Keith would you please call roll Jordan present gains present McBride present mmer present uh Ry present wood present we have cor okay good deal thank you procedures for today's meeting are noted in the agenda for the sake of time we ask anyone who's unfamiliar with the process to please refer to the procedure section there are two items we would like to specifically note regarding the meeting process these items involve certific ific Ates of appropriateness and appeals regarding certificates of appropriateness after an application is approved and the 10day protest period has expired the historic preservation officer will mail the ca to the applicant City Construction permits cannot be issued until the ca is issued please contact HP staff for final design review inspection or to withdraw items that will not be completed regarding an appeal to the board of adjustments any person AG grieved by a decision granting or denying a CA May appeal to the Oklahoma City Board of adjustments all appeals shall be made made within 10 days of the commission's decision by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the board of adjustments Katie any news from the office of the historic preservation officer the only thing I wanted to note um because we have I know a lot of people who are here about an item that is a recommendation to Planning Commission and in case anyone doesn't make it till when we get to that item and has to leave early or anything like that is that that is scheduled to go to Planning Commission January 11th um so of course the historic preservation commission wants to hear all of your comments but it's important that Planning Commission also hear any concerns from the public feel free to contact staff for more information about how to communicate those um concerns questions support to Planning Commission okay thank you do we need to move anything today uh no we have no items that need to be shuffled around at this time okay moving on to the acceptance of minutes have the Commissioners had a chance to review the de member meeting minute meeting minutes and if so would anybody like to motion to approve appr okay do we have a second second would you all vote in Prime gu please oh it's a recurring problem up here um okay any let's see anything from code enforcement uh nothing specific to report as always if you have questions about any items that are listed on that code enforcement report reach out to staff or to the city's action center for more information okay what about uh continuance announcements or requests we have no um no requests and no new requests for a continuance at this time all right uh public hearings so we have a dilapidated structure on the agenda today we have haven't had one of these in some time so just for an explanation this is a recommendation to City Council on a pro a property that has been declared dilapidated by code enforcement um they do not receive a certificate of appropriateness for that demolition it is determined by Council that the condition is so severe that it has to be demolished immediately and the city moves forward with that our recommendation is on whether the property contributes to the historic Integrity of the district and whether the demolition will adversely affect the character of The District staff has provided a um recommendation uh has recommended a recommendation that the property no longer contributes to the Integrity of the district essentially because how of how severely deteriorated and heavily altered um it has been over time oh um so we have someone the property owner present do we uh do we need do we need to address that right now or do we need to go through rest if you have uh questions for staff I can answer questions or the homeowner is um available and would like to speak okay good deal well we'll just jump right to that um 416 Northwest 29th Street do you mind stating your name for the record uh Glenn King thank you how you doing okay um this is actually my first dilapidated structure so Katie how do we uh proceed with with this so um you all are just making a motion to provide a recommendation to city council um but if the property owner would like to make any comments um to the effect of you know the dilapidated case then then um you have three minutes to speak okay um first of all I thought I was here to uh obtain a certificate of appropriateness that you had mentioned earlier because uh there again I've been in a fi Financial um this you know Financial bond for some time but I didn't know that they had brought it to that to that extent so I didn't know that uh they said before I could do any work to it that I would need a certificate of appropriateness and I thought that's what I was here to get today or be approved by this Council so what is on the agenda today is is um a case from code enforcement to declare the structure dilapidated so that it could be torn down um and they because that action is being taken by the city they don't need a certificate of appropriateness um now if you wanted to do work to the property yourself individually then that would need a certificate of appropriateness but as far as what the city has requested it would just be a recommendation to city council okay so do I get a chance to do more work to the to the property I mean what what what am I I don't know exactly what I'm hearing it just sounds bad for my property though so I think at this point you need to talk to um code enforcement about the dilapidated process and the structure being torn down um we don't have anything for the commission to consider regarding any work to the structure if you are wanting to do work and wanting to um get it back into repair or something like that then you would need to talk to code enforc and then eventually also apply for a certificate of appropriateness but we don't have one of those in front of us to consider today so that's nothing that I would get from the council it was something that I would go to code enforcement and ask about um what you just what you you would need to ask code enforcement about the status of your property and what what they need you to do to get it either into repair or what the next step is with the dilapidated process okay so so what's to be decided here today do I have that time and opportunity to do so yes so we're going to provide a recommendation um that will after this meeting I will send that to code enforcement staff and then that will get put on an agenda for a future city council meeting um presumably at least a couple of weeks from now so Katie I think the question might be if we recommend that yes this is um something we would agree with demolition what's his next step so your next step would simply be to reach out to code enforcement to find out what what they need for you to do when it's going to go to City Council for a hearing um if there are any other actions that that are required to be taken that sort of thing can we is there somebody who could make sure to get him the information yes let me see if um the specific code enforcement officer is listed and I don't think anyone from code enforcement is here I don't think so today but give them that number that I'm kind of slow I heard everything you said I just want to reiterate there's going to be a decision made here today but I will still have uh an opportunity and time to go to code enforcement to ask what it is that I need to do to take it off the dilapidated demolition yep yes yes agenda okay have you received a notice of violation from Cod forcement I received a lot of uh notices of violations so you kind of have an idea what they're saying the problem is with the property pardon me ma'am you you kind of have an idea what they're saying is wrong with the properties well I know I have to fix it up there again you know it was just a financial um uh struggles but at the same time um since I know that it um you know can come to an extreme uh as far as Council looking it over and making decisions I know that I may have to step up my process so there again um there has been programs that uh was you know that have been sent as notices in my you know there have been there have been letters to State whether or not I um what do you call it I um I'm approved or may be approved for like a home maintenance uh program okay however uh I come from the generation of I guess Charles lock I don't know if you all remember that I mean you know he's a good guy you know but at the same time um I had difficulty in getting those even though I was approved several times but there again it was always um an issue as to whether or not the funds would be uh you know if it you know they said you're approved but you just have ,000 too much of work that you have to do to that so what is it that I can do to overcome that you know what I'm saying if they approve me but at the same time I'm $1,000 or maybe 500 or maybe 900 bucks over the the allowance how can I defeat that process they will tell you when you give them a call at that number that Katie is about to give to you this is the co enforcement officer that is working the dilapidated case that's on our agenda now so if you go call him he should be able to tell you the next steps with okay your property okay and that office is in okay now the other thing is I used to be able to go inside of the building are they still driving around in just their cars Lobby oh okay and they can call and see who speak with okay okay I'll do that I'll do that okay so today I think um again this is my um first dilapidated structure since I've been on the commission so I apologize for not knowing proper procedure but I think that we are just looking for comments from the commission to forward onto the city Oh yes any members of the public uh wish to speak to this and and there are comments from Jefferson Park yes those were attached to the agenda yes right in favor of uh a recommendation Katie the way this is worded is it's not stating that we need to make a recommendation so do we have um proper Lang it just says requests for comments um so yeah it can simply be that um motion to forward the following comments to city council Commissioners does anybody have a a motion or some comments or any questions for the property owner I will make a motion but I'm a little confused is it this hpca number or is it the c number sorry it's the c number okay the hpca down at the bottom is incorrect that's incorrect yeah okay in regard to case number c-23 72638 I make a motion that staff recommendation comments one and two be forwarded to code enforcement um by the commission second okay could everybody please vote in Prime GV me Sarah okay so that motion carries so sir your next step will just be to follow up with that um number that Katie has given you with code enforcement and they they should be able to direct you to some specific uh next steps okay so at this point just talk to a code enforcement yes sir thank you very much thank you okay so Katie I guess that puts us back up towards the top of the packet at National register nominations yep no National register nominations this month and that puts us down at cases for individual consideration oh we have no consent ET okay y all right so moving on to cases for individual consideration um hpca 22- 00166 2324 Northwest 26 Street this is in Shephard W 2 consideration of possible action on application by John ranky living spaces for Anthony carfang for certificate of appropriateness to nine revise item three construct garage to include installation of alternate window design uh required um this is a garage that was previously approved with one over one um a pair of one over one windows windows that have been installed are 4 over4 don't match what was previously approved and so they have requested a revision to that original CA um staff did not feel that those windows were compatible with the design of the primary structure with the garage and with what was previously uh approved so okay looks like the applicant is present could you please state your name and address for the record yes I'm John ranky and I'm the contractor for this project okay great uh Commissioners any questions for the applicant well I'll go first why are you wanting to revise this item well um we had an opportunity for a pair of Windows that were actually much larger than and had initially been done well not much larger but definitely a a little bit larger larger but had huge value to the client and these were the same manufacturer double hung solid core wood windows the aluminum face and that had been approved the only thing and this is my failure on the thing was they are the four over four you know pattern okay so essentially the the answer to your question is we had an opportunity to increase the value of the overall project at a decreased cost and and my client was like that sounds great let's do it and and so we went ahead and did it figuring that if we weren't changing the number of Windows or the position of the windows or anything else that it would be a non-issue so um so and in this particular position you know you know we we feel that it's not really um advantageous to the character of the neighborhood to change because in that particular position it is marginally viewable by anybody who would be in the backyard of any of the adjoining properties there to the west or the South um and you know most of the time we're going to be seeing all these 4- foot Hurricane fences going away and being replaced privacy fences so about one about two-thirds of this backyard is currently enclosed by privacy fences uh on the east side and then a small section that faces West so visibility to this face of the building is pretty limited so obviously we would like to keep them in place so we just need the permission of the board to do so yes nothing and this project was dilapidated original structure uh and so we tore that down and rebuilt it from the ground up so the windows that were approved were an addition to the building in the first place and Katie these are not windows that we would approve on any sort of new construction so the window product is a window that we have approved in the past we don't we we would not have recommended approval of that particular window pattern the 4 over4 just as far as compatibility with the the historic garage with the primary structure the other um design detail that is not typical for a pair of windows in a historic structure is that there's no mullon the board between the two windows they just butt right up against each other um I agree with John they are on an accessory building facing into the backyard they're not visible from much of anywhere but it is a window type that had this come before us in the first place we would not have staff would not have supported Ed so I wasn't aware that the mlion was also an issue so it's just a typical design detail that makes it compatible with the historic windows so that's something we look for yeah yeah so I mean on the designs that I've done on other buildings I've used the milon when I bring two together I just I tell my clients all the time there's million details to consider and you know so it's easy to get lost and this is one of those places I got lost so that yeah the four over four is a is unusual but again as Katie said and I iterated already we aren't in a place that actually impacts the character of the neighborhood in this particular condition um well staff is recommending denial um it is you know new construction not very visible I don't know that I um I certainly prefer the one over one anybody else have an opinion on on uh this the rest of the applications built as approved we made we made one other change but essentially yes uh the garage door uh we changed to an an allowable metal door instead of the wood door that we had originally proposed but other than that we've kept everything the way it was so yeah I I tend to agree it's um I don't have an issue with it it's in the backyard it's not visible from the street it's not like this garage is um pretending to be historic it looks like a new garage um I personally don't have a uh I don't want to create a hardship for an honest mistake um also don't want to create uh precedent to sort of do what you will during construction so I I empathize I don't have an issue with it because I don't think it adversely affects the public Rome well if no one has an issue with it would anybody like to motion I have an issue but sounds like I'm the only one that's okay that's okay I I think you I think you do what you say you're going to do and cost oh well sorry yeah I agree I mean and that is I mean that is absolutely the case you know I mean if it is the opin know the board that I have to replace these with the windows that we put in you know then I'll just have to settle up and do that you know so it is my hope of course that we don't do that path just because you know these aren't really impactful to the neighborhood so you know well I mean when I'm looking at the design I think where I come to is I'm not sure I would have been offended by it originally because to your point it's not pretending to be a historic structure um so I I certainly am usually kind of a stickler for the you know no you said you were going to do this and you did it a different way but I'm not sure I would have been offended by it in the first place well and it's not like it's um vinyl windows that are poor quality or I mean it no these are you know as Katie iterated this is the same manufacturer the same quality window and you know so you know it's you know we didn't go on the cheap for it we just had an opportunity to do it cheaply I'll make a motion I I think I just want to say I think for me it's just the process I I'm I'm hung up on the process because I mean going on four years like we spend so much time talking about Windows and one window was approved and the applicant has admitted to I I know it was approved this got swapped in I I'm I'm just not in favor of it there there there's a process and I just don't want to go against the respect and time that we spend up here talking to applicants about Windows and I'm so sorry this one got swapped and not thought to come back and say hold let's hold let's take this one back to the commission because we've seen them spend a lot of time on Windows but it's not even the windows it's just the process of it to come before and we probably did spend some time talking about the windows at that one not on this particular one you know but you know you got lucky then yeah so I've been here for plenty of the plenty of those conversations so yeah no I would probably lean towards the motion of denying it just just because of the process that I I would like to try to respect up here um I think that if this had come before uh the Commission in the Fuller scope of the new construction when there's always lots of things and there's kind of a negotiation on a back and forth between you know saying what's an absolute deal breaker and what could be worked with I would have actually been fine with these windows as well considering their placement um and so for that reason the fact that I know that in a broader scope if I were not just looking at these in isolation I would have looked at it in terms of the project itself the the scale of it the placement of the windows where they're looking out in the backyard and I in in the initial process think that I would have been fine with these in which case that I'm also fine with them in this scenario so if were a motion to be made that is I do just want to reiterate before we anybody makes a motion of any sort we are seeing a lot of this lately so just you know we're seeing a lot of doing something and asking for forgiveness or being turned in or whatever and it is becoming more of a problem so however this goes I'd just like to kind of point that out for the record that it's becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence I will take that under advisement because I have another project that will need a couple of amendments so I'll get those filed I mean I'm I'm happy I mean every commission M's got a mo but got to vote but if I was to make a motion I would move to deny hpca uh -22 d166 uh with or without prejudice uh with okay do we have a second second okay motion by commissioner Milner second by commissioner wood everybody please vote in Prime go oh sorry what did mine not go okay well um I was actually a yay so tie ball game okay that's what I was I get to vote um so we had one of these last month and I forget what the um next step is it needs to be continued to the next meeting unless somebody changes their mind about how they voted someone could offer another motion and we take another vote but I don't know that anybody's going to change position yeah so if that's not the case then I mean given that you're not waiting on construction I would probably you know I would probably ask that we just continue it continue it for what uh to next mon I mean we have a very small group here today so we might have um might have a few more Commissioners here I mean you know the windows are in nobody's getting rained on nobody's waiting for something very true it's very true so they will continue to not bother anybody for the foreseeable um so and would it if it comes to pass that we do need to do something H that we do make a change I'm pretty sure that I can actually have the um the actual glazing redone where there is no light divider in them and change out the glass so there are no milons you know so um I realized that we can't have a design discussion but well that's that's a potential possibility you know rather than ripping the windows out entirely you know so yeah I would just visit with staff about that if you need to before um next month's meeting and then you know process if you're continued you're welcome to change your you know revise your revise your revision as it were um does we do need an offal continue to the very sth meeting I'll I'll make a motion to continue hpca 22 00166 to the February meeting okay do we have a second second okay could everybody please vote in Prime gup okay we will um see you next month with your updated revision thank you and so at this moment in time if I get a revision in then we'll be considering that correct is that what we're saying if you get a revision in what if you change what you've already if I change what it's already because right now we're continuing to next month and uh basically we're just going to vote on it again and unless I put in something else to be considered correct if you would like something else to be considered um we'd want you to get us that by Tuesday of next week Tuesday of next week call call me call Angela we'll talk through that right yeah okay okay thank you thanks okay moving on to HPC 23-44 at 621 Northwest 18th Street this is Mea Park W 6 consideration and possible action on application by Fallon Brooks Magnus Jolly Bird design for David DT for certificate of appropriateness to two remove existing parking pad and Paving elective three install new patio elective four construct new fence elective seven construct new garage elective and 14 install driveway apron and sidewalk at rear elective the commission has seen this application twice previously and continued it with the request for additional information regarding um lot coverage um additional information uh related to the size and height of the structure um some of the building materials this time we have received no additional information and as the project is out of continuances we've recommended denial okay looks like the applicant is present would you please state your name and address for the record alen Brooks Magnus 733 Northwest 22nd Street representing the applicant so uh there were a couple things in the staff report um lot coverage I'm sorry that hadn't been calculated yet uh existing lot coverage including the parking pad and slab for the original garage that is now gone uh was 58% existing and what we are proposing is 64% lot coverage so it's not a an inrees amount do you have documentation uh reflecting that I could not get that in in time uh but yeah it's um and then as far as so so one of the issues that we ran into on this one is there's not um the condition doesn't exist for a two-story garage and so we had to convince the commission um one of the things that we had gone back looked at is how many oversized garages exist and within a 500t radius um about 32% of them are oversized that's not twostory that's just oversized um over the allotted square footage um the ab budding garage next door which was which doesn't exist but it's shown on the sandborn maps uh and again did not have time to get the to get the documentation in for it but um the garage next store that that was torn down is oversized and then the one AB budding to the rear also oversized on footprint um still no other real justification for two stories other than the sloped lot that's all I got okay so other than lot coverage what were the specifics of what staff wanted to get ahead of this meeting so um the size is larger than what the guidelines allow so justification for the size um and then it's a two-story garage that doesn't meet the guidelines for two stories so justification of two stories um is what we were hoping to so no other actual documentation uh with regard to the plans just justification um I think plans were all good I think there are a few building materials that we need in more detail on those are typically things that are are not a deal breaker when everything else is approvable um yeah to to me in in the interest of time I mean it sounds like um as as much as I am sympathetic to two-story garages and there are opinions on that but the um the guidelines are pretty clear and until that threshold is met I don't see that threshold being met today um I would say move forward with denial and then modify and reapply why would be where I stand so the last time I came before the commission I will say we talked about the height and we talked about the slope in the rear of the lot which has an 11t difference between the top the high point of the roof and the high point of the garage and basically what I walked away with was find a way to convince us continue to not be offended by the design of the garage it is the house I don't know um how many of you have stood in front of this house it is from the street it is a large large house as are many on the north side of 18th Street right there I'm not and personally I do understand that we're really stretching to get a unique circumstance there but when I Envision a one-story garage behind a house of this size it feels a little ridiculous um I'm a little more concerned about the footprint and the increasing lot coverage I mean 64% I know you said that that was not substantial but to me that's a fairly sub that's like a 10% jump so or what did you say 57 to 64 54 to 6 so 10% jump so it's fairly substantial um I'm not offended by the massing of a two-story garage I am a little concerned about increasing the footprint and diminishing you know we're already you know if somebody were to say okay we'll get on board with two stories that's already granting you a pretty big pass right there so thinking about expanding it as well is um maybe a bridge too far so the ab budding lot to the north which is in this image that's on the screen right now that pad there is the the previous carriage house that was torn down that's how big that footprint was is that a multif family it is a multif family yes but it's a budding I'm just saying it's and then the one immediately to the West also had a similar Carriage House uh that was torn down so so so if we're going if we're going by lot coverage and oversized footprint and all of that I I feel like that's less of a stretch than the height is there a reasonable way to reduce the footprint of the garage uh I mean so we went we went over this before I can't remember the exact numbers because I don't I forgot my Fallon is this the one that has the stairs inside of it yes the reason it's over is because of the stairs I'm recalling now garage proper is is slightly over the guidelines still it's not 450 I think it might be um you know like 460 or 70 maybe but it's not egregious I'll just say I'll never be on board with the two story and I think I said that last time so and I'll say I'm just here representing someone Commissioners any other comments questions thoughts input yeah I just don't think we have enough today to approve it then I think we should move on towards a motion and we'll revisit this uh hopefully with more information next time I think we are out of continuances on this one so it'll have to be denied hopefully without prejudice I would be in support of that I think that's fair that's that's staff's recommendation that's a did you say that's a stretch no that's staff staff's recommending without FR so then can I make a motion can I move denial of hpca d23 D z44 items 2 three is it 14 what is it four S and 14 without prejudice second okay could you all please vote in Prime goov okay the motion carries we will see you next time all right next one's me too so oh we will see you right now okay it's been a while huh hbca 23- z136 at 620 Northwest 18th Street this is Mea Park W 6 consideration and possible action on application by Fallon BRS Magnus jelly bird design for David DT for certificate of appropriateness to one demolish primary dwell elective and two remove fence elect um similarly this is one the commission has seen twice before um and had requested various additional information regarding the condition of the structure um we have not received any new information at this time so staff has recommended denial okay looks like the applicant's still here would you restate your name and address for the record alen Brooks 733 Northwest 22nd representing the client okay thank you applicant whatever um so we don't have any additional information because getting an engineer to write you a like 20page letter in the middle of the holidays is impossible it's not going to happen um and we are out of continuances so I'm not an engineer I don't think you guys are going to accept my report that I wrote but I just take a walk by and take a whiff and I I think it justifies itself but uh if we have to come back we'll come back um I did want to point out because these comments did not make it into the online agenda that we do have comments from me well we have um M Park agreeing with staff's recommendation and we have a couple of comments from Heritage Hills basically saying the same thing that um demolitions are concerning but there are clearly a lot of non-historic aspects of this building that need to be addressed so just wanted to call those out since not everybody get absolutely it's it's a unique circumstance I mean just looking at it you can tell how much of the massing on the left side's not original the house doesn't take up the whole width of the lot so in order to make the existing footprint work we'll have to tear all that off and then build a new addition that is not probably not compliant with the guidelines which means you guys are going to have to find special circumstance for it and then on top of that the entire house the seill plates all the foundation walls they have to be rebuilt we have to Jack this whole thing up it's rotten all of it like it's G to fall it's just I I mean I've seen a lot of houses I'm typically in favor of of preservation but this one I just don't it's I just just don't see how it's salvageable well I may never utter these words again I would definitely be in favor of demolition on this that said I think that we need to take extreme care and caution in recommending something like that so I would not be in favor of it with what's before us but I would love to see a more thorough engineering report on the prop Prejudice is all I ask okay um I don't know how anybody else feels but those are kind of kind of sums up my thoughts is there anybody in the public that wants yes any public comments on this sorry I'm very bad at remembering that thank you for the reminder um if no one from the public wishes to speak I would be in favor of a motion to um sounds like deny this one uh would you like me to make a motion sure thing um I move to deny hpca d 23-00 136 uh items one and two without prejudice is that what we wanting to do okay okay thank you commissioner Milner do we have a second second thank you commissioner wood everybody vote in Prime go please okay the motion carries now we will see you next time okay um okay number four hpca 23- 00142 at 1440 Northwest 35th Street this is petam Heights word two consideration of possible action on application by Adam luck for certificate of appropriateness to one install fence selective and two construct deck elective um staff has recommended approval of the um deck as proposed um issues with offense are um basically that it sits farther forward than what the guidelines allow and admin administrative approval for fencing it is forward of that Mark by about 3 ft and that is because of existing HVAC equipment um in reviewing this kind of internally with staff we um we did provide a recommendation of approval with some conditions attached but quite honestly based on the conditions at the site would be supportive of um approval as proposed for both items well it looks like the applicant is present would you please state your name and address for the record yes good afternoon my name is Adam luck and address is 1440 Northwest 35th Street okay um I I agree with uh staff's updated recommendation that I'm fine with things as they exist um my only question was would we need to approve it with a unique circumstance if we're removing that agreed upon condition I think you could include unique circumstance that the placement is based on existing permanent features of the site um I don't know that that's absolutely a necessity but that would cover your bases Commissioners any questions for the applicant comments a motion would you like me to make a motion well we better see if anybody from the public wants to speak anyone no okay well if nobody uh has any issue with the application as it exists I would certainly be in favor of a motion to approve I'll move to approve hpca d23 z136 both items one and two with specific findings as noted in the staff report and we want to add unique circumstances that the fence placement is B based on um permanent features on the site correction on the case number 00142 which what did I say I'm sorry 0136 goodness hpca d23 D z142 I just got excited I was it's approval I know I second second okay good deal thank you do we have a second I will second okay everybody please please vote in Prime gu Prime gub is uh giving us some trouble so we might have to do a voice move okay so all in favor yes I I any opposed okay congratulations enjoy your uh your fence and your deck thank you all so much appreciate it okay uh moving on to hpca 23- 00147 at 108 Northwest 19th Street this is located in Heritage Hills East w six consideration of possible action on application by Dena Canary Omega investment for scarlet Lake cow Omega Investments for certificate of appropriateness to one replace windows damage bound repair required two infill windows and doors required three frame around carport columns elective four construct pergola required five replace siding where necessary required and six replace roof elective um as you can kind of tell from the number of items that are required some of this work is already um ongoing and underway um I'll let the kind of applicant walk through what the plans are but just briefly um the front windows and rear windows appear to be non-historic um so likely not any issue with replacing those windows um there do appear to be four over one historic wood windows that um should be either repaired or replaced in kind um there is back infill where they propose to enclose uh doors and windows typically we allow for those kinds of modifications on the rear of the structure where it's not visible from the street but there is a window um proposed to be infilled on the side of the dwelling that is farther forward than where we would allow that kind of a change um they have proposed to frame in around the existing carport kind of making it look more like a a um historic portica share we have not recommended approval of that um a car the carport is existing it can remain but really should be um kept to ordinary maintenance and repair type work and not made to look like a historic feature that it really is not um there is a pergola proposed in the backyard that is partially visible from the street other than the the visibility that the commission may want to consider uh that appears to meet guidelines for those types of features when in a rear yard um siding appears to um meet requirements for matching the siding although we have asked for additional documentation of the condition of the existing siding and then the roof um does not appear to actually require a certificate of appropriateness as proposed for that roof replacement that's considered ordinary maintenance and repair okay um would you please state your name and address for the record uh Scarlet Le cow uh addresses 2013 uh 20 not West 13 okay thank you um Commissioners questions for the applicant about this project um I would say let's go item by item if if you all do have comments and questions it is a fairly lengthy proposal and we do have some comments submitted on it let me just get to the bottom here maybe okay um replacing Windows damage Beyond repair item one questions comments or concerns we do have some comments from the neighborhood about that and um you know potential confusion over whether these were salvageable or not uh before they were removed can you kind of speak to why you removed them to begin with uh it's on the one side of the house and is the when the the RO was leaking and is the damage all the wood clads uh all around it uh there's no way it can be um salvageable um there should be some photos of the existing photos of the windows inside and the glass is not real glass either it was black SE glass so it we've got some neighborhood comments here stating that the windows were let me jump to it uh the windows were removed and placed in a dumpster which broke most of the glass were salvaged by neighbors and then given back to the workers weeks later after they were cited by the city so are those original Windows still in your possession and salvageable it's inside the house there's no way can be that salvageable those windows have been kept because those uh can be restored the other side where the roof those are restore I'm not throwing those away these this is the back of the house and those of the add-on I don't think is belong to the house when it was first built and the roof leaks all the way in the back and on the side of the house and there was window units on the Windows as well with Flexi glasses and uh plastic bags it sounds like staff's um recommending approval with conditions so and those conditions are that the windows that are replaced that have multi multi- panes in the upper sash actually match these windows yes these have more divisions than what your documentation showed and so I want documentation that supports a match between the two yes that's the only difference okay yeah if nobody body has any other questions about the windows we can jump down to review some of these other items um infilling the windows and doors and just to re summarize um primarily the windows and doors proposed to be infilled are on the rear of the house and some included in the the addition um so we would support enclosing those windows and doors based on their location with the condition that the East window um be retained and not be enclosed make sure I'm talking about the right window right so the the conditions are and just make sure we're all on the same page um if the commission's okay with it you will provide additional documentation that matches what Angel is looking for and then regarding the windows not that window um provided that that it is shown to match what Angela has if we approve that that would be the condition okay and how about the enclos some on that and that's that used to have like a window units so staff is recommending approval of enclosing the windows on the rear but not the smaller window on the side yeah I'm not inclose those yeah okay um so let's talk about the pergola um staff is recommend in a continuance on the construction of the pergola um some concerns being the location primarily um I believe it's currently placed on the previously existing garage pad is that correct or is it just where a garage would be there's no garage was there was the concrete pad there when you purchased the property it was very broken it just looks like that's where a garage may have been originally so I think that was the concern it's just kind of um you know placement that's not really in keeping with the historic character Commissioners any thoughts on the pergola yeah it's almost it's like it's built in lie of where the garage was I mean it's not like it's in front of a garage as a carport and is all the way in the backyard right yeah KD do we have specific guidelines prohibiting something uh of that nature being in that spot so we have guidelines for administrative approval of pergolas in locations that are not visible from the public right of way okay um and then we have guidelines that say um pergola talking about construction of pergolas and how they attach to or relate to other structures um let see and then guideline 3.4.3 says do not add a Pergola or freestanding trellis on a prominent elevation were none existed historically I would say when I read prominent elevation I take that to mean putting it on the front or the side of the house where it's visible from the street um not in a backyard so I think the commission has some leeway in where you determine a Pergola to be appropriate and the extent to which it's appropriate for it to be visible um and whether or not the size is appropriate that sort of thing um for staff approval we could not approve a Pergola in this location because you can see it from the street okay and I was just trying to jump back and find a picture of the pergola as it currently exists um Can is there a yeah there's another photo yeah that's what I was looking for I knew I saw it earlier I just wanted to confirm that so that is decking it's not built directly onto concrete correct yeah it looks like she's using the pad to as a foundation for it I know we've reviewed some of these in the past where it was kind of like or they trying to you know skirt around not being able to have a carport by adding a Pergola that does not look like what's happening here to me so while I don't it's not where I would ideally love to see one I don't really see a reason to you know deny its location yeah I would argue that if the pad had been removed when the garage was removed you wouldn't be the wiser yeah I tend to agree so again I'm just going to comment again about the process yep that we're we're right back I feel like where we were maybe earlier today and items were done and now we're here it's here and this always put such a weight on us that it's but it's already done and it's just going to be more work to have to go I didn't build it though I didn't you're in a historic neighborhood and this is the situation and it's just very difficult well and that's the gist of the neighborhood comments that were submitted to is that you know um neighborhood comments and I believe we have some people from the neighborhood here to speak if y'all would rather we can do that or I can read the comments um would you'all like to speak to it yeah I'd rather hear from theigh okay agreed um well why don't we do you want to jump to that because it seems like there's kind of some history with regard to what John's stating about the work that was being done and kind of you know ignoring the process and we talked about the it's a very lengthy process like all the paperwork and all that is very complicated it's it's not like you can whip it out in like a day or something when you have to pay for interest taxes everything else and get the workers continue the work and uh primarily not to wait for vandalism as well so what I have to do I have to do what I have to do well that is kind of the burden of doing what then the p is all the way in the backyard not just right in front or anywhere that any anyone can you know cruize it I I just don't think you know like I didn't know that building a puga inside my backyard way in the back would require some kind of approval when it's on my property way way behind my backyard now did you know you were in a historic district well the house just got approved into the HP I would say like a few months before I bought it when did you purchase the home not too long ago I think this was uh back in 2021 20120 um the 2019 maybe that Heritage chills East was I mean it's been it's been a part of the HP for a long time but I think what you're speaking to is when it was included in the uh in the Heritage Hills neighborhood association Heritage Hills East has been a city of Oklahoma City Historic District since 1999 I think well someone informed me that it just got into the HP like like I think what you're speaking to is when it became when they merged with Heritage Hills proper but it has had its own historic preservation designation status for much longer um any way you slice it this is the burden of doing a renovation project whether it's you know for yourself or for profit or whatever reason within one of these districts and John's right that you know there is kind of seemingly a long and outlined history of work being done while um neighbors and the city were it's very confusing like sometimes you don't know which part will need to apply which part won't need to be applied it takes a long time to understand a lengthy project like and then just to replace the windows alone it have to be like okay the front windows I have metal windows if I replace it do I have to apply for it you know like those are lengthy projects and then it needs someone to call and all that it it takes a lot of time for my staff to go through all this and I you know you have to get an architect to involve in these situations an architect is like a month out on the most unfortunately our only role here is to review the work I mean I do now he talking about me starting the work before it's getting approved yes I have to start a war because I have people to pay for and I have to pay property taxes on this too can we hear from the public please yeah sure members of the public she'll have to stand at the podium okay hello would you please state your name and address for the record certainly Marva Ard 1521 North chartel Avenue thought for a moment you were here so often you were just going to go by Marva I'm happy to go by Mara so um okay so um kind of give us the background on what the neighborhood uh thinks about this by the way Heritage Hills East has been a preservation district for 25 years so it didn't happen overnight uh this is the third case in Heritage Hills although Heritage Hills is a part of Heritage Hills now it is still its own separate preservation District according to the city um this is the third case on window removal and work done in Heritage Hills East in the last few months that you've seen there was the fourplex where the man painted The Brick and took out half of his windows there was the case last month where the hopefully some of the windows are still inside the property that the a Heritage Hills resident bought on in the 100 block on 15th Street and now this case on 19th um Mrs Cow is very familiar with preservation districts and if you want to do business in a preservation District pay by the rules and I don't think you get preferential treatment by running in and doing things and hoping you don't get your hand slapped we worked for two weeks to get the city to come out and and issue a stop work order on this we were fully aware that there wasn't a CA on the property um if the windows are in the house then take photos of them and let you all see them and you can determine whether they're usable or not um it's just too much history of this going on and there have and there has to be consequences a lot of us do work pretty much solely on historic properties and we play by the rules we get the permits we write the national register nominations and we still have the same expenses as everyone does you know we're happy that the house is going to be in better shape but I don't think people should basically get a free pass if they start early on a project I'll let Randy talk to you for a few minutes well if we start with this way I don't think I asked for any special treatment at all and when I called and then uh they it said that yes you can do anything inside the house uh before you know starting the whole paperwork and all that and that's what I did yeah my my contractors yet make a mistake and then they took the windows put in the dumpster and and when the the uh when The Neighbor call I said yeah you need to pick them up right away you cannot do that you cannot throw away things that I told you not to throw away people make mistake and it's done by contractors not by me we do see that a lot on the commission but unfortunately all we really have the ability to review is the work that's been done whether it was a mistake or purposeful so I mean that just again so but I turn in the applications now and then everything matched to the standards that you require so I don't understand what is the situations here I I follow on that the newer member of the commission uh obviously we we are seeing a trend of people doing work and then getting forgiveness later but if they're doing work that would have been approved what is the alternate pathway from here like uh for you know if the staff recommends that it would approve that it's approved in what way does it matter that it's been done versus not been done and that's for my educ education yeah so um the ordinance calls for the commission to review work that has already occurred as if it had not yet occurred so they both um are not an applicant should not be penalized because they already did the work if the work otherwise meets applicable guidelines and regulations alternatively they shouldn't be given preferential treatment or kind of go going easy on them because it's already done and oh it would be an inconvenience to make them go back and undo the work were supposed to look at it as if it was a new application for work that had not yet occurred um and determine whether or not that work is appropriate um and I understand that this was a property where work was ongoing neighbors were concerned and were contacting staff and contacting the city um and I certainly appreciate the neighborhood's comments I appreciate Mrs cow's comments um but we do have to focus on what's in front of the commission as far as the proposed work and what can be approved today cannot be approved yes I appreciate that I think with that said let's jump around to um talk about the framing around the carports that's something that the framing around the carport um around those columns if we may I do have a question for staff about the pergola before we get off of that and this is the main thing I see on the pergola is you stayed in here it may be misinterpreted as a carport and I totally agree with that from looking at this but what is it that um I is there a guideline or something that led to staff making that comment here so I think that's just kind of a general observation about the placement of the the pergola um in relation to where a garage historically would have been the house has the an existing metal Cort at the front if you could wait I I this is a question for staff please I'm just uh think you might asking please wait while staff finishes their answer yeah there there is an existing carport um I I think so we don't have a guideline that says you cannot have a carport um we have guidelines that talk about where an accessory structure generally should be placed and accessory structures should be in the backyard where accessory structures would have typically been historically so I think one could argue um one could argue that well it kind of reads as a cardboard from the street I think you could also argue that this is where an accessory structure would have been and therefore it's an appropriate place for a new accessory structure now in the rear yard the back corner um so I think that's just kind of a general observation there's not a guideline that says you cannot have a carp a and and reading further into what you're saying would be that the placement of this is in a prominent location because it's view it's viewable from the street and it should have been located where a Pergola would usually have been if there was a garage or carport there a parking structure there so I don't consider you know the guideline talks about a prominent elevation and I don't consider this to be a prominent elevation all right um it could have been to the other side of the yard where it would be more so fully screened by the house um and if it was in a location where it was fully screened by the house and not visible from the street staff would have been able to approve it um yeah I could add a gate at the front may may I ask you a question about it yes uh is it attached to the concrete pad that it is sitting on is it sitting on a concrete pad yes is it attached to the concrete pad yes it has to be secured to the concrete pad okay that that's that's what I wanted yes okay um moving on to the um um um sorry the framing around the carport columns um my understanding is that the guidelines do not support an alteration of a non-conforming structure is that correct so we have a couple of issues with the carport um one is that it is arguably a non-historic feature it probably is over 50 years old so some people might make a case for it its historic character as a mid-century carport um but it is certainly not contributing to the original character of the house and therefore once we start working on that maintenance is appropriate um you know kind of modest repairs are appropriate but if it's going to be more extensively rehabilitated it really should be removed entirely because it's not an appropriate feature um the other issue is that what's proposed is to essentially encase it and make it look like a portica share which is a historic feature that was not there originally and the guidelines very clearly don't support construction of historic features that did not actually exist so staff would support maintaining repairing um the carport as it is it doesn't have to be torn down but staff would not support something that um kind of hides it and makes it look like a Craftsman Bungalow you know origin feature to be clear though it could be torn down oh it could certainly be as a non-conforming non- original I can't get behind the framing end of the columns on the cardboard I don't think that there's really any justification for it that I can come to I would certainly support you removing it I'd be thrilled if you removed it um I didn't know I can remove that that's why I was like maybe would like just build it up so are you open to just removing it and reming that item cuz I didn't know it's uh it's okay to remove that yes if it is um non-historic non-conforming you still have to ask but generally uh that can be that's something we can do Commissioners any um any other questions regarding this I don't think I had any issue with the roof and it seems like staff has kind of addressed all of the concerns and questions regarding replacement sighting um there are some agreed upon conditions in here and I just wanted to make sure that staff had had the opportunity to go over those with the applicant um or to check in and see if we needed to go over those here Katie has staff been able to visit with so I'm not sure if you and Angela have had a conversation about getting additional documentation of the um I extent of deterioration of the siding yes I did uh send the um material uh we finally found a match for that uh wood uh side in uh it's a cedar and I think it's the it's exact the same yeah I think we have good documentation on the new signing do you have photos of the existing sighting that needs to be replaced because typically we wouldn't support replacing historic sighing if it's in good condition to begin with it's looks like that it's rotten like that just the bottom like two feet up okay so that's the only portion that you're replacing okay we we may follow up with you to further Define that okay um but I think that's I think that's something that we can work through at the staff level and Katie on these um agreed upon conditions on the window replacement um numbers well really just number two is that something that we're still able to do that we're still able to get a window survey and prove that those are that it's justifiable to replace so that's up to the commission if you know the extent that you want to Define that and defer it to staff or if you want to see it come back with more information on the windows I struggle with that one I would like to see more information just to kind of echo commissioner Milner's point that this is something we're seeing an awful lot of and what do you want from that I I think I sent a documents of the windows already I don't know exactly what's been communicated um to staff already so I couldn't speak to you know what's lacking but in general um we require pretty extensive documentation of a Windows condition window by window so each one requiring its own photo documentation I think I did send that to okay okay you do have that Angela no but we can work on that together so I would um personally be more comfortable with continuing that item or um agreed upon conditions to work with staff I have a question on on the windows on that if it was coming before us that normally wouldn't we see that document mentation instead of just relying that she's going to provide it because I yes I don't want to approve these items on the presumption that she's going to present that information at this point I'm not comfortable with that we we sent out the documents like months ago of all the windows and with the photos of can we talk to staff please okay so I would say we have a partial window survey we have good documentation on the windows that are not historic but you didn't include that in in the report or is it um you've that's that's in here and I think you've got some of that attached on some of the non some of the other windows we have photos but we don't quite have the level of detail that we would typically hope to get okay and I think we we've got somebody in the um Dr ice is raising his hand to comment so Dr ice do you want to come on up and state your name and address for the record the ice 119 Northwest 19th Street thank you sir I live across the street from this property I own the property immediately adjacent I was out and I spoke to the contractors over and over and over at least 10 times telling them don't rip out the windows don't take off the sighing don't put up the pergola you have to have permission for all of this and they kept telling me I talk to my boss I follow what my boss says my boss doesn't think she needs permission to do any of these things all right the neighbors the neighbor the neighbors came out they saw the windows being pulled out with crowbars they toss them in a dumpster in the street I'm too old to crawl around in dumpsters but I got some of the younger Neighbors in the neighborhood to pull them out and they put them in my [ __ ] because I told the repair man you're going to want these back okay because these are the ex act Windows you need to have back in those places the city sent out code enforcement they put a stop work order work kept going on didn't pay attention to it all right it's very frustrating the pergola right down this north south stre stretch is the city sewer they stuck now I know the previous garage was sitting on top of the sewer main but if they tear a building down you don't put it back on the easement which the city has to get to at the very back of that pergola there's a manhole that the city has to get to to maintain the sewers and if somebody had asked somebody from Public Works would have said you know it's probably too close to the manhole for us to get equipment back in there I own the garage right next door there's a setback in the plat if somebody had asked they would have said you know that perola is too close to the property line okay there's no Pera has inh herited jills East I was President ofh Heritage jills East for years there's not one perola in Heritage Hills East all right there was a garage back there the garage was right next to the garage I own in fact it was so close that at some point in long history they kind of put a little Closet in between the two of them and then they tore the garage down my garage didn't get torn down because I took care of it okay but these other people let the roof cave in and then but they didn't damage the windows all these windows she ripped out were operational they needed new ropes I've been in the house I knew the people who lived there again I owned the property next door for 30 years and lived across the street for 40 years okay the property was not in bad condition it's not in good condition now but it's in much worse condition since the current owner took possession of it the redwood siding has been pulled off the bottom one or two layers were bad okay but you could fix that easily you didn't need to go up two foot okay a lot of this is just and you just do things without asking no permits the historic marker for the neighborhood is is visible from the front porch it's on the corner there is no doubt that this is in the historic district and this owner lives in in the historic area understands what the rules are I I don't know what to what to say about this it's very frustrating especially when you sit in your on your front porch and you watch the damage being done and you tell the workers to stop and they tell you my boss said keep doing it my boss says the rules don't apply to me okay well that's frustrating that's how Society breaks down when people disobey the law thank you so to kind of summarize I'm saying that really there's no big issue with um items number two as long as we um are all on board with the agreed upon condition of removing the East window from that conversation and with replacing the roof um the pergola you know I do I love it no do I see a real reason to deny it also no um now these other things you know that we are lacking but add a gate at the front would that be okay you would have to come back for an approval for a gate so that would be an entirely different different yes I understand um regarding these things that we're lacking documentation on to Echo a couple of you you know I do think this is becoming habitual that people are doing things first whether it's an error or purposefully and then coming to us for approvals or forgiveness I would personally like to continue these and see the documentation ourself rather than move forward with an agreed upon condition on any items you would or are there some no I have that on um items one and five um item two I'm completely comfortable moving forward with the agreed upon condition because it sounds like everybody's all on the same page I mean I think we have the documentation there I just think we need to um state that the East window is to be removed from the list of Windows and Doors being infilled so you're suggesting continuing one and five I am yes approving two um denying three approving for with the specific findings um I mean again I don't love it I don't know if anybody has a stronger opinion than me but I'm not really seeing a just cause for denial I mean my my stance on the pergola and this is a question for staff uh in terms of the guide and it's not the final finish either I mean this has not been staying we're really just talking about the location so that's pretty irrelevant um other than it being I mean looking at it like it's a rendering right like would staff have uh does this meet the guidelines uh outside of the fact that it's already been built there's not like a clause in there that says there has to be an AB budding property or predominant in the neighborhood to have a perola no there's nothing in the guidelines that references presence of pergolas Elsewhere on the block or in the surrounding area um they're they're not a typical historic feature at most properties but they are becoming quite common in the neighborhood I think we tend to look at them as fairly um temporary in nature not not having a huge impact on the ultimate you know character and integrity of a historic district it's not attached to a structure it's removable um you know when it comes down to it um you all have approved much more substantial much more permanent um pergola type structures in other yards I think the comment that staff would have made had this come in and not already been constructed is that it would be more appropriate to have an in a location that was less visible um from the street um the reason is the there because this was a Structure on top of that before and then the the house is small it's like three bedroom and in the future we leave the yard on the side so the Futures owners can build a swimming pool and if the swimming pool is there I I don't think you want to uh I don't want the kids to run in naked on the side that side of the street well we only we only deal in the present uh no exactly but I'm just saying the reasoning behind it and then just like some common sense in there no I I think we understand yeah yeah I think we're ready to um make a few motions Okay who wants to tackle this one what meeting are we continuing items one and 52 I mean I think to February unless there's a request for more time what's the date I think you're GNA have time for February um prior to site visits I was personally not aware of the extent of sighting that had been removed moved I do not think that it's possible for the applicant to meet the condition that I've asked for on number five um but I do believe that there's a significant amount of remaining sighting that we can match with that so this condition that cannot be met you may not want to include it for item number five okay I think that we had discussed continuing item five based on that condition well is there but is there other information that can be gathered or is this just a hey everything's gone you have to decide yes or no I think yes I think we have a proposal for replacement sighting that is a great a very good match for the historic sighting okay I think the sighting that was damaged is gone yes so we're not going to get documentation of that Beyond a Google Street View okay so I think we can no conditions there I'm I'm comfortable with a approving item five okay with no condition no condition okay so we're just continuing item one continuing item one and denying item three with prejudice is what I have and again what commission hearing are we continuing item one two because this is a documentation one correct so the commission is considering continuing The Proposal to replace windows to a future meeting so that you can provide additional documentation of the windows that you still have that are in the house better photos of what's there um can you provide that by this coming Tuesday yeah um and then we can continue to the February already okay yeah um okay so February second uh 7th sorry feary the only problem I have is with the per is the only problem I have is with the peroa i i don't I think it needs to be in a different location so let's put it separate okay okay I continue that as I'll start with because we're just going to do one Contin one item is being continued right so I'm GNA yes to continue the we can vote on it separate I'm just going to pull that one aside okay so I will move to continue hpca d23 z147 item one to the February 2nd commission meeting okay do we have a second second thank you everybody please vote in Prime goov okay that motion carries moving on okay then I'll move to approve hpca d23 z147 item number two okay do we have number five and number six I can do those together yes yes that's correct um may we hold on item number five and and why the one we just yeah what is there yes to your knowledge I'm not well educated on the difference between the finishes of Cedar and Redwood okay so do we need do we need documentation on this or I'm sorry I think I sorry I think we're getting a couple of mixed messages that's entirely my fault I I thought I was on very even ground for a second but now I'm I've been informed that I'm not so item five needs to be continued as well I mean well so we have I guess we have a proposed replacement sighting that is wood sighting that matches the dimension and profile of the existing sighting I am not aware whether it is the same type of wood to be honest that is something we don't typically get in the weeds with with applicants because they're going to put wood siding on and they're going to paint it um there are different qualities and characteristics of wood and obviously some are much more durable and certain things historically and sometimes they're not available today um so if you all want more information on the type of wood to be used or have questions or comments about that then we may need more information there okay and I may be ignorant but I feel like if you're painting it it will no one's going to be inspecting the grain under the paint to that extent I wouldn't think I appreciate that I say we stick with this motion yeah okay stick with your motion okay do I need to recite that are we I'm going to do it again I don't even know where I am okay I'm going to move approval of hpca d23 00147 item items two five and six okay and do we and do we have any do I need to add any specific findings we and the we do have um agreed upon conditions regarding the East window in item two okay I think you're covered if you say with the findings and conditions in the staff Report with the findings and conditions in the staff report okay thank you okay okay if you all would um please vote in Prime Gi Oh commissioner Remy seconded yes okay that too has passed so I think we've got one more we've got two more we have the carport column and the pergola sorry okay so now we've got item three frame around carport but we're not we've decided we can just remove the carport isn't that the applic decided to do would the proper motion be to deny this with prejudice though just to okay form that up yeah and then we would do we can administratively approve removal of it if they want to go forward with that got it okay I'm going to move to deny hpca d23 z147 item three with prejudice okay thank you commissioner mil thank you commissioner Ry okay that motion also carries just go right okay thank you sir okay and lastly I will make a motion to approve hpca d23 d147 item four and I don't have the staff report up on that one do I need to include anything from staff report in that one it did have specific findings but I don't think it had anything else okay with specific findings as noted in the staff report okay do we have a second second thank you okay that too has passed so with that I think we are finished with this case we will um see you next month uh regarding those couple of continuances okay thank you thank you one continu one continu yeah okay sorry I'm still confused over the sighting um okay um moving on to hpca 23148 at 827 Northwest 17th Street this is uh in mea Park word six consideration and possible action on application by Taylor vot Clore LLC for certificate of appropriateness to one replace two-story accessory structure required um we did not receive any additional information on this application in time for inclusion in your packet uh this application does have one remaining continuance um staff has strongly encouraged the applicant to consider taking a continuance to March so that you have time they have time to really work through the concerns that have been addressed at previous meetings about the design um and uh we this could have been on the um docket for continuances but the applicant did indicate that they wanted to have the opportunity to speak um I would say with no new information we need to limit comments there's nothing for the committee to discuss today um but um so okay uh looks like the are you the applicant I am on behalf of the applicant okay could you state your name and address for the record please my name is Pamela vul and my address is 1729 uh 22nd Northwest 22nd Street okay thank you um yeah to just reiterate what Katie just said you know it doesn't look like we're seeing anything that's substantially different from what we saw last month and with such a full docket I'm hesitant to dive into basically the same application yes understandable um if you don't mind I would just like to ask uh two things kind of be reiterated from previous meetings if that's okay if I can request that um I want to apologize ahead of time if I have a tickle in my throat but um a couple of things that have been mentioned in the meeting today it was talked about if if a project had there were some mistakes that were made but if that project had been approved previously with what they're trying to do move wanting to do moving forward which is has always been where we were trying to get it to the the historic structure that was already there with the improvements of um like say the siding which would which would match like previously it was sighting that would not um match the historic homes but with that now um so I just wanted to to state like that to be considerated considerated um Katie if you wouldn't mind would you mind just stating how you you talked about that Guidance just a moment ago in the previous case about work that's already been done if it would have been previously approved yes so when we review a case where the work has already um been undertaken or the work is already ongoing the commission is supposed to consider that as if it was a new proposal and not weigh um you know any sort of benefit to the applicant because though it's already done they can just go ahead it's not that bad um but also not punish the applicant um for doing the work they're supposed to take a neutral position does the work meet the guidelines or not that's the question before the commission thank you um as well as in a previous meeting um there was a conversation regarding what parts of the project would be handled when it came came to planning and um permits versus initial uh approval through the historical through you guys if if we could kind of revisit that from last meeting too do you know what I'm talking about I'm sorry I'm this is a big learning experience for no I think I think we've had previous discussions about the use of the structure um the commission's general purview is the design the exterior of the building and the site and not the interior that's something that gets looked at when it goes to plan review um but we do try to pay attention to what the anticipated use is for a structure and not um keep moving people forward with a use that ultimately is not allowed so um and that ultimately they're not going to be able to get a building permit for thank you thanks for reviewing that with us um I just wanted to thank you guys as working with staff has been a learning process all along and we really have appreciated those opportunities so with that that we've already said what we're going to do moving forward so thank you okay so um I did just want to call attention to um some neighborhood comments that did not make the online agenda stating that mea Park would um be in favor of the application being denied with prejudice they state that the property has been an issue in the neighborhood for years and the proposed building simply is not compatible with either the neighborhood or the historic preservation guidelines what I would recommend before the March meeting meeting is if we're going to continue you know we've seen this I don't know how many times but more than five or six um you know I think it's not really appropriate to continue reviewing it without some substantial changes because we're you know using the time coming up with the same specific findings the same issues the same plans every time so um staff has done a really good job of outlining specific findings in this report there are six of them I would just you know encourage you guys to really take a look at those before the March meeting understandable in consideration um statement was made that this has been an issue for years that that neighbors have had an issue he has not owned this property for years nor was that something that would have been told to him when he purchased it um anybody in the neighborhood could have purchased this property on their own if they had concerns about it and then made sure that it was made the way they wanted before it was put back on the market um they did not choose to do so and as a new owner you wouldn't know what you're going to run up against if they're saying for years and years and years the neighbors have wanted it a certain way I've been finding it all this time well they did just say years I don't know about years and years and years but yeah he has not owned it for very longly I think we have some members of the public who'd like to speak to this while we have the opportunity so if anybody wants to come up um come up to the podium sir and state your name and address for the record while you're um walking up I think the applicant has agreed to a continuance to the March 6th meeting which would be their last continuance at that time they would either have something before the commission that could be approved or it would be denied at that point so just to lay that groundwork for any any additional hi my name is Steve mathus I live at 819 Northwest 16 just around the corner from this this picture is something that we see every day driving back and forth to work to Homeland whatever this has been there for a year because I was down here to speak against it and it was cold and it's just now cold again so I don't know the exact day but it would have been January or February of last year this building is still here he started this building without permission it was Raina palowski that uh ratted him out who lives across the street from me we've been trying to get this building torn down it's not in the same place that the original structure was as far as I understand and it's just been sitting there so I don't know we're talk we talk about Windows we talk about the appropriateness of doors other things like that here our whole neighborhood is faced with a guy that clearly did not want to do the right thing because he's had a year to try to fix this and he hasn't and he hasn't done anything he hasn't talked to any of the neighbors you know a lot of this probably could have been avoided but we would like and I speak for a lot of the neighbors to see this torn down and him start over the fact that he built this without permission is not our problem fact that he spent the money is not your problem or our problem he needs to follow the rules and I hope that uh when it's continued I'll have to come back this is like my third or fourth time about the same building I I would hope that we can fix this well I agree and I um sadly that's been the theme of the day is that um everybody's doing things that are costly and are none of our problems but everybody's been doing them you know within these districts and now they've got to all be undone Steve would you mind making sure that the applicant has um information for the m park uh preservation Review Committee so that some of these concerns can be shared because that's one thing that's been brought up in a lot of these commission meetings is you know the neighbors are sharing concerns can we please get with the neighborhood you know I know here to chills meets with their applicants is that something mea Park would be to do okay great absolutely I think that would be great I'll talk to Ann thank you any other members of the public wish to speak to this okay then I would love to hear a motion to continue this until March I would move to continue hpca d23 d148 um I guess I don't need to see the item there's just one to the March I think it's 6th commission meeting y second okay thank you guys if you could all vote in Prime go is it okay if I speak to something that was just stated from the previous neighbor just real quick I don't think that we need to we've got a really full docket and you know we've heard a lot about this case in particular over the past 18 months so um I think and that's what I want to speak to because the the comment that nothing's been done it has well let's just um stick to reviewing it in March and hopefully have some changes on the application that we can review thank you thanks okay moving on to sorry that motion did carry um moving on to hpca 23-15 at 501 Northwest 15th Street this is located in Heritage Hills W 6 consideration and possible action on application by Lacy Harville for certificate of appropriateness to one install fence with stucko columns required um the commission did see this application previously we have had inaccurate information about the Heights and various elements of um what the work that had had been initiated already this is back before you um with updated accurate information regarding the height and location of the fence I'm going to pull up the stack report to clarify so the um the reasons that this fence could not be administratively approved the guidelines that it does not meet for administrative approval one is the location of the front portion of the fence it does not meet the requirement that it be set back 40% of the length of the house the location of the fence um per discussion with the applicant is based on the placement of the fence that was located there previously and in relation to that um existing mechanical equipment similar to our previous application uh mature Landscaping that is inside of the fence inside the yard other backyard landscape features that the fence current ly screens and encloses so that is the reasoning given for the um proposed location of the fence the other um elements that do not meet the guidelines for administrative approval of a fence have to do with the height the front portion of the fence is 5' 10 where it's wood which does actually meet the guideline for height of a fence The Columns are 6' 7 so that exceeds the fence along the east side of the yard inside of the yard not including the retaining wall measures 6' 6 in which is above um and Beyond what we can administratively approve by 6 in and the stucco columns are 7 feet 2 to 4 in on the west side the fence is 7 fo2 um and then along the rear the fence measure measures 6' 10 in which is well below the 8T that are allowed at the rear property line so portions of the fence meet the guidelines for administrative approval port are too tall for staff to have administratively approved um in staff's opinion when you look at the fence in relation to the house to the height and the mass of the house its placement in relationship to the front porch staff feels that those are justification for the height and placement of the fence as proposed so we have recommended approval with unique circumstances um and the applicant is here to respond to any questions okay thank you Katie would you state your name and address for the record please um Lacy Harville um it's 501 Northwest 15th Street okay thank you um so yeah we did we reviewed this in October and it was denied in October um obviously you know expected to have another application come through it does not look like anything is substantially different from that October application this is another instance of work that was done and had to be reviewed after it was done because there was no CA can you walk I I understand the height situation um that's certainly a unique circumstance to me and um I don't begrudge somebody wanting to have a six foot fence in you know from the inside of their yard the fence itself feels really not in keeping with the historic character of surrounding fences um and I'm not recalling exactly what was asked for in that October meeting but it was denied then in its current state so I think the reason it was denied from reviewing the video my wife was here and wasn't completely clear on things and um the reason first of all well the fence was erected in the same site as the prior fence there was some question as to it was being put in a different spot and it was not it's in the exact same spot it also is lower in height than the prior fence um not higher um not even the same height it's lower all in all confines of the fence from the front facing the side and the back um and as for the reason which wasn't really asked but why this was done um the fence was worn it's obviously the the existing fence was not historic um but was essential because there's a pool back there um which was there before we bought the house um there's also a separate garage apartment um and garage the existing fence due to Windstorm had was in danger of falling and the back wall um which is showed up there where our neighbors had redone once they reconstructed that that fence had an incredible lean to it and was in danger of falling and harming people they had not yet concreted that um driveway and so I was extremely concerned that people were going to get hurt there or there was going to be property damage there's also a sidewalk and part of the fence began leaning as well there um we submitted um we called multiple times and rece paperwork and it was it was really a little bit iffy but we felt we needed needed to submit paperwork and we spoke with the office submitted the paperwork we're told that probably since it was going the existing site it would just be approved and not have to come to this committee and we sought people to place the fence they looked we went through and that was an arduous task to find somebody that was going to put the fence up and then agree to do it and show up to do it because most of them would not um not even show up for an estimate but we had someone after two or three calls and submitting information it was my understanding that the fence was approved based on initial conversations which was incorrect um and the construction started it was almost done because we put a timeline on it because there's a pool there it's an isore the fence before um and it was near completed and then we got cited that it wasn't approved and I was kind of shocked called and said oh no it's not approved it has to go to committee um because of the stucco columns and so on so forth so it went to committee here and then it was not approved but the fence was already in place um and that's kind of where we are but the height of the fence the location of the fence the location is exactly the same the height is lower um than it was exist which you can see from almost the photographs it's it's it's a lower fence um Katie or Angela could you speak to this kind of confusion over you know communication with staff on administrative approvals versus coming here to the commission is it the columns that dictated the need to come here so I think one of the initial issues we had and that was that was at the October meeting was simply not getting clear um documentation with we had miscommunication about how tall the fence actually was because in your October staff report um we thought portions of it were 7 and A2 ft we thought portions were 8 feet then when we were able to sit down and meet with the applicant and really look at the photos together and talk about it we realized we're not as tall as you were initially told that was part of why I if I recall correctly it was denied um also was that it was you all were given information that indicated it was significantly taller than it actually is um I think we had just various miscommunication with staff through the process of who was talking to who calling emailing um misunderstandings about what what could be administratively approved and what that process looked like um so I you know I I can't tell you everything that who said what um I I forward and follow the process yeah and um I mean while I don't love the horizontal slats I do feel inclined to just move this one on if the applicant thought that they were doing the appropriate thing and thought that this wasn't going to have to come to the commission I don't our initial correspondence was in August you know so um and actually phone calls were made in June and July um and I'm not sure I don't see the individual here but there's a is it glass Mr glass I he has some position and and suggested that I submit things to to you guys um even though it was an existing fence I'm not sure his title um that might be someone in plan review maybe you were talking a but I mean there was like emails and phone calls all that was in August and so anyway that's I we w't I do remember that one of the previous meetings one of the staff members said that they've was that you that said they've missed an email or something like that yes I uh previously worked this application uh I had missed their email submitting the application but it still would have been at the same meeting so it was about the meet meeting meeting deadlines but it was still at the same meeting that they would have been originally okay um could you state your name for the record and your address please apologies darl Callaway I'm staff apparently we don't need your address and I apologize so when I spoke with he was like incredibly nice informative sent me all the stuff um it was just my understanding I'm pretty sure I'll approve this at my desk but I'll let you know and not hearing anything I assumed it was proved because I'd sent a couple emails and so I mean I take responsibility for that as well but um I I was just trying to get the the thing in place we had found you know I'm assuming there homeless people in our pool we had things missing from our garage and the legal ramifications of the fence falling as well as people being able to come into to our property where there was a pool was a legal and a liability concern for me um so that's why there was some urgency to this yeah to to me this would be this would have been approved I have no issue with the fence unless there's something that I'm unaware of that fences have to be replaced in light kind other than that I think this would have been approved as submitted thank you for the photographs I know last time I was one of those because of the height right that was presented and now you can now that you've submitted these photographs I can see that the front fence actually is lower by almost one of those full white squares than the previous one was and when you look here you can see the kind of pergola feature back here that is actually lower under the new fence so thank you for that sure um do we have any comments yeah any public comments on this we do have some comments from the neighborhood I think we've kind of been over a few of them um but if anybody would like to speak further you're certainly welcome to come on up okay um Commissioners any other comments or perhaps a motion we do have a unique circumstance cited in the staff report would you like a motion uh I'll motion to approve hpca uh 2300 one5 uh with the unique circumstances stated in the staff report okay thank you do we have a second second okay good deal if you all would vote in Prime go we can move this one along okay the motion has passed congratulations thank you very much all right up next we have hpca 23- 00152 at 605 Northwest 39th Street this is Crown Heights word two consideration and possible action on application by Morgan Reinhardt old home rescue for Rebecca mcguan for certificate of appropriateness to run remove paint from brick elective um the only reason this is not on consent docket is because there's a condition attached to it that should they um um identify that the paint removal is causing any damage to the brick that they stop work and come back to staff for revision um I believe the applicant is comfortable with that condition um and yeah we're excited that they found a pretty successful method for removing paint from the brick and excited to see how that turns out just a quick note it's actually not listed as a condition in the staff correct in the staff report it was a finding um and we after the packet had gone out realized that really should have been a condition so make a motion with a approved with condition with that second finding as the condition okay um would you state your name and address for the record please um Morgan Reiner with old home rescue 401 South black welder thank you um Commissioners any questions about this it kind of seems like a no-brainer to me I mean unless you have anything to add or we have public comments anybody from the public to speak to this okay um well with no comments Mar Marva Marva just wants his phone number and wants to know how to do this I figured You' have it the paint removal people we have the 15 we'd like to that is what she wanted okay I was waiting for that um just as an explanation um prior to submitting our uh CA we completed a uh 2x two mockup with dry ice blasting which has been tested initially by the National Park Service it did not go well uh too higher pressure it did blow the mortar out it was a small piece that was going to be it is planned to be repaired uh with historically appropriate mortar uh since that did not work we used two separate uh systems to do two more mockups and then identified the one that worked best so well thank you for your due diligence um love to see a happy outcome on this and uh other parts of it are administratively approved there are two hexagon windows that were hiding underneath the non-historic sighting up above the door so it's pretty cool to see I have a question I can see your house from my house or this house um on the side where you've removed and there's the scallop detail tell me what you're planning on that yeah so uh part of the administrative approval process we got on the front elevation of the house removal of the non-historic sighting and um above the door like I said there's two hexagon windows that go into closets that are up above it and then uh on the east and west elevations it actually has a vertical beaded uh kind of like a uh blank tell the name uh is has a vertical siding that is beaded that's only on one other house in Crown Heights and uh it's the only other place that it's available so um phase one has been removal uh looking for wood repairs and then phase two will be color choices and painting and then restoration and then uh getting with HP on what to do with uh some gable vents that were taken out that we found on the east side okay cool make a motion's a motion move to approve make a motion hpca 23- 00152 to approve item number one with the specific findings of staff and uh the condition and I'll second do we need to amend that to be the condition with finding number two as a condition yes sorry yeah thank you okay um moved by commissioner gain seconded by commissioner Milner would you all please vote in Prime goov okay the motion is passed congratulations all right um hpca 23- 00157 at 225 Northwest 27th Street uh this is Jefferson Park Bo two consideration and possible action on application by sin readin my roof solar for Maria claraval for certificate of appropriateness to one install solar panels and related mechanical equipment elective um this is a new application you all have not seen this one previously um to install solar on the east and west side of the uh roof on a this structure um staff has recommended a continuance the solar panels do appear to be in a location that would be fairly readily visible from the public right of way um and would recommend uh either further documentation showing that they would not in fact be visible or a proposal for an alternate location for the solar okay um could you you please state your name and address for the record Jennifer Meyer 810 West Robinson thank you okay so yeah it looks like really the main issue here is just visibility yeah um is there an alternate location that would work for these panels yeah when we would and put eyes on it we realized that based off of your um code that this wouldn't work so on the west side of the house we proposed moving if you could go back to the aerial yeah on the Gable between the Gable and the ridge um closest to the street there were the original stamp plans had two panels above that we were going to propose to move them back further to the um the back side of the property and you know maintaining all code fire um restrictions and then on the east side of the property see the shed in the back um you cannot see that shed at all from the street The Proposal was to move the four panels that were to be on the east side to the rear shed and then trench in and and do the electrical work as needed on the panel that's right there on the rear of the house um that is certainly something I would be comfortable with um particularly on that accessory structure yeah is that something staff is comfortable with so what I would say is if we get revised plans that show that they are in locations that are not visible from the street staff can administratively approve that we could continue this to the March meeting and between now and then work with the applicant towards something that can be be administratively approved if in the end we aren't at a place where staff's comfortable with it it would still come back to you all I think that is a very happy medium okay I did have one other question on the on the west side of the property the removal of the two panels on top of that Gable um there's still going to be a tiny bit of visibility so we were proposing putting up a basically screen what we would do is put up a wooden structure that's be about a foot tall from the top of the Gable to the top of the ridge that we would match the paint of the brick so that it would um it would fade it would fade into the house and look like it was the home uh I don't know that that would be necessary or desirable I mean you're welcome to include it in your application and it could be discussed and you know if it's not desirable maybe we could come up with an agreed upon condition um in a commission meeting to leave it or remove it or alter it um so you know you could toss it in the application and we can kind of get eyes on it then all right thank you you know just like with a a good mockup because I'm having a hard time picturing what exactly you're saying well I I do have something that we put as a visual together if you want to look at it I say we just keep it all intact for the March meeting that way we can see the new visuals of you know where the placement on the rofs are going to be we can just take a look at it all one time yeah we'll get stamped plans for you okay um any members of the public wish to speak to this if not I would entertain a motion to continue this to the March meeting and I would move to continue hpca d23 d157 to the March 6th commission hearing thank you do we have a second second okay thank you guys if you guys would vote in Prime go we can move on to the next case okay that has passed so we will um hear that one again in March potentially sure I think we're going to take a f minute recess L's pregnant okay um Katie I think we are all back are we ready to reconvene Keith if you want to call roll again we'll get moving Jordan present gains McBride present Milner present Ry present wood present okay I think we were just about to discuss hbca 23- 00157 at 225 Northwest 27th Street sorry I'm on the wrong page um no that's oh sorry we just did that my apologies um need to open my new window okay we moving on to how about 622 Northwest 18 Street hpca 23- 00159 this is in mea Park W 6 consideration and possible action on application by Lanny porry James grey Holmes for Tanya man for certificate of appropriateness to one replace half moon window opening with single pane glass elective um this uh is a proposal to put a window back in an opening on the house that has been um boarded up uh we had um in the staff report for it to be continued so that we could get documentation of existing historic leaded glass at this house because they proposed a leaded glass window and the guidelines don't support that unless there's historic precedent for it um staff has actually subsequently received documentation of that um existing leaded glass it's not not just not on a part of the house that you can see from the street and um would recommend approval at this point okay well that's a nice update would you like to state your name and address for the recordal of the homeowner okay um what's your address 401 South sooner okay great um questions from the Commissioners regarding that update I mean it sounds to me you know like a pretty easy one if staff has gotten the information they were lacking any members of the public wish to speak to this I'll make a motion okay uh on hpca d23 d159 I would move approval of item number one I'll second do we need any specific findings with that update Katie so I think that you could include specific findings one and two with the additional finding that leaded glass has been documented in the historic structure sounds good okay do we need to remotion or is that um an acceptable alteration oh with those findings okay well uh mov by commissioner gain seconded by commissioner Milner would you guys please vote all right congratulations you're approved so much all right all right um now we're on to hbca 23- 00161 at 707 Northwest 40th Street this is Crown Heights War Two consideration and possible action on application by G ornon uh G landscape LLC for Jordan nyer for significate of appropriateness to one replace and wind and driveway elective two replace and expand retaining wall into front yard elective three install Paving around accessory structure elective four replace West fence elective five replace fence at northe east and south of backyard elective and six replace front walkway elective um staff did recommend approval of item five which is replacing the Northeast and South fence and item six um we recommended continuance for items one two three and four um there were some items such as extending and retaining wall into the front yard where it does not currently exist that did not appear to meet the guidelines there are other items where we just seem to need more documentation of the work that was proposed okay uh looks like the applicant's present would you state your name and address for the record yes call torist 13101 North Midwest Boulevard all right Commissioners what questions do you have regarding this pretty large application it seems like staff is is um perhaps missing some information that they would like to have um mainly regarding documentation of current topography and um future impact of some of these proposals on the uh retaining wall and regrading at the driveway um I also noted and I'm apologize I'm not seeing it right in front of me but was the the driveway widened on one side with gravel did I dream that no was there gravel included in this and no it's it's being proposed on the design it is being proposed okay um I think that that's a pretty easy one because I think the City of Oklahoma City does not allow gravel at parking areas is that correct Katie yeah there are I mean there are certain conditions where it can be allowed um it has to be contained and um but in general it's not something that we can approve just along the side of a driveway okay what would you propose go in that space that is a great question for staff um I mean I believe if it were all concrete it would be too wide correct that would not be something that we would typically approve what's the what's the width of the area where the you want the gravel to go it's about two and a half ft and that's in addition to the driveway that's how wide it's going to be 10t so I mean I would say it should be grass you know it should be the yard that the driveway is permitted to go up to 10 feet and then from there on out it's Landscaping um we don't typically support additional paving materials along the side of the driveway but I think you've got some topography issues you're trying to deal with and or grading issues um along the driveway okay yeah the site plan looks like it's showing 11 feet finished with a two foot Edition so the current driveway is 9 ft sorry I was looking for a specific age then I'm not finding and it may help FL the commission's looking at materials for you to talk them through what's proposed and and why we've got a proposal to add a retaining wall in the front yard to widen the driveway all the way to the retaining wall um perhaps explaining the the reasoning behind what's being presented sure um so the most recent uh plan which I'm not sure if you if you have that or not um it would have been emailed last week um we changed the width to 10 foot at its Max um between the wall in the house it does open up once it goes uh north of the house towards the garage um the driveway apron would remain uh the same width which I think was nine um my understanding was that that could be administratively approved if it didn't go beyond 10 foot um once you make your way off of the street and into the property on the drive there's a little bit of an incline and then you get to about where the house is it really flattens out um so there's not really a drainage issue once it flattens out uh more so I guess on the slope of the where you enter the driveway from the street and then go into the property um right now it rolls on both sides down towards the uh driveway we maintain that slope um we propose we have on there a wall a curb is probably more accurate at the foot of the slope to um help mitigate runoff um erosion felt like that would be kind of a hard stop right there do we have a height on that no it's going to go with the it's it'll roll with the gray but um probably not more than 12 in once you get beyond the house so from the house uh South towards the street something around 12 inches I think at a minimum we would need to get specifics on that I mean that alone is not something we could approve without um finite documentation and I I will note that the applicant did send in updated documentation um last week of course that was a holiday week a lot of people were out and we did not get the opportunity to incorporate that in the packet much less to really have reviewed that internally at the staff level so there may be items in the documentation that has since been received that could be administratively approved but we just haven't gotten there yet okay yeah um I mean unfortunately without reviewing that I wouldn't feel comfortable moving forward on a lot of the I mean you know it looks like there's some pretty simple things in here that we could approve but I don't think that I would be comfortable you know moving forward or coming up with any agreed upon conditions or anything like that without reviewing the new documentation we can we can remove that off we can remove what the the item that we're talking about I think that would just be a continuance so I mean unless you're saying you're not going to do it anymore no that's fine yeah we can that wasn't something that was a major thing um you know so the the real uh important items on here are you know the items number um one item number two three 4 five and six so so that there's a retaining wall there currently um which we're going to remove and replace in kind we were just going to extend that out an additional 40 or 50 feet towards the street um you know just at the foot of the hill just to kind of catch that that space right there but I mean whether that's there or not there is not a big deal I mean we can right now it's so narrow um the driveway is that whenever they come off the street they're getting into the grass you know they're driving over it so it's it's causing um a little bit of an erosion problem you can see in some of the pictures where it's just you know kind of cut that side on the west side whenever they pull in it in particular um but we can I mean we can touch up that grade a little bit to you know make it to where the angle isn't maybe as sharp um so we're just trying to come up with some solutions to kind of to to help that along um more than anything but if you know expanding so where that uh column that last yellow column right there there in the middle of the picture that's where we were going to that's where we going to expand and come towards the street uh the retaining wall yeah I think we're just really going to need to see you know staff has noted um at several places in this um staff report just lacking information on the impact on the topography based on specifics ever a retaining wall or you know removal or addition of that gravel you know just documentation that we don't have that you seemingly have submitted some of it but because we've not been able to review it I don't really I mean I can see how we could move to approve items five and six but I'm not really seeing with what's in front of me a way to approve one two three or four unless um staff feels differently or has you know some reason that I'm not seeing here did did I hear that we have a older version that's been submitted so you have the version in the packet that was received in time to go out for this meeting the applicant has subsequently sent in new documentation but we have not reviewed it and it's not in Prime go so I think until we can review that I don't know how we can really do anything about some of these more questionable items yeah and I and I hear what you're saying about the the tip what is the current driveway 8 foot uh 9 ft is the apron um and it just extends all the way so the current width is 9 ft yeah you can see the tire tracks and the grass getting pinned down yeah I mean I I think to me like a 10-ft driveway and if you can feather that grade out I think that's got a better chance than a curb to retain the water well and I think that would be administratively approvable right Katie up to 10 and a half fet yeah so I mean we'd have to work with the applicant on how they are going to handle that grade because it does slope up so dramatically from the driveway but we can generally speaking administratively approve widening a driveway up to 10 ft so would it be appropriate to continue this you know kind of like we did with the solar continue it to March and try to um I think that might be a good solution to give you some time to work through staff and see if we can administratively approve the changes so or we can do the February 7th meeting and we would just have a much quicker turnaround to get anything um I mean seemingly he has already submitted a we already have new documentation so we could do the February 7th okay um does it help you to approve five and six today or do you want it all bundled in one package five and six would be great um you know on the driveway if you know if 10 foot is uh acceptable that would be great and then you know if the the real questionable item is is the extension of the retaining wall relative to the grades on the sides of the driveway we can provide more documentation for that I think what they're saying is if they D continuance you've already submitted some of that and you can work with staff and they may be able to administrativ approve that okay okay yeah you may if not then you can come back okay but hopefully we get it done administratively and we can do four and five yeah approve that right now that'd be great so you can continue with four and five immediately yeah five and six and six five and six sorry yeah that'd be great and that I think what we're were trying to do is get it to where it could be administratively approved well sounds like you may be on your way since you've submitted some more information so hopefully that can happen and if not uh sounds like we'll be seeing you back in a month so do we have a motion or any members of the public wish to speak to this no anybody have a motion I'll motion to uh approve items five and six of hpca d23 d161 thank you do we have a second a second okay thank you if you all would vote in Prime go please okay that has passed moving on to the next um continuance motion I will motion to continue items one two three and four of hpca d23 d161 to the February meeting okay thank you do we have a second I'll second all right would you all vote again please okay that motion has also passed so sounds like you'll be working with staff and getting that new documentation reviewed and maybe we'll see you next month and maybe not okay thank you thanks all right um last case under um this section of the agenda hbca 23- 00162 at2 Northwest 15 Street would you please state your name and address for the record Scott Kerman 9022 thank you sorry I skipped Katie oh just consideration and possible action on application by Scott kaiserman for certificate of appropriateness to one construct four New Town Homes elective the commission um previously recommended approval of a um Spud to reone this property to allow this development um that just went through a couple of months ago um The Proposal is consistent with what was allowed by the Spud as far as lot coverage and setbacks um parking uh Etc staff's primary concerns were the overall height of the structure and finished floor Heights whether those were compatible with um neighboring structures in the in the area um and then there is a um wait do we still have Corum one two three all right I had a moment of sorry um thank you Gary do we need to no we're good just not that he's um absent at 430 um was spot so in some of the drawings there appears to be a retaining wall on the west side of the proposed project that clearly does not exist um so staff needed clarification about what's going on with the grade and the Topography of the site there if that's being altered if a retaining wallet is being installed and then various just um Dimensions um things like that that need to be finished out I would say in The Proposal okay okay well uh you've already stated your name and address for the record I was a little out of order there I apologize um so yeah just now reviewing um an actual proposal for this outside of the Spud so um I'm largely very pleased with the design I just had a couple of questions about the this front elevation in which you can seemingly see the the roof line at the southern end of the property just wanting a little Clarity there and trying to figure out this is um something that can be I would not personally be in favor of it as it exists but I feel like it's close and just trying to get some clarity on why that is the way that is I do believe from street view you shouldn't be able to see the that the parit Step Up is it just the parit that we're able to see it's kind of hard to because it does look like in this east west elevation um that the rear of the property is substantially High higher than the front of the property which is normal on Lots like that um just trying to see if kind of what that street view would realistically be like um from what I I see is you wouldn't be able to see it from the street view you just see the The Gables and wouldn't see those parapets that are in the architectural plans right there so looking at this yes drawing it does step up um and that's more in regards to to stay with the neighboring properties in regards to the height and then also the entry of the garages they do have their own separate garages right there um so it does step up in height as the grade comes down but from street view you can see that down there looking at the par puts that they would not necessarily be in view um from that front elevation that is in the architecture plans yeah that was staff's assumption was that you're seeing those because it's being drawn flat in an elevation drawing and they are technically taller than the front but in reality you're not going to see those above and beyond it just creates an odd look in the Y completely yeah well and it's being um feel like at a side elevation it's being broken by like a firewall pair up a cap so even if you do get a view of that side it'll be like a um like a Georgian house that has the kind of brick breaks between the two and that's the style that we're going for we look closely at 15 20 uh North Robinson the uh style of that and that's why we decided with the Georgian style as well yeah so I think with a with a architectural break between those flat roofs I think that helps that transition to give it more of like a manzer yes appearance Katie this Spud was it to be reasoned as R4 I believe the the current architect is noing yes the base owning was R but to allow for this number of dwelling units what is our lot coverage here as it as this proposal exists yeah we we drew uh I'm not sure the specific lot coverage okay but I think R4 allows for is it 40% so I mean 60% 40% open space I do not recall what the I don't remember right at this moment what R4 allows but the Spud was crafted to specifically allow exactly this lot coverage and that's what was approved thank you for cl this site plan matches exactly what was in the this Spud okay thank you Commissioners any other comments or questions here I mean it sounds like we are lacking a little bit of information this um in the staff report they're asking for some specifics on um the height of the ridg line and you know some of the things that I was referencing um just a minute ago um in addition to documentation on the proposed Windows any other I mean I don't know that this is something that we can move today but I feel like we're very very close is there any way we could approve with conditions because I do have uh the ridge line at 28 ft 7 in um the parapets which we talked about not seeing from the street um dimensions and materials of the fence uh I talked to Daryl about the 75% uh see-through ability um even the documentation on the Windows um we have the packet submitted for winds or Pinnacle Windows uh there won't be a retaining wall in the front it was just uh as far as the drawing and then the the height um we're really in line with uh 1520 North Robinson and then even from the diagram 20 feet below um that aine across the way um I think that's a great question for staff as to what you all are comfortable considering for agreed upon conditions so um just to show this this kind of captures what staff's concerns were partly I think it was just clarification and some of this may just go away when you look at the right side of the building in this drawing the yard steps appears to step down to the right of the front stair and then appears to butt up against what looks like a retaining wall at the side of the driveway that is not a condition that currently exists so we we needed both clarification of what was going on there and then also some sort of input from the commission on whether or not that was acceptable if they're making changes to the topography there staff's other concern with the height generally is that we're looking at an 11ft ceiling height for the first floor a 10ft ceiling height for the second floor and that gets us to a structure that is noticeably taller than the structures around it this block does have a lot of variety you've got the aine at one end you've got commercial properties you've got a single family home you've got um the 1970s is Aberdine um abine addition um on this block so there's a lot of variation in the heights but do we have Heights on those neighboring properties you said this one's at 28 feet is that correct uh the ridge Line's at 28 feet and that's where even those neighboring properties um you know the the eeve line is really uh close close um I think if you put a hip roof or a gable roof on either one of these properties um as well as some of the properties across away you'd be getting close to that 28 foot why say in 32 is yes it is to the top of the parit but gotcha not necessarily the ridge line right there um looks like we might have some public comments here anybody from the public wish to speak hello would you state your name and address for the record Marva 1521 norell just some questions uh it looks like there's steps up to the front unit on 15th but the side units are level um that's not a characteristic in that neighborhood so to have steps up to this front no the front is but the side units are look like they're at grade Scott is that right ah I see what did you say the side units the entry is at grade yes it's that would be probably be something we'd like to talk to the owner and the architect about that's just not having a stem wall and a step up yeah is that realistic to keep the height under control well we're adding a stem wall and a step up and raising that height maybe it's a trade for a little bit of ceiling height to a little bit of a I don't know that we're real bothered by the height of the building I think the explanation is is accurate that it's not that out of scale with the two around it if they had a different roof type on it and it's so hodg pody on the other side of the street I just in if it's the same in um bulk it might work but um we'd like the opportunity the neighborhood would like the opportunity to to uh visit with the architect and the owner if possible and it's a pretty complicated app I am glad to see the the Brick patterns and the type of brick and things on it that was nice to see but if we could visit with them before the next meeting we'd appreciate it is that um because it looks like Marva the the comment about the accesses on the side that's all behind a wood fence is that correct am I see see that lacking some information on the fencing so that would have to be well it says six foot wood fence on the site plan so there's a private entrance I see what you're looking at G so steps up from the street go through the gate um and and and the the reason I'm bringing that up is I think there's a logistical challenge with a lot with being that tight to from the fence to the building there's not much room over there to if you start stepping up to each unit's I understand what you're saying got uh I didn't talk to Randy about this but it kind of I don't know if it matters but this South facade has no windows in it it has what no windows in it based on where it is I don't know that I'd want windows at the back you get some nice daylighting with South Windows yeah if but being at the back of the property I don't know it's only one unit yeah it's you get premium for that one it's not that much more unpleasant than looking at 15th Street I mean you know so I mean it would just not be something you'd see in a period house at all can I ask about the other couple of high items yes sir in neighborhood comments about a trash dumpster well they're some concerns about that sure and then the screening for mechanical units th those would be something that I just wanted to make sure we mized them because those were to in there too so I I guess for the applicant where where where where will that Trump trash dumpster go if it's on the plans I apologize it was a a big packet this meeting yes uh as far as the dumpsters they would go on the east side okay of the property um we have mechanical units and then they'd have their individual trash cans we there will be no dumpster so the neighborhood comment state that the um oh no it just says the trash dumpster will be needed so none will be needed or required oh because they'll have oh individual trash can is that what you're saying yes so they'll have individual trash service because these do that was in the Spud they're each individual addresses yes does that kind of answer that question for you guys on the neighborhood comments the Spud did have the individual addresses so it should have I mean to my knowledge it should have individual trash service correct because that was even an issue in creating the the Spud as far as I wanted to make sure that they were individual trash units yeah so I think you'll still have to come through and do a lot split is that correct I believe so so that then they would if once the lot split is done then they would be treated as individual units who could have their own poly cart what happens if um we say that we don't address this today and then the lot splits denied what happens about these uh about the trash and the potential dumpster just want to make sure we cover all of our bases and don't get ourselves in a buy later I think they got bigger problems if that happens I mean I think that depending on what the commission wants to do today it could either be a condition of approval that we're going to get clarification from all the powers that be on trash and verification that they're going to be able to do the poly carts or if it's continued that could be something that they bring back one thing that uh David representing me here said lot uh lot splits administrative so we should be able to get that except that they need a CA yeah we can talk would you uh do you want him to come up and State his name or no okay um okay um I'm pretty comfortable with this proposal as a whole um kind of curious what staff thinks after hearing the Ridgeline height and um conversation with the neighborhood in regard to their comments how comfortable you guys feel with the application I think to Echo staff's concern and looking at the photos of the site because it looks like you're going to have to bring up your two SES besides you are higher and your your site kind of dips down it looks like so you're going to bring that up but the way the rendering show is it's got a pretty substantial retaining wall up against that um West neighbors driveway so it seems like there's some some things there that um not a lot of space to work with there some grades are kind of um could could pose some issues that if you get too far down the line you're going to end up with the giant retaining wall if you if you set that grade if I'm saying that right y so maybe this needs to be continued to have further conversations with staff to get clarity on some of that yeah I'm I'm interested to hear what the architect has to say but staff's preference would this be full new construction with there being questions about topography questions about trash Etc I would rather see this come back to you all um with all those questions answered okay I just wanted to speak my name is Colin Fleck um 2228 Northwest 45th I've been working with Scott as the architect on this um there's not an intent to have a retaining wall I think there's some a misconception about what that front facade was showing um we intend to step these units down the grade because there's four feet of fall from the back to the front if we didn't do that our front elevation would be 4T out of the ground and then be really imposing compared to the properties next door we really want to be good neighbors and I I think so we're going to do everything we can to soften that right um and try and you know we have to meet grade at our property line This neighbor to the west actually their driveway sits on our property and over our property line and so we're also trying to be good neighbors there by bringing the uh the fence line back so that we're not tearing their driveway out out right um I'm certain we could come back in and you know make a case that we could have more space if we needed it to by taking it from their driveway but um again we're trying to be good neighbors there and we will try and meet grade there without having to use a retaining wall um and then if you know understand that it's maybe not historic to not have steps there but we do have some grade challenges there and we're pretty tight on those side elevations so really we're just trying to make the project work with existing grade without bringing in those retaining walls okay yeah thank you any other architectural issues you'd like to look at no and and I think it looks uh great there's no issue there just trying to flag a potential sure but it sounds like you're already looking at it so yeah I mean I just want to Echo the case I don't I'd like to understand what the continuance is for specifically that we can't answer today so I think the main thing for me is I've got a drawing that shows a grade in front of the building that does this to a retaining wall and you're saying it's not going to do that and I let me show share mine sure sure CU I know we I'm looking at this elevation drawing mhm and looking at the line of the yard that right hand line yeah I think that's that's going down and then stepping up yeah I I think what that's supposed to be showing is just the line of that curb coming down that they've got there and it's really not a curb it's more of a flattened um rolled curb of sorts that's kind of hard to describe what it is there and so it's really just that line coming down in elevation and maybe the line weight gets a little bit off there so we're yeah but what you're saying and what I was seeing was inverted was the the driveway between the property and the one on the right which would be the West you're actually seeing the up slope slope of the driveway correct to a grade that is where the pister of the fence is sitting on that maybe six inches above that grade that's correct it's it's one of these two-dimensional drawing Clarity issues that okay that's that's my bad for missing the line weight there a little bit and it we don't intend to install a retaining wall there we want to just let it slope and be historic in that we did originally propose a retaining wall in the front to help with some of these grade changes but staff pointed out that it was not historic to have a retaining wall there and so we really by the letter of the the guidelines shouldn't have one there so we ended up stepping the the buildings down the separate units down to help accommodate that instead of having that retaining wall yeah I think what's what's also a little tricky with the the drawing that I'm trying to wrap my head around is it looks like the Eastern yard is higher than the Western yard in the drawing so but I think what you're saying is you're you're intending to keep that benching from the sidewalk up to whatever height that is I think it just I think what Katie's suggesting is that something that to clarify what the intent is okay I I think the site plan would clarify that more than the elevation I realize elevations are a little bit easier to read so and if we went to the site plan and looked at that you'd see that there's really just that's representative of a sidewalk that flattens out there to take you back to those west facing entries and so if we can get that sight plan up that might help uh it's gon to be there on the right yep there there on the right hand side you can see there's a 50 foot line that's where the steps come up and it'll flatten out for that sidewalk and begin to gently slope up as it makes the turn to go back to the west side of those units so that they can have a rear access um and we would just do our best to to meet meet grade there um with the sidewalks and then there will be additional steps once you get up you know to help kind of soften into the hill because it does again it's four feet from from front to back and so we'll we'll get that feathered in there but no retaining walls that's where where my concern is you know the documents have to go in a certificate of appropriateness that are what's going to be built and all of what you've described makes sense but I'm not seeing that in the drawings so that can be a condition that revise drawings that accurately illustrate all the changes in topography are submitted to staff okay um to me that's kind of a lot on a total new construction project especially when we have you know some other things that we've I think kind of said well we don't have this on the fencing we don't have that um there have been questions raised by The Neighborhood um it's just how much do we defer to a a you know condition to submit to staff versus saying get these things cleaned up and clarified and and bring it back one more time I think if staff is stating that pretty loud and clear then that's the right call to bring it back um and I I you know I I think it's a really great project and from when we met the first time and you all turned it around and turned in new documentation um I think it's a really wonderful design I just it's a lot of little kind of question marks hanging out there that I would rather the commission see the finished product um what document would clarify that is are we talking about a a civil drawing or I mean a 3D view of it or a 3D a 3D view might help um I mean for me for starters that elevation drawing needs to not show a line that appears to be grade that is jogging up and you know something to clarify that that line is not reflecting changes in topography and retaining walls because that is not clear to me when I'm looking at it right now um and we can hop on teams and look at it together or come sit down and bust out the colored pencils um whatever is helpful um okay I we we had the rendering too and that should clarify that some too but um that's that's fine if we're really just down to this then I feel pretty good about okay that that's what you all want to do we want to Contin we need it continue to February but it's a very nice design I mean looks great yeah and it sounds like your intent is in you guys are in sync on intent is just getting the yeah sounds like this will be very easy in February so then I can like to move to continue hpca d23 00162 to the February 2nd meeting if you can get materials in by sth by the when sth okay will that work February that okay okay um yeah do we have a second second okay thank you if you all would please vote in Prime go okay um the motion is pass and we will see you in February all right moving on to other B other business um the moment You' all been waiting for we've got a spud uh Spud 01581 at 408 Northwest 30th Street this is an application to rezone the property at 408 Northwest 30th Street to and uh from R2 to R4 with the HL overlay Jefferson Park UCD overlay except with restrictions and uses as called out within the proposed Spud um just briefly this is a site that had a historic church and then subsequently a kind of mid-century Church um built on the site in approximately 1960 that was demolished within the last year or two as a dilapidated structure after a serious fire um the applicant has proposed to reone to accommodate construction of multif family residential development I do want to note that initially folks had a copy of the master design statement that included some uses that the applicant had actually subsequently removed um the retail restaurant um dining establishment Etc have all been eliminated from the had previously been eliminated from the proposed uses so you've got typical residential uses and then live work administrative professional offices um community recreation Property Owners Association um those higher intensity commercial uses have been eliminated from the Spud um they are varying um a number of characteristics of the both existing base zoning and the the R4 base zoning that is proposed osed but they are retaining the Historic Landmark overlay and all of the components of the design review process that would go along with that um the staff report went into quite a bit of detail on all the characteristics that are proposed to be varied in comparison to existing conditions and historic conditions I'm happy to go through that but I think the applicant can give you an overview of what's proposed and then we have obviously comments from um neighborhoods and um Property Owners so okay um would you please state your name and address for the record be happy to David box 522 call CT drive drive happy to report we have not built anything yet so we're not asking for any forgiveness um this is a bit of a unique application in that we're not here on any design as staff said we did retain the HL overlay so before we could build anything we'd have to come before you to get your blessing on on any of the architectural and design pieces of it so what the process that we're in Now is really the legislative process and because we are retaining that HL and we're currently in HL it requires you you to make a recommendation to Planning Commission who ultimately make a recommendation to city council so it's a bit of a kind of unfamiliar or unique process to be here uh I think a lot of the concerns you're going to hear are really the legislative pieces of it uh that will work themselves out through Planning Commission and city council we have some conceptual images that you've probably seen again at this point it's just conceptual as you might guess it is a very expensive proposition to have the architect produce the fullscale construction ready drawings that may be required here without the intements that they can actually go build uh what it is they desire to build so briefly if you look at this site it's a bit of a unique site in a couple ways one what was there was a church but it was a large church so in terms of the scale and massing if you look at the exhibit that we produce that you should have the scale and massing of what we have is consistent and similar with the church building that was historically there further if you look to the West everything going west I think all the way to Walker is Zone straight C3 commercial straight C3 commercial allows very intense commercial uses and so this is kind of in between and perhaps that buffer between that intense C3 zoning and the residential that exists around us so we are asking in the uh Spud for 40 there there's a there's an image of what was there uh so our setbacks are are similar to what was there in terms of along 30th Street as well as along Hudson uh we are I guess helped by having an alley on the the west side so that uh there there really is no setback issue to the West in terms of height we're asking for five more feet than what the base R for would allow and we are intending to increase the density through the use of the Spud one of the reasons is there is significant demand the city council Planning Commission have made uh great strides in encouraging density and development like this in the core of the city it's important as a city that we focus density in the core and not out in the periphery the core is the cheapest and easiest location in which the city can serve from a fiscal responsibility standpoint police fire sewer water all of that is ready to go in the core it becomes a much more expensive proposition uh when you get outside into the suburb so we think from a policy standpoint the density that we propose is certainly something consistent with what the city council has been looking to see and in this location um we think it's appropriate given kind of the uniqueness of the site given what's existing around it in the neighborhood but also that commercial that exists to the West so I would like the architect just come up here real briefly kind of walk through some of his uh inspiration and and what you're likely to see when when we come forward if we are lucky lucky enough to get approval on the Spud and then I'll address a few other things okay thank you uh come on up and state your name and address for the record please it's Adam lman uh 718 West Sheridan um and yeah I would uh second what David uh has said so this is a initial planning application obviously we haven't designed any buildings yet um and we understand the process of coming back here uh we uh I'm going to speak a little bit just to the process we went through to this point which is um we came up with several site strategies uh and we immediately went met with HP staff and said what do you think of these which which which direction should we go um we received some comment from staff and continued that process of sort of back and forth with them uh to sort of land at this strategy that in essence uh took some of the uh preliminary uh previous massing that was on the site and uh tried to incorporate it in into what we were hoping to develop on the site um I will add uh we talked to staff about setbacks um we understand the setbacks of the existing neighborhood we understand the setbacks of R4 zoning uh and um we actually did a setback study uh and gave that to staff to try to understand um are we meeting some of the current standards uh that are in place and and in what ways are we exceeding or not meeting those standards and so uh this has been a a back and forth uh kind of conversation we met with the neighborhood um and uh um you know are happy to incorporate various comments that have come in um uh you saw these preliminary visualizations they're super preliminary um they start to speak to some of the materiality of the project uh the repetition of gable Ruth some of the breaking up of the massing we don't want to put one giant building on this site we'd like to break it up um we're doing that currently through an idea of breezeways we may do that in some other way um as we continue through the design process uh using brick and detailing that brick in appropriate ways um board and batten siding using that as something that can also sort of differentiate those facades uh adding a lot of landscape I will add you know currently we have 20% of the site uh earmark just for landscape and uh 60% of the site really doesn't have any buil form on it at all uh that's parking and other things so U we're taking up a minimal amount of this site with the built form just in this in this planning application and uh you know we're looking forward to working with everybody getting this through so I'm going to turn it back over okay we're happy to answer any any questions uh again we saw a few protest emails come through I think in just the last day so a few yeah I mean and so we have plenty of time um I'm not sure why we didn't get them sooner uh my client his team have met with the neighbors more than once and I think have had uh an open dialogue for maybe a month or more uh but they came in late so we have a period of time before Planning Commission and then it's a six- week delay between Planning Commission and city council so there's there's ample time to continue discussions with the neighbors as it relates to those legislative pieces like density and parking and those things uh in terms of design you're ultimately going to get to say yes or no uh as it relates to a CA so this is the first step in a lengthy process and we're we're asking for a recommendation of approval to move forward Okay so we've got a great project description a lot of info to process big staff report too um a lot of specific findings ultimately staff is recommending an approval with some um agreed upon conditions that said I kind of think there's a lot to go through here I know I have several questions um myself mainly due to the amount of dwellings on the space and some of these exceptions the applicant is requesting with the um with R4 Commissioners um any any place in particular you'd like to start I kind of think the simplest place to start is the amount of dwellings on the um in The Proposal in the Spud just because I think a lot of these other elements are dictated by the amount of units proposed so maybe maybe that's just where we start um I you know 27 when I'm looking at this especially from an aerial view and going okay like if this had been residential there'd be three homes there these are three lots and um I'm not opposed at all to the multif family or even the multi-use but 27 you know thinking through potentially I know we can't account for how many people live in each but say we have you know we have 27 parking spaces but we have 48 cars um that feels concerning at that intersection to me a lot going on there um kind of would like to know how you guys came up with that number for that space yeah so um one thing I forgot to mention So currently we gave a site plan I think to Katie that has 31 parking spaces um and the unit count honestly L is just based on a on a perform and understanding how we can get this site to what what is the way to maximize the site and so we've got a certain amount of one beds a certain amount of two beds um put onto the site right now and uh uh it fit within the the boundaries of what we're trying to apologize I thought there was one spot per unit I mean to me it's um as you say this is this is not the design this is just the legisl piece that allows uh the developer to move forward here um I will say that the packet that you put together displays that um it's a high quality professional um it'll it'll be a if the sample images are an indication of the end product um this will be done well so the question I think for obviously our uh our commission here is to to figure out what that density um um seems reasonable or what that what what that density needs to be I think the way that you've crafted it from a massing standpoint um I like the urbanism of pulling that towards 30th uh whereas the church sort of set back um so you're you're pulling that mass towards the corner which does help the neighbors so like I said I think the design is very thoughtful very well done even though I know it's not a design but the the preliminary indications of where headed um I think is a very strong product density in neighborhoods and cities is always sort of this um contentious issue so um I don't have a problem with density um I think the massing fits the site I think there's a lot of positives about this project um you know I don't know how much density is too much density not sure but but I think that the project is um off to a on a good foot and you guys have reached out to the community so I think there's a lot of positives here I appreciate the effort put into it from a design review perspective I think the key things that are being varied by the Spud that would affect what comes back to you all are the setbacks the height that would be allowed and lot coverage open space so um I certainly understand that the discussion about density how and how many units drives a lot of other elements of the project but I think um from a from staff's perspective going forward working with the applicant those are going to be areas where it's helpful to hear from the commission from residents um and those are the areas where Planning Commission is going to want to hear from you all from a design perspective and a compatibility perspective are those are are the numbers that are proposed in line with what would be appropriate within a historic district or are they exceeding what you all think would be appropriate for design when that does come back through for review yeah you know density is like you said kind of a contentious issue all the time density in this city is also extremely complicated because the city has no meaningful public transportation and no uh meaningful walkability so you know I think that's where it gets a little hairy for me in that I completely agree that this is a totally appropriate space for a multif family just thinking through the Logistics of what that looks like in a place like Oklahoma City and um car traffic right there I'm struggling with the with this amount of density I think it brings a pretty dramatic change to the neighborhood and I do think there's a lot to be said that's positive about that change just um reading through some of these neighborhood comments and kind of hearing what they anticipate this very drastic difference to be and not always in a positive light I just want to go over how how you know how the developers plan to handle that well I've yet to meet a neighborhood that was excited about any change that I was proposing for many of my clients the nature of uh I guess being a neighbor is fear of the unknown I think putting density in the core is important as our city continues to evolve you know we're we're interested in hearing the density discussion from the Commission in terms of a number that that is appropriate in terms of the setback I think this image is is fairly telling the massing and the setback it is very similar to what existed with the church except for the portion of the church that was set back I think too far from a um you know an urban development standpoint we've we've pulled it to the corner to to get that Urban feel so we're really we're kind of matching the setbacks that had had existed historically yes it's a different use but again we we have this unique situ uation because we have straight commercial you know going to the west and and different types of uses this has the opportunity to provide that uh kind of anchor and and buffer As you move from the commercial to the residential but we're we're interested in in hearing the density you know where you as a commission would feel comfortable in terms of the height it's minimal you know 35 ft is what's allowed in single family residential we're asking for 40 so and an R4 so it's really a five foot difference uh but we think it's a 5ft difference that is important to allow us to put density in a location that we think density is um deserved Katie one of these um neighborhood comments says that let me jump to it [Music] um this limited parking is an exception to the City parking regulations which would require 45 parking spaces is that I'm just not familiar enough to speak to that so you have to have two spaces for a two-bedroom you have to have one and a half spaces for every one bedroom or studio uh I would need to know how many one bedrooms versus two bedrooms they were proposing which I do not um to be able to calculate that but yes they are asking for Less parking than they would be required to have under straight zoning okay I just wasn't familiar with that so I didn't want to and that and that's part of kind of our issue in that um you know until we know what we can have it's hard for us to design one of the flaws in the city's parking code is um it it looks at dwelling units as a as a broad thing whether it's a one-bedroom or two-bedroom sometimes and so often times the council people especially W two and W six are consistently pushing against developers to reduce down parking counts because our code is outdated and so you know we're being told by the the elected officials the code requires too much parking we have public streets we want people to have a have an experience where perhaps they don't even have to have a car we're in the core and so our parking code requires us to all have multiple cars well if we start to change the way that we think about the core of the city well maybe not everybody that lives here would have a car perhaps they'd have bikes perhaps they would walk to bus stops so we're being pushed by the you know the council and the legislative officials to reduce down our parking counts I think that the new code is going to have uh reduced parking Counts from what we have now and I think what we're proposing is really a reflection of what we're seeing being asked and what we're going to see in a new code Commissioners any questions about not just the density but I mean just um in general some of there's a lot to go through a lot of um a lot of exceptions to the R4 base zoning um certainly love that it keeps the over delays where you guys have to come back to us sure yeah I'm sure I just didn't know if you guys had specific questions before we kind of got into that okay well members of the public who would like to come up first hi David bigam 322 Northwest 27th Street I'm also the president of Jefferson Park neighbors Association so um yeah I'll be brief I know there are other people that want to talk and you don't want to be here all night but um I personally think that if you um submit a uh recommendation to planning that's going to send a signal that HP is good with this uh height setback parking everything I really really hope you strongly consider not doing that so it's not going to stop this from going to planning and and to council but it will Express the concern that yeah this is pushing the limits in an HP neighborhood so couple things I'll just quickly point out is that the setbacks in the HP guideline say that you know you build a structure it should match the setbacks of the uh you know abiding uh neighbors um this one certainly doesn't they're asking for an exception to be about six feet closer to the sidewalk than the um than the neighboring houses and the neighboring houses are fairly small one-story Bungalows so not only are you closer but you're closer and much taller especially 40 feet well first off I don't know of any um structure there's only one three-story structure in the neighborhood to start with and it's set way back and at an angle so it's like 207 feet set back um so I don't know of any the adjacent structures are two story so I don't know anywhere it goes from one story structure to a three story structure that's going to be a big uh you know allowing a height uh restriction of 40 feet is going to allow it to be taller it's going to dwarf the houses you might I hope you didn't have a garden in your backyard in the adjacent house because you're not going to have much sun now so um setback um and the heights I really think are too much in the in the uh the Spud allows for an exception you know to only be 5 feet from the sidewalk uh or sorry 5 feet from the subback which about 10 feet from the sidewalk and uh all along that multiple structures help certainly one large structure would not be ideal either but um uh I don't know how much HP really would refer back to a previous structure on the site uh to look at what's appropriate it probably really doesn't matter but as as has been pointed out part of that structure was set way back so that um you know the previous structure doesn't really say oh yeah we're just going to do what it was before it really isn't that and then you've got a bunch of the one stories on both sides of the property on the Hudson end and on the 30th Street end so um boy I really think the the Spud needs to be much more um closer to the HP guidelines before I hope you know before I would think that H the HP commission should send forward a recommendation so also stop there I know you have others that want to speak so unless you have any questions for me by the way we did have conversations with the development group that was much appreciated um however when the when the application was submitted and the Spud was submitted none of the things that we expressed concerned about were taken uh into account is just the same thing that we talked that we were shown initially so FYI so thanks your name and address for the record good afternoon Lindsay paver 225 Northwest 33rd Street thank you all uh first of all for your service this has been a very long afternoon and uh you do this every month so thank you um I am here on behalf of edmir Park preservation Inc I'm currently the president and I join my neighbors and edmir and Jefferson to share our concerns uh so I'm not going to I will try not to repeat what's already been said but you know three buildings on three lots that was intended for single family is very concerning and our understanding is the church that we're sort of comparing things against was built subject to a variance to begin with um really the Spud and then our for zoning um offends HP guidelines the zoning in the area and the comprehensive plan the setback and height concerns I'll just Echo what's already been said as far as parking um up to three and four family units but potentially only one space per unit what about guests um there was a fatal accident right in this area and not terribly long ago and lots of accidents and many more near misses um that happen regularly pulling out of that Hudson and 30th intersection um the site triangle of course is a concern there too um because it it's not ideal to begin with and so to to get you know an exception on the site variants is is a huge concern of mine personally because I've got two kids that are about to start driving um in terms of open space It should be 40% but it looks like it's only going to be 20 there are a lot of outstanding questions some of some of which were addressed just a few minutes ago um dumpsters how many sight proof screening is described but not required um what are the uses uh and I did want to say that the developer did meet with interested parties but that was held very last minute and during the holidays um and nothing has changed as a result I know that my I can say for my neighbors and myself and edgmere park as an organization would love to see a development on these Lots um the one we saw just a few minutes ago is a good example that would be appropriate in height scale density setbacks and one that regards HP guidelines um so on behalf of edmir Park preservation Inc we ask that you please deny this application and allow us to have some real good faith meetings to discuss all of these concerns thank you thank you um other members of the public come on up and state your name and address for the record thank you again thank you for your service uh William white 3200 North Harvey Parkway also I on the duplex at 416 and 418 Northwest 30th 50 ft away from this proposal I would like to make a clarification um the presenter indicated it was a C3 actually everything West is R1 C1 it is R1 C1 and as previously discussed this afternoon we talked about that carport that was 50 or 60 years old that's what this church is and before before that we single family dwellings on three lots that's what we need to be comparing to first I want to talk about three sections that I think are important to me and hopefully I think my neighbors uh in your guidelines you talk about distinctive areas in Jefferson Park unique character I don't believe this will maintain that you talk about Pres preserve the historic character of Oklahoma City how does this preserve our character I was part of the code enforcement in 96 this doesn't preserve this finally you're asked as stewards to protect these areas of Oklahoma City that's what your commission is your Stewarts for the historical zoning Jefferson Park has no R Force Jefferson Park has C1 r1s and r2s we're not talking about trying to meet he can't meet an R4 he's asking to exceed an R4 he needs to design to an R2 the staff report obviously and I won't go through them all had comments on all the deficiencies a lot of those are setbacks and code requirements you know we're throwing in 27 units cramming 27 units on a space that should max out at a third of that that's what we're doing we're asking for setbacks we're asking eventually they'll come back and ask for the alley vacated because they need the Turning radiuses there are multiple code violations in their current uh design for an R2 or an R4 and they're exceeding those that's why they have to go to a spud you know it was uh very surprising that staff would recommend approval when in my lot this commission this denied me a French drain 50 ft away from this property I'm interested in maintaining the historical preservation of Jefferson Park and finally I think this is about money and I think the architect said performer the performer why are there 27 units because he needs 27 units to make it work I looked at buying this property but I couldn't make it work under an R2 so this is the minimum requirements he needs to meet his performer that's my opinion so I'm hoping my goal is that this this commission today tells developers that if you're going to work in an HP district and be our neighbor we want you to be our neighbor but follow the guidelines follow the guidelines provide buildings which meet city and state code and maintain the character of the neighborhood allow the property owners who've been there for a number of years investing our money and he said it best fear of the unknown fear of the unknown is what he said and that's what we have as Property Owners they're not distinctive we don't know what's going to be built they're trying to maximize the usage of the lot we have a fear of the unknown you are our stewards for the historical preservation of Jefferson Park if this is what you want then okay we'll go to the board of adjustment we've been there before for but I don't think you should recommend this approval of this Spud and allow anyone in the legislative process to think it meets historical guidelines thank you for your time yes so on that lot the church was there before correct which was not a historical residential correct and what was prior to that that that's my statement how long ago 50 over 50 years ago over 50 years ago correct just like that Portico we'd like to tear it down and the church got torn down but we don't want to put it back up we want to go back to what the original plat says it's three lots it's three home lots it's an R2 max if they want an R2 I would I would support an R2 so your preference is divide it back up into three and put houses back there and I'll lay that my preference is as a developer if I was him and I'm not I would ask for an R2 zoning and if you look at Jefferson this will be the corner Each corner of Jefferson has R2 zoning it has similar facility uh construction the previous Spud that it was excellent it was well done it was well thought out the neighbors knew the AR architect and the developer never met this man never met the architect I'm 50 ft away from the property than I have a question yes um so you mentioned that you looked at that property and felt like you couldn't make it work with your Concepts and your your um financial needs and and situations uh I presume and and the president of edir Pike uh Park did mention that you guys would prefer that land to be developed um so so you know where is the middle ground between what someone with your level of expertise and your financial needs um you know already acknowledged you couldn't get done and then what they've planned that we don't want I I think R2 with exceptions is is reasonable I think R4 exceeding R4 maximizing the setbacks going against city code I built I've built in Oklahoma City for 45 years I understand setback I understand code I I'm currently reviewing IBC 2017 also with the city I understand what they're they're doing and they're doing everything they can to maximize the performa of the site with the minimum amount of investment and I don't think that's what we should be doing and I think uh I I'm sure uh Mike Wilson and fire hasn't taken a look at this site plan because I don't think there's a fir truck in the city that can get in there so there are a lot of things that need to take place and I I just think if this commission is a stewards of historical preservation and you have a neighborhood Jefferson edgmere that don't want it we want the investment but we want the Investments within the guidelines that you were appointed to why do we buy a home in Jefferson Park or edmir and then you change the rules on us that's what that's that's the problem it's not that they're not good people they're not good Architects they're working toward the wrong goal it's not doesn't have to be our goal but it has to be a goal as a neighbor in an HP District that follows the guidelines you want I mean you're worried about a window and I'm worried about a 40 foot structure that doesn't give sight lines to a 16-year-old driver at the same intersection that two people were killed I I just think you cannot recommend this if if we're really the stewards of the historical preservation for Jefferson part thank you thank you sir um any more members of the public come on up state your name and um address for the record please last I think but hopefully not least I'm Kelsey chilcoat my address is 2718 North Hudson I um own that property I have for a few years um I'm not the president of anything I've never been to one of these meetings before um but it's my understanding that you all want to hear from just regular folks that live in the neighborhood regular homeowner excuse me homeowners um that are going to live on this street for hopefully a long time um I bought this house recently um I'm a single mom I have a 5-year-old daughter uh I have made a lot of improvements to this house I had it painted this summer I'm getting a new roof this winter um last year I decided I wanted to put a gate across the driveway and I emailed Miss Friddle um it would have been much less expensive for me to put a chain link fence across my driveway but that's not against or that's not up to code that's against the rules and so I saved up and I bought a black iron fence and I put it in and I think that if you're not going to make an exception for me to put in a less expensive fence to help me save money you shouldn't make an exception for these developers that want to maximize their profit by putting in the most number of units possible and I think the excuse me the reason that I care about this the most is not because I'm against it in my neighborhood and people in my neighborhood I love that there are more people moving into my neighborhood especially people that are young and people that have kids my kids age I'm worried about the cars and I I may have understood earlier that we're not really here to talk about the cars today um but I think it's important uh to say that if there are 27 units going in and only 27 parking spots where are the rest of the cars going they're going on my street they're going right in front of my house I'm trying to teach my daughter how to ride her bike how do I do that safely it creates an issue being able to see down the street um it creates an issue for spacing and trying to I'm trying to raise a child that won't have to have a car if she doesn't want to I'd like for her to understand how to ride her bike we're not going to be able to do that safely if there are another 17 18 19 cars parked on my street because of this development I don't know the codes I don't know the rules but just sitting here today it sounds like a lot of them are being violated or being asked for AC ceptions and like I said earlier I don't think that you should be giving exceptions just to help developers make the project work financially for them um you know it's my understanding that this lot went for $550,000 for three single family lots I get why that would be difficult for them to make that work financially but that's not my problem that's their problem right and I think that you guys are on probably on this board because you care about the historic neighborhoods in our city and a lot of you probably live in them I think Mr wood mentioned that he lives in Crown Heights and so I'd like for each of you to think about the feelings that you would have if this project was proposed on your street in front of your house I want to make sure I say everything that I came to say because I sat back there for a while I think this is exactly the kind of thing that you guys are on this board to prevent I think this is exactly the kind of thing the kind of decision that you're here to make um and I really I really do appreciate your time um and appreciate your service and I do hope that you do not recommend this project to the planning department I don't know if I said all those words correctly thank you so much for hearing from me today have a great evening um any other members of the public wish to speak on the matter got one more come on up and uh state your name and address for the record please Matt gillery 401 Northwest 30th um the diagonal corner of this intersection um sorry so I mean what we're really talking about here is whether or not this Spud is going to be recommended for approval going forward we're really not talking about design yet because there is no design to be evaluated yet what we're talking about is what what the full parameters of that design will be so once this Spud is approved once if you were to recommend approval of this Spud by right they will be able to build 27 units up to 25,000 Square ft up to 40 feet high encroaching in the sight lines uh ignoring the setbacks or violating the setbacks um having the amount of open space for the lot there are numerous exceptions to um normal param normal ways of doing things and normal ways of developing that are being asked for in this Spud once that is approved once that is uh blessed by this committee there is no going back you can make the design as pretty as possible after that but you can't fit any more cars on the lot you can't uh restrict the number of units that they can have and I notice that the Spud conspicuously does not talk about it's 27 units but there there is no mention of what type of units those are they can be one bedroom two bedroom three bedroom commercial units up to 27 the the parking constraints are going to be what they're going to be if you have two units um two bedroom units three bedroom units commercial units the parking demands that it's going to place in this neighborhood are going to be unworkable for everybody that lives and works and tries to run a business around that neighborhood the only the only people that this really works for is we've talked a lot about the performa of this project much like the other projects that yall have talked about today the ones that have been built beforehand and then asked for forgiveness later the money involved in this and whether or not the owner of this property is going to work out well Financial is not what this commission is here to um to to evaluate thank you any other members of the public Mr roxs yeah just real briefly if I could just respond to a handful of the the comments so we have an exhibit on the site triangle so we're outside the site triangle the only way we encroach is if the city were to ever widen Hudson or 30th but we we produce an exhibit that shows our buildings is outside of it Hudson has a massively wide rideway uh a lot of streets in the core do Hudson has a there you go so you can see the site triangle because of the rideway that exists at Hudson our building from East is set back although from the quot property line which is that bold line it may not look like look like it from the center line of Hudson it's set back a a great deal the community meeting I'm not the the woman that said it was last minut minute that meeting happened I believe the first week in November so I mean almost two months ago uh I don't think that's last minute at all the gentleman said it's C1 pull the zoning map right now it's all C3 it's red red is C3 that's what it is I don't know if staff can display it but he's just simply wrong in terms of the parking I mean these are public streets people Park on public streets I live in herriage Hills myself I live on 15th people Park on 15th public streets have people that Park on that's kind of what happens in the core and finally what you're really here to decide I guess is is this appropriate is it compatible staff recommended approval you saw plenty of items today that they didn't recommend approval on they did so here so what what we'd really like to to have is a recommendation for approval but we'd also like to hear what your thoughts are on the density piece my client has flexibility we'd like to hear what those density pieces are this isn't R1 it's already zoned R2 so the idea of three single family homes being built here that's not going to happen it's already zoned R2 so we think some element of multif family is absolutely appropriate in the core of this city okay a lot to digest um Commissioners any immediate questions um for the applicant staff I have a question for staff and I'm gonna plead again new commissioner which I think I do I get to do that for like a whole year like just at least be like I'm an idiot explain things to me um so you know basically we go through this very very thorough staff report you talk about all the things that are not compliant with uh HL overlay um all the different challenges and then we get to the bottom and it you know and you say we recommend it for approval and so I'd love to hear staff speak a little bit more to how you got there um in this particular instance so it is a recommendation for approval it's a recommendation for approval with conditions and yes yes I was a little bit wimpy there and kind of opened that door for the commission to craft what they think that would be the commission the conditions that I included were that the applicant reduce the maximum height as directed by the commission because that's one of the main things that is above and beyond what um even just regular base zoning in a residential area allows aside from being in a historic district and that the applicant reduced the number of dwelling units as directed by the histor preservation commission I thought those were the two main things that to me roast to the surface is being uh a real challenge for compatibility um the on the setbacks in particular that's come up quite a bit I will say that I believe most of the structures on this block both to the west and to the South do not meet the setback that is in the current zoning many of our properties in these neighborhoods um are setback well beyond what the Baseline base zoning requires or they're set well forward of it when you look at the the aerial of this block I don't think many of these properties are set back 25 ft from the property line the property line is way back beyond the sidewalk so as I was looking at the site plan surrounding area staff was not terribly troubled by the setback I didn't raise that certainly the commission could include a condition that the setback on the North side be increased um or on the east side be increased Etc um I I do feel like this is a corner that for 70 years what's 23 going back to 1960 has has been anchored by a a Monumental structure and to me that was at least some amount of precedent for not going just back to a single family home a duplex but for introducing some multif family here I think that's also supported by the fact that the block to the West is all C3 um you've got a very large duplex across the street that similarly has kind of a a mass to it that's not typical of um other parts of the neighborhood um and then again Jefferson Park has a lot of um multif family in comparison to many of our other um historic districts so felt like there was some uh you know support there based on the conditions and characteristics of this site for something above and beyond R2 now I will say that um if they were to Zone straight R4 based on the size of the lot the zoning would allow if I calculated this right about 16 units um the comprehensive plan that um supports up to 40 dwelling units per acre in the urban medium would support 19 or 20 dwelling units on this site so they're above and beyond kind of all of those metrics and I think they know that I think they've worked really hard to try to design a project that accommodates that in a um desirable and attractive way and ultimately I think that's going to be the big discussion at Planning Commission but this is also an opportunity for HP to weigh in on that piece as well as the other elements that affect the compatibility so I don't know if that kind of the other thing that I will say just procedurally I would much rather unless you all are just know it needs to stay R2 don't touch it period that you know that would be a straight recommendation of denial if the commission sees a path for some degree of rezoning of this property I think it is much more effective for you to forward on a recommendation of approval with as many conditions and findings as you see fit that the Planning Commission can bite into um that informs the Planning Commission about what HP commission sees as appropriate um even if there are many elements of The Proposal that you have concerns with if that makes sense so on the spot it says requesting approval up to 27 and then in your recommendations one of the conditions is evaluating the number so if this is approved are they approved for 20 up to 27 or not that'll be up to city council you're providing a recommendation to Planning Commission they'll provide a recommendation onto City Council ultim city council will determine if 27 units is too many um we would basically be stating that we are okay with 27 units that that our not opinion is yeah unless we attach some conditions that but if we attach a condition of they need to reduce that from 27 I mean I I don't have a problem with the setbacks I don't have a problem with even a three-story structure I do I think 27's a lot but I understand also the fiscal aspects of how how you make Project work I think it's difficult for this commission to look at that lot and say you're a historic Planning Commission so it should be historic home sitting there that's not going to happen it hasn't been that way for 60 plus years it's not going to go back that way probably um unless they're really small houses which don't work so I think it's difficult I would like to be able to pass it on with some of those considerations like um I mean I think parking is something that does concern me I would love for us all to walk and ride bikes it's probably not going to happen anytime soon um but I would like to have some control over what's said about it but uh I guess that's the the rub don't know which way to go so why don't we get if you guys want to come speak to you know the um kind of those unit numbers that we just came up with I think that you know I personally always really value neighborhood input above almost everything else because I do feel that we really truly serve up here to represent the neighborhoods and the neighbors um especially with so much resistance and such a drastic change but that said you know I do feel like the writing's on the wall that this area is going to be multif family and potentially multi-use so I think the goal here today would be to come up with a happy medium that felt a little better moving forward you know the commission could always just make recommendation that it the developer should be required to reduce you know its density and then that will flush out during Planning Commission and city council that's true you all don't have to give a metric today you certainly can but you can also and we've done this before you forwarded recommendations to say that the number of dwelling units should be reduced that the parking spaces per dwelling unit should be increased Etc you don't have to give them a hard number um it's a bit out of you know what you guys typically do uh as a commission and it's what Planning Commission does every other Thursday argue about density and and those things I mean that this is this is the discussion that happens at Planning Commission and city council every other week I would feel a little concerned about leaving it that open-ended just because of I want to respect everybody in the neighborhood who came up I mean you know if they reduce it by two three units I don't know that we've done any good up here today in listening to the neighbors um now do I think it's appropriate to reduce it by 15 units no I mean I get it I do think again writing's on the wall that this is going to be multif family high density but I would prefer to not leave it open-ended if we attach I mean if everybody thinks we should even attach something like that yeah because correct Katie a question for you because we don't go through spuds every commission I just want to make you understand we can send send a recommendation we can attach some we recommend it but no more than this many units in this height planning can still vote however they want on the item correct yes they can just disregard what what we have to say because the neighborhood everybody in the neighborhood you you'll have a chance to speak again at planning the applicant will be there I highly recommend you go I just want to make sure I always like to be on the same page of the house ke how this works we can forward on any recommendation you come up with that is non-binding for Planning Commission Planning Commission will forward on their recommendation to city council and city council doesn't have to do what Planning Commission says so they're the ultimate decision maker obvious everybody is taking those previous bodies comments into account but they're also going to account for the factors and the the conditions and concerns that are are not necessarily part of the purview of those other bodies so yeah I think if we had a concern about the number of of units and how that relates to parking and the height I would agree with you that we we probably would need to have a hard number there because I think I think sending a hard number with recommendation you know recommend it but here's the hard number you're going to consider that a lot more than if we just say We'll reduce the number know they could just decide to reduce it by two or would it be helpful if we maybe look got a different way because dwelling units aren't as nearly defined as perhaps we'd like what if we talked about it in terms of total number of bedrooms permitted on site because the plan is to have majority of these to be single one-bedroom units whereas dwelling unit under the code could be a three-bedroom unit right so 27 three-bedroom units is a lot different than 271 bedroom units in terms of number of people parking needs and all those things is that something that the commission would consider I think the density issue um as much as we'd like to have the conversation about a progressive future where we don't drive this is a car city and there is a car for every occupant that will live there so to me density and and I'm interpolating what the community is saying is really density of cars um how many cars the site hold and I think working to your advantage is 30th is a bigger street that allows in my opinion a larger development is more appropriate on 30th street but what that does is it doesn't allow you to park on the Frontage of 30th so it pushes everything down Hudson so to me the density isn't so much how many people are on the property because I think that actually benefits the the community to have that density of people it's the density of cars is really at the Crux of the issue I think that's spoton um I have a little bit of a concern over the density of the space itself just the lack of you know um R4 requires 40% open space and we're at 20 so we're at half of that um you know where it that's a very minimal amount of space and I do think it dwarfs the surrounding homes and pretty drastically changes that landscape I I understand if maybe there needs to be an exception but that feels like a pretty large one so I think if we're having the conversation about these things that's something to be worth consider I mean you know these these historic neighborhoods I feel like I say this I'm just going to like I'm going to stamp it on my forehead but I feel like these you know the trees and the landscape was developed as a part of the historic nature of these areas it wasn't it's not organic it it's not naturally occurring here we somebody did this purposefully so I feel like every time we infill to such an extent or people are putting in you know they're taking out their trees and they're putting in pools they're putting putting in a ton of concrete whatever we're losing a significant element that's really important to the historic Fabric and to the original intent of these neighborhoods so I just infilling that to such an extreme while you know maybe there is an exception to be had and it's really cool to think about this being developed and being used it feels a little extreme to me it does but I also want to point out that as been stated I think it's a given that this property will be developed I think it is reasonable that it will not be single family residential um this happens all the time with developers you get a developer that has is is willing to put in a lot of um care into their design and and I don't want to just say the community is forced to accept the developer's proposal because they do high quality work but now's the chance to sort and I know that you've had that conversation but now's the chance to sort of figure out what that development looks like with somebody who is shown to put the level of care and effort into a high quality design so I you know to me the 40 feet is not a showstopper personally um I I think 40 feet sounds a lot taller than it is in reality especially when you're talking um gabled roofs uh the setback to the alley seems to be what the church was previously um I think it the the Spud States zero but it looks it's shown to be about five um and and I think that's what's a little misleading is some of the the preliminary design is sort of adding more cushion than what the Spud is stating um and so maybe that's the feedback is you know five foot on the Alley uh 10 or 15 feet off of Hudson uh 25 off or I'm sorry 25 off Hudson 10 off of um 30th and and I don't think the south is really an issue um but if I would say whatever interior residential lots are uh 5 feet 10 feet uh for the back so you know I think there's some some way to sort of craft some Protections in there but um my opinion that the massing isn't all that um different or detrimental than what the was possessing before so I think there's some Middle Ground I I do think 27 from a car density standpoint is probably too much so what if we did from a on the density piece reduced it to 24 units but defined the units as 22 one-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units because that's greatly reducing the number of people that could potentially be there with an undefined number of bedrooms per dwelling unit yeah cuz when you're a developer you're looking at it that the parking is always what caps you right that's where you it seems like that's where you have to start so if the and and I don't deal with this daily so Mr Box and and Katie I think I have to defer to you but the current code is is what one per bedroom is that what the parking because that's going to restrict it was one and a half I thought it was 1.5 per bedroom it's it's 1.5 well so they're asking for one per dwelling in the sped so that's what would be required if that's what it's approved for current code it's two for a two two-bedroom unit it's one and a half for a one-bedroom so we would be saying 28 bedrooms and 31 parking spots correct I think that's a significant improvement from what it could be with the language currently in the Spud and we're happy and we're happy to make that a condition that we Revis the Spud to require no more than those number of bedroom units as described and a minimum of the 31 parking spaces you want to talk about open space while you're up here so I mean an urban open space in R4 is really geared towards your large garden style apartment complexes so you have 350 units you have community pools and Community Rec Centers they're really not geared towards Urban infill multif family uh think about the the Aberdine just down 15th Street not sure I've seen 40% open space on that site um the open space requirement because it's an R4 requirement doesn't differentiate between in the urban core and 122nd and Hepner Parkway where the Augusta apartment complex exists and of course when you have 400 units you need recreational facilities so we think that the amount of open space we've provided at this specific location is appropriate I agree with everything you just said I just feel a little concerned about the DraStic landscape changes and how that feels to everybody who came and spoke about it today so I think we're actually going to make the Landscaping incredibly better we're I mean obviously there is no Landscaping in this picture I mean it's just it's Bermuda grass kind of and mainly weeds uh that because it's summer they've been mowing down to look like grass uh we're going to landscape it and of course we'll have to come to HP for for all those things but we're going to landscape in a manner that is way more beautiful than it has ever been I mean like I said there was no Landscaping I guess you had some boxwoods up against the building but so if we want to make those changes on the on the parking and the side we just put that as one of our conditions yes that it would be not to exceed 28 bedrooms with a minimum all this is a staff comment that we often make kind of internally is when you have all apartments that are one bedroom that means you're not getting any families in that housing because of family is not going to choose to live in a dwelling with one bedroom um now that's I'm going Way Beyond what is HP historic preservation related I guess I would lean toward you all not getting that in the Weeds on number of bedrooms and being more General about we want to see the ratio of parking spaces to dwelling units increased we want to see the overall number of dwelling units reduced um and I don't know yeah and I think again I there are downsides to the limiting it to number of bedrooms yeah I I agree and I and I don't want to prescribe three bedroom one bedroom two-bedroom I think the concern that needs to be passed along uh is hearing the community's concern with forcing cars out onto the street so so the site needs to park the site and I think if we're asked we're asked for a recommendation to pass on and I think if we if we limit it I I don't think that's really the recommendation I think we listened and we understand the problems but it's going to be developed and we want to try to incorporate those in there I would just like to pass on those concerns and recommendations without limiting because I don't know that it's our position to limit it our position is to express those concerns um looks like we may have had another member of the public who wished to chime in sure David bigam again um yeah I was just goingon to say um I I hear some of you say say if you don't the height doesn't bother you that much I mean 40 40 foot tall building that goes all the way across is a lot bigger than what was there before if we care about what was there before right only part of that structure was two stories uh are that tall and that close to the street um so I personally a three-story building right next to some one story Bungalows it doesn't seem to fit at all um my brother-in-law was uh told he needed to push his he needed to make his front porch half the depth he wanted to be so that the setbacks were the same as the houses on either side wow you know so he had to do that now it's not that great of a porch anymore but that that was the rule these houses so again the Spud's asking for 5 foot relief on the requirements right of the setback I don't think you should do that I think the setback should match the existing structure there and if you wanted to send a number it's just going to be a number that the the next two groups here it's not going to be what gets done but I would say give a number that says you know you need you this needs to really consider the neighborhood it's in because that Hudson that's so wide and easy to drive down when I drove down it this morning there was a car on each side so guess what I had one place to go to get to the turn to turn out that's going to happen times 10 if you have this density so I would throw out a number of 16 units that would be a number that would get people thinking yeah this is a neighborhood with a bunch of single family homes all around it um so that's my two cents on that uh that's a lot more similar to what I would be willing to come come down on personally just because they're already asking for the R4 zoning change and then asking for the over and above the R4 just seems like you're they're just pushing the limits as far as as they can for the profit motivation and I think that we do have to it's it's a challenging thing because obviously no one has to follow our our recommendation and everything is going to come back to us again at the design level um but I am motivated by the slippery slope argument that people are making that what we say does matter and what the recommendation that we make does you know kind of rubber stamp that historic preservation commission is okay with this they have shown drawings it sure maybe it's not the actual drawings but I've seen them now I can't unsee them they've shown me the site triangle I can't unsee it um and so then saying that not only do we want to rezone to zoning that it did am I correct in saying that there is no R4 in Jefferson Park that's not accurate the South half of Jefferson Park is R4 okay there's there's a lot of R4 not in this immediate area is all R2 but there is R4 closer to 23rd Street and there is no R4 in edgmere park I would assume okay so I mean they're already asking for a rezone to develop something that I think the the neighborhoods would love to see developed in an appropriate fashion using the the mechanism of a spud just for the purpose of getting over and above that reone um I I am I would be amenable to saying I think that's a little bit of too big an ask at this point as for the historic preservation commission to to sign on for is where I'm leaning on it that was in short uh you know I could maybe get to R4 I can't get to R4 plus nine more units I think that probably if the ask was simply for what's defined with an R4 we probably wouldn't be hearing um quite so much commentary on it is my assumption I think it is kind of the exceptions above and beyond I I hear the arguments for why there're you know why it would be cool to go above and beyond but it seems like that's kind of the Crux of it is that things defined within R4 would probably be appropriate and fine and it would be a big change but it would be acceptable um I think it's this kind of above and beyond I think the um M working there we go um I think I want to hear um hear the community here and and I think the message is that um this project can't shift a burden off onto the community so whatever that number is and if it's R4 I I I think that that sounds reasonable um I do think from a massing standpoint and starting to establish those setbacks it is not uncommon so I do think 30th is an appropriate street it's got commercial from poo it's got um I mean it's a major sort of secondary thoroughfare that goes through there um it is not uncommon to punctuate the corner for for structure so I hear what you're saying on the setback and I agree with what you're saying um it shouldn't shoot out 20 feet 30 feet in front but if it punctuates a little bit I think that that's appropriate as well so instead of defining the unical we were at 27 moved to 24 they're at 16 what if we just split the difference and say 20 which is at the upper end of what the comprehensive plan calls for in terms of density in this designation um within the city but and then we don't Define the number of bedrooms would the comprehensive plan maximum be 19 mhm I think if you don't Define the number of bedrooms we're still going to run into the same issue because we're looking at the parking ratio so I think if you're at and we can still commit that it's that we have the 31 you know parking the reality is that the demand is for one-bedroom units James Cooper the councilman person for this ward has stated one bedroom units are what is needed in this part of the city we think that's where the biggest demand is so we believe we're going to be able to park the site with the 31 if not overpark it I mean I think you're right about the Demand right there I think that's exactly like who's going to want to live right there just thinking through it logically but if we don't clarify that recommend recommendation with language you know we could have 40 bedrooms instead of 20 I I also think that what it is likely James Cooper means when he's talking about one bed bedroom units might be priced at a lower level than what we would anticipate these to be priced at yeah um and therefore would be more likely to necessitate you know cohabitation what if we were to give a recommendation that said we won't exceed 20 and add the parking in then that's a pretty big compromise from where they were but we're not and still Express the concerns we have we would have those concerns as recommendations but because we we go back and forth all night if we don't you know we have to come up with a recommendation it's either going to be a number or just we want to make sure you address it I think 20 is they've come down a lot or or 19 which would be the plan OKC mandated number well you say mandated let's keep in mind plan OKC is a policy document puds and spuds are used I don't know I think I have 14 cases next Thursday at Planning Commission almost all of them are puds and spuds and almost every single one of them in some way seeks to vary some element of Base zoning that's what they do um if we say 20 units and every bedroom shall be required a parking spot we're happy to commit to that I think I would be comfortable moving towards a very big compromise I would be comfortable with that as a recommendation I would like to just real briefly touch on that um you know staff their other condition was a reduction in height how easy is it to get to that 35 ft I mean that's it seems like that could be a happy compromise here okay looks like maybe we have some more comments um anybody yeah we're going back and forth on specific numbers of units and number of bedrooms and number of parking spaces and I appreciate uh what I think commissioner Jordan said earlier that to say reduce the number of units and leave it at that and then you know the the developer reduces it by two would make a track you know a mockery of this entire process what was proposed by the developer 10 minutes later was that we reduce it by three instead of two so I'm not quite sure where the good faith here is in terms of this negotiation now we're at 20 units with one parking 20 one bedroom units with one parking space per bedroom so what happened to the 31 parking spaces 20 it was not a guarantee on the one bedroom was the last conversation 20 um 20 units with a parking space per bedroom so if there is a two-bedroom unit it would be two parking spaces my point is I believe that we're negotiating all in the very upper echelon of the density here and Beyond well beyond what is appropriate for the site so we're negotiating in an area that's already I speaking for myself not for the rest of the neighborhood they can speak for themselves but in an area that is already in unacceptable territory hi I just wanted to say we've gotten into this bedroom conversation and I think um while I can't speak to this conversation that you know you have with your your attorney I imagine it goes something like well how many units do you think you want well we' like to have 50 okay well we're going to ask for a 100 right so right now we're talking about one car per bedroom and I came up here again to say couples live in one-bedroom units so and especially if you're talking about upper end units roommates live together in a one-bedroom unit and so I just I wanted to caution everyone to say although it does seem like they're really working with us do we have to do all the work tonight in this meeting or can we just agree that it is a little too far gone and need some more work and they you know so that there's not so many bites of the Apple here tonight that we can do some more good work um unfortunately we don't have the ability to continue this and to hear it again so our recommendation has to go forward today whether it's to deny or to approve with conditions and so that is kind of yes if you were just wanting a new driveway we can see you three or four more times but um because we do have to issue a recommendation one way or another we can't hear it again so whatever we move forward with is our last say in it until they come for design okay well then I just you know um it it does seem like it's it's going to be really hard to figure out um how many cars could fit there with not knowing the number of you of you know bedrooms and not knowing um um how many how many people are going to live in that unit and it's I I just I I said this in my um emailed comments I just asked that like 17 of us go meet over there at the lot with our cars just to see what that looks like and I know that it happened over the holidays and that's unfortunate but um what we're seeing over there and what we see every day already without this development there is truly concerning truly um unsafe people speed down 30th you know cars are hit all the time on 30th um that are just visiting friends and neighbors it's the the traffic and the unknowns and the number of cars that this would bring is just you know continues to be a concern until we have those real numbers and I want to say that's a valid point about the co-occupation of a single bedroom which I presume is why city has one .5 per bed yeah um I have a question were we to not approve this to the Planning Commission it do we attach any kind of notes to that like are we in a situation where we have more input if we approve it than we than if we would deny it or not no not really you can forward on a recommendation of denial with findings of why you think it should be denied I think a simple way I think Katie and Angela have both stated that there are R4 over on 23rd Street which is part of Jefferson just none on the North side why don't we restrict it to R4 allow the developer to meet the R4 which is in Jefferson Park it's simple there's no lot of language for you to make a motion on meet R4 and R4 was 16 16 units 35 ft 40% open space neighboring setbacks so we can't meet R4 I mean again R4 is designed to be a Suburban style multif family development at 40% open space the setbacks it does not allow for what we think the site deserves so we have seen we have seen and recommended approval of a number of Spuds for properties that our zoned R for and you cannot build a historic style apartment under current R4 zoning because of the bulk regulations just as was said there are a variety of characteristics of that base zoning that don't work for the way we build in an urban neighborhood um I do think R4 as a reference point for Den it is relevant um but I I I do think they would have a problem getting something built on this site that the commission would think was a compatible um historically appropriate design under like a base R4 okay so just to summarize what I think we've heard in this last little segment of this discussion is that if we were going forward with 20 units we would also want to require the 1.5 spots per bedroom in a Rec recommendation and a 35t no one one one well that was what you said but just to kind of summarize like the followup conversation seems like they still are seeking and I do think that's ideal like if you could Pie in the Sky that's absolutely ideal to have plenty of parking right like nobody really wants anybody to be parking on Hudson or 30th it's certainly less than ideal and I think the requirement is 1.5 per one bedroom unit I think it's one per bed for to veter okay okay so is there language that states just to follow XYZ recommendations you could say I don't know how you would word that um and not to vary parking current parking requirements that the Spud not vary from current city of parking requirements yeah I mean that's the that's the summation of kind of what I'm hearing um you know as to whether planning says yes or no I don't know um but that's kind of my takeaway is that you know I think David was spot on that the conversation is not really about density it's about car density I wish we lived somewhere where it wasn't a piece of the puzzle but so is that how we're wanting to to craft this because I mean we're still I mean an impath on whether or not we're we're going to send a recommendation but say you've got to meet current parking regulations and or my opinion is that we do send a recommendation to approve and attach our conditions so that hopefully we're heard in those conditions I know you can attach them to a denial but I would I think the goal here is always to leave with a happy medium where you know everybody's had their input and we come up with something that serves all parties and is that based on units or parking I think there would be conditions that that uh relate to both okay but I I just it being 6:15 we've got to get to a point where we we we craft this language otherwise if we can't I mean this is a tough one res we know we know how tough this is but it's I mean I think that the two guidelines um you know that we have for density other than just kind of choosing something that we like are that our for would would allow for 16 and that plan OKC recommends and does not dictate a maximum of 19 those are the two metrics that some outside force that knows more about density than I do certainly not all of you guys have have have put into place I do want to really take into consideration Katie's input that are and David's that R for is not really intended for where this is and that's the closest thing that they can use to base a spud off of so if you know Katie is sitting here saying that that's not really going to be relevant I don't know that we should use the number 16 well so I think the the dwelling units per square footage per dwelling unit I think those metrics work I think to say 16 is a reasonable number for a site of this size I think that works it's the lot width minimum and the lot size minimum and all these other bulk RS that are in R4 that make it unwieldy for a for a 50 by 140 site but but even D I mean density even if you look at all the apartment units that exist in the core I mean they don't follow that R4 metric the the development of the core is meant to be more intense that's why it's in the core if you want Suburban Style devel velopment where you're you've got all your space go move out to Deer Creek I mean that's the core is meant to be more dense that's just the reality of it well David bam again I would just say that there are probably places in the corar where I totally agree with that but it's not in between a bunch of one story Bungalows uh for one thing uh but um I would be surprised I could be I could be wrong but I would be very surprised if whatever you recommend if you come up with a number that the group doesn't ask for more than that in the next couple of groups so really what you're doing is you're just saying from a historical preservation perspective this is what we think's appropriate and they're going to push for a lot more than that I guarantee it uh well I I feel confident I could be surprised by that but I feel confident so I would not go with a big number I kind of like the numbers that you mentioned you know the R4 would be 16 units the okay C plan would be 19 I would some language says like not to exceed those numbers uh and that we realize our four may not be appropriate in some areas but in terms of density and parking it is I can tell you this the the 1.5 for a single bedroom and a two for a two-bedroom there are going to be a lot more cars than that at times I mean people have friends over Super Bowl party stuff like that that's all going to have to find parking elsewhere anyway those so to to say you can go down to one in a neighborhood Hood that's already got full street parking that just seems crazy to me so but that's that's already a characteristic of the neighborhood I mean sure the woman that spoke her house that has a single car driveway I mean everybody that's lived in a historic neighborhood has played car ballet with their driveways I mean totally and that's why we park on the street so I want to be here we're putting though a lot of units in just a couple what were a couple of lots what you're describing happens you know in a one or a two or there are fours and eights in the neighborhood too so that happens um but here we're talking about it all happening with a lot of units in one little spot I know but I think it the developer saying that we would agree to 20 units and whatever we said 27 parking spots to me that's they're making an effort I mean I think they're making an effort when you come in a neighborhood where you already have that problem of parking and I think as people that live in historic neighborhoods we understand that um and I this is a a unique situation because everything to the east is very historic homes everything to the West gets more into commercial whether you're looking at on 30th Street they look like houses but they're not except for the one next door and then across the street to the north those are commercial properties so this is the buffer property and that's the problem is we're not going to be able to produce something that's small that's 105 units and everybody has three parking spots it's just if okay and the problem is if we want to keep a a empty lot there forever we can do that or we have to make a compromise to find something that'll work not not maximizing their profits but have to make it work to where it's financially feasible to do it I hear what you're saying that's the hard part it's uh if you well I heard it's secondhand so take it for what it's worth that somebody requested to go from a two-story to a three story in that commercial right across the street where the market is right now um and it was deny so wow now we're going to put a three story right across from this building where the three story was denied that was secondhand I'm not sure that you can take that for what it's worth uh but again I just I suspect this is going to get you know whatever you recommend is not this is going to be the beginning it's not going to be where it ends up so I would would to go on the low number you're right because from an HP standpoint that's probably what's appropriate so might CH thank you so on that note it sounded like we were coalescing around a motion to recommend approval with I think everyone was comfortable with the findings in the staff Report with the condition that the applicant reduced the maximum number of dwellings to with parking spaces of at least x per units I wrote not to exceed or sorry parking um I have too many notes right here um I just wrote that parking should um at a minimum meet City of Oklahoma City parking minimums per unit so if we said 19 or 20 whatever but if we said that and said it it meets the current parking codes me yeah that works I mean in my opinion that's all you can really ask for at a multif family site like I think anybody else is going to come along and say that no matter what I think it comes down to the amount of units we recommend to move forward is that way off from what you were proposing yeah I mean units I mean we wouldn't propose the the one and a half but we're happy to go home and have dinner it's a start so did we want to put a cap on the height in there I think we 40 to they said that they could very easily come down to 35 they C willing to do 35 ft 35 yeah just be aware that when you cap the 35 when you go from 40 down to 35 um you're probably driving like a flat roof solution versus a we just went from 40 to 35 correct that's what I mean yeah like it's going to be a challenge if there the attempt is to get a three-story building with a gabled roof like what was kind of shown when you cap that down to 35 ft you're probably I mean the project we just looked at was 35t and it was twostory with a pitched roof and they were chopping the giving it a haircut to I mean honestly a lot of the multi family are flat roof I don't know that I would necessarily be offended by that um it's fairly in keeping with the character yeah so three stor is three story it's that 5 foot buffer is in roof just to be something to review in a few months at 625 on Wednesday my recommendation my my support would be to 20 follow the parking guidelines the rest recommendations I'm not in favor of capping the height but going down five feet because I think it's just going to change the architectural design of it they're all conceptual at this point anyway I mean we saw how drastically that proposal on 15th changed from its you know presid presentation at its Spud hearing to today so in my opinion it's fairly irrelevant I mean we have no idea what this is really going to look like is that an acceptable proposal are you making it did you okay I mean I would still say cap the height but make a motion okay I will make a motion um for Spud 01 581 uh with the recommendation to limit the units to 20 and to follow the current Oklahoma City guidelines on parking as a recommendation and include um the findings from staff I'll a second I'm sorry I have a question was one of the specific findings a reduction in height or was that a condition because now it's I can't see it right it was a recommend amended possible condition okay but was not included okay the motion has passed so um Katie do you know I'm sure they want to know exactly when it goes to planning and how that works January 11th yep so it's scheduled for January 11th unless there's further delay okay I was looking here we go my talking points okay um let's see so that brings the other business um section to a close and we are moving on to Communications and reports um we do have a lot of administrative approvals so no action needed there couple of withdrawals no action needed on those um nothing to report under administrative closings or city council we did have the denial of the appeal of the church at 25th in chartel um uh or the denial of the demolition of the church at 25th in chartel has been appealed and we'll go to board of adjustment on February 1st um staff will go and respond to any questions they have about the commission's discussion um that the public can attend that meeting as well um nothing to report under Planning Commission Municipal counselor okay um let's see our next meeting date is February 6 3D February 7th how about that uh 2m um let's see next regular sorry I didn't know I supposed to read that the next regularly scheduled meeting for the historic preservation commission is Wednesday February 7th at 2m at the municipal building city council chamber new applications for this meeting will received January 2nd new information on projects contined from today's meeting to the upcoming meeting must be submitted to staff by 4M Tuesday January 9th 2024 okay any items from Commissioners great job today everybody we're a small But Mighty group today were werey record on time um it was a record on time and we were moving so expediently until like items 11 and 12 and then this wer um I would just one item from I mentioned this last month I do feel really strongly that we need to get those workshops public and subcommittees on the books because you know today we saw another solar that potentially could have been addressed I well just very quickly I will say we have a number of other ordinance amendments not HP related but within our division that we are juggling right now that have kind of Taken precedent over some of our workshops so that's just a Katie workload thing okay that's not um but those are moving along so I think we can get focused back on the commission guideline I just feel like we owe it to them to see that no I agree and I think we made really good progress and I don't want to have that fall off um citizens to be heard anybody

As found on YouTube

Contact Us