEMOLITION OF A FULLY RENOVATED EXPENSIVE HISTORICALLY CONTRIBUTING HOME WOULD BE A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR CLARKSVILLE. SO THANKS FOR CONSIDERING OUR REQUEST, MS. REED, ARE YOU SAYING THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY UNDERGONE RENOVATION AND THE, THE APPLICANT, THE NEW OWNER IS ASKING TO DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S 10 ITS PLACE, A LISTING I SHARED WITH ALL OF YOU SHOWS THAT IT'S A VERY, VERY NICE HOME THAT MOST EVERYONE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY LIVING IN WELL MAINTAINED UP TO DATE, MODERN HOME, AND NO CUSTOM HOMES BOUGHT IT FOR A MILLION PLUS, AND THEIR PLANS ARE TO KNOCK IT DOWN AND BUILD A NEW HOME. THAT WILL BE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE OBVIOUSLY. AND, UH, WE FEAR NOT AT ALL IN KEEPING WITH PAREXEL. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THANK YOU. YEAH. YEAH. ANY, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS MATTER? WE MAY MR. ANYONE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK OUR NEXT CASE FOR DISCUSSION IS C6 [3.C.6. HR-2021-066941 – 71 Rainey St. – Discussion Rainey Street National Register District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] 71 RAINY STREET IS THE APPLICANT OR OWNER, UH, AVAILABLE TO SPEAK ON THIS? WE HAVE A MR. MARK TOPPLE. YES. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR CASE. RIGHT. MAKING THE CASE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 71 RAINY STREET. UH, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION OF MULTIPLE CODES, UH, BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS WHAT WE SEE IS DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR, BOTH THE ROOF, UH, AND OUR INFILTRATION AND STRUCTURALLY. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TO TAKE DOWN THE BUILDING, UH, IMMEDIATELY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? OH, WE HAVE A MR. CLAY, WOODY. MR. WOODY, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? YES, I'M HERE. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR CASE. JUST PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS MARK SAID. UM, THE, THE STRUCTURE SEEMS IN DISREPAIR. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S KINDA HARD TO EVEN SEE FROM THE PICTURE A LITTLE BIT. UH, IT'S IT'S FALLING OVER IS WHAT LOOKS LIKE, UM, THE FOUNDATION. UM, I MEAN, EVERYTHING'S PRETTY WRECKED SINCE THEN. WE'VE HAD TO ACTUALLY BORE PULL THE WINDOWS. WE'VE HAD PEOPLE, UM, CONSTANTLY TRYING TO GET IN AND LIVE THERE AND, UH, YEAH, IT, IT JUST, UH, I WAS CONTACTED BY A CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSON WHO SAID THAT SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE WITH THIS HOUSE, UH, VERY SOON. UM, JUST BECAUSE OF, I GUESS, HOW DANGEROUS THE SITUATION IS WITH IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? WE HAVE A MISS PAULA KOFMAN. OKAY. MS. COPEMAN GO AHEAD. [01:00:03] A PROPERTY N A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEN THEY TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT DURBIN. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD REWARD PROPERTY OWNERS WHO LET PROPERTY FALL INTO DISREPAIR SO THAT THEY CAN DEMOLISH IT. I LOOKED AT THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF PROPERTIES NEXT TO IT. AND FOR SOME REASON, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS RATING THIS PROPERTY, THE LAND AND, AND THE, THE, UM, STRUCTURE. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE OWNER. I KNOW THAT YOUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE A VERY LARGE BURDEN TO PROTEST YOUR PROPERTY TAXES, TRY TO GET AN APPRAISAL BASED ON THE INCOME THAT YOU GET FOR IT, AND LOOK AT DIFFERENT KINDS OF TAX CREDIT THAT YOU CAN GET BY KEEPING THIS AS A HISTORIC PROPERTY AND PRESERVING IT AS OPPOSED TO DEMOLISHING IT. IT'S NOT GREEN TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING. YOU'RE WASTING A LOT OF ENERGY. YOU'RE WASTING A LOT OF, A LOT OF, UM, MATERIALS. AND IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH AWARENESS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN DESPERATE AND HISTORIC PROPERTY, THEN FEEL LIKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN NEEDS TO DO SOME KIND OF, UH, UM, COURSES SO THAT PROPERTY OWNERS CAN LOOK AT THEIR OPTIONS FOR RESTORING PROPERTIES AS OPPOSED TO DEMOLISHING THEM. AND ALSO IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO COLLECT RENT ON THAT PROPERTY FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS IN DISREPAIR, HOW MUCH FASTER WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COLLECT RENT IF YOU PRESERVED IT RATHER THAN DEMOLISHING IT STARTING OVER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. COOKMAN, UM, WOULD THE APPLICANT, UH, OR OWNERS LIKE TO REBUT? YES. THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. OKAY. THERE'S ONE DECIDE WHO'S GOING TO DO IT. CLINT, GO AHEAD. UM, SO, UH, I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR ABOUT A YEAR. UH, WHEN I RECEIVED THE PROPERTY, IT WAS ALREADY UNLIVABLE. THE PERSON LIVING THERE, HEALTH WAS SUFFERING. THEY NEEDED TO GET OUT, UH, THERE'S MOLD. UH IT'S I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S COMPLETELY UNLIVABLE AND COMPLETELY FALLING APART. THIS IS HOW I RECEIVED THE PROPERTY. I DID NOT, DID NOT REALIZE THIS WOULD EVEN BE UP FOR, UM, A HISTORICAL DEBATE. UM, AND, UH, WE'VE JUST BEEN TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS FITTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S SAFE AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S IS NOT, I MEAN, THE WHOLE THING WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. I MEAN, EVERY BOARD, EVERYTHING WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY REPLACED, EVEN TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WORK. AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IS THAT EVEN A HISTORICAL HOUSE? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOVING ON. OUR NEXT CASE IS C [3.C.7. HR-2021-66900 – 2308 Woodlawn Blvd. – Discussion Old West Austin National Register District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] SEVEN 2308 WOODLAWN. WE HAVE A MISS AMANDA SWARTZ. THAT'S ME. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S AMANDA SWORE WITH GENDER GROUP, UH, HERE THIS EVENING REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF 2,308 WOODLAWN BOULEVARD, UH, KNOWN TO MANY AS THE LONG HOUSE. THE OWNERS ARE ALSO ON THE LINE AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THE 2308 WOULD LAUNCH A BOULEVARD PROPERTY. AGAIN, ISN'T IT. AS LONG AS THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT, BUT IS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN AUGUST, 2020, WITH THE INTENT TO REFRESH THE PROPERTY, APPLY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND LIVE IN THEIR DREAM DREAM HOME. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS A DEVASTATING FIRE THAT OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY IN MARCH, MARCH 12TH, 2021 CAUSING CATASTROPHIC DNA DAMAGE. THERE WERE MANY PICTURES IN THE BACKUP, AND IF THE COMMISSION DESIRES, I CAN PULL UP THE PRESENTATION TO GO THROUGH THOSE BECAUSE OF THE FIRE DAMAGE, THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY NOT SAFE. THE FLOORS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT IN MANY LOCATIONS IN THE STUDS, BURNED OUT AS WELL. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE APPLIED FOR A FULL DEMOLITION FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, THERE ARE NO PLANS TO DEMOLISH THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. THE OWNERS HAVE HAD ALREADY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR LANDMARKS PRIOR TO THE FIRE. THEIR INTENT IS TO REBUILD THE HOME AND INHABIT THE HOME OF THEIR DREAMS AS THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENCE. THE PRESERVATION OF THE COLUMNS HAS ALREADY STARTED AND THE OWNERS INTEND TO BUILD THEM ASSAD BACK TO ITS PREVIOUS CONDITION. PRIOR [01:05:01] TO THE FIRE, GIVEN, GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE HOUSE AND THE HERITAGE TREES ON THE SITE, THE DEMOLITION PROCESS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX THAN OTHERWISE WOULD BE WITH THE INTENT TO SAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS WE REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THIS REQUEST. UH, THE OWNERS ARE WORKING WITH THEIR ARCHITECTS TO GET PLANS TOGETHER, TO GET BACK TO HISTORIC STAFF, AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION WITH THEIR REBUILD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY DISPLACED RESIDENTS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MR. TODD WALLACE, TODD WALLACE, MR. WALLACE, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? UH, I AM I'M. I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE, LAUREN WALLACE, AND I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYBODY FOR HEARING US OUT, THIS IS, IS OUR DREAM HOME. AND WHAT WE WITNESSED ON MARCH 12TH IS SOMETHING WE'LL, WE'LL NEVER FORGET. UM, SOME PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW WE HAD MOVED OUR FURNITURE IN AND, AND, UH, CLOTHES WERE ALL BEING MOVED IN THAT DAY. AND WATCHING YOUR DREAM BURN UP IS, IS SOMETHING I CAN'T, I CAN'T WISH ON, ON, ON, I GUESS IT'S UP TO SAYING WHATEVER EXPERIENCE WE WILL REBUILD THAT FRONT OF THAT HOUSE. JUST LIKE YOU SEE IT TODAY. THE, WE, WE LOVED THAT. WE PERSONALLY WERE THE ONES THAT WENT IN AND HIRED A COMPANY. UH, AND WE WERE THROUGH THE PR, WE WERE THE PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE WE WERE THROUGH, BUT WE WANTED TO GET THIS HOME LANDMARK DESIGNATED BECAUSE WE WANT TO HONOR WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT IT WILL BE. AGAIN, WE, WE WE'RE, WE WE'VE MET WITH THE ARCHITECTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE CAN TRY TO REBUILD AND IT'LL BE MUCH CHEAPER TO TRY TO REBUILD THE COLUMNS, BUT THEY WON'T BE LIKE THEY ARE TODAY. THOSE ARE TONGUE AND GROOVE, SOLID WOOD COLUMNS. AND I SAID, ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE NEED TO GET CRANES HERE. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY THEM, BOX THEM UP, MOVE THEM OVER. BUT IN ORDER TO, TO, TO PUT THIS HOUSE BACK, IF YOU WERE THERE TODAY, YOU MIGHT THINK THINGS ARE STANDING. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE LAWNS BUILT IT, UH, THE WOOLSEY'S FIRST, BUT THEN THE LONGS CAME IN AND WHEN THEY DID IT, EVERYTHING IS STUFFED. THE STUCCO WALLS, EVERYTHING ELSE, THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S NOT A SINGLE STUD STANDING ANYMORE IN THE HOUSE. THEY'VE ALL BEEN BURNED OUT, BUT THE STUFF WAS STILL STANDING THE FLOORS. IF YOU WERE TO, IF SOMEONE RIGHT NOW, IT SCARES US TO DEATH, THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TRY TO WALK IN BECAUSE IT PEOPLE, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT LOCK ALL THE TIME, LOCKED ON THE GATE BECAUSE WE ARE CONCERNED. SOMEBODY TRIES TO GIVE THEM THE PROPERTY. THEY JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT THE INSIDE LOOKS LIKE. THEY WANT TO SEE WHAT IT'S ABOUT. EVERY ONE OF THOSE FLOORS, ANYBODY COULD FALL THROUGH AT ANY POINT IN TIME, THE FIRE BURNED FOR 26 HOURS. IF YOU READ THE REPORT, UH, IT'S AMAZING THAT ANY PART OF IT STANDING, UM, IT'S REST ASSURED WHEN YOU SEE OUR PLANS TO, TO PUT THIS HOUSE BACK TOGETHER, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SO PLEASANTLY SURPRISED, NOT SURPRISED BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU IT WILL BE, AND YOU CAN MAKE IT IN YOUR NOTES. IT WILL LOOK JUST LIKE IT DOES TODAY. THE FROG, WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF CHANGING ANYTHING. WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF CHANGING WOODLAWN. WE THINK IS ONE OF THE PRETTIEST STREETS. WE DO NOT WANT THIS HOUSE TO CHANGE. THAT'S ALL I EVER SAID. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. WALLACE. I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL PLANS. WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL PLANS. UH, WE, WE IT'S IT'S WE HAVE, WE HAVE EVERYTHING. UM, IT SHOULD, WE SHOULD BE LIVING THERE RIGHT NOW. OUR KIDS SHOULD BE RUNNING AROUND ALL THE STAIRS AND HAVING THE BEST TIME OF THEIR LIFE. UM, BUT WE'RE IN A RENTAL HOME. AND SO THE SOONER WE CAN GET GOING, WE CAN PUT THIS BACK TOGETHER. UM, WE, WE, WE ALREADY STARTED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, SPORTS THAT WE HAVE 3D RENDERINGS THAT WE'D ALREADY DONE AT THE HOUSE. AND THE INTENTION IS TO, LIKE I SAID, THE FRONT WILL BE THE EXACT SAME. AND, UH, UH, WE MAY MAKE SOME TWEAKS IN THE BACK TO TRY TO MAKE IT WORK A LITTLE BETTER. WE DON'T NEED A BIG PARTY ROOM IN THE BACK THAT THE LUNGS AT A LATER DATE, UH, THAT THEY ADDED IN 2005. BUT WE, WE JUST WANT, WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT STREET. WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE, THE VIEW, UH, THE VISIBILITY OF IT AND, AND JUST THE HISTORY. GOSH, IT'S, UH, WE BOUGHT IT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR DREAM HOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ELSE. OKAY. UM, NUMBER C A THE STAFF REQUESTED POSTPONE. WE PASSED THIS, UH, ALREADY TO BE POSTPONE BEING NINE, [3.C.9. SB-21-054392, 055812, 055829 – 600 Congress Ave. – Discussion Congress Avenue National Register District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] 600 [01:10:01] CONGRESS AVENUE. DO WE HAVE SOMEONE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WE HAVE HER, WE HAVE A MS. STEPHANIE STEWART. OKAY. MS. STEWART, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? I AM. HI. I'M STEPHANIE CERT WITH SIMON REMEDIES. AND I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT CHICK-FIL-A AND CHANDLER SIGNS. UM, OBVIOUSLY WHEN THEY DID A CODE CHECK PROBABLY A YEAR OR TWO AGO, WHEN, UH, CHICK-FIL-A WAS LOOKING AT THIS, THEY HAD RECEIVED SOME SORT OF AUTHORIZATION. I DON'T KNOW WHO OR FROM, UM, WHAT MUNICIPALITY, OTHER THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THAT THEY COULD HAVE THE BLADE SIGN, THE WALL SIGN AND A SET OF CHANNEL LETTERS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A THREE SIDED BUILDING, BUT THEY HAVE THAT DOG EAR. UM, BUT IT IS A CORNER, UH, TENANT SPACE OF THIS BUILDING. SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BLADE SIGN AND THEN THEIR NORMAL, TYPICAL SIGNAGE, OBVIOUSLY MORE SKILLED TO WHAT IS, UM, REQUIRED IN THIS DISTRICT WITH A SET OF CHANNEL LETTERS AND THEN THEIR LOGO BOX SIGN. AND SO WE'RE ASKING OBVIOUSLY FOR THREE SIGNS, UH, ONE BEING THE BLADE, SIGN, ONE, BEING A SET OF CHANNEL LETTERS ON THE STOREFRONT WHERE THE FRONT DOORS ARE, I GUESS THEY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A CONCENTRATE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS, UH, UH, SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE ADDRESS. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT'S REALLY KIND OF, I DON'T, YOU DON'T SEE IT EITHER. YOU SEE IT FROM THE CON AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE WALKING, YOU'LL REALLY SEE IT. OKAY. UM, ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE, WE HAVE A MISS PAULA KOFMAN MS. GUZMAN, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? YES. I'M IN OPPOSITION OF SIGNS THAT DON'T FOLLOW GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN PLACE. THIS IS A VERY VISIBLE AREA AVENUE AND OWNER TO THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE CREATED. THEY WERE CREATED FOR A REASON AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES, THAT OWNERSHIP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. GUFFMAN, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO REBUT? UM, IT STATES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE TWO SIGNS AND WE'VE REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE TWO SIGNS WE'RE ASKING FOR THE THIRD SIGN. UM, WHEN SUGGESTED, IT SAID, IF WE REDUCE THE SIGN OF THE BLADE, SIGN TO TWO FOOT OVERALL HEIGHT, THEN WE SHOULD BE, UM, IN GUIDELINES OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE REQUESTING HERE IN THIS DISTRICT. UH, THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT ARE HISTORICAL DOWN. SO, UM, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO OPEN NEXT MONTH, UM, WHICH IS JUST RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. UM, SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDELINES, OBVIOUSLY, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE BALL SIGN AND THEN THEIR SINGLE-PHASE WALL SIGNED IT, THEIR LOGO OR THEIR CHANNEL LETTERS IN THEIR WALL SIGNS, THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE BLADE SIGN. I MEAN, IT'S NOT, IF THEY HAD TO GET RID OF ANYTHING, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BLADE SIGN, BUT WE WERE JUST ASKING FOR THE THREE FOOT SIX VERSUS THE TWO FOOT OVERALL HEIGHT BLADE SIGN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CONSIDER REFERRING THIS CASE TO THE JUNE MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UM, BUT THE COMMISSION WILL MAKE ITS DECISION ON THAT WHEN IT COMES UP. UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? I THINK THAT WAS IT. WE HAD, WE HAD THE APPLICANT OPPOSITION AND REBUTTAL GOING ON TO D APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION, FIRST ITEM UNDER DSD, [3.D.1. GF-2020-115888 – 4714 Rowena – Discussion Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] ONE 47, 14, WHERE? AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I UNDERSTAND WILSON, MR. WILSON AND MR. WILSON, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? YES, I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE, DEBBIE. OKAY. I, UM, GO AHEAD. OKAY, GREAT. UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW DIVERSION, SORRY. OKAY. UM, HEY. OKAY. MY NAME IS DEBBIE WILKINSON AND I SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT AT FOUR 71 FOUR ROWENA AVENUE. UM, I'M THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE WITH MY HUSBAND, JOSH BOLTON. AND FIRST WE WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY AND WE WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT WE'RE EXPLORING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE HOUSE BEING DESIGNATED HISTORIC BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES, UM, TO ALLOW FOR TAX CREDITS, WHICH MIGHT HAVE ENABLED THE RESTORATION OF THE BUILDING. BUT NOW IT [01:15:01] SEEMS UNLIKELY BASED ON THE EMAIL WE RECEIVED FROM GREG SMITH, UM, AND HE WORKS FOR THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION. UH, AND SO JUST A LITTLE BACKSTORY REAL QUICK. UM, JOSH AND I BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 1995, IT WAS CONDEMNED AND WE BOUGHT IT FOR $40,000, WHICH IS CRAZY. UM, THE HOUSE WAS ASSESSED AT ZERO VALUE. WE BOUGHT IT FOR THE LAND AND, UM, WE ONLY DID THE MOST BASIC REPAIRS THOUGH TO LIVE THERE SAFELY. UM, WE WERE ACTUALLY RENTING ON THAT STREET AND WE SAW THE CONDEMN NOTICE ON THE HOUSE, WHICH LED US TO THINK IT COULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD AFFORD AND WE COULD, WE TOOK THERE, SO THE HOUSE WAS ACTUALLY SUCH LOW VALUE THAT WE COULDN'T GET A BANK LOAN AND MY GRANDMOTHER BOUGHT IT FOR US AND WE PAID HER OFF VERY SLOWLY, MADE IT VERY BASICALLY LIVABLE. WE LIVED THERE FOR 15 YEARS. UM, THE FAMILY WE INITIALLY BOUGHT THE HOUSE FROM WERE TOLD BY THE CITY THAT THE HOUSE NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND IT WAS A HAZARD AND WE SUBMITTED THAT DOCUMENT TO YOU. AND, UM, JUST REAL QUICKLY WE FELT THE HOUSE. UM, WE D WE DO NOT FEEL THE HOUSE SHOULD BE DEEMED HISTORIC FOR THREE BASIC REASONS. UM, THE FIRST POINT IS THE POOR CONDITION. I'D ACTUALLY NEED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN REHAB, INCLUDING ALL NEW PLUMBING. THE CURRENT FARMING IS GALVANIZED AND ORANGEBURG, UM, AND IT NEEDS ALL NEW ELECTRICAL BECAUSE THE EXISTING IS MOSTLY ALUMINUM. UM, HOW'S, IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE LEVELED AS THERE WERE SEVERE FOUNDATION ISSUES. UM, IT NEEDS NEW CENTRAL AIR. THE ROOF NEEDS REPLACEMENT. THE INTERIOR WALLS, UM, NEEDS TO BE OPEN TO ASSESS THE TERMITE DAMAGE. UM, THE SOFFITS NEED REPLACEMENT. THE STEPHANIE'S REPAIR, THE KITCHEN AND BATHROOM NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. THE KITCHEN ACTUALLY HAS NO SUB FLOOR. SO IN SOME AREAS YOU CAN SEE THROUGH SOME HOLES DIRECTLY TO THE BASEMENT. UM, THE BACK HALF OF THE HOUSE ACTUALLY HAS NO SUB FLOOR AT ALL. UM, THE BASEMENT I ACTUALLY PLUGGED IN IS ALSO IMPORTANT CONDITION. UM, THERE'S ONE BATHROOM WHICH TEACHES A BATHTUB. I'M A CLOSET, WHICH WE TILED OURSELVES AND TURNING JEWISH SHOWER. UM, THE WINDOWS ARE LED PAINTED SINGLE PANE WINDOWS, WHICH NEED TO BE REPLACED, UM, THE ENTIRE HOUSE TO SET AN ANGLE. UH, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE DROPPING A MARBLE AND THE FRONT DOOR, IT WILL RUN OFF THE BAT, UM, DAYS WHERE THE HOUSE NEEDS TO BE GUTTED. UM, SO WE HAVE SUBMITTED AN ENGINEER'S REPORT FROM MR. CAREY ORTIZ STATING THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE RAISED IN LIEU OF REPAIR, ALONG WITH SOME PHOTOS. UM, AND BASICALLY HER 0.1 IS JUST THAT REHABBING THE HOUSE, HUGE FINANCIAL BURDEN TO OUR FAMILY. WE'RE JUST A, MIDDLE-CLASS OFTEN COUPLE WITH TWO KIDS AND WE ARE NOT DEVELOPERS. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT, UM, THE SECOND POINT, UH, REAL QUICK WAS FROM GREG SMITH OF A TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION, WHO SAID THE HOUSE IS NOT A HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. UM, AND HE WROTE THE FINE IN AN EMAIL, WHICH WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU, UM, WHICH WE HOPE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT TO KIND OF SUM IT UP. HE SAYS, THERE'S NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT JJ HAS EVER LIVED IN THE HOUSE. UM, MR. SMITH SAID, THERE'S SO MUCH CIRCUMSTANCE ON COURTING HIM. NOW THERE'S SO MUCH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT I WISH ADDED TO A CLEAR NARRATIVE SUPPORTING INDIVIDUALS SIGNIFICANT. THE CONNECTION WITH HECKMAN IS SKETCHY. AND EVEN AS IT COULD BE PROVEN TO BEEN HIS RESIDENCE, AT SOME POINT, HE LIVED IN OTHER HOUSES AS WELL, IS THE HOUSE SIGNIFICANT PARTS ASSOCIATION WITH HAGMAN AS A THEATER OWNER, THE THEATERS THEMSELVES THAT REPRESENT THIS ASPECT. UM, AND THEN HE GOES ON TO POINT OUT THAT THE HOUSE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AT ONE OH EIGHT EAST 48TH STREET, WHICH IS A BIG BRICK TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON A LARGE SQUARE LOT THAT IS KNOWN, UM, FOR A FACT TO HAVE BEEN HAGLUND'S RESIDENTS WOULD BETTER REPRESENT HIS HISTORY AND WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER FIT AS MR. SMITH PUT IT. UM, AND THEN MY LAST POINT IS, UH, 0.3 IS THAT THE ARCHITECTURE IS NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. ALSO, ACCORDING TO GREG SMITH, THE HOUSE HAS HAD MANY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS MADE FOR UNKNOWN REASONS, BUT UNKNOWN PEOPLE. AND THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED ARCHITECTUALLY SIGNIFICANT IF I'M, AND TO QUOTE MR. SMITH, THE ALTERATIONS WERE OF A TYPE THAT REFLECTED CHANGES IN POPULAR TASTES, THEN HOW IT MIGHT BE SECOND, BUT THE FURTHER QUOTE MR. SMITH, HE SAID, THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. AND WE CAN ONLY GUESS AT THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE PARISHIONER WHO UNDERTOOK THE ALTERATIONS, YOU SAID IT'S DIFFICULT TO EVEN, THEY GET CASE FOR LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS AN OUTLIER AND THAT'S THE END OF HIS QUOTE, UM, TO KIND OF SUM IT UP. HE THINKS THE HOUSE WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR TAX CREDITS BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURALLY OR HISTORICALLY. UM, AND THEN JUST TO SUM IT UP AND NOT AS BOND FOR A LITTLE WHILE, UM, WE HAD AN EMAIL SENT TO US, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ON MAY 3RD FROM ELIZABETH, FROM IT, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER AT THE AUSTIN STORK PRESERVATION OFFICE. YES. SHE SHE'S OUR STAFF. SHE IS OUR STAFF SHE'S STAFF TO THIS COMMISSION. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO QUOTE HER REALLY QUICK. SHE SAID, UM, IF YOU'RE NOT IN SUPPORTIVE LANDMARK STATUS, I WILL ENCOURAGE [01:20:01] THEM TO RELEASE THE PERMIT AT THE NEXT MEETING. UM, AND TO BE CLEAR, WE DO NOT SUPPORT LANDMARK, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HAS NOT REALLY HONORED THAT STATEMENT FROM MAY 3RD. UM, W WE, WE'VE JUST IN CONCLUSION, WE LOVE THE HOUSE FOR MANY YEARS, BUT IT'S CONDITIONED, IT'S JUST WAY BEYOND WHAT IS REASONABLE TO REPAIR. AND WE FEEL THAT IT IS REALLY AN UNDUE BURDEN TO MAKE EXTENSIVE REPAIRS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SO CLEARLY SIGNIFICANT AND WORK CONDITIONS. WE HAVE REACHED THE 30 MINUTE MARK. UM, UH, YOU KIND OF PASS THE TIME LIMIT HERE. UM, BUT CAN YOU TELL ME ONE THING, WHEN WAS THE SECOND STORY ADDED OR THIS TAUGHT NOT OKAY. THAT'S UNKNOWN. IT WAS DEFINITELY ADDED, THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS MADE IT'S UNKNOWN WHEN ANY OF THESE THINGS WERE DONE. OKAY. SO IT WAS BEFORE YOUR TIME, YOU DIDN'T HAVE THEM. OKAY. UH, MR. WILSON, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK AS WELL, OR DID YOUR, I WOULD JUST REITERATE OF WHAT MY WIFE DEBBIE SAID, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT ALSO, UM, JUST TO REITERATE THAT GREG SMITH AND STATE HISTORIC COMMISSION, UM, BELIEVES THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT OF HISTORIC VALUE, ARCHITECTURAL VALUE IS QUESTIONABLE AT BEST AND HAD MANY CHANGES MADE OVER THE YEARS FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. LIKE THE SECOND STORY THAT YOU MENTIONED, UH, IN THE REHAB OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE AN UNDUE BURDEN PLACED ON US. UH, IT'S JUST REALLY NOT WORTH THE EFFORTS OF THE HOUSE ITSELF. ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT THE OFFICE WOULD, UM, HONOR THEIR REQUESTS FOR RELEASING THE PERMIT AS THEY STATED EARLIER THIS MONTH. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE? WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE. OKAY. ANY, UH, ANY OPPOSITION? NO, NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK AT ALL. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO D [3.D.2. HR-2021-044092 – 2040 E. Cesar Chavez St. – Discussion Council District 3 (Part 1 of 2)] TWO 2040 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ. WE HAVE A MR. JUSTIN POSES. OKAY. HI, I'M JUSTIN POSES WITH RUN DOG GROUP. AND, UH, THE OWNERS HAD CONTACTED ME REGARDING THIS HOUSE JUST TO GO IN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE OVERALL STATE OF IT, AS FAR AS POTENTIAL, RENOVATING IT AND GETTING IT BACK TO A RENTAL STATE. THEY'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR OVER 35 YEARS. AND, UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL AD, UH, OF THE OWNERS OF THE CURRENT OWNERS WAS THE ONE WHO MAINTAINED, YOU KNOW, THEY OWNED SOME OTHER PROPERTIES ON CESAR CHAVEZ AND THE AREA. HE WAS ONE WHO MAINTAINED ALL THE PROPERTIES YEARS. AND WHEN HE PASSED AWAY, HERE'S BACK, UH, THEY, THEY DID THE BEST THEY COULD WITH THE MEANS THEY HAD. BUT THEN OVER TIME, IT'S JUST DETERIORATED NOW BEYOND REPAIR, WHERE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT WE SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, I'M IN THE HOUSE FOR ONE IS LEANING. IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT, THE PIERS UNDERNEATH ARE PRIMARILY ALL ROTTED OUT THE ORIGINAL BEAMS UNDERNEATH THERE. I'M SORRY THAT THE THIEVES ARE OUT. THE PEERS ARE THE OLD CEDAR WOOD TRUNK THAT THEY DID IN THE THIRTIES AND FORTIES AND WHATNOT AS THE, UM, PEERS, WHICH, UH, AGAIN, THEY'RE JUST TO A POINT NOW WHERE, UH, THEY'RE JUST DETERIORATED OF, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE ROOF CHOICES, THE WALLS, EVERYTHING IS JUST DETERIORATING. WHEN I INITIALLY WALKED THROUGH PROPERTY, I BEEN WALKING INTO WHAT WAS THE LIVING ROOM AT ONE POINT IN TIME, I, I FELL THROUGH THE FLOOR AND ONTO THE, YOU KNOW, THE DIRT UNDERNEATH IT'S A PIER AND BEAM HOME, UM, AND IS NOW AT THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN NO LONGER GET INSURANCE ON THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S BECOME A LIABILITY. THEY'VE HAD MULTIPLE OCCASIONS WHERE THEY WERE HOMELESS. PEOPLE HAVE BROKEN INTO THE PROPERTY AND STARTED SLEEPING IN THERE. AND IF ANYONE WANTED TO INJURED THEMSELVES OR ANYTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ON THE PROPERTY AND AN EVENT SUCH AS THAT, IT WOULD PUT THEM AT A HUGE RISK BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY. SO THAT'S THE GIST OF IT. COOL. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ELSE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. THEN WE'LL MOVE ON. WE HAVE, UM, [3.D.3. HR-2021-044104 – 1807 Brackenridge St. – Consent Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] 1807 BRECKENRIDGE STRAIGHT. [01:25:01] UM, I THINK THAT MS. COSMIN HAS ALSO SIGNED UP FOR THIS ONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE. YES, BUT ALSO MISS ALISON CRC, THE APPLICANT IS REGISTERED TO SPEAK FIRST. OKAY. THE APPLICANT SHOULD SPEAK FIRST. GO AHEAD. SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU. HI EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ALISON CRC AND YES, I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER IN APPLICANT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE RELOCATION PERMIT FOR 1807 BRACKENRIDGE STREET. UM, THIS, UM, MY APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY. THIS CAME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION, UM, LAST MONTH AND IT WAS MOVED, UM, TO THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A, I GUESS I WOULD CALL IT A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ON WHAT THE BUILD DATE OF THE HOUSE WAS. SO WE POSTPONE THE DECISION, UM, TO THIS MONTH'S MEETING. AND SO THAT HAS SINCE BEEN CORRECTED. I JUST WANT TO REALLY THANK THE STAFF THEY'VE BEEN AMAZING TO WORK WITH AND SUPER HELPFUL HELPING ME TO PATIENT AND HOPEFUL OF HAVING ME NAVIGATE THROUGH PROCESS. SO JUST WANT TO THANK THEM. UM, SO WITH THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE DID CORRECT THE BUILD DATE, UM, COMMISSIONER MEYERS, I THINK YOU WERE ONE OF THE ONES THAT POINTED THAT OUT. SO IT WASN'T FACT. SO LATER THAN WE THOUGHT, UM, BEING BUILT IN 1927 VERSUS AN EARLIER DATE. UM, SO THE, THE MAIN POINT HERE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, IT'S NOT A HISTORIC LANDMARK HOUSE. UM, I LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE BEEN THE HOME OWNER FOR 15 YEARS, BUT VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER, UM, APPLICANTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THIS HOUSE JUST NEEDS REPAIR THAT HAS THE ORIGINAL PLUMBING THAT HAS CERAMICS. UM, SOME OF THE OLD KNOB AND TUBE WIRING, UH, FOUNDATION, THAT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, COULDN'T SUPPORT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE HOUSE. SO I WANTED TO BE MINDFUL OF, UM, TWO THINGS, ONE, UM, APPLYING FOR A RELOCATION PERMIT VERSUS A DEMO PERMIT. SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE SAID EARLIER ABOUT BEING WASTEFUL. I'M VERY MINDFUL OF THAT. SO ONE OF THE APPLY FOR A RELOCATION PERMIT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WORKING WITH MY DESIGN TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M STAYING IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS AREA, UM, AND THE NEW BUILD. SO AGAIN, THE BASED ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, MANY EMAILS WITH KATELYN AND THE TEAM, UM, THIS WAS A CONSENT ITEM, UM, IS EXPECTING A COMING OUT OF THAT CORRECTION WE MADE, UM, FROM LAST MEETING. AND I'M VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. OH, MR. C, WHERE ARE YOU RELOCATING IT TO? UM, IT IS GOING TO BE, UM, OH MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS. UM, I THINK IT'S CANYON LAKE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WELCOME. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK, UH, ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? NO. NEXT WEEK, MS. PAULA KOFMAN IN OPPOSITION. MS. COLEMAN, ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? YEAH. AND MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON MY COMMITTEE HAVE EXPERIENCE. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT. ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT BRECKENRIDGE DUPLEXES, MAYBE MORE NOW, AND THINKING ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, A NEIGHBORHOOD, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING A LOT MORE PEOPLE IN A BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE 16 MORE TOILET FLUSHES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. AND ALSO, UM, SO REALLY, REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW, UH, LOSING SOME OF OUR SMALLER OLDER HALL MAY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS AROUND YOU. AND THEN ONCE AGAIN, BRECKENRIDGE IS VERY VISIBLE STREET. DON'T HAVE OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT APPROVED YET, BUT WITH THAT, AND THEN NORMAL AMOUNT OF WORK. AND WE'RE ALMOST THERE. IF WE DO GET THE HISTORIC DISTRICT MAY BE ABLE TO GET SOME TAX REBATE OR, UM, OR RESTORING THE HOUSE, IF YOU CHOOSE TO RENT IT OUT. SO THOSE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT AND MAYBE YOU ALREADY HAVE, AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT, UM, YEAH, OUR PRESERVATION COMMITTEE IS THERE AS A SOUNDING BOARD AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR [01:30:01] YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. MAY I RESPOND? THANK YOU. SO I'M DEFINITELY NOT A DUPLEX OR A FOURPLEX. THIS WILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. UM, SO DO NOT PLAN ON DOING THAT. I'M NOT, UH, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT A CONTRACTOR OR A BUILDER. THIS IS A HOUSE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I LOVE, UM, AND IT WILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. UM, AND YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY WITH THE DESIGN OF WHAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH. UM, BUT JUST THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, UPGRADE THIS HOUSE, GIVEN THE CONDITION IT'S AGAIN BUILT IN 1927. SO THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, THE ORIGINAL CERAMIC PLUMBING. AND SO TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE ALL THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, WHEN WE'RE DOING THE DESIGN AND EVEN THE DECISION TO SUBMIT THE RELOCATION PERMIT. SO, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR STORE FOR REVIEW RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, IT WASN'T EITHER AGAIN, 15 YEARS AGO. UM, SO AGAIN, HOPING THAT YOU ALL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPROVAL AS THIS WAS A CONSENT ITEM, UM, COMING INTO THIS MEETING AS IT WAS DELAYED FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOING ON TO D FOUR. [3.D.4. SP-2021-065153; GF-2021-068010 – 201 W. 30th St. – Discussion Fire Station #3 Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] YES, WE HAVE MISSED WAS 30TH STREET. I'M SORRY. SORRY. IT'S A FIRE STATION AT 201 WEST 30TH STREET. YES. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS A MR. ALEX ONE NODA. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ALEX SHINODA. I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR FLINT COVID GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON THE PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE OUTLINE. UM, I'M GOING TO BE KICKING IT OFF, JUST GIVING A QUICK INTRODUCTION TO OUR TEAM AND GIVING SOME CONTEXT TO THE PROJECT. AND THEN BARRY KREIGER, A PRINCIPAL AT JQ INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO GO OVER THE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. AND THEN MICHELLE NORIEGA, THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THE COST IMPLICATIONS. AND THE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT FOR THE, UH, ROB ROBBINS IS GOING TO COME IN WITH A DESIGN PROPOSAL FROM WEST EAST DESIGN GROUP. AND THEN CHIEF TONY HAYDEN IS WITH THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO FINISH IT OUT WITH THE PLAN FORWARD FOR THE AFD STATION. NUMBER THREE, THE FIRST YEAR AS THE FIRST SPEAKER, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SUBSEQUENT SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. I URGE YOU NOT TO, UM, REPEAT INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED BY ONE, UH, ONE MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM. GO AHEAD. UM, THANK YOU. UM, SO LOOKING AT THE SLIDE TITLE CONTEXT, THE STATION IS LOCATED AT TWO OH ONE WEST 30TH STREET. UH, CURRENTLY ALL FIRE STATIONS OR FIRETRUCKS ARE BEING PARKED OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING APPARATUS. SAY A RECENT CHANGES WITH FLOODPLAIN MAPS CAUSED A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO BE WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN. SO THE LATER SPEAKERS WILL DISCUSS THESE TWO ITEMS. NEXT SLIDE OVERVIEW. YOU'LL BE IN THE PICTURE, A PICTURE OF THE STATION AS IT WAS COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY OF 1957, THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECT WAS ROY THOMAS. UH, CURRENTLY THE BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND IS ADJACENT TO THE ALDRIDGE PLACE. HISTORICAL DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE, HISTORIC HISTORIC SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED OF THE AREA. THE BUILDING WAS IDENTIFIED AND RECOMMENDED FOR LANDMARK STATUS. UH, THE REASONING WAS IT POSSESSES, INTEGRITY AND SIGNIFICANCE IN POST-WAR INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION. NEXT SLIDE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT. WE PRESENTED THE DESIGN PROPOSAL TO THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT SAYS DAC, NUNA AND ALDRIDGE PLACE. HISTORIC DISTRICT ON A MEETING, UM, MAY SERVE 20, 21 VIA ZOOM AND ANSWER FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, UH, THROUGH EMAIL AND THE DAYS AFTER THE NEXT SLIDE DAMAGE. UM, SO THE WHOLE STATION HAS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. UM, ON THE LEFT, YOU'LL SEE THE LIVING QUARTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEEMED REPAIRABLE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE APPARATUS BAY ON THE RIGHT IS NOT REPAIRABLE. THIS IS DUE TO OVERSTRESSING THE FOUNDATION DUE TO THE HEAVIER WEIGHT OF THE TRUCK. NEXT SLIDE INTENT. SO OUR TEAM'S INTENT IS TO SHORE UP AND PRESERVE THE LIVING QUARTERS THAT ARE ON THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING APPARATUS BAY. NEXT SLIDE, OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES IS TO SAVE THE HISTORIC FABRIC THAT WE CAN AND PUT IT BACK INTO GOOD STRUCTURAL STANDING FOR YEARS TO COME AND PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC USE AND FUNCTION OF THE BUILDING. AS A FIRE STATION, THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH A MODERN FACILITY. THEY NEED TO OPERATE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY FOR DECADES TO COME AND GET THE FIRETRUCKS PARKED INDOORS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT THE EQUIPMENT. UM, WE ALSO ARE VERY MINDFUL THAT WE DO NOT WANT THIS ADDITION TO THE [01:35:01] RECREATION OR MIMICRY. WE WANT IT TO BE VERY RESPECTFUL OF THE ORIGINAL, UM, FIRE STATION. SO WITH THIS, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER. VERY KRIEGER, PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE. TITLED STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE. MY NAME IS BARRY KRIEGER AND I'M A PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, UM, ON THE NEXT SLIDE TITLE DOCUMENTS AND STUDIES, JUST TO GET YOU ORIENTED A LITTLE BIT, THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS A PLAN VIEW OF THE APPARATUS BAY AND LEFT AND RIGHT IS WHERE THE APPARATUS TRUCKS KIND OF DRIVE IN. THE CRACKS THAT ARE INDICATED ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWING WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PHASE ONE STRUCTURAL FORCE SYSTEM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT BY CTO GROUP IN 2017. AND THAT ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN AND PUT INTO A FEASIBILITY STUDY BY CTO GROUP. AND THEN LATER THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. THERE WAS ALSO A GEO-TECHNICAL REPORT THAT WAS DONE IN 2018, UH, TO INVESTIGATE OTHER OPTIONS FOR THE SUPPORT, UH, POTENTIAL REPAIRS. THIS IS A TOTAL DOCUMENT OF 164 PAGES. THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED AND STUDIED BY MULTIPLE ENGINEERING COMPANIES, UH, ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING TEAMS. AND ALL OF YOU HAVE THIS INFORMATION ATTACHED IN THE AGENDA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE TITLED METHODOLOGIES. UM, THIS STRUCTURE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING DRAWINGS AVAILABLE AND THE TEAMS USED A BUNCH OF METHODOLOGIES LISTED HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE TO, UH, WORK THROUGH, UH, THE CAPACITIES THAT THEY COULD CALCULATE FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SOME OF THE TESTS THAT WERE DONE EVEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE, SHOWING THAT THE PURPLE IS A CARBONATION DEPTH TESTING. THE PINK IS THE, UH, IT'S THE RIGHT INDICATOR, ACTUALLY THE RIGHT PH LEVEL. AND THEN THE YELLOWISH COLORS ON THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE SAMPLE ON THE LEFT, ON THE BOTTOM OF THE RIGHT THAT'S WHERE THE BOND IS STARTING TO, UH, WE CAN BETWEEN THE INTERNAL STEEL REINFORCEMENT AND THE CONCRETE IS STARTING TO BE IN JEOPARDY, BUT LOTS AND LOTS OF CALCULATIONS AND TESTING AND ANALYSIS WERE PERFORMED. THESE STUDIES WERE NOT TAKEN LIGHTLY. IT'S FAIRLY SERIOUS, SERIOUS ANALYSIS, AND IT WAS BACKED BY CALCULATIONS IN TESTING ON THE NEXT SLIDE, TITLED DEFICIENCY. THIS IS A PICTURE ON THERE FROM THE INSIDE OF THE APPARATUS BAY. IT'S ELEVATED. IT'S NOT ON GROUND, IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY SOIL. AND THESE APPARATUSES ARE VERY HEAVY. THERE WERE CRACKS FALLING IN THE CONCRETE EXPOSED, RESTED REINFORCEMENT STEEL. THE CARBONATION DEPTH WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO IN PASS THE REINFORCING STEEL. SO THE DEFICIENCIES EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF THE REASONABLE PAYER AND BASED ON WHAT WE SAW FROM ALL THE TESTING, THE MOST POSITIVE WAY OF PREPARING THE FLOOR SYSTEM TO MAKE IT SAFE IS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE IT, KEEPING THE LOAD BEARING WALLS UP AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING AND REPLACING THE SLAB ON THE INSIDE IS VERY TRICKY, VERY COSTLY ON THE NEXT SLIDE CONCLUSIONS, UM, AND SIGNED ON THE RIGHT IS THE LETTER FROM CITY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER THAT TRUCKS CANNOT BE PARKED ON THE SLAB. IT'S SERIOUSLY OVERLOADED 300%. AND SOME OF THE CAPACITY CHECKS THE DANGEROUS SITUATION AND THE TRUCKS ARE NOW ACTUALLY PARKED OUTSIDE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. MS. NORIEGA WILL SHARE HER PORTION OF THIS PRESENTATION. HI, I'M MICHELLE NORIEGA. I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FROM CITY OF AUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. I MANAGE THE PROJECT FROM PRELIMINARY DESIGN THROUGH DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND POST-OCCUPANCY NEXT SLIDE ALTERNATE. SO WITH THE DESIGNATION OF THE NEW 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AND WE BROUGHT THIS UP, UH, WE WANTED TO SHOW A SITE ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING WHEN WE MET WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY, UH, WE GOT A SUGGESTION, VERY LOGICAL SUGGESTION. IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THIS VIEW APPARATUS BAY, ANYWHERE ELSE ON THIS SITE. SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THIS SITE ANALYSIS IS THE BLUE IS THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. YOU'LL SEE THE SETBACK LINE FROM STREET. YOU WILL SEE IN GRAY AS THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE RED IS THE REMAINING BUILDABLE AREA. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS DAY STANDS ON THE LOCATION WHERE IT CURRENTLY SITS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION, GOING BACK TO THE CTL GROUP AT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THEIR CONCLUSION THAT STATED, AND YOU'LL SEE IT HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT REPAIRS STRENGTHENING OF THE GARAGE FLOOR SYSTEM AS FIRE STATION COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. WE AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, NEXT SLIDE COST CONFIRMATION. NOW THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, WE DIDN'T HAVE A DESIGN TEAM, UH, ABLE TO DO FURTHER ANALYSIS ON, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A BUILDER CONTRACTED YET TO DO FURTHER COST ANALYSIS. SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT IS A COST ANALYSIS DONE BY POINT CO-CONSTRUCTION WHO [01:40:01] IS THE DESIGN BUILDER ON THE PROJECT. AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS, UM, AND NOW THIS IS A FINAL FIGURE OF $864,000 THAT SUPPORTS THE CTL CONCLUSION, NEXT SLIDE FUNDING, AND COST ANALYSIS. SO WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE GOT AVAILABLE. CURRENTLY $3.1 MILLION IS FUNDED FOR THE BUDGET OF THE CURRENT PROJECT, UH, THAT TRANSLATES INTO ABOUT $1,100 PER SQUARE FOOT. UH, IF WE WERE TO PURSUE THE OPTION OF, UH, REPAIRING THE EXISTING BAY, GOING THROUGH THE COST OF THE REPAIRS, THIS WOULD BREE THE PROJECT UP TO $4 MILLION, UM, AND, UH, AND A COST PER SQUARE FOOT OF 1,780, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT OVERRUN, NOT JUST IN THE VALUE OF THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE, UH, WE GET TOTALED, BUT THE ACTUAL COST PER SQUARE FOOT CALCULATION GOES UP BY 62%. NEXT SLIDE. AND I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO ROB ROBYN STUDIO DIRECTOR WITH USP. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ROB ROBBINS, AND I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING THE DESIGN. NEXT SLIDE, GO TO EXISTING, PLEASE. THIS IS WHERE MICHELLE LEFT OFF AND YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDABLE AREA IN RED. THIS IS EXISTING STATION. NEXT SLIDE GO TO PROPOSED, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE HAVE FILLED IN THE RED ON THE RIGHT TO EXPAND THE PROPOSED BAY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT FIRE DEPARTMENTS, A NEED FOR SPACES THAT ARE NOT IN THE CURRENT FACILITY THAT THEY NEED FOR SAFETY AND, UH, RUNNING THE FIRE STATION EFFICIENTLY. AND SO THIS IS WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING THE NEW EDITION, NEXT SLIDE DESIGN. SO YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGE HERE OF OUR PROPOSED DESIGN AND THE MAJOR, THE MAJOR DESIGN MOVE OF THE PREVIOUS FACILITY WAS THE VERY LINEARITY OF THE ROOF LINE. AND YOU CAN SEE, AND THE NEW DESIGN, HOW THAT STRONG LINE OF THE ROOF IS CARRIED OVER AND IS A MAJOR PART OF THE DESIGN. WE'RE ALSO BEING SYMPATHETIC AND THE MATERIALITY OF THE ADDITION AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE USING BRICK AND IT IS A DIFFERENT COLOR BRICK. SO THERE'S NO, UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO TRICK BETWEEN WHAT'S OLD AND NEW. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE, BUT THERE'S A SYMPATHY IN MATERIALITY. WE'RE ALSO REUSING THE ORIGINAL SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING. LOOKING AT COMPATIBLE MAPPING OF THE NEWER FIRETRUCKS DO HAVE A SLIGHTLY, UH, HIGHER NEED. AND SO THIS IS EVER SO SLIGHTLY HIGHER, BUT WE WORKED VERY HARD TO GET THAT TO BE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, TO BE IN A COMPATIBLE MASSING SCENARIO. ALSO USING PERIOD APPROPRIATE DETAILING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE BEHIND THE SIGNAGE. AND THEN ONE OF THE REQUESTS OF THE CLIENT WAS TO HAVE A BIT OF, UM, AREA PRIDE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. AND YOU CAN SEE THE BURNT ORANGE THAT'S THERE AND THE BOLLARDS NEXT SLIDE IMPROVEMENT. SO THIS ALLOWS FOR FASTER OPERATING BAY DOORS, WHICH IMPROVES THE RESPONSE TIMES AND, UH, ADDITIONAL SPACES TO ACTUALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MODERN FIRE DEPARTMENT SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER. SO WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PARKING TRUCKS AND THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER APPARATUS BAY AND IMPROVED ADA N SITE LIGHTING, UH, FOR THE BUILDING. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL OF THE BUILDING THAT IT WAS OPENED. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE BUILDING AS IT EXISTS TODAY. AND NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS OUR PROPOSED, UM, ADDITION. AND THEN NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A VIEW THAT KIND OF FOCUSES IN ON THAT EDITION. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO CHIEF TONY HAYDEN TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAN FORWARD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TONY HAYDEN. I HAVE THE HONOR OF SERVING AS THE DIVISION CHIEF FOR THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT. UH, MY ROLES INCLUDE THE CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF OUR FACILITIES, WHICH INCLUDES THIS PROJECT, UH, THAT WE ARE WORKING ON ON FIRE STATION. NUMBER THREE, NEXT SLIDE. THE NEED. SO WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW AND WHAT WE'RE HOPING THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU THIS EVENING, UM, THROUGH ALL THE PRESENTERS, IS THIS MESSAGE THAT WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO IS FIX THE PROBLEM. THE APPARATUS BAY IS STRUCTURALLY COMPROMISED AND IT CANNOT BE EASILY REPAIRED. [01:45:01] WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PARK OUR TRUCKS INSIDE. UM, JUST A SIDE NOTE OF WHAT THOSE TRUCKS REPRESENT OUR APPARATUS AND THE EQUIPMENT CARRIED ON THEM IS MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. UM, AND THIS PROJECT IS, UH, BEEN, BEEN FUNDED AS AN EMERGENCY TO GET THOSE TRUCKS CAPABLE OF BEING PROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS AND, UH, PARKED INSIDE WHERE THEY CAN BE SECURED. AND THE REALITY IS NUMBER THREE, ON THIS SLIDE THAT THE LAND IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO LOCATE A NEW APPARATUS BAY ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE IS WHAT WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SITE TO MOVE TO. UM, OUR BUSINESS IS ALL ABOUT LIFE SAFETY. SO FOR LIFE SAFETY AND OUR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO BRING THIS FACILITY UP TO CURRENT STANDARDS. THE FUNDS TO REPAIR THE BAY ARE NOT AVAILABLE, EVEN IF THEY WERE THE CURRENT BAY, DOESN'T PROVIDE ADEQUATE FACILITY FOR THE FUTURE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO HELP US. WE NEED THE APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF THE APPARATUS BAY WITHOUT LANDMARK DESIGNATION WE'LL NEED THAT. WE'LL NEED THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW THE BILLING DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A DEMOLITION PERMIT. AND EVEN IF LANDMARK DESIGNATION IS INITIATED, WE'LL STILL NEED THAT DEMOLITION PERMIT. WE'LL ALSO NEED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE. THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS WE'RE ASKING FOR A TIMELY DECISION. I POINTED OUT EARLIER, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY FOR US. UH, OUR VEHICLES HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO BE INSIDE THE BAY FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UH, IT CUTS INTO OUR LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THEM, A VERY EXPENSIVE APPARATUS. UH, THAT'S FUNDED WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A DECISION SO WE CAN START, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION PROCEED, UH, THROUGH TO ANY DELAYS THAT MAY COME UP. AND WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR YOUR ADVICE AND FOR YOUR COUNSEL TO ANYTHING THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO DO ON OUR END TO HELP FACILITATE THEIR QUESTS THAT WE ARE MAKING. NEXT SLIDE. UH, THIS IS JUST A IN CLOSING. WE WANT TO THANK FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. ONE LAST LOOK AT OUR STATION, UH, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. I'M ON THE LINE. AND SO ARE ALL THE OTHER PRESENTERS TONIGHT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE WHOLE TEAM. UH, YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF, UH, TAG TEAMING. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS THAT WASN'T PRESENTED IN THE CHAIN? WE HAVE A MR. CARLOS, UH, JALA. OKAY, MR. , ARE YOU ON THE LINE, MR. ? UM, HELLO? UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE, UH, MR. IOWA. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN MOVE ON. IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? NO. NO? OKAY. THEN LET'S MOVE ON. I THINK OUR NEXT ITEM IS DEFINED, [3.D.5. PR-2021-049619 – 307 E. 2nd St. – Discussion Leonard East House Council District 3 (Part 1 of 2)] UH, THREE OH SEVEN EAST SECOND STREET. WE HAVE ONE TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM. WE HAVE A MR. DAVID ANDERSON. OKAY. MR. ANDERSON. I GET ON THE LINE. I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSURES MY NAME IS DAVE ANDERSON AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING INTERCORP. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS RELOCATION AND RESTORATION PROJECT, OR THREE OH SEVEN EAST SECOND STREET. UH, WE'LL BE WALKING YOU THROUGH, UH, THE BACKUP THAT WE PROVIDED TO STAFF, UH, LATE LAST WEEK. AND I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE ISSUES MR. BRAD STEIN WITH INTERCOURSE. WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OTHER, UH, A FEW OF THE OTHER SLIDES, MR. MARK ROGERS, THE, UH, GUADALUPE ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH A COUPLE OF SLIDES AND THEN I'LL WRAP BACK UP BEING OF COURSE, VERY EFFICIENT WITH TIME. SO TO START OFF, THIS IS A LETTER TO INVITING EAST HOUSE. IT'S A CRAFTSMAN STYLE BUNGALOW, NOT ORIGINAL TO THE LOCATION ON SECOND STREET, BUT COMMON IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS, THE HOUSE WAS LIKELY RE RELOCATED TO THE LOT, MAYBE IN 1928 FROM AN UNKNOWN LOCATION. UH, THE 1935 SANDBAR MAP DEPICTS A STRUCTURE AS A WOOD-FRAME HOUSE WITH NO SYNTHETIC SIDING. BUT IN 1961, THE SANDBAR MAP INDICATES THAT THE HOUSE HAS A SPECIFICITY. THERE'S AN ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. IT WAS NOT ORIGINAL AT SOME TIME PRIOR TO 1961, THE HOUSE HAS A NOTABLY STEEPER ROOF THAN EARLY 19 HUNDREDS CROSSING BUNGALOW STYLE WITH THE FRONT CORNER PORCH TOP AT THE LOW SLOPE SHED ROOF. THERE'S DECORATIVE BARGE BOARD ON THE FRONT SIDE AND SIDE FACING GABLES. EXCUSE ME. UM, ARE WE LOOKING AT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME BUILDING, [01:50:01] BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? IS THIS THE RIGHT? UM, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 372ND STREET, CORRECT? YEAH. AND THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT WE HAVE. OKAY. OH, UH, SO, UH, YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE YOU ARE, CAUSE WE'RE DELAYED. OKAY. THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF A BUILDING. I'M SORRY. I THINK THIS, I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT. IT IS THE RIGHT PHOTOGRAPH. UM, I WAS JUST THROWN OFF BY CALLING IT A CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW, GO AHEAD PLEASE. YEAH. SORRY. UH, SHE WANTS TO MEYER SARAH MEYERS. UM, UH, WHERE WAS I? UM, LET'S GO TO THE HISTORY OF, UH, LETTERED INVITED EAST AND INTERESTED AS PEOPLE WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THIS, BUT MR. WAS BORN IN 1882 AND MOVED TO AUSTIN IN 1913, 1913 TO 1915. HE FOUNDED TWO COMPANIES, THE EAST POULTRY COMPANY AND THE LEDS PREVIOUS COMPANY LEONARD, AND IT EAST LIVED AT THE, AT THE LOCATION SHOWN ON SECOND STREET FROM 1918 UNTIL MR. EAST PASSED AWAY IN 1968 BY EAST, LIVED THERE UNTIL, UH, UNTIL SHE PASSED IN 1977, FROM 77 TO 81, THE HOUSE WAS VACANT, UH, AND IN 1981, IT WAS PURCHASED BY NIGHT REAL ESTATE COMPANY. UH, BEFORE I TURNED IT OVER TO MR. STEIN, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COMPETING INTERESTS. I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSIONS FOCUS IS ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BUT FROM A LARGER PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS FOR A SITE LIKE THIS DOWNTOWN, WHETHER THAT THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN, UM, WHETHER IT'S THE LAZARUS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, THERE ARE COMPETING INTERESTS FOR THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION, THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. UH, AS YOU ALL COMMISSIONERS, UH, WELL-AWARE TRIES TO BALANCE, UM, UH, ALL OF THESE COMPETING INTERESTS, BUT IT CERTAINLY, UH, THE CORE IS LOOKED AT AS THE PREMIER EMPLOYMENT, CULTURAL AND VISITOR CENTER, THE CITY, THE CORE ROT, WATERFRONT AREAS, THE MOST INTENSELY DEVELOPED AND URBANIZED DISTRICT IN THE CITY. THE CORE IS THE PRINCIPLE ADDRESS FOR CORPORATE OFFICE USERS AND FOR MAJOR FLAGSHIP HOTELS, THIS LOCATION, UH, BUT DIRECTLY, UH, DIRECTLY ABUTS THE WALNUT CREEK TACKY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. UH, THIS LOCATION, UH, HAS BEEN INTO CONVERSATION WITH THE AUSTIN CONVENTION CENTER MASTER PLAN IT'S UPDATE, AND THE RECENT CHANGES TO THAT. AND, AND SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, OUR INTENT HERE IS RELOCATION AND RESTORATION. WE RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF THE HOME, EVEN IF I SCREWED UP THE ARCHITECTURAL, UH, NOTES THAT I WAS TERRIFIED, BUT WE W IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, WE RECOGNIZE THAT LEONARD INVITED EAST CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY TO AUSTIN. WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HOME, UH, BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE COMPETING INTERESTS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PRODUCE A WIN-WIN BY REALLY RELOCATING THE HOUSE TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE EAST SIDE WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ME. YEAH. A GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UM, I'M BRAD STEIN, THE PRESIDENT WITH INTERCOURSE, TEXAS. UH, WHEN DID HE JUST UPDATE YOU ON A FEW OF THESE SLIDES? THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THE SECOND SLIDE REALLY FOCUSES ON THE ACTIONS THAT WE'VE TAKEN OVER ABOUT THE LAST SIX MONTHS, UM, INCLUDING, UH, CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH STEVE SEDOWSKY TO FIND, UH, TO FIND A HOME. UM, AND THESE ARE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE SPOKE WITH BOTH ON CITY PROPERTY, ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE TRAIL FOUNDATION CARD HABITAT FOR HUMANITY COMMUNITY. FIRST THAT WE MADE CONTACT WITH, UM, IN ADDITION TO PRIVATE LAND OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS. AND ULTIMATELY WE BELIEVE THAT WE FOUND REALLY THE PERFECT LOCATION AND PARTNER, UM, WITH MARK ROGERS AND GUADALUPE SELL TANYA. UM, AND WE'LL GET THERE IN A SECOND. ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE SHOW THE CURRENT ORIENTATION OF THE, OF THE EAST HOME. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NEW 623 ROOM MARRIOTT TOWERS OVER THE HOME AND, UH, THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH. UM, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE DIRECTLY TO THE EAST IS THE CONVENTION CENTER [01:55:01] AND, UH, AND THE FAIRMONT HOTEL. SO THERE'S A LOT OF HOTELS, UH, HIGH RISES SOON TO BE DEVELOPED HIGH IT'S AROUND THIS SITE. UH, THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, THE NEXT TWO SLIDES ACTUALLY, UM, ARE THE PROPOSED RELOCATION AND REALLY, UH, THIS LOCATION AT THE GUADALUPE SELL DOWN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN EAST AUSTIN REALLY HIGHLIGHTS A FEW THINGS. ONE, UM, IT HONORS THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EAST COAST. WE BELIEVE, UM, BY MAKING THE HOME A CENTRAL FEATURE AND THIS VERY SPECIAL COMMUNITY. UM, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE HOME, UM, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IS SET IN A VERY PROMINENT LOCATION. UH IT'S UH, IT ACTS AS A GATEWAY TO A COMMUNITY PARK, UH, THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO, UM, IN THIS PARK AND THE HOME WILL BE ENJOYED BY THE RESIDENTS BY THE COMMUNITY, BY THE JEREMIAH PROGRAM, WHICH IS A, A NONPROFIT THAT OPERATES THERE FOR, UM, FOR MOTHERS AND THEIR, AND THEIR CHILDREN. UH, AND SO WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS AS THAT POTENTIAL, UH, WIN WHEN THE COMMUNITY, AND, UH, I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO, UH, TO MARK ROGERS, UM, TO SPEAK ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE HOME. HELLO, GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. GO AHEAD. MARK. MARK ROGERS. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE GUADALUPE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. THAT'S A NONPROFIT WE WERE FOUNDED IN, STARTED IN 1981. AND WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPING THIS SUBDIVISION SINCE 2005. UM, AND WHO PLEASED, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT WE'VE GOT THIS OPPORTUNITY WITH INTERCORE? UM, BOTTOM LINE IS, I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I HATE TO SEE A BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE, LIKE THE LEONARD EAST HOME, EAST HOME DEMOLISHED. I DON'T REALLY LIKE IT WHEN THEY LEAVE AUSTIN. AND WE'VE GOT AN INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO PUT IT IN A CONTEXT THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE EAST FAMILY DID AND WITH OUR COMPANIES IN EAST AUSTIN AND, UH, WHAT WE CAN DO AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE IN MANY WAYS THE CONTEXT WILL BE SO MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE THAN WHERE IT IS NOW. UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S REALLY ABOUT, UH, IN THIS CASE, NOT SEEING IT LAST AND, AND HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESERVATION THERE'S A, WE WOULD USE IT AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES. WE'VE GOT TWO OFFICES CURRENTLY. THAT WOULD BE A THIRD. UM, THE SHADED PART OF THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IS, UH, AN ADDITION THAT WAS IT'S REALLY A SIDE PORCH, AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THAT HAD BEEN CONVERTED INTO A KITCHEN AND A USABLE AREA FOR THE OFFICES, FOR THE EAST FAMILY AND LATER, UH, OFFICE THERE THAT'LL BE DEMOLISHED AND WE'LL MOVE THE, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE ORIGINAL, UM, STRUCTURE OUT TO OUR SITE, UH, AND, AND USE THE, WE ALWAYS, UH, SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR, UH, MAINTENANCE OF MAINTENANCE RESERVES. SO YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS THAT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED, AND OBVIOUSLY THE ASBESTOS SIDING WOULD BE REMOVED AND WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO RESTORE IT TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM. I LOVE GOOD ADVICE ON HOW BEST TO RESTORE STRUCTURES. SO WE'LL, WE'LL FOLLOW ADVICE FROM YOUR OFFICE, UH, A PRESERVATION OFFICE AND OTHERS WHO HAVE EXPERTISE IN HISTORIC RESTORATION AND, UH, DO OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN IT FOR THE LONGTERM. UH, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. IT REALLY IS. THE INTERIOR'S INCREDIBLY WELL PRESERVED. SO, UM, UM, I'M LOOKING TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE IT A NEW LIFE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE FURTHER SPEAKERS? NO. OKAY. UM, MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS DAVE ANDERSON. I WAS JUST GOING TO WRAP UP IN A SECOND. UM, WE WANTED, YOU KNOW, WE CAME TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LAST WHO'S THE LAST WEEK OR WEEK AND A HALF AGO, AND WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT WE MADE MADE IT, UH, PARENTS ENOUGH THAT THIS IS A RESTORATION PROJECT. OUR INTENT IS TO RELOCATE AND REST AND RESTORE, UH, TO, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT WE CAN. AND WE ALSO WANT TO MARRY THAT WITH A WONDERFUL THINGS THAT MARK IS DOING, UM, IN THE QUALITY GUADALUPE CELL, DOGEN ZERO SUBDIVISION AND MARRY THAT WITH A WONDERFUL THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH THE JEREMIAH PROGRAM, UH, USING TYING A COMMUNITY GARDEN THAT CAN BE USED BY THE KIDS, UH, THAT ARE IN PRESCHOOL, UH, AND IN DAYCARE AS PART OF THE JEREMIAH PROGRAM. UM, TYING THAT TO THE, TO THE LEGACY OF EAST POULTRY AND ELLIE'S [02:00:01] PRODUCE COMPANY THAT PROVIDING THE HOUSE AS A FOCAL POINT OF THIS, THIS, UH, PARK SETTING, UH, THIS, UH, AREA OF RESPITE IN THE MIDDLE OF, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE THOUGHT WE'D DO, UH, THE, THE FAMILY HISTORY, UM, JUSTICE. SO THAT'S OUR INTENT LOCATION RESTORATION, AND REALLY INTEGRATING IT INTO THE FABRIC OF THE NET ZERO SUBDIVISION AND THE JEREMIAH PROGRAM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON. UM, I THINK THE LAST, WE HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS, UM, THAT MIGHT HAVE SPEAKERS, UH, D 1127 [3.D.11. PR-2021-061096 – 2708 Scenic Dr. – Discussion Council District 10 (Part 1 of 2)] OH EIGHT SCENIC DRIVE. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, LINDA SULLIVAN OR OTHERS IN FAVOR ON THE LINE TO SPEAK? WE HAVE THE APPLICANT MS. LINDA SULLIVAN FOLLOWED BY MORE IN FAVOR SPEAKERS. OKAY. MS. SULLIVAN. HI, GO AHEAD AND PLACE. HI, THANK YOU. HI, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME COMMISSION. UM, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING FOR THE DEMOLITION OF TWO SEVEN ZERO EIGHT SCENIC DRIVE. UH, WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MR. ROSEN, WHO IS THE ARCHITECT. HE HAS A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF REALLY LOVELY HOMES HERE IN AUSTIN, UH, TO WHICH I'VE HAD THE EXTREME PLEASURE TO TOUR. UH, WHEN I ENTERED THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT MAINTAINED OVER THE LAST, AT LEAST 30 YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE EXISTENCE. UM, THE BEGINNING OF THE FAMILY HELD THIS PROPERTY UNTIL IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE CURRENT OWNER, SUZANNE BOOTH, UH, LESS THAN A YEAR AGO. IT'S CLEAR THAT IF THIS PROPERTY WERE BE TO BE REHABILITATED, AT LEAST 75% MORE OF THE RESIDENTS, UH, ELEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN GOOD CONDITION OR IN SOME CASES ARE NOT HEALTHY. LIKE THERE IS ASSESSED IT A CEILING TILE THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE. THE INTEGRITY OF THE FOUNDATION MAY BE OKAY, BUT IN ORDER TO REBUILD IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECONSTRUCTED AND REBUILT TO BE A VIABLE, HEALTHY HOME. NOT SURE IF AT THAT POINT IT WOULD REALLY BE A REHABILITATION, BUT MORE OF A DEMOLITION AND REBUILD. UM, THE PERMIT HISTORY CAN SHOW THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF UPKEEP FOR THE PROPERTY IN ANY MAJOR WAY. UH, IN 1986, THE ROOF WAS REPLACED. THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY, UM, SIGNIFICANT UPTAKE THAT HAS HAPPENED. UH, THE PROPERTY WAS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. THERE WAS OVERGROWTH TREES LEANING AGAINST THE HOUSE OF VINES GROWING UP BEHIND THE EXTERIOR SIDING, WHICH IS EITHER REDWOOD OR CEDAR, WHICH WITHOUT ANY MAINTENANCE CAN LAST AT LEAST 30 YEARS, BUT THERE'S SIGNS OF ROT AND, UM, MOSS AND MOLD. UM, AND AS I SAID, VINES HAS GROWN UP AND GROWN UP BEHIND THE SIDING, WHICH HAS MADE THAT THREE QUARTER TONGUE AND GROOVE, VERTICAL SIDING BUCKLE OUT. UM, THERE'S BEEN A LACK OF GUTTER MAINTENANCE, WHICH HAS CAUSED AREAS OF BACKSLASH, UH, AT THE, AT THE GROUND LEVEL. AND ROD HAD CERTAIN AREAS ON THE FACIA. UH, THE MAIN SUPPORTING RIDGE BEAM OF THE RESIDENT HAS A VISIBLE STRESS FRACTURE IN IT, WHICH MEANS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO REPLACE THAT, UM, VERY LARGE, LONG SPAN BEAM THAT RUNS THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE RESIDENTS. UM, THE INTERIOR ROCK WORK HAS MORTAR THAT IS FALLING APART. IT'S VERY SANDY, UM, THERE'S SIGNS OF SERIOUS RODENT AND INSECT DAMAGE, AS WELL AS AN EXTREME ODOR. I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE WITH A MASK ON AND STILL HAD A PRETTY SEVERE HEADACHE BY THE TIME I LEFT. UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME UPDATES LIKE THE COUNTER TOP HAS BEEN REPLACED AND ONE OF THE BATHROOMS HAS BEEN RETITLED, BUT THAT SEEMED POSSIBLY OUT OF, YOU KNOW, EXTREME NECESSITY DUE TO NEGLECT. UM, THE WINDOW CASINGS ARE MOSTLY ROTTED. THERE'VE BEEN A FEW WINDOWS REPLACED HERE AND THERE THAT ARE NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, TRUE TO THE HOUSE. THERE'S A BRIDGE, A BRIDGE THAT WAS CITED IN THE HLC SIGNINGS, BUT THAT BRIDGE LEADS TO AN 80 YOU OR ANNEX THAT WAS BUILT 12 YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL HOUSE WAS BUILT. SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT REALLY IS AN ORIGINAL PART OF THE STRUCTURE, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR IF MR. ROSNER ACTUALLY BUILT OR DESIGNED, UM, I'M SORRY, DESIGNED THAT HOUSE, THAT ANNEX TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UM, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME SERIOUS WATER DAMAGE THAT HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME CEILING TILES THAT HAVE BEEN REPLACED IN SPOTTY AREAS. THERE'S NEW WATER DAMAGE THAT APPEARS, I DON'T KNOW HOW NEW, BUT IT, THERE APPEARS TO BE WATER DAMAGE AROUND THE CHIMNEY AND FROM THE EXTERIOR YOU CAN SEE IN THE, UM, LATE BACKUP PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE SUPPLIED, THERE'S A KIND OF SLOPPY ATTEMPT AT STOPPING THAT LEAK AT THE CHIMNEY. IT MATCHES THE WATER DAMAGE INSIDE THE HOUSE. UM, AND THERE HAS BEEN A WOOD FLOORING THAT'S BEEN REPLACED IN THAT ANNEX, BUT IT'S LAMINATE FLOORING AND [02:05:01] IT HAS SEPARATE AREAS AND IT DOESN'T MATCH UP AND THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME STRIPS MISSING. SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I'M NOW GONNA HAND IT OVER TO THE OWNER, SUZANNE BOOTH. WE ALSO HAVE ON THE LINE, ARCHITECTS, SARAH WEIGHTING, AND RON WITTY FROM WWE ARCHITECTURE AND THE PROJECT MANAGER, JACQUELINE WRATH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, APPLICANT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE YOUR CASE. YEAH, HELLO. UM, MY NAME IS SUZANNE GEO BOOTH AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION AT 27 EIGHT SCENIC DRIVE OF ALL PROFESSIONS TO HAVE MINE ACTUALLY IS THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE. AND FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS, I HAVE DIRECTED A CHARITABLE GIVING GROUP CALLED THE FRIENDS OF HERITAGE ACCENTURE STATIONS THAT FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON ENDANGERED HERITAGE, NEEDLESS TO SAY, I APPRECIATE AND COMMEND THE EFFORTS OF THIS COMMISSION TO REVIEW HISTORICAL RELEVANCE OF BUILT STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN BEFORE BUYING THIS PROPERTY. I CLEARLY CONSIDERED WHETHER THIS BUILDING HAD ANY INTRINSIC OR WHAT MAY BE REFERRED TO AS UNIVERSAL VALVE VALUE AND STRONGLY FELT THAT IT DID NOT. UM, AS LINDA MENTIONED, THE SITE AND HOUSE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY NEGLECTED SO MANY YEARS TO THE POINT THAT IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS TO VISIT. I SO WISH IT HAD BEEN OTHERWISE, AND THAT IT HAD HAD SOME HISTORIC VALUE AS I LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN A GREAT PROJECT TO SINK MY TEETH INTO, BUT SADLY I DID NOT FIND THIS TO BE THE CASE. MY, MY INTENTION IS TO MAKE THIS SITE, UM, MY NEW HOME AND TO BUILD A SUSTAINABLE, HEALTHY, AND BEAUTIFUL HOUSE HERE FOR MY FAMILY TO ENJOY FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. I RESPECTFULLY MOVED AT THE COMMISSION, CONSIDER, UM, THE DEMOLITION PERMIT AND ITS SUPPORT IT. AND, UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. GO AHEAD. HELLO. MY NAME IS JACQUELINE GROTH AND I'M THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR THE PROPERTY. I SUPPORT THE REMOVAL DEVELOPMENTS AT TWO SEVEN EIGHT SCENIC DRIVE. WE'VE WELCOMED QUESTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME COMMISSIONERS, SARAH WHITE AND RON WITTY. THE ARCHITECTS WOULD NOW LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. HELLO, MY NAME IS RON WITTY. I AM SPEAKING AS THE ARCHITECTS FOR THE PROJECT. UM, I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION AND I, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, WHICH I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH, I WANT TO POINT TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE WORKED, UH, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW TO TRY TO, TO, UH, MAINTAIN, UH, 19 PRESERVATION AND HERITAGE TREES ON THE SITE, WHICH HAS HAVE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, AND POST QUITE A BIT OF COMPLEXITY ON HOW ANYTHING MIGHT TAKE PLACE ON THIS SITE, EVEN, EVEN, UH, THE REMOTE IS KIND OF A RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL FURTHER AMPLIFY THAT PRESSURE. IN ADDITION TO ABOUT A 50 FOOT DROP ACROSS THE SITE, UH, SEWER EASEMENT ON THE SITE AND SOME HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE, UM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO IN ADDITION TO, UH, THE BUILDING REALLY FAILING AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF ITS OVERALL QUALITY, THERE IS A KIND OF INSURMOUNTABLE TASK IN TERMS OF THE VIABILITY OF THE SITE ALTOGETHER IN TERMS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION TO ALL OF US AND TO, TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE, WHICH IS A QUITE, QUITE IMPORTANT SITE IN TERMS OF, OF HIS OVERALL STYLE. OKAY. WE HAVE ANOTHER, OKAY, GO AHEAD. HI, UM, I'M SARAH WHITING, I'M THE OTHER HALF OF WW ARCHITECTURE AND I'M ALSO AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN. UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO NOTE MY APPRECIATION TO THIS, UH, COMMISSION FOR THE TIME YOU INVEST IN THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE ATTENTION YOU GIVE TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THE POINTS REGARDING THE CONDITION OF THIS BUILDING. AND I'LL SIMPLY NOTE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PRESERVE THIS HOUSE, GIVEN THE, UM, STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS AT THE HOUSE, IT WOULD REQUIRE EVERY WOULD RESULT IN FRANKLY, AN ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTION RATHER THAN A RESPECTFUL RENOVATION. AND, UM, I, AGAIN, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF DEMOLITION AND I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR, YOUR TIME INVESTED IN THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WE HAVE A MR. RON WIT THAT WOULD BE, THAT WAS SPEAKER SPEAKER NUMBER THREE. YEAH. HE ALREADY SPOKE RON WITTY. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY, THEN WE ARE GOOD TO GO TO MOVE ON. [02:10:01] I'LL CHECK. UM, I THINK OUR LAST DISCUSSION ITEM, UH, THIS WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IT WAS POLLED, UH, IT'S D [3.D.13. PR-2021-063853 – 1109 Travis Heights Blvd. – Consent Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] 13, 1109. TRAVIS HEIGHTS BOULEVARD. UM, PAULA KOFMAN I THINK TOLD THAT ONE AS WELL. YES, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT MS. NORMA YANCEY TO SPEAK FIRST. OKAY. HI. UM, I AM PRESENT. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. THANK. HI, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. UM, SO I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT ON TRAVIS HEIGHTS BOULEVARD. UM, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CLIENT'S ADMIN CANDICE WALKER FOR ABOUT, LET'S SEE, SINCE 2014, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY, UM, ADAM'S GRANDMOTHER ACTUALLY OWNED THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO HIM. SO IT'S BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR WELL OVER 50 YEARS. UM, AND SO THE, UM, APPROACH WITH THIS PROJECT IS TO REMOVE A NON-ORIGINAL ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW EDITION, UM, IN THE SAME, YOU KNOW, FOOTPRINT, ESSENTIALLY, WE HAVE TAKEN MEASURES TO STEP THE FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW ADDITION IN, FROM THE, UM, OVERALL WIDTH OF THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC HOUSE, UM, TO PROVIDE, UH, A DELINEATION. AND THE ADDITION OF COURSE IS ALSO TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. UM, SO CONCEALED FROM THE HISTORIC FRONT ELEVATION OF TRAVIS HEIGHTS BOULEVARD, UM, ALSO AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK, WE ARE REMOVING, UM, THIS ALUMINUM SIDING THAT IS CURRENTLY COVERING THE ORIGINAL SPECO FACADE. UM, AND OUR PLAN IS TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC HOUSE BACK TO A SPEC OF FACADE, AS WELL AS, UM, WE'RE GOING TO RESTORE ALL OF THE, UM, EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS THAT ARE GOING TO REMAIN. WE'RE KEEPING THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS FRONT DOOR AND ORIGINAL PATTERN OF WINDOW AND FRONT DOOR AT THE FRONT ELEVATION. UM, WE ARE ALSO MAKING THE CHOICE TO USE A HORIZONTAL SIDING FOR THE NEW ADDITION AT THE REAR, SO THAT WE HAVE, UH, AGAIN, A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN, UM, THE HISTORIC HOUSE AND THE ADDITION. UM, THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, WILL BE A SINGLE STORY PORCH KIDS ASIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. UM, THE SINGLE STORY PORCH WE'VE PURPOSEFULLY LOCATED TO RESIDE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE REAR ADDITION, SO THAT TO, YOU KNOW, ANY PASSER BY THEY READ THE PORCH AS PART OF THIS REAR ADDITION AND NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE, UM, THE FRONT EDGE OF THE NEW SINGLE-STORY PORCH WILL EXIST 29 FEET AND FIVE AND A HALF INCHES BACK FROM THE, UH, FRONT FACADE OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU COUNT THE HISTORIC FRONT PORCH, THE, UH, NEW PORCH WILL SIT APPROXIMATELY 41 FEET AND FOUR INCHES FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE HISTORIC FRONT PORCH. SO WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO PUSH IT AS FAR TO THE REAR AS POSSIBLE. UM, AND GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH MS FROM IT AND TALKED ABOUT THE APPROACH YOU WERE TAKING TO RESTORING THE HISTORIC HOUSE AND OUR APPROACH TO THE NEW ELEMENTS. UM, AND SHE FELT THAT THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE WERE MAKING ALLOW THIS HOUSE TO CONTINUE TO BE A VERY, UM, CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TOWARDS THE, UH, PENDING TRAVIS HEIGHTS, FAIRVIEW PARK, NATIONAL REGISTER, HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO THE CLIENTS ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. THEY'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE GIVING THAT, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATION FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND SO WITH THAT, UM, I WILL OPEN UP ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION AND RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU ALL APPROVE THIS APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? NO. NEXT IS MS. PAULA KOFMAN. OKAY. MS. CATHERINE, PAULA. UM, IF SHE IS NOT HERE, SHE WAS REGISTERED AS A NEUTRAL. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S THE END OF, UM, OUR PRESENTATIONS OR SPEAKERS, I BELIEVE. OKAY. EVERYBODY, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. NINE OH FIVE EAST SECOND STREET, [02:15:01] CONSTRUCTING NEWS STORY. A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO A CIRCUIT 1906 HOUSE. I'M SURE. YES. JUST, UH, WE HAVE 18 ITEMS AS I COUNT THEM. I THINK I'M RIGHT. THAT WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE PRESENTATIONS ON IN AN HOUR AND 45 MINUTES THAT REMAIN. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST, ALL OF US BE MINDFUL AND STAFF, UM, AND THEN CERTAINLY THE APPLICANTS, UH, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO GET THROUGH, BUT I DO THINK WE MAY BE LOOKING AT AN EXTENDED, UM, AGENDA TIME BEFORE THE END OF THE NIGHT. WE MIGHT BE. LET'S SEE HOW LET'S. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET TO A SPEEDY CONCLUSION. THANK YOU, STAFF. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR ITEM A ONE [3.A.1. GF-2021-050281 – 905 E. 2nd St. – Discussion Council District 3 (Part 2 of 2)] IS AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO A ONE-STORY HOUSE BUILT IN 1906 AND AT THE APRIL MEETING, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO INITIATE HISTORIC ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED DESIGN AT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, AS PRESENTED EARLIER TONIGHT, UM, AND MADE SUBMITTED TO REVISED PLAN OPTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONS EVALUATION BASED ON THAT COMMITTEE FEEDBACK. UM, THIS BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AROUND 1906 AND ITS EARLIEST OCCUPANTS WERE RENTERS WHO MOSTLY WORKED AT THE NEARBY RAIL YARDS AND WHO OFTEN SHARED THE HOUSE BETWEEN TWO OR MORE FAMILIES, OTHER INCLUDED CAR CLERKS, DRIVERS, AND CARPENTERS IN THE 1920S. THE ROLLING FAMILY MOVED INTO THE HOUSE, WILLIAM ROLLING BRICK AT THE CITY'S WATER AND LIGHT COMPANY WHILE BERTHA ROLLINGS BIRTH TO THE AUSTIN HOTEL LAUNDRY. THEIR SONS WORKED AS DRIVERS WHILE THEIR DAUGHTERS WORKED AS LAUNDRESSES ALONG WITH THEIR MOTHER LATER, OCCUPANTS INCLUDED AN ENGINEER AND ELEVATOR OPERATOR, THE GUARD COMPANY, EMPLOYEES, AND A BUTCHER. UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS RECOMMENDED TO ELIGIBLE AS BOTH A LOCAL LANDMARK AND AN INDIVIDUALLY LISTED PROPERTY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES BY THE 2016 AUSTIN HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY. UM, AND THAT SURVEY EXCITED AS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF INTACT FOLK, VICTORIAN ARCHITECTURE, AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE TYPICAL RESIDENT LIFEWAY'S DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN EAST BOSTON. DURING THE EARLY TO MID 20TH CENTURY, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ADVISED THE APPLICANT TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL DECORATIVE DETAILS THROUGHOUT THE WEST ELEVATION STAIRWELL PROFILE, MATCHED THE WINDOW PROPORTIONS TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND CONSIDER A ONE-STORY ADDITION INSTEAD OF A TWO-STORY ADDITION. UM, THEY'VE MADE SOME OF THOSE CHANGES. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ENDORSEMENT APPROVE ONE OF THE REVISED PLANS. UM, IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING AT THIS POINT, UM, AND STEPH I'LL GO RE ALSO RECOMMEND REQUIREMENT A DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE PRIOR TO PERMIT RELEASE, UH, FOR ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THIS BUILDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CASE COMMISSIONER COOK? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE VERSION TWO AND NOT RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING, BUT NOT DENY IT, BUT NOT DENIAL. OKAY. JUST LEAVING THAT OPEN FOR FUTURE THAT WE DON'T. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BALANCED. SUELA YOUR SECOND, THE MOTION. OKAY. UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER COOK AND JUST APPRECIATE THE OWNERS AND CERTIFICATE ORIGINAL BUILDING? UH, I THINK THERE'S, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY ALTAR, THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOME RESTORATION WORK. THERE'S ANY ALTERATIONS IN THE FUTURE THAT, THAT RISK THAT THE LOSS OF THIS BUILDING, IT CAN BE HURT AGAIN AS A NEW LANDMARK CASE. I THINK, THINK THE ADDITION WHILE WAS A LITTLE BIT LARGE, IT'S STILL SENSITIVE AND KEEPS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING FULLY INTACT. AND ALTHOUGH I WISH THE OWNER WERE WILLING, I WOULDN'T WANT TO FORCE IT UPON THEM. GIVEN THE OBVIOUS CARE THEY'VE SHOWN FOR THE HOUSE ALREADY. I CONCUR, I, I SUPPORT YOUR MOTION, UH, TO ENDORSE OPTION TWO, UH, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANTS PREFER. IT'S WHAT I PREFER. I THINK THAT IT, UM, THAT IT COMPORTS WITH THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND I, I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO, UM, TO MAKE THESE, UM, CHANGES TO THEIR PLANS AND DON'T SEEK TO, UM, ANTAGONIZE THEM BY INITIATING OR RECOMMENDING HISTORIC ZONING OVER THEIR OPPOSITION. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED IT'S UNANIMOUS MOVING ON TO EIGHT [3.A.2. HR-2021-044151 – 1304 Bob Harrison – Discussion Council District 1 (Part 2 of 2)] TO 13 OF FOUR, BOB HARRISON. YES. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS KARA FOR TRON HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. UM, THE [02:20:01] PROPOSAL FOR 13 AND FOUR, BOB HARRISON IS TWO PARTS TONIGHT. UH, FIRST TO ZONE THE HOUSE AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK, AS YOU MAY RECALL, YOU INITIATED HISTORIC ZONING LAST MONTH AND YOU CAN CONSIDER RECOMMENDING, UH, RECOMMENDING IT THIS MONTH. AND THE SECOND PART OF THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A REAR ADDITION TO THE HOUSE IN TERMS OF HISTORIC ZONING, 13 AND FOUR, BOB HARRISON WAS BUILT BY SAMUEL POSEY AROUND 1924, AT LEAST TWO GENERATIONS OF THE POSEY FAMILY LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR MORE THAN 45 YEARS UNTIL AT LEAST 1969 AND APPROVAL DISTRICT RECORDS SHOW THAT THEY SOLD THE HOUSE IN 1998. AFTER 75 YEARS OF OWNERSHIP, THE POSEY HOUSE IS SIGNIFICANT WORTH ASSOCIATION WITH SAMUEL POSEY AND HIS DESCENDANTS, EDDIE AND EVA POSEY WORKING CLASS AFRICAN-AMERICANS WHO PURCHASED AND MAINTAINED A HOME FOR DECADES AT A TIME WHEN FEW FINANCIAL POLICY AND LEGAL RESOURCES WERE AVAILABLE TO BLACK FAMILIES, STAFF RECOMMENDS HISTORIC ZONING FOR ARCHITECTURE AS AN EXAMPLE OF A NATIONAL FOLK STYLE AND FOR HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE COZY FAMILY, AN EXAMPLE OF A DEFINABLE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN EARLY TO MID 20TH CENTURY AUSTIN, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING, THE PROPOSED REAR ADDITION WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED WITH THIS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM, AS YOU MAY RECALL, FROM LAST MONTH, THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES 10 PARTS. UH, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO REFLECT THE COMMENTS FROM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE FIRST PART IS REPAIR OF THE FRONT PORCH AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ELEMENTS THAT ARE TOO DETERIORATED IF NECESSARY REPLACEMENT OF VINYL, SASH WINDOWS WITH TWO OVER TWO DOUBLE HUNG CLAD WOOD WINDOWS REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING REPLACEMENT DOOR WITH A PERIOD APPROPRIATE DOOR REPLACEMENT OF THE ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF WITH A METAL ROOF, ADDITIONAL SKYLIGHTS ON SECONDARY ROOF SLOPES, REPAIR OF EXISTING WOOD SIDING, TRIM AND RAFTER TAILS DEMOLITION OF LATER SIDE AND REAR ADDITION AND DEMOLITION ALSO HAVE A REAR DECK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR ADDITION WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 600 SQUARE FEET AND A CONCRETE DECK BEHIND IT. THE ADDITION IS CLAD AND VERTICAL METAL SIDING AND CAST BY FLAT ROOFS ON SINGLE AND DOUBLE HEIGHT PORTION WINDOWS ARE CASEMENT AND FIXED ALUMINUM STASH. THE ADDITION IS SET BACK BEHIND THE HISTORIC PORTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, NEARLY 30 FEET FROM THE FRONT WALL. AND THE TELUS PORTION IS ONLY SLIGHTLY TALLER THAN THE HISTORIC HOUSES RICH LINE. THE PROJECT GENERALLY MEETS THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR REPAIR AND ALTERATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAN. THANK YOU. YOU'RE MUTED. SORRY. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CASE COMMISSIONER? I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE PLAN, BUT NOT RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MCWHORTER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN YOUR, UM, YOUR MOTION? I HATE TO DIDN'T MEAN TO PLAY A BIT OF BAIT AND SWITCH. HONESTLY, I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED AT THE LAST MEETING THOUGHT OF HAVING A RECOMMENDED AS POTENTIAL LANDMARK AND THE 2016 SURVEY AND SAW THAT IT WASN'T, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE EMERY'S APPRECIATION FOR THE BUILDING AND, UH, THE CHANGES THEY MADE TO IT TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE OF A COMPLIANT ADDITION. UM, BUT WHILE WE HAVE A WILLING OWNER, I DON'T THINK IT'S TRULY OUTSTANDING AND ARCHITECTURE, HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS OR INTEGRITY. SO I HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, I COULD PROBABLY BE, BE SWAYED TO ALTER MY MOTION, BUT AS IT STANDS, I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A PUSH TO, TO LIST THIS ONE AS A LANDMARK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNDERSERVED AREA. I, UM, I ALMOST FEEL LIKE WE CAN DO WHAT ONE OR THE OTHER EITHER, UH, UH, RECOMMEND LANDMARK STATUS OR THE ADDITION. I FEEL THAT THE ADDITION IS, UM, IN CONGRUENCE WITH THE HISTORIC HOUSE, BUT OTHERS MAY DISAGREE SOMETHING I DID READ TODAY THOUGH. I JUST GOT MY, UM, UM, PRESERVATION AUSTIN NEWSLETTER AND OUT OF OVER 600 AUSTIN LANDMARKS, ONLY 49 ARE ASSOCIATED WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS. SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WELL, COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER HEIM, SETH MOTION, WHERE WE DO INITIATE [02:25:01] HISTORIC ZONING, AS WELL AS APPROVE THE ADDITION. I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY INITIATED HISTORIC ZONING. WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO AT THIS POINT IS RECOMMENDED, EXCUSE ME, A RECOMMEND, RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING AND THE ADDITION AND THE ADDITION. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S AN ALTERNATE MOTION. OKAY. THAT'S AN ALTERNATE MOTION. WELL, WE HAVE TO, UM, I THINK WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION FIRST DOING MAYBE AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE, TO THE CURRENT MOTION. IT'S YOUR CHOICE TO CHAIR. WE CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. THE CURRENT MOTION DOES NOT RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING. AND SO IF I, MY ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION. SO THEREFORE THAT WOULD TAKE PRECEDENT AND WE COULD DISCUSS IT AND GO FOR IT. IF YOU RECOGNIZE THAT AS WE ALTERNATE AS THE AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND, IS THERE A SECOND TO YOUR, I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL MOVER OR MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD NEED TO ACCEPT? YEAH, I THINK SO. I THINK I WILL ACCEPT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE REPRESENTATION IN THIS AREA, UM, AND I CAN BE CONVINCED OF IT. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD ACCEPT THIS. SO THE MOTION, THE NEW MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING AND APPROVE THE ADDITION. OKAY. THE ORIGINAL WHO SECONDED THE MOTION OF MY BORDER COMMISSIONER MCWHORTER, WILL YOU, UM, APPROVE THAT? YES. AMENDMENT. OKAY. SO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE IS TO RECOMMEND A START ZONING AND APPROVE THE, UM, THE ADDITION DISPATCH AND THE RENOVATIONS AS WELL. I THINK WITH THE RESTORATION, UH, AND I THINK IT IT'S WORTHY AND WITH A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THAT. OKAY. HELP ME UNDERSTAND IS THAT AS A NEW COMMISSIONER HAVE BEEN HUT, WELL, I THINK ARCHITECTURALLY, I AM BY NO MEANS AN ACCOMPLISHED ARCHITECT. THIS APPEARS TO BE A STRETCH FOR ME. WE, UH, LET, LET ME JUST SAY, WE'VE COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF THESE ITEMS WHERE THE HOUSE, BY SOME OF THE, THE OLD WAY OF LOOKING PERHAPS AT PRESERVATION, UH, TOO MANY PEOPLE WOULD NOT MEET SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD CALL HISTORIC, UH, AND OF WORTH. BUT AS SOON AS WE START EXPANDING AND LOOKING AT THIS THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS AND START SEEING, UH, A COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN UNDERSERVED, THAT EVEN A VERY MODEST STRUCTURE THAT HAS CONNECTION TO, UH, A FAMILY THAT BASICALLY BEAT THE ODDS AND WAS ABLE TO, UH, MAINTAIN AND OWN AND PRESERVE THIS OVER, UH, UH, THREE QUARTERS OF A CENTURY AND THAT IT STILL RETAINS ITS ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY, EVEN IN ITS VERY MODEST STATE THAT THAT'S WORTHY OF, UM, RECOGNITION, IT'S WORTHY OF PRESERVATION, IT'S WORTHY OF THAT STORY ALIVE. UH, AND I THINK WE'RE SEEING, UH, A BROADENING DEFINITION OF, OF WHAT OUR HISTORY IS, EVEN AS WE'RE STARTING TO RECOGNIZE PRESERVATION. ISN'T ONLY ABOUT, UH, THE, THE CELEBRATED MUSEUM PIECES OF ANY GIVEN ERA LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS, I GUESS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE. UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT, IT IS WORTHY OF PRESERVATION PRECISELY BECAUSE I THINK, UH, IT IS SO EASILY, UH, OVERLOOKED WHEN, UH, WHAT IT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS TO A COMMUNITY THAT, UH, NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED. UM, WE DON'T HAVE MANY OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES AND WHEN THEY COME UP, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, WE REACH OUT AND GRAB THEM. OKAY. COMMISSIONER LURCH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER BROADENING OUR HORIZONS? I THINK, UM, I THINK THESE HOUSES LIKE THIS, UH, EASILY, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT GET, UM, GET DEMOLISHED FIRST AND, AND THEY ARE, UH, DISAPPEARING, UH, QUICKLY FROM OUR LANDSCAPE. AND SO, UH, YES, COMMISSIONER LEVEL, UH, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. I AGREE. I THINK THAT THIS IS, IT HAS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY. UM, I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS ARCHITECTURE AND ITS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS. IT'S A MODEST EXAMPLE OF A WORKING CLASS HOME THAT HAS FROM [02:30:01] A CULTURE THAT HAS BEEN UNDERREPRESENTED IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OR HIGH STYLE EXAMPLE OF A BUILDING TO, TO MERIT DESIGNATION. BUT I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT EXAMPLE BECAUSE OF ITS, ITS MODESTY AND CONSIDER ALSO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO, UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET IT. IT ONLY HAS TO MEET TWO CRITERIA. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EX OUTSTANDING ARCHITECTURE. IT JUST HAS TO MEET THE ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA. UM, I THINK WHAT IT, WHAT IT MAY LACK IN TERMS OF, OF, OF GRAND STYLE, UM, IT, IT MAKES UP FOR IN ITS HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS AND LINKS TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS OR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS TO RECOMMEND HISTORIC ZONING AND APPROVE THE PLANS AND RENOVATIONS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ANY OPPOSED IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR COLLABORATION ON THAT MOTION. OKAY. GOING ON [3.B.1. C14H-1986-0015, C14H-2004-0008 – 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. –Discussion (postponed April 26, 2021) Grandberry Building and Mitchell-Robertson Building Congress Avenue National Register District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] TO BE ONE NINE OH SEVEN, NINE OH NINE AND NINE 11 CONGRESS AVENUE, GETTING THESE STAFFERS. UH, THIS IS ELIZABETH BRUMMETT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. UH, I WANT TO START WITH A FEW BRIEF UPDATES RELATIVE TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING. AND, UH, THEN, THEN TURN IT OVER TO ALL FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK THAT YOU MIGHT PROVIDE TO THE APPLICANT, UH, BEFORE THEY COME TO US WITH THEIR FORMAL REQUESTS AT THE NEXT MEETING. UH, SO AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER, UH, REQUIRING THAT CONDITIONS AT THE PROPERTY BE REMEDIED WITHIN 90 DAYS OR IMPOSING FINES ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. THAT ORDER WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 24TH, 2021. AND SO WE ARE, UH, QUICKLY NEARING THE END OF THAT PERIOD AT LAST COMMISSION MEETING A MULTIPLE COMMISSIONER SUGGESTED THAT THE APPLICANT DETERMINE IF SCAFFOLDING THAT'S ERECTED FOR PURPOSES OF DOCUMENTING AND DISMANTLING, THE FACADES WOULD SUFFICE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE BSC ORDERS. AND FORTUNATELY I'VE CONFIRMED WITH, UM, STAFF FROM THE CODE DEPARTMENT THAT SCAFFOLDING WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. THE ORDERS REQUIRE REPAIRS TO FULLY REMEDY THE VIOLATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE CRACKS AND OPENINGS AND EXTERIOR WALLS, ROOF, AND DRAINAGE ISSUES, MISSING WINDOWS AND MULTIPLE OTHER CONCERNS. SO REALLY WHAT THOSE BSC ORDERS ARE LOOKING FOR IS FULL RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGS OR TAKING THE BUILDINGS DOWN WOULD ALSO MEET THE PURPOSES OF THE BSE ORDERS. BUT, UH, SOMETHING LIKE, UM, EMBRACING THE FACADES OR A TEMPORARY MEASURES SUCH AS SCAFFOLDING IS REALLY NOT WHAT THEY'RE AFTER. UH, THERE WAS A PRIOR ORDER FOR THIS PROPERTY, UH, WHICH THE, UM, OWNER AND, AND APPLICANT TEAM COMPLIED WITH, UH, WITH ADDITIONAL, UM, NETTING AND, UH, UH, PLYWOOD AT THE FACADES TO FURTHER STABILIZE THEM. SO REALLY THE BSC IS LOOKING FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION AT THIS POINT. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION, UM, AS, AS THE APPLICANT TEAM, UH, PRESENTED TO YOU EARLIER, LASER SCANNING HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND ANALYSIS OF THE POINT CLOUD IS UNDERWAY. UM, SO WE DO, WE DO HAVE SOME PROGRESS ON, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY, UH, THE TEAM, UM, A AT PRIOR MEETINGS WE HAVE, UH, KIND OF HAD AN OPEN-ENDED OF IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO, UM, APPROVE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR A DISMANTLING AND RECONSTRUCTION. UM, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS THE ASK AT THIS POINT TO THE APPLICANT TEAM IS REALLY SEEING THAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE A VERY THOROUGH PACKAGE FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION. AND I BELIEVE WE'RE FINALLY REACHING A POINT SO THAT THEY WILL BE PREPARED TO DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING BASED ON, UM, UH, PARTICULARLY ON ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE POINT CLOUD. UM, BUT W WHAT THEY ARE REALLY NEEDING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE WILLING HAVE. IS, IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH THE COMMISSION WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION IS AN APPROPRIATE DECISION FOR THESE PROPERTIES? AND IF SO, WHAT ADDITIONAL, UM, MATERIALS WITH THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO SEE AN ORDER TO SUPPORT THAT TYPE OF A DECISION? UM, SO I, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE, UH, THE TEAM REMAINS ON THE LINE, UH, PARTICULARLY WE HAVE, UH, JERRY GARCIA, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ON HAND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE. [02:35:06] THANK YOU, MS. . UM, SO WHAT THEY'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS THEY WANT DETAILS. THEY WANT SPECIFIC, UH, ASKS OF THEM SO THAT THEY CAN PRESENT A THOROUGH PACKAGE TO US AT THE JUNE 28TH MEETING. UM, CAN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, UH, I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT, UM, I AM EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE BUILDING IS THAT I SAW IN SECTION. AND DO WE UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS ALSO GOING TO BE PART OF OUR REVIEW AT THAT MEETING? SO WHAT WE, WHAT WE ARE FACING AT THIS POINT IS A NEED TO, TO URGENTLY COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ORDER TO HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING SAFE HERE. THE, UM, THE BUILDING THAT WILL GO UP BEHIND WAS APPROVED IN CONCEPT IN 2018. AND SO WE, WE DO HAVE A PRIOR HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PRECEDENT TO LOOK TO WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT, UH, DEMOLITION OF THE REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MID TO HIGH-RISE TOWER BEHIND IT AS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ENTERTAINED AND APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, RIGHT. BUT THE ACTUAL DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED OR HAS THAT BEEN APPROVED? THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. THE DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED. UM, AND PART OF THE, THERE ARE SO MANY CATCH 20 TWOS WITH THIS PROJECT. UM, PART OF THE CONUNDRUM HERE IS THE FACT THAT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS IS A VERY, VERY LENGTHY PROCESS. SO, UM, WE, WE REALLY, WHILE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, I BELIEVE TO HAVE SOME CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION. SO YOU HAVE A GENERAL SENSE OF WHAT THE APPLICANTS IS CONSIDERING AT THIS JUNCTURE. UM, THEY, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PRESENT ANY, ANY FINAL DRAWINGS AT THIS POINT. SO WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU TO SAY IS THAT OUR, OUR CHOICE, BASICALLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS, IN, IN RESPONDING TO BUILDING AND STANDARDS, UH, IS IF WE APPROVE THIS AS A REPLACE PROJECT, WHAT DO WE NEED IN ORDER TO DO THAT? BECAUSE IT'S REPLACED AND PUT ON THE BUILDING YET TO BE FINALIZED, AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING IF WE BELIEVE THE ALTERNATIVE THAT IT IN FACT HAS TO BE SHORED UP ONCE AGAIN, WITH NO IMMEDIATE TIMEFRAME FOR WHEN THAT NEW BUILDING IT'LL BE CONNECTED TO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO START CONSTRUCTION. IS THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. THEY'RE ANTICIPATING CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING WITHIN THREE YEARS. THAT'S, UM, WITH A PRIOR, UM, UPDATE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS A DRAFT PRESERVATION COVENANT. I DIDN'T ATTACH THAT AGAIN TO THIS MEETINGS, UM, UP. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT OVERSIGHT, BUT, UM, THEY, THEY ARE WILLING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO A TIMELINE FOR THIS PROJECT WHERE THE BUILDINGS WOULD NOT BE DOWN AND DEFINITELY, BUT THERE WOULD BE, UM, A DATE BY WHICH THEY WOULD GO BACK UP AS PART OF THE OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. AND ONE WAY, OR THE OTHER, THE OWNER IS GOING TO HAVE THESE FACADES. IT'S JUST WHETHER THEY ARE RESTORED OR REBUILT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. WHETHER THEY'RE RESTORED ARE REPLICATED, THAT WE HAVE BEEN PRETTY MUCH GIVEN, UM, THE PLAN TO RECONSTRUCT OR, UH, OR REPLICATE THESE FACADES, THAT THEY CAN'T COMMIT TO SAVING THEM, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM STAFF. UM, MS. BURNETT IS WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR, UH, APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BACK IN 2018, UM, IT WAS WITH THE, IT WAS WITH THE, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FACADES WOULD BE RETAINED THAT HISTORIC FACADES, STEVE, ARE YOU ON THE LINE AND BETTER ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT PRIOR APPROVAL? I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK ON THIS. YES, YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. OKAY, GREAT. UH, THE, WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN 2017, THAT WAS THE BIG QUESTION. UH, THE, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS FOR B CONSTRUCTION OF, UH, A LARGER BUILDING, LARGER BUILDINGS BEHIND THE EXISTING FACADE. BUT THE REASON THAT IT WAS NEVER FULLY APPROVED WAS THE MECHANICS OF HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. [02:40:01] UH, IN FACT, COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY RETAINING THE FACADES IN PLACE, UH, IF THEY WOULD NEED TO BE DECONSTRUCTED AS TIME WENT ON. AND THIS CASE CAME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AFTER THAT INITIAL CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, THE PROPOSAL WAS TO DECONSTRUCT THE FACADES AND STORE THEM IN A SECURE PLACE. THAT PROPOSAL STILL DID NOT MEET THE COMMISSION'S EXPECTATIONS OR, UM, UH, A TRUE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO HANDLE THESE. AND IT WAS STILL UP FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN IT KIND OF FELL BY THE WAYSIDE. SO I HAVE BEEN, UH, GOING BACK THROUGH THE RECORDS AND MY OWN, MY OWN BRAIN, UH, AND, UH, I JUST DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT SAID THAT THE FACADES NEEDED TO BE, UH, RETAINED IN PLACE. SO, UH, THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED. UM, BUT THERE WERE, THERE WAS NEVER A PLAN TO DO THAT. THE PLAN WAS THE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED WAS FOR DECONSTRUCTION. UH, BUT I THINK THE ULTIMATE GOAL WAS TO EXPLORE THE OPTIONS ON THE RUSH. SO JUST TO GIVE THE, UH, THE BOARD, SOME CONTEXT IS I DID VISIT THE PROPERTY WITH MS BROMO AND MS. CARTER. AND SO I REVIEWED ALL THREE BUILDINGS, UH, WALKED ALL THREE INSIDE, OUTSIDE, STUDIED THE FACADES. AND IF, IF I GO FROM, UH, NINE OH SEVEN, I THINK, I THINK I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF RECONSTRUCTION THERE BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A DAUNTING TASK TO HOLE THAT PARTICULAR FACADE TOGETHER. HOWEVER, I SEE NO REASON THAT I KNOW NINE CANNOT BE PRESERVED IN PLACE, AND I'M PRETTY STEADFAST IN THAT BELIEF. I EXPRESS MY OPINION TO MS. CARTER WHEN I WAS ON SITE. AND THEN FINALLY, UM, NINE 11. I SEE NO REAL VALUE IN, IN, IN THAT FACADE. AND SO MY, MY SUMMATION IS THAT, WELL, I UNDERSTAND IT MAY BE INCONVENIENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASING. I THINK THAT A REALISTIC BRACING SCHEMATIC WOULD SATISFY THE BUILDING STANDARDS GROUP, UH, PARTICULARLY IF IT WAS DESIGNED AND SIGNED AND SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYBODY THAT CONTEXT, THE CONTEXT THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN ALSO BE A MOTION. WELL, I'LL LET OTHERS MOVE TO THAT. I JUST WANTED TO, BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT WHILE I UNDERSTAND RECONSTRUCTION, IT NEVER ENDS UP THE SAME. IT JUST DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, BUT I'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD TOO MANY TIMES AND IT DOESN'T END UP THE SAME WELL, RIGHT. RECONSTRUCTION. YEAH. I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IF YOU COULD MAKE THAT IN A, IF YOU COULD CRAFT A MOTION OUT OF THAT, IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR US. WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT. SURE. WELL, I WILL SO MOVE THAT, UH, OUR ADVISE TO THE APPLICANT BE DECONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT NINE OH SEVEN, UH, RETAIN THE FRONT FACADE OF 909 IN ITS CURRENT STATE. AND, UH, REBUILD NINE 11 AND COMMISSIONER COOK. SECOND SET MOTION. UH, K UM, COMMISSIONER COOK. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE MOTION? I HAVE THE SAME FEELINGS. I'M GLAD COMMISSIONER ROCHE WAS ABLE TO VISIT ONSITE AND REINFORCE THAT. CAUSE I'VE STILL ONLY REALLY SEEN EXCEPT FOR TODAY'S PRESENTATION, UH, AND A COUPLE OF INDOOR SHOTS FROM THE LAST MONTH'S PRESENTATION, GOOGLE STREET VIEWS, BUT IT ALL SEEMS TO REINFORCE WHAT THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW IS KIND OF SHOW. AND ALSO HAVING LEARNED THAT, UH, THESE WERE ALL MODERNIZED AND THAT BIG CONGRESS MODERNIZATION OF THE FIFTIES, I GUESS, WHERE EVERYTHING WAS, WAS CLEANED UP AND STREAMLINED. UH, YOU CAN SEE NINE OH SEVEN WAS [02:45:01] REALLY CHIPPED AWAY. IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING MORE HISTORIC PHOTOS ONCE WE GET THE RESEARCH. UH, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE, ANY OF THE ARTICULATION WAS, WAS STRIPPED AWAY ANY OF THE ORIGINAL TOOLING ON THE STONE. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN, UH, STUCCO TREATMENT, POSSIBLY FALSE MASONRY STUCCO TREATMENT AT ONE TIME ON THERE. AND THAT'S MOSTLY GONE. SO I, I DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH INTEGRITY THERE. AND I'M REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT CONDITION IT WAS IN WHEN THAT WAS THE LANDMARK AND WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT WERE ON INTEGRITY ON THAT ONE. SO THERE MAY BE A FEW KEY PIECES THAT CAN BE SALVAGED. SO TO SEE THAT WOULD LARGELY BE I RECON RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FUTURE, THE NINE OH NINE. I AGREE THAT UPPER LEVEL OF NINE OH NINE, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS WHOLE SCHEME, IF THAT WERE OUR FOOT IN THE DOOR OF NOT HAVING THIS BE A BLANK OPEN HOLE THAT CAN BE SOLD AND FILLED WITH A BLANK TOWER, IF THAT IS RETAINED, THE DEFLECTION THAT HAVE SHOWN WAS, WAS COMPELLING WITH THE LASER SCANNING AND WAS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT I DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANY CROSS-SECTION INFORMATION ABOUT THE BEAM ITSELF AND WHETHER IT'S STILL SOUND OR NOT, OR WHETHER IT'S JUST DEFLECTED. IF IT'S DEFLECTED, THAT'S REALLY SAYING SOMETHING FOR HISTORIC LINE MORTARS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO, TO ACCOMMODATE THAT MUCH MOVEMENT WITHOUT ANY VISIBLE CRACKS IN THE FACADE, WE NEED TO BE REBUILT. AND THEN NINE 11 IS NOT A LANDMARK. ANYWAY, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER, IT HAS NO INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED AS A LANDMARK. SO, UH, IT'D BE GREAT TO SEE THAT ONE REBUILD, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW WE HAVE ANY, ANY ROLE TO PLAY IN THAT AS I UNDERSTOOD IT FIRST, I WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE THREE WAYS TO FLUSH THEM, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW TO ME THAT WASN'T SIGNIFICANT. AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE FACADE THAT THE MONITOR CRAFT AND PATTERN WOULD SUPPORT THAT IT'S A GREAT SEVEN INCHES WIDE, EASILY TO OVERCOME AND PLACE THE, THE, THE, UM, OUT OF THIS. I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE BASED ON IT WAS NINE 11, BUT I MAY BE, I MAY HAVE MISSED UNDERSTOOD THAT. AND MAYBE MR. GARCIA CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE NINE 11 AND NOT NINE OH NINE. MR. GARCIA, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT, MR. GARCIA? OKAY. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET SOLVED. THIS IS LEAH BOTHA WITH THE INTERGROUP. WE CAN CERTAINLY TRACK THAT ANSWER DOWN FROM HIM AND EMAIL IT TO YOU ALL TOMORROW. OKAY. WE, IT IN ADVANCE THAT CLARIFICATION SO THAT YOU HAVE IN ADVANCE OF NEXT MONTH'S MEETING COMMISSIONER COOK. AND, UM, I JUST WANT TO GO ON TO NOTE THAT I THINK THIS MOTION IS REALISTIC AND GENEROUS, UH, GIVEN THE DECADE, PLUS OF LACK OF INVESTMENT IN THIS BUILDING. UH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS BIG AND THESE BUILDINGS WERE PLACED UNDER A DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT ORDER IN THE PAST THAT POSSIBLY THE RESTORATION PLANS WERE A RESPONSE TO THAT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. UH, NOT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A ROOF. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE SIDEWALLS, THE REAR WALLS. AREN'T, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT MAINTAINING ONE HISTORIC FACADE IN PLACE, AND I'D BE ALSO REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE HOW MUCH SAVINGS THE OWNER HAS RECEIVED OVER THE PAST DECADE PLUS OF OWNERSHIP FOR THESE BEING HISTORIC LANDMARKS ON CONGRESS AVENUE AND WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT MIGHT BE AND HOW THAT MIGHT PLAY INTO WHAT KIND OF INVESTMENT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO, TO PRESERVE THIS UPPER STORY OF ONE OF THE THREE BUILDINGS WOULD WE HAVE TO, WOULD WE HAVE TO REMOVE LANDMARK STATUS FROM NINE OH SEVEN STAFF? I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S OF GOAL IS TO RETAIN LANDMARK STATUS ON BOTH NINE OH SEVEN AND NINE OH NINE. AND THAT IS PART OF THE IMPETUS FOR THE VERY DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK FOR RECONSTRUCTION THAT DONNA CARTER HAS PUT TOGETHER. UM, SO IT'S, IT'S MEANT TO BE A VERY PAINSTAKING AND ACCURATE RECONSTRUCTION TO MEET THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION. UM, SO I WOULD ALSO ASK THE COMMISSION, IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK ON THAT SCOPE OF WORK RELATIVE TO NINE OH SEVEN. UM, IF, IF YOU ALL WOULD PROVIDE THAT AS WELL. MR. COOK. SO IT'S A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THAT WHEN WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS A DEMOLITION, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'D LIKE IN THE FUTURE, BUT THAT'S NOT BEING PRESENTED TO US. AND THAT WAS MY FRUSTRATION TO BEGIN WITH AND MY ONGOING FRUSTRATION THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO HAPPEN IN A FUTURE MOTION. BUT IF THE EXCUSE [02:50:01] IS TO NEVER DO IT, IF THE OWNER CHOOSES TO SELL IT TO ANOTHER OWNER WHO NEVER DOES IT, WE HAVE NO CONTROL AND NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. SO THAT'S REALLY, THAT'S NOT THE INTENT IF I, IF I MIGHT INTERJECT, UM, AGAIN, THE, THE OWNER IS WILLING TO ENTER INTO A PRESERVATION COVENANT. UH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS FURTHER WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE BUILDING BE RECONSTRUCTED. AND IT'S NOT SIMPLY A DEMOLITION PERMIT THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS BECAUSE NINE OH SEVEN IS A LANDMARK. IT NEEDS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COULD BE FOR DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION TO MEET THE SCOPE OF WORK. SO WE'RE, THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF DETAILING REQUIREMENTS TO WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT SIMPLY LOOKING AT KNOCKING THE BUILDING DOWN AND HAVING NOTHING COME BACK AND ITS PLACE. I ALSO NOTICED THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT WAS WANTING TO BE RECOGNIZED EARLIER. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I JUST, UM, I WAS LOOKING AT THE, THE SUBMITTED, UH, POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, UM, WHEN, WHEN COMMISSIONER LAROCHE WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH BUILDING WAS OUT OF PLUM, AND IT'S INDICATED IN THAT DOCUMENT THAT IT'S NINE 11 THAT'S OUT OF FOAM WITH UNDERSCORES MY POINT ABOUT NINE OH NINE. THANK YOU. CAROLYN COMMISSIONER COOK. I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT IS IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WHAT OBLIGATIONS CAN, NOT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET A BUILDING PERMIT, YOU HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO COMPLETION OF THAT BUILDING PERMIT. OTHERWISE THERE ARE PENALTIES WHEN YOU GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, YOU ARE GIVEN AN ALLOWANCE TO DO OTHER THINGS UNDER PERMIT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE COMPLETION OF, OF WHAT IS PROMISED. AND ON THE COVENANT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DIFFERENT COVENANT OR ONE THAT ACTUALLY HAS REMEDIES OTHER THAN STATING THE CITY HAS WHATEVER REMEDIES IT HAS AND NOT ACTUALLY STATING REMEDIES OR POSSIBLY LOOKING AT WHAT KIND OF CLAWBACK WE MAY HAVE IN TERMS OF TAX REBATES OVER THE PAST DECADE PLUS OF OWNERSHIP, AND POSSIBLY PUTTING THAT MONEY IN TRUST TO GO SPECIFICALLY TO RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FUTURE. THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD SIGN OF SIGN OF FAITH AND ULTIMATE COMPLETION OF A RESTORATION RECONSTRUCTION. I SEE SOME NODDING OF THE HEADS OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THAT, THAT IT NOT JUST BE AN OPEN-ENDED, UM, WHATEVER THE CITY AGAIN, CAN TRY TO GET AND JUST KEEP IT ON OUR AGENDA FOR 14 YEARS. NO COMMISSIONER. THAT WAS THE END. NOT THIS ME. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR MOTION? OOH, THAT WAS A WHILE AGO. I MOVED THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE APPLICANT THAT I KNOW SEVEN, BUT YOU RECONSTRUCTED IN ITS ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION THAT NINE OH NINE, THE FRONT FACADE BE PRESERVED AS IT STANDS TODAY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION. AND, UM, I, I CAN JUST GO ALONG WITH THE DEMOLITION OF NINE 11, AND I WILL FURTHER AMEND MY MOTION TO THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE COVENANT THAT COMMISSIONER COOK HAS OFFERED TO ASK FOR THE, UH, THERE TO BE THAT THE COVENANT BE DETAILED AS SPECIFIC REMEDIES, UH, INCLUDED IN THE COVENANT TO WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE AND AS A MEASURE OF GOOD FAITH TO PUT THOSE TAX ABATEMENTS RECEIVED AND SAID TRUST. IF I, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, COMMISSIONER COOK. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE? YES. COMMISSIONER COOK, JUST CONFIRMING THE SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. FOR THE DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER LARISSA'S MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSITION IT'S UNANIMOUS ONE, ONE LAST ITEM FOR THE OWNERS I DO WHEN I PRESENT THIS, UH, I WANT TO START SEEING THAT, THAT DESIGN. UM, I WAS VERY CONCERNED WHEN I SAW THE SECTION THAT IT HAVE A BUILDING THAT STEPS BACK FOR A COUPLE OF STORIES AND THEN STARTS LOOMING OVER THESE FACADES. AND I, I'M JUST THINKING RIGHT NOW THAT THAT'S NOT [02:55:01] GOING TO BE APPROPRIATE, SO WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THAT DISCUSSION SOONER THAN LATER. UM, IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT NOW? NO, NO. THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND GIVE US SOME MORE DETAILS. I WASN'T HERE IN 2018, SO I'D LIKE TO SEE 18 AND I GUARANTEE YOU, THERE WAS NO APPROVAL IN CONCEPT TO TAKE DOWN THESE FACADES AND, AND, UM, AND YOU KNOW, REPLICATE THEM ON THE SIDE. SO THEY MOVE WITH SOME HAYES TO SATISFY THE BUILDING STANDARDS. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT STAFF CAN DO TO SAY THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS, UH, IS TRYING TO MOVE AS FAST AS WE CAN, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE, UM, THREE HISTORIC BUILDINGS HERE THAT TWO OF WHICH ARE LANDMARKS. I MADE A PRESENTATION BEFORE THEY IMPOSE THE STAFF RECOMMENDED A 90 DAY PERIOD, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD INDICATED WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE TO GET THIS APPROVAL AND TO GET THE PROJECT COMPLETED. AND, UM, I I'VE ALSO SINCE THEN SPOKEN WITH STAFF. AND, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, UNFORTUNATELY THE OWNER IS AT RISK AT THIS POINT. UM, ONCE, ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED TO VSC SATISFACTION, THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OWNER TO ASK FOR SOME WAIVER OR SOME REDUCTION IN THE FEES THAT ARE, WILL START INCURRING SHORTLY. BUT, UH, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN EXTENSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ALONG, UM, THAT MOTION PASSED. WE HAVE, WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE? [3.B.5. HR-2021-144747 – 2406 Harris Blvd. – Discussion Jackson-Novy-Kelly-Hoey House Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] UH, B FIVE 24 OH SIX HARRIS BOULEVARD, SWIMMING POOL. UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION DENIED AT TO THE MARCH 22ND, 2021 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING. UH, HOWEVER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN REVISED AND THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE SWIMMING POOL WILL NO LONGER BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. UH, SO I'D LIKE TO RUN THROUGH SOME VISUALS AND SOME, SOME PRIOR EXAMPLE, UM, PROJECTS THAT MAY PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE FOR THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TONIGHT. UM, SO I WENT BY, UM, THIS HOUSE AND TOOK THIS PHOTO IN THE NEXT PHOTO. I'LL SHOW YOU FROM THE SIDEWALK ALONG HARRIS BOULEVARD. UH, THE SIDEWALK IS AROUND 12 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE STREET. AND EVEN FROM THE SIDEWALK, I'M, I'M FIVE FEET, SEVEN INCHES TALL. AND I THINK I'M A FAIRLY AVERAGE HEIGHT. UM, EVEN FROM THE SIDEWALK, YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEE THERE'S AN EXISTING STONE PATIO AND AREA ADJACENT TO THIS LANDSCAPING. AND, UH, YOU'RE ENABLED TO SEE THAT FROM THE SIDEWALK VANTAGE POINT. UH, SO THAT IS, THAT IS, UH, UM, AGAIN, THE LOCATION WHERE THE POOL WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND, UM, I'LL GET TO A RENDERING IN A MOMENT THAT FURTHER ILLUSTRATES. SO IT WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. SO YOU CAN SEE JUST A SLIGHT BIT OF THE CIRCULAR DRIVE THAT THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TO REMOVE. THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW FROM THE STREET. UM, THE LANDSCAPING THAT IS SHOWN HERE IS NOT GOING TO BE SHOWN IN THE RENDERING JUST FOR, FOR CLARITY TO, TO GIVE THE, UM, THE MOST REALISTIC SENSE OF THE LANDSCAPE OR TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. UM, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE POOL WOULD BE, UH, ABLE TO BE SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE POOL ITSELF IT'S FULLY RECESSED. UH, THE PREVIOUS DESIGN HAD A RAISED A SLIGHTLY RAISED LIP TO THE POOL EDGE, NOT A TERRACE. UM, THE PATIO WAS FLUSHED WITH GRADE, BUT THE POOL ITSELF HAD A SLIGHTLY RAISED LIP HERE, SO THAT IT WAS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THAT PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDED A FENCE THAT SURROUNDED ONLY THE PERIMETER OF THE POOL ITSELF. SO, UM, BOTH OF THOSE ASPECTS SERVED TO CALL SOME ATTENTION TO THE POOL AS A NEW ELEMENT. SO WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED TODAY IS, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF THE POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. THAT'S FULLY INTEGRATED AND TO THE SLOPE OF THE SITE WITHOUT THAT RAISED EDGE, UM, IT'S TO THE SOUTH END OF THE LOT, LARGELY OFFSET FROM, UH, THE MAIN FACADE OF THE HOUSE AND NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CENTRAL ACCESS FROM THESE HISTORIC STEPS TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE HOUSE. UH, THE OTHER PIECE OF THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A TRANSPARENT FENCE OF THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. SO I'LL, I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THAT MOMENTARILY. I WANT TO DEAL WITH THE POOL FIRST, UM, PART OF WHAT MAKES THIS, UM, THIS PROJECT AND THE SITE UNUSUAL IS [03:00:01] THE SHEER SIZE OF THIS FRONT YARD. THE YARD HAS A 90 FOOT, SIX FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CURB TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. UH, THE FRONT DOOR LEVEL IS ALSO 84 INCHES ABOUT THE STREET. SO BETWEEN THOSE TWO FACTORS, UM, THAT'S REALLY CONTRIBUTING BOTH TO NOT SEEING THIS RECESS POOL FROM THE STREET AND ALSO TO RETAINING, UH, A GOOD BIT OF, UM, GRASSY AREA OF THAT FRONT YARD, UH, THAT REALLY SETS THE, UM, THE TONE OF THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE SITE. UM, I'LL ADD THAT THERE'S NO SITE FEATURES, NO HISTORIC SITE FEATURES IN THE AREA WHERE THE POOL IS PROPOSED. UM, C STAFF REPORT IS NOT QUITE IN THE ORDER THAT I WANT TO GO ON. SO I'M GOING TO CIRCLE BACK TO MY NOTES THERE. THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME. THIS IS A VERY LONG REPORT BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE VERY THOROUGH IN THIS CASE. UM, SO WITH CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION, UM, THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS PROJECT PROJECT, TINA CONTRERAS HAD PUT TOGETHER SOME IMAGES OF OTHER PROPERTIES WITH POOLS AND JUST DUE TO TIME LIMITATIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T ABLE TO DO A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THOSE CASES. UM, BUT I HAVE DONE THAT TONIGHT. SO, UH, THE CASES THAT, UM, SHE HAD PUT TOGETHER INCLUDED THE ROBERTSON TRICE HOUSE, UH, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE IN THE UPPER IMAGE, THIS IS AN ITALIAN RENAISSANCE REVIVAL HOUSE, AND IT'S BELIEVED BY STAFF THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION TO THIS EFFECT THAT THIS REFLECTING POOL IS A HISTORIC SITE FEATURE AT THE DAVIS SIBLEY HOUSE. WE HAVE A FRONT YARD SWIMMING POOL THAT WAS BUILT IN 1963 TO A DESIGNED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SEE COATS WORTH PINK NAME. UH, THIS WAS REALLY TREATED IN THE LANDMARK NOMINATION AS A, UM, AS A HISTORY, A SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE SITE. UM, SO EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A 1932 HOUSE WITH THE 1963 POOL AT A MINIMUM, IT WAS SEEN AS A COMPATIBLE LATER ADDITION TO THAT SITE, ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WHICH THE COMMISSION FOCUSED ON, UM, WITH THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION WAS THE PRIUS STATE. AND THIS, UM, STAFF FEELS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PROJECT TO PULL IN AS A PRECEDENT FOR THIS FRONT YARD POOL. UM, THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION IS LESSER THAN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT FOR THE PERIO STATE. AND SO THE COMMISSION ONLY HAD ADVICE PURVIEW OVER THE POOL, AND THIS POOL IS, UM, YOU KNOW, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND CERTAINLY VISIBLE AS YOU ENTER THAT SITE. UM, THE NEXT EXAMPLE THAT THOSE FIRST TWO EXAMPLES ARE PROJECTS THAT, UM, IN A PROPERTIES THAT WERE LANDMARKED WITH A POOL AND EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF HIGHMARK DESIGNATION. SO, UM, WHILE THEY DO CERTAINLY MAKE A CASE THAT FRONT YARD POOLS ARE SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE OCCASIONALLY HAVE AS HISTORIC SITE TEACHERS AT LANDMARKS, UM, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION PREVIOUS OR STAFF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN A WAY THAT SIGNIFIES, UM, AT DETERMINATION THAT THOSE POOLS WOULD MEET THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. UM, SO REALLY THE FIRST PRECEDENT WITH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS THE BULL HOUSE. UM, THIS IS A POOL THAT, UM, FRANKLY I BELIEVE STAFF MADE A MISTAKE AND APPROVING THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY. I THINK THIS IS A PROJECT THAT SHOULD HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. UM, BUT I WILL NOTE THAT THE, UM, THE STEEL RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER NEW, UM, LIMESTONE FEATURES WERE NOT PART OF THE POOL PLAN THAT STAFF REVIEWED. WHAT STAFF SAW WAS THIS HISTORIC LIMESTONE WALL GOES ACROSS HERE, AND YOU CAN JUST BARELY SEE THE EDGE OF THE POOL OVER THAT WALL. UM, THIS IS, UH, ALSO DEBATABLY THE REAR OF THE, UM, THE HOUSE THOUGH. IT'S THE ARGUABLY THE MORE ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. IT IS A THROUGH LOT. AND, UM, SO THIS IS THE SIDE THAT FACES PEACE PARK. UH, SO AGAIN, THE POOL IS JUST PEAKING UP HERE ABOVE THIS, THIS, UM, HISTORIC LIMESTONE SIDEWALL. UH, THE FINAL EXAMPLE THAT I THINK REALLY PROVIDES THE CLEAREST PRECEDENT FOR, UH, APPROVAL IN THIS CASE IS, UH, NOT ONE THAT MS. CONTRERAS HAD IDENTIFIED. UM, THIS IS THE HERNANDEZ JOHNSON HOUSE. AND, UM, SO WE HAVE THE LANDMARK HOUSE HERE ON THE LEFT ON THE RIGHT IS A GUEST HOUSE THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVED IN 2004. UH, [03:05:01] IT LOOKS LIKE STAFF THEN, UM, I WAS NOT ABLE TO, THIS IS BEFORE A SCAN FILES, AND THIS WAS NOT ONE THAT I WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY PUT MY FINGERTIPS ON. SO WHAT I CAN TELL FROM OUR PERMIT DATABASE AS IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS AND THE FRONT YARD POOL. SO THE POOL IS IN FRONT OF THE GUEST HOUSE RATHER THAN IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE. AND REALLY WHAT IS, UM, MOST CLEARLY COMPARABLE TO THE CASE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY IS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE. AND THE FACT THAT THE POOL IS NOT EVEN REGARDLESS OF THIS LANDSCAPE, WELL HERE, THE POOL WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY . UH, THE OTHER, UH, PIECE OF THE PROJECT IS TO PROPOSE A PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE SITE. AND, UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT PUT FORWARD MANY EXAMPLES OF LANDMARK PROPERTIES WHERE FENCES WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF DESIGNATION. AGAIN, THE ONES I THINK ARE MORE HELPFUL FOR US TO CONSIDER TONIGHT ARE THOSE WHERE, UM, THE COMMISSION APPROVED A FENCE PREVIOUSLY, OR STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED DEFENSE. UH, SO THIS IS THE FRED AND MARGARET SHARP HOUSE, UH, WHICH HAD A, AS YOU CAN SEE AN OPEN GRASSY LAWN AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS DESIGNATED AND THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE PERIMETER LIMESTONE WALL WITH THE CENTRAL SECTION WHERE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. AND SO THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT IS INTERESTED IN AS, UM, HAVE A POTENTIAL, UM, INSPIRATION FOR THE DESIGN OF THEIR PERIMETER FENCE, THOUGH, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING LOWER, UM, BUT A, A, UM, METAL FENCE, A DECKER, THE METAL FENCE WITH MASONRY PIERS. UM, THE OTHER EXAMPLE THAT I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND STOP SHARING AT THIS POINT. UM, THE OTHER EXAMPLE THAT RECENTLY CAME UP IN TERMS OF PERIMETER FENCING WAS, UH, THE STACK HOUSE ON EAST 34TH STREET. SO IT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IN, UH, NOT, NOT DIRECTLY A PRECEDENT AND IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WITHIN THE SAME CONTEXT, BUT A CASE THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DISCUSSED AND, UH, GENERALLY AGREED THAT OPEN METAL FENCING WOULD NOT, UH, REALLY INTERFERE WITH THE VIEW OF PROPERTY FROM THE STREET AND THAT THOSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVING THE DESIGN COMMISSIONER. SO I TOO VISITED THE PROPERTY TO GET A SENSE OF THE STREET VIEW. AND, AND THEN WHEN I VISITED THE PROPERTY, UH, I BROUGHT THE INFORMATION WITH ME AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO PUT FORTH OPINION ON THIS MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND I JUST WISH THAT WE HAD A MORE CLEAR, MORE REFINED AND DEVELOPED DESIGN THAT INCLUDED DEFENSING AND HOW THAT INTEGRATES WITH THE LANDSCAPE OF THE HOME AND, AND THE FACADE. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, HAS THIS ALREADY GONE PAST THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ONCE THIS HAS BEEN TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TWICE, AND IT'S BEEN TO THE FULL COMMISSION WHERE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED, UH, THE BASIS OF THE DENIAL WAS FOCUSED ON THE POOL ITSELF. AND SO AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO HAS BEEN WORKING IN GOOD FAITH TO TRY TO ARRIVE AT A DESIGN THAT THE COMMISSION WILL APPROVE. AND SO I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO MEET THEM HALFWAY IN TERMS OF THE FENCE. UM, AND I AGREE IT WOULD BE IDEAL TO HAVE MORE OF A DESIGNED TO RESPOND TO, BUT, UM, I ALSO THINK IN GENERAL, THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OBJECTIONABLE. UH, WE HAVE A LANDMARK IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY THAT HAS A VERY TALL, SOLID MASONRY WALL WHERE YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE LANDMARK HOUSE THROUGH THE GATE. SO A RELATIVELY OPEN FENCE OF A REASONABLE HEIGHT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD OBJECT TO. UM, I THINK WE COULD EITHER MOVE FORWARD. UM, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS TO APPROVE THE POOL AND I'LL, I'LL GET MORE INTO THE RATIONALE FOR THAT MOMENTARILY. UH, BUT IN TERMS OF THE FENCE, UH, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS TO, UM, EITHER PROVIDE SOME SPECIFIC DESIGN FEEDBACK ON WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO SEE AND WE CONSIDER APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE, OR SIMPLY TO, UH, DELEGATE, UH, TO STAFF THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS ON A DESIGN COMMISSIONER, BELEN SUELA [03:10:01] YOU'RE MUTED, BETH. ME. OKAY, GO AHEAD. CAN YOU HEAR ME BARELY? YEAH, GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO ECHO COMMISSIONER LAROSA'S COMMENTS, I THINK, WITHOUT A DESIGN FOR THE FENCE, UM, KNOWING HOW IT'S GOING TO INTERACT WITH THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND THE THIRD STEPS, UH, ABOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HEIGHTS IS OF THE FENCE. I JUST REALLY THINK EVEN IN CONCEPT, IT'S HARD FOR US TO, UM, ACCEPT, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A FENCE DESIGN. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOT MORE DETAILS. UM, AND WITH THE POOL, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE EXAMPLES GIVEN, UM, SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF, OF A BOWL IN THE FRONT YARD. SO I'D LIKE TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE POOL AND, UM, JUST, JUST CIRCLE BACK TO THE, UM, TO THE LEGAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION. UM, SO ONE THING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS POINTED OUT TO US IS THAT A POOL CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVE LI APPROVED PER SECTION 25, 11 TO 12, IF IT DOES NOT VISUALLY AFFECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURE FROM AN ADJACENT PUBLIC STREET, UH, THAT DECISION IS ULTIMATELY LEFT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, WHETHER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE OR TO TAKE SUCH A POOL TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. UM, BUT GIVEN THAT THIS POOL IS NO LONGER VISIBLE FROM THE STREET IT'S WITHIN THE REALM OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, UM, GIVEN THAT THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED, WE DID NOT FEEL THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DO IN THIS CASE. AND SO IT'S BEFORE YOU AGAIN, TONIGHT. AND SO THE SECTION THAT WE NEED TO REFERENCE, UM, AN ADDITION IS 25 11 TWO 43 ACTION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, THAT BOTH ESTABLISHES THAT THE COMMISSION WILL USE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND DECISION-MAKING, AND ALSO INDICATES THAT THE COMMISSION MUST MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED WORK WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT OR DESTROY A SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORICAL FEATURE OF THE DESIGNATED LANDMARK TO MERIT DENIAL. SO, UM, THAT IS, THAT IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING LOOKING FOR FROM YOU TONIGHT IS, UM, EITHER IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, I THINK WE COULD HAVE, UM, BRIEFER DISCUSSION, BUT THERE, IF THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF DENYING THIS AGAIN, UM, JUST TO BE FRANK, THIS, THIS WILL BE, UH, GOING ON APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IF YOU, AS COMMISSIONERS CAN GIVE ME AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO SUPPORT AT DENIAL AND HOW, UM, HOW A POOL THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OR DESTROY A SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THE SITE. UM, THAT WOULD BE IMMENSELY HELPFUL. UM, I'D LIKE TO RUN THROUGH BEFORE I TURN IT OVER FOR, FOR DELIBERATION. I THOUGHT TO MENTION THAT I WANT TO BE VERY THOROUGH ON THIS AGAIN, BECAUSE I, I, IT WILL BE GOING FOR APPEAL IF IT'S NOT APPROVED TONIGHT. WELL, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A PARTICULAR MOTION, BUT IF YOU INSIST, IF I CAN MAKE A FEW MORE, MORE POINTS, UM, I THINK WE CAN MAKE A, THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE A LIMITED APPROVAL THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY AND NOT SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER FRONT YARD POOLS. UM, SO I, I, AS A GENERAL ROLE, I STAFF AGREES THAT IT'S PREFERABLE TO LOCATE POOLS WITHIN BACKYARDS, UM, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. UH, THE SUBSTANTIAL FRONT YARD ALSO ALLOWS THE POOL TO BE CITED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT CHARACTERIZE THIS PROPERTY. IT'S AT THE FAR SOUTH END OF THE LOT, AND DOES NOT INTERRUPT THE ACCESS BETWEEN THE CENTRAL STEPS AT THE SIDEWALK TO THE FRONT DOOR. UH, THERE'S ALSO MORE THAN 70 FEET FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE POOL TO THE STREET. SO THERE'S A LARGE AREA OF LAWN RETAINED. UM, THE FACT THAT THE POOL WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, I THINK IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN, UH, CONCERNING APPROVAL OF THIS PROPERTY AT THIS PROJECT. AND, UM, IT'S NOT JUST THAT THE POOL ITSELF IS FULLY RECESSED. THE DESIGN ELIMINATES OTHER VISUAL CUES OF THE POOL'S PRESENCE, UM, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS RECESSED AT THE SIDE OF THE SITES AND WILL NOT HAVE A, REALLY ANY VISIBILITY FROM THE STREETS. AND THAT THE FENCE NOW TAKES THE FORM OF A PERIMETER FENCE. THAT'S COMMON IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN SIMPLY A POOL ENCLOSURE. AND THEN FINALLY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO HISTORIC SITE FEATURES THAT WOULD BE MODIFIED OR REMOVED FOR THE POST CONSTRUCTION, UH, BETWEEN EACH OF THESE FACTORS, STAFF BELIEVES THAT, UH, APPROVAL IS THE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO, [03:15:01] WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? YES, I WOULD. AND I'M CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE POOL AND REFER THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE TO THE, UH, ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, UH, COMMITTEE, YOUR COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN. OKAY. I GUESS WE NEED TO ASK A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MCWHORTER. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT. YEAH. AND LET ME JUST EXPLAIN, UM, I WAS THE VOTE, I THINK I WAS THE ONLY VOTE AND IT WAS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS LAST TIME. AND I HAVING A CONVERSATION RATHER EXTENSIVE ONE WITH THIS OWNER AND WHAT THIS MEANS TO HIM. UH, THIS IS A COUPLE THAT HAS WORKED WITHIN, UM, EVERYTHING ELSE WE WOULD HAVE WANTED FOR THE HOUSE AND MAINTAINING THAT HOUSE AND ARE FULLY VESTED IN, UM, THE GOALS OF THE PRESERVATION PROGRAM. UM, BUT HAVING A HARDSHIP THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT THAT THEY WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEY CAN'T PUT ANYWHERE, BUT IN THE FRONT. UM, I, I THINK THAT THEY'VE MADE SOME MAJOR ADJUSTMENTS, UH, HAVING VISITED WITH THIS, UH, OWNER, UM, YOU KNOW, I REALLY ENCOURAGED HIM TO WORK WITHIN THE PROGRAM AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND RESOLUTION AND NOT JUST SIMPLY RUN OFF AND LOOK FOR AN APPEAL AND TRY TO BUST THROUGH AND JUST DO IT, UH, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO DO IT. UH, I THINK HE WANTED TO DO IT RIGHT. AND I'M VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE THOROUGHNESS, WITH THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND WITH THE CARE THAT'S GONE INTO, UH, WHAT ON THE FACE OF IT? YES, I CAN SEE SEEMS LIKE A VERY ODD SITUATION, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE. AND THAT'S WHERE I ALSO DON'T FEEL THAT WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS AS A PRECEDENT. IT'S VERY SOUFFLES THAT, THAT WERE SHOWN TO US. EVERY ONE OF THEM HAVE VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT, WHETHER THOSE WERE GOOD IDEAS OR NOT IN WHY THEY WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. UM, I THINK IN THIS CASE, THE ONE, IF WE'RE STARTING A PRECEDENT AT ALL, IS IF, IF THERE EVER IS A FUTURE TIME WHERE A POOL MIGHT SHOW UP AS A PROPOSAL IN A FRONT YARD, WE CAN NOW DEFINITIVELY SAY, IF YOU CAN SEE IT, WE PROBABLY WANT TO PROVE IT. UM, I DON'T THINK WE REALLY ARE, ARE, ARE LOSING GROUND BY APPROVING THIS. AND I DO THINK THAT WE ARE DOING A VERY GOOD THING TO TAKE PLACE FOR AN OWNER, UH, WHO I THINK HAS MADE A GOOD CASE FOR WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THEM AND HOW IT COULD WORK. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I VOTE. THAT'S WHY I'VE COOKED THIS MOTION IN FRONT OF US. WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE SECOND OR TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU RESPOND BEFORE WE GET ANY OTHER RESPONSES. WELL, YES, NO, I DON'T THINK I CAN ADD ANYTHING FROM WHAT COMMISSIONER SAID, BUT I HAVE ALSO VISITED THE SITE AND HAVE EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HOMEOWNER. AND, UH, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS DECISION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS PART OF THE MOTION OR A REFERENCE TO THE CRITERIA THAT THE RATIONALE THAT STAFF HAS PUT BEFORE US, THAT IT IS FULLY INTEGRATED INTO THE SITE, NOT VISIBLE FROM, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT IT DOESN'T INTERRUPT SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS OR THE ENTRANCE TO THE AREA. I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE WILL SEE ANOTHER, IF THIS GOES THROUGH, WE WILL SEE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR A FRONT YARD. COOL. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE WANT TO BE SEEN AND THEIR BATHING SUITS IN THE FRONT YARD, BUT WE WILL SEE ONE. AND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, I DON'T, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE A MOTION GO THROUGH JUST TO APPROVE THE POOL WITHOUT CONTEXT. I WILL ACCEPT THE ADDITIONS TO MY MOTION. I AGREE. THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND A REFERENCE TO THOSE, UH, CRITERIA BY STAFF. UH, PLEASE ADD THOSE TO MY MOTION. WELL, THE SECONDER AGREE COMMISSIONER. YES, I WILL. UM, I'LL MAKE I'LL. I MAY JUST SEND COMMENTS TO THE, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, YOU KNOW, MY EXPERIENCE IN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. UH, I THINK THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING HOMEOWNERS ARE, LOOK, THERE'S A GENERAL EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHEN IT COMES TO A POOL. AND SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO PUT A POOL IN THEIR FRONT YARD, UNLESS THAT IS THE ONLY CHOICE THAT THEY HAVE. SO I, I DON'T EXPECT, UH, A, UH, A WRAP [03:20:01] FOR THIS, FOR PEOPLE THAT JUST WANT TO PUT THEIR POOL IN THEIR, IN THEIR FRONT YARD. I THINK THE RISK THAT IS REALLY LOW. WELL, I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER AND I WILL GET TO YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER LITTLE AIRED, BUT I AGREE, I AGREE THAT THIS HAS CHANGED THE PULL THAT CAME BEFORE AS WHEN IT FIRST CAME BEFORE US. AND WHEN IT WENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS NOT, THE POOL IS NOT THE SAME POOL THAT WE SEE TONIGHT. AND I, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAD A TERRORIST THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, KIND OF HISTORIC, UH, TERRORISTS ON HERE. AND THAT'S ALL CHANGED. COMMISSIONER, LITTLE TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY NOW. UM, I APPRECIATE ALL THE DISCUSSION ON THIS. I THINK I WILL VOTE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I DID WANT TO CITE THE FACT THAT IN OUR CITY'S HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES, OUR CITY-WIDE STANDARDS FOR VEGETATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDSCAPING, THE ADDITIONAL STANDARD FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS FOR SITES. AND STREETSCAPES SAYS THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD A GRASSY OPEN FRONT LAWN, WHEN CONSTRUCTED MAINTAIN THAT CONTEXT AND DON'T REPLACE THE LAWN WITH PAVING OR GRAVEL, AND I ASSUME A POOL WOULD PROBABLY BE EQUALLY QUESTIONABLE IN THE FRONT YARD. BUT I DO THINK IN THIS CASE, I APPRECIATE MS. DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHER BAR THAT WE HAVE TO MEET IN TERMS OF CITY CODE. AND I DO THINK IN THIS CASE, THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE POOL IN THE FRONT YARD OF THIS HOUSE, WHERE IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY HISTORIC FEATURES, ANY HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPING OR THE YARD OR THE HOUSE, AND WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. I, I THINK THAT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HAVING AN EFFECT ON HISTORIC PROPERTY. IT'S ALSO COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE. SO I WOULD SUPPORT IT IN THIS CASE. COMMISSIONER, LOOK, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE IN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. MY ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CONTEXT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO UNDERSTAND THIS POOL. THERE'S, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO DOCUMENT PUT FORTH THAT SHOWS THE BULL, THE GEOMETRY, THE CONFIGURATION, IS THERE A DIVING BOARD IS THE NOT, WHAT DOES THE FENCE LOOK LIKE? WHERE DOES IT SIT? ALL THOSE BOOKINGS, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. UM, I THINK THAT STAFF SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT'S IN THE SITE PLAN, RIGHT? WE HAD AT, SO THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE A NEW SITE PLAN OR NEW, UM, NEW DESIGN DRAWINGS PREPARED. THEY HAD NEW RENDERINGS PREPARED BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT WOULD BETTER MAKE THE CASE. UM, SO LET ME PULL UP THEIR PRESENTATION. UM, THAT INCLUDES THE PRIOR SITE PLAN. I DIDN'T WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF NOT, UM, CONFUSING MATTERS. UM, BUT I, I DO SEE THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT SATISFYING TO NOT HAVE THOSE DETAILS. SO, UM, THIS IS, THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF THE STONE PATIO TO SURROUND THE POOL. UH, THE PIECE THAT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AS THIS RAISED EDGE TO THE POOL, THE POOL WILL BE FLUSH WITH THE PATIO AND THE EQUIPMENT PAD IS RECESSED ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE. OKAY. GOING BACK, GOING BACK TO THE MOTION, DID YOU, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ABOUT THE FENCE AND THE MOTION FENCE HAS TO BE REFERRED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL? I THINK WE NEED MORE DETAILS ON THE FENCE. UM, OKAY. UH, START THERE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER VALANCE. I'M SORRY. I MEANT TO COME BACK TO ALL, I, I, UH, I JUST WANTED TO, TO CONTINUE WITH MY THOUGHT ON WHY I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE, UM, EXAMPLES THAT WERE GIVEN. I JUST, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION KNOWS THAT WE ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT WITH THIS DECISION. THE, THE, UM, EXAMPLES THAT WERE GIVEN WERE EITHER CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES TO THE LANDMARK APPLICATION, UM, OR THEY WERE ALREADY THERE AT THE TIME, THE LANDMARK, UM, THE, UH, APPLICATION WENT IN, UH, WE ALL REMEMBER THE PERRY OF STATE. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE PASSED, UM, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IF THAT WAS REQUIRED. UM, THE OTHER TWO EXAMPLES THAT WERE GIVEN WERE STAFF APPROVED. UM, SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WILL APPROVE A POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. UM, AND I, I AM CONCERNED, UM, AT THE AMOUNT OF GREENSCAPE THAT WILL BE LOST IN THIS DESIGN. THERE IS A LOT OF HARDSCAPE, UM, THAT IS, IS GOING IN AND REPLACING, UM, EXISTING GREENSCAPE. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. RIGHT? [03:25:03] NOT SPOKEN YET. THAT WOULD BE RIGHT. TELL IT, I, YOU KNOW, I I'M, I'M VERY TORN ON THIS. I THINK IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT THE POOL IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, SHOULDN'T, SHOULDN'T THAT BE OKAY? YOU CANNOT HAVE THE POOL WITHOUT THE FENCE, AS A SAFETY MEASURE, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. AND SO IT'S HARD TO REALLY, UM, TO REALLY SAY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE POOL REQUIRES THE FENCE, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEPARATE THE TWO. SO I DO AGREE THAT AT A MINIMUM THAT HAS TO GO TO, UM, THE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND, AND THEN, BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S STILL MAY BE A CONCERN. YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT POOL FENCE REQUIREMENTS ARE. CAN THEY HAVE A FENCE THAT'S AS OPEN AS THEY'RE SAYING, THEY WOULD LIKE TO, WILL IT NEED TO BE EXTRA TALL BECAUSE IT SURROUNDS A POOL? YOU KNOW, I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT, UM, COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CERTAIN PEOPLE'S DECISIONS. AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER VALANZUELA, BUT IT'S A LOT OF HARDSCAPING AND MAYBE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT EXTENT OF HARDSCAPING IS NOT NECESSARY. UH, I WILL, I WILL. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. UM, I ACTUALLY HAVE A, I HAVE A LIVE IN HISTORIC HOUSE HAVE POOLED BACKYARD AND WE'VE GOT THE PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY. SO THAT RATHER THAN A FENCE AROUND THE POOL ITSELF, UH, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT A, WHAT WE HAVE ON TWO THIRDS OF THE PROPERTY IS A IRON PICKET FENCE. AND YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT LIKE A FOUR INCH GAP. I THINK IT'S THE MINIMUM OR THE MAXIMUM GAP YOU CAN HAVE BETWEEN YOUR POLES. WE HAVE THEM AT FOUR FEET AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER COUPLE OF FEET ON TOP OF THAT. UM, YEAH, THIS, THIS FENCE IS NOT GOING AROUND THE POOL, WHICH I THINK JUST ATTENTION, MORE ATTENTION TO IT. IT'S THAT GOING AROUND THE PROPERTY? SO IT'S A PERIMETER. IT'S NOT JUST AROUND THE POOL OR COMMISSIONER. RIGHT. BUT I THINK, I THINK THE CONCERN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE FENCE WILL BE SIX FOOT FROM GRADE, BUT IS THAT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL AND THE GRADE THERE? SO THEN WE'LL HAVE THE RETAINING WALL AND THEN ANOTHER 60 DEFENSE. OH, WAIT, WE DON'T HAVE DETAILS ON THE FENCE. THERE'S ONE OF, ONE OF THEIR SLIDES SAYS HEIGHT, NOT TO EXCEED SIX FOOT FROM GRADE, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT GRADE IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, I ASSUME IT WOULD BE FROM THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL. SO THAT'S A PRETTY TALL FENCE FOR A RETAINING WALL FENCE ON THE FENCES THAT THEY, THAT THEY PROVIDED THE, THAT HAS THE KIND OF, IT LOOKS KIND OF LIKE A, A CHAIN LINK FENCE. UM, I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE TOO FRILLY AND NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING SIMPLE. AND, UM, WHAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED HERE IS A SIMPLE FENCE, LIKE THE ONE AT THE STEAKHOUSE WHERE WE HAVE ROD IRON, YOU KNOW, VERY PLAIN WITH, UM, WITH SOME BRICK, UM, PEERS, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR, THE MOTION IS TO REFER THAT TO THE, TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. SO WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE DECIDING RIGHT NOW IS THE POOL WITH THE, UM, WITH STAFF COMMENTS. AND I THINK, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT IN THE PART OF THE MOTION, I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, UM, THE EXAMPLES GIVEN, UM, OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THESE POOLS IS NOT WELL-RECEIVED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE POOLS BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION AND JUDGED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, JUST FYI. UM, MADAM CHAIR, COULD I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING THE MOTION, UH, WITH THE REFERRAL TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE? WOULD THAT BE, UM, IF THE COMMITTEE IS IN AGREEMENT THAT STAFF COULD THEN ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE OR WOULD IT NEED TO COME BACK TO THE FULL COMMITTEE AS THE MAKER AND THE SECONDARY? I FEEL THAT THE REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD BE EMPOWERED TO DECIDE IF THEY CHOOSE TO REFER IT BACK TO US, THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE. BUT IF THEY FIND A RESOLUTION, UH, THAT IS APPROPRIATE, UH, I THINK WE CAN DEFER TO THEIR JUDGMENT ON THAT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. AND I WOULD JUST ALSO COMMENT THAT AS WE HAVE GONE AROUND EVERYBODY, UH, IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE FAIRLY SPLIT ON THIS ISSUE. SO, UM, SALLY, CALL A QUESTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OPPOSED. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX IN FAVOR THREE. OPPOSED, IS THAT CORRECT? [03:30:03] WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS VALANZUELA, LAROCHE AND RIGHT. OPPOSED. I THINK THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. IF WE CAN REMEMBER. OKAY, THIS IS THE SIX [3.B.6. HR-2021-067051 – 1805 E. 3rd St. – Discussion Herrera House Council District 3 (Part 2 of 2)] 1805 EAST THIRD STREET, THE HERRERA HOUSE COMMISSIONERS CARE PER TON. HOUSING PLANNING IT'S PROPOSAL HERE IS TO MAKE A FEW CHANGES TO A HISTORIC, UH, TO REPLACE THE FRONT DOORS AND PAINT THE HISTORIC HOUSE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OF YOUR ADDITION. THE PROJECT INVOLVES SIX PARTS. AS I MENTIONED TO REPLACE THE NON HISTORIC FRONT DOORS WITH TWO OVER TWO GLAZED DOORS TO REPLACE THE METAL ROOF WITH COMPOSITION SHINGLES, WITH A WOOD SHAKE PROFILE, TO PAINT THE HOUSE, TO MATCH THE HISTORIC COLOR OF CANARY YELLOW, TO RECONSTRUCT THE REAR SOUTH WALL, UM, WITH A THREE PANEL GLAZED SLIDING DOOR AND A WINDOW OPENING THE TWO OVER TWO WINDOW TO CONSTRUCT A SHALLOW CONCRETE PATIO BEHIND THAT REAR WALL. AND TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY REAR ADDITION. THE ADDITION IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET FROM THE FRONT WALL, AND AS A FOOTPRINT OF 265 SQUARE FEET, IT IS CLAD IN HORIZONTAL HARDIEPLANK SIDING AND CAPPED BY A FRONT GABLED ROOF WITH A SLOPE AND EVE DEPTH THAT MATCHED THOSE WITH THE HISTORIC HOUSE. WINDOWS ARE SLIDING AND FIXED VINYL SASH. THERE'S A GARAGE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. MANY PARTS OF THE PROJECT MEETS THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS, REPAINTING THE HOUSE. IT'S HIS DIRECT COLOR REPAIRING AND RETAINING, SORRY, UH, REPAIR. THAT WAS MY, MY DOG. IF YOU COULD HEAR THAT JIGGLING IN THE BACKGROUND, REPAIRING AND RETAINING HISTORIC MATERIALS, REPLACING THE ROOF WITH DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES AND RECONSTRUCTING PORCH POSTS WITH THE HISTORIC PROFILE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS LOCATED AT THE REAR AND CONNECTED WITH A HYPHEN AND IT ECHOES THE HISTORIC ROOF FORM AND SLOPE IT'S WINDOW TO WALL RATIO AND WINDOW PATTERNS ARE COMPATIBLE. OTHER PARTS OF THE PROJECT DO NOT MEET THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS TO PROPOSE FRONT DOORS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE. THE REAL WALL OF THE HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF APPROVAL AND HISTORIC DOORS AND WINDOWS. AND A WINDOW WERE DISCARDED. THE PROPOSED DESIGN DOES NOT RECONSTRUCT THE HISTORIC OPENINGS OR REPLICATE HISTORIC ELEMENTS. THE ADDITION FINAL SASH WINDOWS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF MATERIAL. AND PERHAPS THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE IS THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS SCALE AND MASSING ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE ONE STORY HISTORIC LANDMARK. THE TWO STORIES CONDITION IS SET BACK 24 FEET FROM THE FRONT MOST WALL THAT FRONT GABLED PORTION, BUT IT'S ONLY SET BACK 12 FEET FROM THE SIDE GABLED WING. AND IT WILL BE VERY PROMINENT ON SUCH A SMALL HOUSE IT'S ORIGINALLY IN IS EIGHT FEET HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE. THE PROJECT WENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS MONTH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS RECOMMENDED DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES, WHICH ARE NOW PROPOSED AND WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE ADDITIONS REFORM IN PITCH. THEY DID REQUEST PERSPECTIVE USE, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED YET. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO JUNE 28TH AND TO REFER IT BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANS BE REVISED TO INCLUDE PERIOD APPROPRIATE FRONT DOORS REDESIGN OF THE SOUTH WALL TO REPLICATE HISTORIC OPENINGS AND ELEMENTS, AND ONE STORY DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE EDITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A MOTION COMMISSIONER VALANZUELA? I MOVE, WE FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND POSTPONE THIS TO THE JUNE 28TH MEETING WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO ATTEND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. DO I HEAR A SECOND SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAIM, SETH? UM, ANY DISCUSSION I WILL SUPPORT THE, I WILL SUPPORT THE, UH, THE MOTION. UM, THERE TOO MANY CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED ON THIS WITHOUT, UH, UM, APPROVAL. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO, UH, BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND ANY OPPOSED. OKAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4,006 [3.B.7. PR-2021-058680 – 4006 ½ Avenue B. – Discussion Hyde Park Historic District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] AND A HALF AVE BEING THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I DIDN'T BE SEVEN FOUR, 4,006 AND A HALF AVENUE. B IS A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY REAR ADDITION TO ONE [03:35:01] STORY CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THE HYDE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, AS WELL AS TO REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS, UH, THE PROJECT SPECIFIES THAT IT WILL PAR PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED, UH, THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL HAVE A COMPOUND GABLED ROOF WITH SHED DORMER THAT AT SECONDARY ELEVATIONS IT'S CLOUD AND HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING AND A SINGLE UNPAIRED ONE OVER ONE WOOD WINDOWS, A REGULARLY SPACED THROUGHOUT THE ADDITIONS EVE FEATURE EAVES FEATURE EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS, AND BRACKETS TO MIMIC THE EXISTING, UM, ON THE ORIGINAL BUILDING. UM, THE PROJECT ALSO SPECIFIES THAT IT WILL REPLACE WINDOWS WITH, UH, ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS. THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING HOUSE IS THE ONE STORY CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW WITH HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING OR OVER SIX PARENTS, SINGLE WINDOWS, A PARTIAL WOOD PORCH SUPPORTED BY A TABLE, TAPERED COLUMNS AND A GABLED ROOF WITH EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AND TRIANGULAR KNEE BRACES AT THE EVE. THE PROJECT MEETS SOME OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS, BUT NOT ALL. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO CONSIDER REFERRAL TO THE JUNE MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. CAROLYN, COULD YOU REMIND US OF THE, UM, THE STANDARDS THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOES? SO, UM, IF YOU LOOK ON OUR, UM, HIGH PARK DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, UM, WE CAN SEE THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION RETAINED SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING DISTRICT STYLE, BUT IT DOES CHANGE THE SCALE AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. UM, SO IT'S DIFFERENTIATED IN ITS PLACEMENT. UM, BUT IN ADDITION TO, UM, THE KIND OF LARGER SCALE, YOU SEE AN ELEVATION, UM, THE, UH, THE TRIANGULAR KNEE BRACES AND EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS ARE DETAILS THAT MAY APPEAR TO CLOSE, UM, TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, UM, TO BE PROPERLY DIFFERENTIATED. AND, UH, AND FURTHERMORE, THE, UH, THE COMPOUND ROOFLINE PARTICULARLY THE SIDE DORMERS, UM, MAY CAUSE THIS ADDITION TO A PEER TOP-HEAVY, UM, WE DID RECEIVE SOME RENDERINGS FROM THE APPLICANT THAT SHOW A LITTLE BIT BETTER, UH, HOW THE, UH, THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION RELATES, UH, THE ELEVATIONS TEND TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT FLAT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO THIS TYPE OF ADDITION. SO, UM, IF WE COULD SHOW THAT RENDERING, UH, THAT MAY BE HELPFUL TELLING WHERE WOULD I FIND THAT RENDERING, WHICH ATTACHMENT, UM, IT SHOULD BE IN SOME OF THE LATE BACKUP, SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS, I THINK. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE THE RENDERING ON THE SCREEN. UM, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REFER THIS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT SUMMIT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LITTLE, I THINK, UM, I THINK THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THIS HOUSE. UH, I THINK THE ADDITION IS, UM, IS OF SUCH A SCALE AND COMPLEXITY THAT IT OVERWHELMS THE, THE HISTORIC BUNGALOW, UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS FURTHER. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REFERRING IT, RAISE YOUR HAND ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES CLARIFY THAT THAT IS TO REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ALSO POSTPONE TO THE JUNE HISTORICAL. YEAH. THANK YOU. SORRY. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE IS 18, A FIVE WATERSTON. IS THAT CORRECT ITEMS? C3. WE HAVE ITEM B 11. OH, I'M SORRY. I KEEP FORGETTING TO ITEM [3.B.11. C14H-1993-0024, C14H-2000-0012 – 1809 and 1811 Newton – Discussion Stanley Homestead and Outbuilding Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] 11. OKAY. THE STANLEY HOMESTEAD STAFF. GO AHEAD. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT CAME BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND 2017 TO RELOCATE THE, UH, OUTBUILDING OF A HISTORIC BLACKSMITH SHOP THAT IS, UH, SUBJECT TO LANDMARK DESIGNATION AT THE STANLEY HOMESTEAD TO A NEW LOCATION THAT ALLOWED THE REAR OF THE SITE TO BE SUBDIVIDED [03:40:01] AND, UH, THROUGH A CONDO SCHEME, UH, FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING TO BE BUILT. AND, UH, BOTH ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT RECEIVED HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVAL. UH, WHAT IS CONCERNING IS, UM, WHETHER, WHETHER THE PROJECT PROCEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS THAT THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTOOD TO BE APPROVED. SO, UH, THE IMAGE THAT I'M SHOWING CURRENTLY IS A, UM, A DRAWING INDICATING THAT EACH OF THE STONES WOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY NUMBERED, UH, MOVED TO THE NEW LOCATION AND RE-ERECTED ACCURATELY, UH, LET ME SWITCH WHAT I'M SHARING MOMENTARILY. UH, YOU'LL SEE, ON THE LEFT, THIS IS THE PHOTO FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE RELOCATION THAT SHOWS THE, UM, THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF THIS BLACKSMITH SHOP. UH, THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS ONE THAT, UM, THE NOW FORMER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, SHARED VIA LINKEDIN. AND, UM, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE SOME DESIGN DIFFERENCES, PARTICULARLY IN THE GABLE. UM, WHAT IS MOST CONCERNING WAS THE OTHER PIECE OF THE LINKEDIN POST, WHICH WAS A VIDEO THAT'S BEEN ON YOUTUBE SINCE 2017? UH, LET ME SWITCH TO THAT. UH, BUT AGAIN, STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS WERE NOT, UM, WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS, UM, OF THIS VIDEO UNTIL, UM, UNTIL THAT VERY RECENT, UH, SOCIAL MEDIA POST. UM, SO YOU'LL SEE THAT THE, UM, THE VIDEOS FROM 2017, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SEE IF I CAN MAKE THAT WHOLE SCREEN AND PLAY IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE AUDIO WILL TRANSLATE, UH, BUT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE, UM, WHAT YOU NEED TO SEE HERE. WOULD YOU SHARE THE TITLE OF THIS VIDEO WITH THE COMMISSION OR THE CAPTION, THE CAPTION AS WE DO MASONRY THE OLD WAY WITH BALLS AND COMMISSIONERS OF STEVE? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO INTERJECT AT ANY POINT. UM, STEVE SEDOWSKY SENT IN AN EMAIL TO THIS FORMER OWNER, UM, ASKING HIM FOR SOME BACKGROUND AND PROVIDING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR TONIGHT. AND HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT THE, UM, THIS, THIS WAS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL MASONRY CONSTRUCTION THAT THE, UH, FACING STONES WERE NUMBERED AND RELOCATED, AND THAT THIS WAS THE INTERIOR REBEL WALL, UH, THAT WAS DEMOLISHED IN THIS MANNER. UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, PROVIDE THAT APPLICANT WITH SOME TIME TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION, UH, GIVING US MORE EVIDENCE THAT, UM, HE DID IN FACT, RELOCATE TO THOSE EXTERIOR FACING STONES. UM, IF THERE'S ANY PROGRESS PHOTOS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, UM, IF, IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO PURSUE, UM, ANY TYPE OF LEGAL REMEDY, UM, I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE THE MOTION TONIGHT SIMPLY TO, UH, REQUEST STAFF, UH, BRING FORWARD AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, UM, WHAT THE OPTIONS WOULD BE. UH, STEVE AND I HAD A PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT THIS AFTERNOON, UM, BUT NOT, UH, THEY HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS AND THE DEPTH THEY WOULD NEED TO, TO LET YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE. IF IN FACT, THIS IS, UM, A VIOLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER THAT SHE JUST PRESENTED TO PURSUE THIS IN A MORE OF A ONE-ON-ONE LEGAL RECOURSE OPTIONS ARE I THINK HER, WHAT SHE INITIALLY SAID WAS TO GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER A CHANCE TO CLARIFY, BUT ALSO PURSUED THE LEGAL OPTIONS. IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONER? I WANT TO CIRCUIT THIRD MOTION. AND BECAUSE I WAS SITTING ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, IF, IF THERE'S NOT A GOOD EXPLANATION, THEN THAT SORT OF MAKES ME FURIOUS. I DON'T REALLY LOOK LIKE [03:45:01] THEM FURIOUS, BUT, UH, PEOPLE WHO'VE KNOWN ME. UH, I THINK WE SHOULD, IF THIS HAS BEEN DONE INCORRECTLY. AND IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IN COMPLETE DISREGARD, WHICH APPARENTLY IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I'M TO WITHHOLD JUDGMENT UNTIL THERE'S SOME EXTRA EXPLANATION, BUT I THINK WE GOT A HAMMER AND I REALLY MEAN HAMMER. IF WE CAN TAKE THE, WE CAN PULL BACK, UH, WHAT WE CAN DO. I W I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LEFT HERE WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT. SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO SO FAR AS TO PULL OUR CERTIFICATES CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THESE. UH, I MEAN, IF WE CAN DO THAT, IF THIS IS, THIS IS IT, I HEARD THE VIDEO AND THEY WERE JUST JOKING AND CARRYING ON, AND THEN MAN, HE WAS DOING IT. I MEAN, I DON'T PUT ANY BLAME ON HIM. HE'S JUST DOING WHAT HE'S TOLD, BUT THEY WERE HAVING A BIG TIME. AND, UH, NO, THAT'S REALLY THE UNACCEPTABLE. UH, THEY, THEY CAME TO US AND THEY GOT THINGS DONE. THEY GOT SOME VARIANCES OR WHATEVER. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT. WE GOT THINGS DONE THAT WE KIND OF BENT OVER BACKWARDS. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THIS. UH, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO THIS. UH, THEY PROMISED THIS AND THEY GAVE REFERENCES TO THE MASONS WHO WERE GOING TO DO THE WORK TO ALL THE, AGAIN, I, I LOOK, I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT, UH, THE, THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS TO SAY. AND IF THE CURRENT OWNER HAS TO SUFFER FOR WHAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER DID, THAT'S TOO BAD. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST, YOU GOT, IT'S GOT TO STOP. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T ESCAPE BY SELLING THE PROPERTY. THE PROBLEM STAYS WITH THE ORIGINAL PERSON. SO THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. WELL, YOU DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT MY BRAIN EXPLODED WHEN I SAW THE VIDEO. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER BALANCE, BAILA, UH, I JUST AM CURIOUS, UH, IF WE KNOW HOW C UH, COVENANT THAT PRESERVATION AUSTIN HAS, HOW DOES THAT KIND OF INTERSECT, UM, INTO THIS PROCESS AS WELL? UM, UM, I'M ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT SAW THIS VIDEO FOR THE FIRST TIME AND MY HEAD DID EXPLODE AND, AND, UH, YEAH, I DEFINITELY FEEL LIKE, I MEAN, THIS, THIS JUST CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO, UM, BE SOMETHING THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN. WE, WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO TAKE A STAND. I MEAN, WE, OUR MISSION AS THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION IS TO PROTECT THE SYSTEM, THE HISTORICAL MARK. SO THE, THE OWNER AT THE TIME ASKED FOR THE MOON, THE STARS AND THE SUN, AND WE DID BEND OVER BACKWARDS AND WORKED, UH, TO HELP THEM TO, YOU KNOW, RE SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT AND ALL THIS STUFF. AND, UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M WITH YOU. UH, CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DOING WHAT, UH, EVERYBODY FOLLOW IT UP, ANY OPPOSED NOW IT'S UNANIMOUS. GO FOR IT. OKAY. NOW WE GO ON TO C3, [3.C.3. GF-2021-060230 – 1805 Waterston Ave. – Consent Clarksville National Register District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] I BELIEVE OF 1805 WATERSTON GALLON. THANKS, MISSIONARY. UM, GIMME JUST A SECOND WHILE I FINISHED THE MINUTES. UM, ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. THE ITEM C THREE IS AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH A CIRCA 1952 HOUSE IN THE CLARKSVILLE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS IS A ONE STORY SIDE GABLE BUILDING WITH A PARTIAL WIDTH CABLED PORCH TWO OVER TWO, OVER TWO PICTURE, WINDOW BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING AND AN ATTACHED CARPORT. THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT AROUND 1952 FOR KELLY LEWIS AND JOHNNY MARY JACKSON MET HER. KELLY MET HER TAUGHT VOCATIONAL STUDIES AT THE TEXAS STATE BLIND DEAF AND ORPHAN SCHOOL, WHICH WAS LATER RENAMED THE TEXAS STATE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF MATTER WITH A PASTOR'S SON. AND HE WAS AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE METROPOLITAN AME CONGREGATION. THE MATTERS WERE BOTH TILTS IN COLLEGE ALUMNI AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND AS FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THEY ALSO OPERATED THE ECONOMY, RADIO AND TV SERVICE, A REPAIR SHOP AROUND 1959. THIS BUILDING CONTRIBUTES TO THE CLARKSVILLE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, ACCORDING TO A 2018 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY OF THE AREA, DEF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE, THEN RELOCATION, BUT TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT UPON COMPLETION OF A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. UM, AND KEEP IN MIND THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THIS ADDRESS [03:50:01] MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PRIOR TO RELEASE IT, THIS DEMOLITION PERMIT. THANK YOU. WHAT, UM, PEOPLE HAVE HAVE REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS AS, UH, MARY REED, UM, STATED IN HER PRESENTATION. UH, THEY WERE HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING THE ACTUAL APPLICANT FOR THIS DOES A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY AND THE CLARKSVILLE DISTRICTS, AND WE CAN, UM, DELAY ANY, UH, DEMOLITION FOR UP TO 180 DAYS. SO MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE HERE A SECOND, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER. TELL IT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS. OKAY. I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER COOK R IS OFF THE DIAS. I BELIEVE CLARIFY THAT IT'S TO THE JUNE MEETING WAS AT THE JUNE MEETING TO THE MEETING IS REQUIRED JANE MEETING. OKAY. IT PASSED. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS C6 [3.C.6. HR-2021-066941 – 71 Rainey St. – Discussion Rainey Street National Register District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] 71 RAINY STREET. THANK YOU. KAREN MYERS ITEM C6 IS AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH A CIRCUIT 1910 TO 1924 HOUSE. UM, AND WE'LL EXPLAIN THAT QUITE WIDE RANGE A LITTLE BIT LATER. UM, BUT THIS IS ONE STORY HIP TRUTH HOUSE WITH HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING, FOUR OVER FOUR WINDOWS AND A DOUBLE ENTRYWAY WITH TRANSOM DOORS. THE BUILDING'S ORIGINAL PARTIAL WITH PORCH WAS REMOVED AROUND 2011. UM, AND MS. BURMA, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT, YOU CAN SEE AN OLDER PHOTO IN THE STAFF REPORT, UM, OF THAT PORCH WHEN IT WAS INTACT. THE HOUSE AT 71 RAINY STREET WAS CONSTRUCTED OR POTENTIALLY MOVED TO THE SITE AROUND 1924. UM, IT'S FIRST OCCUPANTS SPRADLING FOR RENTERS. UM, AND THEY WERE A BRICK LAYER, A FURNITURE STORE OWNER, A SALESMAN AND A MECHANIC DURING THE LATE TWENTIES AND EARLY THIRTIES. THE BUILDING WAS HOME TO AT LEAST TWO RENTING HOUSEHOLDS AT A TIME BY 1939. THE CLENDENEN FAMILY HAD MOVED IN, UH, LEMUEL AND EUGENE CLENDENEN WORKED AS TANK MEN AT THE TEXAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY WHILE VITA MAY, CLENDENEN WORKED, UH, THE PRESS AT THE STEPHEN F. AUSTIN HOTEL LAUNDRY BY THE MID 1940S. THE CONCERTO FAMILY HAD PURCHASED THE HOUSE, UM, NO RELATION, UH, PRETENDS TO AND MARTINA GUTIERREZ CONTRARAS OPERA OCCUPIED THE HOUSE FROM 1944 UNTIL THE RESPECT OF THE US IN 1963 AND 1970, OR ANNA GUTIERREZ WAS BORN IN ONE, A WATER IN 1894. AND SHE MARRIED PRUDENCIO CONTRAREZ WHO HAD ALSO IMMIGRATED FROM MEXICO, AND THEY PURCHASED THE HOUSE AT 71 RAINY AFTER MOVING TO AUSTIN FROM LOCKHART. UH, PRUDENCIO, CONTRAREZ BORN IN THE 1885, WORKED AS A LABORER, UM, AND THE FAMILY SON, AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW LIVED WITH THEM AT FIRST, BUT AN ACCIDENT IN WISCONSIN, UH, KILLED BOTH SONS, DOMINGO, MINGO CONTRAREZ, AND HIS WIFE WHO WORKED AS MIGRANT FARM LABORERS IN 1948, JNC ON MARTINEZ, LIVING CHILDREN, JULIO, A MARINE ALBERTO TRUCKER, DELORES, AND ANNA MARIA ALONDRA ALSO STAYED IN THE HOLE IN THE HOUSE DURING THE 1950S AND 1960S ON A MARIA CONTRAST. HIS IN-LAWS, THE PART OF FAMILY OCCUPIED, THE OTHER HALF OF THE HOUSE, MARIA AND HER HUSBAND CARPENTER SENT AS PART OF SHARE THE SPACE WITH HER FATHER-IN-LAW UNTIL HIS DEATH IN THE 1950S, MARTINA CONTRAREZ BROTHER GUTIERREZ, AND HIS FAMILY MOVED INTO THE HOUSE IN THE EARLY 1960S. THE CONCERTOS FAMILY OWNED THE BUILDING UNTIL 1920, UNTIL 2020. UH, IT WAS THE LAST REMAINING RESIDENTIAL YOUTH HOME ON BRAINY STREETS. UM, THE BUILDING CONTRIBUTES TO THE RAINY STREET, NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS SOLELY DEMOLITION DUE TO LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS, UM, REVIEW OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS SITE, UM, IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT ISN'T REQUIRED, UH, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT IN CASES WHERE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS DETERMINED, UM, THAT DEMO OR RELOCATION IS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. UM, BUT PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT A FUTURE DATE. YES, WE HAVE FIVE MORE MINUTES. 10 O'CLOCK LET ME MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND THE MEETING. CAN WE [03:55:01] MAKE IT A SLATE AS 10 45? I'M GOING TO BE HERE. DO I HEAR A SECOND SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COOK? ALL THOSE RELUCTANTLY IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND. OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES WITH, UH, EXTENDED THE MEETING TO 10 45. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, 71 RAINY STREET, UH, SOMETHING I WANTED TO MENTION, THEY SAID THAT IT WAS EITHER BUILT OR MOVED HERE IN 1944. THIS IS A VERY OLD HOUSE. UM, I, THERE'S A SIMILAR KIND OF CUMBERLAND STYLE WITH THE TWO FRONT DOORS ON IT. AND, UM, AND THE CASTLE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT DATES TO THE 18TH SEVEN DAYS. I, I WOULD DATE THIS HOUSE, UH, TO THE 1880S, PROBABLY. UM, IT'S VERY OLD ASSOCIATED IN THE SAME, UH, PRESERVATION AND AUSTIN ARTICLE ABOUT THAT. I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS OF MORE THAN 600, UH, HISTORIC LANDMARKS IN AUSTIN. UM, LESS THAN 20 ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HISPANIC FAMILIES. DO I HEAR A MOTION? THE STAFF HAS ASKED IF WE COULD CONSIDER THE BUILDING'S LONGSTANDING ASSOCIATION WITH A SINGLE FAMILY AS A HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. I THINK THIS, UM, UM, THIS HOUSE MAY BE IN POOR CONDITION, BUT IT'S AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF ITS TYPE SANDS, THE FRONT PORCH. UM, IT MAY, IT MAY, UM, MEET THE CRITERIA, BUT I WANNA, I WANNA JUST PUT THAT BEFORE YOU I'D LIKE TO WHATEVER THE MOTION IS. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON IT. GO AHEAD AND PUT YOUR COAT. I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, PENDING CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION. OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I JUST HEAR A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. OKAY. UM, DISCUSSION. I THINK THIS IS A CASE WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CITY CODE VIOLATION. SO WE REALLY DON'T NEED STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TO TELL US WHAT BAD CONDITION IT'S IN. AND, AND WE ALL KNOW RAINY STREET IS KIND OF UPSIDE DOWN LAND. AND AT SOME POINT IT'S GOING TO START CANNIBALIZING ITSELF. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REMAINING HOMES THAT COULD BE LANDMARKS AND SURPRISE. THERE'S NOT A LANDMARK ON THE STREET FROM WHAT I CAN TELL AND MAYBE FUTURE PROPERTIES AS THEY COME UP SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR A COMMUNITY VALUE. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE IS, IS THE ONE TO, UH, START MAKING A STAND ON. WELL, AS, AS WE HEARD, WHEN WE, WHEN WE SAW THE, UM, THE RELOCATION OF THE LEONARD EAST HOUSE EARLIER, I THINK AT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THEY MOVED FOUR HOUSES FROM RAINY STREET TO THAT, UM, TO THAT NEW, HIS, THAT NEW DISTRICT THAT THEY CREATED. SO THAT'S WHERE THE LANDMARKS WENT. I THINK ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION IS TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. I DON'T WANT HIM TO FOR LONG ANYTHING, BUT I'M USUALLY THE ONE WHO HOLDS THESE, UM, ENGINEERS REPORTS AND A BIT OF SUSPICION ONLY IN THAT IF SOMEBODY IS SO MOTIVATED, YOU REALLY COULD PUT SOMETHING BACK. UH, I DID NOT GO TO THE PROPERTY, BUT BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING, UH, I THINK IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT BY THE TIME YOU'RE FINISHED PUTTING THIS ONE BACK, YOU'D BE RECREATING IT RATHER THAN RESTORING IT. NO, NO. I TOOK A GOOGLE MAPS WALK DOWN RAINEY STREET, AND IT LIKE EAST SIXTH STREET, I THINK IS KIND OF AT A TIPPING POINT OF SELF CANNIBALIZATION WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN DENSITY AND THESE ARE CORRIDORS AND WHATNOT, BUT PEOPLE ARE LIVING THERE SO THAT THEY CAN GO TO THESE SPACES AND ENJOY THESE SPACES AND ENJOY THAT STREETSCAPE. AND AT, AT SOME POINT A STAND IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE TO MAINTAIN SOME SORT OF BALANCE OF CHARACTER, LESS TO JUST BECOME A CANYON OF TOWERS. BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE ONE, JUST 10 BATHROOM. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES WITH VELLUM SUELA AND MYERS AND OPPOSITION. [04:00:05] OKAY. C7 [3.C.7. HR-2021-66900 – 2308 Woodlawn Blvd. – Discussion Old West Austin National Register District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] 2308 WOODLAWN. THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT BURNED. YES, THIS IS, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT, AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A PROPERTY, UH, THAT THE OWNERS WERE IN FACT PURSUING HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS. UM, UH, EMILY, UH, PAIN WITH HARDY HECK MORE HAD CONTACTED OUR OFFICE AND GOTTEN A PRELIMINARY READ ON WHETHER THIS WOULD QUALIFY FOR A LANDMARK DESIGNATION. AND THEN ON THAT BASIS HAD PROCEEDED, UH, WITH PUTTING TOGETHER A DRAFT NOMINATION. SO WE DID NOT IN FACT HAVE THAT IN HAND, UM, PRIOR TO THIS PERMIT COMING IN, UM, IT WAS, IT WAS NOT, UH, FULLY FINALIZED FOR SUBMISSION PRIOR TO THE FIRE OCCURRING. UM, SO UNFORTUNATELY WE DO HAVE A PROPERTY THAT PRIOR TO, UM, THIS DEVASTATING FIRE WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. UH, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1940 FOR FRANKLIN, OLIVIA WOOLSEY. UH, FRANK WOOLSEY WAS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE AUSTIN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. UM, BUT MORE BROADLY, UM, THE WOOLSEY'S HAD MULTIPLE CIVIC ENGAGEMENTS. UM, HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE LION'S CLUB, A MEMBER OF THE MASONIC LODGE, UH, THE SCOTTISH RITE BODIES AND THE BIN, HER SHRINE, OLIVIA WOOLSEY WAS INVOLVED IN MANY ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF AUSTIN, UH, THE WOMEN'S SYMPHONY LEAGUE, UH, THE FIRST, FIRST METHODIST WOMEN'S SOCIETY OF CHRISTIAN SERVICE. AND SHE HOSTED MULTIPLE CHARITABLE EVENTS AT THE HOUSE, UM, FROM, FROM THE BEGINNING, UH, SHE REMARRIED AFTER MR. WOOLSEY DIED, UH, TO LEWIS, UH, PATOU SICK WHO ACTIVELY FUNDRAISE FOR THE SYMPHONY LEAGUE OF AUSTIN AND WAS NAMED DENIED OF THE SYMPHONY, UH, IT'S NEXT OWNERS OR, UH, PHILANTHROPIST JOE AND THERESA LONG, THE NAMESAKES OF BELONG CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS WHO ACQUIRED IT IN 1992 AND ONLY RECENTLY SOLD TO THE CURRENT OWNERS. THE HOUSE WAS DESIGNED BY, UM, LOUIS PAGE OF PAIGE AND SUTHERLAND AT THAT TIME. UH, WHO'S KNOWN FOR, UM, OTHER RESIDENTIAL DESIGNS, UM, BUT ALSO ROSEWOOD COURTS, THE AUSTIN MUNICIPAL BUILDING BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL, THE PALMER AUDITORIUM, AND OTHER BUILDINGS ACROSS TEXAS. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, UH, THERE, THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNS WERE GENERALLY EXECUTED IN PERIOD REVIVAL STYLES. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS DREW FROM, UH, THE NEARBY, UH, WOODLAWN PEAS MANSION DESIGNED BY ABNER COOK. UM, IT'S SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED WITHIN THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT NOMINATION AS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF PAIGE AND SUTHERLAND'S WORK WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UH, WE ALSO NEED TO BRING UP, UH, SEA COATS WORTH PINCKNEY AGAIN, UH, WHO DID THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR THE HOUSE? UH, SO TH THIS IS, THIS IS A CHALLENGING SITUATION WHERE WE, AGAIN, WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT, UH, CLEARLY QUALIFIES FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT IT, UH, PRE FIRE, UM, BUT IT HAS SUFFERED SOME DEVASTATING DAMAGE TO THAT CENTRAL CORE OF THE HOUSE. AND SO WHAT STAFF UNFORTUNATELY, UH, WOULD PROPOSE TONIGHT IS THAT, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION RELEASE THE, UH, DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CONSIDERATION OF LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS. UM, AND I BELIEVE IT'S WORTH DISCUSSION WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE HOUSE. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONER I'M SETH. I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS GO FORWARD, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE OTHER THAN TO LET THEM GO THROUGH WITH THE DEMOLITION. UH, I AGREE WITH FEEL THAT IN THIS SITUATION THAT A TRAGIC EVENT HAPPENED, WE HAVE A WILLING OWNER WHO'S WILLING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO REPLACE AND PUT BACK, AND IN SOME CASES ACTUALLY PRESERVE WHATEVER THEY CAN, UH, OF THIS, OF THIS LANDMARK. AND SO, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE CAN TO, UH, ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT THAT. UH, THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC RENDERING ON WHETHER THEIR FUTURE REQUEST FOR LANDMARK STATUS, UH, WILL BE GRANTED. I THINK THAT, UM, IF THEY WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF AND CONSULT CLOSELY, UH, I'D BE VERY, UH, EAGER TO SEE THEIR FINISHED PRODUCT. AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE WORTHY AT THAT POINT. UH, BUT IN THIS CASE, UH, I THINK THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO A LOT MORE DETAIL THAN THEY'VE GOT TO GET STARTED AND, UH, THEY'VE LAID OUT A GOOD CASE FOR, I THINK, DOING THE BEST THAT WE COULD EVER HOPE FOR. UH, SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE AND ENCOURAGE THEIR, UH, THEIR WORK, UH, POST HASTE. OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? UM, STAFF, UH, [04:05:01] INITIALLY SAID THAT OUR DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE IS NOT RECOMMENDED DUE TO THE HOUSE'S CURRENT CONDITION, BUT I THINK THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ITS CURRENT CONDITION, UM, TAKEN BEFORE THE DEMOLITION OCCURS AND MAYBE EVEN ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANTS TO, UM, TO CONTRIBUTE THE RESEARCH THAT'S BEEN DONE BY EMILY PAINE, UM, FOR THE LANDMARK TO HAVE THAT ARCHIVE DEPTH, THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER OR SOME PART THEREOF. UM, BUT I'M NOT ASKING THAT THAT BE IN THE MOTION, JUST, UM, DON'T ALLOW THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ANY OPPOSED THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, UM, REQUEST PASSES. OKAY. C EIGHT 1603 WEST SIXTH STREET. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDED A POSTPONEMENT. THE APPLICANT WANTED TO DISCUSS IT TONIGHT. KARA BERTRAM IS THE STAFF. SHE'LL GIVE A PRESENTATION. I'M SURE. I BELIEVE THAT WE DID ALREADY. YEAH, I THOUGHT WE DID THE OWNER WASN'T HERE. OH, I'M SORRY. CAN WE GO TO SEE NINE [3.C.9. SB-21-054392, 055812, 055829 – 600 Congress Ave. – Discussion Congress Avenue National Register District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] SIX HUNDREDS CONGRESS AVENUE, THREE SIGNS ON THIS BUILDING. OKAY, GO AHEAD. UH, THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR, ITEM C NINE, UH, 600 CONGRESS AVENUE IS AN APPLICATION TO, UH, INSTILL THE THREE SIGNS ON A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, UH, TO THE CONGRESS AVENUE, NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, THE SIGNS ARE FIRST A NON ILLUMINATED 5.95 SQUARE FOOT ALUMINUM BLADE SIGN AT THE BUILDING EAST ELEVATION, UM, AN EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED, UH, 20 SQUARE FOOT FLUSH METAL ALUMINUM SIGN ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR TENANT ENTRANCE AT THE BUILDING THESES ELEVATION. UM, THAT SIGN IS TWO FEET, 11 INCHES IN HEIGHT, AND FINALLY TWO INSTALLED AND NOT ILLUMINATED, UH, ALMOST 20 SQUARE FOOT FLUSH MOUNTED ALUMINUM SIGN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING ABOVE, UM, A FIRST FLOOR TAKE-OUT WINDOW THAT FACES THE INTERSECTION OF CONGRESS AND EAST SIXTH. UM, AND THAT SIGN IS, UH, FOUR FEET, FIVE AND A HALF INCHES IN HEIGHT. UM, AND FROM IT, IF YOU CLICK GO BACK TO THAT FIRST ONE, UM, JUST TO SHOW, UM, THIS BUILDING IS PRETTY UNIQUE AND GOOGLE STREET VIEW DID A GOOD JOB OF LABELING THE TENANT SPACES ALONG EACH OF THOSE, UM, FACADES. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT LITTLE CORNER, UM, ON THE SECOND PHOTO IS WHERE THAT TAKEOUT WINDOW WOULD BE. AND THE PROJECT MEETS SOME OF THE CITY'S APPLICABLE, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGN GUIDELINES, CALLAN, CALLAN, WE LOST YOU STAFF. CAN ANY STAFF STEP IN HERE? WE LOST CALLAN. I THINK WE MIGHT BE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DISCUSSION A REALLY BIG ISSUE IN, OKAY. SO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS EXCEED THE NUMBER ALLOWED UNDER THE SIGN STANDARD, AND IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S A CONTRIBUTING OR NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, IT STILL HAS TO MEET DESIGN STANDARDS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OR IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE SCIENCE STANDARDS THAT REQUIRES COMMISSION APPROVAL READING ABOUT CARIS LOVERS OR THE TUMOR? YES. YEAH. LET'S JUST GO AHEAD FROM THIS ONE. I DON'T SEE THAT THEY'VE MADE THE CASE FOR, UM, A THIRD SIGN. I THINK WE HAVE A STANDARD THAT WE'VE HELD UP. UM, THEY SAID THEY WOULD GET RID OF THE BLADE SIGN. I THINK WE COULD JUST SAY, I'M SORRY. CAN YOU GET BACK MINOR? HELLO? YES. OH, I'M BACK. I APOLOGIZE [04:10:01] FOR MYERS. I CUT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. IT'S OKAY. WE JUST WENT ON TO DISCUSSION. SO I THINK WE CAN DO THIS. YEAH. UM, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT WE APPROVE TWO SIGNS, UH, AS I UNDERSTOOD THE APPLICANT DID NOT WANT THE BLADE SIGN, SO WE WOULD APPROVE THE OTHER TWO. UM, I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S CONCERNED ABOUT THE COLOR OR I BELIEVE THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE COLOR. HOWEVER, I AM SOMEWHAT, UM, HESITANT IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, THIS IS A, UM, THIS IS A, A, UH, AN IMAGE OF THE, OF THE COMPANY ITSELF. SO TO TRY TO DICTATE THEIR COLOR, UM, I THINK IS NOT PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE. SO I'LL, I'LL JUST LEAVE THE MOTION AT THAT. WE FREE TWO SIGNS. OKAY. AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THEY EITHER GO TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OR THAT WE COULD RELEASE A PERMIT WITH REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS TO ONE PER ELEVATION AND REDUCING THAT HEIGHT TO A FLUSH-MOUNTED SIGN FLUSH-MOUNTED SIGN TO TWO FEET. IS THAT YOUR MOTION? YES. I, I BELIEVE, UH, WHAT WE WERE PRESENTED WAS THE FLUSH-MOUNTED SIGN AT TWO FEET, BUT IF IT WAS NOT, THEN THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE MY MOTION. NO, I'VE CUT OUT AND WE CAN HEAR YOU. WELL, I SECOND THAT MOTION WE HAVE, SHE HAS CUT OUT. SHE'S GONE. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN LET ME TERRY CHERRY, ARE YOU BACK? I'M BACK. I'M BACK. WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO YOU CAN TAKE OVER, LET'S GO. LET'S VOTE IN FAVOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT FOR MECCA. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE COLORS. IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THEY WOULDN'T PUT A SIGN. THERE'S A STARBUCKS SIGN IN THE WINDOW RIGHT NEXT TO IT. AND STARBUCKS COLORS ARE GREEN AND WHITE. THE SUN IS BROWN WITH LOOKS LIKE WHITE OR TAN LEATHER LETTERS ON IT. SO, I MEAN, WE CAN, I MEAN, IT'S GONNA THAT RED CHICK-FIL-A SIGN. I UNDERSTAND THAT SIR COLORS, BUT THAT'S, AGAIN, THERE'S A STARBUCKS RIGHT IN THAT BUILDING RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER. THE SECOND PICTURE AS DOWN ON THE BOTTOM AND IT SAYS, IT'S THE GROUND SIGN RIGHT THERE. THAT'S A STARBUCKS AND THAT'S NOT STARBUCKS COLOR. NOW. JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THAT'S ALL I'M OKAY WITH, IF YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE MOTION, I WOULD CONSIDER, I WOULD ADD, I WOULD ADD TO THE MOTION, OR I ASKED TO ADD TO THE MOTION THAT WE, THAT THE SIGN THERE REFLECT THE OTHER SIGNS THAT ARE IN THE BAYS RIGHT NEXT TO IT. I MEAN, I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY REQUIRED STARBUCKS TO GO BROWN, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OKAY, COMMISSIONER, RIGHT. IS THAT A SECOND OR IS THAT A, ANOTHER COMMENT? THAT'S ANOTHER COMMENT. OKAY. AS, AS YOU CUT OUT, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED FINES ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. THE PLANS DO SHOW THAT THE, THAT THE, UM, INDIVIDUAL LET THE LETTERS ARE TWO FOOT 11 AND THE OVERALL LOGO SIGN IS FOUR FOOT FIVE ON THE, ON THOSE ARE THE SUBMITTED PLANS. SO NEITHER OF THOSE MEETS THE STATE OF REQUIREMENTS. SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE BE CLEAR IN OUR MOTION, OR WE AMEND OUR MOTION TO INDICATE THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS. YEAH, NO, THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY FOLLOW THE SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS, UM, WITH THE TWO APPROVED COMMISSIONER RUSH. YOU'RE A SECOND. OKAY. TO BEGIN WITH. OKAY. THE AMENDED MOTION IS THAT THEY SHOULD CONFORM TO THE, UM, TO THE OTHER CHAIN STORES THAT HAVE CONFORMED TO THE DESIGN STANDARD TO THE GUIDELINES. YES. OKAY. I'LL ADD THAT TO THE COLOR. OKAY. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. IT PASSES WHATEVER IT WAS. SO IT'S GETTING LIGHT SMART, SMALLER SIGNS THAT ARE NOT, NOT TOO. I HAVE A HEADACHE AND I CAN, I CAN'T SEE OUT OF MY LEFT EYE. SO THAT, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN ISSUE HERE IF I FALL OFF. UM, AND, UH, WE'LL TAKE YOU WE'LL, WE'LL RUN THIS OUT. CALL MY SISTER WHO'S ON VACATION [3.D.1. GF-2020-115888 – 4714 Rowena – Discussion Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] D ONE 47, 14 ROWENA OR ON TO THE DS GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HAS BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOR QUITE [04:15:01] SOME TIME. AND, UH, THAT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO WORK OUT A FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR PRESERVATION OF THIS HOUSE. THIS HOUSE IS AN ANOMALY. UH, IT'S A MUCH OLDER HOUSE THAT DOESN'T APPARENTLY DIRECTLY OR EVEN SANBORN MAPS DON'T EVEN GO THAT FAR NORTH THAT WAS ADDED ONTO IN THE EARLY 1930S. AND IT WAS THE HOME FROM 1932 TO ABOUT 1948, UH, JJ AND ELIZABETH HEDMAN, WHO WERE RENOWNED IN AUSTIN FOR THE THEATER HATERS. UH, THEY, THEY OPERATED THE QUEEN, THE STAR AND PLAYED THE PRINCESS. THE OTHER ONE THAT THEY OPERATED REPRESENTATIVE REBELLIOUS. UH, THAT WAS ALSO I THINK, NATIONALLY EVIDENCE, PROHIBITION AND SPEAKEASY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT, UH, IN AUSTIN, JJ, HAGMAN RUNNING THE MOVIE THEATER, UH, OPERATED ON SUNDAYS AND RAN A FOUL OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR VIOLATING THE BLUE LAWS THAT DIDN'T ALLOW BUSINESSES LIKE THAT TO OPERATE ON SUNDAYS. UH, HE WAS THE FIRST MOVIE THEATER OPERATOR AND ALL OF THE OTHER MOVIE THEATERS ALSO DOUBLE THOSE STAGE SHOWS OR BURLESQUE TRAVELING SHOWS ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT EDMUNDS THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF BASICALLY JUST SHOWING MOVIES TO CITIZENS OF BOSTON AND DID QUITE WELL. HE WAS A NATIVE OF GALVESTON. HE ACTUALLY WENT BACK TO GALVESTON FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AS FAR AS RETURNING TO AUSTIN AND, UH, LISTENING TO THE OWNERS' PRESENTATION EARLIER THIS EVENING. UH, THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY CURRENT, THERE, THERE A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE SOUNDS, THE SOUNDS, HOWEVER, UH, ARCHITECTURALLY, THEY DISTINCTIVE HAAS PROBABLY TURN AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH CENTURY SWINGING GABLE, UH, DONE IN 19 LATE 1920S, EARLY 1930S. BUT THIS ONE WAS PUT ON THE BACK, CREATED A BELVEDERE ON THE ROOF, UM, LIKE AN AIRPLANE MUMBLING, BUT NOT REALLY THE SAME THING BECAUSE THE BASIC FORM IS NOT A BUNGALOW FROM, UH, HEDMAN WAS ALSO A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER. AND HE PICKED A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS HOUSE WAS LOCATED IN. HE DEVELOPED THOSE, THE SUBDIVISION FOR THAT WAS RUN LENA FROM 47TH STREET UP TO 51ST. AND IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE HATS IS A BEACON. IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL LOOKING GAUGE AND IT HAS A LOT OF BLUSH VEGETATION AROUND IT. IT'S AN ANCHOR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I WAS, UH, I WAS VERY MUCH WANTING TO FIND WAYS TO PRESERVE THE, I THINK IT HAS MEANING IT SHOWS A CHAPTER IN AUSTIN'S HISTORY, A MAN THAT WAS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, MAYBE AROUND, UM, HAD A BIG IMPACT ON SOCIAL AND CULTURAL LIFE. AND I WAS GOING IN THE MOVIES CITY IN THE TIME THAT HE WAS OPERATING IN SPIRIT OR FEAR, UH, ARCHITECTURALLY, AS I SAID, IT'S UNUSUAL. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION A CRITERIA, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE HOUSES ARE IN VERY POOR CONDITION. AND THAT WAS THE REASON THAT IT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOR SO LONG TO TRY TO, UH, FINANCIAL INCENTIVES, UH, THAT WOULD MAKE . AND HONESTLY, WITH THE TAX CREDIT LETTER, FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, THAT WAS NON-CRIMINAL AT BEST. I, I JUST CAN'T SEE THAT WE COULD PUSH LANDMARK DESIGNATION, UH, ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT EDMOND'S ASSOCIATION WITH THE SAME SCHOOL AS IT WAS FOR 16 YEARS AFTER HIS MAJOR CAREER AND THE 1920S IN THE MOTION PICTURE BUSINESS. AND HE WENT ON TO LIVE IN HEATHER HANDS AS AN ARTIST. SO AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN THIS HOUSE RECOMMENDED FOR HISTORIC, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE RELEASE THE PERMIT AT COMPLETION OF A CITY THAT IN FRONT OF IT. THANK YOU, MR. . DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THIS CASE? GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO INITIATE HISTORIC ZONING. OKAY. UH, NO, HE [04:20:01] WAS, UH, WE JUST HEARD THAT IT WAS TO RELEASE THE PERMIT. OKAY. AND REQUIRE THE COMPLETION OF THE US AND DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. CORRECT. OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LITTLE, ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK STEVE VERY WELL. I THINK WE'VE, THERE'VE BEEN A LOT OF ATTEMPTS TO TRY SOMETHING. UH, ONCE AGAIN, THIS COULD, IT COULD BE AN EXCEPTIONAL BUILDING, I THINK, IN AND OF ITSELF AND IN ITS CURRENT STATE. UM, I THINK IT IS TOO FAR A STRETCH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ITEM [3.D.2. HR-2021-044092 – 2040 E. Cesar Chavez St. – Discussion Council District 3 (Part 2 of 2)] D TO 2040 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ DEMOLISH A 1926 27 HOUSE, WHICH LOOKS MUCH OLDER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS IS A ONE STORY NATIONAL FOLK RESIDENCE, CLOT AND BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING. IT'S BECAUSE OF PYRAMIDAL, HIP ROOF CLADDING, CORRUGATED METAL EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AND INSET PARTIAL WIDTH PORCH SUPPORTED BY BOX POEMS AND SCREENED ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS. UH, THIS BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AROUND 1927 BY CHRISTIAN AND SCARLET COBOL FOR THEIR FAMILY. UH, THE COLD CALLS WERE BOTH BORN IN ALSO GERMANY AND SETTLED IN AUSTIN. 1878. CHRISTIAN PROFILE WAS A BARBER WHO OPERATED SEVERAL BARBERSHOPS AND SALONS, UH, INCLUDING THE DRISCOLL HAIR SALON. IT WAS AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE GERMAN LUTHERAN CHURCH, UM, PARTICULARLY ST MARTIN'S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH. AND THE FIRST BUILDING OF WORSHIP FOR THAT CHURCH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1885 ON LAND DONATED BY COCO. HE DIED IN 1930, UM, AND THE FAMILY VACATED THE HOME, UM, INTO THE 1940S. IT BECAME PRIMARILY A RENTAL HOUSE WITH SHORT TERM RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ELECTRICIANS, MECHANICS, SALESMAN, BOOKKEEPERS, UM, AND IT REMAINED A RENTAL IN THE 1940S, UH, OCCUPIED BY A SERVICEMAN, A FIREFIGHTER AND A DRIVER BY 1954 OTIS ROW LIVED IN THE HOME AND OPERATED A SERVICE STATION ACROSS THE STREET AT 2027 EASTER THERE CHAVEZ STREET IN 1957, ALBERT AND ZELMA GONZALEZ PURCHASED THE HOUSE, UH, BUT THEY SOLD IT TWO YEARS LATER TO ROSA GILLAN. UM, THE 2016 EAST AUSTIN HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY, IT LISTS THIS PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND INDIVIDUAL LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER, AS WELL AS CONTRIBUTING TO A POTENTIAL LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND A POTENTIAL NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, THIS ITEM HAVE POSTPONED FROM LAST MONTH. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS STILL TO CONSIDER INITIATION OF HISTORIC ZONING, BUT SHOULD THE COMMISSION CHOOSE INSTEAD IS RELEASED TO DEMOLITION PERMIT, UH, ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION, ADAPT AND ADAPTIVE REUSE, OR RELOCATION, UH, THEN REQUIRE COMPLETION OF A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER COOK, I'LL MOVE TO RELEASE A DEMOLITION PERMIT PENDING THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. IS THERE A SECOND COMMISSIONER HOME? SETH? IS THAT A SECOND? OKAY. UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE, I TAKE NO JOY IN IT, BUT THE PHOTOS ARE COMPELLING AND IT'S, IT'S IN REALLY, REALLY BAD SHAPE. AND THE ASSOCIATIONS AREN'T THE STRONGEST. ALTHOUGH THE 2016 SURVEY LISTED IT AS ELIGIBLE, I JUST WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME DEFENDING THIS RECOMMEND AS A RECOMMENDATION, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RELEASING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT WITH THE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE, RAISE YOUR HAND. NO OPPOSITION. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM, UM, THAT WAS ON CONSENT [3.D.3. HR-2021-044104 – 1807 Brackenridge St. – Consent Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] IS D THREE 1807 BRACKENRIDGE. IT WAS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION CALLAN. UH, THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE A CIRCUIT 1927 HOUSE TO PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. UM, THIS IS A ONE STORY CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW WITH HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING, ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS PROF, STABLED, CORRUGATED METAL ROOF WITH TRIANGULAR EAT BRACKETS, VERTICAL FLATBEDS AT THE GABLES AND A PARTIAL WIDTH CABLE PORCH WITH BOX COLUMNS, A TRIANGULAR BRACKETS AT THE GATE LENS. UM, THIS BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AROUND 1927 AND SERVED PRIMARILY AS A RENTAL PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY. UM, MOST OCCUPANTS [04:25:01] LIVED THERE FOR SHORT TERM, UM, AND RENTERS INCLUDED FARMERS, SALESPEOPLE, TEACHERS, AND TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES, UM, WHOSE HOUSE IS LISTED AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO DEPENDING TRAVIS HEIGHTS, FAIRVIEW NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS STILL TO ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE, THEN RELEASE THE PERMIT UPON COMPLETION OF A DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THIS CASE, COMMISSIONER HANDSET I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RELOCATION. UM, UM, WELL LET ME SEE IF I GET A SECOND, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COOK. YEAH. AS, AS MUCH AS IT'S PAINFUL TO SEE THIS GO, UM, IT IS AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE GOING TO, UH, THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE MISSED. UH, HOWEVER, I REALLY DO HOPE WITH A PENDING DISTRICT THAT WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW WHAT REPLACES IT AND, UH, WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS AT LEAST, UH, EQUALLY COMPATIBLE AND SUPPORTIVE OF THE DISTRICT, BY THE WAY. UM, THE TRAVIS HEIGHTS IS GOING TO THE KEEPER THIS WEEK. COMMISSIONER VALANZUELA. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HE, UM, MOTION INCLUDED THE COMPLETION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION. YES. LET ME CLARIFY STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS PER THE, UH, THE, THE ABILITY TO, TO RELOCATE THE HOUSE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO RELEASE THE PERMIT AND THE RELOCATION PERMIT AND, UM, REQUIRED DOCUMENT AND REQUIRED THE DOCUMENTATION. YEAH. I JUST SEE THIS PROPERTY, LEAVE THIS, THIS HOUSE. UM, WELL, THE OMAR THING SETS IN POOR CONDITION. IT'S IN A LOT BETTER CONDITION THAN MANY OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WE'VE INITIATED HISTORIC ZONING OUT. AND THIS IS AS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THE DISTRICT. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. UM, BUT IT'S NOT A DISTRICT YET. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RELEASING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT TO REMOVE VIRTUALLY THE SAME THING, THE RELOCATION PERMIT AND THE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER VALANZUELA. OKAY. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THAT WAS, YES. GO AHEAD. I, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER HAIM, SETH BROUGHT THIS UP. WOULD WE, WOULD WE, IF IT, IF THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT WAS APPROVED BY THE KEEPER BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WERE AVAILABLE, WOULD WE REVIEW IT OR NOT? BECAUSE THIS CASE DID NOT FALL UNDER THAT PURVIEW AT THIS TIME? I DON'T KNOW. I BELIEVE IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHEN THOSE DRAWINGS WERE SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT. IF YOUR DISTRICT IS LISTED BEFORE WE RECEIVE A PERMIT APPLICATION, UH, IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE COMMISSION. I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY FROM THE THC THAT THE DISTRICT WILL BE LISTED WITHIN SIX WEEKS. UM, SO YEAH, WE WOULD NEED TO SEE IT. UM, IF IT'S LISTED BEFORE THEN, BEFORE THE PLANS ARE MADE. OKAY. UM, ITEM. OH, DID YOU DECLARE THE VOTE? THE VOTE WAS, UM, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, EIGHT IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED ONE OPPOSED AS ME. [3.D.4. SP-2021-065153; GF-2021-068010 – 201 W. 30th St. – Discussion Fire Station #3 Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] OKAY. 201 WEST 30TH STREET. THE FIRE STATION. YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE APPLICATION. WE GET QUITE A PRESENTATION FROM, UH, UM, ADVOCATES. YEAH. YES, THEY DID QUITE A NICE JOB OF FIRE STATION. NUMBER THREE OPENED IN 1957. IT IS RECOMMENDED AS ELIGIBLE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND THE RECENTLY COMPLETED SURVEY BY HHM AND ASSOCIATES, UH, RELATIVE TO ITS ARCHITECTURE, WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED BY ARCHITECT, ROY THOMAS, AS WELL AS, UH, POST-WAR INFRASTRUCTURE IN PUBLIC EXPANSION AS A BROAD HISTORIC CONTEXT. UM, THEIR, THEIR HISTORIC CONTEXT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THE FIRE STATION AND THE BROADER, UM, SENSE OF WHAT FIRE STATIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY AT THAT TIME. UH, THIS WAS ONE OF MID-CENTURY FIRE STATIONS BUILT [04:30:01] ACROSS THE CITY AFTER A LULL AND FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION DURING WORLD WAR II AND THE RESPONSE TO SUBSEQUENT POPULATION GROWTH. SO WHILE IT CERTAINLY RELATES TO THAT HISTORIC CONTEXT, IT WAS ONE OF MULTIPLE BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME. A STAFF HAS NOT, UH, AT THIS POINT, RESEARCH TO THE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY OF THOSE OTHER MID-CENTURY STATIONS TO BUILD A BROADER CONTEXT AND HAVE A VERY CLEAR SENSE OF WHETHER THIS, UM, WOULD QUALIFY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION OR IF THERE ARE OTHER BETTER EXAMPLES, UM, THAT THAT MIGHT, UM, BE THE BETTER CASES TO PRESERVE INTACT, GIVEN THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES WITH THE FIRE STATION AND THE INABILITY TO PARK THE FIRETRUCKS WITHIN THE APPARATUS BAY. UM, IT, WE CAN'T, WE REALLY CAN'T SAY THAT THIS MEETS THE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF RETAINING HISTORIC FABRIC AND REPLACING DETERIORATED FEATURES IN PINED, BUT WHERE I DO FEEL THAT IT'S A SUCCESSFUL APPROACH IS, UM, LOOKING AT THIS AS A COMPATIBLE MODERN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING, RATHER THAN AN ATTEMPT TO RECONSTRUCT A PORTION THAT WAS DEEMED BEYOND REPAIR, WHICH, UM, COULD WIN THE FALSE SENSE OF HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. UH, THE APPARATUS BAY HAS A SIMILAR SETBACK, MASSING SIZE AND MATERIALS, AND ITS CONTEMPORARY DESIGN, UH, TEXTS ENOUGH CUES WITHOUT, UH, REALLY BORROWING DIRECTLY FROM THE HISTORIC DESIGN. UM, SO IT'S, IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING. UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO RELEASE THE PERMIT UPON COMPLETION OF A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CASE COMMISSIONER, HAIM STAFF? I, I MOVE, UH, WE APPROVED THE PROPOSAL AND, UM, I LIKED THE DESIGN. I THINK THAT IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT WILL IN FACT MAKE IT SO THAT IT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR, UH, DESIGNATION IN THE FUTURE. UM, AND I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER PATIENTS THAT WILL RISE TO THAT OCCASION. THIS IS NOT THE MOST BRILLIANT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN EITHER, BUT I REALLY DO THINK THAT, UH, THE ADDITION, UH, ONCE YOU GET OVER, UH, DECIDING THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE'LL DESIGNATE AS A LANDMARK, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO BE CELEBRATED. UH, THE TEAM HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB. UM, I'M REALLY HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY COME UP WITH. OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND TO THAT? AND YOUR MOTION HAD IN IT THAT THEY SHOULD COMPLETE A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION THE BACK END. WE KEEP TRYING TO MAKE SURE AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, WAS THAT A SECOND AFFINITY TO THE YEAR 1856? I AM GOING TO GO WITH A SECOND. DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BIRTH DATE? OKAY. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS COMMISSIONER? KAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK SUGGESTION TO THE DESIGN TEAM TO CONSIDER RETENTION OF THE TRIM AROUND THE PARAPET AROUND THE ROOF LINE. CAUSE THAT KIND OF CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROPORTIONS OF IN DETAIL OF THE REMAINING HISTORIC ELEMENT. BUT I WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO HANG UP THE RECRUITMENT WITH DEMOLITION, BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A SECOND AND LOOK AT THAT. I THINK THE DESIGN TEAM IS PROBABLY STILL ON THE LINE HERE PAYING ATTENTION. SO, UM, WILSON THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THEM ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR. RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? NOPE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ITEM [3.D.5. PR-2021-049619 – 307 E. 2nd St. – Discussion Leonard East House Council District 3 (Part 2 of 2)] D FIVE, THREE OH SEVEN EAST SECOND STREET. THE LEONARD EAST HOUSE. THIS IS RELOCATE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO RELOCATE A HOUSE OF UNDETERMINED AGE TO EAST AUSTIN. YES. COMMISSIONERS DO SEDAN YOU AGAIN. UH, THIS IS A CASE THAT, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THIS IS THE LETTER, THESE TASKS, WHICH, UH, REPRESENTS A VERY IMPORTANT CHAPTER AND AUSTIN'S HISTORY. LEONARD HE'S CAME TO AUSTIN FROM LAND PASSES IN 1913, HE ESTABLISHED A WAGON YARD, BUT HE SENT DISCOVERED THAT, UH, TRADING FARMERS FROM THE SURROUNDING, UH, AGRICULTURAL LANDS WAS MUCH MORE PROFITABLE AND THEN GAVE UP HIS WAGON YARD AND STARTED A PRODUCE AND POULTRY BUSINESS. THE POULTRY BUSINESS SURVIVED UNBOUND SHINE ANYWAY, UH, HE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE MOVING THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WANT HIM TO ADDRESS THE CONTEXT OF THE TRAVEL VERY BRIEFLY BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS FOR RELOCATION. WE ONLY HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR THE REST OF IT [04:35:01] JUST BRIEFLY. OKAY. THIS WAS A HOUSE THAT WAS MOVED IN IN 1928. THIS WAS A MUCH OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND WITH BIGGER HOUSES, ANDREW FELKER, FOR EXAMPLE, LIVED ON THE CORNER, THE WESTERN END OF THIS BLOCK ON THE CORNER. HE LIVED IN A TWO-STORY HOUSE. AND A LOT OF THESE HOUSES, A LOT OF THE HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DATED FROM THE TURN OF THE CENTURY AND WERE TWO-STORY HOUSES. SO MOVING THIS HOUSE IN WAS ACTUALLY AN ANOMALY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND CERTAINLY AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS DONE BECAUSE BY THE LATE 1920S, SO MANY THOUSANDS, THE BIGGER HAS HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO BOARDING HOUSES. UH, TH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS CHANGING. DEFINITELY. SO, UH, I WILL HAVE LESS HEARTACHE ABOUT, UH, REMOVING THIS HOUSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I'M NOT CONVINCED WE'VE NEVER REALLY FIT INTO THAT MIX AS IT HISTORICALLY EXISTED. BUT ANYWAY, MOVED THE HOUSE IN 1928. THEY LIVED HERE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. UH, LEONARD BEEF DIED IN 1968 OR NINE, RIGHT. UH, LIVED A WHILE LONGER. AND THEN THE HOUSE BECAME AFTER IT WAS VACANT. ROBERT AND I PICKED IT UP. IT IS REMARKABLY INTACT. UM, ASIDE FROM THE EFFECT OF SIDING THE WINDOWS, THE BARGE BOARD ON THE GABLE, EVERYTHING IS REMARKABLY INTACT, ARCHITECTURALLY, THIS HOUSE QUALIFIES AS IT HISTORICALLY HAD MORE. AND IT ALSO QUALIFIES UNDER HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS. LEONARD EAST WAS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT BUSINESSMAN IN THE CITY, BUT IT WAS A, UH, HISTORICALLY TRADITIONAL BUSINESS. HE DEALT IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND THE FARMERS FROM THE SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE WOULD COME IN, TRADE HIM AND, UH, THINGS FROM HIM TO TAKE BACK TO THEIR HOMES. HE HAD HIS OWN MARKET, UH, THAT HE DEALT IN FRESH PROTEINS. AND NOWADAYS WE ARE, WE ALL TALK ABOUT FARM TO TABLE STORES, UH, AND NOT THE SUPERMARKET CHAINS, BUT THAT'S WHAT LEONARD EQUALS DOING FROM THE TWENTIES ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE 1960S. SO HE WAS REALLY A PIONEER. UH, HE REPRESENTED A PERSON WHO HAD, UH, HER, HE WAS A PERSON REPRESENTED, BUT HE WAS A PERSON THAT, UH, CARRIED ON A VERY TRADITIONAL MEANS OF DOING BUSINESS IN AUSTIN, WHERE THE SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE. AND, UH, I THINK GIVEN THE CHANGE OF CONTEXT OF THE HOUSE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS COUNCIL WAS NEVER PROBABLY INCONTACT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THE HOUSE INTO A SETTING WHERE IT CAN BE CELEBRATED RESTORED IN THIS CHAPTER OF AUSTIN'S HISTORY. IT'D BE PRESERVED OF STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE THREE LOCATION. OKAY. STEVE DOES STAFF ALSO, IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE, HOW IT'S WRITTEN UP. IT SAYS THAT, UH, AND, AND CONSIDER HISTORIC ZONING FOR THE HOUSE AT ITS NEW SITE. AND AFTER RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION, DO YOU MEAN AFTER IT'S RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE HISTORIC ZONING. I THINK THAT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. UH, MADAM FAIR. UH, I, I, I WOULD SAY, UH, MAYBE CONSIDER INITIATION OF HISTORIC ZONING MO ACCURATE MOVE TO THE NEW SITE. I THINK WE'VE GOT VERY GOOD APPLICANTS HERE WHO WE'RE GOING TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH AND THE COMMISSION ON THE RESTORATION. UM, SO WOULD BE DONE AT A LATER DATE. UH, I DIDN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY EARLIER TONIGHT, ANY INDICATION THAT THAT WAS, UH, EITHER A BIG, POSITIVE OR A BIG NEGATIVE, AND I THINK THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE STILL WANT TO HAVE, BUT I THINK AT THAT POINT, I I'M COMFORTABLE IN SAYING EVEN AT THE NEW LOCATION, UH, WHICH WE HAVE DONE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, WE COULD INITIATE THE ZONING. I THINK WE'VE GOT APPLICANTS. WE CAN TRUST COMPLETELY IN THEIR RESTORATIONS LANE. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSIONING OF THE PANICLE TONIGHT, UH, SURE, BUT IT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO APPROVE THE RELOCATION, UH, AND CONSIDER HISTORIC ZONING. AT THAT POINT, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE CONSIDERING HISTORIC ZONING ONCE IT'S BEEN MOVED. BUT WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION? DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CASE? [04:40:07] COMMISSIONER COOK? YOU APPROVED THE RELOCATION PERMIT PENDING A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AND CONSIDERED HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSIONER VALANZUELA. IS IT SECOND? OKAY. IT'S A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? THE HOUSE IS WONDERFUL. UM, WE'LL SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN ITS NEW, UM, SLATE. SO IF YOU VOTE THAT WAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RELOCATING THE HOUSE PENDING THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. OKAY. IT'S AN UNANIMOUS THE MOTION PASSES. YES. WE HAVE TWO MORE CASES IN FIVE MORE MINUTES. I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE ADD ANOTHER 10 MINUTES TO OUR AGENDA AND, UH, UH, AT 10 55, IF, UH, THE COMMISSIONS COMMISSIONERS WILL MOVE. DO I HEAR A SECOND? WE CAN FINISH THIS MEETING COMMISSIONER, RIGHT? SECONDS THE MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING. 10 MORE MINUTES. OKAY. TO LET WAS, WAS WONDERING THERE. OKAY. IT PASSES. WE'RE GONNA MOVE. WE'RE GONNA STAY UNTIL 10 55. OUR NEXT ITEM IS D [3.D.11. PR-2021-061096 – 2708 Scenic Dr. – Discussion Council District 10 (Part 2 of 2)] 11, NOT LATER THAN D 1120 708 SCENIC DRIVE DEMOLISHED IN 1952 HOUSE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH A TWO-STORY MID-CENTURY MODERN HOUSE, QUITE AN VERTICAL WOOD SIDING AND STONE VENEER WITH FIXED AND FLIGHT AND WOMEN AND FULL HEIGHT. AND CLERESTORY WINDOWS FLAT ROOF FREEWAYS, A LOW PITCH SIDE GABLED ROOF LINE DOUBLE WITH STONE, CHIMNEYS AND BALCONIES, AND A SKY BRIDGE WITH DECORATIVE METAL HANDRAILS, THE BUILDINGS MULTILEVEL DESIGN RESPONSE TO THE HILLSIDE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE. THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT FOR ATTORNEY ROBERT C MCINNIS AND HIS WIFE ETHEL CLIF MCGUINNESS IN 1952 BY ARCHITECT, ROLAND G ROESSNER. UH, DURING HIS TIME IN THE HOUSE, MAKE AN ASSOCIATE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF THE STATE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION AND AN INSTRUCTOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, WHERE HIS FATHER HAD PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. I FEEL CLIFF HAS DEVOTED HER LIFE TO PROMOTING CHARITABLE CAUSES. UM, SHE DIRECTED THE PAN-AMERICAN ROUND TABLE, THE VOLUNTEER BUREAU OF AUSTIN AND THE AUSTIN INTERNATIONAL HOSPITALITY COMMISSION. AS PART OF HER WORK, SHE HOSTED DOZENS OF EVENTS AT A RIVERSIDE HOME OPENING ITS DOORS TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND VISITORS FOR REGULAR GALLOWS LUNCHEONS AND CEREMONIES AFRICAN FOUNDATION IS TO CONSIDER INITIATING HISTORIC ZONING, UM, BUT OTHERWISE TO RECOMMEND REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OVER DEMOLITION AND FOR THE COMMISSION TO RELEASE THE PERMIT, UH, REQUIRE COMPLETION OF A DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CASE COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? I THINK YOU'RE MUTED. IT'S LIGHT IT'S LIGHT IN THE EVENING. I MOVE WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER REHABILITATION ADAPTIVE REUSE OVER DEMO. OKAY. THEY ASKED TO CONSIDER INITIATING HISTORIC ZONING. YES. SO THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO INITIATE A STORY ZONING. DO I HEAR A SECOND TO THIS MOTION COMMISSIONER? A LITTLE SECOND. SOME MOTION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON YOUR MOTION? WELL, I THINK THIS, THIS IS VERY UNIQUE ARCHITECTURE FOR ITS TIME. I, UH, AND THEN IN LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE POTENTIAL FOR REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE. I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO RESTORE THAT. UH, AND I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, SO I'LL GET THE TERMS WRONG, BUT THAT CONTEMPORARY DESIGN, WHAT WAS CONTEMPORARY THEN COMMISSIONER A LITTLE AND SO SLEEPY. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN BE AT ALL ELOQUENT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR, UM, ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE CONNECTION TO ETHYL AND ROBERT MCGINNIS. AND WE'VE LOST SO MANY ROSNER HOUSES ALREADY REALLY, REALLY BE A SHAME TO LOSE THIS WHEN IT HAS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOME CONDITION ISSUES, BUT I, I THINK THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY, FURTHER DISCUSSION. [04:45:01] I CAN SAY IT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE AN OWNER WHO'S ASKED FOR DEMOLITION AND SO WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT, UM, WE WILL HAVE SOME OBJECTION. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT THIS GIVES US A CHANCE TO MAKE THE CASE AND PERHAPS, UH, BE PERSUADED. UH, AN OWNER COULD BE PERSUADED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE SOMETHING OF GREAT VALUE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, PARTNERING WITH US WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. LET'S HOPE THAT'S THE WAY THIS IS RECEIVED. YEAH. OUTSTANDING MEMBERS OF THE, OF THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THEY WOULD, UM, YOUR BACKGROUND WITH PRESERVATION, THIS MIGHT BE AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO COLLABORATE WITH THEM. VISIT I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CASE. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN ON THIS. I JUST DON'T HAVE AN OPINION. IT, SO THE MOTION, UM, DOES EMOTION CARRY. UM, I WANTED TO CLARIFY ON THAT. DO WE NEED NINE VOTES, UM, AT INITIATION AND OR AT RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD OVER OWNER, UM, OPPOSITION, THERE NEED TO BE NINE VOTES AT THE RECOMMENDATION STAGE. OKAY. NOW CHANGE MY VOTE, UH, TO BE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSION. SO W LET'S GO, DO WE NEED TO RETAKE THE VOTE? LET'S GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, LITTLE, UM, CALLING FOR, UM, A REVOLT ON THE CASE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF INITIATING HISTORIC ZONING IS RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES TO INITIATE. YOU HAD NOT CALLED THAT FINAL VOTE. SO THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VOTE YOU WERE CAUSE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR VOTE MIGHT BE, BUT YOU NEVER CALLED THAT PREVIOUS BOAT. OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE LAST CASE HERE [3.D.13. PR-2021-063853 – 1109 Travis Heights Blvd. – Consent Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] D 13, 1109 TRAVIS HEIGHTS BOULEVARD. IT WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT I THINK MS. KAZMAN WASN'T, I'M STILL ON THE LINE TO HEAR IT. THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING TO THE PENDING, NOT NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT. UM, STAFF COMMISSIONERS. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF WITH THIS ONE. UM, THIS IS A PROPERTY WHERE, UM, WE PLACE THIS ON CONSENT BECAUSE THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT. UH, THE OWNER IS PROPOSING TO REVERSE SOME UNSENSITIVE CHANGES, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF ALUMINUM SIDING OVER THE STUCCO EXTERIOR, WHICH WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. UH, THERE'S ALSO RETENTION OF MOST OF THE STREET FACING HISTORIC WINDOWS AND REHABILITATION OF THOSE. UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY STAFF DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS WOULD RISE TO THE OCCASION OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION. UH, ONE OF THOSE IS THAT, AND THIS HISTORIC PHOTO, UH, FROM WHEN GAS SERVICE MADE IT TO TRAVIS HEIGHTS, UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE THESE RECESSED CORNERS AT THE SECOND FLOOR. SO YOU SEE HAVE THE SENSE OF THESE BANKS OF WINDOWS REALLY PROJECTING FROM THE VOLUME OF THE HOUSE. THOSE WERE ENCLOSED AS CLOSETS, EXCUSE ME, WHILE I SCROLL. AND SO THE VIEW FROM THE FRONT YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CORNERS ARE, UM, BROUGHT OUT TO THE EDGES FROM THE SIDE AS WELL. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ARTICULATION AT THE CORNERS. THAT REALLY WAS A DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THIS HOUSE. AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM, THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO REVERSE. IT CERTAINLY WILL BE BETTER WITH THE STUCCO, UM, RESTORED AND THE ALUMINUM SIDING REMOVED. UM, BUT THAT IS ONE MARK, UH, AGAINST IT IN TERMS OF QUALIFYING FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. UH, IT ALSO IS ASSOCIATED WITH, UM, TWO DIFFERENT FAMILIES, BOTH OF WHICH WERE SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS PEOPLE, BUT, UM, STAFF DID NOT REALLY SEE, UM, ROD IMPACTS OF EITHER THEIR BUSINESS OR PERSONAL ENDEAVORS IN TERMS OF AUSTIN'S HISTORY. SO, UM, STAFF JUST FELT THAT THIS WAS NOT, NOT A STRONG CASE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND THEREFORE, UH, GIVEN THAT THE PROJECT IS, IS LARGELY APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE, THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RELEASE THE PERMIT. AND THE HOUSE WAS STUCCOED ORIGINALLY, IT WAS BUILT AS A STUCCOED HOUSE AND HAD THAT ONE STORY, UM, PORCH THAT WAS LATER ENCLOSED ON THE SIDE. [04:50:02] DO I HEAR A MOTION COMMISSIONER HYDROSTAT I'LL MOVE APPROVE OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR RELEASING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE? NO, EXCUSE ME, COOK. IS THAT A SECOND? OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RELEASE A PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND REHABILITATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? NONE THE MOTION PASSES I'M, I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS HOUSE COME BACK. UM, IT WAS USED IN MANY. UM, I HAVE A NUMBER OF HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS. IT WAS USED IN ADVERTISEMENTS, UH, FOR TRAVEL SITES, UH, AS A STREETCAR SUBURB. OKAY. WE JUST, THAT'S THE END OF OUR, OF OUR CASES. THE NEXT ITEM, UM, AND F ARE ALREADY PASSED FOR COMMISSIONING STAFF ITEMS, [4.A.1. Architectural Review Committee] ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, COMMISSIONER VILLAINS, WILLA, CAN YOU REPORT ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE? UM, I FEEL LIKE WE SAW A LOT OF THE CASES HERE TONIGHT, UM, SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PASS ON CONSENT BASED ON, UM, THE APPLICANT FOLLOWING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS DURING THOSE MEETINGS. UM, AND JUST SOME, SOME SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES TO THAT. YEAH, I THINK SO TOO. UM, OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, I DON'T THINK THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE HAS MET, UM, GRANTS. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANYTHING TO GRANTS [4.A.4. Preservation Plan Committee] PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER, SETH, CAN YOU, UH, REPORT ON THAT? WELL, UM, IN A NUTSHELL, WE REVIEWED A PROGRAM FOR, UM, PUTTING TOGETHER THE, UH, THE, THE BASICALLY WHAT WILL BECOME A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS COMMISSION THAT WILL, UH, WORK WITH STAFF AND CONSULTANTS TO, UM, IMPLEMENT THE UPDATE TO OUR PRESERVATION PLAN. AND, AND, UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY EXCITING PARTS OF IT THAT WERE PART OF OUR PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS AND WILL BE COMING, BUT, UH, SUFFICE TO SAY NOW THE, UH, REQUESTS TO GO OUT AND WE ENCOURAGE ANYBODY WHO IS MOTIVATED TO PARTICIPATE. UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER LAROCHE YOU'RE IN. OKAY. OKAY. SO THEY'RE A MEMBER OF THE PRESERVATION AND MAYBE WITHOUT ANY ARM TWISTING MADAM CHAIR, IF I COULD MAKE A FEW BRIEF REMARKS, OKAY. WE HAVE TWO MINUTES. WE ANTICIPATE LAUNCHING THE WORKING GROUP APPLICATION TOMORROW. SO STAY TUNED. IT WILL BE COMING TO YOUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, EMAIL ADDRESSES, UH, WITH SOME MATERIAL THAT YOU CAN FORWARD TO ANYONE THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR PARTICIPATION, UH, STAFF WILL BE DOING SOME ROBUST OUTREACH, BUT IT NEVER HURTS TO HAVE A PERSONALIZED MESSAGE, UH, PARTICULARLY FROM A COMMISSIONER REGARDING, UM, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORKING GROUP, THE IMPORTANCE OF A NEW PRESERVATION PLAN AND, UM, JUST REALLY ENCOURAGING FOLKS TO APPLY. UH, WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET A GOOD, DIVERSE CROSS SECTION OF FOLKS FROM ACROSS THE HISTORY, UM, VARIOUS RACIAL AND ETHNIC, UM, MAKEUP, UH, DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS IN TERMS OF, OF PROFESSION AND, UM, JUST DIFFERENT CALLINGS TO THE PRESERVATION FIELD. SO, UM, IF, IF Y'ALL CAN HELP US CIRCULATE THAT FAR AND WIDE, WE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. UH, IT WILL BE THE WORKING GROUP. WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT THE JUNE 28TH MEETING TO APPOINT THOSE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS. SO WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER MEETING OF THE PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE IN THE MEANTIME, TO, TO, UH, TRY TO SELECT FROM THE APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS WILL GO A LONG WAY TO ANSWERING SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON, ON PROPERTIES THAT COME BEFORE US THAT MAY NOT INITIALLY SEEM LIKE LANDMARKS BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH, UM, AN OLDER LENS. UM, IF I CAN HISTORIC LENS ON PRESERVATION, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING COMMISSIONER HINES BEFORE NOW? ADJOURN? CAN I JUST PASS ON ELIZABETH AND I WANT TO PASS ON TWO ITEMS OF GOOD NEWS. UH, SO WE CAN END THIS ON A HIGH NOTE. FIRST OF ALL, UH, I'LL DO MINE, UM, THE LITTLE STORE THAT'S PINK LION STORE, TWO 20 [04:55:01] COME MILE WITH BEING FAITHFULLY RESTORED UNRECONSTRUCTED. SO IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO RUN BY THERE AND TAKE A LOOK, PLEASE DO SO AND PASS ON THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE ROBINSON BUILDING. YES, THERE'S A NEW OWNER FOR THE BARTHOLOMEW ROBINSON BUILDING. UM, IT'S THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS WHO HAS THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. AND SO THEY ARE LOOKING TO USE IT FOR ADDITIONAL MEETING SPACE. EXCELLENT. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE OPPOSED THE, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THAT SITE IN THE PAST HAVEN'T THING. I'M PRETTY SURE THEY HAD THAT. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT'S CORRECT. AND STEVE HAD SHARED SOME REALLY LOVELY PHOTOS OF, UM, OF THAT BUILDING OF THE BUILDING AT TWO 20 KOMAL WITH ME, BUT THEY'RE ON MY PHONE AND NOT ON THE COMPUTER. I DIDN'T GET THEM OFTENTIMES. SO I WILL FORWARD THOSE TO YOU ALL. SO YOU CAN ENJOY SOME GOOD NEWS AT THE END OF THE MEETING. OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. I THINK COMMISSIONER SECONDED IT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. WE MADE IT STRIP AND IT'S. YEAH. GOOD NIGHT. THANK YOU ALL GOOD NIGHT. GOOD NIGHT. . * 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.