okay good afternoon welcome to the May historic preservation Commission meeting and thank you for joining us today and thank you for your patience we have Quorum we're going to get started uh my name is John Milner and I'm chair of the historic preservation commission we do have a full agenda and it's always our goal to get everyone out of here in a timely manner as a reminder please limit individual conversations during the meeting this ensures commission members and applicants can hear one another please remain quiet until you were called upon when you speak at the podium please state your name and address for our records before the commission votes on each item I will ask if any members of the public wish to speak speakers are given three minutes to relay information to commission members please be thorough but also mindful of your time the agenda and documents for today's meeting are located on the prg site if you're following online select agenda on the right side of the historic preservation commission meeting to see items being discussed written comments received more than 24 hours before today's meeting are posted online and were shared with commission members at this point new materials may not be shared with commission so if you brought handouts examples with you please keep them at your seat as we cannot accept and review I repeat we cannot accept new information to review in today's meeting that was not submitted previously uh can we get a roll call please present Jordan present Ry present Whitley present mcbry present and apologetic have okay we have Quorum uh thank you procedure for today's meeting are note in the agenda for anyone unfamiliar with the process please refer to the procedure section uh okay there are two items we like to note specifically regarding this meeting process these items involve certificate of appropriateness and appeals on certificates of appropriateness after an application is approved and the 10-day protest period expire the historic preservation officer will mail the certificate of appropriateness to the applicant City Construction tments 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 appeal to board of adjustments any person agreed by decision granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness May appeal to the Oklahom City Board of adjustments all appeals shall be made within 10 days of the commission decision by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the board of adjustments uh Katie any news from the office of the historic preservation officer um I just wanted to report out that we do have a this is not in your agenda but we have a a workshop scheduled for May 8th um that we will have a speaker to talk about window um restoration repair maintenance preservation and kind of what to look for what to think about if you do have to replace your windows um we have sent an invite specifically to the commission and to neighborhood association Representatives um both kind of neighborhood officers and uh your um historic preservation Review Committee Representatives so it will be um there will be potential for a quorum of the HP commission which means it has to be a public meeting so anyone is welcome to attend but in particular if you are in those two categories of a commission member or neighborhood association representative we would love to hear from you to know that you're attending um because we would like to feed you and we want to have enough food so um just please take a look at your calendar look at that email and let us know um before the end of the week if you plan to attend that Workshop next week okay thank you next up acceptance of minutes have Commissioners had a chance to review the minutes from the April 3rd meeting if so do we have any questions or perhaps a motion to accept or modify I will motion to accept motion by commissioner Jordan we have a second second second by commissioner Whitley all Commissioners please vote in Prime go okay minutes have been accepted and approved Katie anything from code enforcement nothing uh particular to note on the code enforcement report as always if there are items there that you have questions about or items that you think should be there and they are not um feel free to contact staff uh either HP staff or the action center for more information okay do we have any continuance announcements or requests we do not have any um previously reported continuance requests and we did not have any new requests come in after the um agenda went out okay uh number six public hearings we do have an item under public hearings so um we do have an item under public hearings as a dilapidated structure unfortunately we have one commission member who um will need to recuse on the item which means we will not have Quorum uh we do anticipate one other commission member um being here so we are G to just kind of bump this one on down the agenda for a little bit until we hear from him whether he is going to be able to attend um if if we don't end up getting a quorum for that item then we will have to delay it to the next meeting I'm very sorry for the folks who came specifically to hear that item and speak on that item but we unfortunately can't take action if we don't have um a quorum present so we will with that said move on down the line to the next agenda item the consent docket okay and there are no National register nominations corre correct okay uh consent docket it appears we do have one item on the consent docket we and this just to um why it's on consent docket even though it's a brand new house this was already approved before the ca has expired and um they are still working so they have come back to get a new ca for exactly what was already approved appr okay um so that's a a vote to approve the consent docket yeah Commissioners do we have a motion to approve the consent docket today I will motion to approve the consent docket okay we've got a motion to approve by commissioner Remy do we have a second I will second second by commissioner Jordan all other Commissioners please vote in Prime go okay item on the consent docket was approved next up we'll go to cases for individual consideration I believe we have nine so let's get started with number one hpca d24 d007 at 3233 North Harvey Parkway this is in edgmere park word two it's consideration and possible action on application by Brandon Westbury for certificate of appropriateness to to one remove back patio walls and stoop elective two construct raised patio with walls and lighting counters and mechanical equipment elective and three construct attached perola with cover fans light fixtures elective um this is replacing an existing though presumably non-historic um sorry lost my microphone um this is to replace an existing brick patio at the rear of the house um staff has recommended approval of the um removal of the patio and construction of the new raised patio um we recommended um approval with conditions of the attached pergola noting that it should be freestanding rather than attached to the historic house and that documentation of the fixtures fan um lighting Etc needed to be submitted to staff okay thank you Katie is the applicant present the applicant is not present Commissioners do we have any questions or comments on this item um I don't I I agree with staff's findings so in the absence of an applicant we could approve items one and two and continue item three to give them an opportunity to respond to those um comments okay I would be in favor of that if you guys are comfortable with it okay um so for hpca 24- z007 I would motion to approve items one and two with the specific findings in the staff report okay we've got a motion to approve do we have a second a second we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime goov okay um regarding the same um same hbca number I would motion to continue item three with the specific findings and additional information noted in the staff report to the um let's see what is it juneth is sorry let me double check I think it's June 5th it be June 5th June 5th meeting we've got a motion to continue and a second Commissioners please vote in Prim go okay items one and two of hpca d247 have been approved and item three has been continued to the June 5th meeting okay thank you next up number two we have hpca d24 000020 at 928 Northwest 25th Street Katie what can you tell us about this project this is Ino word two consideration and possible action on application by Daniela laara custom pro roofing and solar for Wayne Richards for certificate of appropriateness to one install solar um I think the commission has seen this property once before they have revised the proposal to locate the solar entirely on the um um fat flat or very shallow sloped roof of the detached garage at the rear um based on staff's assessment that that will not be visible or would be very minimally visible above the edge of the roof we have recommended approval of that with the condition that the mechan mechanical equipment be screened um I would add if not screened relocated to a place on the structure where it can be screened this photo shows where their existing electrical mechanical equipment is um which is where they would prefer to also connect the solar but that is fully visible from the street um so that that screening would need to be um designed and documented and submitted to staff okay is the applicant present okay please step forward and please state your name and address um my address yes uh David herder uh 13510 Fox Hollow Ridge okay Oker city thank you thank you okay you can talk about the project okay um the place we have to put within 10 foot of the meter the equipment um um and I can either run one line um of flex to the patio back I can go up high under the eve where it's concealed or down low to get it to one feed to connect the panels to it okay um I feel really comfortable with staff meeting with the applicant to discuss how to appropriately conceal the equipment so if everybody else does I mean great job moving the panels and I think that's a really really happy solution so if y'all are comfortable with that I would do we need to ask if anyone wants to speak oh yes sorry I know we okay thank you you can sorry it felt so uncomplicated there for a minute I know like okay yeah let's do it uh do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item okay please state your name and address zel Gibson 920 Northwest 25th and what I'd like to know about that is how they are um camouflaging the panels so we aren't seeing it in the neighborhood especially since I live right there I mean I understand on top of the garage but what about the panels of like you were saying um is there a drawing that we can see I don't think they have to be camouflaged given their new location but um you know because we have been encouraging those to be on Accessory structures and this certainly qualifies for that as well as the flat roof component but do you mean the electrical panels or the solar panels themselves both so the the condition of the approval would be that they screen the electrical equipment um or that they install it in such a way that it can't be seen from the street we don't have documentation of that yet but they would have to submit that to staff before we would issue the ca so that would be available once we have those revised drawings from them as far as the solar panels um how far up are they going to be so they won't be seen from the street well they're on a backs sloping roof so if you're on the street it's they're going to be lower than the highest point on the roof so you wouldn't be seeing it just standing on the street I mean can see it from my backyard though you can see the the roof of their garage I believe so so I believe the way the guidelines are written is that it's from um you know a public right of way okay so from a public right of way they're not going to be visible so we have tried to you know really work hard on creating some standards for which people can install solar um you know in a lot of parts of the city where it's not just sticking out on a front slope um facing the Street or a sidewalk or a park but I think this would meet all the applicable design standards in its new location I'm I'm sorry I'm trying to scroll to the actual drawings from the applicant and my computer is thinking very hard um and there should have been letters of protest on this yes the Comm we did receive a letter and that is attached in um the um meeting materials um the panels are about about 9 in above the surface of the roof um but will be parallel to the roof if that makes sense and um either the applicant or um Daryl might be able to speak to how far will they have to be inset from the edge of the roof so they'll be Set uh three feet from the edge of the roof there's a mandatory setback uh so that in case their fire needs uh fire department needs to get up there they have that set back or just to walk to have maintenance but it'll be set back from the Edge by 3 ft so with that distance back from the edge of the roof and it being you know a relatively low profile above the roof we don't believe you'll be able to see it from the ground looking okay you know from the street okay at it yeah I just had questions about that and then panels and so forth so yeah sure okay thank you thank you do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item I will make a motion to um approve hpca 2420 uh with specific findings and the condition that the applicant submits documentation um showing the mechanical equipment screen okay we've got a motion to approve do we have a second I'll second okay we've got a second Commissioners please cast your votes in Prime goov yeah it my I think that was actually seconded by commissioner Jordan do we need to note that thank you okay next up we have hpca d2432 at 704 Northwest 28th Street Katie what can you tell us about this project so this is in B we consideration and possible action on application by Tom Tran for certificate of appropriateness to one replace all windows required two stucco brick required and three paint remaining brick required um this is a property that has changed hands um several times uh in kind of quick succession and um a fair amount of work has already been done to the structure um the applicant has proposed to replace all windows um but we have recommended continuance of that because the propos proposed replacement windows do not meet the guidelines for window replacement um they've also proposed to stucco and paint the brick where it has not already been painted and we have recommended denial of that um that is uh something that guidelines did not support and we did not see justification for that treatment in this case okay thank you Katie is the applicant present don't believe the applic is present Commissioners do we have any questions comments I mean I completely agree with the staff report so I would be inclined to vote along those lines okay we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item hi please state your name and address Tammy Donell 601 Northwest 27 thank you you're becoming as frequent as Marva I know I'm sorry I own a house down uh in the 600 block on 28th this house has been in Decline for a long time so I just please don't let him stucko the exterior it could be such a nice little looking little house and has such character but unfor unfortunately there's a lot of camouflaging and patching and all kinds of stuff so just I just re hope you can make them do the right thing so that's all thank you thank you any other members of the public wish to speak on this item there being none Commissioners do we have a motion um sure for let's see hpca 24-32 I motion to continue item one with the specific findings in the staff report to the June 5th meeting okay we' guess that's it for that one sorry yeah that's right I'll second we've got a motion to continue by commissioner Jordan we've got a second by commissioner Remy Commissioners please cast your votes in Prime goov okay number one on that item has been continued to the June 5th commission hearing okay do we have a motion on the other two items yeah regarding the same hbca number I would motion to deny items two and three with prejudice noting the specific findings in the staff report okay we've got a motion to deny one and two we've got a second by commissioner Remy all yeah let's Commissioners let's vote in Prime go okay on that item two and three appears has been denied with prejudice okay thank you next item up we've got hpca d2434 at 700 Northwest 14th Street Katie tell us about this project yes um so before we talk about this one I um sorry I've been communicating with a commission member who um will be here at 3:30 so we can hear that one item at 3:30 that we otherwise do not have forum for if then hold on for that well we just make our way through keep going until we get to that point okay thank you for the update Katie acceptable yeah Rita yes okay okay um 700 Northwest 14th uh Heritage Hills word six consideration and possible action on application by Shane leth Cornerstone architecture for Anna Davis for a certificate of appropriateness to one construct accessory building with brick couns chimney and appliances the commission heard this um a month a month ago and um continued it with the request that some revisions be made to the design the applicant has made those changes as discussed and um we have recommended approval with the condition that uh they use architectural grade shingles for the roof and some specifications pertaining to the lighting um in the structure and those are both things that can just be submitted to staff for confirmation okay Katie thank you is the applicant present welcome pleas guys please state your name and address Shane leth 3241 Southwest 93rd Street okay thank you and uh since our last uh meeting we uh met with multiple members of The Heritage Hills design committee and uh we discussed our concerns and or their concerns and our design goals and we redesigned the roof and good news is uh the committee really liked it and the resulting design We Believe will be a really nice addition to the Davis property in the neighborhood and happy to answer any questions okay thank you Commissioners do we have any comments or questions for the applicant I think it's lovely I like it Sarah likes it I think it's really cute I I think it's much um much more appropriate for the historic neighborhood so I am overall I mean I read the neighborhood comments that it's maybe a little bit taller than usual but I those are those are awfully tall houses over there as well and it does AB but kind of a transitional District so um no issues for me any other comments by Commissioners I agree I um I think you clearly worked hard to incorporate our comment and the concerns of the neighborhood association and I agree with commissioner Jordan that this um fits in with the historic context um um a lot better so I am fully on board okay let me ask for public comments do we have anybody from the public here that wishes to speak on this item okay it appears there's none Commissioners do we have a motion uh I will make a motion for hpca 24-34 to approve item one uh with a specific finding and unique circumstances uh noted in the report um with the condition that U the applicant provide um cut sheet for the architectural grade shingles and that um color spectrum of the can lights will be limited to Golden okay we've got a motion to approve do we have a second I'll second there we go I think it was commissioner Bri she was first hey we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime go okay that item has been approved thank you thank you guys okay next up we have hpca 24-38 1525 class and drive this is inh Heritage Hills w six consideration and possible action on application by Jeff Blake gers Blake for Victoria Tracy for certificate of appropriateness to one construct Dormer on rear roof elective and two install skylight on rear roof elective um fun fact this is not the second but the third time that they've applied for this exact CA and it's been approved exactly like this twice before um so we did recommend approval um it's just taken some time to get this project uh completed um the one condition that we did have um some of the window documentation that we had from the original approval those exact window types um have kind of changed their documentation and some of their specs so we wanted to add a condition that the glass will be clear glass not colored transparent Etc as the guidelines require and staff can work through that with the applicant to make sure we get what we need okay thank you Katie is the applicant present okay the applicant is not present Commissioners comments questions I have none it's very pretty and seems appropriate okay do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item I don't believe we do Commissioners do we have a motion sure um regarding hpca 24- 000038 I motion to approve approve items one and two with the unique circumstances and conditions noted in the staff report as well as the agreed upon condition that the glass will be transparent and that that documentation will be submitted to staff okay we've got a motion to approve by commissioner Jordan do we have a second second seconded by commissioner Remy Commissioners please cast your vote in Prime go okay that item has been approved thank you next item hpca d24 000041 at 500 Northwest 15th Street this is in Heritage Hills W 6 consideration of possible action on application by Laura Russell AIA for Gary Derek for certificate of appropriateness to one replace wood deck with brick and concrete deck two replace stairs at rideway elective and three install handrail elective um uh staff has has recommended approval um with of the replacement of the deck with the brick and concrete deck this is at the rear of the house and attaches to an existing um previously constructed addition staff did recommend um approval with conditions of the installation of the stairs uh that it re it um may increase in width if necessary but that it retain the um squared off configuration of the existing stairway rather than Fanning out to create a curved um stair uh so those were the only that was the only issue with the application in staff's review okay I'm guessing you're the applicant I okay I am state your name and address uh Gary Derek we're at 500 Northwest 15th okay um if if I might say a few words about the uh replacement of the front steps and and the curved uh piece that uh what we had hoped to do in that situation was to reiterate uh a very common design Motif that's a feature of of the house also a feature of the back wall uh in the garage apartment um it's from our perspective a very subtle change uh but one that's consistent with the overall design of the house uh we don't think it it it's significant enough that detracts from the house itself uh there's still a presence there um but I would also note that in terms of the right angles uh that are there now uh those right angles are not a feature of the cape Dutch design of of the house uh which emphasizes the curves and so forth it's part of what makes it unique and um with the commission's consideration we we'd ask that uh you approve the the use of that Motif thank you okay thank you uh Commissioners do you have any questions or comments for the applicant it appears there are none yeah I'm not personally bothered by um matching the motif of the house as is um I agree that I think you know squaring things off might even detract a little bit from the fun of the cape Dutch design so I personally would be fine with approving as was submitted but I'm open to hearing other committee members and those curves are subtle very subtle I don't even know if you tell from the street I'm comfortable with it as well you know unless staff feels extremely strongly that there's a reason um we shouldn't deviate there um I think in staff's evaluation is we have no reason to believe that this is not a historic or original feature and the guidelines talk about preserving the original historic features and configurations of our properties both on the buildings and in the right of way when we look up and down the blocks in our neighborhoods typically um um houses might have more elaborate stairways at the front porch but those yard steps from the public sidewalk to the walkway are typically squared off and simple um where there's a retaining wall it's a clean turn um so um if we are diverting from what's existing and what's presumed to be the historic condition we typically aren't going to support that without a lot of justification for going with a different design feature and and I would also say that typically we don't see a whole lot of um design related correlation between those front steps and the house there might be a lot of elaboration at the house in the porch um other stairs leading in and out of the yard but not at that public sidewalk those are usually pretty simple in in design and form so so for the applicant just a question does that change you know if we're not able to approve the um changing of those first four steps does does that impact your project tremendously um you know is that kind of is that the hill to die on or is it the the remainder no that's not a hill on which we' die I totally hear what staff is saying and I do understand that it sets a precedent you know that's a particularly kind of ornate section of the neighborhood where you do see a little bit of um a little bit more flare but I would support staff um you know sticking to the rules on that one that was goingon to be my question though is if this could be considered a unique circumstance is because this is one of our more elaborate houses in the neighborhood and it's the only Cape Dutch design in the neighborhood and because there is so much ornamentation on the house if just bringing a little bit out to the front of the yard if it's really like is that going to make or break the whole say I think it's if we use that as a unique circumstance while I am certainly not opposed to it here it's a little bit of a slippery slope in terms of what anybody else is going to say about their own architectural style and how it should be reflected up to the public right of way um I mean if it's not a deal breaker for the applicant and if staff feels strongly about it I'd be inclined to vote along the lines of the staff report um even though I personally think it would be very pretty I I think that um yeah I my concern would be that we have lots of very ornate houses and lots of unique architectural Styles in the neighborhood and um so those circumstances I think we could see repeated over and over um in different you know that everyone would say well I'm the only XYZ style in the neighborhood and I have a grand and elaborate home so you know what I mean if that makes sense all right you got me okay Commissioners any other questions for the applicant if not I'm going to ask if there's any members of the public that would like to speak on this item saw we had a letter of recommending approval from the Heritage Hills Association note that thank you Commissioners thank you okay I don't believe we have anybody from the public that wishes to speak Commissioners do we have a motion on this item uh yeah for hpca 24- 000041 I make a motion to um approve item one with the specific findings noted in the staff report and approve items two and three with the specific findings and conditions noted in the staff report including the agreed upon condition oh yes sorry with the agreed upon conditions that they match the steps uh to the existing right angles and um they work with staff to make sure that the railings are appropriate uh for the historical fabric of the neighborhood okay we've got a motion to approved do we have a second I'll second okay we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime go okay that item has been approved with conditions thank you okay next up we have hpca d24 000043 at 2121 Northwest 27th Street this is in Shepard War 2 consideration of possible action on application by Jonathan King per perfect my home for Peter marks for certificate of appropriateness to one replace garage elective um staff recommended approval of this with a condition that the applicant reduced the size of the proposed garage to match the size of the previously existing garage that was recently approved for demolition um applicant has sent over some revised drawings just today um in response to that condition but I think wanted to talk through um the proposed size versus the reduced size with the commission before agreeing to that um staff also wanted to note that kind of running on a SE on a parallel track to the garage Demolition and new proposal was the administrative approval of a swimming pool and that is not fully captured in your staff report um we do have photos of it and it is shown on the site plan um associated with this project but your lot coverage information um is not reflective of um the recently installed swimming pool okay Katie thank you uh is the applicant present okay please state your name and address uh my name is Peter Marcus I'm the homeowner at 2121 Northwest 27th Street Oklahoma City 73107 okay thank you and our initial uh approval to demolish the garage was uh both its condition but also to make it deeper for modern vehicles um the example I gave in that approval was that if my wife were to get the newest Highlander it wouldn't actually fit because it's six inches longer um so just to have a a safer garage our initial proposal that you may have in front of you was to expand it by four feet deeper which of course would be much more than needed um in response to uh um the staff request we sent over a design that actually makes the garage narrower and uh a a benefit there is that the garage is no longer also serving as a fence with our neighbors um so there would be an actual wood fence and then a small sidewalk between the garage and the fence by making it narrower it allows us to make it deeper and uh still fit within the square footage actually uh decreasing the square footage by 10 square ft if we can have it the uh original width the 26 it's actually 26 A2 inch and then uh make it Deeper by any amount over six Ines that's of course our preference but uh we would love to also have this approved whatever that takes okay Commissioners any questions or comments for the applicant um I this is is probably more for staff but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly so in the conditions it states that you would like him to show a garage footprint matching the historic garage that he can't get his car into so I think um probably a way to restate that would be to match the um square footage of the historic garage match or be less than but if the if it gets narrower and longer I don't think staff has a problem with that it doesn't have to be a perfect replication of what's there now and just to make sure I'm understanding those revisions that were made today those have accomplished that or have not 24 by 20 does accomplish that y the I apologize I'm so sorry I actually haven't seen them so but yes we we have the revisions um they are smaller than the previously existing garage they are within the area of the footprint um so that those would match that condition would that have been administratively approved or on the consent docket if it had been submitted that way the first it very well might have been on the consent docket yeah well then I would certainly motion to approve it if I may offer an additional um the garage itself is actually oversized um per the the historic preservation code because initially it was a living quarters separate square footage of a garage now it's all just one single building uh well and now it's in the land pH um but uh so that's why the size of it really is seems like a a moot issue especially considering you wouldn't see the expanded size from the street making it deeper and keeping it at the 26 foot width okay thank you one thing I will add it looks like the second condition was that the applicant confirms proposed Cloud material it's not vinyl but I'm seeing on his drawings that that's called out is uh concrete fiberboard sighting is that accurate uh clad in concrete fiber board yes okay I mean yeah that's fine I'm just I think now we don't need to do either of the conditions right should we do we need to word something regarding the revised application or do we just leave it alone I mean we we're not really voting to approve exactly what's here so the um with the agreed upon condition that theion is that it's to match the size the square foot match or be less than the square footage of the historic garage um and then I would leave the condition regarding the cladding material just so that we can confirm that we have what we need for to go into the um certificate of appropriateness regarding that I mean we verbally confirmed but just so we make sure we have the appropriate documentation okay thanks on that I only included that condition because I think as one of the elevation drawings it mentioned vinyl sighting so I just wanted to be absolutely clear that there wasn't going to be any vinyl sighting but that was just the confusion and that's why there's that condition than thank you oh it sure does say that sounds like it won't hurt anyone to leave it there either if you've already satisfied it so okay okay do we have any members of the public that which to speak on this item okay Commissioners do we have a motion for this item sure um hbca 24- 000043 I motion to approve item one with the um agreed up with the specific findings in the staff report and the agreed upon conditions that the overall square footage is equal to or less than the historic garage and that the applicant confirms that all proposed cladding materials is not vinyl and is compliant with the guidelines okay we've got a motion to approve the conditions do we have a second a second we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime go okay that item has been approved with conditions thank you next item hpca d24 d44 at 225 Northwest 27th Street this is in Jefferson Park W two consideration and possible action on application by Efren Laura for Maria claraval for certificate of appropriateness to one construct addition to portica share required um it's required because the work has been initiated um staff did not recommend um approval on this item we have some pretty clear guidelines about um the preservation of historic um portica shares and the addition of portica shares where they did not exist historically um I believe we recommended a um continuance on this to allow for the applicant to make revisions come up with an alternate plan for trying to accomplish um trying to meet their needs um my understanding is that the applicant was not going to be present today um that we heard from them that they would not be here but so staff recommended continuance okay and is the applicant present Katie you would be correct it appears the applicant is not present today Commissioners do you have any comments or questions on this item well I do but there's nobody here to really ask them of so I would um say let's just continue it it's not going to be approved today seemingly okay do we have a motion to continue this item I will motion to continue hpca 2444 until the June 5th cor meeting okay we've got a motion to continue this item to the June 5th commission hearing do we have a second that we have a second Commissioners please vote in Prime goov okay that item has been continued to the June 5th commission hearing okay number nine hpca d2445 at 601 Northwest 21st Street Katie tell us about this project this is in mea Park w six consideration and possible action on application by Christy Miller for Daniel Daniels for certificate of appropriateness to one install retaining wall and infill elective and two install fence elective so this is a corner property with a rolling Terrace at the front and side yard they are proposing to um run a retaining wall down the length of the side yard and across the um maybe maybe not across the front I might not be remembering that correctly but down the sidey yard to kind of level out that sidey yard make it flat and have a retaining wall with a fence on top um we have recommended continuance uh the guidelines are pretty clear about retaining walls in front and side yards were visible from the street that they should only be used where they were present historically to preserve um the slope of the yard and should not be installed where they didn't historically exist um so we did recommend continuance with the request of the applicant provide either a revised proposal or um justification via historic documentation unique circumstances etc for the proposed retaining wall okay Katie thank you is the applicant present y you may step forward come to the mic and please state your name and address my name is Daniel Daniels and I live at 601 Northwest 21st Street okay great you can tell us about your project uh we've just lived there a few months but I've already found that to mow that particular Hill is not fun uh the house beyond our house right there has a retaining wall on it as well um I think we've got a picture of it beyond the blue car there to the back right there and we are proposing one similar to continue on it also whenever it rains it wases dirt out of our yard into the street right there and we thought with a small retaining wall it would catch that and drain properly okay Commissioners do you have any questions for the applicant on this project I don't have any particular questions I mean you know we do have some some slopes like that throughout the neighborhood um especially in mad and Heritage I would say but without any signs of like structural deflection that's being caused by the yard washing out I you know I would kind of find it hard to do just as a convenience item for mowing though I certainly understand it um I've got one too so I I hear that but um I don't know that I could could get there without some urgency yeah unfortunately I I don't know that the guidelines support it it's a alteration to the kind of public right away although I understand wanting to have a larger backyard and privacy and there's a lot of personal reasons why you'd want it I just don't know it's that it's supported any other comments or questions commission I have a question for uh for shaff okay uh I was wondering why this was recommended for continuance instead of denial with breest so we General we try to at least give people you know another up to bat kind of opportunity um we do know there are retaining walls throughout the neighborhood um in yards we know there are um retaining walls that have been removed historically so if they had documentation that the retaining that there had been a retaining wall there historically perhaps or if there were other unique circumstances that they could document to justify a retaining wall that would be a reason to continue it and bring it back to a future meeting so I guess the question for the applicant would be um is is there a a modification to the existing application that you would like to make if given more time or uh an attempt to find more historic documentation to maybe support uh uh extenuating circumstance uh such as uh like a former like a sandborn map or a former uh record that would have shown a retaining wall at that location I I doubt there is one I I doubt too also there concrete post all through that hill but used to be fences and other things and so I would I would guess just by by the slope there that nothing was done so I think those are the the options that the commission's considering is either denying it and saving you the time and effort of having to come back for something that's similar to what you have versus do you want to modify it to get it more in line with the guidelines uh does anybody have any options that will work for that to keep my dirt in the backyard instead of letting it run out into the street sta would staff had any comments on that on what he's asking on on dirt runoff or um I think we'd probably need to have some more conversations about the what your backyard how your backyard is set up if there are other elements that could be added if there are Landscaping um installations that could be helpful with that kind of runoff um but staff's happy to sit and discuss other options so if you wanted to take the continuance um and we could do it for two months if it's for one month you have to turn right around and have document new documentation us we so we could continue to the July I think it's July 3rd meeting um and kind of give you some time to consider other options and work with staff on um what other things we could do that would help with those issues you're having okay thank you that work for you continuing to what and what's the DAT July July 3 July 3rd okay okay okay do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item and the neighborhood association did write a letter uh concurring with a uh continuance okay okay Commissioners do we have a motion uh I will make a motion for hpca 24- z45 uh to continue to the July 3rd meeting second okay we've got a motion to continue [Music] we've got a second Commissioners please cast your vote in Prime COV okay that item has been continued to the July I'm sorry is it 3D said July 3rd commission hearing okay thank you okay that gets us through individual items for consideration next up we're going to go into other business so we'll start with a bo-1 15599 at 305 Northwest 25th Street um this is Jefferson Park word two consideration and possible action on an application by a listed dire for recommendation to board of adjustment regarding a special exception for Home Sharing as you can see we have a whole batch of these um so I'm going to make my home sharing speech one time and then and not every repeated time um all of these are in districts that have an HL overlay so the HP Provisions that you have to be on site at the time of ryal that it has to be your primary residence don't apply in these neighborhoods but because this is not the applicant's primary residence they're required to get a special exception and special exceptions have to come to HP for a recommendation um we have not seen any indication on this app proposal that they would be doing anything to the property that would be inconsistent with the historic preservation guidelines or would adversely affect the district so we did recommend a recommendation of approval okay is the applicant present yes okay my name is Alyssa Dyer and your address uh 1316 South Young's Boulevard okay do you have any comments on this item before the commission I don't remember if it's so my application today is for 305 and 305 and a half which is upstairs one of those had a note from a neighbor that essentially said hey I'm okay with this being approved just make a note about the parking across the street not being available for the Airbnb guests totally great with that I already updated the listings online but beyond that no comment okay and yes this is an existing duplex um and the way the special exceptions are structured they have to do two applications so they have two boa numbers even though it's the same building one for each unit um and boa often includes those kinds of um requirements and restrictions on parking in their uh review of an approval of these cases so I don't think the commission needs to include anything um specific regarding the parking unless you just are compelled to do so um but Board of adjustment usually addresses that okay Commissioners any questions for the applicant okay thank you we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item okay no members of the public have comments Commissioners do we have a motion on this I don't remember exactly how to word this although we're about to get some practice but um I think I motion to recommend a recommendation of approval to the board of adjustment with regard to uh boa 15599 did we get that right yes perfect got a recommended approval do we have a second second okay Commissioners please vote in Prime goov okay that item is yeah recommended approval on that first item okay next up bo-1 15627 at 305 and half Northwest 25th Street so this is um Miss dy's other unit in the duplex so same story um staff has recommended a recommendation of approval okay do you have any additional comments no okay Commissioners any questions on this one okay no we have a motion I motion to recommend approval for boa I wait okay motion to recommend approval for um boa 1562 s okay we've got a motion to recommend approval do we have a second second okay we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime gu okay we have a recommended approval on that item as well thank you thank you okay our next item up bo-1 15629 at 819 Northwest 24th Street this is poo War Two consideration and possible action on application by Richard eing to request a recommendation to the board of adjustment regarding an application for special exception to allow for Home Sharing um again this is in an HL overlay the application appears to meet all applicable requirements and does not appear to be having an uh you know any sort of adverse effect on the structure or the surrounding District so staff did provide a recommendation for a recommendation of approval okay great uh is the applicant present yes sir okay please state your name and address yeah my name is Richard aing my address is 2627 Northwest 55th Terrace okay and do you have any comments on this uh item start second time to go through this we've uh we did the last year just trying to renew the license okay okay Commissioners any questions for the applicant I motion to recommend approval of boa 15629 oh yes forgot we have a new applicant started uh okay thank you do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item okay there doesn't appear to be any members of the public speaking on this item Commissioners do we have a motion I motion to recommend approval of boa 15629 okay we've got a second recommendation for approval we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime C we haven't had any written comments on any of these correct there's nothing just the first the but just with regard to that parking but these others right I'm not seeing attachments right okay recommended approval on that item okay next item is bo-1 15631 at 316 Northwest 27th Street Katie comments on this one this one is also in Jefferson Park Board two um again consideration possible action on a recommendation to board of adjustment for Home Sharing um this is a a different applicant and staff again has recommended um a recommendation of approval to board of adjustment um I did hear from this applicant she's actually out of state so she was not going to be present um we did not receive any written comments on this one and she didn't have anything particular to pass on to the commission so she just hopeful for a recommendation of approval okay so the applicant isn't present um do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item okay there are no members of the public that wish to speak on this item Commissioners do we have a motion I motion to recommend approval of boa1 15631 okay we've got a motion to recommend approval we have a second second we've got a second Commissioners please vote in Prime goov okay and that is a recommended approval as well okay next up we have give a presentation so this is actually not by staff um we uh the next one's by staff but this one is um by a um property owner future applicant for informational purposes only regarding a potential rezoning for the Walker project from North Walker to North 3i and Northwest 24th to Northwest 25th Street um applicant will provide more detail but essentially they are contemplating a rezoning and wanting to get some um information in front of the commission and some kind of feedback from the commission before formally applying for that wonderful and we should have um their presentation up for Yes okay okay please state your name and address for the record I didn't want Sarah to be disappointed today so Marva ERT 1521 nor chartel Avenue Floyd Simon and I have owned this property longer than we want to talk about public so um we're trying to get ready to do the project that we wanted to do we've redone all the historic buildings on the site and uh we've got a plan to do some multif family housing with some potential storefronts or commercial uses along Walker um I think we've tried every way possible to figure out how to do this without doing a spud Katie can tell you that we've probably been talking about it for the last year and there's four or five different zonings on this block it's just crazy goes from C4 to R1 to everything in between so we tried neighborhood business and we couldn't quite make that work and so we're I'm almost reconciled to the fact that we're going to need to file a spud so what we kind of have in mind is um various relatively small multif family buildings that would be in keeping with some of the things that are already on that block or very close to that block we own everything inside the pink line and so um we call it the multiplex it makes it sound bigger than it is but the gray building that is on the 24th Street side FS got that redone forest and it is six units I would assume that the building between it and the first Bungalow would be probably four to six units it's that kind of Gap there and so um then when we get to the Walker Walker Street side that's where the C4 extends all the way down that block and so that would be a little more intense we do some one of our problems that's caused us to look at a but is we'd like about a 35t height limit on the Walker Street side at least and so as you all can tell from where this is located we're pretty well surrounded by commercial on two sides and um the only residential block is the 25th Street side and there's a relatively sizable buff brick building on the corner of 25th and Walker that is probably we think probably at least 35 ft tall but we're trying to verify that can I point at it Katie with this thing or anything um no I don't think you can but to the that one yeah so um we would keep it with all the HP guidelines on it we're not asking for anything to be removed as far as your over side of it it's more for us to understand if there's anything that you want us to consider as we're putting the final design together we do think we'll probably have a oh we've got garage apartments in the alley that's what those are with parking underneath the little long skinny buildings two Kaitlyn they're kind of that pinky orange color and so that would be garage apartments with parking underneath so we can we can provide parking for our tenants um there'll be as you can tell we want to leave a lot of Green Space we hope to have a sizable senior component to this development so we want to have outdoor Gardens places for people together there'll probably be a small pool or something something between the existing multif family building and The Little Garage that's on the Alley so we want to have a lot of outdoor Gathering spaces here we're not trying to see how many units we can squeeze on this site we know we can get a lot more than we're trying to get but that's not the goal with this it's to provide a community within a community and uh we hope to either have some commercial uses on the first floor on Walker or dentist Home Health Care other other tenants that could be beneficial to the neighborhood as a whole and so this is kind of the path we're going down and we just want some feedback and we'd also like to uh maybe set a good example that we wanton spring spuds on neighborhoods that we'll try to give them more notice we've uh visited briefly with Pam bigam who is Jefferson Park across the street talked to Jonathan Russell already we've got a call in to Keith Paul so we want the neighbors to know what's going on and and put something here that is very beneficial to the neighborhood as a whole has there been any push back yet from anyone you've talked to nothing negative they're all very positive about I mean as you can tell we don't have really any elevations to show you you yet but as far as the the proposed use and things seems very positive okay yeah I sometimes we get um people concerned about Heights and doing three stories I was just curious if any of the neighborhood associations had said anything about that no I visited with the planning commissioner from this part of town and and with the limited information that that she saw this she the the use of it the garage apartments some of those thoughts and and neighborhood businesses that could be beneficial to the area those all seem to be positive things yeah my I think it's great I think um it's completely appropriate to densify along walker uh I applaud the uh you're right it's a very duance site and it sort of threads in with multiple edges and I think you've done a wonderful job um I would have personally zero uh reservation a about 35 ft or even more um this is kind of the low Point Walker gets drainage coming from East so we slope up as we go west and we slope up as we go east so that additional height as you there's the development that's on 25th and Dewey even at 35 feet those houses will see over the top of them so I think it's uh wonderful I support the density there I think this is an appropriate opportunity for it and you're doing it in a smart thoughtful way and I appreciate that thank you I agree with commissioner Remy I work at 23rd in Walker so I drive past the site every single day and seeing this plan for it is very exciting um so I would have no problem with the height and I love density as um probably our commission and members out here know um so I think this sounds like slant donk so far I appreciate the Green Space building into it so I think that'll be really lovely in that area because there's a lot of walking in that area so thank you well then we'll just proceed onward and bring more detail to you when we have it and we'll probably start working on a spud application thank you for hearing us Marv thank you for the presentation okay actually have another presentation I turn my mic off sorry uh we have another presentation this one is by staff uh and this is for informational purposes only Katie yes so um we started um quite some time ago discussing some updates to the guidelines to address solar um right now as you all know we have administrative um we have guidelines under administrative review for um the installation of solar we do not have anything under commission review so we had a workshop um quite some time ago we heard from um advocates for solar we heard from residents who were um interested in solar we heard from residents who were not so interested in solar um so uh actually will y'all bring me the mouse and I'll drive so to speak thank you so we um sorry we had a workshop um a while back for the commission that we ended up not getting a quorum at and we thought we would just put this on at the end of an actual HP meeting in order to hopefully um snag a couple more people and present this and get some more feedback from the commission and maybe from residents um now what I will say is is that um well a couple couple of observations on this one um in the absence of guidelines for commission review which is the current situation the commission has the discretion to use kind of the more broad General language in the guidelines about appropriateness about impact on historic character to review anything that is proposed on a case-by casee basis so right now even without revising the guidelines for solar you all as you already have done have the ability to exercise that discretion review individual projects and decide when something is or is not um appropriate um the uh so that is my leadin to we will probably not move forward with additional revisions to the guidelines um to other sections of the guidelines or with um the actual adoption process to revise the guidelines until a little bit later this year our division in which the historic preservation program is housed current planning and Urban Design is currently shepherding four other ordinance amendments through the process none of those affect HP um but so you're not hearing about them um but we're that's taking a lot of our staff time and brain power and then we have two others that we're also being pulled in to work on so um trying to get you know the the energy and the thought and the public Outreach um coordinated for a true meaningful update to the guidelines over the next couple of months is just going to be more than we can pull off but um we will get these other ordinance amendments done and we will get back to this um to respond to all these questions people have had but with all that said um I'll quickly go through kind of what we've come up with to this point and then happy to hear from um commission members about any other thoughts or from uh members of the public so this is what the administrative approval guidelines currently say um and we've talked about these lots of times um what we have looked at doing is adding language to make clear that um uh historic building materials should not be damaged or removed including roof materials chimneys Dormers Etc in order to install solar and that um and to address the importance of minimizing the appearance of associated equipment not only the solar panels but the mechanical equipment that goes along with those as we talked about in the application today um we have tweaked some of the current language to um make distinctions between roof mounted solar as opposed to solar that is on the ground or in other locations um and to address visibility from different locations whether that's in front of the property um opposite side of the street public RightWay um side streets Corner Lots um and then for ground mounted again clarifying the um locations from which visibility is to be evaluated Heights Etc and then there was there's a guideline that's currently in the section on Accessory structures that addresses um solar and mechanical equipment um that we just copied and pasted over into this section so that those would all be captured in one spot I'm just going to kind of zip through quickly now that we have Quorum for that one other item we then C crafted some um commission review guidelines for um roof M and solar when it is in AIS visible location where it should be placed um how it can be screened by existing architectural features um sidef facing slopes of the roof we would it be appropriate to table this for the moment now that we have a commission member so that we can get to okay we're going to press pause and go back to um our dilapidated structure okay so we're going to go we're going to bump up back in the agenda to number six public hearings letter A dilapidated structures we have one item I just do in that category I will be recusing myself okay we've got y go ahead thank you please not her okay and this is this is C2 24- 17972 at 2522 North chartel presso W 2 request to receive historic preservation commission comments regarding the structure in process of being declared dilapidated by the City of Oklahoma City oh my Keith I broke something what did I do this is why I'm not allowed to touch the PowerPoint oh gosh yes how I get back to the PowerPoint how do I get to the PowerPoint though I think it's on that computer but it's showing it's that's what it's showing on presentation sorry technical difficulty um so uh this is a comment to city council pertaining to contribution of of the historic Integrity of the historic district and effect of the proposed demolition on the historic character of the property and District so um we had another dilapidated structure fairly recently but I always like to kind of start these off by explaining that the commission is not um approving or denying a demolition a dilapidated structure um once declared dilapidated can be torn down by the city without a certificate of appropriateness the property owner would still have to get a certificate of appropriateness if they wanted to pursue the demolition themselves um what we are being and the commission is not being asked to um evaluate the structural condition um the necessity of the demolition as part of this evaluation the commission is being asked to comment upon the extent to which the property is historic retains historic Integrity um that the loss of the property would um contribute to or detract from the historic character of The District Etc so with that you have a recommend you have recommended comment from staff um regarding the um historic integrity and contribution of the property to the character of the historic district um we do have a representative of the property owner here um and I believe we have um members of the public who would also like to speak okay this time uh the applicant or their representative can come forward okay and please state your name and address sure Cooper Han 522 C Core drive and I want to make it clear I am not the applicant I'm a representative of the property owner the applicant of course is the city inspector uh who determined that this needed to be brought before you um I know this commission has become familiar with this property over the last couple years through various applications I believe uh the last application was an application by my client uh for the demolition of the church that was heard back in December um I'm not going to go over that was a pretty extensive hearing I know this commission heard a lot but I just kind of wanted to update the commission what's been going on since that time uh shortly after that December 6 2023 hearing U my firm was engaged to try and figure out a path forward um an appeal of that denial was originally filed we later withdrew that appeal um because there were some issues brought up by this commission uh that we thought needed addressing um and in order to do so we retained an engineer Tim Johnson of Johnson Associates who's here with us today to look into those issues try and get those answers um for this commission um and we understand that the the condition of the structure itself is you know not really at issue before this Commission of course the condition of the structure is why we are here today it's why we received a notice uh for this hearing and it's why the city felt compelled to uh bring this before you before we actually had the opportunity to resubmit our application because that is why we withdrew our appeal and that is why um we retained an engineer to address those issues we intended on resubmitting an application for demolition but essentially the city decided that this was an imminent threat uh to Public Safety and beat us to the punch so to speak um what this commission is here to consider is whether the structure is contributing to the historic Integrity of the district and whether demolition will adversely affect the historic character of the property or District there's no question that this church is historic and and did contribute to the historic nature of this District um unfortunately it no longer does uh this commission has already deemed this property to be an imminent threat to the public health and safety that has since been cons confirmed by the city inspector it's been confirmed by multiple Engineers um at the last hearing I believe there's reference to this being an iore um unfortunately it has just deteriorated to the point where it is no longer contributing to the historic character of this district and further we know that demolition is now necessary frankly the deterioration of this property has gone too far we know it's necessary again the city brought this application before you uh because they deemed it appropriate and necessary so stated otherwise demolition is inevitable at this point so the question of whether or not this will adversely impact the nature of the property or the district is is difficult to answer and say that it's adverse when it's inevitable it can't be avoided this demolition is the only path forward for this property um so unfortunately and it's with unfortunate C cumstances that we believe demolition is is inevitable it's necessary and and the correct thing to do to protect the public health and safety of this District of its citizens um so with that we would ask that this commission be supportive of the city's application uh to move forward with demolition uh and and essentially not adopt the comments uh set forth in your staff report again I know the condition of the property is not at issue U but Mr Johnson is here uh to answer any questions should this commission have any I'm also available for any questions and I appreciate your time and I certainly appreciate the commissioner making herself available uh to have a forum today thank you thank you Commissioners do we have any questions for applicants representative yeah um a question and a comment I think we might be um I think you might be mischaracterizing the comments about um imminent health and isource because I don't really recall that being the commission's description of what they thought this building was in December um but my question is you keep saying that it's inevitable that there's no path forward um the last time this was heard by this commission one conversation that um took up quite a bit of our time was the possibility of whether this would be sold to somebody willing to purchase it and take a different path and the answer from the property owner was that yes they were open to having that discussion and so it's hard for me to kind of get on board with the notion that I mean demolition by this group may be inevitable but I'm just not understanding where the disconnect between the end result of that conversation and this new conversation is and can I jump in real quick just for my own clarification so code enforcement is the one who brought this application and not the actual property owner correct so if we were to deny this from code of enforcement but later the property owner comes to us and asks for demolition could that that could still be considered at that time we we don't approve or deny with this um we we comment and we actually aren't even making a recommendation we're not even being asked to make a recommendation to Council on whether or not to declare it dilapidated I mean you all can include um anything you like in your fin findings to that effect one way or the other um but we are not being called upon to either support or oppose the dilapidated request um only to comment upon its impact on the historic character of the property in the district um so yes you could um you can put forward whatever comments um and findings you like to council at this time and then if for some reason it does not proceed with the demolition via the dilapidated structures process and someone comes back at a later date with an application by a private property owner to demolish it you all can still take whatever action you see fit at that time okay thank you yeah I think this is a tricky one because and I know I've said it before um but the disrepair of this building predates the current ownership uh when the parish owned it um this has been a struggle of a property and I think multip people have attempted to buy it this partic particular property owner did I think a lot of effort has been put in to try to salvage it I think it's to the point now where in an ideal world it's going to take somebody uh that isn't looking at it from an economic perspective to salvage this building I think making an economic an economically viable which isn't our purview but it's a reality uh saving this building and doing it in an economically viable way I think is a very tall task well economic viability is in our purview under um certain scenarios right there are things that can be submitted and valued so I mean that is something that we can look at and it's never been submitted to us there is an economic review board that this body could send a matter to um and then a Bo a committee is convened and they make that very determination whether or not it's economically I mean it very well may not be economically viable but it is something that we can consider and we have not been given those parameters yeah I think I think it is in disrepair I think it is historic I think it does uh you know if you were to tear it down and rebuild it the exact same way that it was or refurbish it I think that would add value to the neighborhood I think all those questions I think everyone's on the same page about I think it's just how does it get done and can it get done or does it just sit like this for five more years two more years 10 more years so to follow up on my question for you is and I'm sorry you're not really the applicant um so um just where did that conversation go that we ended on in December and I was going to say maybe some of the public could answer that too uh as far as far as I know I mean we were engaged to explore options moving forward um I think our client has invested a lot of time and a lot of money into making the entirety of this property work they are now on their you know second engineer to determine how and what can be done with this property and what can be done is demolition essentially we we've discovered that is the only path forward was the second engineer hired to find solutions for saving it or was it under you know I mean I understand why from the developer standpoint like it's obviously desirable to tear it down and redevelop the site I totally understand that um but you know if there is interest I mean he expressed publicly a willingness to engage in conversations about transacting this um information so it's just really important to me to understand where that conversation when if we're talking about the only path forward being Demolition and I'm not sure exactly what conversations were had regarding potential options that purchase I know that he's again invested a significant amount of time and money into developing this entire site which of course started with keeping the church if possible he discovered that's no longer possible so there's really no way that he cannot take a giant loss to sell something that he in good conscious and multiple engineers and told him as it can't it can't be renovated without demolishing the entire thing anyway okay I think we've got some members of the public that would like to speak on this item I'm going to ask that they one by one step up to the podium and remember uh state your name and address and please Tre to please try to keep your comments at three to five minutes so I have to sign in again U Marva Ard 1521 North chartel Avenue as most of you remember Dr ice and I have been involved with this for quite some time um trying to stay on point here Bob Blackburn Ron France other historians have said that this building is historic I think that's the task at hand today I don't know that it's our job today to determine the fate of this building or even our opinion about it is it historic yes um to answer commissioner Jordan's questions the owners were sent a certified letter telling them that we would be interested in engaging in talks to buy this building and we got no response um we have Structural Engineers that will tell you this building is salvageable so but I'm trying to stay on task and not talk too long about things we can't solve today I would say that the preservation community in general thinks this building is historic it is a contributing member of the u poo survey its condition is not ideal but at this moment it is still a historic structure so we would ask that you uh put that in your what would be the right word today Katie just findings yeah um it seems like it is unfortunate that the city's timing on some things and then what was going on with this body and the private sector kind of have collided right now I've seen this happen before and uh the city has given owners more time to work out issues and I'm hoping that could be what would happen in this case I mean I think it's fair to say everything is salvageable with the right amount of money whether it cash flows and actually is income producing and you know able to cover its costs is is a different conversation I would love to see the Salvage but I don't know I mean you're going to have to have an owner that's willing to possibly sell the property to somebody or um we can't really Force somebody's hand to sell a private property that they own I don't I'm hesitant to encourage this just because the city is is pushing on it I mean I would really like it to be coming from the applicant or the property owner um and hear their comments again and about their efforts to you know try to find another solution with possibly a different property owner um those are just my thoughts I mean I think if we're only if we're looking at staff's comments that the structure does retain historic integrity and contributes to the historic in Integrity of the Poo historic district and that the demolition of it will have an adverse effect on the historic character of that District I mean those are both true regardless of any of these other statements and I I just would not feel I understand all of the hurdles and all of the obstacles but I don't feel like every option has been exhausted and you know this did come before us with the intent of the church being restored versus demoed and things change all the time but I just um for me I would not be willing to provide any language that you know contributed to the demolition of it or advocated for that the fact I L I think it's the same findings that happened five months ago yes I think you're right that it is historic it is contributing do we have other members of the public that wish to speak on this okay please state your name and address again if you could s Gibson 920 Northwest 25th in poo and this church is down from my house and it means a lot to the neighborhood and it is historic and I mean you just can't bring it back if you always tear down I mean that's why we're here I mean HP is to save historical buildings and um a lot of the neighbors sent in letters so hopefully you have that as well and um I just think it's a waste of the city's time and that there are other avenues to go through it and I get the point of you can't make an owner sale but you know when it comes to payo wanting to save this historical building then I think um it should be held highly so I appreciate your time thank you okay anybody else from the public wish to speak on this item Donell 601 Northwest 27 you a conversation Katie and I had about mentioning about the wallt building there on Northeast 13th in other words apparently it was in as bad as shape as the church and that there was time given and eventually a new owner was found so and it has been restored I understand so I just I hope that could happen with this again a different owner and someone that's interested in Resto thank you thank you okay any other members of the public wish to speak I have a I guess a question and I don't since you know since you're not to your point the applicant um or the the property owner I don't know if anybody can speak to this today but I guess one thing that's kind of interesting I was thinking about the wallt building when you mentioned that it's a great example um one inherent difference in this is probably the um original level of construction and seeing some of that old wood framing and you know how much water damage it's received whereas the wallt is quite a bit sturdier as a structure and is um all um stone and brick so why haven't we seen any proposed modifications of this building um you know that would Salvage a lot of really interesting historic components it's just kind of dawned on me that while a lot of this may not be salvageable we've not really seen any attempt at modification only demo so you all did um review and approve uh an application to um slightly repair the church to put back a front entrance where those stairs had been removed some other yeah minor modifications to accommodate the um what they initially intended to do with the interior of the building um but we have not had any conversations with um the property owner with the applicant about any other um alternatives to keeping portions of um the building incorporating anything into another um development now I will say um I believe the applicant at the you know last time that we reviewed the demolition referenced um Salvage you know kind of a willingness to do whatever the commission deemed appropriate for um honoring the building it you know at some point if it would to be replaced but yeah we have not seen applications to that effect or really anything for you know what would come next if we were to if it were to be torn down it would be extremely interesting to see some um some propositions as to what this could be if it were modified but retained some of these um more noteworthy features and I'll just note you know something we don't interesting something we don't often do um because we hardly ever um approved demolitions other than accessory building um but you know another technique is mitigation whether that's a thorough documentation of the building historical record of the building that sort of thing um not that I want to assume it will be demolished but just thinking that's you know if that's something to refer to in your recommendations as far as something to be done if it were to be demolished um that's another technique as part of the Pres ation toolbox for uh the loss of historic buildings thank you Katie Kate it appears we've heard all comments from the public on this um Katie can you just kind of remind us as Commissioners what what our process here on motion or forwarding comments yeah so you would just be U making a motion to forward the following comments to the city council and you can I could either say the comments as noted in the staff report you can read the comments you can add to the comments whatever you um think is appropriate okay and it appears we do have a couple uh staff recommended uh comments and the staff report uh Commissioners does anybody have anything to add to it or other thoughts or do we have a recommendation to forward comments well I just think that any one of us probably would have agreed with both of these comments in December or today so our statements are only you know do we feel like these exterior factors supersede the value of these comments in a way that we would like to you know negate them today or do we want to try and strengthen these comments and and make it appear that we are more strongly opposed on these comment you know these comments are I think probably obvious to everyone in the room um you know uh so I I I I just sit here and think well we did a three-hour meeting on this in December and it Bo if it boils down to this that's pretty simple um but I you know I would be open to I don't know I don't know how we have to weigh the balance of um the economic impact on a property owner versus their willingness to negotiate in good faith or if that's a factor on us at all but as far as recommending these I'm you know absolutely in favor of forwarding these comments and would be open to discussion on if there's anything stronger that we could add to them Kati can we add language um requesting an economic review panel board but can it be added as a recommendation that we think that's an Avenue worth pursuing you could recommend it but it's it's a request of the property owner well it's a request of the property owner and it is part of the review of a certificate of appropriateness it's not really a tool for city council I think you could no um add that before we would move forward with any conversations on demo that there are things we would like to be pursued that being one of them or no is there a way to request getting that if we I mean it's a huge piece of this right everybody just keeps saying it costs too much it costs too much it costs too much yes looking at that one can logically assume it cost too much but we don't know that um I think that in the format of a recommendation of comments being forwarded to council you could craft a comment or a finding that the commission I don't I'm trying to think of something like all avenues for proof and Salvage and restoration be proven that the the significance of the church warrants um pursuing all possible Avenues to preserve the structure something like that um but you need to give them something specific specific because if you say all but I can't give them that as a specific well you could recommend it but it is an option of the property owner rather than you can't make them do it right but they can read our language and perhaps willingly pursue it they could decide okay and what is the official name of that is it the economic viability I'm not sure what quite to say because it the what what we're referring to is the convening of an economic review board if someone someone pursue if someone requests that demolition be approved under the criteria that uh there is no um viable economic use of the property and that is language specific to the HP commission's review process so I think for Council it would need to be something a little bit more General that um you know so just like I said that all that you know evaluation of the economic um circumstances of the property be conducted or something to that effect and in that instance I mean they would not necessarily be compelled to to do that so it could be a recommendation that they pursue it or a request a request but you couldn't force them to do it because it's their or is it a like an if then like if if this is considered for demolition prior to sort preservation strongly recommend due to the significant historic nature of this building historic preservation feels that basically if if that's the pro if that's the reason before you approve that reason validate I think it's yeah I think it's one of a few things that need to be presented to us and explored fully before somebody just says sure we believe you we take it take your word to to me I mean it is an actual path for an applicant to get a demolition and it's not been satisfied but it's been referenced endlessly uh side note um two things that I think would um to Mr McBride's point or commissioner McBride's Point um that should be added to these is noting that this was heard in December and denied demolition I think that should be in here and think also noting the um neighborhood's support in that case continued support would you like to take a swing at it oh gosh no um okay I'll give it the whole thing okay um I Motion in regards to hpca d23 d156 that we forward the following comments that the structure retains its historic integrity and contributes to the historic Integrity of the Poo historic district number two that the demolition of the structure will have an adverse effect on the historic character of The District number three that the surrounding neighborhoods have shown a sustained and persistent attempt to ensure that every opportunity to per to uh maintain uh the historic Integrity of this building is pursued uh and therefore if this building becomes recommended for demolition we would request that first an economic impact survey is performed to uh determine the viability of uh structural repair and Rehabilitation yeah or a study maybe instead of a survey a study yes I meant to say study oh yes yes and also uh we would like to forward the comment that in December this uh demolition Was Heard and denied by the historic preservation uh commission at that time hope the continued support of the that one I got okay we've got recommended comments to for to this is headed city council correct okay by commissioner McBride do we need to get a second on that correct okay uh do we have a second second you can have it okay I don't have anything popping up yet in Prime go but M are we in the wrong one well I don't think so I don't have anything to vote on yeah I'm on computer well well we need to be able to touch screen I what's that okay we'll just do a v don't Okay so we've got a motion of recommendations to forward to city council by commissioner mbri I'm sorry who seconded it commissioner mney and we'll do a roll call vote no okay say a yay yay Jordan yay those really only so everyone else voted yet okay was just asked to okay okay those comments will be forwarded to city council okay thank you everybody okay now we're going to jump back towards the end of the agenda I think we left off uh number eight Communications and reports is that correct is that where we left off so we were in the midst of the presentation regarding solar um oh that's right okay and you know in the interest of everyone's time with virtually all of you that are present being on the committee for solar and having already heard this um I'm happy to make those materials available online neighborhoods can review that at their Leisure and then follow back up with people at a a later date when we have okay um some time and energy to devote to some more meaningful discussion but if anyone really wants to go through those line by line today we can uh spend a little more time on it okay and you did note that work on that is going to be paused y momentarily why your office works on a few other items okay great thank you okay now number eight Communications and reports anything uh under administrative approvals Katie nothing um of great interest to note always feel free to contact staff if you have questions about administrative approvals um no withdrawals and no administrative closings um I suppose under city council we could have reported the dilapidated structure but you all just devoted some time and energy to that okay um we do have some items going to the board of adjustments yes so on the board of adjustment items um uh 108 Northwest 19th will be heard on May 16th that's an appeal of a recently denied application uh in Heritage Hills East um uh 700 Northwest 40th will be heard at Board of adjustment tomorrow afternoon and that is an appeal of an administratively approved revision to AA by a neighboring property owner um the third one noted there at 827 Northwest 17th um that appeal um actually will not be heard tomorrow they have at this time not been docketed for the board of adjustment due to issues with the submitt of a complete application so they are on our agenda here but they will not be heard tomorrow okay anything uh from Planning Commission um nothing really to note for um yeah nothing at this time I can tell you about all the ordinance amendments that we're I well I will comment on one thing we are um uh and we've already presented this to all almost all of the design review committees we are consolidating the other design review committees we are going to go from 5 down to two so we will have uh downtown design Review Committee which will oversee downtown and Bricktown and then we will have an Urban Design commission that oversees all of the existing Urban um design districts as well as Stockyards and Scenic River and this is to make that process more um efficient make it easier to get all those spots filled with you know qualified and willing and able and eager participants um uh so it will not affect HP but I thought you all should probably be aware just in case you hear that the city is getting rid of all of the design review committees uh you you know the the true story would be of an unpaid job yeah darn when does that take effect Katie um it is just now starting its way through Planning Commission so it won't be in effect till the end of the summer okay and we have no word on anybody to repl place this open seat I have not heard anything at this point yeah we I think some folks have sent names along um I'm assuming he knows how hard it is to get Quorum yeah okay anything from Municipal counselor's office okay our next meeting date the next regularly scheduled meeting for the historic preservation commission is Wednesday June 5th at 2 p.m at the municipal building city council chamber new applications for this meeting will received April 30th 2024 new information on projects continued from today's meeting to the upcoming meeting must be submitted to staff by 4 pm Tuesday May 7th 2024 the next regularly scheduled workshop for the historic preservation commission is Wednesday September 11th 2024 from 11:30 a.m.

to 1:30 p.m. in the Embark large conference room sweet be at 4:31 West Main Street any items from Commissioners and again on the workshop we will will have the special meeting um Workshop next week so if you haven't already please let us know if you think you will be there or not and um looking forward to that okay uh any citizens to be heard I don't think there are are to be seen okay it's 4:11 and we can adjourn.

As found on YouTube

Contact Us