it's h a n t s. we're before you because the new owners are enthusiastic about the property they bought it with a conditional use and want to adjust it to their own needs so they made some improvements to the interior to the historic facades. they also bought the building with a ton of building depth violations which people don't often realize but going back to 2001 they were let me just find them for you i want to read it for you. i have a lot of files which document each facade so i'll be going through that with you.

let's so here we go. i want to read a violation from 2001 that's 2012 years were the building is in disrepair the roof is falling off and they use a water hospital to drain inside the building. this is the packet of the various violation notices that from 2001 to 2012. there was a lot of pressure on the new owners to start doing something about this. also the subdivision of the property required that the portion of the building that of addressed to the north side be demolished because the subdivision law and department didn't allow the buildings to be overlapping over the property line and it was 6 feet off the existing north wall of 940

grove. and i'll to start with the north property line that's the most controversial aspect of this project and it's the only major recommendation we agree with. staff is recommending you know that north facade be roared so i'd like to run you throw a quick history of this project and it's lay out. if i could have the overhead. commissioners this the the 940 building the gray is the existing roofline you can see the allegations to the roof were done quite sometime ago and as the lady indicated there were additions done if the 50s basically this home turned into a school starting in 1956 there

were subject additions made over time this is a one and two and 3 story wing over the basement. there were can believe additions made over time. in 2011 when you approved the certify of appropriationness for this project it became a housing project this again indicates the 940 grove street building the historic building those are the east additions and those are 3 townhomes that were approved on the site. to give you a visual in terms of what it looked like prior the play yard and this the tower and the one and 2 and 3 story element there's another one story element when evolved from

al los most square i can see the one story school wing and it's almost two stories at the northern end. i can see the two-story addition and those additions to the roof. so very little of the historic material was actually visual over time. when all this was removed excuse me. this is what's left and what's kind of in the at an excuse me. shows where the outline was basically an non-historic portion of the building and if you can see this is where the roof was attached and where there's penetrations done you have pen tracing for the stairwell access and all those

penetrations compromise this wall it came like swiss cheese and the building department was concerned about making sure this was structurally reinforced and reconstituted and also made weather tight. to achieve that goal owners basically recognizing that the north facade would not be seep and if you look at the luxury there's had a line here this is where the new buildings are approved and it would block the remainder of that north facade. so what was done was the north facade elevation was finished in a high quality way but with rustic sidings the corners were maintained and the - including

this. this is obvious the west facing bay that's been all restored. in terms of transition that was beautifully done in my opinion taking the facade and ending it with the tlail and then you have the kind of plain rust indication along the north facade. now there's a one hundred-year-old precedent which is the neighborhoods down here. this is 6, 12 signer it's the building it's basically right now existing north of the facade in this area. you can see the victorian facade is on a primary part of the

building and the side party wall facade is done in plain rusk indication. this is what people did 1 hundred years ago. you didn't want to spend time, energy and money decorating a facade that wouldn't be seen. it's a finished totality and the actions in terms of allowing for the subdivision basically obtain secures that facade and destroys it's historic integrity. here's the elevation and the north facade and how the new building would obscure that whole elevation. this is one remedies we take issue with with respect to what the staff recommended. we'd like this commission to do is make a finding and i'd like

to pass out a draft finding for you and condition since i have one minute and a 33 seconds he left and basically find that the changes that were made allowing the new buildings to be built to the north of this building essential up against it the finding would be make the alternative to the may 17, 8945, to 1975. those additions obscured itself facade so the historic detail can remain visual. the approval of new construction of the new 4 story building has allocated party waiting wall status to the north facade. we think that's an appropriate

findings and with respect to condition regarding the north facade united states north facing bay and a impediment should be preserved. it can get 90 many windows and doors consistent with the common facades. there shall be no appropriate acquisition between the corners and side plaintiff's. similarly we don't take issue with itself north facade i have more material to show you but again this is the krukts. thank you for your time >> thank you, commissioners questions for staff or the

sponsor? commissioner pearlman. >> shelly i had a question. thank you there was the conversation been about the 18 inch curtain on the or on the secondary facade what was the purpose of that? why was something added and then related to that the staff is suggesting that the railing there should be different from the railings that's different on the other levels? >> i'll start with the second part wire recommending that the railing above the wall be lighter. they'll be used in different context and we think the handrail in the front yard should be historic. and it didn't >> the clerk will read the journal from the previous day

add to the retaining wall. the proposal is to now getting to the first part of our question. the architect or the project sponsor has chosen to add the 18 inch curb to the topic of the retaining wall. i'm not sure we hadn't discussed other than to create more privacy around that level i'm not sure you might ask the architect. to meet the 42 manipulative railing requirement >> thank you, commissioner. >> i have a followup question about the same topic which was two followed. one was there no ever a railing it seems odd to have a railing

with a wall >> either at the retaining wall the school had some paths that crossed cross the front yard and they had simple two rails but were not related to the retaining walls. one thing i've noticed in the project you've got the curb and fence it seemed a historic how is it wouldn't have been a 42 inch dimension it would have been a shorter fence. i think making the fence simpler would be fine >> commissioner highland. >> i concur with both those comments. i have a couple of questions.

so it appears this work was done outside of the appropriate approvals and my question is: is there a reason why the work preceded prior to the approvals? >> i can tell you how it was poland explained to me but perhaps we'll be able to better answer that the project was under construction they have a desire to get it weather typed before the rainy season and didn't think they'd be able to get through the process but my colleague can add it that. >> one they had the certify of appropriateness they assumed the windows were included we found out no. you needed a certify of

appropriateness to replace windows we filed that on june lifting to go through a 20 day process but it didn't happen and ultimate it was folded into this garage and north evasion changed the process that required a full certification of appropriateness. the building was vandalized. we've been lucky with one rain in the season. >> so on the windows the staff recommendations is that the windows are okay. can someone provide me more information on the windows that's been installed.

there's not a clear photo of the windows and i notice it has a no guard; is that correct a no guard window. so how did - how were the million dollars of the frames of the windows matched if it's a manufactured window how do we know they're actually the same size >> unfortunately, the only way is to look at the historic photos for the original windows so i asked the project spokesperson to bring by historic windows and as many of the photos in the existing conditions as soon as possible. we added the condition of approval hopefully, you'll

include in our motion that staff will do a site visit to it insure that the scope of work has been followed through appropriately but the project sponsor has assured us that they match the condition formulation of the double sash windows as closely as possible but i have not been on the site to confirm that myself. it's been on a construction site that i haven't had access to >> so the windows may not be the exact windows but it seeldz the historic ones were much more delicate. i don't know if those are the exact same windows. i would - staff has made the statement they're the same and

i'm questioning whether it's true or not. and then two other items. highway close will the new building on the north side be away from this building. there's no plan showing either >> right the new building will be 6 feet from the plain of the north facade. so there's a credible set back between the buildings and that's part of the reason staff is recommending it be restored to its original condition. especially within the park itself but you'll have to use the back facade by the portions of the east facade that remaining retain from the center are 1rish8 from the street >> one last question.

on the bay window above the garage in the plan it appears both the existing basement plan and the proposed new plan there's a bay at that level but the elevations don't articulate that very well and they certainly don't come down to the bay so the retaining wall >> it's a projecting bay. but i'm sorry, i had missed that in the daily in the plans i'll take a look at it >> it seems like the plan isn't correct. it says see but it doesn't show up on the building. so how it finishes if it's a projected bay it's important but

it it rests on the walkway so i don't know which it is. it's a general comment this is not a very well organized packag package. >> okay. thank you. >> i have one quick comment. >> there was the request to have the material on the east facade put back the corner of thing is that available or is that going to be recreated. >> they'll have to be recreated i don't think anything remains. >> okay. thank you. >> so on this garage door the solid wood is that flat?

do you know? >> staff didn't have is a recommendation whether it's paneled or flat but if the commission has a preference. >> it seems at any time flat because the retaining wall is flat. it's a minor thing >> your meaning solid wood as apples and oranges to others. >> i'm going to go further and say flat. >> and then on this north facade thing this is a big deal; right? this is a big massive deal. honestly at this time i have big hesitation an requiring them to replace that. it looks like it is done in a traditional style i don't know the sample of the material that's proposed but that's a big

deal. and to me it's a secondary facade they're doing fantastic work on the front end and it looks like their moving on the building next door we're not going to see much of that that were but my question is on the windows is it metal windows yovp i don't have enough information to weigh on a opinion on the windows. it seems like they're pretty darn close >> i have a lot of answers to the questions. >> it's just the mike. >> i have a lot of information in terms of the information you've asking me to respond to specifically what do you want to know here.

>> what was the original dimension of the rail on the sash and what's the new dimension on the - what are the diechlz. >> i'll have to ask the project architect. >> i honestly - >> let me interrupt this we're going to take public comment on this thing also. this c of a and the continuing work on the building hold on. okay. the continuing work on the building where are we in that stage? we're already in this process i'm going to be honest we want a more be robust

package with sand tools and we could go on and on on that this. today, the project is deciding on the windows have been installed they're not going to change the endanger and the - the garage portions has not been completed at this point. that's what would have to wait >> yeah. commissioner fry and we're not there yet but if that's the direction you want to go perhaps we sever the garage portion from the rough of the things that's already been done because those won't change because we're noting not holding up the project sponsor. >> commissioners tim fry i have

a couple of comments to keep a few elements in mind. we share our frustration in getting the appropriate drawings it's something we've had to work with the project sponsor open. we felt this at least gave you enough information. we have some apprehension about splitting up the project. they wanted to separate the garage as a c of a at this hearing it's our apprehension and so we would encourage you to keep everything together but it's reasonable and makes sense to ask for more information to

what are the changes that have happened outside of your approval. a quick comment on the north evasion if you decide to let that retain we want to remind you, please make finding because that's a change from your previously approval and originally they were supposed to repair the existing siding and we had enough evidence to replace the siding on that according to the existing fabric so it would be a change in our approval so we know that could have implementations on others promotions you see in the future >> okay. he we're going to take public comment. i have one speaker card

(calling names) >> good afternoon thank you for giving me a chance to address you on this issue. i appreciate the questions that you've asked because some of your questions are my questions particularly the work was done without permit. when i heard that the owners wanted to continue so they could complete the work without being interrupted by the rainy season i was awe taken back because the work has been done on fifth and the other streets. so i'm very perplexed as why experienced contractors and project managers would xhim commit to doing work without a permit. i'm also concerned there's

usually some kind of consequence e.r. remedy when work is done without a permit. as far as the windows i had to wait 6 weeks to get permission to change the windows in the front of my home i also own property. so i'm concerned with what it looks like what was happening to it and the reason the work is done. i'm also asking where the city inspectors involved with the work and if they come to evaluate the work and did they know they didn't have permits. i'm only asking questions i think should have answers. the north wall i watched it being completely restructured. most of the building is new material at this point and some

of us know the only thing that is left is the front steps because quite a bit of their work is done and they're thinking they should be approved because some of the scarf lifeguard was taken down. i need to know whether or not there's a consistent ruling on work that can be done with a permit, without a permit and a whether or not you're going to approve work that's been done and because it's been done it will be allowed to stay. so i thank you for your time >> thank you. any other member of the public? >> i'm ted bartlett i'm the former owner of grove i owned it until i solid n it in february

of this year. our new buildings 808 stooern are almost through modification to their site permits are 5 feet away on the north side of grove. i was the one who bought the property and came to you on december 7th, 2011, and got our approval to demolish the very ugly school wing that was built in the 1960s pr it was solid in 1978 an orphanage and 940 grove was pretty sure falling apart arrest a majority of the windows had plexi glass screwed into the

rotten frames and the windows commissioner highland i've taken numerous civil guided tours on the property and i'm very impressed with the quality of everything they're doing and i believe they're going to supplement with but the windows match exactly the wood frame and i think the building is beautiful. on the subject of the two elevations the neighbor talked about removie the scarf lifeguard they did a good job and didn't remove any siding on the north side. so the owners removed the non historic structure from the mansion and that thising was