* 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. HASN'T SAID [00:00:01] ANYTHING YET. I [Call to Order] CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. I CAN HEAR YOU. MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS. PRESENT. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY. PRESENT. DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER FOGLEMAN. PRESENT. DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WAVES. IF YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING TO YOU. OH, I GUESS HE DOESN'T KNOW WE'RE TALKING TO HIM. , BUT THE THING IS MUTED ON HER. IT SHOWS THAT HE'S MUTED. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T, HE CAN'T HEAR. I ALSO CALLS HIM UNVERIFIED. IS HE NOT A PARTICIPANT? NO. I'M GONNA COME BACK. OKAY. UH, DISTRICT SIX, COMMISSIONER HOSA WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY. DISTRICT SEVEN, COMMISSIONER SMITH PRESENT. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER KY. OH, HE IS NOT BACK. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER RENO. PRESENT. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER IN TORONTO. WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY. DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER ROTHENBERGER. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER POSI PRESENT. DISTRICT 14. COMMISSIONER HARPER PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON PRESENT AND COMMISSIONER RES PRESENT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FOGLEMAN POPPED UP VISUALLY FOR A MOMENT, BUT I THINK HE'D ALREADY ANSWERED THAT HE WAS HERE. AND I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS TRYING TO GET BACK ON. HE'S BACK IN THE BOX. OKAY, GOOD. WE WANT IN ONE OF THOSE BOXES WHERE WE CAN SIT. I CAN HEAR YOU NOW. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS HERE. CHAIRMAN MONTGOMERY. UM, I BELIEVE, UH, COMMISSIONER ROZANSKI HAD SENT AN EMAIL THAT HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE LOGGING ON AND HE NEEDED A LINK. AND SO I WAS GONNA SUGGEST IF ALAN COULD FORWARD THAT LINK. OKAY. ADRIAN. HE WAS ON THIS MORNING. WELL, UH, LET HIM KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING, WE'VE BEEN HERE ENOUGH TO SEE HOW THAT CAN GO SOMETIMES. JUST SEND IT AGAIN. THERE HE IS. COMMISSIONER ROSKI. CAN YOU HEAR US? YES. APOLOGIES. SORRY. UH, WE'VE HAD A FEW DIFFICULTIES TODAY. SO SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER ROSKI IS ALSO HERE. ALL RIGHT. NOW THAT WE'RE ALL HERE, UM, BEFORE WE GET TO [Public Speakers] OUR, UH, CASES, WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. MR. SHEER? YEAH. MR. SHEER. COME ON, PAUL. WE WERE NODDING AT EACH OTHER IN A FRIENDLY MANNER. I THOUGHT THAT WAS, JUST MAKE SURE THE LIGHT ON IS ON, ON THE MICROPHONE. THERE WE GO. BUT I HAVE A PRESENTATION. IT'S ACTUALLY A VOICE. UH, OKAY. THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. THE CITY COUNCIL BACK IN MAY ABOUT SAVING CITY HALL. YEAH. I CAN'T HEAR. YOU MAY NEED TO POINT THAT UP TO YOUR MOUTH. YEAH, WELL, IT'S NOT. THIS WILL SPEAK FROM IS A BOLD ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO MAYOR JOHNSON AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO REIMAGINE DALLAS CITY HALL BY PRESERVING AND REVITALIZING THE EXISTING HISTORIC IMP DESIGN BUILDING. INSTEAD OF DEMOLITION THE PLAN CALLS FOR THE RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION OF THE ICONIC BRUTALIST STYLE STRUCTURE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF A COMPLIMENTARY EDITION. THIS NEW EDITION TAKES THE FORM OF AN INVERTED C, WHICH WHEN COMBINED WITH THE ORIGINAL LINEAR CITY HALL, CREATES A POWERFUL SYMBOLIC GESTURE. THE LETTER D REPRESENTING DALLAS. THE PROJECT TRANSFORMS CITY HALL INTO A RENEWED CIVIC CAMPUS THAT PRESERVES ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY, STRENGTHENS FUNCTIONALITY AND ENHANCES PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. ALIGNING WITH DALLAS GREENING INITIATIVES THROUGH RENOVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE NEW DESIGN FEATURES CLEARLY DEFINED PUBLIC, PRIVATE, AND SECURED ZONES [00:05:01] TO ENSURE AN EFFICIENT AND TRANSPARENT CIVIC ENVIRONMENT MEETING MODERN OPERATIONAL AND SECURITY STANDARDS. ONCE THE ADDITION IS COMPLETE, ALL 43 CITY OFFICE DIVISIONS COULD BE CONSOLIDATED THERE, ALLOWING THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC BUILDING TO UNDERGO THOUGHTFUL RENOVATION WITHOUT INTERRUPTING MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS. THE ADDITION IS ALSO ENVISIONED AS THE FIRST NET ZERO READY MASS TIMBER CIVIC BUILDING IN DALLAS, TARGETING HIGH CERTIFICATIONS LIKE LEED GOLD SLASH PLATINUM AND LEAD ZERO ENERGY DISTINGUISHED BY ITS CURVED FORM GEOMETRY AND LARGE ROOF WING, ACCOMMODATING SOLAR PANEL ARRAYS. THE DESIGN UTILIZES A MONOLITHIC CONCRETE BASE TO HONOR THE ORIGINAL BUILDING'S MATERIALITY AND SETS UP AN ARCHITECTURAL DIALOGUE WITH NEARBY PROJECTS LIKE THE DALLAS MEMORIAL ARENA RENOVATION AND THE K-B-H-C-C-D MASTER PLAN. A KEY FEATURE IS THE ELEVATED PUBLIC COURTYARD BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES, WHICH WILL BE A DYNAMIC, DYNAMIC CIVIC, GREEN AND EVENT SPACE. A THOROUGHFARE STREET WILL PRESERVE SHORT-TERM PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS, BUT IS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED TO CLOSE FOR LARGE SCALE CITY EVENTS LIKE THE DALLAS MARATHON OR FESTIVALS TRANSFORMING INTO A PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE. THE PROJECT IS POSITIONED AS AN URBAN ANCHOR TO HELP RECONNECT DOWNTOWN DALLAS TO THE CEDARS DEEP EL AND SOUTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER RAN SHEAR, THE PROPONENT OF THE PROJECT ARGUES THAT PRESERVATION WITH THOUGHTFUL EVOLUTION IS THE PATH FORWARD, NOT DEMOLITION. HE URGES THE COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON DEMOLITION, AND YES, ON THE BIG D PROJECT, CALLING IT A WIN-WIN WIN OPPORTUNITY FOR HERITAGE, CIVIC IDENTITY, AND FUTURE GENERATIONS. UH, THAT'S IT. I'M BASICALLY HERE TO TRY TO SAVE CITY HALL AND ALSO, UH, BEAT, UH, UH, LET ME SAY THAT. UH, I'M AGAINST, UH, ANY KIND OF DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. AND SO THE LETTER I WROTE TODAY WAS SPEAKING ON THAT REGARD. UH, I KNOW THAT IN, UH, AUGUST, I BELIEVE THEY HAD COME WITH A COMMISSION. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WENT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION OR NOT, BUT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. AND FROM MY HISTORY, I KNOW THAT DEMOLITION DOES NOT WORK. DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT DOES NOT WORK. UH, IT, IT DOESN'T PRESERVE THE NEW BUILDING OR THE OLD BUILDING. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING BUT KEEP IT IN A STABLE LOCK STATE FOR NOTHING TO GET DONE UNTIL IT GETS KNOCKED DOWN. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH, EXCUSE ME, THAT IS YOUR TIME, SIR. I, WELL, THANK YOU SIR. OBVIOUSLY, THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALREADY EXPRESSED ITS CONCERN FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CITY HALL BY OUR INITIATION OF IT TO BE A CITY OF DALLAS LANDMARK. UM, AND IS THAT ME BPE OR NO. OH, GOOD. GOOD. AND UNTIL WE, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT THERE'S NOT MUCH IN OUR PURVIEW ANYMORE TO DO ABOUT IT, BUT WE HAVE ALL BEEN FOLLOWING CLOSELY THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS AND, AND EVENTS THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING RELATED TO CITY HALL. WELL, I CAME TO MAKE MY STATEMENT AND THEN ALSO TO HAVE YOU FOLLOW THE DESIGN BECAUSE I'M ALREADY IN THE FOURTH GENERATION OF THIS DESIGN. AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL GO PUBLIC AND HOPEFULLY THEY'LL HAVE OTHER ARCHITECTS COME TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH IDEAS TO KEEP CITY CALM HERE IN DALLAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE WISH YOU LUCK ON THAT. THIS MIGHT BE A, A GOOD TIME FOR A LITTLE UPDATE FOR COMMISSIONERS IS THAT WE HAVE STARTED THE DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT INVESTIGATION AND SO WE'VE STARTED WITH OUR FIRST MEETING WITH, UH, FACILITIES AND WE ARE REVIEWING THE REPORT FROM THE BUILDING. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MARCUS. I KNOW THAT'S QUITE A, A LEGAL PATH. SHOULD I LEAVE A HARD COPY HERE? SURE. YOU MAY GIVE IT TO ANY OF OUR STAFF. WELL HERE, DR. DON, NICE TO SEE YOU. OKAY THEN. THANK YOU. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO, UM, HAVE A SUPPORT STATEMENT FOR SAVING THE BUILDING AND DOING AN ADDITION TO IT? I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. WE'VE ALREADY ESSENTIALLY MADE OUR STATEMENT FOR THE VALUE OF PRESERVING IT BY INITIATING IT. AT THIS POINT, IT'S PROBABLY, WE'VE DONE WHAT WE CAN DO AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT ARE NOW DISCUSSING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I, IF WE'VE MADE OUR OPINION CLEAR, CAN THIS COMMISSION VOTE ON THE BIG DEED PROJECT? WE CANNOT, NO. OKAY. WELL, I THINK IT WASN'T ON THEIR AGENDA, BUT WE CANNOT VOTE ON ANYTHING LIKE THAT, UM, FOR THIS ONGOING CONCERN. BUT AS YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE EXPLORING THE DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK THAT'S IT. OKAY. NICE TO SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN BY, OKAY. [Consent Items] NOW TO MOVE ON TO OUR ITEMS. UM, MR. OSI, YOU HAVE MOTION? OKAY. UM, I HAVE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS, NUMBER 1 2 7, UH, BASED ON STAFF [00:10:01] RECOMMENDATIONS. SECOND, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER REEVES WAS OUR SECOND MADAM CHAIR. IF I COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION. MR. PRESI SAID ONE THROUGH SEVEN OR ONE, TWO AND SEVEN, ONE THROUGH SEVEN, ONE THROUGH SEVEN. ONE THROUGH SEVEN. THANK YOU. . SORRY. YEAH, THAT DID COME OUT THAT WAY. . ALRIGHT. OKAY. WE HAVE OUR MOTION AND OUR SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER REEVES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES. YES, YES. ANY OPPOSED? YES. ALRIGHT, THEN THAT MOTION HAS CARRIED, SO ALL THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WILL MOVE FORWARD ACCORDING TO STAFF FOUNDATION. ALRIGHT. AND MY, UH, SECOND [Courtesy Review Items] MOTION IS TO REARRANGE THE AGENDA AS FOLLOWED. UH, WE'LL HAVE CR EIGHT, D NINE, D 11 AND D 10, UH, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE HAVE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, UH, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO SPEAK ON D 10. SO IF THEY COME IN AT SOME POINT, WE MAY NEED TO REARRANGE THE AGENDA. ALRIGHT, KEEP IT AS MENTIONED. YES, AS YOU JUST SAID. CR EIGHT, D NINE, D 11, AND D 10. UH, WHAT DID YOU SECOND? COMMISSIONER REEVES. OKAY. , HE SIGNED TO YOU TOO. ALRIGHT. UH, YES. COMMISSIONER REEVES IS OUR SECOND ALL IS IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. PLEASE SAY YES. YES, YES, YES. ALL IS OPPOSED. OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON AND BEGIN WITH OUR COURTESY WITH YOU. DO WE HAVE TO SPEAKER ON THE COURTESY WITH YOU? UH, AJ DID SAY HE WAS ON VIRTUALLY. OKAY. OKAY. OH YES. AND COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS REUSED FOR THIS. I CAN'T TELL WHETHER HE'S JUST NOT AT SCREEN OR LEFT. ALRIGHT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE OUR SPEAKER'S HERE. YEAH, I'M HERE. OKAY. AND THEN WE WILL, FIRST WE HAVE THE STAFF READ THIS, READ WHAT THEY DO TO US. THEY DON'T HAVE TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD LIKE IT'S A RIGHT TERM, BUT . OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS DR. RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF COURTESY REVIEW ITEM CR EIGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 1104 BETTERTON CIRCLE. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR AND THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE CASE NUMBER IS COA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 4 1 1. THE REQUEST IS FOR A COURTESY REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR REHABILITATION OF THE MAIN BUILDING, INCLUDING EXTERIOR SIDING, REPLACEMENT WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT, ROOF REPLACEMENT, INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND OR REPLACEMENT OF FRONT PORCH COLUMNS AND RAILINGS AND EXTERIOR PAINT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SINCE THIS IS A COURTESY REVIEW, NO ACTION IS REQUIRED, BUT THAT THE REQUEST FOR EXTERIOR REHABILITATION OF THE MAIN BUILDING, INCLUDING EXTERIOR SIDING, REPLACEMENT WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT, ROOF REPLACEMENT, INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND OR REPLACEMENT OF FRONT PORCH COLUMNS AND RAILINGS AND EXTERIOR PAINT BE CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED AS A RESTORATION CONSISTENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR RESTORATION. OH YES. THANK YOU. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION COURTESY REVIEW COMMENTS ONLY SUPPORTIVE WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS. PROVIDE PICTURES OF ALL FOUR ELEVATIONS, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, RECOMMEND PUTTING UP A WOOD FENCE ON THE REAR FOR SECURITY. NUMBER THREE, WHAT STEPS TO REMAIN INTACT? ALRIGHT, AND OUR SPEAKER. HEY EVERYONE, APPRECIATE Y'ALL ALL . HELLO SIR, I NEED YOU TO BEGIN BY TELLING ME, UM, JUST TELL US YOUR NAME. I'M ANDREW ALER. I LIVE AT 1923 NORTH EDGEFIELD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8. OKAY. GO AHEAD AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT AND WE'LL GIVE YOU SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS ON IT. ABSOLUTELY. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME. UM, THE INTENTION HERE, IF I'M GONNA DESIGN INTENT IS TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE AND BASICALLY BRING THE HOUSE BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE HOUSE OR THE SIZING OF ANY WINDOWS OR SIZING OF ANY DOORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE THE HOUSE EXACTLY AS IT IS. ANY MATERIAL THAT CAN BE SALVAGED WILL BE SALVAGED. UH, AND I'M REALLY HERE THOUGH, I GUESS LARGELY TO GET THE FEEDBACK FROM, FROM Y'ALL. OKAY. WELL THEN LET'S SEE [00:15:01] WHAT OUR VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO SAY. COMMISSIONER PREZI. YES. UH, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, PORCH COLUMNS. UH, SO IN SOME OF THE DI DIAGRAMS, THE PORCH COLUMNS ARE FULL HEIGHT, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER RENDERING WHERE THE COLUMNS ARE NOT FULL HEIGHT AND THEY SIT ON A BRICK, UH, BASE. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION WAS, WHICH ONE ARE YOU GOING WITH? , THEY'LL STILL SIT ON THE, THERE'S AN EXISTING BRICK BASE WHICH THEY'LL SET ON. OKAY. SO THEN IT WILL, THE COLUMNS WILL REMAIN FULL HEIGHT BOX COLUMNS LIKE THEY ARE NOW? CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTION FOLLOW UP ON THAT AS WELL. UM, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE ONE ELEVATION, UH, FRONT ELEVATION. DO WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS ORIGINAL, UH, LITTLE SHED ROOF ON THE PORCH, UH, AND THE PORCH COLUMNS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON, UH, AFTER IT WAS CONSTRUCTED OR IS THAT, DO YOU BELIEVE THOSE WHAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS PROBABLY ORIGINAL OR YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE METAL AWNINGS OR THE, OR THE PORCH? THE PORCH ITSELF. JUST ACTUALLY THE PORCH ITSELF. THE, I COULDN'T GET IN TIGHT. THE C AND E YEAH. MY BELIEF IS THAT THAT WAS ALL ORIGINAL. YOU BELIEVE SO? YES. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? UH, YES. IT APPEARS ON THE DRAWINGS THAT THE RAILINGS AND, UM, STAIR RAILS ARE METAL. ARE THEY METAL OR WOOD? THEY DON'T APPEAR TO BE TYPICAL TO THE PROPERTY. UH, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU POINT OUT THAT MY PLAN'S PULLED UP ON HERE? WHAT POINT OUT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? I'M NOT SURE. CAN YOU SHOW THE EL THE, UM, THE COLOR ELEVATION? THAT, I THINK IT'S THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH. LET'S SEE HERE. YEAH, CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THE PORCH? IS THAT POSSIBLE? YEAH, I BELIEVE IT IS. I THINK THERE IS, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S A, A FRONT PORCH IS SCREENED IN. SO THE, WELL, THE, THE RAILINGS ON THE, ON THE STEPS, ARE THEY, ARE THEY METAL OR WOOD? WOOD. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE HISTORIC PRECEDENT OF A SCREENED IN PORCH IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ALSO SINCE IT'S SUCH A HIGH FOUNDATION HEIGHT, IT WILL NEED TO HAVE A BANISTER OF SOME SORT. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PORCHES IN 10TH STREET WERE SCREENED IN HISTORICALLY. AND I WOULD RATHER IT BE AN OPEN PORCH WITH A WOOD BANISTER. I'M, I'M COMPLETELY OPEN TO THAT FEEDBACK. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR US. THE, THE INTENTION WITH THE SCREEN PORCH IS THAT'S WHAT'S EXISTING. OUR BELIEF IS THAT IT'S BEEN THERE FOR, UH, AT LEAST 50 YEARS, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT PART OF THE HISTORIC STORY. BUT I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE A HUGE BIAS ABOUT A SCREEN END PORCH. NOT SCREEN END PORCH. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. ARE PORCHES ALLOWED TO BE SCREENED IN IN THE 10TH STREET? IS IT IN THE ORDINANCE? THEY CANNOT , BUT IT DOESN'T SAY ABOUT, NO, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SCREENED IN. MARCUS IS LOOKING IT UP. YEAH. IN HIS BIG BOOK OF ORDINANCES. OKAY. WELL IS IT TYPICAL TO HAVE A SCREENED PORCH IN 10TH STREET? IT PROBABLY WAS TYPICAL AS EVOLUTION OCCURRED THAT PEOPLE ADDED SCREENING TO THEIR PORCHES TO MAKE THEM MORE COMFORTABLE AND USEFUL. SO THERE THAT WAS PRETTY COMMON DURING THE YEARS WHEN SCREENING WAS EASILY AVAILABLE BEFORE THERE WAS AIR CONDITIONING . SO FOR A PERIOD A LOT OF PEOPLE PROBABLY DID THAT. I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK THE SCREEN PORCH IS APPROPRIATE. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THAT. AND WHAT ABOUT THE, THERE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A RAILING OF IT. IS IT OVER 30 INCHES IN HEIGHT? IT LOOKS TO BE PRETTY HIGH FOUNDATION. ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE FLOOR HEIGHT OF THE PORCH? YES. MR. RAMIR, DO YOU KNOW THE FLOOR HEIGHT OF YOUR PORCH? I DO NOT KNOW THAT. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT THAT REQUIRES A BANISTER? IS IT OVER 30 INCHES? UH, I WOULD FACT THAT IT'S, UH, OVER 30 INCHES. YES. IT, IT'S PROBABLY RIGHT AROUND 30 INCHES. I CAN VERIFY THAT. I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE A WOOD BANISTER THAT IS TYP TYPICAL TO THE DISTRICT AND NO SCREENS DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT FEEDBACK. OKAY. I BELIEVE MARCUS HAS A REPORT ON WHAT HE FOUND IN THE ORDINANCE. THE, THE ORDINANCE DOES SAY THAT [00:20:01] PROTECTED PORCHES, WHICH THIS IS, ARE NOT TO BE ENCLOSED. UM, HOWEVER, IF THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE THAT THIS HAS BEEN ENCLOSED FOR BE BEFORE THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED, THEN THERE WE HAVE A GRANDFATHERING TYPE OF ISSUE. NO. SO THERE THERE TO MAYBE BE SOME MORE INFORMATION. I I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT DOES GRANDFATHERED MEAN? IF IT HAD METAL COLUMNS FROM THE FIFTIES, THEY CAN'T PUT THEM BACK ON. THEY'RE NOT GRANDFATHERED. IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT'S THE SAME SITUATION. I DON'T THINK IT'S GRANDFATHERED. IF, IF SOMEBODY, IF SOMETHING IS ON THE HOUSE AND THEY SIMPLY DO AN IN KIND REPLACEMENT, THAT'S EVEN ROUTINE, BUT NOT IF IT'S NOT ORIGINAL. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF THIS HAD METAL COUNTS IN THE FIFTIES, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUT THEM BACK ON IF THEY TOOK THEM DOWN. IS THAT CORRECT? IF, IF THEY WERE REMOVED, BUT IF, IF HE'S WANTING TO KEEP SOMETHING THAT IS EXISTING THAT'S DIFFERENT, BUT HE'S GONNA REMOVE THE, THE SCREEN PORCH TO, HE CAN'T FIX IT. IT'S GOTTA BE REMOVED AND REBUILT. I IBEL I BELIEVE STAFF WOULD SEE THAT AS AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT. BUT IF THE COMMISSION SEES THAT DIFFERENTLY, UM, WELL WE'RE VOTING ON IT. SO THAT'S THE SITUATION. I SEE. ARE WE VOTING ON IT TODAY OR ARE WE GONNA NO, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANY TODAY. NO, I'M JUST STARTING ON THIS SOMEDAY. AND THAT'S, I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TO SAY ABOUT IT. THANK YOU. SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON BELIEVES THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND MOVING FORWARD FOR THE DAY. WE DO VOTE ON IT. AND HE HAS THOROUGHLY EXPRESSED HIS OPPOSITION TO INCLUDING A SCREENED PORCH. EXACTLY. WELL, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO A SCREENED PORCH. IT WAS PROBABLY SCREENED IN WHEN, BEFORE THE DISTRICT WAS DONE, SO THAT WOULD MAKE IT PREEXISTING. AND IF IT HAS TO BE REPAIRED, IT'S REPAIRING SOMETHING THAT WAS PREEXISTING. SO I DISAGREE COMPLETELY WITH JIM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE ANSWERED COMMISSIONER SMITH'S QUESTION THAT THINGS THAT ASPECTS OF A BUILDING THAT WERE NOT ORIGINAL BUT HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME CAN ALSO BE GRANDFATHERED IN IT. ESSENTIALLY HOW WE'VE OFTEN LOOKED AT THINGS LIKE THE FENCES THAT ARE WHERE WE PREFER 'EM NOT TO BE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, RIGHT. THAT IS A NATURAL EVOLUTION STANDARD. STANDARD FOUR. YES. RIGHT. OKAY. SO IN THIS CASE, IF HE NEEDS TO UPTAKE THAT SCREEN, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, THIS, IT, IT, IT IT MAY BE YES. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE THIS BECOMES IF HERE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE GIVEN THE APPLICANT THE NOTICE TO CHECK OUT WHETHER OR NOT TO MEET BASIC SAFETY CODES. YOU'RE GONNA NEED A HANDRAIL TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM FALLING OFF. HE NEEDS TO SEE HOW HIGH UP THE FLOOR IS. AND IF IT'S 30 INCHES OR ABOVE, WE'RE THINKING HE'S PROBABLY GONNA NEED A HANDRAIL. GOTCHA. TO PROTECT PEOPLE. MY QUESTION IS MORE SO ABOUT THE SPRING, BUT THAT'S OKAY. COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS, WELL, LET'S JUST STAY RIGHT THERE. , UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE PHOTO. I SEE PARTIAL OF THESE, UH, OF THE SCREENED IMPORTS AND A LOT OF IT'S NOT THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO SOME OF IT'S THERE AND SOME OF IT ISN'T. EXACTLY. OR IS IT ALL INTACT? NO, IT'S NOT INTACT. THIS HOUSE IS HANGING ON BY COBWEBS, , WHAT'D SAY? HANGING ON BY COBS. YES. RIGHT. AND IF, IF IT'S MOSTLY, IF IT'S IF, IF IT'S MOSTLY NOT INTACT, I MEAN, I WOULD CERTAINLY FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF HAVING CONCERNS OF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, OF IF IT'S NOT THERE THEN YOU, YOU CAN'T GO BACK WITH IT. THERE. IT DOESN'T REALLY CONSTITUTE AS A REPAIR AND A REPLACE WHEN IT'S NOT EVEN THERE AND IT'S, OR IT'S JUST BARELY LEANING UP AGAIN, IT'S, OR HANGING DOWN, THEN YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE CONTINUING TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, SO TO SPEAK. YOU'RE CONTINUING TO THAT PATH AND WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO REVERSE THE PATH WHEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVERSE THE PATH. AND SO I TOTALLY GET IT TO WHEN IT, IT IS IN IT'S EXISTING, IT'S PREEXISTING TO THE ORDINANCE AND YOU'D LIKE TO KEEP IT, AND THEN YOU SHOW YOUR REPAIR IN PLACE, TOTALLY GET IT. BUT IF THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE TO REPAIR, REPAIR IN PLACE AND IT'S MORE OF A REPLACE, THEN I THINK IT GOES TO MORE OF THE THINKING THAT YOU DON'T GO BACK WITH NON-ORIGINAL, NON HISTORIC MATERIAL. AND NOT ONLY THAT, LET ME, LET ME JUST SAY ON THE SECOND PART OF THAT WAY OF THINKING, [00:25:01] IT'S, THERE'S PROBABLY NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE OR ANY, MAYBE IN ANY OF THE ORDINANCES, BUT IT MIGHT BE A, A, A WISE THING TO CONSIDER WHEN THERE'S A, A LARGE PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GONNA GO ON THERE IS A HUGE SEGMENT OF COST. THERE'S A HUGE SEGMENT OF, WE'RE WE'RE RESTORING THE, THE HOUSE AS A WHOLE, BUT YET WE'RE ABLE TO GO BACK WITH NON-COMPLIANT, NON HISTORIC MATERIALS. IT'S, UH, IT, THE ONLY THING I COULD RELATE IT TO, IT'D BE KIND OF LIKE, UH, THE STATE HAS, WHEN YOU'RE DOING A-T-D-L-R, UH, WHEN, WHEN YOU DO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION, THEN IT KICKS IN THAT YOU HAVE TO BRING THE BUILDING UP TO ORDINANCE, UP TO ADA, A ORDINANCE. WE'RE NOT SPEAKING A A ORDINANCE HERE. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KIND OF SEEING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. WHEN YOU'RE DOING SO MUCH WORK TO SOMETHING BUT YOU'RE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, THOSE THINGS ARE JUST LEANING AGAINST THE PORCH. WE'RE GONNA REPLACE ALL THOSE AND, AND IT WILL STILL BE OUT NOT HISTORIC. I THINK THAT'S NOT THE PROPER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS. AND I THINK WE CAN, I THINK WE CAN GATHER OUR INFORMATION THROUGH SECRETARY AND TENURES, BUT I INTERIOR STANDARDS. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, I THINK AS, AS A WHOLE AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO, I WOULD BE MORE IN FAVOR OR NOT IN FAVOR, BUT LEANING TOWARDS THAT WHOLE THOUGHT OF THE WAY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WAS SAYING, THIS IS NOT HISTORIC MATERIAL. WHY ARE WE GOING BACK WITH NON HISTORIC MATERIAL? AND THAT'S MY CONCERN, COMMISSIONER. NO, WELL, I WAS GONNA SAY IT, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. IF THEY REALLY WANT TO PUSH FORWARD WITH KEEPING THE SWINGING PORCH. I I I, I THINK THERE IS A PRECEDENCE FOR IT BECAUSE IF IT WAS DONE BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE WAS PUT IN PLACE, IT'S GOING BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS, OR IT, IT'S KEEPING SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN HISTORIC AND INVOLVED OVER TIME. BUT I COULD ALSO SEE THAT REMOVING THE SCREEN PORCH WOULD BE FINE AS WELL. SO I THINK IT'S REALLY GONNA COME DOWN TO THE APPLICANT, DO THEY REALLY WANT IT? AND IF THEY WANT IT, THEY NEED TO MAKE THE CASE FOR IT, BUT TO REPAIR INTO PLACE AND IT'S NOT REALLY IN PLACE THEN THE SENATE, THE SENTENCE OF REPAIR IN PLACE DOESN'T REALLY STAND. IF IT'S NOT REALLY IN PLACE EXISTED. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT IS C COURTESY REVIEW. I THINK THAT STAFF'S OUR NEXT STEP IS TO WORK WITH MR. RAMBLER AND ASK MR. RAMBLER, HOW IMPORTANT IS A SCREENED PORCH? LIKE IS IT, IS IT REALLY SO IMPORTANT OR CAN THAT BE ONE SACRIFICE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A COURTESY REVIEW. WE CLEARLY REVEALED THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS AND, UH, LET'S SEE WHAT COMMISSIONER MONROE'S OPINION . OKAY. UM, WHERE SHOULD I START? UH, IF WE WERE TO COMPARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THIS, UH, 3D RENDERING, THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER THERE. THE PORCH IS ACTUALLY UNDERNEATH THE MAIN PORTION OF THE ROOF. AND WHAT WE'RE INTERPRETING AS THE ROOF IS ACTUALLY AN ALUMINUM AWNING THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO THE FRONT. SO I WANNA UNDERSTAND THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PROPOSAL. I WOULD ASK MR. WIN, DID THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING MAKE ANY SENSE? YEAH. UH, YOU WANTED ME TO RESPOND TO THAT OR NO? OKAY. YES, PLEASE. SO LEMME JUST ASK AGAIN, JUST IN CASE IT WAS A UNCLEAR, SO THE EXISTING PORCH, UH, ACCORDING TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU PROVIDED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE, UM, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE NOTICED IT OTHERWISE. THE PORCH IS ACTUALLY UNDERNEATH THE MAIN FRAME, THE MAIN ROOF OF THE HOUSE. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THIS RENDERING IS ACTUALLY AN ADDED PORCH BEYOND THE EXISTING FACE OF THE BUILDING. THE, UH, I THINK IT MIGHT BE DRAWING. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE THAT, THAT THIS IS AN AIR ON THE ARCHITECTURAL. YEAH. UM, DRAWINGS, THIS IS, THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION. THE INTENTION IS TO, UH, THE ROUTE THE ROOF PITCH TO CONTINUE AS IT SITS TODAY. OKAY. SO THE SLOPE PORTION, WELL UPDATE THAT, THAT THAT SLOPE PORTION I THINK IS NOT EVEN, I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT SLOW PORTION EXISTS ANYMORE. I THINK SOME OF THE SCRAPPERS TOOK IT. I YEAH, I AGREE. UM, 'CAUSE IT LOOKS AGAIN, AS FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THAT WAS, UH, AN ALUMINUM AWNING. CORRECT. UM, THAT'S ACTUALLY BEYOND THE FACE OF THE PORCH ITSELF. THAT'S GREAT. YEAH. THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST A SMALL, THAT'S JUST A, YEAH, WE'LL HAVE THAT, WE'LL UPDATE THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO REPRESENT THAT CORRECTLY. [00:30:01] OKAY. SO, UM, , SO WHAT'S THE INTENTION OF THE REPAIR? IS IT TO REMOVE THE AWNING COMPLETELY AND GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL THAT WELL, TWO, TWO THINGS. I DON'T EVEN THINK THE AWNING'S THERE ANYMORE. SECOND THING IS, YES, THAT'S THE INTENTION. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE, FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? CAN WE LOOK AT THE, UM, A BLOW UP OF THE FRONT PORCH AS IT IS TODAY? THAT THINK PICTURE RIGHT THERE? WE'RE TRYING TO, CAN YOU GET, MAKE IT BIGGER? CAN WE MOVE IN ON THAT PICTURE? I'M TRYING. YES, YOU DO. SEE IT'S AN ALUMINUM ON, SO THERE IT APPEARS TO BE A VISOR LIKE, LIKE A CANOPY VISOR COMING OFF OF THE PORCH. BUT UH, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE MAJORITY OF THE PORCH IS IN UNDER THE ROOF STRUCTURE. SO RIGHT. THIS IS LIKE A VISOR. HOW MOTOR, LIKE AN AWNING. IT'S AN AWNING, BUT HOW MUCH OF THAT AWNING STICKS OUT? IT APPEARS TO BE A PRETTY MAJOR STRUCTURE ON THE RENOVATION. WHERE ON THE MAIN HOUSE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A MINOR PIECE. IS THAT JUST WHAT I'M SEEING OR, I GUESS I'M ASKING IN THE, IN THE CURRENT HOUSE, HOW FAR DOES THAT CANOPY VISOR STICK OUT FROM THE MAIN HOUSE? IS IT AS MUCH AS IN THE RENOVATION? LEMME JUST JUMP IN HERE AGAIN BECAUSE THAT VISOR I WILL VERIFY AND UPDATE THE PHOTOS. I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT EXISTS ANYMORE. SO LIKE, IT FELL OFF. NO, I THINK SOME, I MEAN, I ASSUME A SCRAPPER CAME AND TOOK IT. WE'VE HAD TO HAVE, WE'VE BEEN, IT'S BEEN A HELL OF A JOB KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF IT. OKAY. SO IT WAS ONE OF THOSE METAL THINGS AND MAYBE SOMEONE STOLE IT FOR THE METAL. THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S MY BEST GUESS. OKAY. WELL IF INDEED I'LL GO BY AND VERIFY THAT OFFICE RIGHT OUTSIDE OF 10TH STREET. SO I I'LL GO BY AND VERIFY THAT. WELL, IF INDEED QUESTION, THE QUESTION WOULD BE, DOES THE PORCH FLOOR IS, ARE THE DIMENSIONS THE SAME IN THE PROPOSAL AS THEY ARE IN THE ORIGINAL? THE PORCH FLOOR DIMENSIONS ARE THE SAME. AND AT LEAST THAT'S THE INTENT. WE'LL HAVE TO VERIFY THAT BECAUSE THE ROOF CHANGED. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO ARE WE, ARE WE ASSUMING THAT THE METAL AWNING CANOPY ON THE FRONT PORCH WAS THERE ORIGINALLY OR NOT? AND IF SO, WHY ARE, IF IT'S NOT THERE, WHY ARE WE PUTTING IT BACK ON? WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT PUTTING IT BACK ON. IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO REPLACE THAT AWNING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. IT WAS JUST THERE BEFORE AND IT'S ALREADY GONE. AND THE PICTURE'S A BIT DECEPTIVE, BUT AT THAT'S, IT WAS JUST ON FRONT OF THE PORCH. THE PORCH IS UNDERNEATH THAT FRONT GABLE ROOF AND THEY TACKED THIS AWNING ON AT SOME POINT. BUT THE APPLICANT IS NOT ASKING TO REPLACE THE AWNING. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS AS PROPOSED. THERE IS A PROJECTION NOT, IS THERE NOT, THAT IS STICKING OUT FROM THE MAIN HOUSE, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE AWNING. THE DRAWINGS ARE, ARE INCORRECT AND WE'LL UPDATE THEM. SO THERE WILL NOT BE A PROJECTION FROM THE PORCH AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWING. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER? PRE I WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR TAKING ON THIS PROJECT AND SAVING THIS HOUSE, UH, IN 10TH STREET. 'CAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE TODAY, UH, THAT'S COMING UP FOR DEMOLITION. SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS ON 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO SAVE WHAT WE HAVE LEFT, UH, IN 10TH STREET OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC. UH, 'CAUSE WE'VE LOST A LOT AND WE'RE STILL LOSING MORE. SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS ON. I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ALSO, I, I AGREE WITH THAT AND I'M VERY THANKFUL YOU'RE DOING THIS AND I'M SORRY IF WE BEAT YOU UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT WE'RE VERY HAPPY YOU'RE HERE. WE WANT YOU TO DO MORE OF THESE IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. AND NOW NOT FEEDBACK. DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS ON THIS? MADAM CHAIR? WHY DON'T WE DIRECT HIM TO THE OTHER HOUSE FOR DILEMMA DEMOLITION? UH, WE ARE, WELL IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW TO DO THAT IN A PUBLIC MEETING, COMMISSIONER REEVES, BUT, UH, NOW WE'VE DONE IT APPARENTLY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IF THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS, I DID WANNA SAY THAT ON THE ISSUE OF THE SCREEN PORCH, THERE DOES SEEM TO BE DIVISION ON HERE. I AM A PARTICIPANT IN THAT DIVISION AND THAT I, I THINK I COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY IT'S TRADITIONAL TO HAVE A SCREEN PORCH. SO IF THE APPLICANT REALLY WANTS THAT, IT IS SOMETHING HE COULD DISCUSS BRINGING BACK TO US AS AN OPTION. OR IF YOU DON'T REALLY WANT IT, YOU COULD JUST, UH, DECIDE THAT YOU DON'T WANNA ARGUE WITH US AND, AND TAKE IT OFF EITHER WAY. BUT I, UM, IT, IT IS A, AN ISSUE THAT MERITS [00:35:01] FURTHER DISCUSSION WHETHER IT'S A NATURAL PART OF THE EVOLUTION OF HOUSES IN THE SOUTH SO THAT THEIR PORCHES WERE USEFUL AND MADE MOSQUITOES OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T LIKE AND WE WANNA TAKE IT BACK TO BEFORE THAT WAS UP. SO TALK TO STAFF ABOUT WHAT YOU REALLY WANNA DO, SIR. AND, AND COME BACK TO US WITH, WITH YOUR BEST GUESS AT WHAT WOULD PLEASE YOU ADD US. OKAY. THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. ALRIGHTY. MOVING ON THEN. NEXT IS D NINE. THAT'S LIP STREET. YES. OKAY. DISCUSSION ITEM. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS DR. RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING DISCUSSION ITEM D NINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 2 0 2 SOUTH CLIFF STREET. IT'S ALSO IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE CASE NUMBER IS COA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 4 8 7. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HORIZONTAL REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING MAIN BUILDING STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HORIZONTAL REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING MAIN BUILDING BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED 8 21 20 26 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT WINDOWS INSIDE GABLES OF REAR EDITION NOT BE PAIRED. IN OTHER WORDS, A SINGLE WINDOW ON EACH SIDE WITH A MINIMUM OPENING WIDTH OF 20 INCHES, A MINIMUM OPENING HEIGHT OF 24 INCHES. AND AS I WAS MADE AWARE OF EARLIER, A MAXIMUM SEAL HEIGHT OF 44 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. AND THAT THE WINDOWS ON GROUND LEVEL BE TOP ALIGNED WITH THE WINDOWS IN THE EXISTING MAIN BUILDING ON ALL ELEVATIONS OF THE REAR ADDITION. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION CRITERIA. SECTION C UNDER FACADES AND SECTION B PERTAINING TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS. CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 SUBSECTION G SIX C ROMAN ONE FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HORIZONTAL REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING MAIN BUILDING BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS. NUMBER ONE, CHANGE THE NEW ADDITION SIDING TO 1 0 5. NUMBER TWO, REPLACE SECOND STORY WINDOW WITH SMALLER SIZE WINDOW IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE IRC, MINIMUM OPENING SIX SQUARE FEET. NUMBER THREE, SUBMIT A WINDOW SURVEY FOR WINDOWS THAT NEED REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR. FINALLY, NUMBER FOUR, SEND A SEPARATE CA FOR CURRENT HOME NEW EDITION AND CD FOR EXISTING SHED IN REAR. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND I WANNA MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD THAT ELAINE HAS IT, THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WAS IN RECUSAL FOR THE CO UM, COURTESY REVIEW AND HE IS ALSO STILL REUSED FOR THIS ONE. AND THEN HE'LL BE THAT. OKAY, SO OUR, UM, IS OUR SPEAKER WITH US FOR THIS ONE? YES, WE FOUND KATIE ONLINE. I, OKAY, WELL, WHEN YOU DO YOUR MAGIC MADAM, BE SURE WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE SPEAKER, MAY I HAVE ESTIMATE? UH, YES. I'M, I'M HERE. I WAS JUST ON MUTE. OH, UH, SHE IS HERE. SHE'S READY TO GO. OH YEAH. WE NEED YOUR VIDEO ON, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT STATE LAW THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU TO MAKE SURE IT'S REALLY YOU TALKING ABOUT YOUR STUFF. THERE YOU ARE. ALL RIGHT, MA'AM. SO, UH, AS IS OUR CUSTOM, PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOUR PROMISE SWEARING OR AFFIRMATION THAT YOU WILL TELL THE TRUTH. HI, YES, MY NAME IS SHANNON KEY. I LIVE AT 2210 VAN CLEEF DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 6. AND I WILL, UM, TELL THE TRUTH. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO START WITH TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT? SO, YES, SO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, THIS IS OUR, UM, THIRD, THIRD ROUND OF DESIGN CHANGES THAT WE'RE SUBMITTING. UM, OUR GOAL, OF COURSE IS TO REPAIR THE EXISTING HOME AND THEN ADD A REAR ADDITION, HORIZONTAL ADDITION TO THE BACK OF THE HOME. THE OWNER IS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT HAVING THIS HOME BE HIS HOME AS WELL AS A RENTAL SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BE UTILIZED. UM, WHAT WE WANT TO, SO WE, SO WE HAVE WENT AHEAD AND SUBMITTED OUR DIFFERENT CAS, UM, OUR CA FOR THE, [00:40:01] UM, REPAIR TO THE EXISTING HOME. THIS IS OF COURSE THE CA THE CA FOR, UM, CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW EDITION. AND THEN ALSO THE CD, THE CERTIFICATE OF, UM, DEMOLISH FOR THE SHED THAT IS IN THE BACK SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO ADD THIS REAR ADDITION. UM, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE A PURON BEAM FOUNDATION AS WELL AS RE REPLACE AND REPAIR THE PURON BEAM FOUNDATION THAT IS AT THE CUR, THE CURRENT HOME. UM, WE TRIED A SIDE EDITION, UM, BUT AFTER TALKING TO THE TASK FORCE AND THE COM AND THIS COMMISSION, WE WERE INSTRUCTED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO PLACE THE HOME AT THE BACK, THE, THE NEW EDITION AT THE BACK OF THE HOME. BUT IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE HISTORIC HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WAY THE HOME WAS BUILT. WE ALSO EXPLORED A RECOMMENDATION OF SPLITTING THE LOT INTO TWO LOTS, BUT DUE TO THE SIDE AND CORNER STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS, IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE, FEASIBLE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT THIS INTO TWO ON ONE LOT. UM, IT REALLY IS A LOT MORE FEASIBLE TO BE ABLE TO PUT HOME IN THE BACK. UM, WE WERE GIVEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT INSTRUCTIONS THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE AT THE, UM, LANDMARK COMMISSION AS, AND THEN THE TASK FORCE MEETING TO UPDATE THE SIDING. WE'VE DONE THAT. WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO THE WINDOWS AND THEN ALSO IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE, UM, ROOF LINE IN THE BACK WAS WAY TOO HIGH COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT SET AT TWO, UM, FEET AND SIX INCHES ABOVE, WHERE BEFORE IT WAS FIVE, FIVE FEET. SO HOPING THAT WE CAN GET THIS PUSHED THROUGH, BUT DEFINITELY OPEN TO DISCUSSION WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND ARE EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND PRESENT FOR BOTH THE EXISTING HOME AS WELL AS THE DEMOLITION THAT'S NEEDED TO, AND, AND TO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE REAR DISH. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND, UM, LIKE THE, THE, LIKE OUR PREVIOUS APPLICANT, WE, WE DO APPRECIATE YOU AND THE OWNER'S EFFORTS TO TRY TO SAVE A HOUSE DOWN THERE, YOU KNOW, PUT IN THE EXTRA WORK AND, AND I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S, IT'S NICE HAVING YOU'VE INCORPORATED A SECOND DWELLING ONTO THIS ONE BLOCK TO HELP SOLVE OUR, YOU KNOW, LACK OF HOUSING PROBLEMS. BUT LET'S SEE WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UH, THE DESIGN AS IT HAS COME THROUGH WITH THIS US NOW COMMISSIONER REEVES, ARE YOU WAVING YOUR HAND? I AM. IT'S THE QUESTION I WAS GONNA ASK BEFORE. I BELIEVE WHEN THEY WERE READING THE, UH, THE, THE STAFF AND TASK FORCE, THEY WANTED THE WINDOWS ALL THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, THE WINDOWS WOULD BE TOO HIGH IN THE BACK PART. YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT? MM-HMM . THAT, THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEANT WHEN THEY SAID MAKE THEM ALL THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT IT WOULD NOT FUNCTIONALLY WORK TO MAKE THEM ALL THE SAME HEIGHT. IF YOU'RE TALKING FROM FRONT TO BACK ON THE SIDE, OBVIOUSLY WINDOWS NEXT TO EACH OTHER OUGHT TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT THEY ALL ARE, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE FROM THE DRAWING, THE, UH, HE HAS COMPLIED. HE MADE THEM THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE WINDOWS ON THE BUMP OUT, WHICH ARE LOWER AND WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE DROP IN GRADE IN THE REAR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY? COMMISSIONER MEDO? UM, THERE WAS A, A MENTION EARLIER FROM, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ABOUT THE SCALE OF THE ADDITION ON THE BACK. UM, IT'S MY OPINION THAT, UM, THAT YOU'VE BEEN VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. I, I APPRECIATE YOU PUSHING THE, THE REAR OF THE, THE GROUND LEVEL, UH, FARTHER DOWN TO BOTH TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE, UM, THE SLOPE IN THE SITE AND THEN ALSO GIVE YOU ROOM TO BE ABLE TO, UH, PLACE HABITABLE SPACE IN THE ATTIC. UM, I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE SUGGESTION AND I CAN, IN THE MOTION, I CAN ADD THIS IN THE, UM, AS A CONDITION, BUT TO HELP THAT TRANSITION, PARTICULARLY ON YOUR NORTH ELEVATION ON THE PLAN, IT'S THE ONE TO THE LEFT WHERE THERE'S BEEN A PORCH, UM, BEEN ADDED AND UH, THERE'S A PORCH ON THE GROUND, BUT THERE'S NOT A ROOF COVERING THAT PORCH. AND I WAS, UM, IMAGINING IF YOU ADDED A ROOF TO COVER THAT PORCH, THAT IT WOULD HELP THAT TRANSITION FROM THE, THE FRONT OF THAT, FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE ONTO THE ADDITION. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I CAN DO A SKETCH REAL QUICK TO, TO ADD THAT THE, UH, FOR THE, SO ARE YOU SAYING ON THAT SIDE, ON THAT SIDE PORCH, UM, SIDE TO ADD A ROOF OVER THERE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES MA'AM. PROBABLY EXTENDING THE PORCH MAY OR THE ROOF MAYBE FOUR TO FIVE FEET OR SO TO COVER THE, THE SPACE BELOW IT. AND I, I, I THINK IN THAT MANNER IT WOULD HELP REDUCE THE, THE SCALE OR THE APPEARANCE OF THE SCALE OF THE ADDITION TO THE, TO THE BACK. 'CAUSE I'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH THAT, THAT NEW EXTENSION JUST BEING STRAIGHT AND PLAIN [00:45:01] WITH, UH, THE PROJECTION ON THAT, THAT SIDE TOO. UM, 'CAUSE WE ALWAYS TRY AND MAKE A, UH, SEPARATION WHENEVER THERE'S A NEW ADDITION THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE OLD HOUSE WAS AND YOU CAN ALSO DISTINGUISH WHERE THE NEW ADDITION IS MM-HMM . SO, UM, I THINK THAT ROOF WOULD HELP DO THAT. I'D ALSO PUT A VERTICAL, UH, UH, UH, BOARD BECAUSE THAT, THAT SIDING IS GONNA BE IN THE SAME PLANE, BUT A, A VERTICAL BOARD THERE TO HELP AGAIN, DISTINGUISH THE OLD AND THE, AND THE NEW. SO WHICH ELEVATION IS THAT ON THE, SO IT'S LABELED NORTH, UH, ON THE PLAN. IT'S ACTUALLY THE ONE ON THE LEFT, YES. YEAH, THE LEFT ELEVATION. UH, COMMISSIONER RENO. WHEN YOU SAY VERTICAL BOARD, YOU MEAN BOARD IN BATTEN OR NO, JUST A, A TRIM BOARD. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE IT'S ALL THAT SIDING IS IN THE SAME PLANE. OKAY. SO YEAH. OKAY. I HAVE THAT NOW. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALRIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? ANYBODY WISHES TO ASK ABOUT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF THIS, IF NOT, THEN IT WOULD BE TIME FOR MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION , UM, REGARDING [Discussion Items] THIS ITEM D NINE. UM, LET SEE, LEMME SURE I GET ALL THE NUMBERS RIGHT. UM, LET'S SEE. IT'S, UH, CASE NUMBER COA 26 4 87, ALSO KNOWN AS 2 0 2 SOUTH CLIFF STREET THAT WE, UM, FOLLOW, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE, UM, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS MENTIONED, UH, WITH THE ONE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT A ROOF EXTENSION OF, OF FOUR TO FIVE FEET BE PLACED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OVER THE PORCH BELOW IT, AND A VERTICAL BOARD SEPARATING THE, UM, EXISTING SIGHTING FROM THE, UM, . OKAY. WITH A, YEAH, WITH A SEPARATION IN SIGHTING, HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE, CHOOSE PRIVATE BROWSING MODE. I SECOND THAT BACK AIR. OKAY. WAS THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YES. ALRIGHT THEN. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? WE READY FOR VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES. YES, YES, YES. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, I SEE YOU CLAPPING YOUR HANDS. I'M GLAD YOU'RE HAPPY WE MADE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY. . THANK YOU. SO GLAD SO EXCITED TO GET IN A YES. THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. APPRECIATE. OKAY, WELL GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND STAFF CAN HELP YOU WITH, UH, ANY OF THE CONDITIONS AND, AND SUGGESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. AND WELCOME. GOOD LUCK. DO A GOOD JOB. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. HAVE A GOOD DAY. YOU TOO. BYE-BYE. ALRIGHT, SO OUR NEXT STEP WILL BE D 11 ON CLINTON AVENUE. OH, AND COMMISSIONER TAYLOR CAN COME BACK. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE TELL HIM THAT TEXT EXTENTS GOT HIS PHONE NUMBER. YOU'RE PROBABLY FASTER THAN ME SINCE I USE ONE FINGER FOR TEXTING. TAYLOR, STOP LAUGHING. , WE ALL HAVE OUR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, YOU KNOW, . OKAY. GOOD STEP. YEAH, WE'RE DONE. . I WAS GONNA WAIT FOR HIM TO COME BACK. . ALRIGHT, TAYLOR MEANS, UM, READING IN ON BEHALF OF STAFF ITEM NUMBER D 11 LOCATED AT 1 2 6 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE AND THE WINKA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT COA 2 6 0 0 0 3 4 7. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY COVERED PORCH ON THE REAR OF THE HOME AND MODIFY SEVERAL WINDOW AND DOOR ENCLOSURES ON THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY COVERED PORCH ON THE REAR OF THE HOME TO REMOVE THE EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY AND MODIFY SEVERAL WINDOW AND DOOR ENCLOSURES TO BE APPROVED, UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DATED AUGUST 2ND, 2026, [00:50:02] WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXTERIOR CHIMNEY STACK IS TO REMAIN AS CONDITION. THE FINDING OF THE FACTS IS THAT THE WORK IS APPROPRIATE TO THE DISTRICT AND WOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE STRUCTURE OR THE DISTRICT. MR. CUMMINGS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, NO QUORUM COMMENTS ONLY TASK FORCE WAS SUPPORTIVE. THE, THE DESIGN AND APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL WINDOWS ADDED ON THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE HOME. AND MY SPEAKER IS HERE IN PERSON. GOOD MORNING, MR. MARTINEZ. AND WE NEED YOU TO BEGIN BY GIVING US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOUR PROMISE OR AFFIRMATION THAT YOU'LL TELL THE PROOF. ISAAC MARTINEZ. 2 2 7 NORTH ROSE BOND AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8 WANTS TO TELL THE TRUTH. OKAY, SO BEGIN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TELL US ANYTHING FURTHER WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO DEFEND MY HONOR AGAINST THE EVIL MONIKER. THAT WASN'T YOU THAT KIDDING WAS SOMEONE ELSE. I'M KIDDING. I'M KIDDING. I'M KIDDING. THAT'S WHAT I'M KIDDING. I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT EVIL. I HEARD THAT. MY POINT WAS, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PEOPLE I'VE NEVER MET. I MUST NOT PREJUDGE THEM BEFORE I MET THEM. NO, I GET IT, I GET IT. I, AFTER I MEET YOU, I MAY SAY YOU'RE EVIL. I'M TOTALLY JUDGING, BUT I HAVEN'T YET. I KNOW I HAD PLENTY OF TIMES. SO I, I'LL NO, WE, WE HAD SEMEN SIDING ON THE SIDE. I MADE THE MISTAKE THINKING, OH, THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL. I TOOK IT OFF KNOWING THAT WE'D FIND WHAT WAS ORIGINAL UNDERNEATH. THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. AND SO THAT'S CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION AND THAT'S MY THOUGHT. SO . UM, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE AT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, FINISH LINE HERE. SO THE BACK OF IT, UM, YOU COULD SEE ON, ON, SEE THAT, UM, AT THE, UH, BACK ON THE PROPOSED, I GUESS WE CAN LOOK AT THE PROPOSED. SO TO START OFF WITH PROPOSED OR AN EXISTING SOUTH, WHAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO LOOK AT? LIKE, WHAT WAS OUR DIGITAL ON THAT LOWER LEFT EXISTING SOUTH? YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOUSE ENDED, UM, WHERE THAT MIDDLE SECTION IS, UH, THE ADDITION, UM, ON THE SINGLE MAP IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITION, UM, TO THE BACK. THAT'S WHY THE, UH, THE EVE IS AT A DIFFERENT HEIGHT. AND SO, UM, BUT ALSO THEY DIDN'T REALLY DO A GOOD JOB THERE. WHEN THEY ADDED THIS ADDITION, THEY LEFT THE OLD ROOF INSIDE OF THE, UH, NEW, UH, HIP. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT WHOLE SECOND FLOOR WAS ROTTED OUT AND XED OFF OF DO NOT CROSS, DO NOT COME IN BECAUSE IT HAD ROTTED OUT, UH, BASICALLY FROM THE TOP DOWN. AND SO WE ARE JUST, UH, MOST OF THE MOVEMENT ON THE WINDOWS IS HAPPENING AROUND THE REAR OF THAT SECTION, UH, WITH SOME REMOVAL OF, UM, KIND OF WINDOWS THAT WERE PUT IN DURING, UH, WAR AND POST-WAR. UM, FOURPLEX, UH, YOU KNOW, LIVING, WHICH IS LIKE THAT WINDOW ON EX THAT'S WOULD'VE BEEN AT THE LANDING. THERE WOULD'VE BEEN SOME EXTERIOR STAIRS, BUT AT SOME POINT LED TO THAT SECTION AND WOULD'VE ONLY GONE UPSTAIRS. UM, AND SO THAT, THAT'S JUST NOT ORIGINAL. THERE'S NO STAIRS THERE. NOW. ALSO, I THINK WINDOW FIVE. UM, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE ALONG THE BACK ON THE, UM, EXISTING EAST ELEVATION, UM, THERE'S A WINDOW, UH, ZERO EIGHT THAT'S GONNA BE REPLACED WITH UH, SET OF THREE WINDOWS. UM, AND THAT DOOR REMAINING, OH NO, I'M SORRY, IT'S MOVING TO, UH, THE, UH, TO THE SIDE. I GUESS THE MORE WELL YEAH, THE NORTH VIBRATION. UM, SO YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S THE BIGGEST THING. ALRIGHT. UM, WHAT QUESTIONS DO COMMISSION RESPOND ABOUT? I, I'D MENTIONED THIS IN THE, UH, IN THE HEARING OR RATHER IN THE, UM, BRIEFING THIS MORNING JUST ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SLOPES COMING INTO THE SAME, UM, UM, FRAMING FOR, YOU KNOW, WHILE FRAMING, JUST, I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO TRY AND MATCH THE, THAT SOFFIT LINE ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PERIMETER. UH, JUST HOPE YOU HAVE A, A GREAT FRAMER THAT CAN MAKE ALL THAT HAPPEN. NO, I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE A GREAT FRAMER, BUT WE ALSO LIKE UNDERSTAND THAT LIKE THAT'S THE LINE OF DIVISION FOR US. WE KIND OF DESIGNATE TO THE OLD VERSUS THE NEW. SO WE'RE ALSO A LITTLE BIT OKAY WITH [00:55:01] NOT, I MEAN, WE FIRST WANT TO GO WITH LIKE, THE FUNCTION OF THAT RIGHT. IN THOSE SECTIONS. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE MOST DIFFICULT PART ABOUT IT. UM, BUT, BUT YEAH, WE HAD TO BRING UP THE TOP PLATE ON, ON THAT EXISTING SO THAT WE COULD MATCH THAT. BUT YEAH, THAT, THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT? IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION. WE'LL GET TO THE LEFT. I'LL JUST LOOK AT EVERYBODY TO THE RIGHT AND ON SCREEN. BUT THE PEOPLE ON SCREEN CAN'T SEE ME GLARING AT THEM, BUT I'M GLARING AT THEM TO SEE IF THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION. YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YOU PUT OFF THE MOTION. OKAY. GO . OH, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. WELL, I CAN ALWAYS RELY ON YOU. THANK YOU TO MOTION . YOU'RE WELCOME. UM, IN THE MATTER OF THE, UM, DISCUSSION ITEM ITEM 11, UM, 1 26 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, UH, CASE NUMBER COA 2 6 3 4 7 THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, WITH EX WITH, UH, CONDITIONS AS NOTED. SECOND. OKAY. COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS OUR SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY? UH, OKAY. NORMALLY THIS IS ONLY WHEN WE TALK, BUT THAT FACE, WHO CAN RESIST IT? WHAT DID YOU ? I TOTALLY FORGOT SOMETHING. UM, I TO AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A TOO LATE. WELL, TELL US WHAT IT IS. YEAH, WE, WE CAN'T READ YOUR MIND. WE TRIED, BUT THE CHIMNEY STACK, UM, WAS IN THE CENTER OF THE HOUSE AND WAS NOT CONTINUOUS DOWN TO THE FLOOR THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND WAS JUST STABBED TOGETHER THROUGH THE FRAMING ON THE SECOND FLOOR. AND SO WHEN WE WENT TO DEMO THAT IT WAS JUST LITERALLY NOT SUPPORTIVE. AND SO IT'S NOT AN ORIGINAL, IT'S NOT TO THE ORIGINAL FIREPLACE. THERE IS AN ORIGINAL FIREPLACE. YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PLANS. IT'S ON THE FRONT NORTHWEST, UH, NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UM, BUT IT, THAT, THAT WASN'T AN ORIGINAL FIREPLACE SHOOT. SO I, I MEAN, I COULD PUT A BOW ONE UP THERE IF YOU GUYS WANT ME TO, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE THE POINT IN DOING THAT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S AN OLD STACK. I APOLOGIZE. I I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YES. OKAY. HANG ON. UM, UH, WERE YOU ABOUT TO RESPOND TO HIM? COMMISSIONER RENO, LET'S LET YOU GO AHEAD AND RESPOND TO THE ISSUE OF THE CHIMNEY, WHICH NO ONE HAD RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT. BUT MADAM CHAIR, IT WOULD CLEAR THE RECORD UP IF, UH, COMMISSIONER RENE WOULD WITHDRAW HIS MOTION SINCE WE'RE KIND OF GOING BACK INTO DISCUSSION. OKAY. YES. THAT, THAT HAPPENED. I WITHDRAW THE MOTION. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT, THAT THE, THE, THE CHIMNEY HE'S REFERRING TO IS IN THE APPLICATION AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL REMOVAL. HE'S OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. THE, THE, THE LITTLE TINY CHIMNEY THAT WAS GONNA FALL TO THE GROUND WAS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND WE HAD NOT RAISED ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I APOLOGIZE. I THOUGHT IT'S, WELL, I COULD SEE YOU WERE PANICKED IN SOME MANNER ABOUT SOMETHING SEVERAL MONTHS. SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU NEEDED TO YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT CHIMNEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN PART OF A KITCHEN FLU. UM, YEAH. UH, SOME KIND OF A KITCHEN EXHAUST OR OF A MAYBE A STOVE THAT, THAT WAS VENTED OUT. THAT CHIMNEY HISTORICALLY. YEAH, IT WAS THAT KIND OF A, IT WAS A MINOR, MINOR KITCHEN CHIMNEY. YEAH. I DIDN'T EVEN SHOW IT. IT WAS INDEED. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT REMAINS. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OH, OKAY. NOT HAVE THAT, THEN YOU NEED TO ADJUST. YEAH, YOU NEED TO ADJUST YOUR MOTION. . ALL RIGHTY. AND HOW DID YOU PROPOSE IT STAY ALOFT? IF WE LEFT IT? I'M HONESTLY ASKING. WE COULD BUILD SOMETHING UNDER IT. WE COULD, I MEAN, WELL, I'M GLAD OUR APPLICANT CAME TO EXPLAIN THAT TO US. OKAY. THIS IS NEW KNOWLEDGE. ALL RIGHTY. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE, TAYLOR, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, THE MORE ARCHITECTURAL OF THE CHIMNEYS. SORRY. AH, OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'M GONNA LEAVE MY MOTION AS STANDS. SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE IS YOUR NEW MOTION? UH, YEAH. OKAY. AND DOES COMMISSIONER SMITH STILL SECOND IT? SECOND? OKAY. , IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY? UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, THAT THOSE WERE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS THAT GENERALLY THEY WERE A FLU. UM, I MEAN, IT'S A FLU, NOT A REAL CHIMNEY, SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO SMALL AND IT WAS LIKELY TO EXACTLY AS, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAID TO SOME COOKING ELEMENT IN THE, IN THE KITCHEN. [01:00:01] IF NOT THAT, PROBABLY THE WATER HEATED. BUT, UM, BUT YEAH, THEY WERE, AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN OTHER PROJECTS IN THE PAST AND, UM, BUT YEAH, THEY, THEY WERE PERIOD, UM, ELEMENTS OF, UM, OF THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION. ALL RIGHT. SO TO, TO BE CLEAR, YOU ARE WANTING TO CONTINUE WITH ACCEPTING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO KEEP THIS SMALL CHIMNEY. 100%. OKAY. ALRIGHTY. I'M SURE THERE'S SMALL BRICKS YOU PUT BACK UNDERNEATH IT. UM, MR. CUMMINGS, ARE YOU JUST GETTING READY TO VOTE? IS THAT IT? OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT THEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES. YES, YES, YES. ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, SO YOU HAVE OUR APPROVAL. YOU DO GET TO KEEP AND CHERISH THAT SMALL CHIMNEY, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD RUN AN AC DUCK UP, BUT SOMETIMES THEY DO STUFF LIKE THAT. FAIR . ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON WINNETKA HEIGHTS. OKAY. WE HAVE SPED THROUGH THIS SO FAST. WE HAVE ONLY ONE CASE LEFT, AND THAT IS THE ONE THAT WE HAD SOME CITY OFFICIALS WANTING TO COME ADDRESS THIS ABOUT. DO WE HAVE WORD WHETHER THEY'RE AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME? WELL, NOT QUITE YET, BUT YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF EMAILS OVER THE LUNCH PERIOD AND, AND, UM, RECENTLY MAYBE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A LITTLE REVIEW TIME AND, AND SEE, WELL, WHAT, WHAT WHEN CAN THE CITY OFFICIALS JOIN US? UH, JUST SAY IT RIGHT, RIGHT NOW WE, WE, RIGHT NOW WE KNOW LIKE THREE-ISH, BUT TREVOR HAS SAID TO THEM, LIKE, IF YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR OTHER MEETING, LIKE PLEASE COME STRIKE YOU AWAITING WORD. OKAY. UH, YES TAYLOR, I, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, BUT THAT ONLY TAKES TWO MINUTES SO IT REALLY DOESN'T ADVANCE OUR FILE. I'M GONNA TAKE THIS TIME NOW TO SEE IF I CAN REACH COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YOU CAN COME BACK AND JOIN US NOW. ALL RIGHT. CAN I ASK ATTORNEYS INSTEAD OF DECIDING WHETHER WE OUGHT TO WAIT UNTIL THE ARE AVAILABLE OR GO AHEAD AND DO IT NOW WITHOUT THEM, CAN I ASK FOR A VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THAT? UM, RATHER TO, CAN WE VOTE, WHICH WE WANNA DO? DO WE WANNA WAIT TILL THREE O'CLOCK AND THEY COME TALK TO US AND WE GO AHEAD AND DO IT? NOW? WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE TO. I THINK GENERALLY THAT'S IN THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. IF YOU WANNA SORT TO, UH, ALLOW THEM, WHAT'S THAT CALLED? I WANNA KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY FEELS. NOT MAKE THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF. YEAH, , BECAUSE I WANNA GO HOME, BUT . YEAH, SO YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION TO RECESS UNTIL A CERTAIN TIME AND THEN VOTE ON IT. ALRIGHT? OR YOU COULD MAKE THE MOTION YOURSELF IF EVERYBODY AT HOME IS LISTENING CLOSELY IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL ABOUT THIS ISSUE, I WILL NOW MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECESS UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK IN ORDER TO RECONVENE THIS DISCUSSION. WHEN CITY OFFICIALS ARE AVAILABLE, YOU CAN OF COURSE VOTE YES OR NO ON THIS MOTION, BUT I GUESS I STILL NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. SECOND. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PREZI. AND I'M GONNA REUSE MYSELF FROM THIS VOTE SO I FIND OUT WHAT Y'ALL THINK. ALRIGHT, SO, SO ALL THOSE WHO SAY YES, LET'S WAIT UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK TO HEAR THIS CASE. UH, IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR, UM, WHAT, WHAT'S THE POINT OF US WAITING ON THEM? I KNOW WE WANNA GET TO GET OUR CONSENSUS ABOUT WHICH ONE WE WANT TO DO. OKAY. THIS IS THE DEMO. 'CAUSE THE CITY OFFICIAL, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD LIKE TO COME TALK TO US, BUT IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TILL THREE O'CLOCK. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION TO WAIT TO RETURN AT THREE O'CLOCK. PLEASE SAY YES. YES, YES, YES, YES. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NO. NO. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA, WE, SINCE WE HAVE TIME, WE'RE GONNA DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE . ELAINE, CAN YOU DO THE VOTE? I KNEW YOU COULD. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS? NO. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY. I UP STATE DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER FOGELMAN? YES. DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? [01:05:05] DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER SMITH? NO. DISTRICT EIGHT COMMISSIONER ZAKI? YES. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER RENO? NO. DISTRICT 13 COMMISSIONER BRA? YES. DISTRICT 14. COMMISSIONER HARPER? NO. DISTRICT. I'M SORRY. UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? NO, NO, NO. COMMISSIONER, UH, RES? YES. OKAY. HOW DID THAT COME OUTTA THE WAY? WE HAVE FIVE DOSE OUT OF 11. OH, OUT OF 10 BECAUSE, UH, TAYLOR'S NOT BACK ON. OKAY, SO THE DOSE WHEN AND WE PROCEED. NO, NO. IT WOULD BE HALF AND HALF. YEAH. YEAH. MADAM CHAIR, ? NO. IF SOMETHING'S HAPPENED, HAPPENED, IT DOES NOT PASS. CHRISTINA, BEFORE YOU RECESS. UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND IS UNABLE TO ATTEND AT THREE. OKAY, SO SINCE I'M NOT GONNA VOTE, THE MOTION FAILED. ACTUALLY FIVE OUT OF NINE SINCE YOU THANK. OKAY. SO IT FAILED. SO WE'RE DOING IT NOW. OKAY. CALL THE CITY OFFICIALS IF YOU CAN. AND IF THEY SHOW UP, THEY SHOW UP. IF THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T. ALL RIGHT. SO STAFF BEGIN BY READING IT INTO THE RECORD. ALRIGHT, THIS IS DR. RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF. DISCUSSION ITEM D 10. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CITED AT 1411 CHURCH STREET. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR AND THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT CASE NUMBER IS COA DASH 26 78. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION. TO DEMOLISH THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARD, IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARD BEING IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. DATED 7 21 20 26. THE PROPOSED WORK MEETS THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4 5 0 1, SUBSECTION H FOUR C FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES. SPECIFICALLY, THE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DOCUMENTED MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE THREAT AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARD, IMMINENT THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH A FOLLOWING COMMENT. RECOMMEND ADDING A SECURITY FENCE. ALL RIGHT. NOW I BELIEVE IT IS OUR APPLICANT WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK TO US. IF YOU COULD BEGIN, SIR, WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOUR PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH. PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH. MY NAME IS ERIC MCGOWAN. UH, UH, MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 1411 THIRD STREET. AND WE JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE TORN DOWN BECAUSE, UH, IT'S, IT'S, UM, DANGEROUS TO THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, THE PROJECTS THERE THAT IT'S, UH, FIRE HAZARD AND, UH, ALSO, UH, IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. ALL RIGHT, ANN, GO AHEAD. AND THE CITY PLANNER SAID THAT. THANK YOU. GOOD. ALRIGHT. UM, DID YOU ALSO PLAN ON SPEAKING, MA'AM? DID YOU FILL OUT A YELLOW FORM? NO, YOU'LL NEED TO DO IT. SO AFTER SPEAKING, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO JUST PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROMISE. MY NAME'S JACKIE MINO. I LIVE AT 8 0 8 LYDIA DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 7. UM, MR. MCGOWAN HAD RAISED HIS FAMILY IN THE HOME AND HIS WIFE, HIS KIDS ARE GROWN THE, AND THE WIFE HAS SINCE PASSED AWAY, BUT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN TOTALLY JUST GONE. ALL THE WOOD IS ROTTED. I SUBMITTED SOME PICTURES AND I ALSO SENT SOME PICTURES TO ELAINE HILL ON SEPTEMBER THE FOURTH. UM, THE HOUSE IS ROTTED ALL THE WOOD. THE FOUNDATION IS ROTTED THROUGH. THERE'S A, THE, UH, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REPORT STATES THAT IT IS UNSAFE. ALL THE, THE ROOF HAS FALLEN IN AND HALF OF THE HOUSE, [01:10:01] THE FOUNDATION IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS ON THE GROUND. SO THE FOUNDATION HAS GONE COMPLETELY. AND, UM, IT IS A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR IS SOME APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN BROKEN INTO TWICE ALREADY. PEOPLE HAVE SAT IN THERE AND, I DON'T KNOW, HAD A PARTY OR WHATEVER, AND WE'RE BURNING CANDLES AND THINGS INSIDE THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS GONNA END UP GETTING CAUGHT ON FIRE AND, UM, SOMEBODY'S GONNA GET HURT IN THERE BECAUSE THE FLOORS HAVE FALLEN THROUGH. THE CEILINGS HAVE FALLEN IN, IN THE BACK PART OF THE HOUSE. THE WHOLE CEILINGS HAVE FALLEN IN AND IT IS JUST A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. THE BUILDING, THE CITY BUILDING PLANNER EVEN AGREED THAT IT SHOULD BE TORE DOWN. I TALKED WITH INSPECTOR HAYES AND HE AGREES ALSO. MR. MCGOWAN HAS BEEN GETTING FINES ON THE HOUSE, ON THE PROPERTY. HE'S BEEN PAYING THE FINES. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO REBUILD THIS HOUSE FROM THE GROUND UP. UH, IT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE THAT, THE WHOLE HOUSE WOULD HAVE TO BE, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. NOTEBOOKING. ALL THE SIDING IS ROTTED, IS WOOD ROTTED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES, I BLEW UP A FEW OF THEM. THAT SHOWS THAT THE WOOD IS ROTTED. SO ACTUALLY TO REBUILD THE HOUSE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN TO THE GROUND AND THEN BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP. SO THIS IS WHY MR. MCGOWAN IS ASKING FOR A, UH, TO, TO HAVE IT DEMOED. HE WANTS TO KEEP THE PROPERTY, HE DOESN'T WANNA LOSE HIS PROPERTY. AND WITH ALL THESE FINES AND, AND ALL THIS STUFF COMING UP, HE'S NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO KEEP HIS PROPERTY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S ON HIS BEHALF. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MA'AM. COMMISSIONERS, WE DO HAVE CHANEL FISHER FROM COMMUNITY PROSECUTION. WE ALSO HAVE INSPECTOR HAYES ONLINE. OKAY. SO, UH, WHICH OF THEM WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST, UM, TO OUR SPEAKERS FROM THE CITY, WHICH OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? UH, THIS IS IN INSPECTOR HAYES. UH, FORGIVE ME, UH, USING MY CELL PHONE HERE. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME CLEARLY? YES. SO CAN YOU, CAN YOU USE YOUR CAMERA ON YOUR CELL PHONE? YOU SAY, CAN I, YEAH. YES, PLEASE. THERE'S A RULE THAT, UH, SPEAKERS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS LIKE THIS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON CAMERA. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LET ME, UH, THERE, PERHAPS MS. MS. FISHER, ARE YOU PREPARED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITY PROSECUTION? OPTIMIZE TEXT IMAGES, SHARE SCREEN. HELLO? NO, I'M JUST WITH INSPECTOR HAYES SINCE HE HAS OBSERVED THE PROPERTY AND NOTED THE NUMEROUS CODE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY. YEAH, WE, WE NEED BOTH OF YOU ON CAMERA TO, TO MEET STATE LAW. LEMME SEE. OKAY, LET ME SEE IF MY CAMERA CAN GO ON. LET'S SEE. MY CAMERA'S NOT WORKING. OKAY, NOW THAT'S SHARING MY CAMERA. OKAY. OKAY. NOW I CAN SEE MS. FISHER. YES. HI. NO, I WON'T BE, UH, TESTIFYING. INSPECTOR HAYES WILL BE TALKING, UH, ABOUT THE CODE VIOLATIONS HE'S OBSERVED AT THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND IT'S NOT REALLY TESTIFYING HERE. WE DON'T CALL IT YES, I UNDERSTAND. I WON'T BE SPEAKING. OKAY. UH, MR. HAYES, HAVE YOU SUCCEEDED IN FIGURING OUT HOW YOUR CAMERA MIGHT WORK? I AM GOING TO, UH, I'M GONNA LET HIM SPEAK ON MY CAMERA. THAT'S GOOD. OH, WELL, YEAH, WE JUST NEED TO SEE HIM. WE DON'T CARE WHOSE CAMERA IT IS. . OKAY. ALRIGHT. YEAH, I'LL JUST KNEEL DOWN. . OKAY. HELLO, SIR. SO, UM, WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE OWNER ABOUT THE SITUATION INVOLVING THE HOUSE. UM, WHAT WOULD YOU WISH TO, UH, LET US KNOW ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS HOUSE? SO, UH, JUST BASICALLY MY INSPECTIONS AND REVEALED THAT, UM, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, WITH THE ROOF, UH, CAVED IN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, LITERALLY, UH, THE SHINGLES ARE ON THE, WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE FLOOR ON THE INTERIOR. ALSO, [01:15:01] UM, THE, UH, INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE WITH THE FLOORING BEING REMOVED OR ROTTED OUT BECAUSE YEARS, UM, THE WEATHER HAS AFFECTED THE MATERIALS ON THE INTERIOR. UM, IT HAS AFFECTED THE, UH, STRUCTURAL MATERIALS AS FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING, UH, TOWARDS THE PROPERTY FROM THE REAR. YOU SEE THE FRAMING HAS DETACHED AND THE ENTIRE EAST WALL OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, LEANING. IT'S PULLED AWAY FROM THE REST OF THE, UH, FROM THE STRUCTURE. UH, SO, UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE MATERIALS, THE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE ROTTED OUT. UM, AND UH, THAT COULD BE BECAUSE OF THE MATERIALS BEING EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS, UH, WITHOUT ANY PAINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THE PAINT IS RIPPED OFF. SO, UH, THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT I HAVE, UH, WITNESSED. AND I'VE INSPECTED THE PROPERTY NUMEROUS TIMES. I WOULD SAY UPWARDS OF 15 TO 20 TIMES SINCE, UH, THIS PAST FEBRUARY ON THE PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, SIR. AND NOW WE WILL, UM, BE ENTERTAINING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, SOME OF WHOM HAVE HAD HAD SOME QUESTIONS. AND I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW IT, IF WE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE IT'S FALLING DOWN. 'CAUSE SOMETIMES WE DO THAT. IT'S NOT CASTING ASPERSIONS ON ANYONE'S JUDGMENT, IT'S JUST THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REQUESTS IN SOME OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT HAVE SMALLER HOUSES. AND WE DO HAVE SOME PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE EXPERIENCED AT SAVING SUCH THINGS. AND A SMALL WOODEN HOUSE, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO, CAN USUALLY BE SAVED. IT MIGHT COST A FORTUNE, BUT SOMETIMES IT CAN. SO IF PEOPLE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'M SURE THEY DON'T MEAN TO, UM, IN ANY WAY QUESTION YOUR JUDGMENT ON THIS. JUST THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR PARTICULAR PASSION. SO WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? I JUST WANNA ASK BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION, IF WE COULD GET A, A BRIEFING ON THE, THE DEFINITION OF THE STANDARD AS REQUESTED. OH, YES, WE HAVE, WE REQUESTED OUR ATTORNEYS GIVE US A DEFINITION OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE ARE TO RULE ON IN THE CASE OF THIS SORT OF REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER HARPER. UM, SO WE WENT AND WE LOOKED AT IT, AND AS YOU CAN GUESS, THERE'S NO FORMAL DEFINITION FOR THE PHRASE OF IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. UH, COURTS WOULD LOOK AT THE COMMON MEANING OF THE TERMS. SO AS A RESULT, WE'VE SORT OF CONSTRUCTED THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES, WHICH IS THAT IT MEANS THE CONDITION THAT PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMEDIATE RISK OF DEATH, SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE NATURE AND SEVERITY OF THE CONDITION REQUIRE PROMPT ACTION BEFORE COMPLIANCE CAN REASONABLY OCCUR. SO A CONDITION, UM, TO KEEP NOTE IS THAT IT'S NOT MAJOR AND IMMINENT JUST BECAUSE IT IS IN VIOLATION, BUT RATHER IF THE CONDITION CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMEDIATE RISK. SO THE EXAMPLE THAT I WOULD GIVE FOR THAT, UM, IT'S KIND OF RELEVANT TO YOU ALL, IS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE LIKE A WROUGHT IRON COLUMN ON A CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW, WHICH DOESN'T FIT INAPPROPRIATE AS FAR AS THE ARCHITECTURE IS CONCERNED, BUT IT'S NOT MAJOR AND IMMINENT, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE OUT OF CHARACTER. BUT IF THAT IRON COLUMN WAS RUSTY AND THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF IT WAS COMPROMISED, UH, THAN, THAN IT WOULD BE. AND SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S IN COMMON TERMS, LIKE, WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON THINK THAT THE HOME IS SAFE? RIGHT. DOES IT GET INTO ANYTHING OF WHETHER THAT'S YOUR, YOUR EXAMPLE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CURRENTLY MAYBE INHABITED AND THERE WAS KNOWN, UH, FOOT TRAFFIC OF PEOPLE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT STATES, UH, A BUILDING THAT'S NOT BEEN INHABITED AND NOT BEING PROTECTED? UH, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY CASE LAW OR STATUTES THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT POINT. UM, I CHOSE THE EXAMPLE I DID JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THAT, UH, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING MAY BE OUT OF CHARACTER AS FAR AS, UM, YOU GUYS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ASPECT OR THE ARCHITECTURAL ASPECT, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT IS A PRIMA FACIE. AN EXAMPLE OF IMMINENT AND, UH, UH, IMMINENT DANGER. UH, AND SINCE THE TASK FORCE DID OPPOSE APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION AND SUGGEST A SECURITY FENCE, DOES SECURITY FENCE PROBABLY ELIMINATE PRESENT NEED GIVEN THAT IT IS A FENCE BUT PEOPLE CAN FIND FENCES? I'M, I'M SORRY, MADAM CHAIR. DID YOU REPEAT THAT? YEAH, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FROM THE TASK FORCE THAT THE SOLUTION IS TO ADD A SECURITY FENCE AROUND IT. DO YOU THINK THAT AMELIORATES, UM, YOU KNOW, PRESSING DANGER OR SATISFACTORILY OR DOESN'T BECAUSE FENCES ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT THEY DO HELP FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT BEFORE WHEN, BUT IT WAS FOR PERHAPS A PROPERTY THAT WAS, THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER AN IMMINENT THREAT BUT WAS GETTING BROKEN INTO. UM, WE HAVE USUALLY, FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, IF WE RECOMMEND THAT IT IS AN IMMINENT THREAT, WE'RE RECOMMENDING DEMOLITION. WE, WE DON'T USUALLY [01:20:01] HAVE LIKE AN IMMINENT THREAT WITH A FENCE AROUND IT. IT'S USUALLY A HOUSE THAT WE'RE SAYING, NO, IT'S NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT. IT JUST NEEDS TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT. OKAY. I WONDERING HOW MUCH FENCE WAS USEFUL OR THOUGHT USEFUL, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION FENCES. THEY'RE IN CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. SO I WOULD THINK THAT TO MARCUS'S POINT, LIKE IT CAN GO TO THE, IT'S YOUR JOB TO LIKE WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND IT CERTAINLY GOES IN ONE OF THOSE, UH, SCALES. UM, OKAY. BUT DOESN'T PRIMA FASCIA SOLVE THE ISSUE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? ARE THOSE OF THES PART OF THE EQUATION? HE'S, HE'S, HE'S MIMICKING LADY JUSTICE AND WAVING HIS HANDS ON THE TABLE. THAT WAS LADY JUSTICE. I WAS NOT DOING SIX SEVEN, SO . OH, APOLOGIES. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE WHAT COMMISSIONS HAVE TO SAY. COMMISSIONER REEDS. WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE, UH, TREE TRUNKS THAT SEEM TO BE HOLDING UP THE FOUNDATION OR BOAR FOUNDATION. AND UNLIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I THINK YEAH, I AGREE WITH STAFF. YEAH, THOSE ARE BOAR PEERS. COMMISSIONER, CAN I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE JUST ON SOMETHING ON THAT SPEAK IN COMMENTS? NO, WE, WE ACTUALLY, THOSE ARE BOAR STUMPS THAT ARE A COMMON FOUNDATION. UM, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS CERTAINLY NOT BASED ON THE BOAR STUMPS. YEAH. AND ON SPEAKING ON THAT COMMISSIONER, THE, UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, I I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THESE ON PRACTICES WHERE THE BOAR PIERS AFTER A HUNDRED YEARS HAVE FAILED AND THEY'RE FAILING AND THERE'S CERTAIN LEAVE REPAIRS TO BE DONE. I MEAN, YOU CAN CERTAINLY PUT A PIPE COLUMN ON A SMALL SPREAD CONCRETE FOOTING AND THEN YOU CAN RE-SKIN IT BOAR PIERS JUST FOR THE LOOK. THERE'S, THERE'S MULTIPLE OPTIONS. AND JUST BECAUSE THE, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE TREE STUMPS LOOKING TO BE FAILING AND A STAFF JUST COMMENTED THAT WOULDN'T BE THE L REASON OR THERE WOULDN'T OR MAY NOT BE A REASON AT ALL TO FAIL THE STRUCTURE. 'CAUSE THERE'S CERTAIN SIMPLE REMEDIES TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HARPER. YEAH, I, I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, JUST WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING IS THAT, UH, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN OR REPAIR THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU CONSIDER MAYBE SELLING IT TO SOMEONE THAT COULD RESTORE IT. MR. MCGOWAN WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE PROPERTY. HE RAISED HIS CHILDREN THERE AND HIS WIFE PASSED AWAY IN THE HOME. AND I DID TURN IN SOME PHOTOS THAT ARE UPDATED THAT SHOW THE WOOD ROT ON ALL AROUND THE HOUSE AND THE FOUNDATION IS GONE. SHE HAS THE PHOTOS THERE. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE JUST FIX THIS AND FIX THAT. IT IS A TOTAL ROTTED OUT FOUNDATION AND WALLS AND EVERYTHING. SO HE WANTS TO KEEP THE PROPERTY BECAUSE HE, YOU KNOW, FOR HIS MEMORIES FOR HIS WIFE AND HIS KIDS. IF Y'ALL WANNA PUT A 10TH STREET DISTRICT SIGN UP FOR SOMETHING ON HIS PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OKAY. BUT HE WANTS TO KEEP THE PROPERTY AND MAINTAIN JUST THE PROPERTY HIMSELF. OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. OH YES. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF UH, COMMENTS IN QUESTIONS. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH 10TH STREET PROBABLY SINCE, WELL, SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. AND THERE WAS A TIME MANY YEARS AGO WHEN 10TH STREET HOUSES WERE TORN DOWN BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INTEREST IN 10TH STREET. NO ONE WANTED TO FIX UP THE BUILDINGS. NOBODY WANTED TO BUILD NEW CONSTRUCTIONS. I THINK TIMES HAVE CHANGED. YOU SAW THAT TODAY WITH THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS RENOVATING A HOUSE THAT WAS IN BAD CONDITION. I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE REMISS NOT TRYING TO RESTORE THIS BUILDING. I RECOMMEND THAT WE DENY IT, DELAY IT, LOOK AT OPTIONS WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS, OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO FIX THIS BUILDING UP, TEARING THE BUILDING DOWN. NOW WITHOUT ANY OTHER INPUT FROM OUTSIDE PARTIES, IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE. UM, THEY SAY IT WOULD BE ABOUT 187,000 TO FIX IT. EARLIER IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT A NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD COST ABOUT 200,000, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU CAN FIX THIS BUILDING FOR ABOUT AS MUCH AS TEARING IT DOWN, HAULING IT AWAY, AND BUILDING A NEW ONE IN ITS PLACE. WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION TO BUILD A NEW ONE IN ITS PLACE. SO WE'RE GONNA TEAR DOWN A HISTORIC BUILDING, WHICH IS IN BAD SHAPE GRANTED, BUT THEN IT'S GONE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO BUY THE PROPERTY AND RESTORE THE BUILDING. IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE CURRENT OWNER IS UNABLE TO RESTORE THE BUILDING, TEARING IT DOWN AND LEAVING A VACANT LOT. [01:25:01] VACANT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE 10TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. ANDERSON. COMMISSIONER POSI, UH, THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE HOUSE IS TORN DOWN WITH THE PROPERTY TO JUST SIT VACANT OR WILL BE SOMETHING BE REBUILT THERE IN THE FUTURE? I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, REBUILD IT MYSELF, GET A LOAN AND TRY, UH, START A NEW MORTGAGE ON IT. I I WOULD LIKE TO REBUILD IT MYSELF. OH, MORTGAGE. OKAY. SO I GET, I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE THEN IF YOU REBUILD IT, WOULD YOU BUILD IT BACK IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE OR WOULD YOU DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT? ORIGINAL. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST WANT ADDITIONAL COMMENT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON WHAT WILL REPLACE THIS BUILDING. I, I, IT'S GREAT THAT THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER OR THE SON WOULD LIKE TO REBUILD, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION TODAY. AGAIN, TEARING THE BUILDING DOWN IS IRRE IRREPLACEABLE. AND IF WE COULD COME BACK WITH EITHER A REHAB FOR THAT BUILDING OR A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT REPLACES THE ONE, I'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, BUT NOT TODAY. I, I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR, UM, YOUR VIEWS ON THIS AND I SHARE THEM, BUT I ALSO, UH, WHAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON TODAY IS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM THAT HAS BEEN MADE THAT THIS IS A CONTINUING AND CURRENT DANGER, AT WHICH POINT, EVEN A BELOVED AND WONDERFUL HISTORIC HOUSE MIGHT HAVE TO REGRETTABLY BE LOST. SO I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYONE, I'M TRYING TO SWAY ANYBODY. I'M TRYING TO REMIND THEM OF WHAT IT IS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW. IT IS NOT OUR, WE CAN'T BE GUIDED SOLELY BY OUR, OUR OBVIOUS LOVE OF EVERY LITTLE LAW HOUSE THERE EVER WAS, WHICH WE ALL FEEL, BUT THAT THAT MIGHT NOT BE WHAT WE GO BY TODAY. COMMISSIONER FOGLEMAN, IF IF DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT IS AGAINST THE LAW OR AGAINST THE CODE, HOW CAN WE VOTE TO LET IT BE TORN DOWN? THAT, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. UM, DO OUR ATTORNEYS, AND BY THE WAY, WE HAVE AN UPCOMING NEW ATTORNEY HERE LISTENING IN, AND HE'S ALREADY GETTING READY TO RUN OUT THE BACK DOOR, I THINK. BUT, UM, UM, WHAT WOULD OUR ATTORNEYS SAY TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOW ASKED TO RULE THAT IT IS BEYOND SAVING AND A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY WHEN YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LET A HISTORIC HOUSE GET TO THAT POINT, BUT THAT IS DEMOLITION BY WHAT, THERE'S A PROCEDURE THAT'S DEFINED IN THE CODE SAYING THEY HAVE TO REQUEST OF INVESTIGATION, FIRST MEETING, SECOND MEETING, AND SO FORTH. I THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS PER THE CODE. LET'S HEAR FROM STAFF ABOUT WHAT HAS OCCURRED REGARDING THIS BUILDING AS IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DETERIORATION. THE FACT THAT IT'S ALREADY IN COMMUNITY PROSECUTION IS KIND OF AFTER THE DEMO BY NEGLECT, OR USUALLY WE'RE DOING IT IN TANDEM IN THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD GET US TO AN END, UM, BECAUSE ALL IT DOES IS POINT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEY'VE GOT A PROBLEM AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GET THEM TO THE END RESULT. UM, I DID WANT TO, WHILE I, WHILE I'M, WHILE I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, UM, THE, WE, WE, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS CITE OUR ORDINANCE IN OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT I ACTUALLY WANNA READ THE PARAGRAPH FOR Y'ALL FOR, UH, THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE. THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST DENY AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH OR REMOVE A STRUCTURE THAT POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH OR SAFETY. UNLESS IT FINDS THAT THE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DOCUMENTED MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, THAT THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE, ALLEVIATE THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. AND, AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OR OTHER, OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF, WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO, YOU'RE EITHER SAYING THAT IS TRUE OR IT IS NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US OF THAT AND FOR BRINGING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF OUR CITY REPRESENTATIVES WHO MAY WELL HAVE, UM, READ IT TO. BUT THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. UM, WHO IS COMMISSIONER SMITH? IS THAT YES. UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF AND THE INSPECTORS, UH, DID, DID, DID I HEAR SOMEONE SAY THAT IT WAS WITH CITY PROSECUTION? YES. AND SO, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CITY PROSECUTION IS EITHER GONNA MAKE THEM DEMOLISH IT OR THEY'RE GONNA DEMOLISH IT THEMSELVES. HOW IS THIS GONNA WORK? COMMUNITY PROSECUTION IS ENCOURAGING THE DEMOLITION. UM, THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE OWNER. THEY, THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DEMOLISHED, BUT OBVIOUSLY HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE A DIFFERENT ANIMAL, UH, THAN MOST OF WHAT THEY DEAL WITH. SO BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO THAT POINT, [01:30:01] THERE'S SO MANY LEVELS OF, I THINK THE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED THAT YOU WENT OUT THERE 25 DIFFERENT TIMES AND HAD CITED IT AS SUCH. IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? UH, INSPECTOR, I NEED TO TURN YOUR MIC ON. I THINK YOU'RE MUTED. OKAY. YES IT IS. UM, AND BY THE TIME IT GETS TO COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, IT HAS ALSO EXHAUSTED, UM, THE ESCALATED ENFORCEMENTS FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS CODE COMPLIANCE. SO THE FINDINGS, THE CITATIONS, UM, TO WHERE, WHERE TO NO AVAIL. AND THAT'S HOW THE PROPERTY WAS TRIAGED TO, UH, THE COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, UH, TEAM. SO, SO MY NEXT QUESTION THEN BECOMES, EACH TIME YOU GO OUT, HAS HE BEEN CITED OR, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TICKET THAT HE HAS TO PAY? SO, NO, NOT AT THIS LEVEL. THE CITATIONS, UH, WERE ISSUED BY, UH, GENERAL CODE, WHICH IS THE CITY OF DALLAS CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT DURING MY INSPECTIONS. UM, AS THEY'RE GOING, AS THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF, UH, TRYING TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CITED BY MYSELF, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED A LOT. GOTCHA. WHEN YOU SAY A LOT, IS THERE, DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF TIMES I'M LOOKING AT A, A CITATION THAT SAYS $315, UH, IS, IS THAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S HAPPENED EACH TIME? SO I CAN LOOK THAT UP. I'M UNFORTUNATELY NOT AT MY DESK TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO YOU SPECIFICALLY, BUT YES, PRIOR TO A TRIAGE FOR THE, UH, UH, GENERAL CODE TO TRIAGE THE PROPERTIES TO US, THERE IS A MINIMAL, UH, THERE'S NOT A MAXIMUM, BUT THERE'S A MINIMAL OF, UH, THREE CITATIONS, UH, WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, UM, BEFORE EVEN BEING ALLOWED TO TRIAGE THE PROPERTY TO US. SO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A MINIMUM OF THREE CITATIONS WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS MINIMUM. AND THIS MIGHT BE GOING OUTSIDE OF THE, THE NORMAL SCOPE OF THIS BOARD, BUT HAS BY CHANCE ANYONE RECOMMENDED THIS GENTLEMAN TO THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT FOR, YOU KNOW, NEW HOME RENOVATION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION FUNDING THAT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT MAY, MAY HAVE. HAS THERE BEEN ANY HELP? BECAUSE CLEARLY THERE'S AN, THERE'S AN ECONOMIC ISSUE HERE. THE, THE GENTLEMAN HAS INDICATED IN A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THEY, HE JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO MAINTAIN IT. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT EXISTS OR, OR IS THERE SOME TYPE OF PROCESS THAT EXISTS THAT HAS MAYBE USHERED HIM INTO THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT TO HELP HIM OUT? BECAUSE I'M GONNA GO HIM HERE. I DON'T THINK THAT WE JUST SIT HERE AND WAIT AROUND FOR OTHER INTERESTED PARTY. I, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT STEP, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IF HE'S GETTING PINGED WITH CITATIONS. BUT I DO WANNA KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY RECOMMENDATION TO ANY OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT FUNDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YES. AND MS. N IS SAYING YES, I'VE CONTACTED, UM, UH, MAX, UH, YOUR COUNCILMAN? YEAH. COUNCILMAN MAX. MM-HMM . YES. MAXIE JOHNSON. YES. THERE WE GO. AND I CONTACTED HIM AND, UH, HE HAD STATED THAT, UH, THE APPLICATION TIME BEGINS OCTOBER THE FIFTH TO APPLY FOR HELP TO REBUILD. SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT ERIC CAN LOOK FORWARD TO TRY TO GET HELP WITH REBUILDING. BUT RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, WE NEED TO GET THE HOUSE TO DOWN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT IS CRUMBLING AND FALLING APART. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE OUR CODE, UM, INSPECTOR ADRIAN HAS SOMETHING SHE THINKS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THIS. THIS IS INSPECTOR MCCLENDON, UH, WITH, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. SO I'M THE CODE INSPECTOR THAT WORKS HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BUT I DO WANNA JUST KIND OF CLARIFY SOME THINGS. UH, TYPICALLY, UH, LIKE HE SAID, YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE SO MANY CITATIONS FOR THEM TO ESCALATE IT TO COMMUNITY PROSECUTION. UH, BUT ALSO WHEN THEY'RE ISSUED THOSE CODE VIOLATIONS FROM CO COMPLIANCE, UH, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED FOR. ANYTIME WE ISSUE A CODE VIOLATION, UH, THEY DO HAVE ON THE BACK OF THE CITATION INFORMATION ABOUT THE DALLAS TOMORROW FUND, WHICH IS A CITY, UH, SOMETHING WHERE THEY CAN HELP GET, HELP REPAIRING THOSE THINGS. BUT A LOT OF THE PROGRAMS WITH THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO REPAIR, THEY HAVE TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED AND HE IS NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPYING THAT PROPERTY. SO, UH, WHEN YOU GET INTO THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. IF THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY LIVING THERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP SOMEONE FROM NOT HAVING A HOME. AND IF I MAY PIGGY BACK OFF OF INSPECTOR MCCLENDON, THOSE, WE, WE EXHAUSTED ALL RESOURCES PRIOR TO, UH, COMING TO THIS POINT IN COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, [01:35:01] AS SHE DID MENTION, THERE ARE STIPULATIONS TO THE PROGRAMS, UH, SOME BEING, UH, CURRENT IN TAXES, HOMEOWNER OCCUPIED, HAVING INSURANCE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE IF THAT INSURANCE OF THE, THAT THE INSURANCE WOULD'VE REPAIRED THE, UH, THE, THE STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT WE KIND OF EXHAUSTED ALL RESOURCES, UH, WHEN WE TOOK THE CASE ON. ALRIGHT, SO I'M, I I, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU GUYS IN THIS MANNER, I'M LOOKING AT THOSE PICTURES, I'M LOOKING AT THIS BID, YOU KNOW, COMING FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, THERE, THERE'S NO SAVINGS THERE. IT IS GONNA CONTINUE TO BE, UH, PROBLEMATIC FOR THE COMMUNITY. UH, AND THEN WHAT WHAT'S GONNA END UP HAPPENING IS YOU'RE GONNA SEE IT CAUGHT ON FIRE LIKE SOME OF THOSE OTHER ONES DOWN THERE. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, WE, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE CURRENT CONDITION AND NOT LET IT CONTINUE TO BE WHAT IT IS IN THAT COMMUNITY. WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING 10TH STREET. UM, AND, AND IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SALVAGEABLE AND SOMETHING THAT COULD BE SAVED OR BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE REASONABLY, UM, I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN DONE BY NOW. BUT YEAH, WITH THIS, THIS, IT'S PRETTY BAD. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE, UM, NO REASONABLE DEVELOPER WILL COME IN TO TRY TO SALVAGE THIS. SO THIS IS, THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE PLAYING AROUND WITH THIS ONE, GUYS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE COMMISSIONER POSI HERE. WAS THERE SOMEBODY AT HOME WHO WAS INDICATING THEY WISH TO SPEAK AND OKAY. NO. COMMISSIONER POSI? YES. UH, SO MY QUESTION IS FOR, I GUESS FOR THE, THE LO THE LEGAL TEAM AND COMMUNITY PROSECUTE WHO PROSECUTION. SO WE DENY, UM, THE DEMOLITION TODAY, UH, WILL THEN THE CITY GO FORWARD ON THE PROSECUTION SIDE TO TRY AND GET, UH, THIS HOUSE DEMOLISHED. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE CANNOT GET IT DEMOLISHED BECAUSE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. SO, SO OUR NEXT STEP WOULD HAVE TO BE TO ESCALATE AND TRANSFER IT TO OUR LITIGATION DEPARTMENT AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO PURSUE, UH, A CASE IN, UH, DISTRICT COURT. OKAY. MR. MCGOWAN HAS ALREADY PAID, UM, $3,000 DOWN TOWARDS THE DEMOLITION, THEN HE WOULD FOUND OUT THAT HE CAN'T DEMOLITION IT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE COMMITTEE HERE AND STUFF. SO HE, UH, WANTS TO CONTINUE DEMOLITION IT HIMSELF. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? AGAIN, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THIS WOULD BE DELAYED OR DENIED TODAY WITH THE CAVEAT THAT OTHER DEVELOPERS, OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LOOK AT TO SEE IF IT CAN BE SALVAGED. OBVIOUSLY THE CURRENT OWNER CANNOT SALVAGE THE BUILDING, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE FIXING UP BUILDINGS INTENSITY AS WE SAW TODAY. I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. OR IF THE APPLICANT OWNER DOES INDEED WANT TO BUILD ON THE SITE AND IF HE'S ABLE TO GET A MORTGAGE OR A A, THE MONEY TOGETHER NOW WE COULD LOOK AT THE DEMOLITION WITH THE BILLING TO REPLACE THE BILLING THAT'S THERE. BUT TO TAKE THE BUILDING DOWN FOR A VACANT LOT THAT MAY BE THERE FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF 10TH STREET. THANK YOU. UM, I DO WISH COMMISSIONER TAYLOR HAD STAYED 'CAUSE HE, HE RESPOND, YOU KNOW, HE HAS EXPERIENCE DEVELOPING SPECIFICALLY INTENSE STREET AND WE COULD HAVE ASKED HIM HIS THOUGHTS ON THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT. BUT WE ARE ALL LEFT TO WHATEVER KNOWLEDGE WE HAPPEN TO HAVE. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING, ANY NEW QUESTIONS THAT ARE PART OF CONSIDERATIONS? 'CAUSE OTHERWISE WE CLEARLY HAVE A LOT GOING ON HERE AND A FEW DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. WE WOULD NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION SO WE COULD DISCUSS A MOTION ON THE TABLE. COMMISSIONER HARPER, MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A MOTION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. AND BEFORE I, I STATE IT, IT SPIRIT HERE IS AN INTEREST OF MAYBE GETTING MORE INFORMATION AND UNDERSTANDING MAYBE SOME, SOME OPTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE TO APPROVE TODAY. SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, I MOVE IN THE MATTER OF CASE TWO SIX DASH 2 7 8 9 A FOR 1411 CHURCH STREET. I MOVE THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE [01:40:01] THE FINDING OF THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED WORK IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA. MEANING SPECIFICALLY THAT WHAT MR. WATSON SAID IS THAT THIS COMMISSION MUST DENY UNLESS WE MEET CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE. NUMBER THREE, THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND NUMBER FOUR, THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE FUTURE PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE AND USE OF THE STRUCTURE. SECOND, COULD, COULD I ASK THAT YOU BE, UM, SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT THAT IT, THAT DOES NOT MEET, UH, CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.501 H FOUR C AND THAT'S WHAT STATED IN THE COMMENTS. SO YEAH, I WILL AMEND, YOU CERTAINLY COVERED IT. I JUST I WILL AMEND MY MOTION ON ITEM ONE TO ADDITIONALLY INCLUDE CODE WORK DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 8 4 0.501 H FOUR C. ALRIGHT. AND DID OUR SECOND COME COME COMMISSIONER OSI SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND HAS BEEN SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A, FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THE PROPERTY OWNER EXPLORE WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS THAT NOT REQUIRE THAT RESTORE BUILDINGS IN THE 10TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. WE CANNOT REQUIRE HIM TO DO THAT. WE CAN HEAVILY SUGGEST THAT HE TRY, BUT WE CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIREMENT OF HIS NEXT STEPS. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FINDING OF FACT AND THAT HE, THAT HE EXPLORE LOOKING INTO GETTING AN A DEVELOPER TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE EITHER FOR HIMSELF OR FOR RESALE. IF I CAN BE ADDED IN MOTION, I THAT'S ASKING ATTORNEYS CAN WE REPORT? I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S A FINDING FACT. WELL, THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN SOME TYPE OF, UH, AMENDED MOTION THEN. NO, NO, I JUST, MADAM CHAIR, I CAN'T, UM, ADVOCATE FOR THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE A FINDING OF FACT. OKAY. THAT WOULD NOT BE A FINDING OF FACT. IT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT'S ON OUR PURVIEW. WE CAN OF COURSE, ALWAYS SUGGEST TO PEOPLE WHAT MIGHT HELP THEM. THEN CAN WE SUGGEST THAT PLEASE, WE JUST DID, SIR. YOU DID. I DID. . WILL THAT BE PART OF THE MOTION? IT CAN'T BE. IT CANNOT PART OF THE MOTION. IT CAN'T BE PART OF THE MOTION. THAT'S WHAT OUR OKAY. WELL THEN WELL LET'S MAKE THAT SUGGESTION OUT. THAT WILL BE A SUGGESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME. OKAY. AND AND YOU HAVE, THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO I JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANNA GO ON RECORD AND POINT OUT THAT STAFF, BASED ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, BECAUSE IT DID MEET THE STANDARDS IN CITY CODE SECTION 51 8 DASH 4 5 1 H FOUR C. YES. BUT, BUT THE MOTION CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR IS SAYING THAT IT DOES IT. YES. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE CURRENT MOTION DOES, UM, TAKE THE OPPOSITE STANCE AS STAFF, WHICH WE CAN DO THOUGH WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THEIR EXPERTISE, BUT WE CAN ALSO DISAGREE WITH THEM. AND IF YOU WOULD, JUST FOR THE, ARE THERE LIKE THE STANDARDS, I KNOW YOU SAID IT BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE CERTAIN BEFORE WE GO ON, BEFORE WE VOTE, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS, THESE THREE, THREE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED HERE? AND AGAIN, MARCUS, LET US KEEP THAT IN MIND. OKAY. THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST DENY AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH OR REMOVE A STRUCTURE THAT POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. UNLESS IT FINDS THAT THE STRUCTURE CO CONSTITUTES A DOCUMENTED MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THAT THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL IS REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. AND THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER. AND IT HAS TO BE MEETING ALL HAS TO BE MEETING ONE OF THOSE. IT'S ALL THREE. ALL THREE. SO IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY HIGH STANDARD THAT OUR ORDINANCE SET FOR US BEFORE WE CAN REFUSE, BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE A DENIAL. IT, IT WANTS US APPARENTLY TO REFUSE TO DENY, REFUSE TO HAVE THE DEMOLITION TAKE PLACE. SO, UM, COMMISSIONER HARPER, COMMISSIONER CU, WHOEVER WANTS TO COMMENT ON MY OWN MOTION. YEAH, I GUESS YOU COULD. YOUR SO WELL, I, AGAIN, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME IS THE FIRST FEW WORDS, LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST, AND I PERSONALLY, I DO NOT FEEL THE STRUCTURE IS A MAJOR IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY THAT CANNOT BE. SO THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF MY KNOWLEDGE. AND AND FOR THE RECORD, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TO UNDERSTAND WHEN A THREAT OF WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING THAT GIVES YOU THIS INFORMATION? YEAH, OBVIOUSLY I'M, I'M, WELL, YEAH, I'M, I HAVE MANAGED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR 35 YEARS AND I'VE RESTORED A NUMBER OF HISTORIC HOMES IN FAR WORSE CONDITION THAN THIS ONE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTION THAT PERSPECTIVE THAT MAYBE DEVELOPERS MAY NOT BE INTERESTED, BUT A DEVELOPER [01:45:01] IS IN IT FOR PROFIT AND A DEVELOPER VERSUS A A HISTORIC HOME RESTORE ARE NOT THE SAME THING ALWAYS. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THAT, BUT, UM, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT TO ME, THAT LANGUAGE WAS CRAFTED WITH THE WORD MAJOR FOR A REASON. AND I, I JUST DON'T SEE THESE INSTANCES OF, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SINGLE OUT THIS GENTLEMAN AT ALL, MY APOLOGIES. UM, BUT WHEN THESE, THESE CASES COME TO US AND THEY CITE THIS STANDARD IF, IF I, IF WE DON'T BELIEVE, AND CERTAINLY IF I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A MAJOR THREAT TO SAFETY THAT CANNOT BE REMEDIED. AND I'M HEARING THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT WE MUST DENY IT. AND I THINK WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THAT INSTRUCTION VERY WELL IN, IN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST. ALL RIGHTY. COMMISSIONER CUMMINS? YEAH, I JUST WANNA MAKE COMMENT ON SUPPORT OF THIS, UM, MOTION. UM, I KIND OF ECHO SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER HARPER JUST SAID IT. I'VE HAD MY BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE IN THESE NATURES FOR DECADES. UM, BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN WORSE CONDITION STRUCTURE, FAILING ROOFS, FAILING FIRE BUILDINGS. UM, I HATE LOSING HISTORIC MATERIAL. I HATE LOSING, UM, THE FABRIC OF, OF, OF THESE THINGS. I'M EXCITED TO HEAR THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, IS INTERESTED IN RE REBUILDING. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT, UM, PURSUANT, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY PRUDENT IF STAFF OR SOMEBODY COULD WORK FURTHER DURING THIS IF THIS MOTION DOES, UH, GET APPROVED. I, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD FIND IN, FIND SOME OF THE SPECIALISTS IN THESE MATTERS THAT COULD WORK WITH THEM AND TRY TO FIND OUT ON A PRICING, UH, FRAMEWORK OF WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO REBUILD IF THEY WANNA REBUILD, IF THEY WANNA SCRAPE IT AND REBUILD, THAT'S GREAT. WHAT, WHAT IS IT IN COMPARISON OF FIXING IN PLACE AND, AND SELECT A SELECTO DEMO KNOWING I THINK, UH, AT THIS, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IF I WAS GOING TO WANT TO REBUILD THE HOUSE THERE, I WOULD WANNA KNOW BOTH MY OPTIONS. UH, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN REBUILDING IT FROM, FROM SCRATCH OR REBUILDING, UH, MAJOR PORTIONS OF THE HOUSE. UH, I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE, WE'VE MET THE CRITERIA TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING AND I THINK THEY'RE VERY STRICT ON THAT CRITERIA FOR A, FOR A REASON. AND I, I SUPPORT THIS MOTION. MR. SMITH. MADAM CHAIR. OH, COMMISSIONER MKI, WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN YET ON THIS, SO PLEASE VOTE THOSE. UM, I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION FOR MR. SAP AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MOVE TO GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. OH YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT WHEN YOU'RE NOT HERE TO WHISPER. UM, WELL THAT'S HOW WE WOULD'VE DONE IT IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN THERE WAS NOBODY, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO THAT EITHER. UM, DID THE MOTION SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SECURING THE PREMISES WITH A FENCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IT DID NOT HAVE IT IN IT, NO. IT COULD BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. UM, THAT SINCE THE CITY STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THIS CONSTITUTES AN IMMINENT PUBLIC HAS HAZARD THAT WE DIRECT, UM, THE HOMEOWNER, UM, TO IMMEDIATELY ERECT A SECURE, HEAVY DUTY PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY. OKAY. NOW LET US HAVE THAT'S SEEMS PURPOSELY APPROPRIATE FOR OUR ATTORNEYS TO ANSWER IN PUBLIC. IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO? AND SHOULD WE, WILL THAT HELP? I WILL TELL YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSKI, THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR FLEXED AND DISCUSSING AMONG THEMSELVES. SO LET'S GIVE HIM A SECOND TO DO THAT. AND THEY ARE STILL DISCUSSING COMMISSIONS. , THANK YOU. I FEEL [01:50:01] LIKE THE NARRATOR OF THE PEOPLE YOU DON'T GONNA PLAY TELL YOU IT'S BEEN GOING ON, BUT I WILL TAKE THIS MOMENT TO ASK INSPECTOR HAYES, IF WE WERE NOT TO APPROVE THE IMMINENT DONATION DEMOLITION OF THIS, WOULD IT BE ADVISABLE TO ADD A FENCE TO PROTECT THE BUILDING FROM PEOPLE WANDERING IN UNAWARES AND BEING CRUSHED? IF IT WERE A DANGER? MADAM CHAIR, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A BRIEF RECESS OF FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. YOU CAN BE THINKING ABOUT THAT, SIR, WHILE WE TAKE OUR BRIEF REQUEST RECESS OF FIVE MINUTES. IT IS 2 56. WE'LL BE BACK AT 3 0 1. I DON'T KNOW. NO, NO, NO, NO. WE DISCUSS THIS. SO SEPTEMBER 12TH. OKAY, ONE SECOND BROKE DOWN. [01:56:50] I HAVE BEEN RECLINING AND KEEPING MY DAMAGED FOOT UP. ALL RIGHT. HEY JAN, YOU'RE NOT MUTED BY THE WAY. I NEED EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO BE QUIET, EXCEPT WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH WHICH STAFF MEMBER WILL BEGIN. I CAN GO AHEAD AND BEGIN. UM, SO IF, IF YOU ARE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION TO DENY IT, IT IT'S ALL OR NOTHING. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A DENIAL. UM, WE CANNOT CONDITION A DENIAL. WE CANNOT SAY YOU MUST PUT UP A FENCE, BUT I CAN OFFER UP THAT STAFF CAN START A DEMO BY NEGLECT INVESTIGATION WHERE WE WILL THEN WORK WITH THE OWNERS AND REQUIRE OFFENSE TO AT LEAST KEEP PEOPLE OUT. IT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE PROPERTY IS AN IMMINENT THREAT NECESSARILY. IT IS TO SAY KEEP OUT, NO TRESPASSING. OKAY. AND BEFORE WE LEFT, I DO WANT TO GIVE INSPECTOR HAYES A CHANCE TO CHIME ME. I'M SURE NOW HE UNDERSTANDS, UH, THE LIMITATIONS ON US ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT RULE, BUT HE ALSO HAS HIS KNOWLEDGE. I, I BELIEVE FENCE MAY BE MINIMALLY BENEFICIAL. UM, SOMEONE WANTS TO GET IN, THEY'LL GET IN, UM, ESPECIALLY THE UNHOUSED, UH, THAT WE'RE IN THE AREA. UH, IF THEY ARE DETERMINED TO GET IN THE, UH, FENCE WON'T PROHIBIT IT. BUT, UM, MAYBE IT'S JUST A VISUAL DETERRENT. IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL. IT WOULD AT LEAST DETER THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HOUSE'S CONDITION MIGHT MEAN. I'M THINKING CHILDREN AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CAPACITY TO LOOK AT THAT HOUSE ANYWAY AND KNOW THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. AND IF THEY ACTUALLY CLAIM THE FENCE, THAT WOULD SUGGEST THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK. OKAY. SO THE UNDERSTANDING IS MR. ANDERSON, UM, I CANNOT ADD ANY CONDITION TO A DENIAL. IT APPEARS, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CONDITION IS, IT'S FORBIDDEN. I DO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A PROGRAM WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. IF YOU PUT IN NO TRESPASSING, SIGN UP AND GET THAT SIGN AUTHORIZED THROUGH THE CITY, UM, THE POLICE CAN COME OUT AND REMOVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE. I'LL INCLUDE THAT. IF WHEN I DO A DEMO BY NEGLECT, UH, INVESTIGATION, I CAN CERTAINLY RE MAKE THAT ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S A SIMPLE AFFIDAVIT WE HAVE THERE. WE HAVE INCLUDED THAT AS A SIDE ACTION IN OTHER ISSUES, I BELIEVE THE ONE ON GASMAN ROAD, WE ALSO LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO REQUEST POLICE PROTECTION. OKAY, BUT LET'S REMEMBER, WE JUST HAVE A MOTION RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE NOT YET VOTED ON IT. SO DOES THIS END THE DISCUSSION PERIOD? ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? DOES ANYBODY NEED TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER REEVES. SO, SO DOES THAT STOP THE, THE COURT ACTION? THE COURT ACTION? [02:00:01] WE, WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM IN, I BELIEVE FROM THE CITY, IS THAT THEY CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY DEMOLITION UNTIL WE APPROVE IT. THEY FOUND OUT THAT IS ANOTHER THING THEY MUST HAVE. EVEN COMMUNITY PROSECUTION NEEDS THAT WHEN WE START THE DEMO BY NEGLECT, WE WILL BE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH COMMUNITY PROSECUTION TO MAKE SURE AND CODE COMPLIANT, UM, TO, TO, TO GET THINGS MOVING FORWARD AND NOT JUST SITTING. DOES THAT SAFEGUARD THE OWNER FROM ANY FURTHER FINES? HOLD ON. UH, INSPECTOR MCCLINDON IS GOING TO ANSWER THAT. UM, AND THEY MAY CAN, THIS IS INSPECTOR MCCLENDON. SORRY. UH, THEY MAY CAN ADD MORE INFORMATION TO THAT, BUT TYPICALLY WHEN IT'S IN THE HANDS OF COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, A LOT OF THEIR PROCESSES DO INCLUDE FINES. UH, THAT IS THEIR ENFORCEMENT TOOL. UH, JUST LIKE WITH ME, MY ENFORCEMENT TOOL IS TYPICALLY, UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CITATIONS. UH, THAT'S USUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE WAY TO ENFORCE THAT THOSE THINGS HAPPEN. WELL, WE'RE CAUSING THIS MAN. HE, HE'S PAID A DOWN PAYMENT TO HAVE THE BUILDING TORN DOWN. HE'S BEING FINE AND WE'RE NOT REALLY HELPING HIM. UH, THAT IS, UM, AN OBSERVATION THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE DEEMED VALID AND IS OFTEN A, A PAINFUL PART OF OUR REVIEW PROCESS. UM, IT'S HOWEVER, WE ARE USUALLY NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THOSE SORT [Approval of Minutes] OF THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION. UM, BUT SOMETIMES WE DO. WE CAN'T HELP BUT, BUT FEEL THAT WAY. . AND IF I MAY, THE, THE, THE NEXT STEP, IF THIS WAS THE QUESTION OF COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, OUR, OUR NEXT PROCESS WOULD BE MOVING TO, UH, LITIGATION, UH, IN SOME FORM, BUT, UH, THAT, THAT WOULD BE OUR NEXT LEVEL OF ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER. ALL RIGHTY. AND I, I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS WITH US AND HE HAS RAISED HIS HAND TO SPEAK. NO, HE HAS LOWERED HIS HAND. OKAY. UH, CAN YOU MAKE COMMISSIONER TAYLOR A PANELIST? YEAH. SORRY, I WAS JUST TRAPPED ON THE UN SIDE. OKAY. DO YOU PLEASE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, AS I SPOKE BEFORE, THERE'S PROBABLY NOBODY WITH MORE EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH HOUSES IN 10TH STREET THAN YOU FROM, FROM AN ASPECT OF IT BEING DEMOLISHED OR, OR BEING PREPARED. OKAY. I CAN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND YOU. COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK UP? THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH OUR SPEAKER TODAY OR SOMETHING. NOW YOU'RE OFF, YOU, YOU MUTED YOURSELF. , CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEAH. YES, BUT PLEASE SPEAK UP BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT COMING THROUGH VERY WELL FOR THE ASPECT OF IT BEING REMODELED AND REPAIRED. MM-HMM . IT'S ALL GONNA COME DOWN TO CONTRACTOR. UM, IT, IT'S A VERY LENGTHY PROCESS AS FAR AS THE CONTRACTOR THAT YOU USE TO ACTUALLY DO THE, NOT ONLY JUST REMODEL, BUT HOW IT IS ACTUALLY STABILIZED THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF GETTING IT REPAIRED. UM, SOURCING MATERIALS IS EXPENSIVE, BUT IT IS WORTH IT. UM, I'M, I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO HELP OUT IN ANY WAY I CAN AS FAR I PROVIDE INSIGHT TO CONTRACTORS AND INFORMATION THAT I HAVE IN HOUSES IN 10TH STREET. ALRIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ABOUT READY TO VOTE AT THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH MANY OF US ARE LEFT WITH UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT WE PROPOSAL. ONE QUICK REMINDER. UM, WE DO HAVE A CITY TAX EXEMPTION, UM, FOR, FOR WORK DONE SO THAT THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR HOPEFULLY SOME WAYS TO, TO ALLEVIATE THE FINANCIAL, YES, WE DO HAVE FINANCIAL BURDEN, TAX EXEMPTION, WHICH IF ONE WERE TO GO TO THE EXPENSE AND TROUBLE, AND WE'RE NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A LOT OF EXPENSE AND TROUBLE, BUT TO FIX THIS HOUSE, IT, IT WOULD RELIEVE BURDEN. IT COULD BE ELIGIBLE TO RELIEVE THE BURDEN OF TAXES. AND BECAUSE THE, FOR 10 YEARS AND BECAUSE THE HOUSE NEEDS EXTENSIVE WORK [02:05:01] COMPARED TO ITS ACTUAL VALUE RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO MEET THE THRESHOLD OF SPENDING TO GET THAT, THAT TAX RELIEF. THAT IS SOMETHING WE, WE CAN OFFER TO HELP PEOPLE. IT'S OF COURSE NOT MONEY UPFRONT. I KNOW YOU PREFER THAT. SO I THINK IT'S TIME WE CALL ON THE VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. I HAD ONE MORE COMMENT SINCE THIS IS A NATIONAL REGISTERED DISTRICT AND IF THIS WOULD BE AN INCOME PRODUCING PROPERTY, THEY CAN GET 45% TAX CREDIT FROM THE STATE AND THEN THE NATIONAL REGISTER PROGRAM. YES. THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL, IF IT WERE TO BE AN INCOME, BECOME AN INCOME. THAT ALSO SHOULD BE NOTED. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY YES. YES, YES, YES. ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? NO. NO. WHO WAS THAT COMMISSIONER REEVES ON WHO ALSO SAID NO? IT APPEARS THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH AND COMMISSIONER REEVES WERE THE TWO WHO SAID, NO, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE, BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO HEAR FAIRLY CLEARLY. IT'S, THIS IS A HORRIBLE SITUATION AND I UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL, UM, BARRIERS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT WILL HAPPEN AS WE MOVE FORWARD. MARCUS IS GONNA GONNA WORK ON HIS, IT SOUNDS AS IF THERE ARE ALREADY LEGAL THINGS IN PROCESS, BUT I FOR ONE VOTE FOR THE MOTION BECAUSE OF THE STANDARD WE'RE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT WE READ ALOUD TODAY. UH, IT, IT DOES EXCLUDE US FROM CONSIDERING THE FINANCES OF THE APPLICANT UNFORTUNATELY. SO I'M SORRY THAT YOU DID NOT GET THE RULING THAT YOU WISHED, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD TO DO AS OUR ASSIGNMENT ON THIS COMMISSION. AND I HOPE THAT YOU CAN WORK WITH STAFF. IT WOULD BE FABULOUS IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY REBUILD THE HOME THE WAY IT WAS. WOULD A REPLACEMENT EVER BE AS MEANINGFUL AS THE ORIGINAL ONE? PERHAPS YOU CAN, AND I, I WISH YOU LUCK ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT, UM, I CAN GET, UH, THE NAMES AND INFORMATION OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO HELP? UH, THAT WOULD BE MR. TAYLOR. JAY TAYLOR SAID . I MEAN, YOU SEE HIS NAME RIGHT THERE. UH, IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT HIM, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ELAINE. ELAINE. WE EVEN ELAINE. OKAY. WE DON'T EVEN CONTACT EACH OTHER DIRECTLY. WE ASK HER TO FIND OUT IF IT'S OKAY. OKAY. I'LL EMAIL HER. OH YEAH, I FORGOT THERE. YOU CAN APPEAL THIS, UH, TO CPC. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S ANOTHER FEE FOR THAT. AND THEY'LL JUST, UM, LOOK AT WHETHER WE RULED WRONGLY. THEY, THEY, UM, THEY TEND TO SEND IT BACK TO US, BUT YOU CAN TRY THAT. I'M NOT SURE HOW BIG THE FEE IS, BUT YOU ALSO ALREADY HAVE A LOT IN MOTION NOW WITH SOME OF THE OTHER LEGAL PROCESSES WITHIN THE CITY. ALL RIGHT? AND WE, WE THANK OUR, OUR GUESTS FROM WITHIN THE CITY STAFF WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY. I, I, YOU DON'T LOOK REAL THRILLED AND I DO UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT WE DID PROBABLY ABIDE BY OUR, UM, MANDATE WITHIN OUR OWN ORDINANCE HOW WE MUST RULE. ALRIGHT? AT THAT POINT WE HAVE NO FURTHER BUSINESS EXCEPT TO VOTE ON THE MINUTES. CORRECT? ANYBODY HAVE A CORRECTION TO MAKE TO THE MINUTES AS THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO YOU? ALRIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? THEN I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES. ALRIGHT, SECOND. SECOND. OUR SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER RENAULT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED? YES. YES, YES. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY THEN WE HAVE DONE OUR BUSINESS FOR THE DAY AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT THREE 13. * 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.