Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I just this part from that part read the whole thing. Um the whole thing. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. And then stop. Okay. Notes to myself. Stop. Okay, Sean's in now as a panelist. Okay, I'm ready to go. So, we're ready. Yep, sounds good. Good evening. Uh, this will start the what is it? June 17th, uh, Landmarks Commission meeting. Uh, we'll start with roll call. So, uh, Andy is not present. U, Kathy here. Sean Winl is he remote here? I heard it here. Okay, if you could put your volume up a little higher. Uh, I'll try. Okay, thanks. Tom here and Heidi is not present. All right, great. So, um, we will start the meeting. Uh, today's Oh. Oh, just in time. Sorry. Thanks, Andy. Were we at roll call? Roll call. All right. Roll call. Yeah. Uh, okay. Last one on roll call. Andy Coglin here. Yep. Um, call this meeting to order. Um, first item on the agenda is um for from visitors general comments and questions from the public for topics not on the agenda. Is there anyone here

online who would have topics to bring up that are not on the agenda hearing? None. Uh we will move on to item two of the agenda. Um quasi judicial public hearing. This is a denovo hearing and is an initial evidentiary hearing of uh project numbers 20240674. Um major historic alteration at Bunken Brew. Uh and u it's a major historic alteration request to add a dormer to the west facing roof line, relocate the fence on the east side of the property, relocate a gazebo, modify an ex existing entrance arbor, replace three exterior doors and sidelights on the east, west, and south elevations and add a new ADA ramp with railing to the south facing elevation. It's a type three quasi judicial review through the landmarks commission for uh 42 northwest Hawthorne Avenue. The applicant will have the burden of of proving that he or she is entitled to the approval sought. The applicable criteria for this application include the Bend urban area comprehensive plan chapter 3 and chapter 10.20 historic preservation code and the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the staff report and other criteria in the Ben General general plan or Ben development code that you believe is applicable to or any other criteria in the National Register of Historic Places program that any person believes applied to this decision. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the landmarks, commissioners, and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issued precludes appeal

to the city council or land use board of appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the landmarks commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. One, the staff will give a report. Two, the applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. Three, proponents of the application will then be given a chance to testify and present evidence. Four, when all proponents have testified, opponents to the appeal will then be given a an chance to testify and present evidence. Five, after both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicants will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony, but may not prevent present new evidence. Six. At the Landmark Commission's discretion, um if the proponents presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. Seven, at the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The commission may limit the time period for the presentations. Uh before the close of the hearing, any person has the right to request an opportunity to present additional evidence, argument, or testimony related regarding the application. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall be allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. Uh do any of the commissioners have any exparte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of those. just declare that I walk the property

like I usually do. Okay. Okay. Any others? No. Okay. Um does any party wish to challenge any commissioner based on exparte contacts, biases, or conflicts of interest? Sounds like no. Hearing no challenges, uh we'll proceed uh with staff report. Thank you, Commissioner Michelle Patrick. Thank you. Um, disclaimer, I don't know how to get this little square off the screen. We're gonna ignore it. Uh, so good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Michelle Patrick. I'm an associate planner in the planning division. And, uh, as Commissioner uh, Coughlin just mentioned, uh, today you'll be hearing an application, uh, PLHIS 20240674. This is a historic major alteration to the Lucas House. Uh the subject property is located at 42 Northwest Hawthorne Avenue. Um this is just west of the parkway just east of Hill Street and the underlying zoning district for the property is mixeduse urban. The Lucas House is a locally designated historic uh and cultural resource um as stated in table 31 of the Ben comprehensive plan and was constructed sometime between 1908 and 1911. Um its significance is that it's one it's recognized to be one of the first non-framed uh structures in the city of Bend. One of the first brick structures in the city of Bend and it's historically been used as a boarding house. Um, I will say there is limited information uh in local and state files on this resource. Um, but this is one of the oldest photos on the record. Um, and this was provided by the uh Dashuites Historic Museum. Uh, this is a current photo of the front

of the property. Um, this is facing south towards Northwest Hawthorne Avenue. And this is a recent photo of the rear of the property. You can see the east facing elevation here with that white door. the north facing elevation. And then this photo also shows some recent improvements um that have uh been constructed over the past five years. So that white building is a bath house. Um there's outdoor seating that's associated with food carts that were approved on site in 2019. And this is a recent photo of the westside yard. Um and this includes uh this exterior staircase that was also approved by staff in 2019. So, um, the scope of the project includes a number of different requests. So, we're going to walk through each of the elevations to demonstrate, um, what's actually going on here and what's proposed. So, on the south facing elevation, um, the applicant proposes to add a new ADA ramp that will span the length of the facade to allow patrons to access the front of the building with more ease. The front door is proposed to be replaced along with the sidelights on either side of the door. Uh the applicant is proposed to relocate a fence um that's visible here outlined in red uh and bring it closer uh basically even with the south facing facade. And you can also see the uh proposed dormer visible on this elevation but that one is actually proposed on the west facing facade as you can see here. And the egress door at the uh top of the staircase is also proposed to be replaced. And uh a new arbor is proposed on the ground level here uh to replace an existing arbor. Oops. The east facing elevation uh minor changes. Uh there is a door that's proposed to be replaced along with side

lights. And there's no changes explicitly proposed on the north facing elevations, but the dormer is visible from this view. And the remainder of the changes are shown on the proposed site plan. So there is a gazebo on the east side yard that's proposed to be moved further south. Um along you can see the just underneath that is the proposed fence line. Uh there is a sign that's proposed to be relocated on the east side of the property that was previously in what was the right of way. So, same sign, just new location. Uh, there are some new trees shown here as well, including some between the gazebo and the fence. And, uh, the two landings that are highlighted here, um, they're shown on the site plan as new, but they're not mentioned anywhere else in the materials. So, um staff included a recommended condition of approval that um if these are really intended to be constructed that they be uh submitted in a subsequent application that clearly addresses the details of the proposal, dimensions, materials and historic compliance. And on this note, I will also mention um another condition of approval we added in the staff report is the submission of a final plan set that shows full accurate consistent uh scope of work for the project because uh many of the items were just inconsistent and um required a lot of clarification. So just want to tie up loose ends as we move forward. So the remaining slides are going to cover the applicable standards and the recommended conditions of approval. So this application is subject to the historic preservation code namely the criteria of approval and the design approval criteria or design review criteria. I'm also including the Ben development code in this because the proposal is subject to the standards of the underlying zone as well as landscaping and our other design standards section. Um this is addressed in the staff report and will be reviewed more thoroughly at the building permit

review. But we're not going to go into detail on this uh with the presentation so we can focus on the historic preservation criteria. So the historic preservation code requires that the alteration not change the qualities for which the structure is recognized. Um, the applicant has provided an exterior ramp plan and foundation plan that shows how the proposed ADA ramp on the front of the facade will be constructed, including footings and right up against the existing lava rock foundation that you can see in this photo here. Uh, the railings are going to be installed along the length of the ramp as well. Um, and so as I mentioned, there's limited information on the Lucas house, but one of the key reasons for it significance is it's brick masonry, and that's something we want to make sure is preserved um with the alteration that's close to the facade. So, we included a recommended condition that additional details be provided to clarify how the ramp won't damage the existing masonry, including the brick work, the bellyb band, and the lava rock foundation. Um, the historic preservation code also requires that the alteration be compatible with the appearance and character of the historic structure. Um, and we're going to cover a few examples of this in the next couple slides. So, overall staff found that most of these changes were appropriate and compatible um with the Lucas house. Um, two of the smaller elements of the proposal here include this new arbor that's going to replace an existing arbor that's kind of comprised of rough cut pieces of uh the tree that used to exist on this property. Um, so this is a much more appropriate design and the sign is one that was previously approved. This is just going to be in a uh location that's on site and not in the right of way. So again, we support that.

Uh the proposed dormer is also found to be compatible with the structure. Uh the so the pitch matches that of the existing gable on the north and south of the dwelling or of the structure. And while portions of the roof do need to be removed to accommodate this, um the applicants uh stated that this is because of egress requirements and head height for that are required by building code. And so, um, in order to create this, they do need to remove some of those materials, but the materials that will be, uh, replacing them will match the the color and the material of the existing structure as best as possible. So, you've got, uh, a cedar shake siding uh, that will be painted white. Um, knee braces that'll match the cables on on the north and south. And then the fascia and sophet will also be painted to to match. Uh, another element that was found to be compatible was this new proposed front door um that is going to be, you know, facing the northwest Hawthorne Avenue. So, this new wood front door is going to have 10 glass panels and it'll replace a non-historic door that appears to be fiberglass. And new sidlights are also proposed um which will match a historic sidlight that's on the east facing elevation that we'll discuss in a little bit here. And the applicant also proposes to retain the cedar shake siding that's just under the sidlights you can see there. So, one of the elements we found to not be compatible um was the relocation of the gazebo structure and the fence. So, these photos show the current location of the gazebo and the fence. Um the gazebo being the higher structure here in these images. Um so, in the submitted

materials, the applicant proposes to move the fence south to line up with the south facing elevation. And they also propose to move the gazebo structure. I think 14 feet to the south as well. Um, so the gazebo was found to be an existing non-permanent structure back when the food carts were approved in 2019. That site plan shows uh the gazebo, I think 43 ft from the south property line. So, it's since it has since migrated south. So, it's currently in a location that wasn't approved. And it's also changed slightly and we now have some non-historic elements on the gazebo. most specifically this like plexiglass siding. Um, and the fence, uh, similarly, there was an application to install this fence that's right here now in 2017. And originally that was proposed to line up with the south facing elevation, but the applicant worked with staff to keep it in this location because it allowed higher visibility of this double row of windows that you can kind of see right in here. So, um, consistent with that determination, staff recommends in the staff report that the gazebo be relocated to be in the location that it was approved in in 2019 and or as far back on the property as possible and that the fence be maintained in the same location uh to again not block the view of these historic windows. Um, with that, uh, you know, one additional component that I didn't raise in the staff report was that there are trees proposed as well between the gazebo and the fence in that new location, um, for privacy. And ultimately, as part of the conditions we have in the staff report, we, you know, recommend updated landscaping here, a little bit more maintenance on the front of that property to make sure that this historic structure is visible and there's a little less invasive species and a

little bit less cheat grass going on here. Um, and that the proposed poplars not be installed as those will kind of create a little bit of a privacy wall, which I understand is what the applicant is going for. Um, but we do want this historic structure visible from the view of the street. Um, but in general, the step does support the installation of more trees on the subject property. Um, as some of them have kind of died over time. Oh, and one more element um on this particular area of the site. There's also um the lower structure proposed here or that exists here and is also visible in this lower photo. This is um what the applicant referred to as a winter shelter and this was included in the application materials at first and then got pulled out. Ultimately, the structure was never approved on site. Um so we are recommending is that it be removed from the property or the applicant submit an application to request approval of this structure. Um one thing that staff notes is that in the existing condition, we're not uh sure this would meet the requirements of the historic preservation code. So the applicant might have a little bit of work ahead of them if they want to maintain this configuration. So moving on to the design approval criteria. Um so the alterations of the structure need to be compatible with the related elements of the historic building in terms of the relationship of solids to voids and then to the extent practicable uh original historic architectural elements need to be preserved. So the this is a photo of the east facing door and uh the proposed door is shown on the elevations. So the the proposed door has uh 10 glass panels here each with a sidelight on either side. Um and it's going to it's proposed to be framed into the existing opening

so that there's not going to be any impact to the existing brick work. Um, so this isn't an explicitly recommended condition of approval, but the because you're trading a solid door for a glass door, the commission could consider requesting a solid door in this place to more uh accurately match the historic door that is there. Um, another comment staff had on this particular element of the proposal, um, was just having accurate drawings and accurate manufacturer door information. So, um, those conditions are listed as well, just because it was unclear if the proposed door and sidelight combination is something the manufacturer could produce and if those dimensions would fit this opening. Um I'm feeling confident that an applicant can provide this. Um I think though more significantly on this particular element, uh the applicant indicated that one of the sidlights was historic and you can kind of see my little red arrow pointing to it. It's the sidelight on the right and it has a two panel glass. Um and uh this design that's proposed is based off this historic sidlight. Um, but it wasn't clear if this sidelite was proposed to be removed or retained. So, I would recommend the as written in the staff report that the applicant clarify if this sidelight will be retained. And if it's proposed to be replaced, I would recommend that the landmarks commission ask for additional information as to why it can't be repaired or rehabilitated and why it can't be preserved with the dwelling. And so lastly, we have this replacement uh west facing door that's going to be on the second story of the structure. And again, this is proposed to be replaced to meet egress requirements. Um if you think back to the previous slide showing the dormer, the dormer will

raise the head height here. The door needs to be able to open appropriately in uh accordance with building codes. So right now it's a French door with windows um and the applicant has proposed a solid door. um solid wood door to replace it. Um and again, this is similar to my last comment on the east facing elevation. Um if the it's not an explicit recommendation, but the commission could consider uh requiring a glass panel door here uh to more closely match the existing French door instead of the wood door the applicant has proposed. So, it's a little bit of information, but ultimately the uh stack recommends landmarks commission approve the major major historic alteration request to add a dormer, replace the existing entrance arbor, replace three exterior doors and sidelights, and add a new ADA ramp. Uh, however, we do recommend that you deny the proposed fencing relocation and gazebo relocation on the east side of the property. Um that concludes my presentation but I am happy to take any questions that have come up. I have one question and it may be more appropriate for the applicant. Yeah. But in the picture of the well the east facing door and that you showed it looks like just looking at the the light on the left of the door is wider than the one the right. Is a wider door proposed to fill the gap so they can use a narrow door or narrow light? So, or what's happening to the brick on that wider zone? That was part of something I brought up in the staff report as well. Um, because we didn't get existing elevation, so it was unclear how wide this proposed or the existing door is. Obviously, it's clear that one sidelight is different in the photo. Um, so I did

recommend that we condition um that language exactly in front of me, but I believe that's condition seven or eight that uh the applicant provide additional documentation to clarify the existing and proposed doorway and sidlight dimensions on all proposed replacement doors and sidlights to confirm there will be no impact to the existing doorway openings and brick work and that they revive elevations if needed. Yeah. Do we know if that door is original or because it looks like it's been retrofitted? That's a great question. It's certainly old. Don't know if it's original. Um the applicant may be able to provide more information. Um Michelle was I'm just interested in the um what elevated this application from type two to type three. Was that um was was that Heidi's call or was that um other So we decided together that the number of elements in this proposal warranted uh a landmarks commission approval. Yeah, thank you. Question the west side under the Laurier's staircase there that you said was approved in 2018. If there is is that going to be replaced along with this or if there's damage does that have to come back to us or a redesign or um can that be handled in the office? So, no changes have been proposed to the staircase. Um, I based on what they're showing here, that's only work on the roof and then replacing that door. Um, if there is damage, I

guess it would depend on the extent of that, but I would imagine that could be handled administratively. L Heidi, I would likely talk about that. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Um, we can move on to the uh hear from the applicant. Um, so is there someone representing the applicant here or online? Yeah, the owner wanted to speak themselves, but I'm not sure if they Katie, right? Yeah. Yes. So, our applicant is here if you want to say anything. Um, they the Frankie and Jay were planning to speak and they're on Zoom. Can they Yes. Bobby as well. Yeah. Okay. Raise your hand. Uh, applicant. Um, and, uh, staff will unmute you. Okay. Um, it's J. Charles Griggs, you're unmuted. You can speak now. Okay, thanks Miss Patrick. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Okay, great. And thank you, Katie, for jumping in on that. Um, I'll try to be brief. So, um, first of all, uh, thank you, Michelle. You've done a lot of work on this and, um, we appreciate it, uh, working with our designer Katie in the room to to get us this far. So, thank you. We're we're also basically 90% in agreement. So, that's that's the good thing. And we think this is this is positive for all of us. So, um, try to be brief again. First, we did originally, uh, apply under a type two and, um, and we thought and and thought that would be appropriate, but we accepted type three consistent with with what Michelle said on the east facing door. Um, and and Katie, who's in the room, may be able to comment as well. But yes, we did notice their different

sizes. At least one of those sidelights is not historic. Primarily though, we're doing this for building purposes. This is an ADA requirement per our design code and therefore um the door had to be widened anyway. And so what Katie has done is at least made that consistent and aligned with the south facing door so that those sidelights are the same size and congruent with the historical design. So I'll leave it there. I don't know if Katie is in a position to comment now or perhaps later I can go on. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. So, uh, three items we wanted to talk about. Frankie is the co-licant with me and co-owner of this project. Uh, I'm going to tackle the first item. He'll tackle the the remaining two. Um, concerning the condition of approval number 11, the new permit for the historic Lucas House front yard sign. Admittedly, getting a new permit, it's not the end of the world. It's not a deal breaker for us, but we just wanted to add to the staff report. Um, as Michelle said, this is the exact same side, uh, sign, sorry, already approved by the city. It was only removed because the city required us to dedicate land for the Hawthorne Bridge project. So, really, the reason they're requesting this new permit is because we didn't have details uh on how it would be reinstalled. Um, we just provided the new location. So, admittedly, that's not there, but the reason is because we're not changing anything. The installation will be exactly the same as the is stated in the original permit. The only thing that's changed is that location and that is provided in the newly updated site plan that Katie has uh drafted for the city. So the location is approved by the city or at least they're recommending it. It's only a few feet away. It'll maintain the same alignment and visibility. it just seemed a little excessive for us under the circumstances to require um you know an entirely new

permit for something that really was out of our hands that the city required and could probably be addressed simply by us verifying that the installation will be the same. So that's why we're requesting on condition 11 that it be removed. Um Frankie, do you want to jump in on the other elements? Oh, he may need to be unmuted as well. Michelle, I apologize. Um, he's coming from another location. Hey guys, can you hear me? Yes, we can. All right. Thanks. Uh, appreciate it. Um, for for everybody's work on this project. Um, the other two points are Can you state your name, please? Uh, Frankie Medusa, one of the co-owners of the business as well and co-licants. Um, the other the other two are the the Southeast Fence and the gazebo. Um our findings uh don't quite uh reflect the city's uh findings. Um mostly because we think by the relocation of that fence um is uh largely due to public safety and property protection. We want that to be considered especially with the Hawthorne uh foot bridge uh construction that's planned for the future. So the current configuration uh leaves that 15 foot wide kind of unsupervised buffer zone between the property lines. Um and I think with with the removal of that fence and the relocation um it would give I guess um increasable uh use usage to uh to us. Um it's also um that that zone that's currently the way the fence is placed. It's not visible to our front desk and bartenders and entry points. Um, and alternatively subject to trespassing, sleeping, and illegal illegal activity. It's just a really hard area to monitor. So, I think with the planned Hawthorne Bridge, uh, Avenue foot bridge coming in place, uh, we would anticipate increased foot

traffic, potential transit, seeking shelter under the bridge, and that's our that's our main concerns, um, is is really the, uh, the property uh, protection and safety. Um let's see the so uh should the commission I guess allow that the the removal of of the fence um then I think it it kind of makes sense also to to uh to move the the gazebo along along with it. Um, rec relocating the gazebo makes particularly aesthetic sense as well. Uh, mostly because I believe the original site plan of that gazebo in case of emergency or or if there was indeed like a fire and safety issue inside the house um that gazebo I think plants slap right right in front of that exterior entrance. We believe that's what the old site plan shows. So, so it would really open up the space with moving gazebo along with the fence. um we're okay with um removing um all the the the the plastic sighting. We're also okay with the full removal of that winter shelter that we had that was temporary. Um and so when when Jay and I originally purchased the property, the gazebo was actually already on the property as well. And so um those were some uh just some other points that we wanted to add. Um we're also okay with not planting the trees behind the gazebo and the fence, kind of that buffer um for privacy. We just thought that was uh made sense to us. um for for just um uh privacy, but if the city doesn't want that landscaping there, that's that's that's okay with us as well. Um Jay, do you have anything else to add? Um nope. I think that's great. I just want to point out, just to be very clear, where the gazebo was originally placed is a direct uh barrier to exiting the east door um egress. And so that was the primary reason we moved it south,

the 14 ft or so that Michelle mentioned to get it out of the way of the door. So at a minimum, even if uh the fence can't be moved, uh we would request the gazebo to remain in place as it is now for that reason. Yeah. And we're okay with like like I mentioned the full removal of the the shelter and the the plastic signing that was mentioned in the report. So it's it's again I think just from functional use and and for uh for public safety and protection of the property. I think those I think those really heavily need to be considered with the upcoming Hawthorne Bridge crossing and if for safety of exiting the vehicle or the the the door of house. Okay. I think that's Yeah, I think that's all we have. Um, okay. Any questions for us? Yeah. Any questions uh from commissioners to applicants? Um so so just I have a question just to recap um the items in this application that are related to egress life safety and ADA. um the door replacements, the ramp and and the uh dormer uh and and potentially the location of the gazebo so that it doesn't block. Am I missing anything else that's related to safe egress or ADA compliance? I think you got it. Just to be clear, it is three different uh exit points. Um, there's the south facing, the east facing, and actually no, no, the west facing will be retained. It's It's not required. So, yeah, I think you've

covered it. Okay. We may need to temper a window if the ramp's close enough to the existing window. Katie, did you want to come up? Katie, can you Yeah. Can you come up here so the microphone picks you up? There's a Oh, Katie Driver. Um there's a window that's near the ramp and if any of those windows are too close to the ramp then they'll need to be the glass will have to be tempered but the window will remain they can just replace the glass. That's okay. Thank you. Uh, and the um I could I could reference this in drawings, but do do you guys have a knowledge right now of what elevation the foot bridge will be at um directly in front of your property? Is it going to be, you know, pretty high as it as it comes down to reach grade level before Hill Street or We've seen the designs and we uh it's a range and we're not sure how far it will go. Um and maybe that's that is better asked of the city to see where they are in that. But as of as of the last uh designs that the city's released publicly, it was not clear to us. Okay. So, so the concern for like safety and kind of um like un unwanted use on your property and the fence location is is related to being like potentially like under a bridge or or um Yeah. And I'll I'll add to that too because one thing Frankie didn't mention is that one of the things we do know is the city has decided to cut off the driving access. There was a um survey sent out to get public feedback on this whether it would be a uh a single

off-ramp or either on Hawthorne off Hawthorne. And Frankie, you can correct me, but I believe the city has determined that it will be completely blocked off. That is there will be no way to exit onto Hawthorne from uh the highway nor to uh to enter it. And that increased our concern for the uh proposal we're suggesting because it creates uh I don't know you call it a swell of uh lack of activity. Um Frankie, did you want to add to that? Am I speaking correctly? Is Frankie still un muted? If not, I'm pretty sure that's the case. And sorry, I didn't realize I had to click a button to unmute. Um yes, that is my understanding, Jay. Um, and also to the the commissioner's point, um, it there has been a range of where that lands. So, you know, I guess pedestrians going over the bridge will have no problem seeing the Lucas house if it lands, you know, more in the intersection of Hill and Hawthorne, but then that leaves, you know, quite a bit of shelter space underneath the bridge. But then, you know, vice versa if if the bridge does land sooner, um, you know, closer to our property, then, um, you know, they they'll get kind of a maybe a 30 40°ree angle looking down and maybe there isn't quite as much sheltered space. So, we have seen a range. We're not entirely sure, but um, to Jay's point, I think with the closure of the the cars and the less traffic and, you know, we're not sure how how well lit that area is going to be, it's just really hard to monitor. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for applicants? Um, did we clarify about the satellite? Sorry, Katie, we need you. You can stay here. Just wondering if it's is the plan to replace it and or to replicate. My my plan was to replace the whole opening to to maintain the size of the width and the height of that opening and not

disturb the brick, but to replace that window. Um, it was my best guess that it was historic. I don't know exactly. It's the most kind of corky window left. Um, and the divider isn't it's kind of like nailed into the window. It's not real great, but I think the the intent of like the the divider is a 4 foot six and it's kind of asymmetrical was what I was trying to mimic with the new sidelight. So, I did propose to remove that window, that sidelight, but we could try and preserve it if that's a condition of approval. Do you see Do you see any reason you couldn't preserve the existing one and then replicate it on the other side? I think it's just how the doors are made. I know that a lot of them come as one unit, but they could probably do one unit that just had a sidelight and a door and the other, you know, I'm or not sure if there's a header in there. Um, because you show you show a is the term a like a like a wall below it like like a clad. Um, that's what's there currently. So you were envisioning this whole thing to come as as one door with two sidelights from the manufacturer. Yeah. With but then you would apply shakes or cedar above it or Yeah. over kind of a blank space below it. Yes. Okay. Interesting. Um, do you have any comments on the the discussion about the door being opaque versus glass? No, I I I like the idea of this. I don't think that that door. It's not that one, but that five um panel door is original because the top panel is kind of half missing. Um, it doesn't wonder. Yeah, it doesn't. I I think it's a historic door. I don't know if it was meant for the exterior. It might mimic one of the

interior ones. Maybe it got relocated. Um, but I like the idea of keeping the upstairs one glass like it is that French door that doesn't meet egress at the top of the stairs has um is adorable. Um, so and then keeping the one below solid. Um, it's hard to know without any photos, historic photos from the museum to know what was original, but I do believe that door right there that we're looking at is original. And then I think that that sidelight, that one preserve, that sidelight that's barely there, right there is also historic if I had to guess. Okay. Is there anything happening on the interior of the building that would preclude solid versus glass for either of those doors? Um, I don't go on the inside all that much. I'm not sure. Not upstairs. Um I I don't know. Frankie or Jay might know what's going on. Yeah, I know. I'm thinking Frankie um uh uh is there direction on the internal that could speak to what's appropriate externally or I mean certainly the interior doors are all solid um the bedroom doors but obviously that's privacy related um I can't think of any other examples um external doors are generally class. Yeah. I I honestly can't remember. I know a long time ago we had a historic uh lady came over and talked she knew something about the amount of wood panels and you know the door knobs and is able to identify you know age and you know the how how relevant if they were replaced or not replaced. I think Katie's right. I think some of this stuff is is not like from the original construction it but was updated probably around the 30s or 40s. Um, if I remember

when the when that lady did the walkthrough of the house. I guess to answer your question, it doesn't I think the entry door being glass would be nice off Hawthorne. Um, and then the other two just based off the commission. I do think they're more uh the upstairs door has 10 lights, I think. And that's what I would like the panels or the lights to match. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Because I'm not sure how the Hawthorne Bridge is going to um uh interfere with the facade on the south side. Do we do we know what it's going to look like? I mean, I think it's a big long ramp. Um so where it lands to meet the slope of um all users is probably closer to Hill Street than than to the Parkway. Okay. Uh so it's very likely that a bridge user would be um looking down on the property. Okay. from, you know, 12 16 feet high in the air um as they're coming down. It may actually add to the visibility of, you know, it's not going to be a trafficked street anymore. Um, and it may actually add to the visibility to see it from above. You know, probably see over the fences and and stuff like that. And um I I think you the landscape and the backyards would be more visible. You probably wouldn't have much view of the front of the house. Okay. Any longer. Uh

you'd be looking down if you did on the ramp and the front stoop, but you would the angle is like to cut off an auto view from there. Well, if you're on the sidewalk, you see it the same. Sure. If you're on the opposite sidewalk, you see a bridge. And if you're on the bridge, you see, you know, over the railing, probably a little bit higher up. How low do those the double row of windows on the east facade? How low do those go? I can't tell from the photograph. This is where they're shown on the elevation street view when you because from the from this photograph it looks like you can still see them over top of the fence. So, it makes me think even if the fence was moved, they'd still be visible, but I might be missing something. Well, I think the fence, Katie, is 5t high, all the fences, and the windows there are kind of chest high. I'm a 6 foot man or so, so it's in the range. Um, you'd certainly see the tops. Um, very good. Sounds like we don't know for sure. We're good. We can take a walk down there. Any other questions from commissioners to applicant? No. Okay. Here we we have no

commissioners online today, right? Sean Oh, Sean's online. Okay. Anything for you, Sean? Uh no sir, you guys uh asked all the questions that I had. So thank you. Okay. Uh so uh moving on. Um this is now the portion of the hearing where uh we give proponents of the application and give a chance to testify and present evidence. Is there anyone here to speak in support of the application other than the applicants themselves? Uh hearing none, I'll move on to um any opponents. Anyone here to speak against this application? Hearing none. Uh we will close the public hearing. that we do have online people. Do you want to ask them if they want to raise their hand? Oh yeah. If you are online and you're here to speak in favor or in in support or in opposition to this application, please raise your hand through the uh Zoom button. I'm thinking okay I get to hit the gavl again. All right. Okay. Close the public hearing. Uh we will open it up for discussion among the commissioners, the five commissioners present. Um I have a question for Michelle or Heidi. Is had your chance. I know is the sign in our scope at all or is that outside of the commission? I asked our sign staff person and she confirmed that even if the location is just moving in the sign staying the same, they still need a permit. So I don't think that's

really in the scope of the landmarks commission. Okay. So I think my comments would be as far as moving the fence um if the if the south facade is going to be obscured by the bridge u it doesn't it seems like the focus um where the visibility will be shifted around to the west side and so I would not be opposed to moving the fence forward even though it may perhaps obscure the the historic windows. those um because I don't on the east side because I don't think that you'll see them. Um I wish I had something in front of me so that I had a more clear view of that. Um as far as the front door, I would be in favor of glass to replicate replicate the elements upstairs that they replicating. And then I would also be in favor of them saving whatever historic elements they remove. um the door upstairs or even the front door, even if we don't know if it's historic or not, if there's a way for them to save it, just in case it comes from someplace, it may comes up from someplace on the property. Yeah, I think I agree with your comments, Kathy. I think, you know, allowing the fence to move forward. One of the other things that I think I would add a condition or you know, for a detailed landscape and site drainage plan. Uh that would then tell us what's going to go on behind the fence. Uh and in front of it as the gazebo gets moved and there's blank space back there. You know, what's going to happen? Uh we heard discussion, uh not planting some trees. There are some trees dead. So, what's happening, you know, in its place? Uh when I looked

at the site plan and I saw all I saw was a label poppplers and a label ponderosa pine. Uh if the applicant is listening, I would advise against the ponderosa pine and I'd be very uh cautious about the type of poppplers if used um you know if you use the straight species populous uh one you see along the rivers it's a pretty messy tree uh and weak wooded as well. Uh same way ponderosas are great out in the wild. Uh unfortunately I live in the midst of a bunch uh and constantly battle pine cones and pine needles. Uh so in a kind of a public setting you're just going to dramatically increase your uh maintenance. Uh there are other pines uh native as well and even just lodgepole pine is is neater. Uh so I think you know would like to see a detailed plan that shows what's going on. Uh what trees are to be removed. Uh there was language in the staff report uh as something that said as recommended by an arborist. Uh if there's arborists report um regarding the the safety or issues of the existing trees that are to remain. Uh it's unclear to me right now, you know, which ones are actually going, which ones are actually coming in. Uh and you know, if that doesn't have to come back to the entire board, I'm happy to review that with staff uh through that process as well, just to see what's going on. Um yeah, I think the the question of the offramp does mean I think the east side will still be visible in part and as you said Andy the you know the facade will certainly be vis visible from foot

traffic under the a lot of it depends on what sort of uh supports that ramp will have. You know what is it going to look like? What are the railings going to look like? Um I think to it, you know, in the the well and some of this will come through building department review on the ramp just the location of handrails. Handrails typically go on both sides of a ramp. That means you're attaching it to the brick on one side. What's happening in that location? So, and I think again I I didn't see it specifically mentioned in the staff report about uh changing material out in the gazebo from that plastic orated uh I if it's plastic or fiberglass uh material that's there and just using more appropriate uh materials to the compatible with the building. Okay. I believe Jay said that they were willing to remove that. Yeah, he said that. I understand. Yeah, I I think it's just worth codifying. So, or Sean, you guys want to share your impressions? Yeah. Um, I'm glad to hear there's flexibility on the door type. Um I think regarding the fence seems like there may be a a compromise given that the primary view of it will be from a raised elevation on the new bridge and that if we could ensure that the top of fence is not higher than the bottom of the window sill and that might be a way to ensure that there's still visibility of those windows But allow them to keep the fence further

south. I think given that it's a non-permanent piece of the property, it's there might be some room for compromise there. Um, other than that, I'd say agree with all the other uh staff recommendations. Sean, do you have uh any anything to share? Yeah, I appreciate the staff's work on this. Um I think there's a really healthy marriage between building code requirements and preserving historic um elements of the building. And my only hope really would be that in putting in the ADA ramp um that the brick itself is not interrupted with any structural uh penetrations. I think that if there's a will, there's a way. One can build a ramp without punching into that wall. We just don't really know what's there. So, um other than that, I'm I'm good with everything and I don't really have any opinions on the fence to be quite honest with you. So, um, I think I'll go with whatever the more experienced commission and staff feels, uh, is appropriate on that. Does that, John mean you're on the fence? Is that issue? Ah, well done. Yes. It was sitting there. Happy. Okay. Okay. Well, I'll share some of my u impressions. Um, first I I just I I'm I'm not sure why this would be a type three major alteration. It seems

like a minor alteration to me, but I know that there's some uh precedent and there's some flexibility in our code. And um so um I I am glad for the opportunity to like we don't see type two or type one. So, I am glad for the opportunity um to to review it, but I understand that comes with some burden to the applicant. So, um just that's that's my personal feedback to staff. Um, so, uh, given that this is a type three and you're here before the commission, uh, I'd, um, I' I'd say these these egress and and accessibility improvements are, uh, you know, a trade-off. Obviously, we we do detract from the front facade of a historic home by building by putting an ADA accessible ramp in there, but um that is what's we need for it to be accessible to all users and and historic properties. It's almost become a normal architectural style of historic properties to build an archite a ramp. I think we had a um discussion in April that I missed about a ramp. Um so uh yeah everything everything seems fine um from those accessibility I I think that the my opinion is that the doors as as presented are are are an improvement on the existing condition um even if they are not matching exactly what may or may not be historic. Um, I think that preserving one sidelight that might be historic and trying to match it with the with the opposite sidelight on the other side of the door. Um, I'm sorry, which elevation was this? Um, east east on the east elevation is probably not going to be a great

outcome. I think it's probably better to just have a symmetric fully built um try to rep replicate that but put it in a modern door with modern uh you know energy efficiency and operability and durability. Um there it's it's really unlikely that um wood windows are going to last another wood windows that have lasted there 100 years are going to last another hundred years. And um that's what we hope for this property. Um one thing I'll point out is that this property as I've ever experienced it has been from the yard where the food trucks are and where the beer is. Um, so I'm experience I mean as a user and maybe I should have disclosed this earlier that I've had beer there um and listened to music but uh it I I've really um Hawthorne Avenue as it is right now is is not a very nice you know street because it has fast cars coming off the parkway and um the way that this is a public facing uh uh property unlike a lot of the applications that we get which are private homes. This is a home. This is a building that um gets used by you know thousands of people a year and um and they're largely using it in the the whole yard of it. So, in terms of the the public um enjoyment of architectural features that are historic of it, I I say there's no difference. There's probably even a benefit to moving the fence forward on the property because more people get to see those those windows um from from using the the the you know, being a patron of of the food trucks and and the

beer truck. than um from people who happen to be walking by. Although we are going to get some more, you know, users on on the on the pedestrian foot bridge. Um I I I don't have I don't think I would recommend a condition of approval of the fence relocation. I I do think some of these outuildings um the the the beauty of them has, you know, we're sort of in an era where there's a lot of things that were built in in co era and um were never meant to be permanent and they've kind of become permanent. And I I I am a fan of um of of of cleaning up some of these things. So, such as removing uh the plastic um cladding materials on the outside of the gazebo. I think probably dismantling the winter dismantling the winter shelter or removing it. um which looks like it was, you know, made with plywood and um it, you know, it kind of looks like something that got built in a parking spot during COVID. Um that that um I' I'd have higher hopes for for a winter shelter on a property of this architectural significance and historic significance in our city. So, I I would um I think The applicants also said they were open to uh not keeping the winter shelter. Did they say that? I thought that's what she said. Okay. And then um you know I I'm not nearly the expert on trees and planting that that Jim is. Um, I I do think submitting a landscaping and drainage plan might be

a little bit more of a burden on this applicant for this type of application than um is is warranted since we're not really doing site work. Um, you know, short of maybe moving a fence and moving a gazebo and planting a couple trees. Um, so I I would not be a fan of requiring additional submitts for um I think the site plan that's already been submitted is probably enough. Um and um that's yeah that's all my opinions dovtail onto something that you're saying and I because I'm relatively new on the commission I don't know if this can be done but if they save some of the architectural elements and then incorporate them into the gazebo like if they were to um use the windows from or the doors from upstairs or the windows would Is it possible? Number one, is it allowable? Is it something that would they have to come back to us or can it be done administratively? Um I mean this is that a question for me? I'm not sure. I mean it's something that I would do at my house. So I'm just wondering yes, it's a question for you. Thank you. They proposed to incorporate some of those elements into the gazebo, which is an existing structure. If they were just adding to it, that could be approved administratively. Okay. But it's also an allowable use because I know that we've required in the past that people preserve architectural elements, but really with no end date to it or uh no endgame. And so, is it possible for them to be reused or refitted? I think yes, maybe. Yeah, I think that'd be fine. Often um things that do get removed uh features wise,

they put in storage somewhere in the event that they want to reuse them or um you know, put them in the attic or in the basement, you know, kind of thing in case in case opinions or tastes change or that's that typically that what's happened in the past is that I could remember. Okay. Yeah, I I don't think it work. I think it's it's great when an applicant proposes it or they they follow on and they and they maybe get it approved administratively. Um I think making it a condition of approval uh to to me it it's it's only when it's really warranted by the the unique architectural and historic value of the um item that's being preserved. You mean to save the element? To save it. Okay. Like right now we have a cataloged pile of rocks um in in in a county um storage area right now that someday will be a c a new a facade of an old garage that we tore down to expand the court that we allowed to tear down to expand the courthouse. Um that would be an example. And honestly, I don't really see anything that remarkable architectural element that's being removed here that I would, you know, a five panel door that was probably originally an interior door. Um, it's probably not original to the exterior. Um, sidelights. Yeah. Andy, I I think it's uh probably appropriate just to comment and encourage the applicant to find a way to reuse some of those elements where possible and or save them for archival purposes if warranted. Uh and because

the gazebo is not a historic structure uh you know the if anything you know the doors and windows are so you know I I I don't see a requirement for that but I think we certainly can in our record of this hearing encourage it. Uh and then I did want to say the main reason I ask you know I'm leaning towards a condition for a site and you know detailed plan is uh given all the things that go on here what happens in the landscape can affect the visibility of all those facads and you know I was going to ask you when you approach this building for use in the beer garden and whatever do you come from the alleyway or do you come from the Um I usually walk across the uh empty lot or I come from the alleyway. The alleyway. Yeah. Yeah. That goes, you know, back to one of my pet peeves about alleys being a visible point of reference for, you know, so I mean you I'm not looking for anything. I mean, I actually I recommend if I were, you know, I'll just state it in the area to keep the landscape as simple as possible and as clean as possible and probably as low as possible to show off the brick facade. And if you need trees uh to shade some structure, find something appropriate. Uh I don't think poppplers or uh ponderosa pine are uh in that vein. So, so this I think Kathy um one of the things we when we when we say something that we encourage this and it goes in the record or we encourage them to you know not plant poppplers plant some other species. It it almost um it helps staff to make an administrative approval and maybe engage one

commissioner uh to just say like, "Hey, they submitted this back under this application and we can get it approved now without like a lot of, you know, 30-day notice and and and all that stuff again." Um, so I I I do think there's a value in putting things that we encourage in there that they may choose to add to their application, but then would be subsequently approved on an administrative level um by by Michelle or by Heidi and maybe in consultation with one or more commissioners. Makes sense. Yeah. Thank you. But yeah, like storing a door forever with no plan to use it is is I I'm I'm kind of against that. You know, storing, you know, I think I think there was one application where we said, "Can you please just keep the doors forever or the windows forever in some place just so we know that they're there, but to me that's not I mean, of course, they'll say yes because but I I just don't see the value there. I don't see how we're we're meeting our historic preservation goals by doing that. Um any other uh discussion among commissioners? Um we should I had a quick question if that's okay. Yeah, Sean, you're talking about process. Um so I'm still learning too. So, uh, one of the conditions of approval talks about if a new landing and steps are intended to be constructed under the first story doors, they must be included in a subsequent application that explicitly address details of proposals such as materials, dimensions, historic compliance. So, something like that would not come to the commission again, right? That would be an administrative decision by staff as far as accepting the design of said landing. Is am I understanding that correctly? Yeah. Yeah. Yes, it would. And it wouldn't require a new application, I don't think. Um, under a building permit

or something of the sort. Yeah. Building permit would be a subsequent permit, anything requiring permit. Um, but I think they have to meet this hurdle first before they can submit for a building a permit. I think if they can submit additional details as a condition, then we can include them in this approval. Yeah. Cool. Thank you. Okay. Um, so I I think um let's let's start with uh the staff conditions of approval and let's go through them one by one and take a straw pull on what we want to keep or not keep. Um Michelle, you should you should give us the numbers on these. Where's the first one? Um Oh, they're all listed at the end. Oh, they're all in the back. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And they're numbered. Oh, they are numbered. Oh, thank you. Oh, thank you. All right. Okay. So condition one um is kind of standard. I I think it's non-controversial. Um any modification that arises during construction. Uh condition two is non-controversial. Um condition three about additional documentation of how the ramp will be structurally erected fixed without damage to the existing masonry. Uh Sean brought that up. Um are we okay with keeping that in? Yes. Okay. Anyone just speak speak in opposition if you're if you're want something removed. Prior. Okay. Number four, prior to the issuance of the building permit uh final plan set shows

accurate scope of work. That's non-controversial in my opinion. Uh five, if a new landing and steps are to be constructed, the must be included in subsequent application. Again, non-controversial. Six, prior to in issuance of the building permit, the original sidelight is proposed to be if the original sidelight is proposed to be replaced, the applicant must provide additional documentation to demonstrate why repair and rehabilitation are not reasonable options. We could say or propose a new door and side light that replicates existing condition. I think that's what the application is. So I think that's that's equivalent to just removing that. Yeah. The question of condition is really you know justifying why and I don't know is I mean if it's in pristine condition do we want them to keep it? That's the That's the question. I feel like going back to your statement, you know, about a good solid door um you know, that's well constructed that replicates um that that architect architectural element I think is enough. Some of it may be specs though. Yeah. I mean, we're not really clear on the dimensions of the door. Is it as I think I asked earlier I mean because looking at the pictures you know one of the lights on the side looks wider than the light on the right you know yeah but they widen the door and then and then they become parallel but is the door I mean I guess the question is the door then narrower than an 88 required the existing door I believe is yeah I think that's what they presented I think you had a good point though about if if one is original and then the other one's a

replica they're probably not going to match and it just be a worse outcome than replacing both of them. But I think from the application, Michelle wasn't sure if they were proposing to remove them or keep them. So I think part of this condition was about clarifying that. I think we learned that from the applicant today, right? That they are planned to be replaced. Yeah. Well, it may be sufficient then for the applicant to address this criteria just by including something in the record that says that's what they're going to do. Okay. So, um I'm going to propose that we replace six. Well, I I mean I think seven kind of covers um this like this is exactly what we're going to do. We're going to show us a cut sheet of the door with sidelights that you intend to provide. Or maybe it's a door with two two tall um windows. Um and um yeah, like and so staff can confirm its compatibility with like the existing uh the historic sidlight appearance. I'd be willing to bet that it's code-driven and it has to be replaced. So, if the commission is good going forward with with what you just said, I think that's the best probably the most reasonable solution. Okay. So, I'm proposing we remove six and keep seven, right? Six. Yeah, it's okay. Seemed like seven does cover. All right. Um, eight. Uh, so prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant must provide manufactured drawings. That's non-controversial. Um, nine, prior to final planning inspection, front yard landscaping must be improved to increase the visibility

of the double row of windows, reduce the spread of cheat grass, and generally upgrade the aesthetics of the area of the property. Um, is the front yard the south side? Southside is the front yard. Yes. Okay. I would say, you know, I would possibly modify that condition. Uh, and just, you know, prior to final planning, inspection, uh, landscape, you know, a landscape plan or landscaping must be demonstrated. that would allow staff to make that determination with the assistance of commissioner. Uh because it would, you know, if you change that u prior to the final planning inspection, uh landscape must be improved uh to increase visibility of double row of windows uh and other site features. So my my my pause here, Jim, is that Okay, so they've planted they they've proposed to plant three trees. They they've not proposed to like change other aspects of the landscaping of the property. Um, we don't have the jurisdiction as the landmarks commission to say you you got to mow down the chief grass in front of your like we we have the jurisdiction to say that landscape elements can must be compatible with um the historic character or whatever the whatever the Ben development code says. But we don't we can't make an applicant do something that's not um that's not scope proposed. Yeah. No, I I agree. But I would I would argue on the other side

of that that cheat grass is not a historic material. Uh and is not part of the, you know, uh I mean it probably wasn't cheat grass when this house was built. Uh it might have been lawn. It might have been something else. could you know uh and we are concerned with the visibility and appearance of structures and landscape affects that visibility and appearance in dramatic ways. I think one of the earlier photos of the historical showed uh this goes back to a comment I made. It was a bunch of pines obscuring the front. Yeah. Yeah. That was the the museum's photo of it. Yeah. Those were probably muggo pine that were planted ages ago and have now become rather than the short shrub that people think it is is now a dominating tree. And I think the site is simple. A lot of their landscape is paved features and decks and gazebo. Uh I think there's a ramp that's going to come across the south face. Uh those at least half of that landscape is going to go. So, what's happening in its place? Uh, we're talking about moving the fence forward. Uh, what happened? You know, geez, that's going to that's going to destroy a lot of cheap grass or move it into the backyard. So, you know, we're talking about some changes to the site plan. Um, and it's also just I mean I think and that's why I asked some of this, you know, may come up during building uh review like the storm drainage looks like now everything just sheds off the roof onto the landscape. But I think really uh we heard the applicant or talk about okay trees that were proposed on a plan that was submitted with the application are going to be remove are

not going to be planted but there are other trees that exist on the site that are dead and it was stated in site plan they're going to be removed. So what's happening in that? Uh, and I think that warrants a look at least by staff uh, at some point. I'm not I'm not asking that it comes back to the commission at this point, but I think it's worthy of review since it will significantly affect the appearance of the structure. So, to clarify, you're just looking for a landscape. Yeah. Well, well, yeah, a landscape site. It could be a revision of the drawing that's up there. Uh again, it was discussed that the plan the trees between the gazebo and the fence would be removed for the visibility. Uh so there's a change there that we're already recommending in terms of landscape. So I think it just behooves us to have that as part of the record in any approval of the application. Okay. So just as a recap the lands you know in 10.20.130 the design review criteria for landscape B says that um landscape and it says parentheses visible from adjacent public street alterations in new development shall incorporate traditional landscape elements evident in the historic properties in the surrounding areas such as grass trees shrubs and picket fences as applicable. And two, inappropriate landscape treatment such as BMS and extensive cover inconsistent with the historic landscaping of the property are prohibited. To to me, we're limited by alterations and in new development um shall incorporate. I I I I don't think we have the ability to tell maybe an overgrown

property that is getting some ramps and stuff to say, "Tear out all the cheap grass, put in new landscaping, give us a landscape plan." I I I don't think that that we can put that burden onto an applicant that's not proposing a landscape a landscaping already. But I but I do think we could put a condition of approval that said if if landscaping is proposed uh then you shall submit a landscape plan drainage plan and the landscaping shall uh be uh proportioned from native species and ex and shall uh uh accommodate shall not impede on the visibility of the architecture of in the house. Yeah, I I understand what you're saying, but uh quite frankly, we have a proposed landscape that has been submitted. It says new popular trees, new uh ponderosa pine. We've heard uh voiced an alteration of that by removal of uh the poppplers and yet there's still proposal to remove pines and remove other trees. So there has been a proposal to modify the landscape. Okay. So I would say I it's in our best interest in preserving the appearance of the house and property because properties of are of historic value as well that we see something that says this is what you're going to do with the site. if they propose to uh manage cheat grass. Uh that's probably something for the building bureau since it's an invasive species and is, you know, frowned upon by other means. Uh but and I would think it would benefit the owners and applicants themselves to do something

about that. But I think asking for a more detailed site plan given the changes that we're talking about uh you know and some more specifics about the landscape is not out of question. Okay. Okay. Particularly if that's something that they can be reviewed at a staff level. Okay. So some version of of uh condition nine we keep in. So if you could work on the wording that you would you would want to see. Does anyone else have in Is everyone else in agreement on that? Okay, Sean, speak up if you're not in agreement, I guess. I'm just not sure what jurisdiction we have over that. Um, I like the idea of it. I'm just going to have to read through the code to see where we stand on that. Um, and I do know that there are other city departments that regulate um things like noxious weeds and invasive species. Um, and they have their own processes as well. Um, so I don't want to use the phrase I'm on the fence again, but I'm just not sure how much jurisdiction we have. Yeah, thanks for pointing out that there are a lot of new plantings in in this site plan. Um, I think Sean doesn't want to dive into the weeds on this. Yeah, happy Father's Day, everyone. Wish I was there to high five you, man. That was great. Uh, okay. Um, looking at uh condition 10, prior to uh the applicant must relocate the gazebo north to set back behind the fence. Um, I I'll say that my opinion is the gazebo's location. Well, when one we said the the gazebo moving north in its previously approved location was uh impeding an egress point. Um where it

um where it's proposed to be moved further south is kind of contingent upon the the fence being moved further south. Um, my opinion is that the best uh condition to put here would be to remove incompatible non-historic materials from the gazebo and and not have any other condition around the gazebo. Does anyone else have a differing opinion or something to add to that? Tom, Jim, no, I I agree with it, John. They've actually won the commission. I breath it. Okay. As well. Okay. So, so let's just kind of say 10 is removed and replaced with remove incompatible material from gazebo at to to bring it back into the conforming. Mhm. It was It was previously approved. It was existing. It was existing. Okay. It was previously tolerated. It was previously recognized. So So the the modification of adding the plastic onto it was the non-approved thing that we want to um reverse and you're saying and not move not be required to move it. I I mean I I don't I personally don't have an opinion about them moving it to where they propose it to be moved. I think it is proposed to be No, it's it's proposed to remain in its current location, right, Michelle? No, it's supposed to move it's it's proposed to be moved south. Okay. it. I I don't think that I don't think

that needs to be a condition in my opinion, but um yeah, I No, I don't. Okay. I just I I wonder, you know, what are the windows that look out at the gazebo? Are they ground floor public spaces? Are they, you know, rooms rented in the facility? Uh yeah, I'm not I'm not sure that's salient to Yeah. the No, I think you know, I'd leave it up to the applicant at that point if they if they decide to move it. Uh but I wouldn't ne I wouldn't I would agree. I would not require it to be moved. Yeah. Um can I just point out one thing that the staff recommendation also includes uh recommending the denial of that. So, we want to strike that if you where uh on p the bottom of page 30. Yeah. Oh, on bottom of page as a put that in the approvals instead the last sentence of the Okay. So if we if it's not a condition of approval then we we don't need to we can approve it with with some conditions that we don't include. So um yeah staff recommendation is for the commission and yeah so I think if we just don't say anything about it then it's then it's approved de facto. We've also not um said anything about the fence relocation. Um, is that in a I don't think that was in one of your 12 conditions. No. Okay. So, do we are we also okay about uh being mute on the proposed fence um being moved? I mean, I I I shared my opinion about how this place is

experienced and when and who's likely to see the windows, but I I could see another opinion from others. Uh I would support stating that the the top of the fence is to be no higher than the bottom of the window sills. Okay. The double row of windows. Okay. We'll make this our numbering is going to be way off. So, um, let's just make this part of the new tent. So, I'd have they've only proposed to relocate the fence. They've not proposed to build a new fence. Suppose they could chop off the fence if it is too tall. Yeah, the current fence to me looks like it's already below this hill, but I just want to It does appear that way in in um photos that we have from the front. So, um, looks like it's and if they were going to build a new fence, they'd have to submit a new application. So, I'm I I think putting no no condition of approval around the fence is is is the approval to as they've applied to um move it south to the corner of the building. Yeah, that's fine. And it is low. Yeah, it is. I mean, yeah, you can see it pretty well there. Um, yeah, street users on Hawthorne are going to be seeing this from an elevated position any in in the future bridge scenario. Okay, so 11 um sign permit, we said this is outside of our jurisdiction anyway, so we'll just might as well just keep um and 12 is non-controversial. any other conditions um that we haven't discussed that we want to add to this list? Um I just want to make sure we're clear on the doors.

Like if we're saying they can they can change to be glass. Um they can change it from what they're proposed from what's in the application that we're clear that we're giving that flexibility. Okay, let's add that to something um that we already have. U the current seven. Yeah, the current seven which is now six but current seven they asking for additional documentation. Is is there is there an exterior door they're proposing that doesn't have have um monton glass lights? I think the second floor is a solid. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I thought that was Okay. I just want to make sure if we approve the application and we don't state that that can change might not be clear. So like let's add to seven that second or this is the north elevation, right? This is the west. Okay, man. Sorry about that. Second floor west elevation door can be changed to glass at the applicant's uh a compatible glass light door at the applicant's discretion if we're not going to make them change it to glass. if they want to. Um, I don't want to find out that there's some like other code reason why it can't be glass. Mhm. Is it possible just to say that we give them the discretion to decide to put glass on any of the three doors that are going to be changed? Um, they've proposed the other two doors do have glass, right? We don't have a cut list. So

yeah, it's true. This this is to be finalized by staff when they're submitted. The next condition existing aid does ask for manufacturers sheets. Yeah. Cook sheets and stuff. Yeah. That should come back. Um, and I I would just add um Kathy, what Kathy expressed earlier about um making a recommendation that any historic materials that have been um removed, we would encourage them to preserve and reuse. Yes. Um and like we could add that to 12. Um so we'll say the commission encourages um reuse of materials historic materials. Yeah. Because there were a few doors there um removed during this um process but it's not a requirement. Okay. Who knows if if the backside of that one door were flat, you could use as a table in the gazebo. Right. Right. Could always put my beer on it. Um any other any other topics that we want to cover in conditions of approval before make a motion? Okay. I think I might have the best notes, so I'm going to make the motion. Um, all right. Get ready for this, Michelle. Okay. Um, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the application as as presented. Um, with the staff recommendation, conditions of approval, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

8, nine, and 11 unchanged from staff. Did you get that? One, two, three, four, five, eight, nine, and 11. unchanged unchanged from what staff had said. Uh we will remove a condition six from staff. Um, condition seven, we will keep what staff listed and we will add the recommendation that the second floor west elevation door may be changed to a glass light window compatible with the other doors proposed. uh at the applicant's discretion. We are going to replace um item 10. Uh that um we will I'm sorry I forgot I forgot nine. I'm sorry. Um, we're going to revise nine uh with uh so we're going to keep what nine has in there and submit um landscape drawings showing for for staff approval. What was the other thing you wanted in mind Jim? Um support I mean submit a revised site plan uh that identifies uh their proposed landscape that you know supports the visibility of the building historic structure. Okay, is that clear enough for nine? Michelle,

submit a revised site plan that identifies proposed landscaping that say uh supports the visibility of the historic structures on site. Item 10, we're going to replace with uh applicant shall remove uh incompatible materials from the existing gazebo that were not um approved to be installed. specifically the the corrugated uh clear plastic siding. Are we Do we want to make them tear down the the winter and and remove and remove the um win what do we call it? The winter shelter. Yes. That's condition two. I'm sorry. Unless you want to not give them the option. that is in condition, too. If they wanted to replace it or or improve it in some way, I think we'd be open to that. You know, put some put some nice cedar sighting on on the plywood. Okay. Uh so that's 10. And then adding to item 12. Um, so what what staff has put and then um we that we want to say that the commission encourages the reuse of historic materials removed during this process um so that they could be reused in the future. But it is not a it is not a

it is not a condition of approval. Our condition is to encourage. Encourage Our condition is to encourage. Yeah, we've made this condition. We encourage it. Uh, as we've spelled this out, I make a motion that we approve the uh application with the conditions of approval as we have discussed and as been recorded by uh Michelle. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay, Tom second. Any discussion? Okay, I'm going to call a vote. All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Sean. Right. Okay. Uh that is a there's no one else. So, um motion carries. Thank you, applicants. All right. All right. We survive it. Um, moving on to the next item in the agenda. Where am I? Um, review and discussion of Franklin Avenue undercrossing and overpassing corridor improvements. Uh, this is um we have the applicants here or or uh are they applicants? Yeah, the um this is like my uh agenda item. I've been working um talking with Justin today and he's going to give a presentation and give it um update on this letter from the state historic preservation office and the recommendation document that Dell created regarding the Franklin Avenue undercrossing overcrossing

recommendations that they're working on. So, this is really an education um item to bring us up to speed what's going on and and um I asked Justin Bethle to join the meeting and then we can um uh promote them to who who needs to be. Sorry, I'm reconnecting. Okay, my battery and Mason. Oh, you're reconnected here. Thank you. If you want to do it, you might have more. Okay. Well, um, yeah, if you could introduce yourself and Yeah. So, I'm I'm Todd Johnson, senior senior engineer with City of Bendum on the engineering side, working these Midtown projects. Um, yeah, probably have some answers on Hawthorne for you, but it's all right. It's uh it's kicking off KPFF. I don't think they like Yeah, they're starting this soon. You're gonna get a message saying to come back in. Send it to Justin. I just I see it on mine. Okay. And Justin, can you introduce yourself? Yeah. So, I'm uh Oh, there it is. Join this pan. Um I'm I'm Justin Mason with DAL. Um we are the design engineers on the Midtown Crossing Progressive Design Build project, which includes the the Franklin Undering. And that's what we're here to talk about tonight. Okay, let me get the slideshow up and I will let Bob kick off. And we may not know the best pro. So yeah, I guess just background right now. We've submitted a

recommendation for historic eligibility on the undercrossing. It was accepted by Shipo. So it is officially now a um whatever you a what what's the word I'm looking for? uh they they uh concurrence they they've concurred concurred with our um assessment that it is um a historic eligible eligible. Thank you. That's it. And so then when we when we're proposing actions on it um getting a letter or some sort of concurrence from the landmark commission. So we present is we take this to Shipbo and say this is what we're preparing to do here. Okay. holding the local group. That's what we're looking for. All right. Excellent. So, tonight is just so I understand what's going on. Just tonight is a overview of the project, some generalities, but as you move forward through the project, you'd like some guidance or recommendations from the commission. And where we currently are right now, we have a work session with council tomorrow prior to the city council general meeting. um need to talk through just really getting concurrence that this is the correct path that we're going down on design. Okay. Um that walls will be replaced etc. So Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Context. Um we're I don't know if you've we did the Greenwood project which everyone's extremely thrilled with. Uh we are Second Street is part of the core area um as part of Midtown. That's actually wrapping up construction. We have a a party on Tuesday. I think it's Tuesday 24th. Hawthorne Bridge is being designed by ODOT. Um federal funding came into place. They're designing and

constructing. And then we are still Yeah. designing Franklin Avenue. We're currently at like between 30 and 60%. Yeah. We're we're right at 60%. Getting ready to submit that. Um so yeah, so I can jump in. Um the the the Franklin portion of this project runs from Haramman of our project, Haramman to Fifth Street. Um and it's a a multimodal uh project improvement to improve sidewalks, uh bike lanes. Um and a portion of that is the undercrossing of uh ODOT and Burlington Northern uh ride ofway. As we got into this project, it was it was quickly understood that that was likely a historical feature. Um it was uh actually I'll jump here. Um it had been identified on the Oregon Historical Site database. It was in there, but it was not individually evaluated and identified as a historical feature. It was part of a thematic grouping. I'm going to do my best. I'm not a cultural or historical person. Uh she's not here tonight, so I'm going to do my best. Uh so, as part of our project, we were asked to to to look at this um evaluate the undercrossing, research it, and so we we prepared the report. you have that um that was submitted to Shipo with the recommendation that it was ineligible um uh that it was eligible um since it was part of the the works progress uh administration resource uh the WPA. Um there have been improvements to the undercrossing uh when the the city put the the um division uh street bridge in in 1979 that changed the the railing that's on the west side of the project.

Um so that was all identified and submitted um to Shipo. Uh they supported the recommendation uh that it be uh eligible under criteria A and C. I do not have the definitions of those in front of me. I apologize. Um, and then you'll see I I quoted a little piece about the 1979 road overpass and the the improvements that were done with that and updates that while it it it's not part of the original, it still has historic um uh integrity um of significance to to to uh deal with. Here's just some pictures kind of working um west to east of the existing conditions out there. Uh you can see the railing on the west end is in quite a bit better shape than that that's on the east side of the undercrossing. The west is what was replaced in 1979. uh the railing and light standards on the east side uh appear to be original and we did in the ship report too it um that railing is a feature component of the bridge so they're not really separate entities despite it extending 100 ft to the east of the actual undercrossing that's both north and south of Franklin it is. Yeah. Yep, it's on. Yeah, both sides. Um, something that's not pictured here too well are the retaining walls, the the rock facades that are on the retaining um on both sides of the undercrossing, north and south. Let me see if I can shrink this. And it's certainly it's the retaining walls

are more prominent on the west side of the undercrossing than the east which is a natural rock. So y yeah our current design right now um we're looking at potentially touching three of the four walls that are currently um at the undercrossing. There's a little more. We're one of the one of the key components of this feature like we heard a lot from the community about the feeling of that tunnel being unsafe, the sight distance into it. So, we're trying to improve rather than there kind of being a hump on the sidewalk and you can't really see into those tunnels, we're trying to make a lot more like clear visibility into those tunnels so you can see if there's if it's comfortable. We want to improve lighting in that in that condition as well. Um some of the other things we're we're doing concurrent to just the under the flooding issues that have occurred. So we're trying to add in um some storm features. We're getting the water line which was which currently kind of jogs north under the parkway. And then uh ENJ carpets inj carpets injingj um it's right straddling their property lines. would be proposing putting the water line actually in the road at Franklin, which would make a lot easier maintenance for city staff as well. Um, one of the directions we got from council was to create uphill climbing lanes to kind of help with traffic flow and and improve bicycle safety. So that kind of gets in when we're talking about re changing those retaining walls. It's pushing them either to the north or to the south, but it's building additional retaining walls too in some instances where we would need to do that. Yeah, generally I think yeah, 8 foot

sidewalks. Um yeah, generally that covers anything? I don't think so. No, I I think you hit it. You know, it's Oh, uh, the other I guess the other thing, this is not historic, but working with, uh, ODOT to remove um, the other access between the parkway and the on the south side. Southside, it's currently closed. They actually put chain link fencing, but it goes from the parkway to that south undercrossing that kind of goes to that safe feel when you're walking. I don't know if anybody's walked under there. It's uh it's it's interesting at times, but but yeah, I think I think the the big point of this Yeah. are widening the sidewalks, regrading to make it a much more um walkable uh and and safer feeling. And then the climbing bike lanes are the big things which which require us touching the three quadrants. The southwest quadrant we're not planning on touching. Is is there scope inside the tunnels, the the walkway tunnels? No. Okay. No paving at all. No paving. No. Okay. That would just be the sidewalk there. Well, sorry. Yeah. Um in the in the actual undercrossing, we we are moving. So the current low point of the road is under it's at kind of the very east end of the rail under crossing and we're trying to move it about 10 ft to just get it out of the sag of the rail so we can put an inlet where it's not kind of covered by the rail line. Yeah. Yeah. I think the only other improvements that are planned right now specifically is is relocating the water line uh in the roadway under the undercrossing. Um,

but yeah, the chain link fence is likely to stay for now. You talked about why going to 8 foot sidewalks, but not on the not under the under between the chain link and the wall. Yeah, we can't unfortunately like the cost is just prohibitive for us to even like try to touch those the actual tunnels themselves. Oh yeah. Yeah, they did a feasibility study of that and it was in the 20 I mean there were a lot of dollar signs on the presentation. It's like four. I mean it would be us it would be us functionally rebuilding both bridges. Yeah. Yeah. So the uh I'm sorry maybe you're going to get here. When you remove when you move the the retaining wall on the on the um west side of the bridge on the north side of Franklin you rebuild it retaining wall. Yeah. So I can you know whichever I mean the the direction right now that we are taking is again we're we're touching three of the four quadrants. Um the plan would be to go back and and try and match what is going to be remaining on in that southwest quadrant. So trying to use same materials for the rock wall fascia. um trying to use a similar uh concrete um pre-cast railing that was that was done in 1979. We will maybe have to do some adjustments. We're looking at current fall standards um and codes that are required and if they meet it, but the overall aesthetics would be to match that one quadrant that's going to be remaining on the other three the other three corners. So existing is cast in place and and proposed is pre-cast. Uh the railing. Yeah, the railing. Yeah,

the it's it's kind of hard to tell. It looks like what's on the west side that was done in 79 might be pre-cast with cast in place columns. Um these these larger columns, it's similar to what was done on the um Veterans Memorial Bridge. Um similar method that was done there. uh we would anticipate would be be done here. Um so the the sections would be pre-cast where they can they'd have good control of that and then brought over and then the the large columns in between the pre-cast sections would be cast in place. Yeah. Um is is that is it immediately on the other side of of the retaining wall? Is that going to remain like sort of a a like lightly used roadway or is it going to be like the multimodal path in city right away in terms of that frontage road you're asking? Yeah, that little frontage road. Yeah, that generally stays. Um, we still just the need to provide emergency access into there. Um, I've seen overdoses happening in that tunnel and yeah, the need to get an ambulance there. Generally, we're keeping I think maybe one distinction is maybe the access of a vehicle. If you look on the west end, um the access of a vehicle, we're pushing that wall a little further west um coming down from the parkway as well. Yeah. So there's a little bit less vehicle access, maybe a a slightly further that someone would need to walk to get into those tunnels from a vehicle, but generally keeping keeping those the same. And especially on the south side, it's not changing. Yeah. I mean, I guess we'd be wondering if you're going to go to put a replica railing in there and code's going to

tell you it needs to be 3 feet tall or something, right? um which which would really be a a very different um I think that's a risk and and one of one I mean one of the ways we could address that is the wall maybe appears higher from the roadway perspective and you know the the from the user perspective pedestrian maybe it's set down Yeah, I think if we had like your your rock facade wall, the the pre-cast portion of it, like I think if we could match that and so that the the high side experience if it needed to be three feet tall, then it could it could still be three feet tall, but we're not trying to like elongate this. Yeah. This pre-casting the Yeah. Yeah. You can see these are these are some of the the drawings our structural engineers have been pulling together and they they have identified that there is we we will likely need to go just a little bit taller and what they're where they are right now and this is obviously we're still early in this but it would be building a a a curb. Um you can see right there. So the railing itself would still be proportioned the same. Yeah. But it would be sitting on a curb to get that elevation get that height. Okay. Can we go back to you said an 8 foot sidewalk, you know, climbing bike lane and I I guess I'm not sure what you mean by climbing bike lane. Yeah. So, one of the requests we got from council was just as user coming through that tunnel, a bike user, they go very slow uphill. So, they slow down traffic. Um, it's just unsafe. So it was push those walls further away from the roadway and make

space make that five feet for a bicycle lane to be out of the roadway. And so that's what the climbing the intent of the climbing bike lane is. Yeah. Got it. So on this drawing, this this darker gray is is where that wall would move back and create a bike lane and it's grade separated. So there is a a curb. So the bike lane's higher than the roadway. Oh, great. Okay. Do you see any impact to that former Lewab building in the southeast corner? We've been I mean Dowels's also doing the design on that. Um we've been coordinating with them in terms of rightaway dedication etc. There's there's utility challenges too. Um yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're we're working closely with with that property owner and and I think their intent is that that building will be um removed. That's not part of this project, but our project will impact that building. Um with with right-of-way acquisition that that property needs to to to provide to the city to develop. Um and with that, I think the intent is that that building would be removed before we get there. That's certainly the site plans that were submitted. Yeah, I think that that project got put on hold for interest rate reasons or something, but yeah, I I I talked with the project manager on the engineering side of that and I I talked to them daily and yeah, they they're aware of the the need there. And the driveway the driveway is kind of the extension of First Street to get to Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, there's a whole I mean discussions of whether it's like a one or for Yeah. Yeah. I mean our our on the on the public side our responsibility is potentially building that frontage although

development agreement's written very like what's what would be like option. It's like if the city builds this then you don't have to do it otherwise you do. And and then we're also bringing water. I think we're bringing the water line to the property line. Okay. So, is the retain the retaining wall on the east side is is kind of sloping right now. Is it is it proposed to be vertical? Yeah. To recapture that. Give us more space allow for because that's that's an issue with the sight distance of those tunnels, right? Like the sidewalks are pushed far to the north and the south of where those tunnels are. So, trying to align those better. Yeah. I mean, I I I usually feel safer when I bike like through the tunnel, but I kind of hope that no one's there. And then I find out when it's when it's too late that someone's there and they're doing whatever. And um I feel safer on the on the pedestrians. Well, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. On the sidewalk. Yeah, I do too. Yeah. Maybe with a climbing lane, though. So, again, this is all subject to kind of where council where bond funds are spent. Um, sure. Yeah. Excellent. Um, just had a couple. Um, as a staff planner, um, I appreciate you coming and bringing this report to the commission and to staff as well. That's great. Um, uh, so much of it's deteriorating. Those pictures were so sad to see in the report. But um I get calls and questions about stuff like when when are the are the light poles going to be replaced on the other side? And um I I think you know as we go forward it would be really helpful to know like what's being

restored, what's being, you know, what's what's changing. You know, anything you can provide for us as as the public front when I do get questions that'd be helpful. Absolutely. Yeah, lighting is an interesting one. Yeah. Um, and that's it's it's in if you look at his if you look at the third picture from the top right, there's that concrete cast lighting column, and they have them on the Third Street under crossing, too. What we're proposing is using the the cast iron features that are on the west side of of the undercrossing and make that consistent. Okay. At all corners. Oh, okay. So, removal of that. Yeah. I mean, it's it's part of the crumbling railing. Okay. Well, so if you have any existing drawings or plans that you could share that, you know, kind of show what's being touched, what's not, that would be helpful. Yeah. And I I mean we're trying to also nail down costs too and just an understanding of you know what is the scope of work um what is going to kind of lie with the historic nature of this corridor right um while trying to also I mean we're trying to pinch pennies too and we're going to council tomorrow and saying we have a two something million dollar you know deficit right now with what we're showing a contingency might narrow or project costs get a little more refined. Okay. Well, I um I say I'm in support of what you're showing. Um don't want to see those railings elongated. Um, I I think it's

really reasonable that like concrete like original railings like that, they they look better when they're preserved and replaced and and you know, there's always going to be something that crashes into them over time if it's a transportation structure. So, um, I I don't think preserving them is is warranted based on their condition. Um, so I Yeah, we can we Any any of anything else from commissioners? No, I think we'd be happy to draft a letter in support to your um to Yeah. Do we have Can I have something to say? Yeah. Yeah, sure. I'm here because of this. Oh, sure. Thanks. And we talk to Rod. Can you say your full name, please? I'm Rod Hunt. Hunt, property owner of 123 Northwest Franklin Avenue. Okay, which is it's this lovely view of the undercrossing. And if you don't mind, I'm going to point out he was talking about the wall that if you're not, this is a picture of the wall, which they don't have shown, which I got off their report, but it's all the lav. It's all It's like the old stone church. It's it's all this rock. And this is what the railing sits on top of. And so what they're talking about doing, which makes little or no sense to me because I'm like right here, is tearing that wall all the way down for this bip plane. in my argument or my thought and there's also two lamp posts that's my history of where I ended up where I'm at is when I go from Third Street and go underneath from the east side when I come up there's these two beautiful walls and the railings and those lamposts at the end of that and that

takes me into Oldtown and that to me is landmark. So, I don't agree with removing that wall because they'll never be able to replace it. I don't know what that photo was that they had. I hadn't seen that one. But I also disagree with configuration of what they're trying to do with Hill Street. They're trying to make that a lefthand lane coming south on Hill Street to go underneath the the overpass and you can't see down there and just moving that and putting a bike lane coming up. But I don't think is the right idea. I sit here and watch this stuff all day long because I live here. Uh the lamp post I can say I think and if if they take it out and they don't want it I do. Let's put it that way. I'll put it in front of my plates. It's one there's the two. There's this one here would have to complete come out completely and then that one is will stay. Um, but what's interesting is not too far away from this intersection, there's going to be a multi-million dollar bridge for bicycles and pedestrians. So trying to reconfigure this when the bike paths are just a couple of blocks away to take you over without a single car doesn't make any sense to me. So anyway, I like the the the landmark value of it and I don't agree with what's going on. I don't know where they got that proposed wall picture from, but I mean that's I know they have to build it. I know it's not cheap to do what they're talking about. So, and I'm also trying to help them or discuss what's happening between Hill Street and Herman because that's where I'm at. And I've got my building is a historic building. I work with Heidi. I'm right next to the old stone church. Across from that, it's

another building. So, um, you know, I'd love to keep it looking the same way as much as possible and and why they're trying to deal with a block between Harry and I I don't understand what they're doing and we've looked over many things and I've gave them my suggestions. I'm just here to share with you guys my opinions. Okay. Thank Thank you, Rod. Yeah. Um, sounds like sounds like you're a fan of the value engineering of the retaining wall. Engineering out the retaining walls. Um, yeah, I think I think that this is probably proposed to be a concrete retaining wall with a stone facade. Uh, I don't know if the original is actually stacked stone. Um, if it's depending on how old it is, it could be just stacked stone, but there there would be a, you know, somewhat noticeable difference maybe. Yeah, that that proposed wall example is um from Pioneer Park over on Portland Avenue that when we put that that ramp in, that was the Yeah. So, that's that's a modern modern construction of Yeah. of uh and then the light post. Yeah. that you're not planning to um change on the south side, you're planning to reuse the light post on the north side. That would that would be the intention unless there's some reason why we couldn't salvage it. Um I think we'd be trying to match what those are and that might be a challenge to source, but um it's from 1979, right? So yeah. Yeah, it's it's not WPA lamp post. Um, but yeah, I'm that's heard. I mean, I I'm I own two properties in the historic

district myself and you know, I I value it as you do. So, um, and what I mean recognizing the location and the the context of this undercrossing to kind of Old Bend, I mean, we we on the project side submitted this like it was indeterminate on the kind of historic status of it and we submitted it like we understand there's architectural historic significance and we're trying to ensure that all proper steps are taken and that what we end up with out there kind of matches the vision of what we've done. Sure. Okay. Well, timing too. All right. Um, thank you guys. I think Yeah. Thank Thank you um Todd and Justin. Okay. We're gonna Good night. Yeah. Thanks for coming. Thanks for Thank you. listening to us talk about fences and stuff. Yeah, she you have any dad jokes to leave us with? You're in good shape. Um, okay. Uh, item four in the agenda is the approval of the April 15th draft minutes. Um, yeah, I apologize. was not able to be here. So, I would propose somebody else make a motion to approve the draft minutes. I so move. We have a motion from Jim Figurski to approve the draft minutes from the April 15th meeting. Do we have a second? I will second that motion. Okay. Tom seconds. Tom Schmidt seconds. Uh, all in

favor say I. I. All opposed and I will abstain. Okay. Uh minutes are approved. It's my agenda. Okay. And um any reports, communications reports from landmarks commissioners? Anything you want to sound off on? Anything else from staff? Um, if you don't have anything, I just I know that our last grant we worked on rewriting the code and and um this grant we have some funds to try to do to facilitate public hearings for that. So, that's coming up. But um can I just revisit with you all um skylights and um metal roofing? You know, I mean it's just all these new um concerns have come up about the fire hazard. So people are like, well, can I can I replace my roof of metal roofing? Can I put some skylights in? And I know we've done skylight. We as the commission have approved skylights because it's not a permanent feature that can be taken out and re re um shingled you know is is this something I you know I don't know do you have any feelings or any things about the metal roofing? I know we've done we've approved metal roofing that's like pretty shallow. Um, it's not a an historic U material that was typical in the historic districts, but it seems like it's unresidential. On residential. Yeah. Well, I imagine many of the houses probably had cedar roofs, right? So, and that's isphalt

shingles deposit. So, as just a replica, not a very accurate one anyway. Right. Yeah, I mean for me I mean I understand I mean but I mean yeah the pressure of fire and people worried about fire you know it would I think a lot of it would depend on uh you know what is the structure being proposed is it you know the details yeah the detail yeah is it non-contributing contributing uh you know are there metal substitutes like metal shingles that might look just like there are ceramic shingles and there are other options uh you put a tin or a copper roof on some structure and that might be historic depends on what the you know structure w and what its purpose is. So, okay. I mean, it's Yeah. Yeah. I can't say that I'm adamantly opposed. I'm skeptical. Okay, that's good. But many people wouldn't even get a permit to re- roof, right? So, currently you do need one. Oh, you do? Any roof or just Yes, any roof, I believe. So, is that correct, Sean? That is correct. Yeah. Um my thoughts on that would those people that have those concerns particularly within the historic district because that's the context that we're yes speaking about right now. Um, I would certainly recommend they talk to um, Melissa Steel at the fire department because um, the research that I've done is that the roofing material itself, unless it's wood, is is probably not the most important part of fire prevention and fire spread um, on a house. They're

pretty important. Eve openings, things like that. Um, and I've only seen a couple metal roofs in the historic district or outside the historic district on some very old homes that were copper or things of that sort that looked beautiful, but I can't imagine I can't personally picture a modern metal roof on a historic home looking natural. And that may not be the best solution for them and it may not be the most cost-effective solution for them either. So, I'd certainly recommend have them talk to fire. Okay. Thank you. That's those are that's fairly helpful. Thanks. Thank you guys. Yeah, generally I think it's Yeah, it's a fairly incompatible uh we could take it on a case by case basis, but um we we have a really notable appearance difference between a standing seam metal roof compared to a shingled roof that is even though it was as it's asphalt shingles. Um, and it looks different than than cedar shakes that would have been historic. Um, and good points. Good points. I I I do think that uh, you know, their appeal is really the durability. I mean, I think you can go like 40 years without replacing replacing a metal roof generally. and um that there are certain parts of buildings that don't have an infinite life. We're trying to make, you know, our hundred-y old buildings here in this t in this town last another hundred years. And what's going to take them to last another hundred years after that? It it's just kind of um you know at some at some point wood-built structures decay and and parts need to be replaced and every roof at some point needs to be replaced.

Um but yeah, I don't really think that Okay, thank you. Um, sky. Yeah, skylights. I I think minimizing their their like visual impact is probably a warranted thing, but um they're largely experienced from above and from inside the house. Okay. We we've had, you know, discussions of solar panels from that visible from street frontage, um, which we've approved, right? And that somehow made it into our code 15 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. Manure. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House and, you know, in the 70s. There you go. So, okay. Yeah. minimizing that visual impact is and and I think we really in general we want um we want to drive through a neighborhood and make it feel historic that the houses are they're old, the buildings are preserved and they look good and the landscaping accentuates and the transportation and and and and right away um features are compatible and um that the homes modifications that are done are not destroying something that has historic value. Right. Right. Um so, okay, that's helpful. Thank you for Yeah. talking about this. Okay. Well, um I will move that we adjourn. Do we have a second? Second it. Okay. All in favor of adjourning say I. I. I. Anyone oppose? All right, post. Have a good night everybody. Give me a