[00:00:01]
OKAY, I THINK WE'RE READY TO BEGIN THIS AFTERNOON.
[Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on February 23, 2023.]
UH, IT IS 2 35 ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23RD, 2023.UH, MY NAME IS BETH WEAU JACKSON.
I AM THE ACTING CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER, UH, DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING.
APPLICANTS MAY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
DOES THIS SOUND ODD TO ANYONE ELSE? LITTLE ECHOY, BUT WE HEAR YOU FINE.
HELLO? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA BE ECHOING TODAY.
UH, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, UH, MAY HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK WHEN CALLED UPON.
AND WE DO HAVE SPEAKER FORMS. SO IF YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE, UH, TODAY, UH, PLEASE GRAB A SPEAKER FORM AND THE STAFF WILL GET THAT UP TO US.
IF YOU ARE JOINING US VIRTUALLY ONLINE, UH, YOU CAN, UM, SUBMIT YOUR NAME VIA THE CHAT FUNCTION, AND STAFF WILL FACILITATE THAT AS WELL, AND WE'LL CALL IT ON YOU TO SPEAK.
UM, FOR THOSE OF US JOINING US VIRTUALLY, JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO PLEASE PLACE YOURSELF ON MUTE, EITHER ON YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN OR VIA THE STAR SIX ON YOUR TELEPHONE.
I'M GONNA START WITH QUORUM COMMISSIONS NURSE, PLEASE.
UH, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, UH, CHAIR EK.
SHE'S AVAILABLE ONLINE AND, UH, WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING HER RIGHT NOW.
UH, COMMISSIONER COLLIN, WE ARE ASKING IT TO HELP YOU.
IF, UM, PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU CAN CONNECT LATER.
RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HEAR YOU, SO WE'LL MARK YOU AS ABSENT FOR RIGHT NOW WHILE SHE'S TRYING TO PARTICIPATE.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SEPULVEDA PRESENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER STAAVA PRESENT.
AND COMMISSIONER YAPP, UH, PRESENT.
I THINK WE'VE GOT A FEW OTHERS WHO MAY BE JOINING US, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD, UH, AND GET STARTED.
SO OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE THE, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
UM, MADAM VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M JENNIFER OSLAND, UH, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS MEETING OF THE HAHC IS BEING CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT 900 BAGBY STREET IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE PUBLIC LEVEL OF THE CITY HALL ANNEX WITH THE VIRTUAL TEAMS OP PARTICIPATION OPTION.
UM, EARLIER THIS MONTH, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S CELEBRATED OUR 83RD BIRTHDAY, UM, UH, ON THE FEB 14TH, WHICH WAS VALENTINE'S DAY.
WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 1940.
UH, SO WE WANNA THANK, UH, YOU COMMISSIONERS AND ALL OF OUR STAFF FOR BEING DEVOTED PUBLIC SERVANTS.
UM, WE'RE PROUD EVERY DAY TO WORK ALONGSIDE EACH OF YOU AND, UM, UPDATE ON CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.
UH, CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING YESTERDAY, FEBRUARY 22ND, ON THIS PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION TOOL.
THE MAYOR HAS NOT SET A DATE FOR WHEN COUNCIL WILL TAKE ACTION ON THE ITEM.
UH, WE ARE LOGGING AND CONSIDERING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL.
UH, SO THERE'S STILL, SO YOU CAN EXPECT SOME TWEAKS WHEN, UM, BEFORE IT DOES COME TO CITY COUNCIL.
UH, ROMAN MCALLEN, OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CAN ALSO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, UM, AFTER THIS MEETING, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY, UM, REGARDING OUR MEETING SCHEDULE.
UM, THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IS MARCH 23RD, AND THERE IS NO MEETING IN APRIL, SO NO MEETING IN APRIL.
UH, MEETINGS WILL RESUME AGAIN IN MAY, AND THAT IS MAY 18TH.
WE ARE ALSO SCHEDULING, UH, WORKING TO, UH, SCHEDULE AN ETHICS TRAINING AND A JOINT MEETING WITH THE HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD.
UM, WE'LL BE SENDING AN INVITE, UM, PRETTY SOON FOR THAT.
HERE'S A SNAPSHOT OF SOME PRESERVATION WORK, UM, IN THE PAST MONTH THAT IS, UM, BEYOND TODAY'S AGENDA.
STAFF RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 35 APPLICATIONS, UM, THROUGH THE END OF JANUARY, 2023.
[00:05:02]
UH, UH, WITH 35 RECEIVED SINCE THE REPORT IN DECEMBER.AND THE COMMISSION REVIEWED 13 OF THESE APPLICATIONS.
STAFF REVIEWED 23 ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED ITEMS IN JANUARY.
STAFF ALSO RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR TWO APP PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEWS WITH A TOTAL OF TWO FOR THE YEAR.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6, OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY, WERE ANY COMMISSIONERS ABLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING YESTERDAY FOR THE CONSERVATION ORDINANCE? COMMISSIONER MCNEIL DEAD? I HEARD, I HEARD IT WAS A, A ROBUST DISCUSSION.
ROMAN, I HEARD YOU DID A GREAT JOB.
UH, TANYA DUBOSE WAS ALSO PRESENT.
SHE SPOKE, COMMISSIONER DEBOSE WAS ALSO PRESENT, AND SHE SPOKE AND THERE WAS GREAT DISCUSSION ON CITY COUNCIL.
LOTS OF GREAT QUESTIONS AND GOOD INPUT ON THE PROPOSAL.
UM, OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA ARE, UH, IS THE PASSAGE OR CONSIDERATION OF THE, UM, PREVIOUS MEETINGS, PREVIOUS AGENDA MEETING MINUTES.
THIS WILL BE JANUARY'S MEETING, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S JUST FEBRUARY.
FEBRUARY, UH, THOSE WERE POSTED ONLINE AND I BELIEVE ALL COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED A COPY.
SO WHEN YOU'RE READY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, UH, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE I WAS ABSENT FROM THE JANUARY MEETING.
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES IS WRITTEN SECOND FOR CURRY.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION FOR MCNEIL A SECOND FROM CURRY.
ANY OPPOSED? AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION WITH COMMISSIONER YAP.
AND WITH THAT, UH, THE MOTION PASSES AND, UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UM, I THINK WE'LL MOVE TO OUR, UM, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND EVERYONE HERE, UH, TODAY STAFF IS PRESENTING TO YOU.
I'M ROMAN MCALLEN, THE PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON, AND WE HAVE TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.
WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER TOGETHER AND, UH, TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. A 1 10 12 COURTLAND PLACE, AN ALTERATION REGARDING WINDOWS IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH FOR APPROVAL.
I NEED TO CONSULT WITH STAFF REAL QUICK.
THIS IS A, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A LONG WEEK.
NUMBER TWO, THAT'S WHERE APPROVAL AT 10 12 COURTLAND, A 2 12 29 OXFORD ALTERATION IN ADDITION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NUMBER THREE, A 3 12 29 OXFORD NEW CONSTRUCTION GARAGE, DETACHED APPROVAL IN HIS HISTORIC HE EAST.
THAT'S A STRAIGHT APPROVAL STAFF.
PLEASE CATCH ME IF I MISS ONE OF THESE.
A 4 10 51 HEIGHTS BOULEVARD ALTERATION SIGN FOR APPROVAL.
A 5 9 27 WEST COTTAGE ALTERATION EDITION IN NOR HILL FOR APPROVAL.
THIS IS ONE OF THE CERTIFICATES OF NON DESIGNATION, AND THAT'S FOR APPROVAL.
A 7 18 18 CANE ALTERATION DOORS AND WINDOWS IN OLD SIX WARD.
THIS IS A DENIAL AND ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION AND A 8 2 1 1 7 LUBBOCK, AN ALTERATION ADDITION FOR APPROVAL IN OLD SIX WARD.
THAT ONE IS ACTUALLY, UM, A C OF A THAT HAD EXPIRED, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OVER TWO YEARS AGO BY HHC.
AND NEW OWNERS HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND ARE ASKING TO, UM, RE SORT OF REISSUE THAT, REFRESH THAT C OF A, SO
[00:10:01]
WE'RE ASKING FOR AN APPROVAL THERE.SO AGAIN, IT'S A THROUGH A ONE THROUGH A EIGHT AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A NINE TO BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
UM, SO WE'VE GOT THE CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE US.
IS THERE, UM, ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS? CAN I PULL A SEVEN, PLEASE? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER MCNEIL, I'D LIKE TO PULL A SEVEN, A QUESTION ABOUT A EIGHT, IF I MAY.
IS, IS THE ONLY, UH, ISSUE WITH A EIGHT, THE, UH, RE UM, ISSUE REISSUANCE OF THE COA? ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES OTHER THAN UNDERSTANDING MR. PREVIOUSLY EXPIRED? WE HAD, I'LL CHECK WITH STAT.
THAT IS THE EXACT SAME ISSUE BEING REISSUED.
NO CHANGES TO THE, THERE'S VERY MINOR, NON-SUBSTANTIVE.
ACTUALLY, THERE'S A MINOR NON SUBSTATIVE CHANGE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
OKAY, SO THAT'S PULLING A EIGHT AS WELL? YES.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSION MEMBERS ONLINE? UH, I'D ASK ABOUT A SIX AS WELL, PLEASE.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, UH, FOR A 1 10 12 CORTLAND STREET.
UH, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME AND, AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT WE DO HAVE, UM, A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THAT COA.
SO I THINK I HAVE MR. FORD AND FLORES, ARE YOU STILL INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON THIS? OKAY.
UM, THEN WITH THAT, WE WILL, UH, I GUESS ENTERTAIN A, A MOTION FOR, UH, CONSENT AJO ITEMS A 1 10 12 COURTLAND STREET, A 2 12 29 OXFORD STREET, A 3 12 29 OXFORD STREET, 10 51 HEIGHTS BOULEVARD, A FOUR AND A 5 9 27 WEST COTTAGE STREET.
IS THERE A MOTION? UH, YAP MAKES A MOTION TO, UH, GROUP THEM TOGETHER FOR CONSENT AND SECOND.
CAN, CAN WE, CAN WE, WE, WE'VE BEEN DOING, UM, THE MOTION TO
STAFF, IS THAT ALSO A MOTION TO APPROVE? WELL, THAT'S A CASE THEN TO ALSO APPROVE PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? ABSTENTIONS.
OKAY, THEN CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ONE A ONE THROUGH A FIVE ARE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
UM, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR COAS CHAIR.
UH, HOUSEKEEPING POINT BEFORE WE CONTINUE.
MAYBE IT'S A POINT OF ORDER, IS, IS THERE ANY WAY ANYONE KNOWS WHAT THAT REVERB IS? AND, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ITS CLARITY IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO, UH, FOLLOW WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE TODAY.
WE'RE WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER COL AND SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES AND ALSO IF ANYBODY HAS A CELL PHONE ON AT THE, UH, HORSESHOE, SOMETIMES THAT'LL AFFECT IT AS WELL.
SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND, BUT WE ARE WORKING ON IT.
I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO A 6 16 90 NORTH LOOP.
STAFF PERSON I BRING TO YOU TODAY TO CONSIDER ITEM A SIX.
THIS IS GONNA BE 1 6 9 0 NORTH LOOP.
THIS WAS SUBMITTED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NON DESIGNATION.
THIS IS IN AN AREA WHERE THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A STRUCTURE, NON HISTORIC, NON-CONTRIBUTING.
AND THIS HAS BEEN CHECKED INTO THAT IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE AREA AND THEY WANT TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NON DESIGNATION.
I MYSELF, THE STAFF AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
SO THIS IS A, A, UM, A NOT WELL USED TOOL, UH, BUT ONE THAT APPEARS TO BE, UM, IN, IN APPLIED WELL HERE.
THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS JUST, UM, ATTEMPTING TO TO, UH, 10 YEAR.
YOU COULD SAY THEY'RE BEING PROACTIVE.
THE CERTIFICATE OF NON NON DESIGNATION IS GOOD FOR 10 YEARS.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF THEY MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS, ISN'T IT
[00:15:01]
AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL? WE DON'T ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT.SO THE WAY THE CRITERIA READS IS IT HAS TO NOT MEET IN THE CRITERIA.
AND SO THIS IS NOT MEETING WHERE IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION AS A LANDMARK ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.
IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION.
IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AS A LANDMARK OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE AND IS NOT, DESIGNATION IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND SO THE WAY THE RE LANGUAGE READS IS HAC SHALL NOT GRANT IF IT FINDS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING.
AND SO THIS IS MARKED AS THIS DOES NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF NON DESIGNATION.
BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GRANT THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION.
IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY, THEN IT'S AUTOMATIC APPROVAL.
IS THAT RIGHT? UH, IN THIS CASE IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS YOUR FINAL VOTE.
I WILL ADD THAT I DID REACH OUT TO COMMISSIONER ASHLEY JONES TO SEE IF SHE BELIEVED THAT THIS COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR AS AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.
AND SHE CAME BACK AND SAID IT IS NOT, UH, THE QUESTION ROMAN, IS DOES THIS REQUIRE OUR VOTE? IS THIS JUST AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL ORDINANCE REQUIRES THIS COMMISSION TO CONFIRM THAT? I THOUGHT WHEN WE'VE HAD THESE IN THE PAST, IT'S LIKE A SHALL APPROVE AND WE, BECAUSE THEY'VE COME UP PERIODICALLY.
THERE'S BEEN THREE OR FOUR IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS.
THIS IS CHEMICALS AND THAT IS CORRECT.
I THINK IT'S USUALLY SOMEBODY TRYING TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ZONING.
BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE CITYWIDE ZONING.
AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER KIND OF LIMITATION ON, ON THE, THE USE OF, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO U UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR.
BUT I THINK IT DOES REQUIRE YOUR VOTE.
IT IS A SHALL APPROVE, IT'S MINISTERIAL BECAUSE THEY, THEY DON'T MEET ANY OF THOSE, UM, REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT YEAH, WE, WE'D ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
UH, YAP HAS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
IF THERE'S A COMMISSIONER THAT IS JOINED WITH TWO DEVICES, PLEASE UH, TURN OFF ONE OF YOUR TWO DEVICES THAT MIGHT HELP WITH SOME OF THE FEEDBACK.
AND OUR HITS TEAM IS ALSO WORKING WITH THE COMMISSIONERS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.
UM, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT UH, YOU HAVE ACTUALLY GOTTEN, UH, CONFIRMATION FROM COMMISSIONER ASHLEY JONES THAT THIS IS NOT A POTENTIAL HISTORICAL BURIAL SITE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I DID EMAIL HER THE APPLICATION MATERIALS LAST WEEK.
SHE CALLED ME ON THE PHONE AND SHE DID CONFIRM THAT IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? YES.
COMMISSIONER COLLUM, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING, WE, WE HEARD YOU.
CAN WE FIND OUT WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THIS PROPERTY? PROPERTY? AND THERE'S A HORRIBLE ECHO, ECHO COMM, COMMISSIONER COLLUM.
THERE'S A CHANCE THAT YOUR MICROPHONE IS CAUSING THE ECHO.
IF YOU'RE ON TWO DEVICES, PLEASE TURN OFF ONE OF THEM.
UH, WE'VE ALSO ASKED OUR, UH, HITS TEAM TO ASSIST YOU WITH SOME OF THE DETAILS, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU'LL TURN OFF YOUR SOUND ON ONE OF YOUR DEVICES, IT WILL RE PROBABLY ELIMINATE THE ECHO.
GO AHEAD AND TURN OFF THE SOUND TILL WE CAN GET HITS TO HELP YOU RESOLVE THAT.
'CAUSE WE WE'RE GETTING ECHO FROM YOUR DEVICE.
PAGE SIX APPEARS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
WHICH SHOULD BE SHOCKING AND NEW FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
THIS IS, UM, IF IT'S, IF IT HELPS CLARIFY ANYTHING, THIS IS, UH, A BUTS LOOP SIX 10 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN.
UH, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT THIS WAS AT SOME POINT PART OF INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE CAME THROUGH.
IT IS NO LONGER PART OF, OF THE INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY.
UM, AND THERE WAS SOME INDUSTRIAL GREEN SHEET STRUCTURE.
[00:20:01]
WAS THERE.THE GREEN SHEET BUILDING WAS THERE FOREVER.
IF YOU REMEMBER THE GREEN SHEET BEFORE THE INTERNET EXISTED.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO A SEVEN CHAIR.
IT'D BE SO KIND IS TO REITERATE.
IT'S COMPLETELY AWAY FROM THIS, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU, SO ANYWAY, COMMISSIONER COLLUM, CAN YOU PLEASE MUTE? THANK YOU.
SO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER CURRY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND IT PASSED.
SO A SIX HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
SO MOVING ON TO A 7 18 18 CAN STREET GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE STAFF PERSON JASON LEVENTHAL.
TODAY I BRING FORWARD YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR ITEM A 7 1 8 1 8 CANE STREET.
THIS IS A HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THE OLD SIX WARD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THIS DID GET A, UH, COA APPROVAL OF, THIS IS ACTUALLY IN 2016.
BRING ME THOSE DOCUMENTS PLEASE.
SO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS ESSENTIALLY TO KEEP THE APPROVED COA THAT THEY GOT IN 2016.
THERE'S GONNA BE A SKYLIGHT PUT IN THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE ON ONE OF THE ELEVATIONS.
IF YOU GO THROUGH THE ELEVATIONS, I HAVE INSERTED ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH ELEVATION PAGE AS WELL AS THE FLOOR PLANS, WHAT THAT SIO WAY WAS.
SO IT'S MIRRORING WHAT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2016.
SO YOU CAN COMPARE AND CONTRAST.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY REMAINING THE SAME.
SO WITH THIS STAFF, UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT TYPE? 1818? YES.
SO YES, I HAD, I HAD IT LINED UP HERE.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS 1818 CANE STREET.
UM, THIS WAS A, UH, 19, UH, WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY ALTERED IT BACK IN 1938.
AND SO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS NOW THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE PORCH THAT WAS RAISED IS NOW SHIFTED TO THE LEFT.
AND SO THE FIRST FLOOR HAD BECOME A BAKERY IN THE PAST IN HIS CONDITIONED SPACE.
AND SO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS TO REMOVE TWO OF THE THREE FRONT ENTRYWAYS 'CAUSE THEY WERE ADDED AT A LATER DATE.
AND SO LEAVING ONE DOOR IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
ALSO TWO TO REPLACE EIGHT NON HISTORIC WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS WITH A ONE OVER ONE DOUBLE HUNG INCIDENT RECESS JAILED WINDWOOD WINDOWS.
AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTION REPORT HAS BEEN DONE.
IT IS VIEWABLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE REPORT, THERE HAVE BEEN RED TAG NOTICES.
THIS ALSO DID RECEIVE A COMMENT FROM THE OLD SIX WARD AND THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF COA ISSUANCE OF COR FOR WORK COMPLETED AND IS APPLIED FOR.
AND I DO MAKE A MENTION THAT I MADE THE CHANGE ON THE SLIDE THAT IT SAYS AS APPLIED FOR.
IT'S NOT IN THIS RECOMMENDATION.
BOB, MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON THE ACTION REPORT.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I AM AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER MCNEAL, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY THEY'RE GETTING A COR VERSUS A COA.
SO THEY'VE, HAVE THEY EVER COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION BEFORE WITH PROPOSAL TO DO ANY WORK TO THIS BUILDING? THE ANSWER IS NO.
WAS ANY OF THIS WORK DONE WITH A PERMIT? COULDN'T BE RIGHT? NO, THE RED TAGS ARE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT.
WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS THE REAR PORCH WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMIT.
THEY WERE GOING TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS AND WAS HALTED BY THE INSPECTOR.
SO THAT'S WHY THE RECOMMENDATION IS ISSUANCE OF COR FOR WORK COMPLETED, WHICH IS THE REAR PORCH.
AND THEN AS APPLIED FOR, FOR REPLACING THE NON HISTORIC WINDOWS AS WELL AS THE TWO, THE TWO DOORS IN THE FRONT ENTRYWAY.
[00:25:01]
SO THE COR IS FOR THE BACK PORCH AND THERE'S SORT OF A COA FOR THE NEW WINDOW WORK THAT THEY WANNA DO? I'M NOT SURE.I'D SAY IT'S A COA, IT'S A ROMAN.
I MEAN YOU CAN'T GIVE A COR FOR WORK THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.
IF THEY WANNA REPLACE WINDOWS, WHY AREN'T WE ISSUING A COA? WELL I THINK THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED, HAVEN'T THEY? YEAH.
SOME OF THE WINDOWS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED.
IF YOU'LL LOOK AT, UM, YEAH, I SEE THE PICTURES.
I'M TRYING TO TRACK WHAT'S THE COR AND WHAT'S THE COA? SOME WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED, BUT WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO REPLACE OTHER WINDOWS OR ALL THE WINDOWS OF ALL THE WINDOW WORK'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
WELL, WE'RE JUST TREATING IT ALL AS A C OF R.
YOU KNOW, THEY GO BACK TO THAT.
IF YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE C OF A, YOU GET HALF OFF YOUR PERMIT.
SO THEY HAVE DONE SOME WORK, BUT THEY PAUSED WORK AND THEY'RE REQUESTING TO WHAT EXACTLY THE DRAWINGS OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'VE GOT REQUESTED HERE.
BUT FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW THERE'S STILL THREE DOORS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THEY WANNA TAKE THAT DOWN TO THAT ONE ORIGINAL.
SO THAT'S NOT DONE, BUT IT WOULD ALL YOU, WE WERE ASK, WE'RE ASKING THIS COMMISSION AS PER THE ORDINANCE, THIS COMMISSION ONLY CAN ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
SO WE COME TO YOU AND SAY THIS ONE WOULD BE FOR WHAT THEY'VE DONE SO FAR AND ALSO APPROVING THIS, THE ADDITIONAL PLANS THAT THEY HAVE.
I SEE TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS ON THE FRONT OF THIS HOUSE.
AND SO I'M WONDERING WHY WE WOULD APPROVE ONE OVER ONE INSTEAD OF MATCHING THE TWO OVER TWOS WHEN SURE, GO AHEAD.
WHEN THE QUEEN ANN WAS PICKED UP, THAT HAD THE TWO OVER TWOS, BUT WHEN THE WORK WAS DONE BELOW THAT WAS DONE WITH ONE OVER ONES.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DONE AT, THAT WAS DONE LATER.
SO THE FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS WILL ALL BE ONE OVER ONE? YES.
WELL, EXCEPT IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE'S A TWO OVER TWO, BUT I THINK WE, WE DETERMINED THAT THOSE WERE REMOVED FROM THE REAR OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WHEN IT WAS ELEVATED.
SO THAT'S HISTORIC AND PROBABLY PUT IN THAT, UM, IF Y'ALL, Y'ALL WOULD DRIVE ME WHICH PAGE ARE Y'ALL LOOKING IN THE REPORT AT? THE TWO.
AND THEN IF THEY CAN FIND HERE.
OH YES, I SEE THOSE, THAT PAIR.
UM, YEAH, THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN RELOCATED FROM SOMEWHERE AND THE OWNER IS HERE.
AND I, AND IF YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AS FAR AS THOSE BEING PERHAPS THOSE HAD BEEN ON THE ORIGINAL FRONT PORCH WHEN IT WAS PICKED UP.
AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU'LL LOOK ON THE NEXT PAGE, I BELIEVE IF THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS ARE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE TO BE REPLACED, 12 AND 13 ARE NOT BEING REPLACED.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, AND 11 ARE TO BE REPLACED WITH THIS ONE OVER ONE.
ONE AND TWO HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED.
TROY, I'D LOVE TO SEE US ADDRESS THE ONE OVER ONE VERSUS TWO OVER TWO, UM, IN A MOTION AT SOME POINT HERE TODAY.
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, SO IF I LIVE IN THE HISTORIC SIXTH WARD AND I DON'T PULL A PERMIT AND I GET TO DO A BUNCH OF WORK AND THEN I CAN JUST COME HERE AND GET A COR AND A, MAYBE NOT EVEN A SLAP ON THE WRIST.
JUST, UH, I HEAR COMMISSIONER YAPP IN MY, IN MY EAR ABOUT ENFORCEMENT.
AND THEN WHAT DO, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THESE SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE JUST COME AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND NEVER ASK FOR PERMISSION? COMMISSIONER YAPP
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALK ABOUT JUST THE COR, UH, BECAUSE THEY DONE DID WORK WITHOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS.
BUT DOES THE HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION OFFICE HAS A PURVIEW ON THIS PARTICULAR EDITION BECAUSE IT WAS LIFTED UP, UH, TO MEET THE, UH, PREVAILING CRITERIA OF THE, THE, UH, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS WELL, OR THEY THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT LATER.
SO YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT IS NOW THE SECOND FLOOR? THAT WAS ORIGINALLY THE FIRST FLOOR? IS THAT PART? NO, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE FIRST FLOOR NOW BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT LATER, NEED TO MEET ANY OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS STIPULATED, UH, IN, IN OH SIX WARD CURRENTLY.
BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE STAFF GIVING AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK BEING DONE IS OKAY EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE JUST ISSUING A COR BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION.
[00:30:01]
I KNOW, BUT DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO THAT, THAT ACTUALLY MEET THE GUIDELINES? YES.SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THE ANSWER IS WE ARE CONSIDERING THE CRITERIA FULLY AND WE BELIEVE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA TO ISSUE THE COR AS WE'VE RECOMMENDED.
THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO THEN, UH, UH, UH, ADD TO COMMISSIONERS MCNEIL'S POINT THAT I THINK IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE SHOULD PUT BACK TWO OVER TWO DOWNSTAIRS AS WELL.
AND I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT WE RESOLVED THE TWO OVER TWO.
'CAUSE NOT COME ACROSS TO ME AS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA.
IN MY OPINION, THEY SHOULD BE PUTTING BACK TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS IF THEY ARE ALREADY CHANGING IT OUT.
IF YOU DON'T TOUCH IT, IT'S GRANDFATHERED IN, IT'S FINE.
BUT THE MOMENT YOU TOUCH IT, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER HOMES, THEN THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT THOSE MM-HMM
NUMBER WINDOWS ONE AND TWO WERE ORIGINALLY YEAH, I MEAN THEY, THEY WERE NOT, I, MY ASSUMPTION IS THOSE TWO OVER TWOS REMOVED FROM THE HOUSEHOLD WHEN IT WAS ELEVATED, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE 1938 STAFF.
IF YOU BRING UP THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW OF THIS ADDRESS, I COMMENT ONE AND TWO OR ONE OVER ONES AND THEY WERE ONE OVER ONES.
AND THE COMMISSIONER SALVA SAID, UH, IF YOU REMOVE THE EIGHT AND NOT, UH, THE HISTOR AND THERE WERE HISTORICAL WINDOWS, HOW DO YOU, UH, JUDGE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT HIS? HOW DO YOU JUDGE THAT? THE WINDOWS ARE NOT HISTORIC.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT HISTORIC.
THE WINDOWS THAT WERE REPLACED, WE FEEL WERE WORTHY OF REPLACEMENT DUE TO CONDITION.
THE ONE, THE FIRST LEVEL WINDOWS, WHICH WERE ONE OVER ONE, WHICH ARE BEING HAVE BEEN REPLACED OR ARE BEING REPLACED, WE BELIEVE MET THE CONDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT FOR, I MEAN MET THEY WERE IN THE CONDITION THAT IT WAS, THEY WERE, THEY SHOULD, IT WAS FINE TO REPLACE THEM.
AND DO WE HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION? I KNOW, BUT, BUT, BUT IT, THE WORDING IS CONFUSING.
COMMISSIONER STAVE SAYS, UH, WHICH, WHICH WORDING IS HE REFERRING TO IN THE, IN THE CRITERIA? WELL, IN THE PROPOSAL ON THE, ON THE PAGE, UH, IT SAYS THE SECOND, UH, AND THE SECOND BULLET SAYS REPLACE EIGHT NON HISTORICAL WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AND INSIDE AN ELEVATION WITH ONE OVER ONE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS.
AND, AND THAT WORDING IS NOT CORRECT.
IT'S IT THEY'RE REPLACING NON, THEY'RE JUST REPLACING THE WINDOWS BELOW.
IT SHOULDN'T HAVE, IT SHOULD NOT READ NON HISTORIC.
THEY'RE OLDER THAN 50 YEARS OLD.
NON-ORIGINAL OR JUST TO BE, TRY TO HELP CLARIFY.
ARE, ARE YOU WISHING THAT THAT SAID NON-ORIGINAL WINDOWS INSTEAD OF NON HISTORIC ORIGINALS? I WOULDN'T EVEN, I ACTUALLY THINK THEY WERE THE WINDOWS THAT WERE PUT IN WHEN IT WAS PICKED UP.
SO MAYBE NOT EVEN SO THEY'RE OLD.
I WENT INTO THAT BUILDING AND SAW WHAT WAS LEFT OF WINDOWS AND THERE WERE NOT, THERE WERE WINDOWS WE WOULD'VE RECOMMEND IT'S OKAY TO REPLACE.
DUE TO CONDITION, IF I COULD ADD, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ACTUALLY HERE IN PERSON.
I THOUGHT SHE WAS ATTENDING ONLINE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, MELISSA DENNY IS HERE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER, WOULD SHE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT? YES, SHE WOULD.
I DON'T SEE, I DON'T EITHER SPEAK.
AND IF YOU'D BE SO KIND TO JUST STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE RECORD AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US.
DID I ANSWER QUESTIONS OR WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO
YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME INPUT OR MAYBE YOU'VE GOT SOME ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE MAYBE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS YOU'VE HEARD SO FAR.
SO, UM, IN THE VERY WELL, UM, THERE IS A GOOGLE PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UM, BEFORE, BEFORE, UM, WELL ANY CHANGES WERE MADE.
AND SO THOSE ARE ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS IN THAT GOOGLE PICTURE FROM ON THE FRONT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PORCH.
THE TWO OVER TWOS ARE THE ONLY TWO OVER TWOS THAT ARE THERE ON THE LEFT SIDE THAT ARE UNDER THE OVERHANG AND HAVE BEEN PROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS ALL THESE YEARS.
WE ALSO, UM, RECOGNIZE, UH, THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE UPPER HOUSE, ORIGINAL HOUSE THAT WAS RAISED.
AND THOSE, UM, HAVE THOSE WERE ACTUALLY IN BETTER SHAPE.
UM, AND WE HAVE, UH, RESTORED ANY, UM, ISSUES THAT THOSE HAD.
SO THE UPPER STORY, UM, IS WHAT IS VERY MUCH PROTECTED
[00:35:01]
HAS SUFFERED A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BECAUSE OF NEWER MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN USED OVER THE YEARS.THE SIDING ON THE LOWER HALF IS VERY CLEARLY DIFFERENT.
THE WINDOWS ARE ROTTING A LOT.
UM, SO THAT, UM, THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE WERE ADDRESSING THE ROT THAT AND, UM, TERMITE DAMAGE.
UM, I ALREADY HAD THE HOUSE TINTED FOR TERMITES AS WELL.
SO THERE WAS ALSO TERMITE DAMAGE AND MOSTLY OF, OF THAT SEEMS TO BE IN THE DOWNSTAIRS AREA, WHICH, UM, HAS NOT BEEN OCCUPIED FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.
SO IT SUFFERED A LOT ON THE DOWNSTAIRS.
UM, WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS, WHEN IT WAS CREATED WAS NOT A LIVING SPACE AND IT WAS NOT FULLY ENCLOSED EITHER.
SO SOME OF THE WINDOWS IN THE REAR ESPECIALLY ARE NEWER EVEN THAN 1938.
UM, AND IT APPEARED THAT A LOT OF THEM KIND OF MATCHED IN THEIR CONDITION.
SO KIND OF LEADING ME TO BELIEVE THEY'RE EVEN NEWER.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY WERE DONE SOMETIME, UM, AFTER THAT, THE 1970 HISTORIC COUNTY PICTURES, THINGS LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT ALSO.
LIKE THE WINDOWS THAT WERE IN THE FRONT ACTUALLY IN THE PICTURE THAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T LOOK THE SAME AS THE ONES IN THE BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOS FROM THE COUNTY.
SO I, I THINK THAT THEY MAY ALSO BE EVEN NEWER THAN, YOU KNOW, THOSE BLACK AND WHITE 1970S PICTURES.
DO YOU OWN THE HOUSE? YES, I DO.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED IT? UM, I BOUGHT IT IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
OH, SO YOU'RE THE NEW OWNER? YES.
I'M ALSO, I AM A RESIDENT OF THE OLD SIX WARD.
UM, I HAVE A, A HOME I LIVE IN THAT I'VE BEEN IN FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS NOW.
SO YOU APPRECIATE THE, THE YES.
UM, WONDERFUL NATURE OF THOSE BLOCKS.
NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER, WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY, UM, THEY WERE OWNED BY THE SAME FAMILY.
THE HOUSE I LIVE IN WAS A FAMILY HOME AND THEY BUILT, THE NEXT DOOR IS A RENTAL.
UM, SO I DO KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE HOME ITSELF.
MAD CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION OR CLARIFICATION ACTUALLY.
UH, IF, IF YOU CAN STOP, CAN YOU BRING US BACK TO PAGE SEVEN OF 19? I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IT FOR, FOR CLARITY.
ARE WE ON THE SAME PAGE? YEAH.
UH, ON THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT, AND I SEE TWO WINDOWS BESIDES THE FIVE PANEL DOOR, THERE'S TWO WINDOWS THERE.
CAN YOU, UH, GO TO THE NEXT PAGE AND JUST FOR CLARITY, POINT OUT WHAT NUMBER THEY ARE? I GUESS THERE MUST THEY ARE 12 AND 13.
12 AND 13, BUT, AND THEY ARE ON THE FIRST FLOOR? YEAH.
AND THOSE WERE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, ORIGINAL WINDOWS, I MEAN HISTORIC PROBABLY, PROBABLY THE 1938 BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL ENCLOSED.
I MEAN, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THE ONLY COMPARISON WE HAVE ARE THOSE COUNTY PICTURES LATER.
SO IT'S, IT'S CURIOUS 'CAUSE IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO FIGURE OUT IN THE COUNTY PICTURES.
WINDOWS ONE AND TWO, WHICH WERE ALSO ORIGINALLY CLOSED IN 1938, LOOK DIFFERENT NOW.
SO IT'S LIKE THOSE MAY HAVE BEEN REPLACED POST TO 1938 RAYS JUST BECAUSE THE COMPARISON IN THOSE 1970 COUNTY PICTURES, WINDOWS 12 AND 13, PROBABLY 1938
SO MY QUESTION WAS, I THINK I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, HAVING WORKED WITH ALL HOMES MYSELF, I HAVE NO ISSUE WHEN YOUR WINDOWS ARE, UH, IN, IN NEED TO BE EXCHANGED OR NEED TO BE REPLACED.
UM, MY E MY CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU HAVE TWO WINDOWS OF THE ORIGINAL 1938 IN NATURE, AND THERE ARE TWO OVER TWO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE REST OF THE FIRST FLOOR OR THEN MIMIC THAT WINDOW BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TWO HISTORIC WINDOWS HISTORIC TO 1938, UH, OF THAT HOUSE.
SO AND YOU ARE TOUCHING ALL THE OLD, SO MY ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT REPLACING THE WINDOW.
MY ISSUE, MY ISSUE IS ABOUT REPLACING WITH WHAT AND, AND TWO, OVER TWO IS MY PREFERENCE OVER ONE, OVER ONE FOR THAT NATURE.
YEAH, I I SAW THAT THEY WERE ONE OVER ONE BEFORE, SO I THOUGHT THAT A ONE-TO-ONE THAT WAS MY FAULT.
I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ISSUES HERE.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS WELL, I JUST WOULD SAY THAT THE DOWNSTAIRS DOESN'T DATE TO 1938.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WINDOWS WERE IF THEY WERE ONE OVER ONE AND IF THEY'RE BEING REPLACED BECAUSE THEY WERE DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR, THE ORDINANCE CLEARLY STATES THEY CAN BE REPLACED IN KIND.
SO WE DON'T, IT'S, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S OUR PURVIEW TO,
[00:40:01]
TO RESTRICT THE STYLE OF WINDOW.IF THEY WERE ONE OVER ONE AND SHE'S REPLACING THEM WITH ONE OVER ONE, THEN, THEN THAT SATISFIES THE ORDINANCE.
AND I THINK FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY STANDPOINT, THERE'S A, THERE'S AT LEAST A DECENT CHANCE THAT THE TWO OVER TWOS WERE REMOVED FROM THE ORIGINAL SINGLE STORY HOME WHEN IT WAS ELEVATED AND REUSED SOMEWHERE, UH, REUSED THERE ON THE FRONT PORCH.
AND I THINK THAT THE ONE OVER ONE, I MEAN, IT SEPARATES THE TWO STRUCTURES.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT FROM THE SAME TIME PERIOD.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE JUST DIFFERENTIATING THE PROPERTY FROM ONE ERA TO ANOTHER.
I THINK FOR ME THAT, UH, A LARGER CONCERN IS MRS. DENNY, THAT, THAT YOU OWN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN THE OLD SIXTH WARD AND YET YOU UNDERTOOK THIS WORK WITHOUT COMING FOR A COA.
YOU CLEARLY ARE FAMILIAR AND HAVE DONE YOUR WORK IN, IN THE HISTORY AND, AND WORKING TOWARDS, UH, BRINGING THIS BUILDING, UH, INTO A BETTER CONDITION THAN IT IS NOW AND, AND ACCOLADES FOR THAT.
UM, BUT TO OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, IT FEELS A LITTLE LIKE A SLAP IN THE FACE THAT YOU'RE COMING TO US AFTERWARDS.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET APPROVAL AND MOVE ON.
I MEAN, I ASSUME YOU WERE FAMILIAR WHEN YOU PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN AUGUST THAT IT IS IN THE OLD HISTORIC OLD SIXTH WARD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND I HAVE NOT DONE THIS TYPE OF, MY HOME WAS THE, THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR WHERE I LIVE, UM, WAS ALWAYS IN BETTER SHAPE.
SO I ACTUALLY AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS.
YES, I KNOW THAT WE'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, AND I MADE SOME VERY POOR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT, UM, WHAT I SAW OTHER NEIGHBORS DOING, AND I COMPLETELY APOLOGIZE.
UM, FOR, FOR SOME OF THOSE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS THAT I SAW HAPPENING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH, UH, WINDOW REPLACEMENTS AND COAS.
UM, I JUST, UM, THAT WAS A MISTAKE ON MY PART.
UH, LIKE I SAID, I HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THE ANY KIND OF RENOVATION TYPE ACTIVITY LIKE THIS.
IF THAT IS MY FIRST EXPERIENCE, I'M AWARE OF THE HISTORY, UM, BECAUSE I DO LIKE TO KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE HOMES.
I WAS NOT AS AWARE OF THE CURRENT REGULATIONS COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMENTS? I, I HAVE A COUPLE A QUESTION I GUESS ABOUT THE, THE FIVE PANEL DOORS.
DO WE KNOW WHEN THEY WERE ADDED? ARE THEY FROM THE 19? ONE OF THE DOORS DOES NOT EXIST IN THE 1970S COUNTY PICTURE? IT DOESN'T EXIST AT ALL.
UM, I BELIEVE ONE OF THEM DOES, BUT IT, IT APPEARS TO BE A DIFFERENT SIZE.
UM, AS WELL IN THE 1970S PICTURE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A DOOR FACING THE STREET ADJACENT TO THE TWO WINDOWS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH, WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE DONE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS JUST TO KEEP IT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
I'VE DONE WORK IN THE SIXTH WARD WITH, WITH A PERMIT AND WITH THE COA AND STILL HAVE HAD A, A, A MULTITUDE OF OWNERS COME CHASING ME DOWN THE STREET TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS DOING EVERYTHING IN A GOOD WAY.
AND THAT'S HOW VIGILANT THE SIXTH WARD IS.
AND, AND AS A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF THE SIXTH WARD, I'M REALLY SHOCKED THAT YOU WOULD UNDERTAKE ANY OF THIS WORK WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT I HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS POST, UM, WORK ALREADY BEING DONE AND PROPOSED AND, AND I HOPE THAT YOU, UH, CARE ABOUT THE SIXTH WARD ENOUGH THAT YOU EDUCATE THE REST OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE SIXTH WARD AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY COMES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
'CAUSE THE SIXTH WARD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU MS. DENNY DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION.
I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM IN THE MEETING.
IS ANYONE READY TO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE MOTIONS TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
SECOND DEBO, COMMISSIONER DEBO HAS SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION? I, I'D, SORRY, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION REPEATED, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE MOVED TO ACCEPT.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
REPEATED STAFF RECOMMENDS D DENIAL, COA ISSUANCE OF CUR FOR WORK COMPLETED AND AS APPLIED FOR.
[00:45:02]
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THE TABLE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.AYE, BECAUSE WE ADD, WE HAVE LIKE, I THINK WE NEED BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO, THREE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING VOTED ON.
IF, IF I AGREE WITH TWO OF THEM AND I DON'T AGREE TO ONE OF THEM.
SO WHAT DO I VOTE? I THINK YOU NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED, THAT HAS BEEN CALLED FOR, AND THEN MAKE A MOTION IF IT IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, MAKE A MOTION TO SPLIT THE CORRECT.
THE, THE MS. MICKELSON IS NODDING.
I WOULD AGREE IF, IF, IF, IF A COMMISSIONER THINKS THAT THIS IS A MULTI-PART MOTION, UM, AND YOU WANT TO TAKE, TAKE THAT IN SEPARATE STEPS, THEN YOU NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN, THAT IS ON THE TABLE CURRENTLY.
AND THEN, UM, A AS THE CHAIR HAS NOTED, IF THAT FAILS, MAKE AN ADDITIONAL MOTION.
SO WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE WE'VE CALLED FOR, I'M GONNA CALL AGAIN FOR THOSE IN FAVOR.
OKAY, WELL I'M DULY CONFUSED, SO I'M GONNA CALL ROLL CALL.
YOU WANT ME TO, TO GO OUT AND COME BACK IN? OKAY.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, UH, ON THE MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS AS, UH, PRESENTED.
I SEE THAT, YEAH, I SEE THE CANE THING.
UH, COMMISSIONER COLLUM? YEAH.
CAN YOU HEAR US? YES, I'M OPPOSED.
I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER DEBO, I'M, I'M SO SORRY, BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING WHAT THE VOTES ARE.
IF YOU COULD REPEAT THEM FOR ME.
UH, COMMISSIONER CURRY WAS A YES.
COMMISSIONER KAS IS A YET COUCH.
ON COMMISSIONER SEPULVEDA? YES.
OKAY, SO THE, THE A'S HAVE IT, THE MOTION CARRIES SEVEN TO TWO.
UM, MS. DENEY WILL HAVE BEEN GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF MEDIATION AND THE TWO NAYS WERE COLUMN AND YAP.
OKAY, MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM A 8 21 17 LUBBOCK STREET.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON JASON LOWENTHAL.
TODAY I PRESENT TO YOU ITEM A 8 21 17 LUBBOCK STREET.
THIS PREVIOUSLY GOT A APPROVED COA IN JANUARY, 2016 FOR A TWO STORY REAR EDITION.
THE APPLICANTS ARE COMING BACK WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME DESIGNS FOR THIS REAR ADDITION WITH SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS.
THE FOOTPRINT WILL BE 566 SQUARE FEET TOTAL OF 1,132 MAX RIDGE.
HEIGHT OF 30 FEET FOUR INCHES WITH A NINE OVER 12 ROOF PITCH.
THE EXISTING ORIGINAL RIDGE HEIGHT IS 22 FEET, FOUR AND A HALF INCHES WITH A NINE 12 ROOF PITCH.
THEY ARE PROPOSING ON THE REAR ADDITION A GAL LUM PLUS METAL ROOF.
THEY ALSO WILL REPLACE SHINGLES ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WITH GAL LUM METAL ROOF.
THE SECOND STORY ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE REAR ADDITION AND ON THE WEST ELEVATION WILL BE A DOUBLE HUNG ONE OVER ONE INCENT RECESS, JELLED WINDWOOD WINDOWS, WINDOWS ON EAST SALVATION WILL BE CASEMENT FIXED ALUMINUM INSET AND RECESS WINDOWS WITH TWO SKYLIGHTS ON THE ROOF.
THEY'LL ALSO BE ADDING A SKYLIGHT ON THE EAST SALVATION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE REAR ADDITIONAL HAVE BOARD AND BAT IN SIDING.
THEY'LL ALSO REPLACE THE EXISTING NON HISTORIC FRONT DOOR WITH AN APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE FRONT DOOR WITH A TRANSOM.
AND THEY'LL BE REMOVING A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IN THE REAR HALF.
AND THIS IS OBSCURED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
[00:50:01]
APPROVAL.THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
SO, UH, LET ME START BY ASKING, UH, THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE US BEFORE.
AND, AND SO NOW, NOW THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED IT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED.
WOULD YOU MIND, UM, SUMMARIZING WHAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE SAW PREVIOUSLY THAT THAT WAS MY REASON FOR I CERTAINLY CAN DO.
SO LET ME GET TO THE ELEVATIONS.
AND IF WE GO TO PAGE SIX, STARTING WITH THE EXISTING SITE PLAN PROPOSED AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE, THERE'S A APPROVED SITE PLAN FROM JANUARY, 2016.
I'M STARTING FIRST WITH HOW YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS REMAINING THE SAME ON THE REAR EDITION.
BUT PLEASE TAKE NOTE ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THERE'S GONNA BE A SKYLIGHT ADDED.
THAT'S GONNA BE ONE DIFFERENCE.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THE NEXT PAGE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIR UH, FIRST FLOOR, THE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN HAS A WALL COMING OUT BEHIND THAT, UH, GABLE AND THEY'RE GONNA PULL THE WALL BACK AND MAKE IT A FRONT PORCH.
BUT AS I HAD NOTED THAT THIS WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT THE PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN REMAINS THE SAME AS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2016.
THE SAME WILL BE FOR THE SECOND FLOOR.
IT REMAINS THE SAME ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
WE GO TO THE FRONT ELEVATIONS, THE SIDINGS GONNA REMAIN THE SAME.
IT IS JUST GOING TO BE ADDING A COMPATIBLE DOOR WITH A TRANSOM ABOVE IT.
NOW I DO NOTE HERE THAT LOOKING AT GOOGLE STREET VIEW THERE, THAT FRONT DOOR HAD ALREADY BEEN CHANGED BETWEEN OCTOBER, 2018 AND NOVEMBER, 2019.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BOTTOM IMAGE SAYS IT HAS THAT DOOR AND THE TRANSOM THAT WAS APPROVED FROM JANUARY, 2016.
AND IF WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE ON THE LEFT ELEVATION, AGAIN, EVERYTHING'S REMAINING THE SAME.
IT'S THE ADDITION OF THE SKYLIGHT THERE ON THE EL EAST ELEVATION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
AND THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED, UH, SEVEN YEARS AGO.
JUST A QUESTION, HOW LONG DOES THE COA LAST ROMAN, SORRY.
YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN UNTIL WE'RE IN HERE LIKE WE ARE TODAY SOMETIMES.
AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS BROUGHT WITH HIM THE APPROVED AND STAMPED CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND THEY ACTUALLY, UH, HAVE WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE NOW, WHICH MEANS THAT THE PREVIOUS STAFF SAW THE CHANGES IS SO INSIGNIFICANT THAT THEY STAMPED THEM BACK THEN.
SO THE LITTLE SKYLIGHT CHANGED.
THE STAFF THOUGHT THAT'S NOT GONNA MATTER AND THE TRANSOM EVEN IS IN THIS AS STAMPED.
I NOT TO MEAN WE HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.
IT HAS EXPIRED, IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS.
UM, BUT JUST COMMENTING THAT I BELIEVE THAT THEN THAT MEANS WHAT HAPPENED IS SOMEONE BROUGHT THESE DRAWINGS INTO THE OFFICE WITH THE C OF A THAT WAS ISSUED AND STAFF DETERMINED THAT THOSE MINOR CHANGES WEREN'T SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH AND STAMPED THOSE DRAWINGS IN 2016.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT POINT.
BUT, UH, A QUESTION TO THAT, UM, MAYBE, MAYBE FOR THE GENTLEMAN ON YOUR LEFT, THE, THE PLANS THAT ARE IN HAND NOW, UH, WERE DESCRIBED AS APPROVED JUST NOW, THAT MEANS PERMITTED BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON FOR CONSTRUCTION.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.
THE PLANS I HAVE DON'T SHOW THE THREE SKYLIGHTS.
THERE WAS THE ONLY ONE SKYLIGHT ON THE BACK PORCH.
UH, THE WINDOWS IN THE FRONT DOOR WITH THE TRANSOM HAD ALREADY BEEN, UH, RESTORED AND THE DOOR WITH THE TRANSOM HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED BY PREVIOUS OWNERS THAT OWNED IT WHEN IT WAS APPROVED IN 2016.
MY CLIENTS ACTUALLY JUST CLOSED ON THE HOUSE LAST FRIDAY.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST DOING AN EXACT RE UH, REAPPLICATION OF THE EXACT SAME PLANS.
WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING YET, UM, OR DONE THE ADDITION OR ANY OF THAT.
BUT A AGAIN, I UH, YOU HAVE AN, YOU HAVE A, A CITY OF HOUSTON PERMITTED SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
SO YOU'RE READY TO START? YES SIR.
[00:55:01]
FOR NEW 2015 AND 2017 IRCS.WE ARE UPDATING STRUCTURALS AND UH, ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING FOR THAT.
BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE HISTORIC.
SO ROMANS TEAM COULD STAMP THE NEW PLANS JUST, I MEAN THEY HAVE A STAMP FROM 2016.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME SET OF DRAWINGS.
MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MCNEIL TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CURRY.
MOVING ON NOW TO AGENDA ITEM A 9 8 15 HAROLD STREET.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE STAFF PERSON JASON AL.
TODAY I PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEM A 9 8 1 5 HAROLD STREET IN THE AUDUBON PLACE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
GIVE YOU A LITTLE OF CONTEXT ON THE HISTORY HERE.
THERE WAS A STAFF VISIT, UH, LATE 2021 BY ROMAN YASMINE AND THEN EMPLOYEE MADELINE MAYHAN.
THEY HAD SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ARAN BY DONNY FROM THAT CONVERSATION THAT, THAT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WHAT HE WAS PROPOSING TO DO WOULD BE FALLING UNDER ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.
AND NOW IF THIS HAS COME FORWARD BETWEEN TO US AND FROM THE COMMISSION TODAY, AS THERE WAS CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMITS, THAT HAD BEGUN TO OCCUR IN NOVEMBER OF 2022 IS SO THE REAR ADDITION WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS AND THERE'S HASN'T BEEN ANY, THERE HAS BEEN REMOVAL OF WINDOWS ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS.
SO NOW WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
AND AS YOU SEE ON THE STRUCTURE HERE, WE'VE GOT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE INSPECTOR'S PHOTOS IS SHOWING THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON.
WE CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON, UH, LAST FRIDAY.
AND WE DID INSPECT MORE CLOSELY.
WE DID GO AROUND ON THE GROUND, WE DID GO UPSTAIRS.
AND SO WE HAVE EXTENSIVE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION AS THE SLIDES CONTINUE TO PROGRESS THROUGH THAT.
AND SO AFTER LOOKING AT THE SITE VISIT FROM LAST FRIDAY, AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND THIS IS WHERE IT STANDS AT THIS POINT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A DENIAL OF THE COA, IT WOULD BE AN ISSUANCE OF COR ALLOWING FURTHER THE REMOVAL OF THE SECOND FRONT DOOR AND REPLACED WITH SITING SIDING LOWER THE ROOF RIDGE OF THE REAR ADDITION BY TWO FEET FROM THE ORIGINAL HOUSE RIDGE HEIGHT AND ADJUST THE REAR ADDITION ROOF PITCH AS APPROPRIATE.
THE EXISTING SIDING ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS TO REMAIN ANY REMOVAL OR REPLACEMENT OF ORIGINAL SIDING TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
THE REAR ADDITION SHALL HAVE SMOOTH CEMENTATION SIDING ONLY TO HAVE A FIVE INCH LAP REVEAL.
ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS WILL BE TRIMMED TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FRONT PORCH.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, EFRAN BADANI, IS HERE, SIGNED UP TO MAKE A COMMENT AND IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
I MYSELF AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
WHO WANTS TO START OFF DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSION MEMBERS? QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
HAS THE, UM, I SEE INSPECTOR WOODS' NAME, UH, ON ONE OF THE RED TAGS.
HAS THE STRUCTURE BEEN INS INSPECTED FOR STRUCTURE? AND IS THE APPLICANT, DO THEY HAVE TO BRING A FULL SET OF DRAWINGS TO, UM, PLANNING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AFTER HHAC? CORRECT.
SO THAT ANY, ANY AND ALL POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CURRENT CODE WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STRUCTURAL DEPARTMENT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE DRAWINGS WILL BE, UM, FULLY REVISED TO REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATION AS WELL AS REFLECT THE ACCURACY OF THE WINDOW OPENINGS, THE FRONT PORCH, THE STEPS, THE ELEVATIONS, EVERYTHING.
AND THEN WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IT IS SUBMITTED TO PERMITTING, OF COURSE WE'LL DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND MAKE SURE IT MATCHES WHAT IS GONNA OCCUR INTO COMMISSION TODAY.
[01:00:01]
POINT OF ORDER.IF WE ISSUE, WE, IF WE VOTE TO ISSUE A COR TODAY, THEN THE APPLICANT'S NEXT STEP IS TO FINALIZE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND BRING THEM BACK BEFORE TO THE HOUSTON PERMITTING CIRCUIT.
WE'LL CALL HISTORIC HISTORICAL RELEASE THE HOLD AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED THAT WAY.
ONLY RELEASE THE HOLD IF IT MATCHES.
WHAT IS DETERMINED HERE TODAY, IF IT IS NOT MATCHED, WE WILL MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT KNOWS AND WE WILL NOT STAMP OR RELEASE HOLD UNTIL THAT IS DONE.
SO HE SUBMITS ELECTRONICALLY, THEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO YOU FOR REVIEW ELECTRONICALLY, YOU SEND IT BACK TO THEM AND THEN HE WOULD THEN PROCEED FROM THERE? THAT WILL BE CORRECT.
UH, SO FROM A, FROM A PRESERVATION OFFICE PERSPECTIVE, UM, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE AGAIN WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU RECOMMENDING, UH, TO THIS COMMISSION RIGHT NOW? YOU WANT A SUMMARY OR YOU WANT ME TO REREAD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? NO, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO, TO NOT ONLY JUST READ, BUT TAKE ME TO THAT PICTURE PLEASE.
IF WE COULD GO TO THIS GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGE FIRST PAGE FOUR.
UH, FIRST DIRECT, IF YOU GO TO PAGE FOUR AS AN INVENTORY PHOTO AND THE GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGE HERE, YOU CAN SEE THIS WAS TAKEN FEBRUARY 17TH, 2023 AND YOU'VE GOT THE ORIGINAL RIDGE, UH, THE PYRAMID SHAPED ROOF ON THIS STRUCTURE.
AND SO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE IS THAT ON THE REAR, THE RIDGE HEIGHT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN AND PULLED ALL THE WAY BACK WITH THE CONSTRUCTED REAR ADDITION.
AND THIS ALSO SHOWS ON THE ELEVATION PLANS THAT THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE.
AND SO PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO BACK TO WHERE THAT CENTER POINT IS, DROP THE RIDGE LINE BY TWO FEET FOR DIFFERENTIATION AND THEN PULL THE RIDGE LINE BACK INTO THE REAR ADDITION.
NOW IF WE SCROLL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO TO A COUPLE PAGES DOWN.
WE GO TO PAGE 17, SHOWING THE FRONT WHERE IT SAYS PHOTOS BY STAFF.
WE HAVE A SECOND FRONT ENTRY DOOR.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THEY CAN REPLACE THAT SECOND FRONT DOOR AND SIDE OVER IT AS WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THIS IS NON-ORIGINAL TO THE STRUCTURE.
SOME POINT IN THE PAST THAT HAS BECOME A, UH, MULTI-UNIT HOUSING AND THE APPLICANT IS TURNING BACK INTO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION REPLACE THAT SECOND FRONT DOOR YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT PAGE SIX OF 35.
AS WELL AS ON PAGE 17 AS WELL.
IT SHOWS UP IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS.
AND IT DOES INCLUDE REMOVING THAT SHED ROOF OVER THE NO, THAT WAS NOT IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WE DID AMONG STAFF HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, BUT LEFT IT OUT OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
ADD A CHAIR CHAIR WITH REQUEST TO THAT LAST QUESTION YOU HAD.
IT IS MY THINKING ABOUT OUR ORDINANCE AND THE WAY IT WORKS IS WE, YOU KNOW, HE HASN'T CHANGED THAT EXISTING, ADDED ON LITTLE ROOF AND REQUIRING HIM TO REMOVE IT TO ME IS ASKING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
AND I'M NOT USED TO OUR ORDINANCE WORK IN THAT WAY.
HE'S NOT ASKING TO TAKE IT OFF.
AND I, IT ALSO IS ON THE WEST IS HE'S GONNA GIVE HIM A LITTLE MORE SHADE ON ITS WESTERN PORCH AND THAT'S HIS LITTLE KID RUNNING AROUND IN THE BACK.
SO DIDN'T WANT, IT'S NICE TO HAVE A LITTLE EXTRA SHADE AND HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TEAR IT OFF.
IT'S STILL THERE AND IT COULD BE TORN OFF LATER, BUT THAT WAS OUR THINKING ON IT.
IF WE MOVE DOWN TO SAY PAGE 21 OF 35, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THERE WERE WINDOWS UNDERNEATH THE PORT COHA AS WELL AS ALONG THAT ELEVATION.
THERE WAS A SET OF WINDOWS ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR.
AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER THERE AGAIN, PUT THE WINDOWS BACK IN THE ORIGINAL WINDOW OPENINGS.
THERE'S GONNA BE CREATION OF TWO NEW WINDOW OPENINGS.
THAT'LL BE PART OF, UM, WHAT IS ON THE REVISED DRAWINGS IN THE ELEVATIONS NEAR THE END OF THE DOCUMENT.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE SAME FOR THE RIGHT ELEVATION TOWARDS THE REAR.
THOSE WINDOW OPENINGS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
DISCUSSION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, HE WILL PUT THOSE WINDOW OPENINGS BACK IN.
[01:05:03]
I'M SORRY, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SHERY FOR A MINUTE? I AM, I'M GONNA STICK ON THIS.UM, WOULD THE PROPERTY OWNER BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND RESUBMIT TO REMOVE THAT IN THE FUTURE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
ONE MOMENT, YES, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR APPROVAL, BUT YES, YOU WOULD IF YOU MAKE IT OPTIONAL NOW FOR THE FUTURE, YOU COULD DO THAT.
DO YOU HAVE A PAGE FOR THE SHED ROOF? I'M MISSING IT.
IT'S OVER THAT, UH, SECOND DOOR THAT WAS TO THE RIGHT OF THE PORCH.
PAGE 17 OR PAGE 18, I BELIEVE.
IT WAS, IT WAS ADDED TO COVER THAT DOOR.
SO IF YOU'RE REMOVING THE DOOR, I WOULD, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU REMOVE THE ROOF WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.
I'M SORRY, YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? UH, ACTUALLY, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MADAM CHAIR, IF THAT HOUSE IS ALREADY BEING GRANDFATHERED IN WITH THAT, WHEN THE PERSON BOUGHT IT AND, UH, ARE, ARE WE REQUESTING NOW FOR THEM TO REMOVE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING GRANDFATHERED IN? NO, I'M JUST MAKING A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION THAT, UM, IF THE DOOR IS BEING REMOVED, WHICH WAS NON HISTORIC, THAT ONE MIGHT CONSIDER REMOVING ALSO THE SHED ROOF THAT WAS PUT IN OSTENSIBLY WHEN THE DOOR, WHEN THE DOOR WAS, SINCE IT NO LONGER HAS A PURPOSE.
SO THIS IS A REQUEST, NOT A, NOT AN EXPECTATION.
NOT, NOT EVEN A REQUEST, JUST A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT SINCE YOU'RE HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION OR MAKE ANY COMMENTS? YES, I DO BELIEVE I DID PUT HIS NAME DOWN ON THE SPEAKER'S LIST.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS EFRAN BADANI.
I HAVE SPEAKER, UH, THANKS SO MUCH FOR, UM, ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY.
UH, I WANNA START BY APOLOGIZING.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD? SURE.
UM, I-F-R-A-N, LAST NAME B AS IN BRAVO, HAID AS IN DELTA A NI.
UM, I WANNA START BY APOLOGIZING FOR, UM, DOING SOME OF THE WORK OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF OUR INITIAL APPLICATION.
WE DID SUBMIT A PERMIT AND A COA WHEN WE FIRST BOUGHT THIS HOUSE.
UM, THAT WAS RIGHT WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE WERE GONNA BE PREGNANT, UH, WITH THE BABY.
WE ARE TRYING TO BUY THIS HOUSE TO LIVE IN OURSELVES.
UM, AND, UM, I'M TRYING TO LOOK FOR THE BEST PATH FORWARD.
UM, I'VE KIND OF AGREED TO EVERYTHING THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ON THE COR, UH, AS WE DID THE WALKTHROUGH LAST FRIDAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WHAT WE FELT LIKE WE WERE CHANGING, UM, WAS AFTER WE STARTED REMOVING SHEET ROCK TO REPLACE AND WE FOUND THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT IN ORIGINAL CONDITION.
WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT, LIKE SPECIFICALLY THE BACK PART OF THE HOUSE, UM, WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A HUGE FIRE IN THE HOUSE.
SO MUCH OF THE HOUSE HAD BURNT FRAMING.
WE FOUND SIDING INSIDE SHEET ROCKED WALLS.
UM, THERE WAS MULTIPLE ADDITIONS TO THE ORIGINAL HOME, LIKE I'M TALKING TWO, THREE OR FOUR.
WE'VE DEBATED HOW MANY ADDITIONS WERE TO THE HOME, UM, EVEN SOME POSSIBLY IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME.
UM, WHEN WE STARTED UNCOVERING THE SHEET ROCK, WE BELIEVED THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
WE FELT LIKE IT WAS A SAFETY CONCERN.
UM, I KNOW I DID KIND OF GO BEYOND MY PURVIEW HERE, SO I AP I WANNA APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT WE STARTED REPLACING THE BACK PART OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE WE DID MEET WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT EVEN BEFORE WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE.
AND WE TRIED TO STICK TO WHAT WE KNEW WAS IMPORTANT WAS THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHAT WAS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED.
AND SO WHAT I'M ASKING HERE FOR TODAY IS THE, THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE ROOF LINE.
UM, IF I, I'M REQUESTING FOR APPROVAL BASED ON OUR PLANS.
UM, I THINK THERE'S SOME PICTURES AROUND WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS BASICALLY FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
AND SO WE'RE KIND OF ASKING TO EXTEND THAT WHAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET ALL THE WAY BACK.
'CAUSE WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO US HERE, UM, IS THE CEILING HEIGHT AND THE BACK OF
[01:10:01]
THE HOME, THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.UM, AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REQUEST I HAD TODAY.
UM, I'M, I'M OPEN TO GUIDANCE AND, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
UH, WE ARE INTERESTED IN KIND OF STICKING WITH THE HISTORIC THEME.
MR. YOU, YOU SAID YOU MET WITH HISTORIC DISTRICT BEFORE YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
AND SO YOU WALKED THROUGH THE MEMBER OF THE CITY HOUSTON HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT, AND THEY SHARED WITH YOU EVERYTHING THAT HAD TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR YOU TO GET A COA AND STAY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES.
UM, AT THAT POINT WE DID NOT HAVE, UM, PLANS FOR A, AN ADDITION.
WE WERE JUST KIND OF TALKING ABOUT LIKE WHAT WE CAN CHANGE AS FAR AS WINDOWS, THE FRONT, THE VIEW, UM, ALL OF THAT.
AND YOU WERE ISSUED A COA BY THIS COMMISSION? I, THERE WAS NO COA ISSUED BY THIS COMMISSION.
I WILL POINT OUT ON PAGE 33, THE APPLICANT DID APPLY FOR A REPAIR SPEC SHEET.
AND IT DOES NOTICE JUST TO REMOVE SHEET ROCK TO DETERMINE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.
I'M JUST GETTING GETTING CLARIFICATION.
THE APPLICANT SAID THAT HE WAS ISSUED A-C-O-A-I-I-I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE REQUESTED WERE, UM, WERE, WE WERE TOLD THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, BUT AGAIN, WE DID NOT START CONSTRUCTION.
SO I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE WE WERE IN THAT PROCESS.
SO THE DATA I HAVE FROM STAFF, AS YOU WERE NEVER ISSUED A COA, DID YOU EVER, AND AND SO DID YOU GO TO THE CITY AND WITH PERMITS OR, I MEAN WITH PLANS TO GET A PERMIT, IF I MAY? UH, UH, COMMISSIONER MADAM CHAIR, ACTUALLY, IF, SO, THE DOCUMENT UP THERE WHEN, UM, WHEN HE WENT IN FOR THAT REPAIR PERMIT, UHHUH, UM, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE KIND OF REPAIR PERMIT.
SO WE RELEASED THE HOLE THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING OF EARLIER WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW IT'S PROCESSED.
SO WE ALLOWED THAT TO GO AND THAT, AND THAT, THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU SAID ISSUE, REALLY WHAT WE DID IS JUST SAY YOU'RE EXEMPT.
IT'S, IT'S ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT OUR APPROVAL, SO TO SPEAK, WAS THE RELEASE OF THE HOLD, IF THAT HELPS.
SO THIS REPAIR PERMIT SAYS REMOVING SHEET ROCK TO IDENTIFY STRUCTURAL BEAMS AND HAVE ARCHITECT BUILD PLANS TO SUBMIT CITY FOR REMODEL PERMIT.
SO IT'S LIKE, WHY DIDN'T YOU GET THE NEXT PERMIT IF YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO, LIKE, IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT DOWN HERE ON THE THING THAT YOU SUBMITTED.
UM, THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WAS OUR PLAN.
AND ONCE WE STARTED UNCOVERING IT WAS LIKE MUCH OF THE WOOD WAS DAMAGED, SO WE STARTED REMOVING THINGS THAT WERE DAMAGED, UH, THAT LIKE, WE FELT LIKE WERE UNSAFE.
BUT, UM, SO WERE YOU JUST NOT BEING HONEST WHEN YOU SUB APPLIED FOR THIS, BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU WERE GONNA SUBMIT A REMODEL PERMIT AFTER YOU FOUND THE BEAMS. THAT THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON THE FORM HERE.
UM, NO, WE HAD EVERY, EVERY INTENTION OF DOING THAT AS, AS WE UNCOVERED MORE, WE JUST QUICKLY STARTED TO REPLACE WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS DAMAGED.
AND, AND THEN THAT JUST KIND OF, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU NEEDED A PERMIT FOR THAT.
THAT COULD MEAN YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA GET A PERMIT HERE AND THEN, THEN YOU DECIDED YOU DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT AFTER YOU STARTED DOING CONSTRUCTION.
I, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE LOGIC HERE.
UM, I I I DON'T HAVE A COMMENT FOR THAT.
SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO LOWER THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS WHERE YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WHERE WE HAD THAT CENTER POINT ON THE PYRAMID ROOF, SET THAT HIGHEST POINT, DROP TWO FEET, AND THEN PULL THE RIDGE LINE BACK TO THE REAR ADDITION.
AND NOW THE REAR ADDITION'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT, SO IT'S ALREADY MATCHING THAT RIDGE HEIGHT.
WE'RE ASKING THAT THEY REDO THAT BY TWO FEET.
AND THEN ADJUST THE ROOF PITCH AS APPROPRIATE.
AND WHEN I HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY, YOU'RE HERE TODAY TO ASK US TO ARE AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON LOWERING THE RIDGE HEIGHT? NO, I, I'M REQUESTING THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS HE DOES OPPOSE OKAY.
MAY I, I WANNA JUST, UH, MAKE APPOINTMENTS.
WE DO HAVE, UM, COMMISSIONER COUCH HERE AND COMMISSIONER MCNEIL, YOU MENTIONED THAT IF YOU WERE, SO WE WERE JUST ASKING, AS WE TRADITIONALLY DO ON A REAR ADDITION TO HELP READ, TO HELP DEFINE, TO KEEP, TO DEFINE THE DEFINITION OF THE ORIGINAL ROOF.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING TO BACK THE RIDGE DOWN THAT SLOPE, DOWN THAT SIDE OF THE ROOF.
BUT I DID HEAR THE, UH, OWNER SAY THAT HIS CONCERN IS THAT THEN HE WOULD LOSE CEILING HEIGHT ON HIS SECOND FLOOR.
AND I'M THINKING WITH THE ARCHITECTS HERE, IF YOU CHANGE THAT SLOPE, CAN'T
[01:15:01]
YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT? AND SO YOU, HE, SO YOU CAN, UH, ACCOMPLISH, UM, I JUST, YOU COULD ACCOMPLISH KEEPING YOUR CEILING HEIGHT AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, JUST, AND I I WANTED TO CONFIRM LOWER, LOWER THE PITCH ON THE ROOF, YOU KEEP YOUR CEILING HEIGHT THE SAME.YOU KEEP YOUR PLATE HEIGHT THE SAME, YOU LOWER THE PITCH, YOU LOWER THE RIDGE, YOU DIFFERENT, THE, THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IN AN, IN AN ADDITION.
YOU, YOU ARE MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENTIATION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE TELLS US TO FOLLOW, WHICH IS SEPARATION, WHICH IS WHY THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT IT IS.
JUST, UM, SORRY, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS 'CAUSE I, I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
UM, YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT IF WE TAKE LOWER THE PITCH, SO THE THE ORIGINAL ROOF IS LIKE THIS, WE'RE ASKING TO KIND OF DROP DOWN, RIGHT? AND THEN TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WE LOWER THE PITCH.
SO IT'LL BE LIKE, THIS IS IT, AM I UNDERSTANDING, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? YES.
SO ON THE, AT SOME POINT HERE, WE WOULD LOSE SOME SORT OF CEILING HEIGHT.
YOUR ATTIC WILL BE SMALLER, BUT YOU LOSE ATTIC HEIGHT.
SO BECAUSE, UH, IN THE SECOND FLOOR WE'RE PLANNING ON KIND OF GOING, WE'RE WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE ROOF LINE.
UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS JUST LIKE THAT, THAT CEILING HEIGHT.
THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I, I'VE KIND OF AGREED TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THE STAFF HAD HAD RECOMMENDED.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU VIOLATED THE RULES, LEFT WORDS FROM BEHIND FORWARDS, SIDEWAYS.
AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO GIVE YOU EXTRA FAVORS.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S KIND OF BOLD OF YOU.
I, I PLAN TO LIVE IN THIS HOUSE.
YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE A YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT HAS LIMITATIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO TO THAT HOME BECAUSE IT'S IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO YOU MADE A CHOICE TO BUY A HOUSE WHERE YOU BOUGHT THIS HOUSE.
YOU COULD BUY A HOUSE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT TO IT.
BUT YOU DID MAKE A CHOICE IN THAT.
AND YOU HAVE DONE ALL THIS WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT TO COMMISSIONER COUCH'S POINT.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR US TO ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE AND ALLOW YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT IF YOU CAME TO US WITH A SET OF DRAWINGS, WE WOULD NEVER ALLOW.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE.
AGAIN, I STARTED OFF THIS CONVERSATION, I APOLOGIZE FOR SOME OF THE STEPS THAT I TOOK.
UM, AND I DO TRULY MEAN THAT I WISH I CAN GO BACK IN TIME AND DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
UH, WHAT I, WHAT I AM ASKING FOR IS WHAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
I WANT TO KEEP LIKE THAT SAME PITCH ALL THE WAY ACROSS.
BUT, UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OKAY.
DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER.
ON PAGE 30, IT'S THE REAR ELEVATION IS EVERYTHING IN THE EXISTING REAR ELEVATION IN ADDITION TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS REMOVED.
THE ADDITION THAT WAS THERE WAS A NON HISTORIC REAR ADDITION.
AND THAT IS HA THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED.
I KNOW, BUT I'M ASKING YOU IN THAT PICTURE WITH ALL THOSE WINDOWS, THAT'S ALL IN ADDITION.
THERE'S NO ORIGINAL HOUSE SHOWN IN THE EXISTING REAR ELEVATION.
RIGHT? THE EXISTING ON THE REAR IS COMPLETELY GONE.
NO, I DON'T, I I KNOW IT'S GONE.
I WANT TO KNOW, DID I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION? I WANNA KNOW WHAT, IF ANY PART OF THAT WAS ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE.
THERE WOULD BE, YOU SAID THERE WERE TWO PROBABLY THE SAND, THE SANDBAR MIGHT BE BETTER BECAUSE, OR THE GOOGLE IMAGE.
THERE IS A PORTION THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ORIGINAL.
'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AMERICAN FOURSQUARE AND THEN IT HAD ONE STORY REAR ADDITIONS BUILT ONTO IT.
AND THE SANBORN DOES SHOW THAT IT HAS AN EXTENSION OFF THE REAR.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ORIGINAL, BUT IT WOULD'VE BEEN A ONE STORY, I BELIEVE, UH, PAGE EIGHT.
AND SO IT'S ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION AND SO IT EXTENDS OUT BACK WITH AN OPEN PORCH ON THE REAR.
SO A PORTION OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ORIGINAL BECAUSE THEN THEY BUILT ON A NON HISTORIC REAR ADDITION.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A ONE STORY ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE.
WELL, THE ADDITION WOULD'VE HAD A LINE ACROSS THAT IF IT WAS A ONE STORY.
'CAUSE IT'S JUST THE TWO ALL THE WAY ACROSS ON THE, ON THE STAND BARN FROM 1925.
SO IT'S, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK.
SO COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, ARE YOU TRYING TO DETERMINE I'M THE REMOVED
[01:20:01]
ANY ORIGINAL HISTORIC MATERIAL, HOW MUCH OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS BEEN REMOVED? YOU SAID THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONS DONE TO IT.I, I'M TRY, I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIGURE OUT FROM THESE PICTURES WHERE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE IS, WHERE THE ADDITIONS THAT WERE REMOVED WERE, I MEAN, 'CAUSE NORMALLY WE WOULD GET PLANS SUBMITTED TO US THAT HAD THE ORIGINAL DRAWING AND THEN THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, THEY HAVE SKIPPED PAGE 21, LOOKING THROUGH THE PORTICO SHARE.
THERE'S A ONE BY FOUR AT THE ONE 17 SIDING.
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL CORNER OF THE HOUSE 'CAUSE OF THE VERTICAL TRIM BOARD.
AND THEN THE NEW FRAMING WOULD'VE BEEN THE NON-ORIGINAL EDITION THAT WAS TORN DOWN.
SO THEN ON PAGE 31, WHERE, WHERE DOES THE OLD HOUSE START? AND WHERE DOES THE NEW HOUSE WHERE COMMISSIONER MCNEIL WAS POINTING OUT ON PAGE 21? IF YOU GO TO PAGE 23, I TOOK PICTURES OF WHERE YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT ELEVATION WHERE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE IS.
AND IT'D BE THE UPPER LEFT IMAGE YOU BRING UP IN THE SCREEN.
SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S CONDITION SPACE ABOVE THE PORT COSHER.
THERE'S ORIGINAL WINDOW THERE.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ORIGINAL LINE WAS COMING.
SO THE STRAIGHT LINE ALL THE WAY BACK.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE NON, THAT'S WHERE THE NON-ORIGINAL ADDITIONS WERE ADDED ONTO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN TORN DOWN AND REFRAMED AS A NEW ADDITION.
SO COULD WE SUGGEST, SO LOOK AT THE ELEVATION, JOHN.
NONE OF THAT ELEVATION I DON'T THINK IS ORIGINAL ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
YEAH, I THINK THEY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NON-ORIGINAL ADDITIONS TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT.
IT'S WHAT, SO, SO, AND THEN ON PAGE 31 AND 32, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENTIATION? IS THE EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION, WHERE DOES THE, WHERE ARE THE, WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND WHERE IS THAT ADDITION? I TRY TO, UM, ILLUSTRATE HERE BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION WHERE IT WOULD'VE BEEN WITH THE RED LINES AND YOU COULD SEE WHERE IT WOULD'VE ENDED THE HISTORIC, UM, STRUCTURE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT ONE STORY NON HISTORIC REAR ADDITION PUT ON.
AND YOU COMPARE THAT TO WHERE THE REAR ADDITION HAS BEEN BUILT AT TWO STORY.
SO, SO YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THE ORIGINAL HOUSE ON THE EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION GOES FROM THE FRONT TO THE ONE STORY FROM WHAT? AND THAT'S THE RIGHT SIDE, WHICH IS THE SAND BOARD MAP GOES ALL THE WAY BACK.
SO THAT'S THE ORIGINAL CORNER OF THE HOUSE.
THAT WOULD BE THE YES ABOVE THE ONE STORY ON THIS RIGHT ELEVATION.
AND THAT IS THE, THE WINDOW PATTERN WE SEE IN THAT IS THE ORIGINAL WINDOW PATTERN IN THE HOUSE.
WE DO SEE THAT, UH, NO, NO, ACTUALLY THE WINDOW PATTERNS, THE WINDOW OPENINGS HAVE BEEN ALTERED OVER TIME.
WE SAW THAT ONE MIRROR INSIDE.
UH, POINT IS, IF WE LOOK AT THE EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION NEAR THE FRONT, THAT UH, SECOND FLOOR, WE TOOK PICTURES AND THE WINDOW OPENING HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SHORTENED.
SO IF WE LOOK AT IT, WE CAN SEE WHERE IT HAD A MUCH LONGER WINDOW OPENING AND WE FOUND THAT IN OTHER LOCATIONS AS WELL.
UH, MY, MY QUESTION IS DO, DID YOU NOT SEE WHEN YOU WENT FOR THE SITE VISIT, THE REMNANT OF THE ORIGINAL TWO STORY? IF I WERE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE SANDBORNE MAP, UH, THE SECOND STORY THAT, THAT SORT OF LITTLE DARK LEG AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS A, IS A TWO STORY AND IT'S REFLECTED IN THE 1963 PICTURE AS WELL.
AND THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE GOOGLE MAP ON PAGE FOUR OF 35, IT'S THAT BLACKENED PATCH PAST THE FOUR SQUARE.
UH, IS THAT NOT PART OF THE TWO STORY? DO YOU, DO YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING HERE? IS THIS PART OF THE TWO STORY? TWO STORY? IS THAT ALREADY A THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ORIGINAL TWO STORY.
AND AS THEY HAD MENTIONED THAT LITTLE DOG HA DOG LEG ON THE RIGHT NO, THIS, THIS, THIS PART IS TWO STORY FOUR SQUARE.
AND IS THIS PART A TWO STORY? SO THIS SHOULD BE ORIGINAL TO THE 1925 SANBORN MAX.
DID YOU SEE IT ON THE WALLS OR NO? NO.
THOSE WALLS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED.
IT'S ALL BEEN TAKEN DOWN AND REFRAMED.
SO THEN WE SHOULD THEN MAKE THE HOUSE.
NOW HE'S MAKING AN ADDITION RIGHT, RIGHT THROUGH HERE, RIGHT? YEP.
AND BUILDING A RIDGE RIGHT HERE ON, ON ONE THAT GOES RIGHT BACK
[01:25:01]
HERE.WHY ARE WE NOT ON HONORING THIS PART STILL? 'CAUSE IT'S GONE.
WELL HE REMOVED IT WITHOUT ANY PERMITS, RIGHT? YEAH.
DOES AUDUBON PLACE, UH, IS THERE ANY, UM, REQUIREMENT HERE FOR INSET TO DIFFERENTIATE THE AUDUBON PLACE? THE DOES NOT HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO SHORT OF A TRIM BOARD, VERTICAL TRIM BOARD, THERE'S REALLY NO WAY 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE THIS IF THE RIDGE HEIGHTS STAYS THE SAME.
WELL, THE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME.
AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CLEARLY SEE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS, IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THAT.
SO ANY, ANY REQUIREMENT TO DIFFERENTIATE THE ADDITION FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURES ON THE TABLE, WHETHER THAT'S THE RIDGE, WHETHER THAT'S INSETS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN INSET, I'VE MADE A FINE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING.
YOU HAVE A FORCE FREE FOUR, FOUR HITS.
YOU JUST BRING THE RIDGE DOWN TO THE MIDDLE OF THAT ROOF AND LOWER THE PITCH AND COMES STRAIGHT BACK.
COMMISSIONER MCNEAL, IF YOU COULD MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON OR PULL CLOSER TO YOU'S AN EASY WAY TO HAVE A ROOF ADDITION ON THE BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PITCH THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE ORIGINAL ROOF, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING.
UM, WELL I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDING IS MOST PROBABLY A STRAIGHT DROP, WHICH MEANS THERE IS ALMOST LIKE A, A GABLE DROP BECAUSE THE, THE FORCE, THE THE, THE HIP ROOF IS ALREADY GONE RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN, AND THEN PULL A RIDGE OFF, OFF CENTER OUT OF THE BACK HIP.
SO THEN YOU HONOR THE HIP AGAIN.
SO IS THAT WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU ARE THAT'S YES.
THAT HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER GUIDELINES.
THIS WILL BE MY NEW SO YOU ARE RE-ORDERING THE HIP.
I I WANNA, UM, INTERJECT HERE BEFORE WE GET INTO REDESIGNING, UH, FROM, FROM THE HORSESHOE TODAY.
UM, THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, OF CONVERSATION TO BE HAD ON THIS IN TERMS OF REDESIGN, SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE, UH, AMENABLE TO.
AND THAT WOULD, WOULD, UH, MEET THE LETTER OF, OF THE ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF DIFFERENTIATING ANY ADDITION.
UM, IS THERE, IS THERE ANY APPETITE FOR WE DEFER DEFERRING THIS AND, AND ASKING STAFF TO WORK, CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT? I MEAN, WE, WE'D LIKE TO GET YOU SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU, BUT THIS IS CLEARLY NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT THE COMMISSION IS, I I DON'T THINK WE'RE WE'RE WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT A COA.
WELL I DON'T EVEN THINK THESE DRAWINGS ARE ACCURATE.
'CAUSE THIS ONE THAT SAYS RIGHT ELEVATION DOESN'T SHOW WITH A PROOF ON THE EXISTING, ON THE EXISTING, LIKE, IT, IT NEEDS TO BE DRAWN CORRECTLY SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHO THE ARCHITECT OR DRAFTS PERSON IS, BUT THAT PERSON NEEDS TO GET IT INVOLVED AND LIKE, MAKE DRAWINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY REFLECTING WHAT, WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE OUTLINE OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING OKAY.
SPECIFIC TO BE HELPFUL SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PAGE 31 WHEN YOU MADE THAT COMMENT, RIGHT? MM-HMM
'CAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO, IT SHOWS A, A PYRAMID SHAPED ROOF, NOT A RECTANGULAR SHAPED PHOTO.
THE AERIAL PHOTO AND THE, THE ROOF PLAN AND THE ELEVATIONS NEED TO AGREE SO THAT WE CAN, UM, UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER.
I, I WANT TO GIVE YOU I'D A CHANCE TO RESPOND, UM, TO THAT, UH, I MEAN, UH, IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION BEFORE WE HEAR IN CLOSING FROM THE APPLICANT? NO, I WOULD, UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER DEBO.
I WOULD, I WOULD REALLY WANNA MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THEN NO, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT OR DO AS YOU ARE ASKING THE APPLICANT WHERE THERE CAN BE MORE DISCUSSION WHERE WE, AND THEN COME BACK TO THE TABLE.
'CAUSE HE MAY BE MORE, UH, MAYBE A WAY TO WORK THINGS OUT.
SO WE, I THINK WE ARE ALL LEANING TOWARDS, UH, DEFERRING, BUT DO WE, UH, ARE
[01:30:01]
WE GOING TO STIPULATE SOME CERTAIN GUIDELINES ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR AS WELL TO THE STAFF? OR WE ARE JUST, WE CAN SAY WE, WE GONNA DEFER AND THEN JUST LET THEM WORK IT OUT AND THEN WE MAY NOT SEE EYE TO EYE AGAIN ON THE NEXT TRIP OUT HERE.NO, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO STATE, STATE CERTAIN THINGS, THE AREAS THAT, THAT ANY ONE OF US FEEL NEED CLARIFICATION FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.
WITH AN APPROVAL OR A, I MEAN, WHATEVER THE CHOICE IS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE, I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S A CLEAR ENOUGH PICTURE OF ANY PART OF THIS AGREED ADDITION OR RENOVATION.
SHE, SHE'S ASKED THE OWNER TO YEAH.
UH, HONESTLY, UM, LIKE I, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, I'M LOOKING TO MOVE INTO THIS HOUSE.
I HAVE A LITTLE GIRL WHO'S RUNNING OUTTA SPACE IN OUR CURRENT PLACE.
SO WHILE THE CEILING HEIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME AND I WANTED TO COME ASK, YOU KNOW, I, I FEEL LIKE I HAD NOTHING, NOTHING TO LOSE.
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE STAFF AND I WANTED SOMETHING JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
AND I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS THAT Y'ALL ARE HAVING TODAY.
I, I WOULD SAY
I MOVE THAT WE TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER DEBO, I'LL, I'LL SECOND IT WITH DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER DEBOS HAS MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER MCNEIL HAS SECONDED.
WE CAN NOW DISCUSS AMONG COMMISSION MEMBERS.
DOES, DOES THE STAFF, WHAT GUARANTEE DO WE HAVE? EXCUSE ME, COLUMN, WHAT GUARANTEE DO WE HAVE THAT HE'S GONNA FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, UH, TO GET PERMITS AND HE DIDN'T.
SO HOW DO WE, IS THERE ANY GUARANTEE FROM HIM THAT HE'S GONNA FOLLOW THE RULES? HE'S, HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW THE RULES GOING COMM, COMMISSIONER COLLUM, HE HAS TO GET A SET OF DRAWINGS AND SUBMIT TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
THE CITY OF HOUSTON WILL THEN GIVE IT TO ROMAN AND HIS TEAM FOR REVIEW.
SO HE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW THE RULES UNLESS HE DEVIATES FROM THE, UH, PERMIT DRAWINGS ON SITE.
AT WHICH POINT AN INSPECTOR WILL COME OUT AND RED TAG HIM AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK HE WANTS TO COME BEFORE US AGAIN.
I HOPE NOT, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE'RE GONNA SORT OUT EVERYTHING.
'CAUSE IT'S LIKE TOO CONVOLUTED.
ROMAN, DO YOU HA DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT DROPPING THE RIDGE TWO FEET MEANS? AND YES, I WROTE THE RECOMMENDATION YOU MADE, YOU MADE THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND YOUR SKETCH FROM HERE LOOKS GOOD.
I MEAN, WE, WE GUESSTIMATE IT AT TWO FEET IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S, WE SAY TWO FEET FROM THAT RIDGE.
I JUST, MAYBE THAT COULD BE AN APPROXIMATE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT A PROPER RISE RUN THERE TO GET IT.
BUT Y'ALL KNOW THAT WE HAVE PROPER DEFINITION OF THAT ORIGINAL ROOF, PYRAMIDAL ROOF.
I JUST THINK WE'RE GOING BY SUCH INACCURATE DRAWINGS THOUGH.
LIKE, THEY'RE SHOWING THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT REFLECTIVE OF, OF WHAT IT WAS.
WE'RE NOT GOING BY THOSE, WE'RE GOING BY THE NEW DRAWINGS THAT GET SUBMITTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY ROMAN AND HIS TEAM.
WELL, SO THEY'RE THAT'S THE CASE.
DOESN'T NEED COME, NEED TO COME BACK HERE.
BUT LIKE THOSE DRAWINGS ARE WRONG.
LIKE, THAT DOESN'T SHOW THE WAY IT WAS EXISTING.
LIKE WE CAN TELL STAFF'S NOT APPROVING THOSE DRAWINGS, BUT THEY'RE GONNA REDESIGN THE WHOLE THING OR WHATEVER.
AND THEN WE'RE NOT GONNA LOOK AT IT.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE TABLES.
YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST, YOU CAN VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION IF IT'S MINOR THINGS, BUT NOT, NOT, I, I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED HERE.
I I, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY COMMISSIONER DEPOSE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCNEIL.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE STAFFS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A REDESIGN.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? AYE NAY.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
[01:35:01]
ROLL CALL.LET'S, LET'S CALL MADAM CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER SEPULVEDA ASKED FOR CLARITY ON THE MOTION, PLEASE.
THE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED WITH THE AMENDMENT.
THAT THE ANY CHANGES BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED OR REDESIGNED TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED BY STAFF.
BUT WE HAVE NOT OUTLINED THOSE.
WHAT, WHAT CHANGES THOSE MAY BE DROPPING THE RIDGE DROP IN THE RIDGE TWO FEET, DROPPING THE RIDGE TWO FEET.
THAT THAT'S WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING.
I MEAN, IT'S REALLY, THE CONTENTION IS THE ROOF LINE ON THE BACK.
'CAUSE NOBODY'S ARGUING ABOUT THE WINDOWS OR THE DOOR.
I DON'T THINK WE EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE WINDOWS AND THE DOORS.
I MEAN, I THINK THE WINDOWS ARE REALLY STRONG.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER SE SEPULVEDA, ARE YOU CLEAR ON THE MOTION? UH, YES.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THAN ONE AMENDMENT THAT'S YES.
SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR CLARITY.
LET'S, LET'S, UH, TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS MOTION, WHICH HAS, UH, AN AMENDMENT THAT STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE REDESIGN OF THE ROOF, THE ROOF LINE, THE ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON IF THAT MOTION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
KIM, I, I REALLY WISH YOU WERE HERE TODAY.
I'D LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY THAT THE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WE HAVE HAS THE CONDITION THAT THE ROOF BE PULLED DOWN TWO FEET FROM THE EXISTING RIDGE.
SO THE CONDITION YOU'RE ADDING IS ALREADY IN WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR.
SO IT REALLY IS A DIRECT, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS MOTION, IT REALLY IS A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER COLLUM, HOW DO YOU VOTE? NO.
A OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER COSGROVE OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER CURRY? OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER DEBOSE? YES.
COMMISSIONER COUCH? OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER MCNEIL IN FAVOR? COMMISSIONER SE COMMISSIONER VEDA? YES.
COMMISSIONER STAAVA OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER YAP.
I HAVE SIX TO THREE AND A NOTE HERE THAT I SHOULD BE VOTING AS WELL.
SO I'M GONNA VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE AS WELL.
SO THE VOTE IS SEVEN TO THREE.
IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION OR ANOTHER MOTION TO ADVANCE THIS CONVERSATION? MADAM CHAIR? UM, I, I THINK, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DEFERMENT OF THIS PROJECT, BUT WITH THE, UH, KNOWLEDGE THAT THE, UH, CORRECT ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THIS COMMISSION.
RIGHT NOW WE, WE ARE ASKING TO VOTE OUT OF TIN AIR AND OUT OF A GOOGLE MAP, OUT OF SOMEBODY'S RENDITION OF A BAG.
AND UH, THE ONLY THREE PIECES OF INFORMATION I HAVE IS THE SANDBORN MAP, THE GOOGLE MAP, AND, AND, UH, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS ACCURATE.
IS THAT A MOTION COMMISSIONER YET? YES, PLEASE.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MCNEIL.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANY CONDITIONS ON THE DEFERRAL? OKAY, WELL I THINK WE, I MEAN I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO SEE THE DESIGN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH YOU SAID, BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE LIKE A FLOOR PLAN WITH THE CHANGES TO ALL THE WINDOW OPENINGS HIGHLIGHTED THAT IT'S EASIER FOR US TO READ THAN A BUNCH OF BOXES DRAWN ON THE SIDE OF A HOUSE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT REPRESENT WHAT IS THERE STAFF? DID YOU HEAR THAT? APOLOGIES.
WOULD YOU REPEAT IT PLEASE? SO, UH, I WAS JUST SAYING ON THE FLOOR PLANS, IF YES, THERE COULD BE SOME DIFFERENTIATION MADE BETWEEN WHERE THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE AND WHERE THE PROPOSED NEW WINDOWS ARE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AT, I I DON'T FIND THAT THOSE ELEVATIONS ARE VERY CLEAR AS TO WHAT YOU GOT PURPLE SQUARES AND GREEN SQUARES AND RED SQUARES AND I CAN'T MAKE HEADS OR TAILS OUTTA WHAT THOSE WINDOWS SURE.
[01:40:01]
IT.CAN I JUST WANT CLARITY? UH, SO WE ARE DEFERRING THIS TO COME BACK TO HEAR THIS AGAIN BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T HAVE, WE NEED PROOF THAT THEY DID WHAT WE SAID THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
IS THAT NOT WHAT STAFF IS SUPPOSED TO DO? I THINK THE, THE CLARITY COMMISSIONER DUBOSE IS THAT THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, UM, DON'T ACCURATELY REPRESENT WHAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING AND THEY DON'T, UH, TELL A FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING.
UH, THE, FOR THE CHANGES OR THE ALTERATIONS TO BE MADE ADDITION TO BE MADE TO THE STRUCTURE.
AM I, WE I THINK WE SHOULD SEE DRAWING THAT REFLECTS WHAT STAFF IS SAYING WHAT THOSE WINDOWS SHOWN STILL THERE AND NOT LIKE, LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE XS AND SQUARES AND THINGS ON THE PLAN.
'CAUSE THAT'S HARD TO UNDER, IT'S HARD TO MAKE SENSE OF IT.
IT SHOULD BE A SET OF DRAWINGS THAT, THAT COULD BE SENT TO GET A PERMIT.
IT'S NOT AS IF WE HAD AN APPLICATION FOR THIS AND, AND WE HAD A C OF A AND THEY'VE EXCEEDED IT.
THIS IS LIKE A BRAND NEW APPLICATION IN YOUR, THE IDEA THAT WE'RE JUST APPROVING SOMETHING BASED ON SOME IDEA THAT THEY'RE GONNA SUBMIT DRAWINGS THAT STAFF IS GONNA APPROVE.
WE NEED TO SEE THE DRAWINGS IN IT, A FULL APPLICATION WITH ALL OF THE DRAWINGS AND ALL OF THE CHANGES.
MADAM CHAIR, UH, MAY I ASK THE UM, OWNER A QUESTION, PLEASE? SURE.
UH, ARE YOU, CAN, CAN YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION? DID YOU SAY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT YOU RECENTLY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY? IT WAS, UH, 19 MONTHS AGO NOW.
BUT FROM, FROM A, YEAH, FROM, UH, FROM, I GUESS FROM, UH, HAR FROM, FROM A LISTING.
SO THEY SHOULD HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT WAS BEING SOLD, RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS IS A HOUSE, YOU'RE NOT BUYING A VACANT LOT, SO YOU DO HAVE PICTURES PRE ANY OF THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO LISTED THE HOUSE FOR SALE WOULD'VE PICTURES OF THE HOUSE ALL AROUND FRONT AND BACK.
BUT THERE, THERE WEREN'T THAT MANY PICTURES.
BUT I CAN DIG UP WHAT WHAT YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO THE STAFF AS WELL, BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN DETERMINE WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE BEFORE YOU DID ANY WORK TO IT.
I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, I KNOW A LOT OF THE, THE DISCUSSION IS LIKE ON THE POINT OF CONTENTION OF LIKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND, AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
UM, A A LOT OF THAT RELATED TO THE WINDOWS WAS BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR A LOT OF CHANGES AND WHEN WE MET WITH THE STAFF, THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE CHANGED ON THE DRAWING.
THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE CHANGE ON THE DRAWING WHAT WE AGREED TO AND WE BLANKETLY AGREED TO EVERYTHING THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED WHEN IT COMES TO THE WINDOWS AND ALL OF THAT.
UM, THE ONLY, I THINK DIFFERENCE IN THE DRAWINGS AND BESIDES THOSE WINDOW MARKINGS AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT RIDGE LINE ON THE ROOF, WHICH, LIKE I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, I, I DID WANT TO KEEP THE CEILING HEIGHT, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT MOTION HAS FAILED, BUT THAT, THAT'S REALLY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.
I KNOW THOSE WINDOW DRAWINGS, YES, WE CAN UPDATE THOSE ON THE DRAWINGS BECAUSE WHAT WE WANTED AND WHAT'S ON THE DRAWINGS WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE STAFF SAID THEY WOULD RECOMMEND.
SO ON FRIDAY AFTER I MET WITH THEM, THEY SAID, HEY MARK UP, MARK UP THOSE DRAWINGS TO SAY, HEY, YOU WILL ACCEPT WHAT WE RECOMMEND.
AND, AND I DO, I ACCEPT EVERYTHING THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS WHEN IT COMES TO THE WINDOWS.
SO THE ONLY POINT OF CONTENTION WAS THAT BRIDGE ROOF FLYING IN THE BACK, WHICH IS WHY I CAME HERE TO, TO ASK, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A STAFF ERROR I THINK FOR ME TIME.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE, ON THE TABLE.
UH, THE MOTION IS TO DEFER THE, THE COR, I MEAN TO DEFER THE, THE APPLICATION, THE COR, UM, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES INCLUDING THE RIDGE HEIGHT, BUT ALSO TO, UH, ACCURATELY PRESENT A SET OF DRAWINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.
DID I CONSIDER, UH, THIS APPLICATION? UH, MAY I HAVE ADJUST THE COMMISSION REAL QUICK ON THIS MATTER TO COMMISSIONER? YAP.
THERE IS A PORE SOURCE OF WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE WE LOOKED AT THE PHOTOS AND THERE'S MAYBE THREE OR FOUR.
IT DID NOT GIVE A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT THE SIDE REAR ELEVATIONS WERE, SO IT'S GONNA BE REALLY HARD TO GO 'CAUSE WE COULDN'T RELY ON THOSE.
OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE, ON THE FLOOR.
ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL? AYE.
IT APPEARS THAT THE MOTION FOR DEFERRAL HAS, UH, HAS PASSED.
UM, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK WITH STAFF, UM, AND, AND BRING THIS BACK TO US AND WE'LL BE READY TO, TO ENTERTAIN IT IN MARCH.
[01:45:01]
THANK YOU.I, I THINK WE'RE, I THINK THE POINT IS THE, THE ISSUE'S OVER NOW.
THAT WAS OUR LAST, UH, ITEM UNDER, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS.
SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, AGENDA ITEM B, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
UH, ANYONE ONLINE? WE GOT A THIN CROWD TODAY.
UM, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I'M NOT SURE THAT THE, I, I, I THINK MY COMMENTS MIGHT FALL ON DEAF EARS GIVEN THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN THE SEATS.
BUT, AND, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE TWO PROJECTS WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY WHERE PEOPLE JUST GO AND DO, ESPECIALLY THE WOMAN IN THE SIXTH WARD IS ESPECIALLY INFURIATING, WHERE THEY JUST GO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO COME BEFORE US, ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND THEN, AND THEN GET A COR AND MOVE FORWARD.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW, UH, IT'S THE ENFORCEMENT THING, RIGHT? WE CAN'T LEVY FINES.
WHAT, WHAT DO WE DO TO GET PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS? I THOUGHT WE CAN LEVY FINES.
MAYBE WE SHOULD SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM, FROM OR NOT ALLOWED TO LEGAL MICHELSON BECAUSE WE, WE GOT FINES ALREADY APPROVED.
SO IF THIS PERSON IS STILL ON RED TAG, DOESN'T SHE GET FINED? MS. MICKELSON, CAN WE LEVY FINES? NO, THIS BOARD CANNOT LEVY FINES.
FINES ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE IMPOSED BY STATE LAW FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF ORDINANCES.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT GENERAL PENALTY IN OUR, IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH WE DO.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE HAS A PROCEDURE THAT THEY GO THROUGH AND, AND WE CAN FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION AND BRING THAT BACK TO YOU.
AND IN MARCH OR, OR AT A LATER MEETING, I'LL TRY AND I'LL TRY AND GET THEM, UM, TO GIMME SOME INFORMATION BY MARCH.
BUT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS A RED TAG DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT AUTOMATICALLY INITIATES A FINE.
THERE IS, THERE HAS TO THEN BE A PROCEEDING WHERE IT IS PROSECUTED IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND THE JUDGE AND MUNICIPAL COURT IS THE ONE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE A FINE, EVEN THE CODE INSPECTION FOLKS CANNOT IMPOSE A FINE.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS FOR MARCH, MAYBE TO GO WITH, TO WORK WITH OUR MUNICIPAL PROSECUTION STAFF AND CODE ENFORCEMENT FOLKS AND SEE IF WE CAN GET AN IDEA OF SOME KIND OF TIMELINE OF HOW THEY, HOW THEY OPERATE ALONG THAT, UM, CONTINUUM.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
I MEAN, MAYBE ONE OR TWO ENFORCEMENTS MIGHT, MIGHT ENCOURAGE OTHERS.
BE GOOD TO KNOW FOR EVERYBODY.
AND IT, IT MAY HELP HIGHLIGHT IT AND, UH, LET PEOPLE KNOW WE'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO IT.
OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, MADAM CHAIR, UH, CAN MADAM DIRECTOR, UH, GIVE US AN UPDATE SINCE YESTERDAY'S, UH, CITY COUNCIL HEARING? THERE WAS NO VOTE, BUT CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS, UH, FOLLOWING THAT ON THE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT PLEASE? UM, YES I CAN.
UM, THE, YESTERDAY WAS JUST A PUBLIC HEARING.
IT WAS JUST TO HEAR, COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC.
THE MAYOR HAS NOT SET A DATE YET FOR, UM, BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION.
UH, WE ARE, I MEAN, I, WE ARE WAITING, UM, OR HE IS WAITING FOR DIRECTION FROM US IN TERMS OF, UH, OUR NEXT STEPS IS TO TAKE THAT COMMENT, CONSIDER IT, AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT, YOU KNOW, TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, UH, THAT, UM, ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS.
AND SO WE WILL BE WORKING ON THAT QUICKLY.
UH, WE KNOW THE MAYOR, UM, WANTS TO GET THIS OUT QUICKLY, SO I WOULD EXPECT HIM TO BRING IT BEFORE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, THIS SPRING, NOT MUCH LATER.
UH, SO THE NEXT STEP, UH, THEN WE'LL MAKE SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES AND THEN BRING IT BACK, UH, TO THE PUBLIC, TO THIS COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC.
SO THE BALL TO GOES BACK TO YOUR COURT RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE CHANGES, BUT AFTER THAT, DOES IT HAVE TO GO TO ROUND TWO, A PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, OR THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE JUST GONNA READ THROUGH YOUR AMENDMENTS OR YOUR REWRITES AND THEN STRAIGHT AWAY VOTE.
DOES THE PUBLIC GET A SECOND CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR REVISED DOCUMENTS? I DON'T KNOW IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED YET.
KIM, WHY DON'T YOU TRY? NO, I, I CAN ANSWER THAT.
[01:50:01]
AND, AND WE, AS, AS, AS MS. OSLAN POINTS OUT, WE'LL BE WORKING RATHER RAPIDLY TO GO OVER THE, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE THE, UM, APPROPRIATE, UH, CHANGES TO RECOMMEND TO THE ADMINISTRATION.UM, THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH ANY KIND OF A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
UM, IT AGAIN, AS I NOTED AT, AT Y'ALL'S LAST MEETING, UM, DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS, CHANGES ARE ITERATIVE AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY GET MADE ALONG THE WAY.
SO I THINK UNLESS, UNLESS CHANGES WERE TO BE REALLY SUBSTANTIAL AND, YOU KNOW, TOTALLY ALTER THE WAY WE WERE DOING THINGS, UM, THAT WE WERE ANTICIPATING HAVING THINGS DONE, WHICH I DON'T FORESEE, UM, I DON'T THINK WE, WE PUT IT BACK THROUGH A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND IT'S NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED.
WAS THERE A, LIKE A SUMMARY OF THE GIST OF THE COMMENTS? LIKE WERE THERE SOME THAT WERE REPEATED OR SOMETHING LIKE, LIKE DURING OUR MEETING THEY HAD WRITTEN DOWN THE COMMENTS AND WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT THEM WHILE WE WERE HAVING THE, THE MEETING AT THE HISTORIC COMMISSION? YEAH, WE WE'RE CONTIN CONTINUING TO ADD TO THAT LIST OF COMMENTS.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY'RE BEING ADDRESSED IF, IF THEY'RE BEING ADDRESSED OR NOT.
AND WHY, SO IS THAT LIST PUBLIC THAT WILL BE, I THINK THE LIST IS CURRENTLY ONLINE.
I DON'T, IT PROBABLY HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FROM YESTERDAY.
UM, BUT IT WILL BE UPDATED AND IT, IT WILL MAKE THAT AVAILABLE.
UM, WE'RE NOW GONNA MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM D, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT.
I WANT TO CALL, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING THAT JASON WAS A, PRESSED ME TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ON OUR AGENDA TODAY TO DISCUSS A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT KIND OF RELATE TO WHAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT IN A BIG WAY.
UM, SO LET ME, WHY DON'T I JUST GO THROUGH THOSE AND UM, AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT.
UM, SO THIS IS A PROJECT AT FIVE 40 FRAZIER, WHICH IS ALSO 30 13 WHITE OAK DRIVE.
AND LIKE, UH, THESE PROJECTS, WE, THIS WAS A RED TAGGED PROJECT, A BUILDING THAT WAS RED TAGGED.
AND LIKE WE ASKED ON THE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS GENTLEMAN THAT WAS HERE BEFORE YOU, WE GOT OUT OF THIS COMMISSION A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF WAS TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO GET THE BUILDING RIGHT, WHICH WAS A, A BUILDING WHICH HAD A LOT OF AL INAPPROPRIATE ALTERATIONS TO IT TO BEGIN WITH.
B WAS IN ROTTING AND THE EAVES WERE FALLING OFF AND THE ROOF WAS COLLAPSING.
AND THEN C IT WAS ALSO BEING ALTERED INAPPROPRIATELY WITHOUT, WITHOUT PERMITS.
SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, JASON'S GOING THROUGH THE PICTURES HERE.
UH, WE GOT PETE STOCKTON OUT THERE.
WE, UM, WE WORKED WITH THE OWNERS AND PRESSED HIM ON THE DRAWINGS UNTIL WE GOT WHAT WE WANTED.
AND IF YOU, I GUESS, DO WE HAVE THE CURRENT PHOTOS, JASON, OF WHERE THAT YEAH, YEAH.
SO HE'S GOING TO, SO THEN YOU START TO SEE THIS BUILDING AND I MEAN, IT MAKES ME SMILE WHEN I GO DOWN THE STREET AND SEE IT BECAUSE IT LOOKS REALLY GREAT.
YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, SECOND FLOOR EDITION, WHICH WAS NOT ORIGINAL.
YOU CAN SEE THE WAY IT'S JUST ALL DONE IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE EVEN THE FINISHED PHOTOGRAPH, YOU KNOW, PAINT PAINTING PAINTED ONES, BUT IT'S UM, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD AND IT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO FOR ENFORCEMENT.
AND I DON'T LIKE THIS THE TOPIC ABOUT, I DON'T MIND BEING THE POLICEMAN.
I MEAN, I WAS AN INSURANCE ADJUSTER FOR SIX AND A HALF YEARS WITH PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE.
I DEALT WITH REALLY ROUGH BODY SHOP GUYS.
YOU KNOW, I'VE DEALT, I DON'T MIND BEING THE OFFICER.
I TOLD THE DIRECTOR AND LEGAL THAT I'M, YOU GIVE ME A BADGE, I'LL GO, YOU KNOW, DO THAT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR US IN OUR OFFICE AND FOR WHAT WE DO.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF REMEDIATION WHEN PEOPLE COME FORWARD AND ASK FOR THEM AND TO GET THEM THERE AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN.
FRANKLY, WE KNOW PEOPLE CAN DEMOLISH BUILDINGS CONTRIBUTING AND PROTECTED LANDMARKS AND REALLY, THEY MIGHT LIKELY JUST GET A HAND SLAP.
MAYBE THEY WERE GONNA BUILD SOMETHING THERE FOR 10 YEARS OR WHATEVER.
BUT THE FACT IS PEOPLE CAN WORK AND OFTEN DO WORK WITHOUT PERMITS.
AND I FEEL IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS STAFF WHEN THEY COME KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR TO BE THANKFUL THAT THEY CAME FORWARD AND TO HELP 'EM AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO GET 'EM BACK ON TRACK.
AND SO ANYWAY, WITH THIS ONE, IT'S AMAZING.
IT'S GREAT IF YOU HAVE TIME TO GO BY, IT JUST LOOKS TERRIFIC.
THEY ACTUALLY REBUILT THE EAVES ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
[01:55:01]
EVE HAD BEEN TORN OFF WHEN WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU.AND WE WORKED WITH THEM AND THEY PUT BACK THAT EAVE SO IT'S CLEAN.
THE REASON IT HAD BEEN TORN OFF IS THAT THE SECOND FLOOR EDITION WAS DONE PROBABLY WITHOUT A PERMIT, LIKE 50 OR YEARS AGO OR 40 YEARS AGO.
AND THEY CUT THE ROOF RAFTER, ROOF RAFTERS, AND THE TAILS WERE REALLY JUST HANGING THERE 'CAUSE THEY WEREN'T ATTACHED TO A ROOF RAFTER ANYMORE.
AND ALL THAT ROTTED AND FELL OFF.
SO IT JUST REALLY LOOKS GREAT.
UH, AND THEY PUT LITTLE KICKERS UNDER THESE NEW FAUX FAUX TAILS AND THOSE KICKERS, UM, ARE HOLDING THAT UP.
AND SO IT'S JUST A GREAT, YOU KNOW, THING I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU JUST HOW IT WORKS.
AND WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE LIKE THAT.
UM, YOU'LL REMEMBER IT'S MORE RECENT.
UM, AND ACTUALLY I WAS THE ONE WHO 3 1 1 THIS BECAUSE I WAS NEXT DOOR TO LOOK LOOKING AT SOMETHING WHEN I CAME AND SAW THE PORTICO OF THIS HOUSE WAS BEING TORN OFF AND WAS LAYING IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND I STOPPED THE WORKERS AND I, YOU KNOW, SAID, HEY GUYS, YOU CAN'T, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? YOU NEED TO, AND UH, AND THEN I GOT YOU A LITTLE BIT OF PUSHBACK AND I SAID, WELL TELL YOU WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA, THERE'S SOMEONE GONNA COME OUT HERE AND TAG THIS PROJECT AND YOU NEED TO KEEP ALL THIS MATERIAL.
AT THAT TIME I WAS LOOKING AT ORIGINAL MATERIAL LAYING ON THE GROUND.
I SAID, YOU NEED TO KEEP ALL THIS MATERIAL 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA NEED IT.
AND THEY DIDN'T KEEP IT ANYWAY.
THEY STILL DIDN'T LISTEN TO YOU.
RIGHT? PEOPLE CANNOT LISTEN IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, BUT EVENTUALLY GOT HERE WITH THIS COMMISSION.
RIGHT? AND THEY HAD, LUCKILY THERE WAS A GOOD NEIGHBOR, I I, THE ARCHITECT'S NAME IS PROBABLY THE BEGINNING OF THE STAFF REPORT WHO HELPED THEM TO GET, UM, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, JONATHAN DAISY, I BELIEVE IS A LOCAL ARCHITECT THAT DREW A NICE PORTICO TO MATCH WHAT WAS THERE.
AND UM, I EVEN THINK THEY KIND OF GOT, UH, BUILT IT ONCE AND IT DIDN'T PASS THE INSPECTIONS.
AND SO TODAY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT REALLY IS A PRETTY GOOD REBUILD OF THAT PORTICO.
SO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSPECTORS, IT JUST ALL WORKS.
UM, IT WORKS PAINFULLY SLOW FOR US AND IT'S TIME CONSUMING AND, BUT WE JUST KEEP DOING IT.
AND, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANTS THAT JUST CAME BEFORE US.
I KNOW WHAT THAT BUILDING LOOKED LIKE.
I WALKED THROUGH THAT BUILDING.
I KNOW WHAT'S ORIGINAL AND WHAT'S NOT ORIGINAL.
I'VE BEEN, I GOT, I BREATHE SAWDUST.
I'VE BEEN BREATHING IT SINCE I WAS NINE YEARS OLD.
I'VE BEEN AT THE END OF A TABLE SAW SINCE I WAS A CHILD.
SO WHEN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND WE'VE WALKED THROUGH IT AND WE VISITED THE SITE, YOU CAN TRUST THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
YOU WANNA SEE BETTER, TIGHTER DRAWINGS, FINE.
WE CAN SEE SOME TIGHTER DRAWINGS, BUT JUST BE, NOT BE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAT WE WE'RE, WE DO TAKE SOME TIME WITH EACH OF THESE.
WE'VE PROBABLY BEEN THROUGH HALF A DOZEN OF THESE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS WHERE WE'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK, ROMAN.
I I DO APPRECIATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND JASON AND THE REST OF YOUR STAFF AND HOW HARD ALL OF Y'ALL WORK IN WALKING THESE PROPERTIES.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE THE ENFORCER 'CAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC TO, UH, EDUCATE THEM AND THEN TO BRING PROJECTS THAT ARE READY FOR OUR APPROVAL AT THIS TABLE.
AND SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON STANDPOINT.
IF YOU NEED TO GET MORE GENTLEMEN LIKE DENNIS WOOD OUT THERE SLAPPING RED TAGS EVERYWHERE AND TRYING TO KEEP HISTORIC OUT OF IT.
OR YOU PUT PETE STOCKTON IN CHARGE, HE'D BE REALLY GOOD AT SLAPPING RED TAGS EVERYWHERE WITH PETE IS GREAT AND WE, WE WE DO WORK WITH HIM.
I'M SORRY, I TOTALLY CUT YOU OFF.
NO, JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.
YOU KNOW, YOUR JOB IS TO BE THE FACE OF THE HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT AND, AND THAT Y YOUR MAIN FORCE SHOULD BE FOR GOOD
AND NO, WE LIKE THE WAY THAT I, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE WAY IT WORKS AND THE ENFORCEMENT IS WORKING.
WE DID TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT WITH, UH, LEGAL A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND WE GOT HERE AND WE DO HAVE SOME DRAFT AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT MAYBE IN MARCH OR APRIL FROM, FROM KIM.
AND THERE'S PROBABLY A TIME WHERE WE NEED, I CAN THINK OF ONE OR TWO BUILDINGS THAT AREN'T RESPONDING WELL TO OUR PROMPTING AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE SOMETHING AND BE A LITTLE MORE FORCEFUL.
BUT THE BEST THING TO DO, THE BEST THING FOR THE PROGRAM, FOR PRESERVATION IN OUR CITY AND FOR PRESERVATION EVERYWHERE IS TO, IS TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CHOICE WHETHER TO COME FORWARD OR NOT.
AND WHEN THEY COME FORWARD, I'M JUST SUPER THANKFUL.
THERE'S JUST, IT'S WHAT, THIS IS A DIALOGUE, RIGHT? WE, WE CAN TALK, BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT THEY HAVE A CHOICE OF WHETHER
[02:00:01]
TO COME FORWARD OR NOT? IF THEY LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, DO THEY HAVE A CHOICE? UM, YEAH.SO YOU HAD THE EXAMPLE OF THE GENTLEMAN, UM, THAT WAS HERE A FEW WEEKS AGO FROM GLENBROOK VALLEY WITH, WAS IT ABOUT 18 RED TAGS? UM, HE COULD HAVE REBUILT THAT HOUSE AND JUST MOVED INTO IT, PUT SOME PROPANE ON IT, WHATEVER RUN, YOU KNOW, HOG TIES, ELECTRICITY IN YES, IT'S GOING.
I MEAN, THERE IS, THERE ARE SOME OTHER TOOLS OUT THERE, BUT THE FACT IS PEOPLE REALLY HAVE, OR THEY COULD DRAG IT OUT IN MANY, MANY OTHER WAYS OR SELL THE PROPERTY AND WALK AWAY FROM IT.
JUST SO MANY THINGS YOU COULD DO.
I JUST WANT, I, IN THE DISTRICTS THAT WE NORMALLY DEAL WITH, WE'RE DEALING WITH HIGHER SOCIOECONOMIC PARTS OF HOUSTON.
UM, BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.
WELL, GRANTED, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
GRANTED, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE ISSUE OF BOOTLEGGING CONSTRUCTION WORK, I MEAN, IT'S AN ISSUE ACROSS THE CITY OF PROTECTING NEIGHBORS, LET'S SAY FROM EACH OTHER.
I, BEYOND, BEYOND HISTORIC, NOT ENCOURAGING, BEYOND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, IF THAT'S YOUR POINT.
THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, NO KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY, UH, THAT HAPPENS.
UH, I'M NOT ENCOURAGING IT, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE OF COURSE COMMISSIONER MCNEIL WAS SAYING ME.
UH, THE FRAMING ON THAT HOUSE IS, UH, THE, I INSPECT THE FRAMING.
INSPECTOR IS GONNA HAVE A GOOD STRONG CUP OF COFFEE AND HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
IT, IT MAY ACTUALLY BE DISASSEMBLED ENTIRELY.
IT'S BEEN FRAMED, BUT THAT DOESN'T COME TO US.
WE RELY ON THOSE PROFESSIONAL SPEAKING HISTORICALLY.
YOU KNOW, WE USED TO BURN OUR CITIES DOWN EVERY A HUNDRED YEARS OR SO,
AND IF WE SPEAK A LITTLE MORE HISTORICALLY EVERY 50 YEARS OR SO, AND THE REASON THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN SO MUCH ANYMORE, I KNOW I'M, I'M SINGING TO THE CHOIR MASTER IS, IS, IS BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THERE'S A PERMIT SYSTEM THAT'S ENFORCED.
AND IF IT'S NOT ENFORCED, THEN WELL, WE'RE BE BURNING IT DOWN AGAIN.
BUT, SO I GUESS WE'RE AGREEING IT'S ABOUT ENFORCEMENT.
BEYOND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, MAYBE WE THINK ESPECIALLY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION, BUT, BUT BEYOND IT.
ROMAN, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO THE POINT, I THINK THE, THE MATTER OF, UH, ENFORCEMENT OR THE, THE FORCEFULNESS OF ENFORCEMENT IS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
UH, D YOU KNOW, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NAIVE NEW HOMEOWNER NOT KNOWING, UH, OR A OLDER COUPLE THAT ARE NOT REALLY, UH, UH, UH, WELL ENOUGH TO DO THAT.
BUT BY AND LARGE FOR ME, UH, THE ENFORCEMENT IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT AND THEY DO IT.
OKAY? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HOUSES, IF YOU WANT ME TO DRIVE YOU, THAT THE BUILDER HAS JUST LEFT THE HOUSE, A HISTORIC HOUSE JUST AS IT IS, COME RAIN OR SHINE AND LET THE THING BUILDING GO REALLY BAD.
'CAUSE THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT THE GUY DOES NOT WANT TO REMODEL.
HE WANTS TO JUST GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAY, THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THIS HOUSE NOW IS TERRIBLE.
SO WE NEED AN, A COURT OF ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT BECAUSE HE, HE'S DOING IT WILLY-NILLY.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT IF YOU REMEMBER THERE WAS ONE ON THE HEIGHTS, THE GUY DEMOLISHED THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE HOUSE OR SOMETHING IN OVER WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY AND THEN CLAIMED HE, HE, HE CLAIMED FORGIVENESS AND THEN WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE APPEALS BOARD.
I MEAN, I THINK WE ARE BEING TOO LENIENT TO HIM BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.
NOBODY'S THAT GOOD TO DEMOLISH A HOUSE IN TWO DAYS AND CLEAN IT ALL UP.
SO YOU, YOU, WE SAY SOMETHING FOR, WE ARE NOT DIRECTING, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS A HOMEOWNER DIRECTLY, THERE IS A LEVEL OF ENFORCEMENT.
BUT WHEN YOU COME TO THOSE PEOPLE, LIKE, ESPECIALLY THAT YOU ARE GONNA TACKLE IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, PEOPLE WILL BUY ALL THESE HOUSES AND THEN LEAVE IT FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEN NOT TOUCH IT AT ALL AND LET IT JUST GO TO WASTE.
HOW ARE YOU GONNA ENFORCE THAT? HE DIDN'T DEMOLISH THE HOUSE, THE WEATHER DID.
SO THERE, THERE WE HAVE TO BE, WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF, OF ENFORCEMENT.
WE, WE SHOULD BE MORE LENIENT TOWARDS THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNAWARE OR, UH, DID NOT DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
UH, AND, AND THEN YOU, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR OFFICE CONTRIBUTE A LOT TO HELPING THAT, THAT HOUSE THAT YOU JUST SHOWED MM-HMM
RIGHT? BUT THERE ARE ALSO VERY BAD ACTORS OUT THERE.
SO HOW DO WE THEN NOT GIVE THEM FREE PASSES? WELL, LET, LET'S, LET'S EXPLORE MS. MICKELSON'S, UM, SUGGESTION, UH, THAT WE GET WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH LEGAL AND WITH ENFORCEMENT AND SEE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A BAD ACTOR,
[02:05:01]
UM, THAT IS BLATANT THAT WELL, WE MAKE AN EXAMPLE, I'M ANXIOUS TO LEARN MORE MS. MICKELSON TO SEE WHAT YEAH, WE MIGHT DO.AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, I I'VE HEARD THEM FROM OTHER HISTORIC COMMISSIONS AS WELL IN MY, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
SO THAT'S SMALL CONSTELLATION, I KNOW.
UM, BUT YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF AND, UM, AND THE OTHER SIDE OF LEGAL TO, TO TRY AND BRING IN SOME AT LEAST DISCUSSION AND KIND OF OPEN THAT UP TO, AND SEE WHERE WE CAN GO FROM HERE.
I, I DO HAVE A, I DO HAVE AN, UH, ITEM, UH, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN.
UM, SINCE WE ARE ON LEGAL AND PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE LEGAL, CAN SOMEONE, UH, SHARE IF THE, UH, FOR 1 0 6 REVIEWS AND THE USE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS IN, UH, NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HISTORIC COMMISSION, WHO, WHO, WHO, UH, HOLDS PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL? LIKE WHEN THEY'RE, I MEAN, WHERE IS, WHO IS THE BODY? SHOULD WE BE CALLING? DO ANYBODY KNOW? YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT HERE, BUT I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
1 0 6 REVIEWS IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT? YEAH, I KNOW THC, THE NORMALLY PEOPLE CALL THC, BUT I, I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF SOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW, UM, ABOUT 1 0 6 REVIEW IN ORDER TO CALL.
SO IS THERE ANYBODY IN THIS, IS IT PRESERVATION HOUSTON? I MEAN, WHO WOULD BE, UM, ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS? DOES ANYBODY KNOW? I THINK, UH, THE, THE ONUS IS ON THE AGENCY.
THE, THE DOLLARS, THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT ARE BEING SPENT, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT AGENCY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING NEPA OR 1 0 6.
UM, BUT IF THAT'S NOT BEING DONE OR IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT IF THAT IS BEING DONE, UM, I, I WOULD THINK PRESERVATION HOUSTON WOULD BE AN ADVOCATE.
UM, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THE PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS HERE IN TOWN OR, OR HERE.
AND, AND I CAN ANSWER THAT IN PART THAT I, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE CHAIR HAS SAID, THAT THOSE ARE, THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENTITY WHO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL DOLLARS.
BUT WHEN THAT'S NOT BEING DONE, ROMAN CAN TELL YOU HIS OFFICE HAS GOTTEN THOSE CALLS BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE GOTTEN THOSE CALLS.
AND SO THAT'S HOW IT, IT WINS ITS WAY.
AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SENT PEOPLE AND DEVELOPED A RELATIONSHIP WITH, UM, ROMAN STAFF HAS WITH THC AND THE GLO, UM, ON SOME OF THE ITEMS COMING THROUGH THE HOUSTON AREA RECENTLY.
UM, AND I'D PROBABLY STILL SAY THAT'S PROBABLY YOUR BEST AVENUE IS STILL THC, UM, TO, TO GET THE ATTENTION THEN OF WHO, OF THC AND OR GLO IF YOU KNOW, IT'S GLO WITH THE FUNDS.
BUT, UM, I'D STILL SAY THAT'S PROBABLY YOUR BEST AVENUE STAFF MAY HAVE MORE, MORE SUGGESTIONS ON THAT FRONT.
AND, AND I WOULD, I WOULD ADD THAT THAT'S A QUESTION BECAUSE WE DEAL WITH IT IN MULTIPLE COMMUNITIES.
I'M ON THE HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSION, AND THEY, THEY TEND TO BOUNCE THE BASKETBALL AROUND TOO.
SO, YOU KNOW, AT THE CITY LEVEL, AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, AND THEN AT THE STATE LEVEL.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S, UM, CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE BOARD.
BUT ANYWAY, I JUST THOUGHT I'D PUT IT ON RECORD TO ASK THE QUESTION AND SEE IF SOMEBODY HAD A SENSIBLE ANSWER.
COMMISSIONER DUBOSE COMMISSIONERS, WHAT, WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IS, IN MY OPINION, A VERY GRAVE SITUATION.
THE TEXAS' STORE COMMISSION IS, HAS A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICE THAT IS ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICE TO BUILD HOME TO, TO, TO LOOK AT HOMES IN NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE AREAS OF HOUSTON ALL OVER HOUSTON, ON THE INNER CITIES ESPECIALLY.
BUT, UM, OVER BETWEEN U OF H AND TSU, WHERE THE THC HAS AGREED, THE AREA IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, OR DOWN IN SUNNYSIDE, UH, WHERE THE THC HAS AGREED THAT THE AREA IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, UM, AND OR IN INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS, WHICH IS ALREADY ON PARTS ON, ALREADY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
AND THE OTHER PARTS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
AND YET THE MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT IS ALIGNED TO BUILD WHAT LOOKS TO ME LIKE ONE OF FOUR HOUSES.
THEY, THEY'RE GOING TO PEOPLE AND SAYING, WE'RE GONNA DEMOLISH YOUR HOUSE.
AND THE CASES, WELL, THE MOST OFFENSIVE CASE I'VE SEEN IS IN WHAT WE CALL THE SOUTHWOOD SUBDIVISION, WHICH LOOKS LIKE PART OF RIVERSIDE, BUT IT'S KIND OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RIVERSIDE THERE.
AND THERE WAS A BEAUTIFUL RANCH HOME THERE THAT THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T
[02:10:01]
FIX.AND THE ORIGINAL, MAYBE WE REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT THEY, THEY'RE SUPPOSED, THEY HAD A BUDGET OF 60,000, THEY MOVED IT TO 200,000 FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS PARTICULAR ONE, UH, WHETHER IT CROSSED THE 60 BEFORE THEY WERE MADE AWARE THAT THE AREA WAS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, WHETHER THEY SAID THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE WAS NON-CONTRIBUTING.
'CAUSE SOMETIMES THEY'LL SAY, WELL, IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING HOUSE IN A NATIONAL REGISTERED ELIGIBLE AREA, SO WE'RE NOT HAVING AN ADVERSE IMPACT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY ALREADY TAKING DOWN A HOUSE THAT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
I'M, I'VE SEEN HOUSES THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING, THAT ARE BEING DEMOLISHED, AND THEN THEY'RE REPLACING WITH ONE OF THESE THREE OR FOUR DESIGNS, WHICH ARE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE.
AND THEY'RE TELLING THE PEOPLE, WELL, THERE'S ONLY TWO ADULTS IN THE HOUSE, THEN YOU'RE ONLY GONNA TWO BEDROOMS NOW, EVEN THOUGH THEIR PREVIOUS HOUSE WAS THREE OR FOUR BEDROOMS. AND IT'S NOT REALLY THE SIZE THAT'S THE PROBLEM, IT'S JUST THE, THAT THE, THE BUILD BACK.
YOU CAN FIND THEM ALL OVER HOUSTON.
BUT I KEEP, I JUST SAW ONE THIS MORNING AND MY STAFF WAS WITH ME WHEN I SAW IT.
AND I REALLY JUST ABOUT, I, I'M JUST, I'M AT, I'M ON, I'M, I'M AT MY LIMITS.
AND I THINK COMMISSIONER DE BO'S QUESTION IS, I MEAN, I, AND I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THE, AND WHAT I THINK HAS HAPPENED.
SO THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, IF YOU ARE GONNA, IF YOUR AGENCY'S SPENDING FEDERAL MONEY AND YOU ARE GONNA HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO, UH, DO SOMETHING TO OFFSET THAT.
AND THE BIG MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, WELL, OBVIOUSLY SET UP AFTER HARVEY, IT, IT, IT SAYS THAT, THAT I, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AN ADVENTIST IMPACT, WELL THEN YOU CAN EITHER DO A PHOTO, A HISTORIC REHAB SURVEY OF THE STRUCTURE, OR YOU CAN DO A FEW THINGS.
BUT WHAT I, I'M ACTUALLY BEEN TRYING TO UNRAVEL THIS KNOT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LANDED ON THOSE, HOW THEY GOT THOSE THREE OR FOUR DESIGNS THAT LOOK THE SAME.
THEY HAVE A PAD IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, NO GARAGE, NO INTEGRATED GARAGE, BUT A SLAB IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AND THEN A APPEAR AND BEAM STRUCTURE.
HARDY PLANK LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR IT JUST, I, IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A QUEEN ANNE SHOTGUN STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING OR ANOTHER.
THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY DESIGN TO IT.
UM, AND THEY'RE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PEOPLE AND THEY'RE TELLING 'EM, THEY GET FLOWER, THE ONES CALLED THE, YOU KNOW, THE LILY FLOWER OR THE TANGERINE, OR THEY GOT THESE NAMES FOR 'EM.
I DON'T, BUT I DON'T, I REALLY, TO THIS COMMISSIONER DE BO'S POINT, IT, IT, IT STRIKING AND IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
AND I FEEL LIKE THE CITY HAS A STAKE BECAUSE WHEN YOU DROP THOSE THINGS DOWN IN AN, IN AN OTHERWISE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S OTHERWISE COHESIVE TO ME, YOU'RE LOWERING THE PROPERTY VALUE OF THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE AFFECTING OUR TAX BASE, WHICH MEANS IT SEEMS TO ME WE HAVE AN, WE HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS.
AND WHAT I READ IS THAT WHEN YOU MAKE THOSE MEMORANDUMS OF AGREEMENT LIKE THAT, YOUR PUBLIC INPUT, YOUR COMMUNITY INPUT, YOUR ENGAGEMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AT LEVEL WITH THE LEVEL OF THE ACTIVITY YOU'RE GONNA UNDERTAKE.
SO IF WE'RE BUILDING THOUSANDS OF HOUSES IN OUR CITY AT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WHERE WAS THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT AGREED TO THE FOUR LITTLE DESIGNS? WHAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER HEARD THAT, THAT OCCURRED.
AND SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT I THINK THAT, THAT THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE CITY REALLY TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS? YEAH.
AND IT'S REALLY OUTTA CONTROL.
I ROMAN, THAT'S A, THAT'S DISTURBING TO HEAR.
UM, AND I'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE.
AND I THINK, UM, IT MAY INCLUDE HAVING SOME FOLKS FROM THE CITY OR FROM THE THC PARTICIPATE IN THAT CONVERSATION.
SO, UM, I, I THINK IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE CONVERSATION TO HAVE AS AN AGENDA ITEM AT A FUTURE MEETING WHERE WE CAN REALLY POINT, UM, POINT SOME ATTENTION TO IT.
UH, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR ROMAN.
YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THEY, WHO ARE THE, WHO IS THIS DAY, THE GLO OFFICE OR THE THC TH THOSE TWO BODIES HA ARE, ARE, ARE ENTERED IN A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING THIS HARVEY MONEY THAT THE GLO IS SPENDING.
THOSE ARE THE PARTIES AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE COMING UP WITH THIS FOUR WEIRD STRUCTURES AND ALL THAT.
RIGHT? SO YES, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MADAM CHAIR.
YOU KNOW, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET MAYBE A, A FORMAL PRESENTATION.
UM, SO, SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN BE AWARE OF THIS TOO, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND IN A MEETING, A FUTURE MEETING WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE MIGHT OFFER A PUBLIC HEARING.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE JUST BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD HERE TODAY, THAT THIS BODY COULD RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, OR OR TO THE MAYOR THAT
[02:15:01]
EITHER FURTHER EXPLORATION OR A CONVERSATION HAPPEN.UM, I WILL, I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY'RE HEARING, THEY'RE ALL, ALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE THAT HAVE, ARE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY ARE HEARING COMPLAINTS FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
IS IT, I WONDER IF SOMEONE SEEK A FUTURE AGENDA, ADDRESS THIS AND, AND HELP US UNDERSTAND STAND.
DO YOU TALK TO ANYONE AT THE THC? I'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH THE, UH, THE, UH, MEMBERS FUTURE AGENDA.
WE CAN PUT IT ON ANOTHER AGENDA.
YEAH, IT'S NOT ON YOUR AGENDA.
THERE'S CLEARLY LOTS OF DISCUSSION.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS A ITEM I THINK THAT WILL GENERATE A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND I'D RECOMMEND THAT UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE POSTPONE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL WE HAVE IT POSTED SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT FULL, FULL DISCUSSION.
AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER DUBOSE, UH, FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD TODAY, UM, WITH THE, THE, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORT, UM, OR THE PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT COMPLETE.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA TODAY, SO WE ARE ADJOURNED.