* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on June 18, 2026.] [00:00:14] UM, THURSDAY, JUNE 18TH, 2026. TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION. HAHC IS CALLED ORDER. I AM COMMISSION CHAIR DAVID EK. UH, TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM, I'LL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. UH, COMMISSIONER JONES IS PRESENT IS PRESENT. AWESOME. COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BLAKELY PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HILL PRESENT. COMMISSIONER COSGROVE PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MARK SMITH PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRODBECK PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GARCIA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DAVIS PRESENT AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WILLIAMSON. PRESENT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM. I'M GONNA BEGIN, UH, THE MEETING WITH THE CHAIR'S REPORT. UM, AND IT'S TYPICAL, I'M GONNA READ THE SPEAKER RULES TO BE OBSERVED AT THIS MEETING. UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE MEETING CAN BE VIEWED ON HTV, ALTHOUGH VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. MEETINGS START A FEW MINUTES AFTER THE SCHEDULED TIME TO ALLOW THE HTV BROADCAST TO GO LIVE. SPEAKERS, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKER'S FORM, UH, BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO THE, TO THE STAFF NEAREST THE FRONT DOOR. UH, THE SPEAKER RULES ARE POSTED ON THE AGENDA AND ARE AT MY DISCRETION AT THIS MEETING. THE APPLICANT WILL OPEN WITH AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES. YOU MAY ALSO BE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE WITH AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES. I MAY CALL ON YOU FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS. OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS MAY SPEAK ONE TIME UP TO TWO MINUTES WHEN I RECOGNIZE YOU TO SPEAK AND ALSO FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS. UM, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THIS LIST, UM, THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND WILL BE IN SOME DISCUSSIONS, I THINK TODAY, UH, FOR A FEW OF THEM. AND SO IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR NAME PLATE AND I'LL CALL ON EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY SO THAT WE CAN, UM, UM, ASK QUESTIONS IN, IN ORDER AND, AND, AND MOVE THROUGH. UM, EACH OF THOSE, UM, THOSE ITEMS SWIFTLY. UH, PLEASE NOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS AFTER STAFF'S INITIAL PRESENTATION, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS. UH, PLEASE HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF UNTIL OUR DELIBERATIONS, UM, UH, PLEASE HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS FOR DELIBERATIONS UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND, UM, AND THAT SHOULD ALSO, UM, MAKE OUR MEETING GO A BIT FASTER. AGAIN, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS THAT HAVE ALREADY SIGNED UP, AND I EXPECT THERE STILL WILL BE A FEW MORE, UM, ARRIVING. AND WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU, CHAIR HICK, AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF PUBLIC. I'M ROBERT WILLIAMSON, ACTING SECRETARY FOR THE COMMISSION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM OUR REPORT TODAY. I JUST HAVE TWO BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS. FIRST I WANT TO INTRODUCE AND WELCOME OUR TWO SUMMER INTERNS THAT WILL WORK WITH OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM. THIS SUMMER WE HAVE, UH, ISHA BAVAR, I HOPE I SAID THAT RIGHT, A SOPHOMORE AT UT AUSTIN. AND EMILY RYAN, A RECENT GRAD RICE GRADUATE. WELCOME BOTH OF Y'ALL. NEXT THE HAHC WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE CHANGES TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION THAT WAS PROPOSED LAST MONTH WAS NOT SCHEDULED DUE TO SCHEDULING ISSUES WITH SUMMER VACATIONS AND ET CETERA, AND ISSUES GETTING A QUORUM. AS SUCH, THE FOUR ITEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE ORDER TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE WORKSHOP OR ADDED TO TODAY'S AGENDA. IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION AT PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6, OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, WE DO NOT HAVE A MAYOR, UH, LIAISON REPORT. UM, AND I GUESS I'M GOING TO MOVE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE MINUTES TILL AFTER ITEM A THEN ON OUR LIST. SO, UM, WHAT I'LL DO IS NEXT, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM A, UM, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING HAHC POLICY AND PROCEDURES. I THINK, ROBERT, YOU [00:05:01] WANNA START, START THAT OFF. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. YEAH. UH, THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS TO BE, UH, DISCUSSED TODAY FOR, UH, CONSIDERATION. AND CONTRARY TO THE AGENDA, THERE WILL BE NO VOTE ON THESE ITEMS TODAY AS THEY'LL BE VOTED ON NEXT MONTH. THE FIRST ITEM IS RULES ON ABSTENTION VOTES. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE DISCUSSION ON WHETHER, WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD ALLOW ABSTENTION VOTES. SO I WOULD OPEN THAT UP TO THE FLOOR . OKAY. UM, IS, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO? EXACTLY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER BROBECK. SURE. UM, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, ABSTENTION VOTES, UM, I, SINCE, UH, THE, THE TOPIC HAS COME UP, THE LAST FEW MEETINGS I'VE RECEIVED, UM, A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT, UM, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR, UH, US PREVENTING, UH, ABSTENTION VOTES FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. UM, THE AG FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, UH, HAS ISSUED AN OPINION THAT ANY MEMBER OF ANY COMMISSION CAN ABSTAIN FOR ANY REASON THEY WANT TO. SO LONG AS THAT VOTE IS CAST IN GOOD FAITH. SO EVEN IF WE VOTED TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON IT, WE CAN'T, WE'RE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO LEGALLY. IF I MAY, I KNOW, UH, MATTHEW IS NOT AVAILABLE TODAY, UM, FOR US, BUT WE DO HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL, UH, FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON. AND IF, UM, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND THE MIC MICROPHONE TURNED ON, BUT ALSO, COULD YOU, COULD YOU GIVE US SOME ADVICE FOR THE COMMISSION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT? CERTAINLY. MY NAME IS MATTHEW SMITH, UH, AND REPRESENTING THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UH, IT IS THE POSITION, UH, DESPITE THIS, UH, THIS CHARACTERIZATION THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT, UM, THAT TAKING A VOTE WITH REGARD TO ABSTENTIONS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CHARTER AND THE, UH, ORDINANCES THAT CREATED THE HAHC AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT, IT SHOULD NOT PASS. THERE SHOULD BE NO VOTE, NO VOTE TAKEN. AND CAN YOU REFER TO THE ORDINANCE, THE HAC ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? SURE. SECTION 33 2 40 A AND B. COULD I ASK THAT YOU READ THOSE OUT JUST FOR CLARITY FOR THE COMMISSION? SURE. THE HAHC SHALL BE THE BODY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, THE HAHC SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN THIS DIVISION. AND A DESIGN GUIDELINE APPROVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 33 2 68 OF THIS CODE OR DIVISION SIX OF THIS ARTICLE FOR THE OLD SIX WARD PROTECTED HISTORIC DISTRICT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THREE, IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CRITERIA IN THIS DIVISION AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, MORE RESTRICTIVE CRITERIA SHALL CONTROL, AND B, THE APPLICANT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE APPLICATION, SATISFIES THE CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THE HIHC SHALL CONSIDER AND MAKE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO, TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN, WELL, THOSE ARE THE TWO MATERIAL PROVISIONS THAT SET OUT A BINARY CHOICE FOR THE HAHC, WHICH IS TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. AND THERE'S EXPRESSLY NO ABSTENTION OPTION PROVIDED, NEITHER THERE OR UNDER ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION THREE OF THE CITY CHARTER. OKAY. BUT THERE IS A REC RECUSAL, UM, IF YOU HAD A COLLECT OF INTEREST OR INTRODUCTORY TIED TO AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON FOR ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, I BELIEVE IS IT'S, IT'S MANDATORY FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS A RECUSAL IF YOU ARE CONNECTED TO THE, THE PROJECT IN SOME WAY. THAT IS, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE OTHER AVENUE THAT ONE COULD USE WHEN LOOKING AT A BINARY VOTE. IF THEY HAD, IF, IF, LIKE IF A COMMISSIONER MEMBER LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN APPLICATION OR THEY WERE HIRED BY THE APPLICANT, THEY WOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES AND [00:10:01] THAT THAT IS THE THE OTHER WAY THIS, THIS WOULD BE LOOKED AT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND I GUESS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, YOU WILLIAMSON YOU HAVE A COMMENT? UH, YES. THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, I WOULD ALSO JUST, I WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS IS THE PRACTICE THAT'S USED BY CITY COUNCIL IN ALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. IT'S ALSO THE PRACTICE EMPLOYED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TOWER COMMISSION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU HAD A QUESTION? YES, I THANK YOU. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, WHAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC ABOUT ABSTENTIONS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THINKING IT THROUGH. UM, AND IT SEEMED THAT IN THE WORDING OF THE DOCUMENT WE GOT THERE WAS THE IMPLICATION THAT THE, BY ABSTAINING, IF, IF TOO MANY COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN, THEN THE, THE BODY, THE COMMISSION CAN'T ACTUALLY APPROVE SOMETHING, UM, THAT THE ABSTAINING MEMBERS GIVE OVER THEIR POWER OF THE BODY TO JUST A MINORITY. RIGHT? SO IT, WHAT COULD HAPPEN JUST IF WE HAD UNLIMITED UNRESTRICTED ABSTENTION IS, UH, 10 COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN TWO VOTE FOR LIKE A, A MOTION AND ONE AGAINST IT, AND THEN IT PASSES. RIGHT? SO THAT WOULD MEAN LIKE ONLY THREE COMMISSIONERS WERE ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL APPROVAL. UM, AND WHEREAS THE, THE BODY, THE, I THINK THE, THE ORDINANCE IS THE INTENTION IS THAT WE ARE DIVERSE AND NUMEROUS. AND SO WHEN A EMOTION IS APPROVED OR DISPROVED, IT'S THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE WHOLE OF US HAVE TAKEN A POSITION. UM, AND SO IF ONLY THREE OF US ARE PARTICIPATING IN 10 OR ABSTAINING, UM, THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT WOULD BE NOT OPTIMAL AS FAR AS THE BODY OPERATING. BUT, BUT IS THAT A, IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? LIKE IF WE DID ALLOW UNRESTRICTED ABSTENTIONS, COULD THAT HAPPEN BASED ON THE RULES? I DON'T KNOW WHO TO ASK. EVEN BASED ON THE RULES OF WHAT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? DOES IT, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A LIKE CERTAIN NUMBER APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING FOR THE BODY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, OR COULD IT PAN OUT THAT WAY WHEREAS ONLY THREE PEOPLE VOTED, BUT IT WAS APPROVED. UM, IS THAT A SCENARIO THAT COULD HAPPEN IF WE CHANGED THE RULE? UH, I HAVEN'T DONE LEGAL RESEARCH WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, IMPACT ON QUORUM, UH, FOR HOW ABSTENTIONS WOULD AFFECT THAT. I CAN ANTICIPATE THERE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME ISSUE, UM, WITH REGARD TO THAT. UH, BUT I'M NOT, NOT PREPARED AT THIS TIME TO ADDRESS HOW SPECIFICALLY IT WOULD AFFECT A QUORUM OR TO ENGAGE IN A HYPOTHETICAL DESPITE ITS, ITS OBVIOUS IMPORT. OKAY. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING, UH, FROM WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT OBVIOUSLY ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION ARE APPOINTED EITHER BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OR THE MAYOR DIRECTLY OR, AND OR A CITY COUNCIL PERSON TO DECIDE, UH, TO APPROVE OR DENY APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE US. THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS CONVERSATION IS BASED ON, UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, AND I KNOW ANOTHER, WE, WE'LL BE TALKING A LITTLE ABOUT A NUMBER ITEM THREE DRAFT STAFF REPORTS. UM, BUT BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE PROVIDED TO US AT THE GIVEN TIME, THE REQUEST, UM, OF OUR OWN ORDINANCE IS THAT WE ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST AN APPLICATION AS PRESENTED TO US AT THE TIME THAT WE REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AND, AND THAT THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. I MEAN, WE'RE HERE TO VOTE UP OR DOWN. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR CHARGE. SO I'M JUST STATING WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IS WHAT OUR ORDINANCE, UM, STATES. AND, AND WITH THAT, THERE'S A QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER BROBECK. YES. QUICK QUESTION FOR LEGAL. SO IS IT THE POSITION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT, UM, THAT CITY ORDINANCE SUPERSEDES STATE LAW AND THE OPINION IS ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS? IS THAT THE POSITION? NO, THAT'S NOT OKAY. PLEASE STATE THE POSITION IN WHAT WAY? I WAS PROVIDED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT STATES FAIRLY CLEARLY, AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THE EXACT TEXT JUST NOW, I APOLOGIZE, I COULDN'T FIND IT. UM, BUT IT STATES PRETTY CLEARLY THAT WE CAN ABSTAIN FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, SO LONG AS WE'RE CASTING OUR VOTE IN GOOD FAITH. I BELIEVE THAT'S A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF [00:15:01] WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LETTER ON THE MATTER SUGGESTS, WHICH STATES THAT IT IS PERMITTED THAT ABSTENTIONS ARE PERMITTED, BUT THEY ARE NOT PROVIDED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE DOES NOT, UH, DISALLOW ABSTENTIONS. BUT IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A UNIVERSAL RIGHT OR AN INNATE OR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO ABSTAIN FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR CITY CHARTER THAT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS IT AND THUS SPECIFIED BINARY CHOICE PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THIS BOARD. UH, THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH A, WITH A STATEMENT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OP THERE ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH A GOVERNMENTAL BODY MIGHT DECIDE TO PROVIDE FOR ABSTENTIONS, BUT SUBJECT TO THIS CHARTER, TO THE CITY CHARTER AND THE ORDINANCES, THIS IS NOT THAT BODY. OKAY. OKAY. UM, I REMAIN UNCONVINCED. UM, BUT TO, TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMISSION, THE REASON WHY THIS MATTERS IS I, I'VE ONLY BEEN A COMMISSIONER FOR EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS NOW. AND, UH, JUST IN THAT SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS INVOLVING INSTANCES MORE THAN JUST MYSELF, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO REASONS THAT I'VE NOTICED OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE CAST ABSTAINING VOTES. THE FIRST IS WHEN NEW MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AFTER THE PUBLIC POSTING OF THOSE MATERIALS, UM, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND TO US. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE SHOWING UP TO A MEETING, SEEING MATERIALS FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, AND THEN BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON THAT MATTER WITHOUT HAVING HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THOSE MATERIALS. THE SECOND, UH, AND THIS HAS ALSO HAPPENED MORE THAN ONCE, NOT EVEN INVOLVING MYSELF, IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE MADE, UM, AND POSED TO STAFF MEMBERS, UH, AND OR APPLICANTS THAT THEY JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO ANSWER AT THAT TIME, WHICH IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE BECAUSE HOW CAN AN APPLICANT OR A STAFF MEMBER KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS THEY MIGHT BE ASKED IN ADVANCE? AND SO IF THAT COMMISSIONER, OR MORE THAN THAT COMMISSIONER DEEM THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AS BEING IMPORTANT, WELL THEN I THINK WE'D LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER. SO THE, THE ALTERNATIVE THAT, THAT WE ARE AFFORDED IS TO MOVE TO DEFER. NOW, IF OUR MOTION TO DEFER THAT MATTER FAILS, I AM NOT, I'M STILL NOT GOING TO BE COMFORTABLE VOTING ON SOMETHING WHERE PARTICULARLY NEW MATERIALS WERE SUBMITTED AT THE MEETING THAT WEREN'T PUBLICLY POSTED, WHICH IS ALSO, BY THE WAY, THE LAW IN TEXAS, THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING WE'RE VOTING ON AT THE MEETING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. SO THAT'S MY ISSUE HERE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA. I'LL BE, I'LL BE QUITE BRIEF. UM, ALL POINTS TAKEN. UM, IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, ABSTENTION AND RECUSAL ARE BEING USED, UM, IN DIFFERENT WAYS AT DIFFERENT TIMES TO HAVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES. UM, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE REASON THAT YOU'RE STATING FOR ABSTENTION, UM, TO ME IS WHY SOMETHING WOULD, WOULD BE DENIED. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN APPEALS BOARD IS SO THAT THINGS THAT DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY PIECES CAN BE APPEALED. AND IF ALL THE JUSTIFICATION IS PROVIDED IN A SEPARATE BODY, THEY'RE REVIEWING THOSE IN DETAIL SO THAT THAT DECISION CAN BE OVERTURNED OR CHANGED IF IT WASN'T JUSTIFIED. AND SO TO DO THAT ABSTENTION MOVE FOR THAT PURPOSE AT THIS BOARD LEVEL, NULLIES THE USE OF THE APPEALS BOARD TO ME, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT AND IF THERE'S ANY FEEDBACK, 'CAUSE I'M ALSO A NEW COMMISSIONER FOR THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSION, I JUST THINK THAT'S WHAT THE APPEALS BOARD IS FOR, AND WE HAVE TO JUDGE WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. IF YOU SAY, THIS MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH, I'VE BEEN IN THAT POSITION AS WELL ON SOME OF THESE, AND I SAY, I HAVE TO DENY IT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE WHAT I'M SEEING AND I'M NOT SURE. AND THEN THE APPEALS BOARD WILL SAY, WELL, WITH MORE INFORMATION, WE DECIDED THAT IT WAS OKAY, OR WITH MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, IT'S NOW, OKAY. AND IT ADDRESSED ALL OF THOSE OUTSTANDING DOUBTS. AND SO TO ME, UM, I UNDERSTAND WHY ONE WOULD NEED TO ABSTAIN. I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE WOULD WANT TO RECUSE, AND I'VE HAD TO DO THAT FOR MYSELF WITH FRIEDMANS [00:20:01] TOWN PROJECTS, WHICH I'M ASSOCIATED WITH. AND I DID NOT ABSTAIN. I RECUSED MYSELF OR I WASN'T EVEN PRESENT TO VOTE TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU. AND, BUT THE RECUSAL PROCESS IS PART OF THE CITY CHARTER. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT, WHERE THAT'S CODIFIED, BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO TO DISCLOSE, UH, INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE IN, IN, IN PROJECTS AND TO, UM, AND I THINK THAT'S NOT AT QUESTION WITH THE TODAY. UM, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, YOU HAD A COMMENT. SO, UM, I'M GONNA, UH, I, I WON'T BE QUITE AS ELOQUENT AS COMMISSION ESCOBAR, BUT, UH, MY FIRST MEETING, I'M A NEW COMMISSIONER, ALSO, MY FIRST MEETING, I, UM, ABSTAINED ON THE VOTE BECAUSE I DISAGREED WITH THE, WITH THE PROCESS ON HOW IT WAS, IT WAS TURNING OUT. AND I WAS, UM, RESPECTFULLY CORRECTED BY, UM, BY MARBA AND, AND, UM, MISS COMMISSIONER WILLIAMSON OR SECRETARY WILLIAMSON. UM, AND I STARTED THINKING AFTERWARDS WHAT WERE, WHAT WERE, UM, THE ALTERNATIVES, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DISAGREED WITH AS FAR AS NOT THE FULL PACKAGE, BUT, UM, MATERIALS COME IN, IN AFTER THE FACT, OR IF I DISAGREED WITH AN ELEVATION. AND, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE AVENUES FOR US TO, TO, UM, EXCEPT A, A, UM, ABSTENTION ONLY FOR, ONLY FOR A, UM, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF, IF YOU, IF I WANTED TO, UM, ABSTAIN BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THE WAY THE PROCESS WAS PROCEEDING, I SHOULD HAVE JUST RECOMMENDED A DEFERRAL OR, UH, RECOMMEND OR DENIED IT. SO, UM, TO ME, I THINK THOSE TWO AVENUES ARE ALL WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE, ACCEPT THE, UM, CONFLICT OF INTEREST ONLY FOR A DEFER, UH, FOR AN ABSTENTION. WELL, AND I JUST WANNA MENTION AS WELL, BECAUSE, UM, MR. BROBECK HAS BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF POINTS, UM, AND TO THE ITEM OF DRAFT STAFF REPORTS, AND WHEN WHAT IS POSTED AND WHAT WE SEE, UH, WHEN WE ARRIVE FOR THIS MEETING WILL BE ITEM THREE FOR THIS SUBSET OF QUESTIONS. SO WE, WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT AHEAD ON AS WELL. AND, UM, AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE, AGAIN, THE, THE SECOND MEAN, UH, MEANS TO RESOLVE SUCH AN ISSUE OF DEFERMENT WILL AGAIN BE DISCUSSED AS PART OF NUMBER THREE BECAUSE, UH, AGAIN, IF A PROJECT IS NOT IN, IS INCOMPLETE OR IF DETERMINED TO BE INCOMPLETE OR DETERMINED TO BE INACCURATE, WOULD BE GROUNDS TO DEFER IT REGARDLESS. AND, AND WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION SO THAT WE CAN AGREE UPON IF THERE'S A PROJECT WHERE THAT OCCURS, THEN WE MIGHT AGREE WE'RE GONNA DEFER THAT PROJECT BECAUSE THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE. AND, AND THEREFORE, UM, MR. AS COMMISSIONER BROBECK SAID, IF WE ARE IN AGREEANCE WITH THAT, THEN WE WON'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO VOTE. IS IT BECAUSE THERE'S A VOTE TAKEN ON IT? SO, UM, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE HOW WE WILL LOOK AT THESE THINGS. BUT WE WILL ADDRESS THOSE TWO POINTS IN DETAIL, UH, IN JUST A MOMENT. SO, COMMISSIONER BROBECK, UM, QUESTION, HAS THERE EVER BEEN AN INSTANCE WHERE SO MANY PEOPLE ABSTAINED THAT THERE WASN'T QUORUM OR WE COULDN'T GET A PASSING VOTE? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM? HAS IT EVER ? WELL, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE PER THE CITY CHARTER AND WHAT OUR ORDINANCE DOES STATE. AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF RESEARCH ALSO AND THE MAKING OF THIS BODY AND SOME OF THAT INFORMATION WAS, UM, DISTRIBUTED TO YOU ALL. BUT, UM, BUT BE BECAUSE WE'VE, THESE, THESE HAVE BEEN RAISED, WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS THEM AND FIND A CONSENSUS, UM, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THIS BODY IS CHARGED TO DO. AND SO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT THOUGH, IS THAT PER THE CITY CHARTER AND PER PER LANGUAGE IN OUR ORDINANCE IS OUR ROLE IS TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE SEE UNLESS, UM, UNLESS WE NEED TO RECUSE OURSELVES BECAUSE WE HAVE AN, A ACTUAL VESTED INTEREST IN THE PROJECT AS ALSO DEFINED, UM, IN THE CITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS. SO, UM, MR. BLAKELY, I JUST HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR LEGAL. UM, DOES THE ORDINANCE DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING AND AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING? NO, IT DOES NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I THINK PART OF THE QUESTION, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CLEAR [00:25:01] ABOUT THIS, IS DOES THE ORDINANCE SAY THAT INDIVIDUALLY WE HAVE TO VOTE YES OR NO ON EVERYTHING? OR DOES IT SAY THAT COLLECTIVELY WE HAVE TO VOTE YES OR NO ON EVERYTHING? UM, PERSONALLY, I THINK MAYBE PART OF THE ANXIETY AROUND HAVING TO SAY YES OR NO WHEN YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE COULD BE ADDRESSED BY PUSHING A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR MORE DISCUSSION. UM, SO THAT YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN DISAGREEMENT OR, OR, OR TO PROPOSE ANOTHER WAY OF FRAMING, UH, THE PROBLEM FOR A VOTE, RIGHT? BECAUSE I THINK SOMETIMES ONE DOESN'T LIKE THE WAY THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, UM, AND DOESN'T WANT TO DENY IT, UM, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S YOUR POSITION. BUT I THINK IN THAT KIND OF CASE, WE COULD PUSH A LITTLE HARDER IF WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE EITHER CAN DIS HAVE A MOTION THAT WE CAN ALL EITHER DISAGREE OR AGREE ON, RIGHT. SO LIKE THAT COULD HELP RESOLVE THE DISTENTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE. SURE. AND COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, UM, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT FOLKS AROUND THE DAIS. UM, THERE'S AN ARCHITECT, UH, ARCHEOLOGIST, HISTORIANS, UM, MEMBERS OF REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, AND BY DESIGN, UM, THE, THE FOLKS HERE ARE COMING FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, THE BUILDERS, UM, SOCIETY AND, UM, REAL ESTATE INTEREST. AND SO, UM, WE'RE NOT HERE TO FIND, UM, CONSENSUS THAT WE, LIKE EVERYONE AGREES WITH. I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING THAT DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW HAVE BEEN PLACED AT THIS TABLE TO REPRESENT ALL THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF A PROJECT. AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UM, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE, WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS HAVE VOTING ONE WAY, LIKE ALL FOUR OR ALL AGAINST, BECAUSE THE, THE, THE FOLKS AROUND THIS TABLE ARE COMING FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. AND, AND THAT'S BY DESIGN. SO THAT DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW CAN BE, CAN BE BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED, AS YOU WERE SAYING. AND WITH THAT ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION COULD, COULD TAKE PLACE. UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT WE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE, RIGHT? YES. AS, AS A GROUP, BUT WE AGREE THAT EVERYONE WILL BE RESPECTED. EVERY, EVERY VIEWPOINT WILL BE ENTERTAINED, LISTENED TO, DISCUSSED, AND, AND THAT, AND THAT'S BY DESIGN, I MEAN, RIGHT? NO, I'M NOT HOPING FOR UNANIMITY, BUT I THINK IT'S MAYBE WOULD BE SOMETHING TO AIM FOR, LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN DISAGREE OR AGREE ON, RIGHT? SO SOME ARE AGAINST, SOME ARE FOUR, BUT NO ONE'S LIKE, I CAN'T VOTE EITHER WAY ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU'RE IN THAT POSITION, I CAN'T VOTE ON EITHER WAY ON THIS. UM, YOU NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHY, AND MAYBE HELP US TO UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE WE CAN HELP ADDRESS THAT SO THAT EVERYONE CAN BE ONE OR THE OTHER. THAT WOULD BE MY IDEAL. I UNDERSTAND. AND, AND PERHAPS TODAY AS A GROUP, YOU ALL WILL DETERMINE IF THERE'S ADEQUATE QUESTIONS OR SOME ISSUE THAT DEFERMENT IS THE CURE FOR, FOR, FOR THAT. SO THAT, UM, FOR AT LEAST FOR SOME OF THOSE CASES, UM, NOT ALL. SO W WE AGAIN, AS MENTIONED, WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY VOTES TODAY. SO WITH, I'M GONNA MOVE ON IF, SORRY, MR. BROBECK. SURE. UM, I, I FOUND THE TEXT FROM THE PREVIOUS GUIDANCE THAT I HAVE RECEIVED ON THIS TOPIC FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND HERE IT GOES. THIS IS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THERE IS NO HOUSTON CITY CODE OF ORDINANCE PROVISION, ORDINANCES PROVISION, CITY CHARTER PROVISION, OR TEXAS STATUTE STATUTE AUTHORITY OF AFFIRMATIVELY PROHIBITING A COMMISSIONER OF THE HOUSTON OF THE HAHC FROM ABSTAINING, FROM A VOTE FOR REASONS OTHER THAN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER CHAPTER 1 71 OF TEXAS LAW. IT GOES ON TO SAY THERE IS AN AG OPINION GENERALLY STATING THAT VOLUNTARY ABSTENTION OUTSIDE OF CHAPTER ONE 70 ONE'S FRAMEWORK IS PERMISSIBLE. SO I THINK THAT MADE OUR DECISION FOR US, BUT I JUST WANTED TO READ THE, THE GUIDANCE THAT I GOT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SO THAT THE COMMISSION'S AWARE NOW IF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD LIKE TO REVERSE ITSELF AND ISSUE NEW GUIDANCE, FAIR ENOUGH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN WRITING AND THEN THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER IT WHEN THAT OCCURS. IS THERE A RESPONSE ON SAY, THIS LEGAL OFFICE OR, UM, 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA SAY THAT, UM, WE'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE TODAY AND, UM, IF, IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL RESEARCH OR ANY NEEDED, WE COULD, WE CAN DISCUSS IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, BUT, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY, UH, LEGAL MAINTAINS ITS POSITION. OKAY. THANK [00:30:01] YOU. UM, SO, UM, LET'S MOVE ON FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES OF ITEM TWO, RECORD, IZATION OF VOTES. UH, THE RECORD, THE RECORDING OF VOTES, UM, IS, HAS BEEN DONE IN CURRENT PRACTICE, HAS, HAS BEEN OUTLIED IN ETHICS TRAININGS AND OTHER, UM, PROCEDURAL MOTIONS MADE BY, UM, LEGAL COUNSEL IN SETTING UP AND ADVISING THIS BODY. SO WE REMAIN, UM, THE VOTES THAT HAVE BEEN CAST AND RECORDED PREVIOUSLY ARE, UH, ARE WHAT THEY ARE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER, MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER BROBECK? SO I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. IF, BASED ON WHAT WE JUST HEARD, DOES THAT MEAN THEN THAT WHEN A COMMISSIONER CASTS AN ABSTAINING VOTE, IT WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES AS ABSTAINING AND NOTHING ELSE? UH, IN INCORRECT IT WILL BE RECORDED ACCORDING TO POLICY. AND CURRENT POLICY IS THAT VOTE WILL BE RECORDED AS A NON-STANDARD VOTE, MEANING OPPOSED SLASH ABSTAINED COMMISSIONER ICK. SO WHAT I JUST HEARD THEN IS ONE FOLLOWS THE OTHER. WE, WE CAN'T, THE NUMBER TWO IS DIRECTLY CORRELATE AND TIED TO NUMBER ONE. UM, WHEN WE DECIDE ONE WE'LL DECIDE THE OTHER, BUT AGAIN, I MAINTAIN THE POSITION IT'S BEEN DECIDED FOR US. THIS IS STATE LAW. UM, I CONCUR THAT NUMBER TWO DERIVES FROM NUMBER ONE. IT APPEARS TO ME AS YOU, AS YOU STATED. AND, UM, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, UM, I, WHATEVER YOU READ, I DON'T THINK IT CAME FROM, UM, UM, FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, MR. MR. SMITH HERE TODAY. I'M, I, I'M ASSUMING SO, BUT I, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, I KNOW SINCE YOU FIRST RAISED QUESTIONS, A LOT OF RESEARCH HAS, HAS HAPPENED INCLUDING INTO THE ORDINANCE, UH, PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND WHAT HAS BEEN CODIFIED EVEN STARTING, YOU KNOW, RESURRECTING THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT FOR THIS COMMISSION. SO I DON'T KNOW, UM, IF THAT WAS A PREMATURE STATEMENT OR NOT, BUT, BUT THE CITY OF LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS REPRESENTED HERE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE US IN REAL TIME. SO, BUT AGAIN, WE CAN RECONVENE THIS NEXT MONTH, UM, AS IS, AS THE CUSTOM OF OUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. SO WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE, IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS ON TWO, UM, WHICH I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID HERE BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS THE BASIS OF MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS. UM, ROBERT, THANK YOU. SO DRAFT STAFF REPORTS IS THE NEXT ITEM ON HERE. SO HISTORICALLY, UM, STAFF IN AN EFFORT TO, UM, MAKE THE PROCESS AS USER FRIENDLY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC HAS MODIFIED DRAFT REPORTS AFTER THEY'VE BEEN POSTED ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE COMMISSION. AND THEN THE FINAL REPORTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE PRESENTED AND VOTED ON THE DAY OF COMMISSION ARE THE FINAL REPORTS. BUT IT'S CORRECT, THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S BEEN INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THOSE REPORTS. SO IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WE TOOK ACTIONS TO HALT THAT PRACTICE. AND BEGINNING IN MARCH, WE PUT IN A STRICT RULE THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL APPLICANT MATERIALS ADDED TO THE STAFF, DRAFT STAFF REPORTS AFTER THEY'RE POSTED ON FRIDAY. NOW, WE HAVE ADDED ANCILLARY INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT COME FROM THE APPLICANTS THAT'S COME THAT WE NEED TO RELY ON THE COUNTY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY SOURCES, UM, SUCH AS SANBORN MAPS OR THE BS, SOME, SOME MINOR INFORMATION. UM, BUT AGAIN, THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS REGARDING, UH, DIMENSIONS, NEW DRAWINGS OR ANYTHING. THAT PRACTICE HAS COME TO A FULL HARD STOP. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION AND WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT MATTER. AND, UH, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBINSON, UH, WILLIAMSON, UM, SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE RENDERINGS OR ANY OTHER KIND OF, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN HASN'T CHANGED, BUT, UM, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD MEAN WE WOULDN'T BE ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS OR ANYTHING ELSE SUBMITTED BETWEEN THE FRIDAY, UH, IN THE NEXT MEETING. THAT, THAT'S CORRECT. IF, IF IT, IF IT ORIGINATES WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY WILL NOT BE ADDED TO THE STAFF REPORTS. NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THE APPLICANT CAN'T SHOW UP HERE AND IN DISCUSSION TIME, THEY'RE, THEY ARE, FEEL THEY'RE FREE TO PRESENT THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE COMMISSION DURING THEIR, UM, PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME. OKAY. AND I KNOW QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT WHEN APPLICANTS DO COME TO THE, UM, DOCUMENT CAMERA AND PUT UP RENDERINGS OR OTHER, OR OTHER DESIGNS, FRANKLY, I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST. SO, UM, IF THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESSES, [00:35:01] THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AND, BUT THE COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT TO REVIEW WHAT WAS SUBMITTED WHEN IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AND WHAT WAS POSTED ONLINE. LIKE THE, THE COMMISSION CAN DETERMINE WHETHER TO ENTERTAIN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN AT THE LAST MOMENT, BUT THEY, THEY CAN, BUT THEY CAN ALSO NOT USE THAT AS PART OF THEIR DECISION MAKING PROCESS. I MEAN, IT LIKE, IF, IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE WANT TO REVIEW WHAT WAS POSTED ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE OUR MEETING, AND ALL THE PUBLIC HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION, UM, IT'S UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WHAT IS BROUGHT IN BY THE APPLICANT WEIGHS ON THEIR DECISION. UH, THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEN CONSEQUENTLY, COMMISSIONERS ARE FREE. IF, IF WHAT IS PRESENTED THE DAY OF COMMISSION THAT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT'S IN THE PACKAGE BY THE APPLICANT, UH, IS, IS SO COMPLEX OR SO UNADJUSTABLE, THEN THEY'RE FREE TO DEFER THE VOTE. COMMISSIONER BECK. SO I'M SURE, AS MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMISSION KNOW, THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO. UM, THE REASON WHY IS, IS NOT ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE BEING, WHEN NEW MATERIALS ARE PRESENTED TO US, THE DAY OF THE MEETING, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CAST A VOTE ON THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT DAY. AND INDEED, WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH NEW MATERIALS AT MEETINGS FOR THE FIRST TIME WHERE MORE THAN ONE OF US HAVE STATED PARAPHRASING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, WELL, THIS MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO ME. SO WITHOUT US HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE IN ADVANCE, CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHAT THOSE MATERIALS MEAN TO US, AND BEING ASKED TO VOTE AT THE MOMENT, IT JUST FEELS IMPROPER. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THEY TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S POSTED FOR OUR MEETINGS IN ADVANCE, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE WITH FREQUENCY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO COME BASED ON WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED. AND SO IF, IF APPLICANTS KNOW THAT YOU CAN BRING NEW THINGS TO THE MEETING THAT THE PUBLIC MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE, AND THEY HAVE A SENSE FOR WHAT MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO MORE THAN ONE COMMISSIONER, WE ARE INVITING THAT. AND THAT TO ME DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. BUT BEYOND ALL OF THAT, UM, BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND THE GUIDANCE THAT I'VE ASKED FOR FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING IN CITY ORDINANCE THAT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS, UM, APPLICANTS FROM BRINGING NEW MATERIALS TO THE MEETING. IN OTHER WORDS, ADDING TO THEIR APPLICATION. BUT, UM, PART OF CITY ORDINANCE IN HOUSTON IS THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, THE IBC AND THE IBC SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THAT PRACTICE. YOU, YOUR, YOUR APPLICATION MUST BE COMPLETE BY A CERTAIN DATE. AND IF YOU'RE ADDING MORE TO IT AFTER THAT DATE, WELL THEN IT WASN'T COMPLETE AS OF THAT DATE. SO I THINK I'M REVERTING TO A PREVIOUS POSITION ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. I THINK THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR US IN THE LAW THROUGH THE IBC, WHICH IS PART OF HOUSTON CITY ORDINANCE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON, UH, UH, AGAIN, THE, THE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR CIVIC CLUBS OR WHOMEVER ARE FREE TO BRING ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT'S A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE. WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT. UH, THEN, THEN YOU CAN, IF IT'S SO CONTROVERSIAL AND SO OVERWHELMING, THEN YOU CAN VOTE TO DEFER. NOW, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, UH, WE ARE RESEARCHING THAT, BUT, UM, LEGAL IS PUSHING BACK VERY HARD ON THAT, THAT THOSE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ITEMS THAT ONE DOES NOT GOVERN THE OTHER. UM, AND THERE'S CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS. WHAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS, IT DOES NOT GET TRIGGERED AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE IVC, UH, COMMISSIONER BECK, UH, I'LL ASK YOU SPEAK, BUT I WANNA MAKE A COMMENT TOO, BECAUSE I THINK PART OF THE NUANCE OF THIS, THIS CONVERSATION IS THAT LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S SOMETHING VERY SMALL IN NATURE, EASY TO COMPREHEND. I, BUT, BUT IT WOULD BE MY, WHAT I HAVE WITNESSED AND SEEN IS THAT IF, IF A, A VERY SMALL PROPOSED CHANGE WAS MADE, THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION COULD WRAP THEIR MINDS AROUND AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THAT IS, UM, AND THE PUBLIC MEMBERS, UM, AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I, I'M ASKING THE APPLICANT TO, TO SPEAK FIRST SO THAT ANY ONE THAT THAT ALSO COMES HERE FROM THE PUBLIC AND SPEAKS ON A PROJECT CAN HEAR WHAT THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BRING IN, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE GONNA PUT THERE. BUT IF SOMETHING IS VERY SMALL IN NATURE AND ONE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS, UM, YOU ALL HAVE THE DEFERENCE TO DECIDE ON THAT MATTER. AND IF IT IS, AS YOU [00:40:01] SAID, RADICALLY DIFFERENT OR, UM, ONE COULD OFFER A DEFERRAL. AND I THINK BASED ON THESE CONVERSATIONS AND THIS, THIS AGENDA ITEM, UH, THE DEFERRALS FOR THESE KINDS OF ISSUES ARE GONNA BE THOUGHT THROUGH THE LENS OF THIS MEETING. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHERE WE WERE A MONTH AGO, LET'S SAY. SO I THINK IT, IT MAY DEPEND ON WHAT IS WHAT, WHAT THE APP THE PUBLIC IS BRINGING, WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO, WHICH IS ALSO THE RIGHT OF EACH COMMISSIONER TO ACCEPT OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT INFORMATION AND MAKE A JUDGMENT BASED ON EVEN IF, IF, EVEN IF YOUR POSITION IS, I'M GONNA MAKE A JUDGMENT BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND POSTED. THAT IS, THAT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE RIGHT OF EACH, EACH COMMISSIONER ON THIS BODY. SO, SO WITH THAT, PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENT. THANK YOU. SURE. RESPONSE, UH, TO EITHER OF YOU, UM, OR TO BOTH OF YOU, I'M SORRY. UM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON, OF COURSE, THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME TO BRING WHATEVER THEY'D LIKE TO THE MEETINGS, AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THAT'S A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. UM, IT'S NOT THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SEE, THE, IN THE HAHC PROCESS, THESE MEETINGS IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. PRIOR TO EACH HHC MEETING, THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN, IN WORKING WITH STAFF TO COMPLETE THEIR APPLICATION, FIND OUT WHAT, WHETHER OR NOT STAFF WILL RECOMMEND DENIAL OR APPROVAL, ET CETERA. AND SO IF ALL OF THAT IS BASED ON THE MATERIALS THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION PACKET, WE GOTTA KNOW WHAT THE PACKET IS BEFORE THE MEETING SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON. AND WE IS NOT JUST THE COMMISSIONERS, IT'S MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. AND I, I WOULD RESPOND BY SAYING THAT WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THAT WITH WHAT WE INSTITUTED IN MARCH, AND THAT THE DRAFT PACKAGES THAT ARE POSTED ON FRIDAY, THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE TO THOSE BEFORE THE, THE MEETING. SO WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET RESPECTFULLY, AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING, THERE WERE NEW MATERIALS THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS WERE MARKED. THIS MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN MY THINKING, THAT'S A DIRECT QUOTE. AND THOSE MATERIALS CAME FROM AN APPLICANT. WE ALSO, BY ACCEPTING THOSE MATERIALS, WE WOULD'VE DENIED THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE VERY SAME THINGS IN ADVANCE, DECIDE HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT, DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO COME TO THE MEETING AND ADDRESS US. IT JUST, IT FEELS WRONG, BUT ASIDE FROM ALL OF THAT, IT'S PROHIBITED BY THE IBC. UM, I'LL JUST SAY THIS. SO, UM, AS AN ARCHITECT AND HOW I DEAL WITH THE IBC WHEN I'M NOT IN THIS VENUE, BUT I'M AT THE PLANNING THE PERMIT OFFICE, UM, WHICH HAS ITS OWN RULES AND PROCEDURES AND SO ON. BUT, UM, AS, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED ON OUR ORDINANCE AND, AND HAS, AS WE ALL INTERPRET OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE IBC. UM, BUT I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, THOUGH. I THINK THAT NUMBER ONE, UM, AND THAT'S WHY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT A RENDERING. 'CAUSE I THINK AT ONE POINT A RENDERING MAY HAVE BEEN ADDED INTO THE STAFF REPORT. SO THE, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M HEARING, THE CHANGE IS GONNA BE THAT NO INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT WILL BE ADDED TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN THAT WASN'T POSTED ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING. AND IF I'LL JUST SAY THIS, IF AN APPLICANT WANTS TO COME IN HERE AND BRING ANOTHER SCHEME AND PUT IT ON THAT DOCUMENT BOARD, THEN THEY RISK THE REAL ISSUE OF HAVING THEIR PROJECT DEFERRED AND HAVING TO PUSH IT OFF ANOTHER MONTH. SO I, I WOULD SAY TO THE PUBLIC, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO, AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO, YOU MAY DELAY YOUR PROJECT ANOTHER MONTH JUST BY DOING THAT BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION. SO I JUST, THERE, I THINK THAT TOMORROW WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN YESTERDAY BASED ON YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER BROBECK. AND I THINK THAT, UM, AGAIN, I'M, I BELIEVE THAT, I'M HOPING WE CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE ALL OF US AGREE ON WHAT, WHERE WE'VE LANDED ON THE ITEM NUMBER THREE AND WHAT WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED. AND IT'LL BE WHAT IS POSTED AND ONLY IF, AS WAS MENTIONED, UM, IF THERE'S A SANBORN THAT'S FOUND, IF THERE'S SOMETHING FROM HARRIS COUNTY OR THERE'S A TYPO THAT'LL BE CORRECTED, UM, I THINK THERE IS THERE NOT A POLICY THAT IF LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE MEETING, THAT THOSE ARE SOMETIMES ADDED, BUT THAT'S NOT FROM THE APPLICANT. THAT'S FROM THE PUBLIC. UH, THAT IS CORRECT. AND, UM, UH, AND, AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTUALLY FALLS A DIFFERENT POLICY THAN THAT. AND, AND WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY, WHICH IS WE'RE GONNA HOLD ALL OF THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND PRESENT THEM, UH, AT A, AT A DATE BEFORE THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT. OKAY. SO THEN THEY WOULD BE DUE THE SAME TIME THE FINAL APPLICANT'S DUE DATE WOULD BE DUE AS WELL. SO WHAT'S POSTED IS POSTED [00:45:01] WHAT'S POSTED? NO, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, UH, IS ALLOWED TO POST THINGS. SO IS A BIT WRITTEN COMMENTS UP UNTIL 24 HOURS BEFORE. OKAY. THE PROCESS, WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION DOES IS THEY THEN POST THOSE THE NIGHT BEFORE, SO THE PUBLIC AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC COMM, WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS REGARDING THAT ITEM. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, IN FULL DISCLOSURE, I THINK THAT WE'RE, THE MANY STEPS ARE BEING MADE TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. AND, UM, AND I WOULD IMAGINE THERE'LL BE A NUMBER OF DEFERRALS COMING IF, IF WE'RE HAVING THINGS PRESENTED TO US THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS IN THE PACKET. AND SO THAT, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE SEESAW THAT WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF, UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA SEE AND WHAT THE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO FIND COMMISSIONER BROBECK. SO MY SENSITIVITY TO THE STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PLACED IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO SUBJECTIVELY DECIDE WHAT MATTERS AND WHAT DOESN'T IN THE MOMENT. NOT TO MENTION WE'RE STILL DENYING THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY OF SEEING THOSE ITEMS IN ADVANCE BEFORE THE MEETING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'D LIKE TO COME TESTIFY, JOIN THE MEETING, ET CETERA. SO IT, IT'S A SUBJECTIVE OPINION THAT I'D REALLY RATHER THE COMMISSION NOT BE FORCED TO HAVE TO MAKE IN THE MOMENT, JUST SUBMIT YOUR MATERIALS IN FULL BY THE DEADLINE AND THE ISSUE GOES AWAY. I UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK, AS WAS MENTIONED BY LEGAL COUNSEL, OUR JOB IS TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF A PROJECT BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. WE ANYONE HAS THE RIGHT, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BRING SOMETHING, THEY MAY BE DEFERRED ANOTHER MONTH. THAT'S, THAT, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S UP TO THEM THAT THAT RISK. AND, AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING PRESENTED THAT, UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT OR JUST CONSIDER AND JUST WANNA CONSIDER AS IT WAS SUB SUBMITTED, AS YOU SAY, THEY, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. BUT I MEAN, WE'RE HERE TO MAKE DECISIONS. THAT'S WHY WE WERE ASKED TO JOIN THIS COMMISSION. AND SO I THINK THAT WE ARE IN THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY BY DISCU THESE DISCUSSIONS, YOU KNOW, WILL, ARE, ARE RESULTING IN CHANGES TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE SO THAT WE CAN STILL BE A ACCOMMODATING TO THE APPLICANTS. WE'RE STILL GIVING THE APPLICANTS EXTRA TIME TO RESOLVE OR MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR APPLICATIONS, BUT IT'S DUE THE DAY BEFORE THEY'RE POSTED ONLINE. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A HARD DATE. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT IS A CHANGE FROM WHEN THIS CURRENT COMMISSION STARTED THEIR WORK. SO, AND THAT'S THANKS TO YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR BRINGING THESE UP. SO, UM, NOW AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO, NO VOTES ARE HAPPENING TODAY, BUT WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM, WHICH IS SPEAKER TIME. AND, UM, I GUESS DO, DO YOU, ROBERT, DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE POSITION ON SPEAKER SPEAKER TIME? YEAH, THIS WILL BE A REAL QUICK ONE. IT, IT'S JUST, UM, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT, UH, SOME OF THESE PRACTICES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN, UM, IN, UH, RULES OF ORDER ANYWHERE. SO WE'RE JUST GONNA CODIFY, UH, THE, THE SPEAKER TIME IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WHICH IS THREE MINUTES FOR THE, UM, APPLICANT, TWO MINUTES FOR OTHER SPEAKERS, AND THEN TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL IF WE REQUIRED. AND THEN SECOND, WE'RE GONNA CODIFY OR WE'LL PUT TO A VOTE NEXT WEEK, THE, UH, PRACTICE OF GRANTING SPEAKERS, ADDITIONAL SPEAKER TIME VIA A MOTION THAT HAS TO BE SECONDED, UH, A MOTION WITH THE AMOUNT OF TIME GRANTING, WHICH HAS TO BE SECONDED, AND THEN A MAJORITY VOTE. SO AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A PROCEDURAL THING SO THAT WE CAN GET ALL THAT STUFF, UH, IN PAPER. OKAY. AND I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO ADD ON THIS DISCUSSION POINT. IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT, UM, INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT, BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE THE FIRST PRESENTER SO THAT FOR THE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM, THAT, UM, THEY CAN HEAR EVERYTHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS. SOMETIMES WE HAVE MULTIPLE APPLICANTS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANTS CHOOSE AMONG THEMSELVES WHO WILL REPRESENT THEM AS THE APPLICANT FOR THOSE THREE MINUTES. AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS THE PRACTICE THAT IF SOMEONE SPEAKS AGAINST THE APPLICANT, THEN THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A TWO TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. BUT IF NO ONE SPEAKS AGAINST THE PROJECT, THEN THERE IS NO, THERE IS ALSO NO TWO INCH TWO, THERE IS NO TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. SO, UH, FOR CLARITY, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE MY ADVICE ABOUT THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS OR, UH, QUESTION, UM, THE WAY THAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON JUST LAID IT OUT, I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING IT. IS THERE ANY CHANGE IN, DID I HEAR YOU WRONG? NO, THERE IS NO CHANGE. UH, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT, THAT SOMEONE WAS LOOKING FOR ALL OF THESE PROCEDURES TO BE IN WRITING SOMEWHERE, AND THEY WEREN'T, WE COULDN'T FIND ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION, SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO VOTE ON THEM. SO THEY'LL BE ON THE RECORD WITH WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION ON HOW WE'RE GONNA PROCEED. [00:50:02] RIGHT, UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. AND THAT VOTE AGAIN WILL BE AT OUR NEXT MEETING THAT WE CONVENE. THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. UH, FOR THIS ITEM, I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND JUST, UH, JUST AFTER THAT. YEAH. UM, IS, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO, UM, ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM OR FOR THESE, UM, FOR ITEM A, UM, THAT HEARING? I'M GONNA CLOSE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 23RD, 2026 AND MAY 21ST. 2026 A HC MAN MEETING MINUTES. I COMMISSIONER BROUGHT THE QUESTION. YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE APRIL 23RD, 2026 MEETING. UM, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE, UH, THE APRIL 23RD, 2026 MINUTES WITH TWO CORRECTIONS. UM, FIRST ITEM, D THREE NEEDS TO REFLECT MY VOTE AS ABSTAINING RATHER THAN THE WAY IT WAS RECORDED, UH, BEING OPPOSED ABSTAINED BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE VOTE THAT I CAST. UM, SECOND, UH, THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE HARD CUTOFF CHANGE QUOTE SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION'S LONGSTANDING POLICY OF ONLY ALLOWING COMMISSIONERS TO ABSTAIN FROM CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEMS THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, HAS SINCE ACKNOWLEDGED, UH, IN WRITING THAT THAT CHARACTERIZATION DOESN'T HAVE A LEGAL BASIS AND CONTRADICTS AN AG OPINION. UM, NOW GIVEN OUR DISCUSSION THAT WE JUST HAD, UH, IF, UM, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SIMPLY DEFER THIS UNTIL AFTER WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THE ABSTENTION ITEM. BUT ALL OF THAT ASIDE, THE MINUTES NEED TO BE A REFLECTION OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. WELL, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AGAIN, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT THE, LIKE THE CURRENT, OUR CURRENT, UM, WAYS OF MAKING DECISIONS OR VOTING ON THESE ITEMS IS EITHER TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. AND, AND THAT IS IN EFFECT AS WE SPEAK. LIKE WE'VE NOT CHANGED, LIKE WE'VE NOT VOTED ON ITEM ONE OR ITEM TWO. SO, UM, SO WE ARE STILL UNDER WHERE WE ARE AS OF THIS MOMENT IN TIME IN TERMS OF WHERE WE HAVE BEEN ACCORDING, ACCORDING TO THE CITY CHARTER AND ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THIS, OF THIS COMMISSION. SO, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE WE EITHER HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE OR, OR DISAPPROVE. AND, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE WORD ABSTAIN IN, IN THIS CONTEXT. A LOT OF RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WORD ABSTAIN WHEN WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF, OF INTEREST IS REALLY IN A, A RECUSAL. THAT IS WE RECUSE OURSELVES FROM THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE VOTE ON, ON A, ON A SUBJECT. SO AGAIN, I WOULD ASK LEGAL COUNSEL, UM, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THESE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T CHANGED OUR POSITION. IN OUR POSITION FROM, FROM, AS THE RESEARCH HAS BEEN ONGOING RESEARCH TO THIS MATTER, BOTH FROM THE CITY CHARTER, BUT ALSO FROM THE ORDINANCE ITSELF THAT YOU READ OUT LOUD IN THIS MEETING THAT OUR CHARGES TO APPROVE ARE DISA DISAPPROVE. I BELIEVE THAT I'VE GOT YOUR QUESTION. COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION, ? CERTAINLY. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT LANGUAGE ABOUT ABSTENTIONS IN OUR, OR OUR OWN ORDINANCE, IF YOU WILL. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE CITY CHARTER ABOUT MAKING DECISION FOR OR AGAINST, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN OUR ORDINANCE ABOUT MAKING DECISION FOR OR AGAINST, AND THERE'S A PROCESS OF RECUSAL IF WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND TO DO SO, ONE MEMBER HAS TO FILL OUT A FORM AND STATE THE REASON WHY AND WHAT, AND WHAT THAT IS HAS TO BE DONE IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING AND, AND, AND VERIFY AND ALL THAT. UM, BUT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING OR HEARING FROM YOU IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A METHOD TO ABSTAIN AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, ACCORDING TO YOUR OFFICE AND THE ONGOING RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN ONGOING. UM, WE CAN VOTE ON THESE MINUTES UNDER THE RULES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER THAT. THAT'S MY QUESTION. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? I, [00:55:04] I, I HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND FOR A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD TO VOTE. OKAY. IS THERE A DIFFERENT MOTION? AND JUST, JUST TO GO BACK THOUGH, THE MOTION WAS TO DEFER THE MINUTES? NO, THAT WASN'T THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE TWO CORRECTIONS AS STATED, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN APPROVE THE MOTION AS STATED IF THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT IS STATED AND OUR CURRENT, THE CURRENT RULES THAT ARE, WE ARE SUBJECT TO, LIKE, WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON ANY CHANGING ANY RULES. SO THAT, THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING MR. CHAIR, IS THAT, UM, FOR AN ITEM FOR A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM LIKE THIS AS CHAIRMAN, YOU CAN TABLE THIS UNTIL WE'VE SETTLED THE ABSTENTION QUESTION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO DO, UM, PERHAPS, BUT WE ARE UNDER CERTAIN RULES OF ORDER THAT WE ARE, THAT WE ARE UNDER, THIS COMMISSION HASN'T VOTED TO CHANGE THOSE RULES. UM, WE CAN'T VOTE AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE IT'S PART OF OUR RULES IS TO WAIT TILL THE FOLLOWING MEETING IF WE MAKE A CHANGE. UM, BUT I HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL HERE STATING THAT, THAT WE'RE EITHER VOTING FOR OR AGAINST AND IF YOU, AND UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LEGAL COUNSEL THAT A VOTE TO ABSTAIN IS A VOTE AGAINST A MEASURE. THAT THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR LEGAL. THAT'S CORRECT. REGARDING THE MINUTES, A VOTE TO ABSTAIN WOULD BE COUNTED AS THE ACTION WOULD BE A NO VOTE OR AN NOT NOT APPROVED VOTE. AND, AND SO TO CHANGE, TO CHANGE THE RECORD WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH LEGAL'S RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. AND, AND WITHOUT A SECOND OF THAT MOTION, I CAN'T ADVANCE THAT, THAT MOTION EITHER, NONETHELESS. UM, IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION FROM A COMMISSIONER ON THE MINUTES? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I CALL FOR THE VOTE? UH, OKAY. OH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. YES. I JUST WANNA SAY THAT IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT WHAT, HOWEVER WE VOTE ON WHETHER TO CHANGE THE ABSTENTION POLICY, UH, IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE MEETING MINUTES, RIGHT? THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT, UH, APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES BECAUSE HOW THEY WERE RECORDED IS GOVERNED BY THE POLICIES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT ARE STILL IN PLACE UNTIL WE CHANGE THEM. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. UM, I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL, BUT, UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE. AYE. ALL AGAINST OPPOSED. OKAY, BUT THE MOTION PASSES AND NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM B. WHICH ONE IS THIS? IT LOOKS LIKE 2 5 20 13. OKAY. STARTED WITH GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF PERSON EMILY RYAN. I SUBMIT ITEM B FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 2 3 2 2 DUNSTON ROAD FOR THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE IRENE AND GEORGE ROBINSON HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS A TWO DOOR REVIVAL STYLE RESIDENCE THAT BLENDS ELEMENTS OF SH CAN I STOP YOU FOR A SECOND? OH, UM, CHAIR, I'M SORRY. POINT OF ORDER. WAS THAT, UM, APRIL AND MAY? OR JUST APRIL? WE, WE JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. CLARIFY. IT WAS THE 20 WAS 23RD AND MAY 21ST. OKAY. BOTH OF THEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. NO POINT OF ORDER. MR. CHAIR. UM, MR. IT'S POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO ACCEPT ONE MINUTES, ONE MONTH'S MINUTES AND NOT ACCEPT ANOTHER. I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE TO, TO APPROVE THE, THE MINUTES TOGETHER. UM, WE, WE HAVE A LONG MEETING TODAY AND, AND WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER AGAIN AT OUR NEXT MEETING. UM, SO EMILY, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. APOLOGIES. [01:00:01] I'LL JUST RESTART. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF PERSON EMILY RYAN. I SUBMIT ITEM B FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 2 3 2 2 DUNSTON ROAD FOR THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE IRENE AND GEORGE ROBINSON HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS A TWO-DOOR REVIVAL STYLE RESIDENCE THAT BLENDS ELEMENTS OF SHINGLE STYLE ARCHITECTURE AND WAS BUILT BY ALBERT A BURLESON IN 1930. THE ROBINSON RESIDENCE IS SITUATED WITH SOUTH, WITHIN SOUTH HAMPTON PLACE, AN UNDESIGNATED HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT BEGAN DEVELOPMENT CIRCA 1922. UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF EH H FLEMING, MUCH OF THE ORIGINAL NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN ITS 1920S RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER THROUGH STRINGENT DEED RESTRICTIONS. THE HOUSING STOCK CONTAINS A VARIETY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, INCLUDING CLASSICAL, GEORGIAN AND TWO DOOR REVIVAL HOMES, AS WELL AS BRICK COTTAGES AND BUNGALOWS. HOWEVER, THE ROBINSON RESIDENCE IS ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING EXAMPLES OF TWO DOOR REVIVAL STYLE HOMES WITHIN SOUTH HAMPTON PLACE THAT HAS MAINTAINED MUCH OF ITS HISTORIC INTEGRITY. THE ROBINSON HOUSE IS A ONE AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURE. THE FACADE IS CLAD IN A COMBINATION OF RED ORNAMENTAL BRICKWORK AT THE GROUND LEVEL AND PAINTED WOOD SHINGLES ON THE UPPER EAST STORY, CREATING A DISTINCTIVE TWO-TONE EXTERIOR. THE HOME'S PROMINENT FRONT GABLE STEEPLY PITCHED ROOF, SUBSTANTIAL CHIMNEY ARCHED DOORWAYS AND ORNAMENTAL BRICKWORK IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE AS TWO-DOOR REVIVAL STYLE WHILE THE CROSS GABLE ASYMMETRICAL ROOF ARRANGEMENT GROUPED WINDOW FENESTRATION AND SHINGLED SURFACE ON THE UPPER STORY REFLECT SHINGLE STYLE INFLUENCES THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE HOME, GEORGE WILLIAM ROBINSON AND IRENE ELIZABETH CANFIELD ROBINSON, WHO MOVED TO TWO THREE. TWO TWO DUNSTON IN 1930, POSSESSED HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR THEIR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IN GREATER HOUSTON COMMUNITY. IRENE WAS COLLEGE EDUCATED DURING A TIME WHEN HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN WERE LIMITED. HAVING GRADUATED FROM WHEATON COLLEGE IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 1926 DURING THE EARLY THIRTIES AND FORTIES WHILE RESIDING AT DUNSTON, SHE HOSTED STUDY GROUP MEETINGS FOR THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN IN HER HOME. THESE GATHERINGS BROUGHT TOGETHER COLLEGE EDUCATED WOMEN FOR DISCUSSIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ON ARCHITECTURE DESIGN AND THE DECORATIVE ARTS REFLECTING BROADER PATTERNS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE AMONG WOMEN IN HOUSTON. DURING THIS PERIOD, GEORGE WAS A PROMINENT ENGINEER SPENDING THE LATTER PART OF HIS CAREER WITH HUMBLE OIL AND REFINING COMPANY. HE ALSO PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN BAY TOWN'S CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FRESHWATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NUMBER EIGHT. THE DESIGNATION REPORT WAS RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY KATHLEEN NUNO AND JOE FISHER. THE PROPERTY MEETS CRITERIA 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CRITERIA, ONE FOR PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 2 3 2 2 DUNSTON ROAD, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 5, KNOWN AS THE IRENE AND GEORGE ROBINSON HOUSE. BEFORE I CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION, THOSE INVOLVED WITH THE DESIGNATION HAVE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING COMMENT FOR PUBLIC RECORD DOCUMENT CAMERA, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THEIR COMMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR COMMENTS. FOLLOWING A SUCCESSFUL YEAR LONG CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION, COMPLETION OF A FULL RESTORATION OF ALL 1940S CONCRETE STREET MARKERS IN SOUTH HAMPTON, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TAKEN THE NEXT STEP IN HONORING OUR SHARED HERITAGE AND RESPONSE TO GROWING DEVELOPMENT. PRESSURES THAT INCREASINGLY THREATEN THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY RESIDENTS HAVE FORMED PRESERVE SOUTH HAMPTON, A NEW COMMITTEE DEDICATED TO PROTECTING SOUTH HAMPTON'S HISTORIC HOMES, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WERE BUILT DURING THE TWENTIES AND THIRTIES. FOLLOWING AN INITIAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, SIX HOMEOWNERS CAME TOGETHER WITH SHARED COMMITMENT TO SEEK PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THEIR PROPERTIES. THE TWO NOMINATIONS SUBMITTED TODAY ARE THE FIRST FROM THIS GROUP. FOUR ADDITIONAL NOMINATIONS ARE PLANNED FOR PRESENTATION IN JULY WITH MORE ANTICIPATED TO FOLLOW. THESE HOMES ARE NOT ONLY ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT, REFLECTING THE CRAFTSMANSHIP AND DESIGN OF THEIR ERA, BUT ARE ALSO EMBEDDED IN CULTURAL HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY. THEIR DESIGNATION AS PROTECTED LANDMARKS WOULD ENSURE THE LEGACY IS PRESERVED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING WORKING ALONGSIDE YOU IN SUPPORT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACROSS HOUSTON. RESPECT. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY PRESERVED SOUTH HAMPTON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ITEM OR [01:05:01] ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, UH, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF AND NOT HEARING ANYONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS. IS THERE A MOTION OR ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? JOAN SECONDS. JOAN SECONDS. ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT, IT, THAT MOTION PASSES. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM C. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF PERSON ISHA BOSAR. I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ITEM C, THE MERLE AND WILL VERNON WILLIAMS HOUSE FOR THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION AT 2 1 0 7 TANGLEY STREET. THE WILLIAMS HOUSE LOCATED IN SOUTHAMPTON PLACE WAS BUILT IN 1938, AND IT IS A TRADITIONAL RED BRICK RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED BY PROLIFIC HOUSTON BUILDER WILLIAM FARRINGTON DEVELOPMENT BEGAN IN 1923 OF THE SOUTHAMPTON SUBDIVISION AND EARLY DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND FORCED THE BUILDING OF ONLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH REQUIRED MINIMUM SETBACKS TO ENSURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD STILL HAD A 1920S FEEL. HOWEVER, HISTORIC HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE INCREASINGLY BEING TORN DOWN. WHILE MANY NEW RESIDENCES DO NOT COMPLIMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HISTORIC CHARACTER. THE CURRENT OWNERS, ELLEN AND WILLIAM SPARKER, ARE SEEKING A PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR 2 1 0 7 TANGLEY TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF SOUTHAMPTON PLACE. THIS BUILDING IS A TWO STORY BRICK HOUSE EXHIBITING BOTH COLONIAL REVIVAL AND RESTRAINED TUDOR REVIVAL INFLUENCES EXPRESSED THROUGH ITS MASSING MATERIALS AND FACADE COMPOSITION. THE PRIMARY ELEVATION IS CHARACTERIZED BY A SUBTLE ASYMMETRICAL ARRANGEMENT, A HALLMARK OF THE TUDOR DESIGN, IN WHICH THE CENTRAL ENTRANCE BAY VARIED WINDOW GROUPINGS AND CHIMNEY MASKS CREATE A BALANCED YET INFORMAL COMPOSITION. THE HOUSE HAS A SIDE GD ROOF WITH COMPOSITION SHINGLES. A BRICK CHIMNEY ON THE LEFT EMPHASIZES VERTICALITY AND TRADITIONAL MASONRY. EXTERIOR WALLS ARE CLAD AND PALE, BRICK LAID IN RUNNING BOND PATTERN FENESTRATION CONSISTS OF VERTICALLY PROPORTIONED MULTI LIGHT WINDOWS ARRANGED IN VARIED GROUPINGS, AND THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS RECESSED BENEATH A CURVED METAL CANOPY. SUPPORTED BY DECORATIVE SCROLLED BRACKETS. VERNON WILLIAMS AND HIS WIFE MERLE, WERE THE HOME'S FIRST OWNERS AND LIVED THERE UNTIL THE 1970S. MR. WILLIAMS WORKED AS A WHOLESALE CLOTHING SALESMAN REPRESENTING REGIONAL GARMENT DISTRIBUTORS, WHOLESALE BUSINESSES CLUSTERED IN THE DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, WHILE SALES SUCH AS WILLIAMS SERVED AS A LINK BETWEEN THESE FIRMS AND RETAILERS ACROSS THE REGION. HIS WIFE, MERLE WILLIAMS, WAS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, NOTABLY HOSTING MEETINGS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION AND UNIVERSITY WOMEN'S INTERIOR DECORATION STUDY GROUP AT HER HOUSTON HOME, BRINGING TOGETHER COLLEGE EDUCATED WOMEN FOR DISCUSSIONS ON ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND DECORATIVE ARTS. THE WILLIAMS HOUSEHOLD REFLECTS THE TYPE OF PROFESSIONAL FAMILY DRAWN TO, TO THE SOUTH HAMPTON SUBDIVISION DURING HOUSTON IN THE 1920S AND 1930S. THIS DESIGNATION REPORT WAS RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY KATHLEEN NZO AND JOE FISHER. 2 1 0 7 TANGLEY MEETS CRITERIA 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CRITERIA, ONE FOR PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE MERLE AND VERNON WILLIAMS HOUSE AT 2 1 0 7 TANGLEY STREET. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT IF THERE IS ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF NOW. NOT HEARING ANYONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS. ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THE APPLICATION OR IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER JONES WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A SECOND? BROUGHT BACK. SECOND. BROUGHT BACK SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM D, HOUSTON, OFFICE OF PRESERVATION PRESENTATION OF THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES PUBLIC HEARING. TERRANCE, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. UH, MY NAME IS TERRENCE, STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON. UM, I AM HERE TO PRE PRESENT A REVIEW OF THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES. UM, IN AN EFFORT TO KIND OF HAVE THIS MEETING MOVE FORWARD, [01:10:01] WE ARE JUST GOING TO REVIEW THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO THROUGH A SECTION BY SECTION, ALTHOUGH I KNOW I CAN TELL BY THE LOOK ON YOUR FACES THAT YOU WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT, UM, . BUT, UH, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THESE ITEMS. UM, THESE ITEMS ARE STRICTLY BASED ON THE COMMENTS MADE BY YOU GUYS IN THE MEETING IN MARCH. UM, AND YOU'LL FIND THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS WERE, WERE EDITED AND, AND SOME THINGS, UH, WE DID NOT. BUT, UM, I WILL GIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR THAT. OKAY. SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, JUST SO FOR THE, UH, SECTION ONE IN DEFINITIONS, UM, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ASKED FOR, UH, STAFF TO ADD THE, UH, DEFINITION TO CONCEPT OR COMPATIBILITY. UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE DEFINITION FROM COMPA FOR COMPATIBILITY HAS BEEN ADDED. UM, DO YOU GUYS NEED ME TO READ THE DEFINITIONS OR ARE WE, WHY DON'T WE JUST READ IT VERY BRIEFLY? OKAY. AND, UM, SEE IF THERE'S A QUESTION. OKAY. COMPATIBILITY THE DEGREE TO WHICH NEW OR ALTERED BUILDINGS BEEN WITH THEIR HISTORIC SURROUNDINGS BY RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHED SCALE MASSING ORIENTATION AND SPACING OF THE DISTRICT. UM, AND THEN COMMISSIONER BLAKELY ASKED THAT WE REFINE THE DEFINITION OF MASSING TO INTRODUCE PROPORTIONS IN SOME WAY. UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S BEEN ADDED IN RED. UM, I WILL READ THE WHOLE DEFINITION FOR CLARITY. THE COMBINATION OF BUILDING VOLUME, HEIGHT, TIMES WIDTH, TIMES DEPTH, AND THE ARRANGEMENT OF SHAPES, FORMS THAT MAKE UP THE BUILDING, THE RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF THESE DIMENSIONS AND THE PROPORTIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL FORMS WITHIN THE OVERALL COMPOSITION STRONGLY INFLUENCE HOW THE BUILDING IS PERCEIVED. EACH DIMENSION ALSO CONTRIBUTES INDIVIDUALLY TO THE OVERALL VISUAL EFFECTS OF THE BUILDING. UH, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, SECTION 2.2, POINT A, THE FAR CHART, UH, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ASKED THAT THE FAR CHART FOR STANDARD AND NON-STANDARD LOTS HAVING DIFFERENT FAR FOR EACH COME UP WITH A RANDOM SIZE LOOK, UH, LOOK AT A MATCH FOR EACH, EXCUSE ME, FALSE ALARM. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CHART ON THE LEFT WAS THE ORIGINAL CHART. UM, AND THEN THE CHART ON THE RIGHT IS THE CHART THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE, UH, IN THE CURRENT DRAFT. AND, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UH, JUST THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, TERRENCE, ON YOU, YOU ADJUSTED SOME OF THE FAR NUMBERS. CAN YOU JUST POINT TO WHICH ONES THOSE WERE? IT WAS, IT WAS FOR THE SMALLER PROPERTIES AS I RECALL, BUT YES, AND IT, IT, IT'S, UH, IT WAS BASED ON THE LOT SIZES. SO, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S THE 52 0 1 TO TWO. I THINK IT'S EVERYTHING BELIE BELOW 5,000 TO 5,200, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AND THERE WAS, AND WHAT WE DID WAS KIND OF DO A, UH, WE GROUPED THEM TOGETHER, UM, AND IN INCREMENTS OF, OF APPROXIMATELY 200 SQUARE FEET. UM, YEAH, SO 5,200 IS THE SAME. I'M SORRY, IT'S UP BY 0.005. UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE GROUPED, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL YOU WHAT, WHAT, UH, WHAT IS WHAT, UM, OKAY. BUT THE CHANGE FROM BEFORE IS, IS MINIMAL. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. MR. DAVIS, WITH REGARD THERE ARE STILL TWO FAR TABLES IN THE GUIDELINES, CORRECT? THERE'S STILL TWO, NO, JUST THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS, THAT'S THE ONLY TABLE THAT'S PRESENTLY IN THE GUIDELINES. OKAY. THAT WAS JUST, I'M THANKS FOR CORRECTING THAT. IT WAS CONFUSING IN THE MARKUP AS TO WHETHER THERE WERE TWO OR ONE. SO IT'S ONLY THE ONE ON THE RIGHT. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, TERRANCE, [01:15:01] I THINK, I THINK AS WE GO, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS HERE. AND THEN, UM, ONCE WE GO THROUGH THIS, I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. AND THEN, AND THEN COMMISSIONERS, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER, UH, CONVERSATION WITH, WITH, UH, STAFF. OKAY. UH, 'CAUSE I'D LIKE TO, THE FIRST PART, I JUST WANTED, JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA AND IF YOU, IF, IF IT MAKES SENSE FOR COMMISSIONER TO ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARITY AT THE TIME, PLEASE DO SO. BUT AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO NOT TO DO ANY DELIBERATION AT THIS TIME UNTIL WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE WILL, WE WILL DO THAT. BUT IT'S, IT'S FINE TO ASK CLERICAL, UH, QUESTIONS. UH, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. UH, SECTION 2.2, POINT A. UH, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, UH, STATED ATTICS AND GARAGES THAT ARE FINISHED. CONSIDER, CONSIDER REMOVING THE WORD FINISH. IF SOMEONE HAS ATTIC SPACE, IT CAN BE FINISHED WITHOUT IT GOING TOWARDS THE MASSING OR FAR NUMBERS. UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, IN RED ATTICS OR GARAGES THAT ARE CONDITIONED IN, UH, INCLUDED IN THE FAR AND EXCLUDED IN THE FAR IT SAYS ATTICS OR GARAGES, GARAGE STRUCTURES THAT ARE FINISHED BUT NOT CONDITIONED. SO, UM, STAFF BASICALLY REMOVED THE WORD FINISH AND, AND INCLUDED THE WORK CONDITION OR CONDITION REMAINED. NEXT SLIDE, SECTION 2.2 B. UH, COMMISSIONER DAVIS MADE THE, UH, STATEMENT THAT HAVING PORCHES WITH CONDITION SPACE ABOVE DOES NOT IMPACT THE MASSING OF THE PROPERTY. UM, STAFF DID NOT MAKE A CHANGE TO THIS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAD, UH, A NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH THE, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, THIS WAS A HUGE PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS. UM, AND WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSIONS, UH, NO OTHER COMMISSIONERS KIND OF CHIMED IN AND AGREED. SO, UM, STAFF FELT THAT THAT, UH, THAT THIS 2.2 POINT B UH, SHOULD REMAIN. NEXT SLIDE, SECTION 2.3, 0.8 DIAGRAMS AND GRAPHICS. UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY MADE THE COMMENT, UH, THAT EAST, WEST, NORTH, SOUTH DIRECTIONS MIGHT BE WORTH SWAPPING AROUND. SO THEY READ THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD AS THEY DO THE ACTUAL LOTS DIAGRAMS SAY NORTH AND SOUTH SHOULD BE, UH, WEST AND EAST. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH, THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE DIAGRAM WE HAVE, UH, MADE THAT CHANGE. AND ALL OF THE, UH, DIAGRAMS IN THE DRAFT OR IN THIS DRAFT CURRENTLY HAVE MADE THAT SWITCH. AGAIN, UH, SECTION 2.3, POINT B, I'M SORRY, UH, COMMISSIONER DAVIS MADE THE, UH, STATEMENT, WHEREVER IT SAYS SIDE ADDITIONS AND BUMP OUTS CLARIFY THAT IT IS NOT DISCOURAGED AND THERE IS A CHANCE FOR IT TO BE ALLOWED. UM, SO STAFF HAS ADDED, UH, IF YOU SEE THERE IN BLUE UNDERLINED, IT SAYS ON THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS ADDED. BUT, UM, IT CURRENTLY SAID ONLY ONE SIDE ADDITION ALLOWED. SO BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE ALLOWED WAS ALREADY THERE, STAFF DID NOT MAKE THAT CHANGE AS WELL. UH, SECTION 2.3 POINT G, UH, ENTRY A LOT. AUXILIARY BUILDINGS, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE 12 TO 13 WATTS COMMANDED GARAGE. HAVING A FIVE FOOT SETBACK WOULD ONLY LEAD SEVEN FOOTER DRIVEWAY. SO IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY USELESS, HARD TO PROVIDE SCHEMATIC FOR EACH ONE. CHECK THE MEASUREMENTS ON DRIVEWAYS OF WHAT IS MOST REALISTIC FOR THE PROPOSED NUMBERS. MOST THAT HAVE PORT RICOCHETS COULD HAVE THEM ALL THE WAY TO AT THAT LINE. UM, SO, UM, WHEN WE WENT TO LOOK BACK AT THIS, UM, WHAT WE REALIZED IS THAT, UM, THE 12 FOOT, UH, SETBACK WAS FOR, UH, UH, THE SETBACK FOR AN SECOND, FOR A, FOR AN ADDITION, I'M SORRY. AND THEN, UM, FOR THE PORT SHADES, THEY HAD A THREE TO FIVE FOOT SETBACK. UM, WHAT WE DO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THESE, UM, THESE LOTS ARE GONNA VARY. UM, SO IF THERE IS A NEED FOR US TO CHANGE IT, WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL JUST CHANGE THE DIMENSION. WE'LL REMOVE THE DI THE 12 FOOT DIMENSION OR THE 13 FOOT DIMENSION AND JUST PUT VARIES AND THEN REVIEW IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. ALSO, UM, WE NEED TO GO TO NOR HILL AND WE NEED TO GET AN AVERAGE OF WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THOSE LOTS ARE. UM, SO, OR WHAT THOSE DIMENSIONS ARE. I'M SORRY. SO, UM, NOW THAT WE WILL HAVE TIME IN JULY TO GO BACK, WE WILL GO AND WE WILL SURVEY IT AND HOPEFULLY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING BETTER FOR YOU GUYS TO, TO LOOK AT. UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THE ALTERNATIVE WILL BE TO JUST INCLUDE BERRIES ON THAT DIMENSION. AND THEN OF COURSE, IT'LL HAVE TO BE A CASE BY CASE BASIS TYPE OF DEAL. [01:20:05] I TELL YOU WHAT, IF ONE OF YOU HAPPENS TO HAVE, HAVE A AIR CONDITIONING IN YOUR POCKET, I I WOULD LIKE TO BOTHER BORROW IT. UM, LET'S SEE. SECTION 2.4 POINT A ROOF PITCH, UH, BROWNING COMMISSIONER BROWNING MADE THE STATEMENT CAR PARTS AND FLAT ROOFS NOT FILLING, NOT FITTING WITH THE AREA. THIS WAS BASED ON WHAT WAS OUT THERE IN THE DISTRICT. ALREADY DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CARPORT TO HAVE A HIGHER RIDGE THAN THE HOUSE MAY CHANGE. TO HAVE IT SAY ROOF PITCH MAY MATCH OR NOT EXCEED THE PITCH OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. AND THEN COMMISSIONER BLAKELY MADE, UH, THE STATEMENT MENTION IF SHED ROOFS SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, STIPULATE SHED DORMER ROOFS TO BE AT ROOFS BE ADDED TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. UM, SO WHAT STAFF HAS DONE, UM, I'LL JUST READ IT. ROOFS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A ROOF SLOPE BETWEEN 5 0 12 AND SEVEN OVER 12. CARPORTS ATTACHED TO A GARAGE CAN HAVE A LOW SLOPE OR FLAT ROOF. AN EIGHT OVER 12 ROOF SLOPE WILL BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. IF THE EXISTING SLOPE OF THE HOUSE IS EIGHT OVER 12, A STEEPER ROOF PITCH MAY BE CONSIDERED. WHEN MIMICKING ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS SHED ROOFS AND DORM DORMERS AND SHED ROOFS, NO, I'M SORRY, IT SHOULD SAY SHED DORMERS WILL BE ALLOWED AND REVIEWED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. SO FOR THIS ONE, STAFF ADDED, UH, LOW SLOPE TO MATCH TO MATCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED. STAFF ALSO ADDED A NOTE FOR SHED ROOF AND SHED DORMER PROPOSALS TO BE REVIEWED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. OH, SORRY. UH, I'M JUST MAYBE A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT ALLOWED WILL BE ALLOWED. SOUNDS LIKE IT'S OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS DELIBERATION OR CLARIFICATION, BUT WHAT I HAD IN MIND WAS THE HOUSE TYPE THAT, LIKE A HOUSE THAT HAS A SINGLE SLOPE SHED ROOF SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT. UM, AND I, THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'M LIKE, IS THE WORD CONSIDERED BETTER THAN ALLOWED OR QUESTION? PROBABLY BETTER, YES. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, OKAY, NEXT SLIDE. UH, COMMISSIONER HILL MADE THE COMMENT, MAX PLATE HEIGHTS, MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THE NUMBERS ARE DICTATING WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. MAYBE CALL OUT ONE PLAY HEIGHT RATHER THAN, UH, MENTIONING ANYTHING WITH THE CEILING HEIGHT. UM, WHAT YOU SEE HERE, UM, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UM, BECAUSE WE INCREASED. UH, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SAM? UH, WE INCREASED, WE CHANGED THE DIAGRAM. UM, SO I WANT TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE COMMISSION DELIBERATE AND, AND DECIDE IF WE SHOULD INCLUDE THE CEILING HEIGHTS AS MENTIONED BY COMMISSIONER HILL. UM, STAFF DIDN'T WANT TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE DRAFT WITHOUT YOU GUYS CONSIDERING IT. UM, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE ON THAT. UM, THE DIAGRAM HAS CHANGED, UH, BECAUSE THE, UH, 30 INCH, IT WENT FROM 28 INCHES TO, OR 26 INCHES, OR I BELIEVE IT WAS 28, I'M SORRY, 28 INCHES TO 30 INCH MAX FOR THE FINISHED FLOOR. AND, UM, THAT WAS BASED ON A COMMENT FROM, OH, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF. SORRY, WE'RE STILL HERE AT COMMISSIONER HILL'S COMMENT, SO I KNOW WE'RE NOT GONNA DELIBERATE NOW. BUT I DID JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE DIAGRAM DIAGRAM HAS CHANGED, THE DIMENSIONS HAVE CHANGED, UM, AND WE HAVE CALLED OUT THE OVERALL PLATE HEIGHT ON THE, UH, DIAGRAM. SO, UM, IF, IF WE CAN'T DISCUSS THAT WHEN WE GET TO DELIBERATION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. NEXT SLIDE. UH, 2.4 HEIGHT. UM, COMMISSIONER EK, HOW WAS A TWO FEET, FOUR INCH MAX CREATED? MANY OF THESE ARE BLOOM FRAME VERSUS PIER AND BEAM. SO THESE DIAGRAMS ARE MORE SO FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND THE CITY REQUIRES 18 INCHES FOR CODE. SO HAVING THAT MUCH SPACE IS GOOD FOR IT TO BREATHE AND LET THE WOOD DRY OUT UNDER, UNDER THE HOME. IF, IF IT WERE TO BE 30 INCHES, WOULD THAT BE BETTER TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS? UM, STAFF AGREED BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD. UM, SO STAFF HAS CHANGED THE FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT, TWO 30 INCHES, AND THAT IS REFLECTED AS YOU CAN SEE. UM, AND THEN COMMISSIONER BLAKELY ADDED ADD ADDED ADD THE WORD GROUND TO THE DEFINITION SECTION. UM, I PUT HERE THAT WE HAVE THE WORD THE DEFINITION FOR GRADE. UM, BUT AS YOU'LL SEE AT THE END, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, WE WILL BE ADDING THE WORD GROUND TO [01:25:01] THE DEFINITIONS. UM, SO WE'LL DISCUSS THAT IN A BIT. UH, SECTION 2.6, MATERIALS AND DESIGN, UH, BLAKELY BROWN, INCO GROVE SAID, INSERT THE EXAMPLES HERE FROM SECTION FOUR, UM, HERE FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. UM, SO THEY DID NOT GO UNDER SECTION 2.6. UH, THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS IN SECTION 2.6. WE DID PUT IT UNDER SECTION. IT HAS ITS OWN SECTION MOVED FROM SECTION FOUR TO SECTION 2.7. UM, IF YOU GUYS THINK IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO PUT IT DIRECTLY UNDER THAT, UH, CORRESPONDING SECTION, THEN, THEN AT 2.6 THEN STAFF WILL, THAT'LL BE AN EASY CHANGE, A EASY FIX FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE, AND WE'LL BE WILLING TO DO SO. UH, SECTION 2.6 POINT D, NOT A FAN OF TOWARDS THE REAR. DEFINE A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF WHERE THE DORMER CAN BE LOCATED. UM, I DON'T WANNA READ THE WHOLE, UM, WHOLE SECTION, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT SAYS WHERE, WHERE THE RED IS, IT SAYS LOCATE A NEW SINGLE DORMER NO CLOSER THAN 60% FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. AND THEN, UH, 2.7 SITE PLAN ELEMENTS. UH, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE MADE THE COMMENT, THERE'S NO NEED TO INCLUDE THESE IN THE GUIDELINES. THERE'S NO REGULATION OVER THESE TOPICS, SO DON'T NEED TO STAY HERE. IF IT WERE TO STAY, MOVE IT IN THE LISTINGS. I REALLY DIDN'T DO YOU A DISSERVICE. I DID YOU A DISSERVICE ON THESE COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER CROSS GO MAKE YOU SOUND MEAN, MAN, . UM, SO STAFF REMOVED ALL THOSE SECTIONS. UM, AND, AND TWO, MAYBE I'LL KEEP TWO BIRDS ON THE STONE HERE. UM, WELL, AND I'LL, I'LL JUST MENTION IT. WE DID REMOVE THAT SECTION ALONG WITH A LOT OF OTHER SECTIONS. UM, AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SAMANTHA, PLEASE. UH, AND I'LL JUST COMMENT ON THAT ALONG WITH THIS, UM, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. UM, YOU SAID PERHAPS INCLUDE A COPY OF A PARTICULAR PATTERN FOR THE FLOOR PLAN ADDITION, UH, TO THE SANBORN MAPS. UM, SO ANSWERING THOSE TWO TOGETHER, UM, STAFF IS IN CONVERSATION ABOUT MO UH, CREATING A DOCUMENT THAT'LL BE FOR REFERENCE THAT WILL NOT BE IN INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. WE KIND OF FEEL LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION THERE WHERE WE COULD CREATE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT WHERE PEOPLE CAN REFERENCE THE FLOOR PLANS, THE SAND BARN AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. WE DIDN'T WANT TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THIS. UM, IT WAS ALREADY STARTING TO GROW, UH, BEYOND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD CLIPPED IT SO MUCH. SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UM, WE DO CREATE A DOCUMENT THAT IS FOR REFERENCE FOR APPLICANTS AND AGENTS AND THE SUCH, SO THAT WAY THEY WILL HAVE THAT TO REFERENCE AND THAT WILL BE REFERENCED IN THE GUIDELINES WHERE THEY COULD JUST CLICK ON THE PDF AND IT'LL TAKE THEM TO ANOTHER WEBSITE IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT ONLINE. UM, AND THEN COMMISSIONER JONES SAID, ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THIS PLAN WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENTS BEFORE ANYTHING IS SIGNED OFF ON. UM, SO STAFF ONLY PLANS TO UTILIZE POLICY CHANGES FOR MINOR CHANGES. UM, WE DO NOT PLAN ON, YOU KNOW, CREATING A POLICY TO CHANGE THE FAR OR TO CHANGE THE SIDE SETBACKS. UM, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS USE A POLICY, UM, JUST IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP WITH LIKE THE WINDOWS OR THE SIDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S STYLE STAFF IS GOING TO TRY TO APPROACH THAT UNLESS YOU GUYS SAY OTHERWISE. BUT THAT IS HOW STAFF IS ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE. UM, ABOUT THE DISTRICT MOVE. THIS SECTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS 2.5 0.6. UH, PEOPLE HAVE SOMETHING TO REFERENCE WHEN DESIGNING THE STRUCTURE. UM, AND COMMISSIONER BLAKE HAS SAID, IN ADDITION TO THE LIST OF STYLES AND SECTION FOUR, EACH STYLE HAVE A FLOOR PLAN BE ADDED. SO THE PROPORTIONS OF EACH STYLE CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. NOR HILL IS MOSTLY MADE UP OF HOUSES FROM PATTERN BOOKS. SO THOSE, UH, HOUSE KITS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED WILL CORRESPOND WITH THE PATTERN BOOK. IT CAME FROM KAIN. READY CUT PATTERN. BOOKS ARE AVAILABLE AT A LI AT THE LIBRARY. ASK GENDER FOR HELP. THIS WILL ALSO HELP ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH MASSING PROPOSED AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. AGAIN, THIS IS ALL, THIS WILL ALL BE A PART OF THAT REFERENCE DOCUMENT. UM, IT'LL BE SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO AND SEE THE, THE PATTERNS THAT THEY HAVE OF THEIR HOUSES, OR THEY CAN BE REFERENCED TO THAT CRANE, UH, PATTERN BOOK. UM, AGAIN, UNLESS YOU GUYS SAY OTHERWISE, UH, STEWARDSHIP AND MAINTENANCE SECTION SHOULD BE MORE OF A RESOURCE RATHER THAN THE END OF THE DOCUMENT AND CAN BE KNOWN AS A SEPARATE REFERENCE AGAIN, THAT THIS WILL BE PART OF THAT AS WELL. AND THEN, UH, STAFF CORRECTIONS FROM THE DRAFT. UM, SO MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THE, UH, COMMENT IN 2.3 OR THE STATEMENT IN 2.3 POINT C, UH, UNLESS IT IS CONNECTED [01:30:01] TO A GARAGE STRUCTURE, WHICH MAY EXTEND PAST THE SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. SO THAT WHICH IS UNDERLINED IN BLUE WILL BE REMOVED. IT WAS NOT IN THERE ORIGINALLY. SO WE WILL BE REMOVED THAT, UH, SENTENCE. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN WE HAVE STAFF CORRECTIONS FROM THE DRAFT. UM, WE'RE GOING TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF PORCHES. UM, THAT DEFINITION WILL READ A COVERED ROOFED EXTERIOR PLATFORM ATTACHED TO A STRUCTURE THAT IS OPEN TO THE OUTSIDE ON MOSTLY ALL SIDES, NOT ABUTTING THE STRUCTURE AND CONTAINS NO WALLS PARTITION OR OTHER ENCLOSURES EXCEPT FOR SUPPORTING COLUMNS OR REQUIRED RAILINGS. A PORCH SHALL REMAIN UN ENCLOSED OR SCREENED IN ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A HABITABLE SPACE. AND THEN WE WILL ALSO ADD THE DEFINITION GROUND, THE NATURAL EXISTING SURFACE SURFACE OF THE EARTH UPON WHICH A STRUCTURE IS PLACED. IT ENCOMPASSES SOIL, ROCK OR OTHER NATURAL OCCURRING MATERIALS IN THEIR UNDISTURBED STATE AND SERVES AS THE BASE LEVEL FROM WHICH BUILDING ELEVATIONS GRADE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MEASURED IN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLANNING CONTEXT. GROUND DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTED SURFACES, FILL OR BUILT STRUCTURES. THANK YOU, TERRANCE. I JUST WANNA COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE WORD FILL. OKAY. THAT, THAT IS, UM, THE THING THAT HAS BEEN A ISSUE IN THE PAST IN OTHER DISTRICTS. SO IT'S, UH, 'CAUSE PEOPLE COULD ADD, FILL AND SAY, LOOK WHAT GROUND IS HIGHER THAN IT IS. SO IT'S THE NA THE WORD NATURAL, UH, IS REFERRING TO THE WHAT, WHAT IS HERE AND HAS BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE SOMEONE ADDED FILL. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. NO PROBLEM. MAY I MAKE A FOLLOW UP COMMENT, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? I JUST WANT, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, TO GO BACK TO GRADE, OKAY. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION ABOUT LOOKING NOT JUST AT THE SITE, UH, BUT AT THE SORT OF CONTEXT AREA GRADE, IN ORDER TO DEFINE GRADE OUT OF SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS. LIKE LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A PLOT AND THE HOUSE HAS BEEN RAISED AND THE THE GRADE LEVEL IS UNCLEAR, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A REFERENCE THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THIS, THE CONTEXT AREA , UM, IN CIRCUMSTANCES. YEAH. AND, AND I DO INTERPRET THE WORD NATURAL TO REFER TO BEYOND THE LOT ITSELF TO WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE PHIL THAT WAS ADDED PRIOR AND IT'S HIGHER THAN THE, THE NEIGHBORS. BUT I THINK BECAUSE PHIL IS EXCLUDED FROM THAT, YOU, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE, THE, THE CONTEXT. IF YOU COULDN'T DETERMINE IF, IF IT'S, IF THAT SITE APPEARED TO BE ABNORMALLY HIGHER THAN ALL THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD BE, WOULD QUALIFY AS UNDER NATURAL THAT THAT IS, AND THAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE ASSESSED AS HAVING FILL. THAT WOULDN'T BE, WE WOULDN'T BE MEASURING FROM THE TOP OF FILL. SO I AGREE WITH THAT AND WITH HOWEVER YOU AMEND YOUR LANGUAGE OR NOT, OR NOT, OR HOW WE INTERPRET THAT. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT FILL MEANS, IS THAT IF IT'S BEEN RAISED HIGHER THAN THE NATURAL GRADE, THEN WE, THAT WOULD NOT BE NATURAL GROUND. YEAH, I WAS JUST REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION OF GRADE THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER, WHICH DID SEEM TO LIMIT ITS SCOPE TO JUST THE PLOT ITSELF. SO I MAYBE LOOK AT THESE TWO TOGETHER AND MAKE SURE THEY OPERATE THE WAY THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING. OKAY. OKAY, TERRA, SO YOU'RE, I'M GONNA, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC, UM, HEARING. I HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AND THE ORDER IS SIMPLY HOW THEY WERE, UM, AS THEY CAME IN. UM, I'M GONNA, THE FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE, UM, EMILY WAN FOLLOWED BY ADAM TILL, AND I'LL JUST MENTION TO EACH OF THE SPEAKERS THAT YOUR SPEAKER TIME IS TWO MINUTES. GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR. I'M EMILY WAN WITH PRESERVATION HOUSTON. UM, FIRST AGAIN, WE WANT TO APPLAUD THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION STAFF, UM, AND THE COMMISSION ON ALL OF THE WORK THOUGHT AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS DOCUMENT. UM, ACHIEVING BALANCE IN A DOCUMENT LIKE THIS IS NO SMALL FEAT. UM, THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS HERE THAT WE FEEL WOULD REDUCE AMBIGUITY AND BETTER ALIGN THE GUIDELINES WITH THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. HOWEVER, UM, I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT HERE AND [01:35:01] WE WEREN'T PRESENT AT ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS. SO IF ANYTHING HERE CONTRADICTS SOMETHING THAT WAS REACHED AS A CONSENSUS, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN NEIGHBORS AND THE CITY, UM, THROUGH THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, THAT'S NOT OUR INTENT. UM, WE ENCOURAGE RECONSIDERATION, UM, OF THE USE OF CONDITIONED SPACE AS A STANDARD FOR INCLUSION IN THE FAR THE PRESENCE OF CLIMATE CONTROL, UH, SPEAKS MORE TO THE USE OF THE SPACE THAN VISUAL MASSING. AND VISUAL MASSING IS WHAT WE'RE INTENDING TO REGULATE BOTH WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND THESE GUIDELINES. UM, WE ALSO ENCOURAGE, UM, A SECOND GENERAL REVIEW OF THE USE OF WORDS LIKE MUST, SHALL AND SHOULD, JUST TO MAKE SURE, UM, THAT THE LANGUAGE MATCHES THE INTENDED IMPACT OF EACH STATED GUIDELINE. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 19 SAYS, THE OUTSIDE FACE OF SUPPORT COLUMNS SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UM, WHEN MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE MUST OR SHALL. UM, BECAUSE LIVING SPACE AND LIVING AREA ARE TWO DISTINCT TERMS, UM, BOTH USED IN THE GUIDELINES AND, UM, LIVING SPACE DEFINES AMONG OTHER THINGS THE SECOND FLOOR SPACE THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE INCLUSION OF A FIRST FLOOR PORCH IN THE FAR, UM, WE SUGGEST ADDING LIVING SPACE AS ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS IN THE DOCUMENT. UM, ALSO WE BELIEVE ENCLOSED SPACE WOULD SET A CLEARER STANDARD FOR THE SECOND FLOOR SPACE OVER AN OPEN PORCH, UM, RATHER THAN LIVING SPACE. FINALLY, SECTION 33.2 OR DASH 2 68 OF THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT AMENDMENTS TO DESIGN. OH, SORRY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND AS I MENTIONED, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ADAM TILL, UH, TO BE FOLLOWED BY VIRGINIA KELSEY. UH, MY NAME IS ADAM TILL, UH, MY WIFE AND I ARE RESIDENTS OF, UH, NOR HILL. UH, I STAND HERE TO ASK YOU, UH, TO APPROVE, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR NOR HILL AS THEY'RE WRITTEN. UM, THERE HAS BEEN, UM, EXTENSIVE COMPROMISE AND, AND MY HUMBLE OPINION MAY BE TOO MUCH COMPROMISE, BUT THERE HAS BEEN COMPROMISE AND EXTENSIVE REVISION, AND THE TIME HAS COME TO APPROVE THESE GUIDELINES TO GIVE ALL PARTIES INVOLVED A CLEAR AND POSITIVE PATH FORWARD. FROM HERE. THERE'S ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF LATITUDE IN THIS DOCUMENT FOR RENOVATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE UNIQUE AND IMPORTANT HOMES IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE VALUE OF THESE GUIDELINES, UH, TO THE, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THE LARGEST, UH, MAJORITY OF NOR HILL RESIDENTS CANNOT BE OVERSTATED. IT WILL GIVE US A FIGHTING CHANCE TO RETAIN, PROTECT, AND CELEBRATE THE UNIQUE BUNGALOW CULTURE. WE ARE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO ENJOY, UM, WITH EACH DELAY, WITH EACH DEFERMENT, WITH EACH MUST THAT PASSES, UM, SOME OF THAT UNIQUENESS AND SOME OF THAT CHARM AND SOME OF THAT CHARACTER IS TAKEN AWAY. SO I ASK THAT IF WE COULD GET THIS PASSED, HE WOULD BE A HEARTY THANK YOU FROM, UH, THE RESIDENTS NOR HILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THE NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA KELSEY TO BE FOLLOWED BY TY KOA. I'M VIRGINIA KELSEY. I'M A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL. THANK YOU TERRANCE. THANK YOU, ROBERT. UH, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME CAMERA COMING. UH, MY HOPE FOR NOR HILL IS THAT YOU PASS THE GUIDELINES TODAY. THAT SAID, I HAVE A FEW SUCH SIMPLE SUGGESTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD BE MADE RIGHT NOW TO REMOVE A FEW INCONSISTENCIES, BUT I DON'T WANT THEM TO GET IN THE WAY OF PASSAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT ON PAGE NINE TO CLEARLY ALIGN WITH WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE FAR REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LIVING AREA BY INCLUDING THE FIRST, STOPPING THE FIRST SENTENCE AFTER THE WORD CONDITIONED IN THE FAR ALL CONDITIONED SPACE AS IT SHOULD BE, IS INCLUDED IN THE FAR ON PAGE 12. ON THIS DOCUMENT, IT ALSO SAYS, UH, I WANNA REMOVE WITHIN THE HOUSE TO AVOID CONFUSION ABOUT LIVING SPACE IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE ON PAGE 16 AND 18. UM, YOU'RE ALREADY REMOVING THE AREA AT THE TOP UNLESS, BUT I ALSO WANNA CALL ATTENTION TO THE PART WHERE IT, UM, ADJUSTS THE REAR SETBACK ON HOW FAR OUR HOUSE IS BACK FROM THE STREET. THE POLLING WAS CLEAR THAT RESIDENTS SUPPORT A 45 FRONT SETBACK AND 19 FOOT REAR SETBACK. FOR TWO STORIES. THROUGH THE POLLING PROCESS, RESIDENTS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO PROTECT THE GREEN SPACE IN THEIR BACKYARDS. THE 19 FEET IS WHAT THEY WANT, AND HOUSES ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. IT'S THE 45 FEET, IT'S THE 19 FEET. AND LASTLY, THE ONE POINT ON THE, THE, IT'S THE PLATE HEIGHT THAT IS CRITICAL FOR CREATING THE MASSING, NOT THE RIDGE HEIGHT. IT'S [01:40:01] THE PLATE HEIGHT OF THE WALLS. AND IN THAT REGARD, I'M SUGGESTING 20 FOOT, 11 INCHES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE 30 INCHES THAT'S VALID. AND THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW A 14 INCH TRUSS. BUT KEEPING THE PLATE HEIGHTS IS CRITICAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, TY KEKOA. AND I NEED YOU TO HELP ME PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME MORE CORRECTLY. UH, FOLLOWED BY DWAYNE BRADLEY. YES, MY NAME IS, UH, TY KEKOA. UH, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE DISTRICT AGE OFFICE. ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL MEMBER MARIO CASTILLO. I FIRST WANT TO THANK THE, UH, HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION AND HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND THE RESIDENTS OF NOR HILL FOR THE TREMENDOUS WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS PROCESS. THESE GUIDELINES REFLECT YEARS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, PUBLIC INPUT, STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS, AND TECHNICAL REVIEW. THE RESULT IS A DOCUMENT THAT BALANCES PRESERVATION BEST PRACTICES WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PRIORITIES. ONE OF THE GREATEST BENEFITS OF DESIRED GUIDELINES IS PREDICTABILITY. HOMEOWNERS ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS, AND PRESERVATION STAFF ALL BENEFIT WHEN EXPECTATIONS ARE CLEAR, CONSISTENT, AND TRANSPARENT. THESE GUIDELINES HELP PRESERVE THE CHARACTER THAT MAKES NOR HILL UNIQUE, WHILE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN, IMPROVE, AND INVEST IN THEIR HOMES. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTILLO APPRECIATES THE COMMITMENT OF STAFF AND RESIDENTS TO SHAPING THESE GUIDELINES THROUGH A THOUGHTFUL AND INCLUSIVE PROCESS. COMMUNITY BUY-IN IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF ANY PRESERVATION EFFORT. ULTIMATELY, THESE GUIDELINES ARE ABOUT STEWARDSHIP. THEY PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING CHANGE THOUGHTFULLY, SO FUTURE GENERATIONS CAN CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE HISTORIC CHARACTER AND SENSE OF PLACE THAT MAKE NOR HILL SPECIAL. FOR THESE REASONS, COUNCIL MEMBER CASTILE SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATIONS APPEAL BOARD AND HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND APPRECIATES THE WORK THAT HAS BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DWAYNE BRADLEY, FOLLOWED BY MARY SCHULTZ, DOCUMENT CAMERA. HI THERE. UH, DWAYNE BRADLEY, 26 YEAR RESIDENT OF NOR HILL, 36 YEAR RESIDENT OF THE HEIGHTS, UH, EVEN MORE A HOUSTONIAN. UH, THANKS FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO. THANKS TO THE PRESERVATION OFFICE. I'VE BEEN, I WAS HERE IN MARCH WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES. I'LL PROBABLY BE HERE AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GETTING THAT YOU ARE MAYBE IN A PLACE TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THIS AND MOVE IT ON TO CITY COUNCIL TO, TO FINALIZE IT AT THIS POINT. BUT I SUPPORT THESE GUIDELINES, UH, AFTER ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, AFTER THE REVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, AFTER THE MULTIPLE CONSULTATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE BEEN HAD OVER THE YEARS. AND IN THE INTEREST OF HARMONY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I, I SUPPORT ALL OF THIS. I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CONDITIONED SPACE INCLUDE GARAGE APARTMENT CONDITIONED SPACES WHEN THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE BEING MADE. THIS IS A TIME SENSITIVE ISSUE. IF IT GOES ON ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER MONTH. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE GUIDELINES, EACH MONTH, ANOTHER PROJECT GETS APPROVED OR ANOTHER PROJECT COMES ON BOARD. AND SOME OF THESE, QUITE FRANKLY, ARE MISTAKES. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, YOU'LL SEE ONE OF THEM, WHICH IS AT 1138 WEST F GATE, THAT, UH, IF YOU SEE THE FAR AS IT IS IN THE GUIDELINES, YOU WOULD SEE THE LOWER PICTURE WITHOUT THAT BIG GARAGE APARTMENT WITH THESE, THE FLYING HALLWAY, CONNECTING IT TO THE MAIN HOUSE, CREATING ABOUT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT HOME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH MIGHT LOOK NICE IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS, BUT IT'S WAY INAPPROPRIATE AND NOT HARMONIOUS TO THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. WHEREAS THE ORIGINAL, UH, APPROVED, UH, FAR MEETING GUIDELINES, UH, OF THIS HOUSE WOULD HAVE IT IN THAT PICTURE YOU SEE BELOW, UH, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED, NOT WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND STARING AT US NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY SCHULTZ, FOLLOWED BY KIMBERLY STIR ROCK. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. UH, I'M MARY SCHULTZ. I LIVE IN NOR HILL ON PETTY STREET, 1100 1111 PETTY STREET. AND I JUST WANNA SAY ONE SIMPLE THING, AND THAT IS, I, I AM SO GLAD THAT WE HAVE FINALLY COME UP WITH THESE GUIDELINES, WHICH SEEM TO MATCH PRETTY WELL, WHAT ALL OF THE YEARS OF WORK [01:45:01] WE HAVE PUT INTO IT WITH, UM, WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO COME TO MEETINGS AND TO FILL OUT SURVEYS. AND WE HAVE NEEDED DESPERATELY TO HAVE SOME GUIDELINES FOR THE, UH, PRESSURE THAT IS COMING ON US FROM DEVELOPERS WHO WANT TO BUILD GIANT HOMES LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU JUST SAW IN THE PICTURE. IN FACT, ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS OWNERS, OUR, OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKERS REPRESENTING SOUTHAMPTON, MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT SAME PRESSURE, WHICH IS JUST TAKING AWAY THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AND NOR HILL IS EVEN DIFFERENT FROM THAT BECAUSE WHAT MAKES US HISTORIC IS THE BUNGALOW. IT IS A UNI, NOT A UNIFORMITY, BUT A SIMILARITY OR A COMPARABLE LIKENESS OF A WORKING MAN'S COMMUNITY. THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO BUILD ON APPROPRIATELY AND MAINTAIN THE SPACE IF PEOPLE ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO HAVE A VERY BIG HOUSE. BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES IN HOUSTON TO BUILD THEM, AND THEY WOULD LOVE TO GIVE THE DEVELOPERS THAT BUSINESS. SO, IN SUMMARY, I JUST WANT TO URGE YOU, I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE TODAY. UM, WE NEED A VOTE. WE NEED IT SOON. WE NEED, BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING DEVELOPERS COMING IN ALL AROUND US TRYING TO MAKE IONS. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU AGAIN. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KIMBERLY STIR ROCK, FOLLOWED BY JOHN TERELLI. HI, MY NAME IS KIMBERLY STIR ROCK. I'VE BEEN LIVING IN NOR HILL HEIGHTS FOR 46 YEARS. I WALK MY DOGS ALL THE TIME. I CAN WALK ACROSS STU WOOD, I LIVE ON PETTY, WALK ACROSS STU WOOD AND SEE WHERE BUNGALOWS ARE TORN DOWN. I'VE SEEN THREE OF 'EM TORN DOWN IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS, AND THEY'RE BEING REPLACED BY GIANT FULL LOT HOUSES. UM, IF PEOPLE WANNA COME AND LIVE IN NOR HILL, THEN ACCEPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE IT IS. I ACCEPT THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH. I'VE BEEN IN THE QUESTIONNAIRES OR SURVEYS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND I JUST THINK IT'S OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IF SOMEBODY WANTS A BIGGER HOUSE, THERE'S OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME INTO NOR HILL TEAR DOWN OUR BUNGALOWS TO BUILD THIS MASSIVE HOMES THAT YOU WANT. AND THE GUIDELINES FOR THE ADDITIONS AND STUFF SHOULD FIT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO WHERE IT'S NOT OVERLY YOU DON'T GO WALKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOING, WOW, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THERE. SO THAT'S MY FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT. THANK Y'ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SPEAKERS. JOHN ELLI, I'LL, I'LL ASK YOU TO CORRECT MY PRONUNCIATION. JOHN SANTORELLI ELLI. I'M, UH, THE VERY NEW, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS BOARD MEMBER FOR THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO, UM, UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND LISTENING. UM, FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR, UH, YOUR, UH, DEEP CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER. UM, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOR HILL, SO, UH, THANK YOU. I'D ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A SPECIAL THANKS TO THE STAFF WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD, UM, TO DEVELOP FOR OUR COMMUNITY, UM, THE, THESE, THESE GUIDELINES. UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF THESE GUIDELINES TO PRESERVE THE UNIQUE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD OF NOR HILL IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS CONTEXT, APPROPRIATE MODERNIZATION, NOT MODERNIZATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF OUR HOMES. UM, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, AMAZES ME EVERY MORNING ABOUT NOR HILL, 'CAUSE I WALK MY DOGS TOO, AND I WALK OUTSIDE OF THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN I WALK BACK INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M ALWAYS STUNNED BY THE FACT THAT THE, THE VOLUME OF EVERYTHING IN NOR HILL IS, IS REDUCED. THE TREES ARE TOWERING OVER THE BUNGALOWS. THE BUNGALOWS ARE NESTLED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE CAN SEE THE SKY, OUR BACKYARDS HAVE LIGHT. UH, AND WE CAN APPRECIATE THE, THE GREEN SPACE AROUND US. I'M HOPING THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL PASS QUICKLY SO WE CAN PRESERVE THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS REBECCA HACKWORTH, FOLLOWED BY LAWRENCE FIBO. HI. THANK YOU FOR, UH, ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. MY NAME'S REBECCA HACKWORTH. I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF NOR HILL. I AM A LONGTIME RENTER. I'VE BEEN IN NOR HILL RENTING FOR [01:50:01] 20 YEARS WITH THE HOPES OF BEING A HOMEOWNER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I LOVE ABOUT NOR HILL IS WHAT A LOT OF THE PREVIOUS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING. UM, I HAVE A SMALL TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH BUNGALOW, TWO GROWING BOYS. BUT I APPROVE AND SUPPORT THESE NOR HILL GUIDELINES BECAUSE IT JUST FEELS LIKE COMB. SO THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS LAWRENCE FIBO. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HERE TODAY. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THESE GUIDELINES AND, UM, RATHER THAN GIVE ME, GIVE ME GIVING YOU MY OPINION TODAY, I WANTED TO, UH, BRING A VOICE OUT OF THE PAST FROM AN ARTICLE IN AMERICAN BUNGALOW. IT'S CALLED NOR HILL PRESERVING A PIECE OF HOUSTON'S HISTORY. AND THIS WAS WRITTEN 25 YEARS AGO WHEN WE GOT OUR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. AND THE THING THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE IS THAT THEY, UH, JEFF DEBE, A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE TIME, SAID OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT MOMENT, THAT THIS IS A TREMENDOUS ACHIEVEMENT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL SUPPORTERS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HOUSTON. UM, THIS DESIGNATION ENSURES THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF NOR HILL STAYS IN PLACE AND THAT RESTORATION PROJECTS AND NEW, UH, CONSTRUCTION WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES PRESERVING THE PAST, WHILE CELEBRATING THE PRESENT. NOR HILL RESIDENTS ARE DOING BOTH. AND AS A RESULT, THEY'RE PROTECTING A UNIQUE PART OF HOUSTON'S HISTORY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. AND I THINK IF YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO APPROVE THESE TODAY, OR AT LEAST GET THEM TO APPROVAL, THEN YOU ARE ENSURING THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THIS MAGAZINE DOCUMENT CAMERA CAN BE WRITTEN IN ANOTHER 25 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE. THAT'S, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN STOKES. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE TO THANK ALL OF YOU HERE TODAY AND THE WONDERFUL STAFF WHO HAS BEEN TAKING SO MUCH TIME TO PUT THESE GUIDELINES TOGETHER. UM, I AM A OWNER IN A, OF A BUNGALOW IN NOR HILL. I'VE BEEN LIVING THERE SINCE 2001, SO 25 YEARS NOW. AND ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T MATCH THE 47 YEARS, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PART OF MY LIFE. AND I REALLY STRONGLY, STRONGLY URGE THIS COMMISSION TO PASS THESE GUIDELINES. I KNOW THERE MAY BE A FEW LITTLE MINOR TWEAKS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED. I, I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THE PLATE HEIGHT IS IMPORTANT AS WELL AS THE ROOF PITCH. SO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THAT MAY NEED TO BE IRONED OUT JUST A TAD. BUT I THINK BY AND LARGE, THIS THING'S READY TO FLY. AND THE SOONER YOU GUYS CAN VOTE ON IT, I WISH YOU WOULD VOTE ON IT TODAY, YOU KNOW, AS KIND OF LIKE, THIS IS IT. MAYBE YOU'LL MAKE A COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, MINOR CHANGES. BUT WE'RE MOVING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A LONG HAUL. A LOT OF Y'ALL ARE RELATIVELY NEW TO THIS COMMISSION, I SAY UNDER A YEAR, RIGHT? THAT'S NEW. BUT SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND THIS STAFF, SOME OF THESE MEMBERS OF THE STAFF HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND WE'VE SEEN MANY ROTATIONS OF THIS COUNCIL AND AMONGST THE STAFF. SO WE DON'T WANNA HAVE TO START OVER AGAIN. WE REALLY WANT YOU GUYS TO TAKE THIS UNDER YOUR WING AND SEE THE HARD WORK THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS, THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS WEIGHED IN, AND THAT WE'RE READY, WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON WITH THIS MIDDLE WAY. 'CAUSE WE DO ALLOW EXPANSIONS, BUT A MIDDLE WAY, RIGHT? NOT FULL GIANT HOUSES, BUT ALSO BEYOND THE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET THAT MY HOUSE IS RIGHT. 2,400 SQUARE FEET IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER AND FAR THAN MY CURRENT HOUSE PROPER. SO I THINK WE'VE COME A LONG WAY AND I HOPE YOU GUYS CAN TAKE IT TO THE DISTANCE REALLY SOON. DON'T SIT ON THIS, PLEASE. I BEG OF YOU. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THAT WAS THE LAST SPEAKER WHO SIGNED UP FOR ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO HAS NOT SIGNED UP BUT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? I'M NOT HEARING ANYONE. I DID HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR OUR FIRST SPEAKER, EMILY ARWAN. I JUST CURIOUS IF YOU, YOU STATED, UH, YOUR LAST COMMENT WAS STATING A SECTION OF A COMMENT. COULD YOU, COULD YOU ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TO, UM, RESTATE THAT SECTION NUMBER AND JUST MAKE, UH, BRIEFLY MENTION WHAT THAT COMMENT WAS SO THAT WE COMMISSION MIGHT CONSIDER THAT IN THE, OUR DELIBERATIONS THAT WE'LL FOLLOW? YES. THANK YOU. UM, THIS IS A COMMENT THAT I'VE MADE BEFORE, UM, BUT SECTION 33 DASH 2 68 OF THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT AMENDMENTS TO DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS FOR THE ADOPTION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THIS [01:55:01] SECTION. UM, SO WE MAINTAIN THAT IF THE PROCESS FOR REVISING THIS DOCUMENT, UM, IS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT, UM, THAN THE PROCESS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, THAT PROCESS SHOULD BE CLEARLY DEFINED, UM, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT PERTAINS TO NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL NOW OPEN THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS. UM, AND IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR, UM, NAME, NAME PLATES, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR TERRANCE ON ITEMS THAT HAVE, UM, QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE THAT HE'S DISCUSSED, OR, UM, IF SOME OF THE ITEMS AGAIN THAT WERE MENTIONED, JUST, UM, BRIEFLY, I JUST WANT TO COME MAKE ONE COMMENT, UH, HAVING, UM, THERE ARE A FEW OF US HERE THAT WHEN THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES WERE, UH, BROUGHT TO US AND FINALLY, UM, VOTED ON BY THIS COMMISSION TO, UH, RECOMMEND, UH, MOVING IT, UH, TOWARDS CITY CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. I DON'T EVER RECALL, UM, A TIME WHEN ALL THE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MEASURE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. SO I JUST WANNA SAY THAT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMISSION, I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER HAPPENED. AND I WANT TO, UH, SAY THANK YOU, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE, UM, UH, A NEW, A NEW DAY, A NEW DAY HAS ALSO PEOPLE WE FULL, UH, BUT BE FOLLOWING US. SO, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE TODAY. I JUST, UM, AGAIN, WHAT REALLY DETERMINES WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS THESE QUESTIONS. SO, UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS, THIS NOW IS YOUR TIME TO ASK DISTRICT QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER DAVIS? I, YES. UM, WE ONLY RECEIVED THE MARKUP ON MONDAY, AND SO THAT THIS WAS A LOT OF MATERIAL TO GET THROUGH IN A VERY, VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE, THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE HORRIBLY WRONG, BUT THEY, I HAVE 11 PAGES OF THINGS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT THAT NEED TO BE, I I WAS AN EDITOR IN ONE OF MY FORMER LIVES, UM, THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED. AND SOME ARE POLICY ISSUES SUCH AS THE ONE STORY HEIGHT LIMIT HAS NO SINGLE VALUE STATED THREE WAYS AGAINST THE TEXT, AND TWO DIAGRAMS GOT AT 11 FOOT SEVEN AND AN EIGHTH AND 11, SIX AND AN 11 AND TWO AND ONE EIGHTHS. AND YOU CAN'T ENFORCE A CAP HEIGHT IF YOU CAN'T STATE IT. UM, THEN, UM, THE BLANKET 2.3 CAVEAT GUTS, THE SETBACKS, ALL DIAGRAMS ARE REPRESENTATIONS ONLY CASE BY CASE BASIS, SITS OVER THE ENTIRE MEASURABLE SETBACK SECTION AND CONVERTS BRIGHT LINES INTO DISCRETION CROSSING THE 33 DASH 2 67 B THREE LINE. THAT STANDARDS MUST ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE. I HAVE A LOT OF THESE AND I DON'T, IS IT POSSIBLE, UM, I KNOW I'M GOING TO MOVE TO DEFER TO GET A LOT OF THESE THINGS CLEANED UP? NOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, THAT I'M TRYING TO, WELL, SURE, BUT I, LET ME ASK, OFFER THIS. UM, AND FOR THE SAKE OF, UM, UH, JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION IS UNDERSTANDING, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE PUT UP, IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT THAT WE CAN PUT UP A LANGUAGE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? UM, IS THIS REFERRING TO CHANGES OR THIS IS RECURRING TO GENERAL DOCUMENT ITSELF? I, I HAVE THERE, I'M, I'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS ALL OVER THE BOARD. SOME WITH SPECIFIC STATEMENTS, UM, ESPECIALLY WHERE DISCRETION IS LODGED WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE A SOLID LINE. IS THERE, I GUESS TERRANCE, IS THERE A WAY TO BRING UP THE DOCUMENT, THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT? I KNOW I HAVE A HARD COPY. WE DID NOT UPLOAD IT TO THE, UH, TO THE PRESENTATION. WE DIDN'T EXPECT, UH, THAT, SO I MEAN, I HAVE A HARD COPY THAT I COULD SHOW ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA IF NECESSARY. UM, OR THE COMMISSIONER HAS THE APPETITE FOR THAT, BUT YEAH, SURE WE CAN, WE CAN DO THAT. I MEAN, IT WON'T BE I THE IDEAL SITUATION, BUT, UM, WELL TO, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO TRY, UM, IF WE CAN STATE THEM, BUT ACTUALLY REFERENCE THE, REFERENCE THE PAGE WHERE IT IS AND DETERMINE, UM, FOR THIS COMMISSION TO TAKE THOSE IN WHILE WHY WE ARE HERE. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. UM, OKAY. I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE SITES. I DID A SUMMARY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE THIS IS GOING TO THE WRONG PLACE KIND OF THINGS. UM, UH, WELL, AND, AND JUST, UH, BE, BE ADVISED WHAT, LIKE ALSO LIKE WHAT, LET'S SAY THAT WE REACH A POINT WHERE THE CONSENSUS IS TO RECOMMEND TO ADVANCE THIS TO THE NEXT STAGE. IT'S NOT, IT'S GONNA GO TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE, QUALITY OF LIFE. UM, SO JUST KNOW THAT IF, IF THERE'S SOME SMALL THINGS THAT WE CAN QUANTIFY THAT CAN BE RESOLVED, UM, [02:00:01] THIS TEXT IS GOING, IS GOING TO BE, UM, IT, IT IS IN SOME WAYS IF WE MAKE A NOTE OF LET'S SAY WE MAKE A MOTION, BUT WE MAKE A MOTION TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE SMALLER ITEMS, THEY, I BELIEVE THEY CAN BE RESOLVED IN THE PROCESS AT BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY SENT. UM, BECAUSE IT, IT'LL GET REVIEWED AGAIN AND THEN IT GOES BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND GETS REVIEWED AGAIN. MM-HMM . BUT, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE NOT TO HOLD IT UP FOR SMALL THINGS THAT COULD BE THAT MORE CLERICAL OR COULD BE WORKED OUT. I KNOW THAT THERE WERE, THERE WERE SOME REPEATED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT EVEN ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE HEIGHT TO THE PLATE HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOLKS TO RAISE THEIR HOUSE UP, WHICH I WOULD ALSO THINK DEVELOPERS PROBABLY WOULD WELCOME. AND I'LL JUST SAY, BUT IF WE, IF WE CAN, UH, GO THROUGH YOUR LIST, UH, A LITTLE BIT SLOWER AND IT, IT MAY HELP US JUST UNDERSTAND THE, EVEN IF IT'S JUST YOUR SUMMARY COMMENTS IS OKAY. UM, OKAY. ONE, I'D LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POST-WAR STYLE SECTION. UM, WE, 'CAUSE IT DIFFERS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED FOR NOR HILL. UM, AND IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE DESIGNATION, NOT THE GUIDELINES. I I AGREE A POINT, BUT, BUT THAT COULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IF YOU WANT, IF FOR, FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT IN DEBATE. UM, I STILL HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE, UH, WITH THE FAR CALCULATIONS. UM, I DID SOME FAST MATH AND I GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ANSWERS, SO I STILL THINK IT HAS SOME AMBIGUITY IN IT. UM, WHAT I JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE ONE STORY HEIGHT LIMIT HAS NO SINGLE VALUE. UM, THEN, UH, DID I READ THE BLANKET 2.3 CAVEAT GUTS, THE SETBACKS ALL DIAGRAM? I THINK I JUST READ THAT ONE. ALL DIAGRAMS REPRESENTED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS SITS OVER THE ENTIRE SECTION. UM, THEN, UH, TWO SUBSTANTIVE LOOSENING APPEARED IN THE MARKUP AND, UH, MOVING FINISHED AN UNCON FINISHED SPACE OUT OF FAR THE MASSING LOOPHOLE AND LETTING A TWO STORY ADDITION EXTEND PAST THE SIDEWALL IF TIED TO A GARAGE, WHICH IS A MASSING CHANGE. UM, AND THEN I SAID, UH, DISCRETION IS LODGED WHERE BRIGHT LINES BELONG TWO STORY GARAGES. THE LARGEST ACCESSORY MASSING UP TO 24 FEET ARE APPROVED CASE BY CASE WITH NO STANDARD TWO STORY ADDITION WITH WHICH IS ONLY ENCOURAGED TO BE LIMITED, NO ENFORCEABLE CAP. THE ROOF PITCH EXCEPTIONS ARE UNBOUNDED. UM, WE HAVE CONFLICTING GARAGE THRESHOLDS, 585 SQUARE FEET FAR CORNER CAP VERSUS A 600 SQUARE FEET ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL CONTRADICTION. AND THE FIVE 12 ROOF PITCH FLOOR, UM, IS A, AND I HAVE A ANOTHER SITE FROM, UH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PARTICULARLY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE SETTING A HOT AT FIVE 12, UM, AZURE MINIMUM, WHICH IS, AND SOME OF THESE STYLES HAVE LOWER PITCHED ROOFS. SO I WAS, SO THAT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE. UM, ON, UM, UH, DORM REPLACEMENT TWO, 2.6 ED PAGE 38, UH, YOU CAN LOCATE A NEW SINGLE DORMER NO CLOSER THAN IN A LOCATION THAT'S FORWARD MORE THAN 60% FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE DEPTH OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE HOUSE SPLICES A NEW 60% FORMULATION INTO THE OLD, TOWARD THE REAR MOUNT FORMULATION. THE TWO AREN'T EQUIVALENT AND THE SENTENCE IS NOW CONTRADICTORY. UM, WINDOW MATERIALS, THIS ONE WINDOWS SHOULD ALL BE WOOD, WOOD CLAD SHALL BE INSET AND RECESSED. LAST WEEK WE JUST APPROVED 14 CASEMENT WINDOWS. SO I SEE THAT TO BE A CONTRADICTION THERE. SO WHAT IS IT, UH, WHICH ONE IS IT? UM, AND WE ALSO WITH DOING, UH, LIKE HAVING A PORCH WITH LIVING STATE SPACE ABOVE IT, UM, I REALIZE NOR HILL IS A DIFFERENT DISTRICT, BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOME CAT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS. AND WE APPROVED THAT THAT WAS OKAY LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE WOODLANDS. AND THERE'S ONE TODAY, WOODLAND HEIGHTS AND THERE'S ONE TODAY THAT'S IN THE HEIGHTS. AND SO WE'RE, SHOULD THOSE BE CONSISTENT IN WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE PART OF FAR OR NOT? SO I DON'T WANNA BELABOR THIS ANY LONGER, BUT, UM, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO CERTAINLY. BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ITEMS. UH, LIKE WITH, WITH THE COMMISSIONS, WE CAN PULL UP THOSE PAGES AND LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE [02:05:01] ITEMS. UM, I THINK THAT, UM, THE WINDOW QUESTION THOUGH IS THAT AS FAR AS NOR HILL'S CONCERNED, THEY DON'T HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS OF YET. AND SO AS PART OF THEIR DESIGN GUIDELINES, THEY CAN MANDATE THAT THEY WANT DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS. LET'S, LET'S JUST SAY THEY, THEY CAN MANDATE AS PART OF THE GUIDELINE PROCESS A CERTAIN STYLE OF WINDOW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT UNDER THESE GUIDELINES EVEN AT THIS MOMENT YET. SO THESE, THESE GUIDELINES WILL BE ANOTHER LAYER OF INFORMATION. ONCE THEY'RE PASSED, THEN ANY PROJECTS WITHIN NOR HILL WOULD THEN BE REVIEWED BY WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WINDOW CONFIGURATION IS THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS. THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL LIKE THE WINDOWS TO BE LIKE THEY ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. AND IF ONCE, ONCE THESE GUIDELINES ARE APPROVED, THEN THAT WILL BE WHAT WILL HAPPEN GOING FORWARD. SO IT, IT'S JUST SOME THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE GUIDELINES IN EFFECT YET. SO THERE'S NOT A REASON FOR US TO THAT, THAT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR US TO DELAY THAT ITEM. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. BUT, UH, STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON, I I DO RECALL ONE OF THE ITEMS, UH, THAT WAS CONSIDERED A CONTRADICTION WITH THE 585 SQUARE FEET, UH, FOR GARAGES AND THEN THE 600 SQUARE FEET FOR GARAGES, UH, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THE 585 SQUARE FEET IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WILL BE USED FOR THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE 600 AND 600 SQUARE FEET IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR STAFF. SO THAT BASICALLY MEANS THAT IF SOMEONE COMES WITH A 600 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, NOT EVEN CONSIDERING NOR HILL, BUT THEN THAT MEANS THAT IT, IT QUALIFIES TO BE APPROVED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. IF THEY HAVE A 601 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, THEN THAT WOULD THEN COME TO THE COMMISSION. RIGHT. AND TERRY, I WOULD ALSO LIKE, OH, SORRY. AND IF I MAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I THINK THAT YOU ASKED IS THAT THE APPLICANTS IN THIS CASE COULD HAVE A 585 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND THAT WOULD NOW COUNT TOWARD FAR YES. BUT IF THEY WERE TO INCREASE IT, SAY TO 6 0 1 OR OR 5 86, RIGHT, RIGHT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED YES. THEN WOULD COUNT TOWARD THE FAR, SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT GARAGES HAVE, CAN'T BE LARGER THAN 5 85 BUT ABOVE, BUT ABOVE 5 85, JUST LIKE IN THE HEIGHTS, THERE'S A NUMBER THEN IT COUNTS TOWARD THE OVERALL VISUAL MASS. CORRECT. AND AND IF IT'S UNDER SIX, IF IT'S 600 OR UNDER, IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. CORRECT. AND IT, AND, AND IF IT'S 6 0 1 OR LARGER, THEN IT WOULD COME TO THIS BODY FOR, FOR EITHER, YOU KNOW, FOR CONSENT OR FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION. CORRECT. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE, UM, FOR CLARITY, UH, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF THIS, BUT UM, IN THE ORDINANCE IT STATES THAT DESIGN GUIDELINES CAN BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. SO, UM, YEAH, I'LL JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR THE 5 85. OKAY. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, MR. DAVIS? THE HEIGHT AND PLATE DIMENSIONS, WHEN I SAID WERE STATED THREE WAYS, THAT IS ON PAGES 28 MICROPHONE, SORRY, THE HEIGHT AND PLATE DIMENSIONS STATED THREE WAYS. THAT IS ON PA PAGES 28 THROUGH 30. OKAY. AND WE DID HAVE A, WE HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TODAY ABOUT INCREASING THAT NUMBER TO A SLIGHTLY HIGHER NUMBER, UM, TO ALLOW FOR THE 30 INCH, UH, ACROSS THE, THE FLOOR, THE FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT ABOVE NATURAL GRADE. UM, SO I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY BE DISCUSSING THAT AS PART OF THIS. AND I'LL JUST SAY WE COULD, WE MIGHT COME TO A CONSENSUS ON WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER SHOULD BE AND JUST SAY THIS IS WHAT THE NUMBER SHALL BE. UM, FOR CLARITY. UM, SO ON THE ROOF PITCH THAT IS TWO C HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS. THE FIVE 12 ROOF PITCH FLOOR NOR HILL REQUIRES A FIVE TWO TO 5 7 12 SLOPE AND OR AN EIGHT 12 ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. UM, A MINIMUM PITCH RULE IS PERMISSIBLE, IS STRICTER, BUT THE FLAG INTERNAL DISSENSION INTERNAL TO TENSION TWO E AND TWO F. UM, SOME OF THE STYLES MINIMAL TRADITIONAL, CERTAIN FOR NATIONAL STYLES CARRY LOWER, LOWER INTERMEDIATE PITCHES. SO A RIGID FIVE 12 COULD CONFLICT WITH REPLICATING A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES ACTUAL HISTORIC PITCH. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT ONE IS. I DON'T KNOW. UM, I KNOW THESE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT LIKE IF YOU HAVE A UNDER, UNDER THE WAY THAT'S WRITTEN, TERRENCE, IF YOU HAVE A, A PITCH THAT'S DIFFERENT AND IT'S, IT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UM, [02:10:02] IS THERE, I MEAN, I WOULD IMAGINE THERE'S STILL DEFERENCE TO MATCH THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. YEAH, I MEAN, THE SENTENCE FOLLOWING SAYS A DIFFERENT ROOF PITCH MAY BE CONSIDERED WHEN MIMICKING ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. UH, I, I WOULD TEND TO BELIEVE THAT, THAT, UM, RATHER THAN STATING A CASE BY CASE BASIS THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU, GIVES THE, UM, AGENT OR OWNER OR ARCHITECT OR WHATEVER, WHAT, WHAT HAVE YOU, UM, GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO MATCH THAT AND ALSO, UM, INFORMS THEM THAT STAFF WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT AND WILL REVIEW THAT AS AS NEEDED. OKAY. ON THE DORMER QUESTION, CAN YOU, CAN WE ADDRESS THAT JUST BRIEFLY? UH, COULD IT, CAN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE DORMER QUESTION, PLEASE? PAGE 38, I THINK IS THE PAGE, PAGE 38 OR 28? I WROTE DOWN 38, BUT I'M, UM, PAGE, IT'S 2.6 E UH OH, PAGE 38. 38 IS WHERE IT IS? YES. UH, ON THE NEW VERSION, ON PAGE 38, I HAVE THE, UM, SECTION THREE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS, COA AND ORDINANCES. I MAY BE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT, MY PAGE NUMBERS. THIS WAS LATE. UM, BUT IT'S 2.6. 2.6 POINT E? YES. OKAY. THAT'S PAGE 28 ON THE NEW VERSION. OKAY. AND IT IS 2.6 AND IT'S DORMERS 2.6 E. MM-HMM . I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT I WROTE, ED, BUT THAT PROBABLY IS NOT POSSIBLE. OKAY. AND THE QUESTION, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR THE DORMERS? I'M, SO YOU HAVE A, UH, YOU HAVE A STATEMENT THAT NO SINGLE DORM, UH, SINGLE LOCATE, A SINGLE DORMER NO CLOSER THAN IN A LOCATION THAT IS FORWARDED MORE THAN 60% FROM THE FRONT WALL, THE DEPTH OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. AND I WROTE THAT AND, UM, I WROTE THAT IT'S BS A NEW 60% FORMULATION UNDER THE, UH, ONTO THE OLD, UM, TOWARD THE REAR FORMULATION. UM, AND THOSE ARE NOT TOO EQUIVALENT THINGS. THEY'RE CONTRADICTORY AND I NEEDS A LITTLE MORE FLESHING OUT THERE FROM, UM, CAN WE REVIEW THAT OR CAN YOU LOOK AT YOUR PAPER DOCUMENT HERE SO WE CAN JUST TRY TO UNDER WRAP OUR MINDS AROUND THIS DOCUMENT CAMERA? SO, UM, I MEAN THE 60% CAME FROM, UH, SUGGESTION FROM COMMISSIONER COSGROVE IN THE LAST MEETING, UM, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIKE THE, BECAUSE, UH, THE TOWARDS THE REAR LANGUAGE, UM, DID NOT SEEM CLEAR. AND HE ASKED FOR A HARD NUMBER, WHICH IS WHY WE CAME UP WITH 60%. UM, THE 60% IS BASICALLY WHERE THE DORMER CAN START. UM, I MEAN, AND THAT'S BASED ON THE ORIGINAL HOME? YES. ON THE ORIGINAL HOME. NOT THE FRONT. FROM THE FRONT WALL. NOT FROM THE PORCH, YES, SIR. 60% FROM THE FRONT WALL IS WHAT, I MEAN, I'VE LOOKED AT THIS THING ENOUGH. I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IS 60% FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. NO NEW DORMER CAN START 60 EV NO NEW DORMER SHOULD START 60% BEFORE 60% OF THE FRONT WALL. DID THEY DO DOCUMENT CAMERA? IT'S SO BLURRY. I'LL READ IT. TERRANCE, WHICH I THINK MEANS THAT IT WOULD BE STARTING 40% BACK FROM THE FRONT WALL. THAT'S CORRECT. SO FROM THE BACK WALL. WELL, SO IF THE FRONT, IF THE FRONT WALL IS THE FRONT DOOR AND THE BACK WALL IS THE BACK WALL, YES. UM, I MEAN IF I, I GUESS THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS WE COULD CALL IT THE RIGHT, BUT, BUT 40%, BUT, BUT IF WE'RE MEASURING FROM THE REAR YEAH. WHICH HAS 60%, THEN WHAT'S LEFT BETWEEN IS 40%. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. SO'S ESSENTIALLY IT'S, IT'S WHETHER IT'S SIX 60% WITHIN 60% FROM THE BACK WALL OR BEYOND, BEYOND 40% BEYOND THE FRONT WALL. IT'S STILL THE SAME DACI THINK SO IT, I MEAN, OKAY. WOULD IT BE BETTER IF WE HAD A DIAGRAM MAYBE SHOWING WHERE THE 60% IS? OKAY. BECAUSE STAFF, STAFF CAN DO THAT. I MEAN, I, I MEAN, BECAUSE FOR, WELL, I, I JUST TOOK THIS POINT TO MEAN THAT THE DORMER CAN OCCUR WITHIN THE REAR 60% OF THE HOME. THE ORIGINAL HOME, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE NO. [02:15:01] SO 60%, JUST 60% BACK. LET, LET ME READ IT. LET ME READ IT. YEAH. OKAY. SO IT'S CL OKAY. LOCATE A NEW SINGLE DORMER NO CLOSER THAN 60, 60% FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. AND THEN IT SAYS, DO NOT EXTEND THE DORMER OVER THE EVE OF THE ROOF. IT IS TO BE SET BACK FROM THE EVE. OKAY. SO, I MEAN, I THINK AS FAR AS YOU GUYS ARE CONCERNED, I, I GUESS THE DISCUSSION IS, UM, DO WE PREFER THE LANGUAGE TOWARDS THE REAR OR DO WE PREFER A HARD NUMBER? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WE NEED TO SHOW A, A PROVIDE A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THE 60 WHAT, WHAT THE 60% IS ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, AND MAYBE THAT'LL CLEAR EVERYTHING UP. OKAY. I CAN, I CAN HANDLE THAT. YOU AGREE? YEAH. OKAY. I THINK THAT MY, MY POINT IS I THINK WE CAN AGREE TO WHAT IT MEANS IF ONCE WE IT'S FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AND CORRECT. SO IT'S, YEP. YEAH. GOT IT. AND MY LAST ONE, UM, IS THE TWO STORY PAST THE SIDE EXCEPTION. IT'S, UH, PARAGRAPH TWO, THREE C, UM, AND I'VE GOT TWO, THREE, UH, F SO THE NEW MARKUP ADDS LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE TWO STORY ADDITION TO EXTEND PAST THE SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, UNLESS IT'S CONNECTED TO A GARAGE STRUCTURE, WHICH MAY EXTEND PAST THE SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UM, AND RELATIVE TO THE EARLIER DRAFT, THERE WAS A FLAT PROHIBITION. SO THIS IS, SO WAS THAT A, IT WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANTED AND I JUST DIDN'T, SO THE, THE, THE COMMENT THAT, UH, ARE YOU SPEAKING OF, I'M SORRY. THE, THERE WAS A, THERE'S A, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE PUT IN AS A MISTAKE THAT IS COMING OUT AND, AND WE CALLED THAT OUT IN THE, OH, THAT'S AT THE BACK BOTTOM, SORRY. SO, UM, WE WILL BE REMOVING, UNLESS IT IS CONNECTED TO A GARAGE STRUCTURE, WHICH MAY EXTEND PAST THE SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, YES. THAT WILL BE REMOVED. OKAY. SO BY REMOVING THAT, THAT SATISFIES YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER DAVIS? YES. PERFECT. AND THEN THERE'S, UM, I HAVE A NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE THERE'S DISCRETION IS PUT INTO IT. UM, AND, UM, I THINK IN SOME PLACES, ESPECIALLY IN THE, BASICALLY IN ME MEASURABLE STANDARDS WHERE YOU FLAT OUT SAY, UM, LIKE, UH, PLATE HEIGHT EXCEPTION, IF THE, IF THE EXISTING HOUSE HAS A PLATE HEIGHT HIGHER THAN NINE FEET, AN EXCEPTION WILL BE CONSIDERED. UM, SO THERE'S A LOT OF PHRASING ABOUT WILL BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF REFERENCES THAT, AND I BELIEVE ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS SPOKE TO THAT FACT AS WELL, THAT SOMETHING SEEMED WIDE OR OPEN THAN OTHERS. UM, SO TERENCE, I, I TAKE, WELL, AGAIN, MY QUICK TAKE IS THAT WE HAVE MEASURABLE STANDARDS, WHICH, WHICH RULE, IF WE HAVE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT A CERTAIN WAY THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THOSE MEASURABLE STANDARDS, THEN THE, THAT, THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE DESIGN. IT MIGHT, IT MIGHT LEAD TO SOMETHING THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S CONTRIBUTING, IT'S ORIGINAL, IT'S NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION OR, OR RECENT EDITION. AND THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED AND BUT EVEN CONSIDERED DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED, IT JUST MEANS THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED. AND SO IS IS THERE SOMETHING BEYOND THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH? NO, IT'S, IT'S SO MUCH LOOSER THAN WHAT WE SEE IN THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES WHERE PEOPLE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T. SO I'M DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT WE WILL BE, UM, SURE. I MEAN, I THINK ONE, ONE THING ABOUT, AGAIN, AS MENTIONED, NOR HILLS HAVE LOTS, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ROLE IS MUCH LOWER MM-HMM . SO IF THERE'S A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PLATE HEIGHT, IT'S GONNA BE THE LOWEST THING IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE HEIGHTS COMPARE COMPARATIVELY. SO, UM, AGAIN, I, I DON'T, I, I THINK I DON'T SEE A HUGE ISSUE THERE. UM, AND MAYBE, MAYBE THERE'S A WORDSMITHING TO, TO DO THAT. YEAH. UM, SO STAFF STAFFS IS JUST LIKE WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH THE ROOF PITCH, RIGHT? UM, WE, WE, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FLEX FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST TO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE MAY NOT SEE ON A REGULAR BASIS OR, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE, UM, A HOME THAT WAS MODIFIED AND NOW THE PLATE HEIGHT, AND THIS MAY BE [02:20:01] A STRETCH, AND NOW THE PLATE HEIGHT IS 10 FEET AND THEY'RE DOING AN ADDITION. WELL, WE WANT TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT ADDITION AND MATCH THAT PLATE HEIGHT. UM, SO WE DON'T WANT TO PUT A PLATE HEIGHT IN, AND THIS PROBABLY GOES BACK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HILL'S, UH, POINT, UM, AND MAYBE PLAY HEIGHT IS A BAD EXAMPLE, BUT IT, IT, IT'S THINGS LIKE THAT WITH THE ROOF PITCH. IF SOMEONE HAS A ROOF PITCH THAT'S LIKE ABNORMAL OR, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE A VICTORIAN STYLE HOME AND THEY MAY HAVE A HIGH ROOF PITCH, OR THEY MAY HAVE A BUNGALOW WITH A, WITH A LOW ROOF PITCH. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO, BECAUSE WE HAVE HARD NUMBERS SET IN THERE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE HAVE THAT APPLICANT BRING THAT PROJECT TO YOU. RIGHT? BECAUSE IF WE HAVE THOSE HARD NUMBERS AND WE COME TO YOU GUYS WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, YOU SAY, WELL, YOU GOT A EIGHT OVER 12 PITCH HERE CLEARLY STATES THAT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE FIVE TO SEVEN OVER 12 ROOF PITCH. RIGHT? SO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BE FLEXIBLE IN THAT MOMENT. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WILL SEE SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS BECAUSE, UM, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM OUR, I DON'T WANNA CALL IT MISTAKES, BUT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM, UH, OUR EXPERIENCES WITH THE HES DESIGN GUIDELINES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER DAVIS? I KNOW, UM, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER COSGROVE HAS A, I THINK QUESTION. UM, I HAVE A, JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS. UM, SUPPORTIVE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND ONE, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER DAVIS AND I MIGHT SHARE SOME ISSUES ON. ONE IS THE, THE, THE CONDITION SPACE. OKAY. INCLUDING THAT IN THE FAR FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IMPACTING THE MASS OR THE SCALE OR THE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY SEEMS PUNITIVE AND CONDITIONED IS INTERIOR SPACE. AND I BELIEVE IT'S REALLY OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION TO TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO INSIDE OF THEIR DWELLING. IF I WANT TO MAKE A STORAGE ROOM IN MY EXISTING ATTIC AND RUN A DUCT TO IT, I DON'T NEED A C OF A TO DO THAT. I DON'T NEED A PERMIT. I DON'T, WE'RE, WE'RE, UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO ASK PEOPLE TO GET A C OF A TO INSTALL AIR CONDITIONING SO THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING CONDITIONED, THEN I THINK WE'RE OVERSTEPPING ON THAT. OKAY. AND THAT I JUST, I SEE NO LOGICAL REASON TO INCLUDE SPACES THAT ARE EXISTING THAT ARE NOT CHANGING THE, THE MASS OR SCALE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE HOUSE IN, IN THE FAR. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. UM, SO WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING OF FAR, ARE YOU SPEAKING OF THE EXISTING HOME ATTIC OR ARE YOU SPEAKING IF THEY DO AN ADDITION AND THEY HAVE AN ATTIC AND CONDITION THAT SPACE? OR ARE YOU, OR, OR ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME? I'M SPEAKING OF ANY SPACE THAT IS INSIDE THE ENVELOPE OF GOTCHA. OF WHATEVER IS APPROVED. OKAY. IF, IF THERE IS NO PUNCTURE TO THE EXTERIOR IN THE ATTIC. OKAY. AND THAT IT IS JUST SPACE THAT IS ALREADY EXISTING IN A HOUSE MM-HMM . THAT SOMEONE CHOOSES TO FINISH OR USE AS THEY SEE FIT, WHICH IS THEIR PROPERTY, RIGHT. TO DO, NOT OURS, TO, TO REGULATE. AND THE SAME WITH THE GARAGE. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO WOODWORK AND THEY WANT TO PUT A MINI SPLIT IN THEIR GARAGE, SUDDENLY WE'RE DEDUCTING 200 SQUARE FEET FROM THEIR, THEIR ABILITY TO ADD ONTO THEIR HOUSE JUST BECAUSE THEY CONDITIONED TO THE SPACE, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS. SO I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THAT AS A, AS A, AS A REGULATORY MEASURE FOR, FOR THIS BODY. JUST THAT THAT'S NOT A A, THAT IS INTERIOR USE AND, AND WE REGULATE THE EXTERIOR. IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE EXTERIOR OF THE GARAGE, THEY'VE GOTTA GET A C OF A, BUT I MEAN, IF THEY WANNA SHEET ROCK THEIR GARAGE, THEY DON'T NEED TO GET A C OF A, I MEAN WE'RE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT'S A VERY FINE LINE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER COSER, COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? I'M JUST, WHILE YOU'RE ON THAT POINT, UM, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID AND, AND I SUPPORT THAT. UM, BUT AGAIN, MY CONCERN WITH THE WORD CONDITION SPACE IS THAT I THINK AS ONE SPEAKER MENTIONED, IS WHAT WE REALLY HEAR ABOUT IS VISUAL MASS. AND YOU KNOW, LIKE AN OPEN PORCH OR A SCREEN IN PORCH DOESN'T, DOESN'T, DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING MAYBE BUILT TWO STORIES ABOVE IT, WHICH, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT SAID, UM, IS THERE A WAY THAT, LIKE YOU CAN HAVE A GARAGE THAT'S 5 85. YOU CAN, OF COURSE YOU CAN MAKE IT ANY SIZE YOU WANT, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED, AND THEN WHAT YOU DO WITH IT, YOU DO WITH IT. BUT, BUT MY CONCERN IS YOU, UH, SOMEONE BILLS A, A SHED OR, OR THEY BILL SOMETHING ON THE HOUSE AND SAY IT'S A STORAGE ROOM, BUT IT IS NOT IN [02:25:01] AIR CONDITION, BUT IT IS PART OF VISUAL MASS AND IT'S NOT IN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FAR WAS BASED ON A TOTAL VISUAL MASS FOR THE PROPERTY WHEN, WHEN PEOPLE WERE SHOWN EXAMPLE. SO THAT MY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESOLVE THAT WITH YOUR TEXT, BUT I THINK THEY THINK THAT THE TWO SIDES OF THIS CONVERSATION IS THAT IF WE PERCEIVE A ROOM THAT'S BUILT WALLS AND SO ON, THEN IT OUGHT TO BE COUNTED TOWARD THE FAR, WHETHER IT'S CONDITIONED OR NOT. IF, IF YOU'RE IN AN ATTIC SPACE, IT THAT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE VISUAL MASS. SO IT SHOULDN'T COUNT TOWARD ANYTHING, WHICH I THINK WAS THE LAST POINT AS WELL. YEAH. BUT, BUT THEY'RE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME SORT OF, BECAUSE LIKE IN THE HEIGHTS, WE, WE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE, I DON'T RECALL AIR CONDITION AS, AS A TOPIC OR A CONCEPT. WE HAVE, WE, WE'VE GOT A FAR, YOU'RE ALLOWED SO MUCH ON YOUR PRIMARY HOUSE, YOU'RE ALLOWED SO MUCH ON YOUR GARAGE. UM, BUT THE HEIGHTS, IT DOES ALLOW YOU TO, TO BUILD OUT YOUR EXISTING ATTIC AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PENETRATE THE OUTSIDE. AND THAT WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS YOUR FAR TRUE. AND, AND YOU CAN HAVE A DORMER UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICH YOU, WHICH YOU BEING AWARE THEN AREA WOULDN'T ACTUALLY COUNT TOWARDS YOUR FAR RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, I KNOW COMMISSIONER DAVIS MENTIONED CONSISTENCY SOMETIMES BETWEEN THE GUIDELINES. I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THIS BO A DIFFERENT BODY DELIBERATE, BUT THIS WAS PART OF THE PROCESS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO USE SPACE THAT MIGHT BE BE THERE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THIS IS GONNA BE A REAL BIG DEAL IN NOR HILL. 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ENOUGH ROOF PITCH FOR MOST OF THE BUNGALOWS TO ACTUALLY BUILD ANY USABLE SPACE OUT OF AN ATTIC. BUT IN THE EVENT THERE ARE, I DON'T THINK SOMEONE SHOULD BE PENALIZED IF THEY WANT TO, TO USE SPACE THAT'S ALREADY PART OF THE MASS. AND THE SAME KIND OF GOES TRUE FOR THE GARAGE. IF IT'S AN EXISTING GARAGE AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO CONDITION IT, I I I'M NOT UNDER, I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT, WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS AT ALL ON, ON, ON, ON THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. AND THEN JUMPING ON THE, THE FAR CALCULATIONS, THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE LOGIC TO THEM. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT TROUBLES ME A LITTLE BIT IS THAT IF I HAVE A 52 0 1 SQUARE FOOT LOT, I HAVE TO BUILD A SMALLER HOUSE THAN IF I HAVE A 5,200 SQUARE FOOT LOT. AND I THINK THIS IS A BYPRODUCT OF TOO NARROW OF RANGES THAT, THAT, AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND 75% OF THE LOTS ARE BETWEEN 5,050 200 FEET, WHICH IS THE 0.46. I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU TOOK THE 0.46 AND YOU WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 56 50 AT 0.46, IT WOULD BE ONLY A NOMINAL DIFFERENCE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE INCONCEIVABLE FROM THE STREET. OKAY. AND I, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LOGIC SAYS THAT THE BIGGER THE LOT, YOU COULD GET A SLIGHTLY BIGGER HOUSE, BUT THE WAY THESE NUMBERS ARE TRANSLATING, I'M GETTING A SMALLER HOUSE ON A BIGGER LOT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK THERE NEEDS, WE NEED TO IRON THAT OUT SO THAT THERE'S A, A BETTER PROGRESSION. UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CUTOFF IS, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK GOING IN 200 FOOT INCREMENTS IS JUST TOO, TOO SMALL. OKAY. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S GONNA BE, I MEAN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 25 50 FEET MAYBE IF YOU GO TO 0.46, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA REALLY IMPACT. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, MOST PROJECTS OR EVEN THE VI THEIR VISUAL IMPACT. BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT IF 75% OF THE HOUSES ARE, ARE IN ONE CATEGORY, MAYBE THAT'S THE NUMBER WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD APPLY. BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY ONLY TALKING ABOUT A LIMITED CHANCE THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GONNA GET A SLIGHTLY LARGER HOME. YOU KNOW, IF ONLY A HANDFUL OF THEM EXIST ON A 56 50 SQUARE FOOT LOT. OKAY. SO, UM, WELL I, SO LIKE THE RESOLUTION WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT WE INCREASE THE RANGE FROM 200 TO 500 OR 200 TO A THOUSAND, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO TO GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC RANGE. I JUST THINK THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE UNIFORMITY TO IT. RIGHT. IF YOU HAD FEWER CATEGORIES AND LARGER RANGES JUST I THINK IT WOULD, THE NUMBERS WOULD PLAY A LITTLE BETTER. UM, IN TERMS OF PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THEY'RE NOT GETTING PENALIZED FOR ACTUALLY HAVING A LARGER LOT. RIGHT. UM, AND AS I SAID, THIS CHART JUST GOES TO 56 50 AND I THINK IF YOU WENT AND YOU APPLIED THE 0.46 TO 56 50, IT'S LIKE 50 FEET BIGGER THAN, THAN WHAT THE 25 14 IS. I JUST, I'M NOT SEEING THAT THERE'S REAL REASON TO LIKE NOT HAVE MAYBE THAT AS ONE RANGE AND THEN EVERYTHING OVER 56 50 BE YOU WOULD'VE TO DO THE MAT. I DON'T, YOU KNOW. YEAH. I CAN'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD TELL YOU WHETHER IT'S 0.445 OR 0.44 OR, YOU KNOW, OKAY. THOSE WERE MY THOUGHTS AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, I'M [02:30:01] NOT GONNA DIE ON THESE SWORDS, BUT I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE WAYS TO IMPROVE THIS SO THAT IT IS EVEN MORE USER FRIENDLY AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LESS CONFUSION, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT MIGHT HAVE A LOT THAT'S A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF THE, THE RANGES. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER COS OF YOUR SUGGESTION IS PERHAPS REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LINE ITEMS ON THAT CHART? I THINK MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE, WE CHOOSE LARGER INCREMENTS TO APPLY THE FAR TO, SO IF WE SAID WE WERE GONNA APPLY A 0.46 FAR FOR LOTS BETWEEN 5,056 50, I'M JUST USING THE CHART THAT'S HERE, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD RESULT IN A MORE EVEN MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO IT AND NOT REALLY CREATE, ESPECIALLY SINCE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES FALL WITHIN THAT RANGE. RIGHT. ALLY, SINCE WE'RE APPLYING THE 0.46 TO 75% OF THE HOMES IN THE DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK APPLYING IT TO A FEW MORE HOMES IS REALLY GONNA SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER CUTOFF SHOULD BE, WHETHER IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHERE, HOW MANY HOUSES ARE ON LOTS LARGER THAN 56 50. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF YOU WENT TO 6,000 FEET, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD RESULT IN A 27 60 SQUARE FOOT HOME. AND IF IT WAS AT 4, 4 5, IT WOULD BE 26 70. SO IT'S LESS THAN A HUNDRED FEET DIFFERENCE EVEN IF YOU WENT ALL THE WAY TO 6,000 IN THAT RANGE AND APPLIED THE 0.446 UNIFORMLY. AND THEN ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD, WOULD NEED TO, UM, BE A SMALLER FAR, UM, SORRY, THESE ARE JUST IDEAS. I'M, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS COMMISSIONER BLAKELY COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE, OH, JUST TO SORT OF PIGGYBACK ON THAT ONE, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT AT SOME POINT IF YOU GET A BIGGER LOT, SUDDENLY YOU, YOU CAN BUILD, BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE. BUT THEN THAT DOES SEEM TO MAYBE FEED BACK INTO THE QUESTION OF WHAT DO THE HOUSES LOOK LIKE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? DO THEY RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER? SO I, I MEAN, I WONDER IF THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE PATTERN BOOKS OR SOMETHING. I I KNOW I'M OBSESSED WITH THEM. , YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW OBSESSED I'M WITH THEM ACTUALLY. BUT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A CEILING LIKE ON HOW BIG A HOUSE YOU CAN BUILD. RIGHT? I MEAN MAYBE, MAYBE THE BEST APPROACH WOULDN'T BE JUST LIKE EVERY 500, EVERY THOUSAND LIKE GRID TO MAKE YOUR FAR INCREMENTS CHANGE, BUT LIKE, LIKE AS WAS POINTED OUT, LIKE THIS FAMILY OF HOUSES OR THIS, THIS QUANTITY OF HOUSES THAT ARE ALL AROUND THE SAME SIZE. AND THEN LOOK FOR SOME KIND OF PATTERN IN THE, THE BIGGER HOUSES AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT LIKE WHAT AN AVERAGE MIGHT BE, UM, AMONG THE BIGGER HOUSES, AMONG THE CONTRIBUTING HOUSES. RIGHT. AS A REFERENCE, MAYBE THE REFERENCE SHOULD COME FOR THE FAR SHOULD COME FROM WITHIN THE CONTRIBUTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN JUST A FRACTION OF THE LOT. RIGHT. I, YEAH, THAT'S THE, I MEAN THERE IS THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SITE AND THIS IS SOLELY APPLIED ON THE SITE AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THEY'RE, YOU GET THESE MATHEMATICAL INCONSISTENCIES. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, UM, COMMISSIONER DAVIS. SO MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER DAVIS. I JUST WANNA CONFIRM FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING THAT UM, IF SOMEONE BUILDS A PORCH HA HAS DOES A TWO STORY WITH A PORCH AND A GAME ROOM OR A BEDROOM ABOVE IT, THEN THAT ALL OF THAT IS CONSIDERED FAR EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT AIR CONDITIONED STATE SPACE. IS THAT HOW WE WERE INTERPRETING IT? YES. I THINK THAT'S HOW IT'S STATED IN THE, UM, YES. IN WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS READ TO US. ADD THAT, UM, I DON'T, I KNOW, SO I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I WOULD, UH, REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS DISCUSS WHETHER WE SHOULD CALL OUT THE CEILING HEIGHT HEIGHTS AT COMMISSIONER HILL'S REQUEST. UM, SO IF, YOU KNOW, COULD, COULD WE PUT THAT DIAGRAM UP FOR REFERENCE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES. [02:35:01] AND MY QUESTION FOR, FOR THIS, UM, I'LL, I'LL GET TO YEAH. PAGE HERE SO YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEARER. 'CAUSE I THINK THERE, THERE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT DIAGRAMS. YES. THERE'S ONE FOR GARAGE, THERE'S THIS, AND THEN, UH, THERE'S ONE FOR GARAGES. RIGHT. BUT THE, THE, I THINK MY, MY QUESTION ISN'T, I, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SPOKE TO THIS, THE ISSUE REGARDING LIKE FROM NATURAL GRADE IS THE PLATE HEIGHT, WHETHER IT'S A ONE STORY WALL OR A TWO STORY WALL, I THINK IS THE ISSUE. THE CEILING HEIGHT COULD BE ESTABLISHED, WHICH THESE, THESE GUIDELINES, THESE THESE DIAGRAMS ARE BASED ON A CEILING HEIGHT IN WHICH THE CEILING IS RESTING ON TOP OF THE PLATE HEIGHT. I THINK THERE, THERE'S SOMEWHERE IN THE, IN HERE THERE'S A DIAGRAM WHERE YOU COULD RAISE THE CEILING AND SLOPE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PLATE HEIGHT UP TO A HIGHER CEILING. IF YOU WANTED A HIGHER CEILING, FOR INSTANCE, ON A ONE STORY HOME, YOU COULD DO SO CORRECT OR AN ADDITION, BUT AS LONG AS THE PLATE HEIGHT WAS STILL, UH, WITHIN WHAT, WHAT'S BEING PRESCRIBED, THEN THERE'S NO VISUAL IMPACT TO THAT. CORRECT. THAT'S AN INTERNAL DECISION AND IT'S, IT'S, WE DON'T REGULATE THAT, THAT ASPECT. YEAH. SO, AND THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ALLOWING MAYBE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER BY FEW INCHES PLATE HEIGHT JUST TO ALLOW, TO ALLOW THE CEILING HEIGHTS THAT ARE IN THE DIAGRAM ALONG WITH THE 30 INCH, UM, BELOW AND A 14 INCH TRUSS, UH, FOR AT LEAST FOR THE TWO STORY. RIGHT. SO THE, IS THERE, UM, I MEAN THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR, UM, I THINK FOR THE TWO STORY DIAGRAM THAT WE HAVE UP RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE PLATE HEIGHT TO 20 FEET, 11 INCHES. I, I CAN'T SEE WHAT IT IS ON THAT. UH, SO THIS ONE IS 21 2 AND A QUARTER, SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY, UM, SO LOWER IT A FEW INCHES. AND, AND I THINK, UM, UM, STAFF'S, UH, VIEW ON THAT WHEN WE, WHEN, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY STARTED DISCUSSING IT WAS THAT, UM, AND IT'S PROBABLY GONNA SOUND LIKE AN OXYMORON WITH THE, UM, CEILING HEIGHTS BEING IN THERE, BUT, UM, STAFF DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF TAIL LANE ARCHITECTS OR ENGINEERS WHAT SIZE, UH, TRUST THEY NEEDED TO USE. UM, WE JUST DIDN'T WANT THAT LIABILITY. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'M, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION. I THINK, UM, I AM ALL FOR, UM, NOT HAVING TO CALL OUT THE, THE CEILING HEIGHTS AND JUST CALLING OUT THE PLATE. UM, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH, WITH THAT, I MEAN PERSONALLY I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THE VISUAL MASS IS CREATED BY FROM THE, FROM THE RIGHT OF VIEW. SO I MEAN, I I, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD ALL AGREE, OR IF THE MAJORITY WOULD AGREE, THEN, YOU KNOW, ALL IT TAKES IS DELETE. OKAY. SO THEN THE, THE QUESTION EARLIER FROM COMMISSIONER DAVIS IS FOR THE TWO EXAMPLES, AND I CAN SEE CLEARLY WITHIN ENLARGED FOR THE ONE STORY, UH, PLATE HEIGHT ABOVE NATURAL GRADE 11 FEET, SEVEN AND A QUARTER, SORRY, 11 FEET, SEVEN AND AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH. AND FOR THE TWO STORY IT'S 21 FEET, TWO AND A QUARTER INCHES. IS, WAS THERE ANY, UH, PLACE WHERE THE NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT THAN THESE TWO NUMBERS? YES. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE MY QUESTION FOR TERRANCE IS I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT DIAGRAM IS WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING THAT THESE, THESE NUMBERS, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE HANGING YOUR HAT ON. YES. AND, AND LISTEN, UM, I KNOW DESPITE WHAT Y'ALL MAY THINK, I'M NOT PERFECT. OKAY. UM, BUT, UM, I I, WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, COMMISSIONER DAVIS, IS THAT I PROBABLY MISSED SOMEWHERE IN THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE WHERE THE HEIGHT NEEDS TO CHANGE. I KNOW THAT IT, I DID CHANGE THIS ONE IF IT'S WRITTEN SOMEWHERE. OH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T GET A MANICURE. SO, SO THIS NUMBER RIGHT HERE DID CHANGE FOR THE FIRST FLOOR AND I, I VERY WELL COULD HAVE MISSED IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO IF IT'S A TYPO, THEN I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. SO WHAT I HAVE IS RECOMMEND RECONCILING 2.4 B THROUGH 2.4 C TEXT TO THE DIAGRAMS OR VICE VERSA CONFIRMING WHETHER THE ONE STORY PLATE CAP IS 11 SIX OR 11 SEVEN AND EIGHTH. AND, AND WHAT I'M HEARING IT, IT'S, IT'S 11, SEVEN AND AN EIGHTH. AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW, IF, IF, LIKE, IF THIS BODY WERE TO RECOMMEND THESE FOR MOVING THESE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS, THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER THAT WOULD HOLD. AND AGAIN, [02:40:01] THAT, THAT SMALL ISSUE COULD BE RESOLVED BY STAFF, UH, UH, WITH WITHOUT US LOOK, HAVING TO LOOK AFTER IT AGAIN. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF, OH, SORRY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR. THE, UH, ROUNDING TO AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH JUST SEEMS VERY IMPRACTICAL TO ME. COULD, SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE MAKE THAT JUST A CON AN EVEN NUMBER AND FOR A FIELD VERIFICATION, AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH IS, YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T, A QUARTER INCH TOLERANCE IS INDUSTRY STANDARDS PLUS OR MINUS, SO YEAH. YEAH. AND, AND USUALLY THERE IS A PLUS OR MINUS THERE. AND I MEAN, I DON'T, I MEAN, THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION IS IF WE PUT 11 FOOT SEVEN PLUS OR MINUS, RIGHT? IF ARCHITECT COMES AND SAYS, WELL I DID IT AT, YOU KNOW, 11 EIGHT, THAT'S OR 1110, THAT'S, THAT'S PLUS SEVEN. YOU KNOW, I, I I DON'T, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME EITHER WAY. YEAH. ARE YOU RECOMMENDING, UM, A QUARTER OR JUST ROUNDING IT OFF OR? I I'M GONNA ASK ANOTHER ARCHITECT ON THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER GARCIA, YOU HAVE YOUR, YOU HAVE YOUR SIGN UP. YEAH. SO COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN US? I I THINK THAT THE ONE EIGHTH OF AN INCH IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP BECAUSE, UM, A LOT OF THE DECKING IS THAT ONE AND ONE EIGHTH INCH. SO I, I THINK, UM, IF YOU DON'T KEEP, IF YOU CHANGE THAT DEPTH, YOU'RE GONNA BE A BUILDER OR A HOMEOWNER, UM, IS GONNA INCUR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BUY SPECIAL LUMBER OR THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO CUT STANDARD PIECES. SO I THINK THE, THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THE EIGHTH INCH CAME IN. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO TER TERRANCE, CAN YOU, CAN YOU RESOLVE THIS ISSUE THEN FROM THAT WAS RAISED BY SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT VISUAL MASS? I THINK THE FIRST SPEAKER MENTIONED THIS IF, UM, YOU CAN HAVE A GARAGE AND YOU'VE GOT 5 85 DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD FAR, AND YOU CAN HAVE A BIGGER GARAGE, BUT THEN ANYTHING IN ADDITION COUNTS TOWARD FAR. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HOW THIS READS. YES, SIR. THAT'S, THAT WAS THE INTENT. AND IF YOU BUILD, IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE OR YOU BUILD YOU, YOU ADD ONTO THE HOUSE, WHETHER, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S A, A TOOL SHED OR WHATEVER IT IS. I MEAN, IF, IF IT'S A MASS, IS IT IN THE FAR THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS COMES BACK TO THE WORD CONDITION SPACE, I THINK, UM, THAT, THAT IT'S TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS. THE, SO A TOOL SHED A 585 SQUARE FOOT TOOL SHED, OR YOU MEAN JUST NO, I JUST MEAN LIKE, LIKE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A GARAGE THAT'S 5 85, WHETHER, WHETHER THE CAR PARK'S IN THERE, WHETHER IT'S STORAGE, WHETHER IT'S A WOOD SHOP, IT'S, YOU GET 5 85 AND IT DOESN'T CUT GO, THAT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD YOUR FAR CALCULATION, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. RIGHT. UM, AND THEN, AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA BUILD IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S A FAR CORRECT. AND DOES THE FAR APPLY TO ALL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE, THAT ARE VISUAL MASS? IT, IT, IT READS THAT WAY. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. UM, HOWEVER, I WILL STATE THAT FROM MY RECOLLECTION AND MY MEMORY, UM, A TOOL SHED WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS. AND, AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT. UM, YEAH, I I'M JUST BEING FRANK AND I'M REALLY, I'M NOT TRYING TO HARP ON, ON A TOOL SHED ACTUALLY, I MEAN, UM, I'M JUST NO, NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT, UM, WHEN YOU BUILD A ROOM THOUGH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VISUAL MASS. YES. AND WE'RE NOT REGULATING USE BECAUSE THAT, WE DON'T DO THAT ON THIS COMMISSION. IT'S NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE. SO, UM, WILL VISUAL MASS BE SUBJECT TO THE FAR, AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S AIR CONDITIONING OR NOT? THAT THAT'S MY QUESTION PER THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE. YES, YES, YES. I, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT SEEMS LIKE THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT. UM, NOW IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN TO, UH, YOU KNOW, HELP HELP THE GOOD PEOPLE OF NOR HILL MOVE THIS FORWARD, I, I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT. WELL, THERE'S LANGUAGE AND THEN THERE'S, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S GONNA BE, UM, OPINIONS FROM STAFF THAT SAY, WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS MEANS. YOU KNOW, WHETHER, UM, SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, IF THAT'S THE INTENTION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED IS, IS, IS NOT, IS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THAT IS TO SAY THAT IT, YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S ALL. YEAH. EVERY, I MEAN, YOU'VE HEARD THESE GREAT RESIDENTS OF, OF NOR HILL SPEAK, UM, THAT THEIR, THEIR CONCERN [02:45:01] IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, NOR HILL DOESN'T START, UM, PRODUCING THESE, THESE MASSIVE ADDITIONS. RIGHT? SO EVERYTHING THAT'S WRITTEN IN HERE WAS WRITTEN WITH THAT INTENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MASS DOES NOT GET OUT OF HAND. UM, SO YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. UM, I I THINK YOU RAISED A GREAT POINT, BRINGING UP THE TOOL SHED. UM, AND I KNOW YOU WEREN'T, YOU KNOW, HARMING ON THE TOOL SHED, BUT, BUT YOU RAISED A GREAT POINT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, WE PROBABLY, PROBABLY COULD LOOK AT. UM, BUT ALSO I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND JUST, AND JUST SPEAKING IN THE, ON, ON THE TOOL SET SHED IN THAT INSTANCE, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING IN, IN THE CASE THAT WE COULD TAKE CARE OF WITH THE POLICY, RIGHT. UM, SOMETHING THAT'S MINOR AND WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE, WE CLEAR THAT UP. SURE. AND, AND I, BUT AGAIN, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. YEP. YEAH. I, BUT, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MASS IS, IS CONTROLLED BY THE FAR, YOU KNOW, YEAH. BY THE FAR, SO THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD TODAY THAT GOING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THE FAR WE, WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF GROUPINGS IN THE FAR OR TO ADJUST THAT EVER SO SLIGHTLY. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S REALLY CONTRARY, UM, TO PUBLIC COMMENTS OR FROM COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. UM, I MEAN THERE, I MEAN, I KNOW THERE WAS, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT SHALL AND SHOULD, BUT I MEAN, I KNOW YOU'RE STILL CLEANING THE DOCUMENT UP SLIGHTLY FOR CORRECT. SOME OF THOSE THINGS AS WAS MENTIONED BY ONE SPEAKER. YES, WE'VE ADDRESSED THE LIVING SPACE. UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE, CAN WE MAKE A VOTE TO RECOMMEND MOVING THIS FORWARD AND NOT DELAYING THIS VOTE? AND IF, IF THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IS THIS FAR, IS THERE SOME, CAN WE PUT IT IN A CONDITION, UH, A REQUEST FOR STAFF TO RESOLVE, YOU KNOW, FOR FOR US TO, TO MOVE FORWARD? UM, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME. I MEAN, MANY OF YOU MAY NOT KNOW TERRANCE USED TO WORK FOR THE CITY AND THEN HE DIDN'T, AND THEN HE DOES HE, AND NOW HE DOES AGAIN. AND, AND WHEN HE WAS HERE BEFORE IN A PAST LIFE, HE WAS WORKING ON THESE GUIDELINES. SO, UM, IT IT, IT IS VERY TRUE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT IT'S TAKEN TO GET TO THIS POINT. AND SO I, I FEEL LIKE WE ARE REALLY AT THE CUSP OF A VOTE. AND IF THERE'S ANY CONDITION WE COULD PUT ON THIS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, I WOULD, I WOULD ASK, YOU KNOW, FOR SOME CONSIDERATION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PUT FORTH A VOTE ON IT WITH THE CONDITION MAYBE THAT STAFF RECALIBRATE, YOU KNOW, REALLY TAKE A HARD LOOK AT IT SO THAT IT JUST HAS A LOGICAL PROGRESSION AS THE LOT GETS BIGGER, THAT THE HOUSE GETS BIGGER AND WE DON'T HAVE THESE GAPS WHERE WE HAVE A LARGER LOT WITH A SMALLER HOUSE. YEAH. AND I STILL, I STILL AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE COUNTING THE GARAGE AND ATTIC AS CONDITIONED SPACE, UM, BECAUSE IN YOUR SCENARIO YOU JUST SPOKE OF THAT THEY GET 585 EXEMPT FOR THE GARAGE. WELL, IF THEY CONDITION IT, IT COUNTS TOTALLY TOWARD THE FAR ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES, BUT I'M ADVOCATING FOR IT NOT. RIGHT. BUT WE WOULD NEED TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE, FROM THE, FROM HERE. SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THE GUIDELINES WITH THE FEW TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES, THE STRIKING OF THE ATTIC AND GARAGES THAT ARE CONDITIONED BEING COUNTED TOWARD THE FAR AND THE RECALIBRATION OF THE FAR CALCULATIONS AND MAYBE EXPANSION OF THE, OF THE INCREMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. JUST TO, TO MAKE THAT LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT. OKAY. I ASK QUESTION. THERE'S A QUESTION, THERE'S A QUESTION FROM I WOULD'VE TO ASK, IS THE PUBLIC MR. CHAIR, IS THE PUBLIC, UH, HEARING CLOSED? IT'S TRYING TO CLOSE? UNLESS THERE'S A QUESTION FROM A COMMISSION MEMBER. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR VIRGINIA COUNCIL. SO LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WANT THIS PASSED TODAY. OKAY. BUT WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU REMOVE THE WORD CONDITION, WOULD IT INCLUDE AREAS ABOVE THE GARAGE? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, AND I THINK THE PROPER WAY OF SAYING IT IS TO NOT INCLUDE ANY, UM, CONDITION SPACE, A NEW CONDITION SPACE WITHIN AN ATTIC SPACE OF A NEW OR EXISTING STRUCTURE. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CONDITION SPACE BECAUSE THAT GOES TO VOLUME. AND IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT A GARAGE APARTMENT OR SOMETHING ISN'T INCLUDED BECAUSE OF THAT ONE DEFINITION ON LIVING SPACE [02:50:01] THAT STATES THAT IT'S ONLY RELATED TO THE BUILDING OR WHAT'S ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING. AND I AGREE WITH ALL YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT MASS. SO I'LL SIT DOWN. WELL, MAY I, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? 'CAUSE AGAIN, I'M, I'M, AND I GUESS I'M THINKING OF THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES WHERE WE HAVE A FAR FOR THE HOME AND THE MASS OF THE HOME, AND WE HAVE, UM, GARAGES, WHICH IN, IN, IN THAT, IN THOSE GUIDELINES, THEY CAN EITHER BE DETACHED OR ATTACHED IT, IT'S DIFFERENT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. HISTORICALLY THEY'RE DETACHED, BUT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S ALLOWED TO, FOR A GARAGE TO EXIST AND THEN NOT COUNT AGAINST THE FAR, AND IN THIS CASE, FOR NOR HILL, THAT NUMBER IS 5 85. AND, AND SO, AND, AND WHAT I'VE TRIED TO STATE, AND I'M CURIOUS, IS THAT ANYTHING THAT'S BUILT BEYOND 5 85 GETS COUNT TOWARD THE FAR, WHETHER IT'S ON THE SIDE OF IT, THE BACK OF IT, OR ABOVE IT PERIOD. AND I GUESS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT AND THAT WOULD BE OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT THERE ISN'T A LOOPHOLE THERE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT EXAMPLE ON FUGATE, IT WAS BUILT, IT WAS APPROVED AS TWO SEPARATE MEASURES THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE CONNECTED AND YOU CAN'T GET TO IT. AND SO I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT, THAT KIND OF LOOPHOLE. SO IF WE'RE CLEAR, THEN LET'S PASS THIS SUCKER TODAY AND MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD. MY, MY INTENTION IS THAT THIS WOULD EXCLUDE, THIS WOULD BE THINGS ENCLOSED IN AN ATTIC THAT HAVE NO PUNCTURES TO THE OUTSIDE AND REALLY PRIMARILY EXISTING OR NEWLY BUILT GARAGES. SHOULD WE JUST ADD THAT LANGUAGE IN AS A SIMPLE SENTENCE AND ADD IT TO THE STAFF? CAN, YEAH, I'M, I'M OPEN. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL THING WE'RE ABOUT, SO I MEAN, THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF NOR HILL WOULD ACCEPT IT. IT'S JUST WE DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A LOOP, A BIGGER LOOPHOLE. RIGHT. AND I, AND THERE'S NO, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE WANTS TO INCREASE THE MASS. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THE EXISTING MASS MORE EFFECTIVELY TO THEIR NEEDS AND NOT TRY TO REGULATE THE INTERIOR USE OF THEIR SPACE IF THEY CONDITION OR UNCONDITION IT. UM, I MEAN IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF THE WORDS THAT, THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE. SO, BUT I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A MOTION, MR. CHAIR, POINT OF ORDER? UM, PLEASE. MR. BAR, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE GUIDELINES TONIGHT, WHAT IS THE SOONEST THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT TO COUNCIL? WELL, IT IS, GOT IT. IT HAS TO GO TO THE QUALITY. I'M SORRY, AS SOONEST IT WOULD GET TO THE NEXT STEP. APOLOGIES. WE'RE TENTATIVELY ON THE AGENDA FOR, WHAT'S THE DATE, DARREN? UH, IT TWO, DON'T QUOTE ME, BUT I THINK IT'S JULY 16TH. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S LIKE ALMOST A MONTH FROM NOW. JULY 14TH OR JULY 16TH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO GET ON THE QUALITY LIFE'S AGENDA. OKAY. UM, WITH THAT SAID, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION. WELL, I THINK THERE IS A MOTION, SORRY, THERE, BUT THERE'S NOT A SECOND. THERE'S NOT A SECOND. THERE'S NOT A SECOND. DO. SHOULD I RESTATE IT OR DOES EVERYONE HAVE IT ? WELL, I JUST, I JUST WANNA STATE THE CONDITION THOUGH. UM, 'CAUSE I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE CONDITION. SO THE, THE TWO CON IS TO ACCEPT IT GENERALLY AS IT IS DONE CORRECTING SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS THAT, UM, MAYBE COMMISSIONER DAVIS POINTED OUT. UM, THE TWO CONDITIONS WOULD BE TO STRIKE THE ATTICS OR GARAGES THAT ARE CONDITIONED FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THE FAR, UM, AS JUST DISCUSSED. AND THEN TO RECALIBRATE THE FAR CHART TO EITHER INCREASE THE INCREMENTS OF LOT SIZE AND HOW WE APPLY THE NUMBERS JUST SO THERE IS A CONSISTENT AND LOGICAL PROGRESSION FROM LOT SIZE TO HOME SIZE. COULD, COULD WE ADD TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE, THE HOUSE SIZES OF CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT? WELL, THEY'RE SMALLER. I MEAN, THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING HOMES ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN THESE FARS MEAN, LIKE, LIKE THEY'RE LIKE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO, AND WE'RE ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, A A, A LARGER, A LARGER NUMBER FOR THE, FOR THAT FAR FOR THE ADDITION. LIKE WE'RE ALLOWING ADDITIONS TO OCCUR TO THE FARS. UM, I JUST DUNNO HOW WE WOULD REGULATE THAT. I MEAN, HOW WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT, THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE DIFFERENT CALCULATION. I UNDERSTAND. I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT LIKE GETTING SCORING A BIG LOT MEANS YOU CAN BRING IN A BIG HOUSE AND THEN, BECAUSE IT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN OTHER HOUSES IN THE CONTEXT. BUT, BUT IN THIS CASE, THE FAR WOULD, WOULD BE LOWER FOR A LARGER LOT. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF FINDING THAT HA KIND OF HAPPY MEDIUM GROUND OF LIKE, WE HAVE 75% OF THE LOTS BETWEEN 5,050 200 SQUARE FEET AND YOU KNOW, THAT NUMBER MAY BE APPLIED TO A FEW BIT LARGER LOTS, BUT NOT GOING TO THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. IF YOU DROP THOSE DOWN TO SAY 0.44, THEN YOU'VE SCALED BACK THE SIZE TO A MORE PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT. CAN I MAKE A REALLY QUICK COMMENT? SURE. COMMISSIONER JONES. I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE OUTLIERS [02:55:01] ARE PULLING THE FAR, THEY'RE SKEWING THE FAR RIGHT. AND SO IF WE CONSIDER THE MAJORITY TOGETHER AND PULL THOSE OUTLIERS OUT, THEN YOU'RE GONNA SEE A FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF LOT COVERAGE THAN YOU SEE RIGHT NOW. WELL SAID. SO COMMISSIONER BROBECK, WOULD YOU SECOND THE MOTION AS THE MEND AS AMENDED QUESTION? UM, LEMME MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT. I, I SENSE THAT STAFF, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF AMENDMENTS, SMALL AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE LANGUAGE TONIGHT. I SENSE THAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE. UM, THAT BEING SAID, UH, I I ALSO SENSE THAT THERE'S BROAD CONSENSUS IN THE ROOM THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING I AM, UM, A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THE IDEA OF VOTING FOR LANGUAGE THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN. BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A WAY WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD TONIGHT, WHICH IS TO SAY, UM, A, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE GUIDELINES AS DISCUSSED TONIGHT, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS. UM, AND IF WE CAN GET NEW LANGUAGE BY THE 1ST OF JULY, AND THEN WE, THIS, UH, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIVES UNTIL, WHAT, THE 5TH OF JULY, MAYBE A LITTLE FEW DAYS LONGER BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY, UH, SHORT OF ANY SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS IT'S MOVING FORWARD THAT, THAT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH. BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT JUST VOTE ON LANGUAGE WE HAVEN'T SEEN WITHOUT SOME KIND OF A SAFETY VALVE IN THERE, IN CASE THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE. I'M HAPPY TO CRAFT THAT INTO A MOTION, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. WELL, AGAIN, AS PART OF THE PROCESS, I MEAN, I'LL ASK DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS WITH CONDITIONS BASED ON THESE GENERAL CONCEPTS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED, THEN IT IS GONNA BE PACKAGED AND SENT TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE. IT'S GONNA BE MADE PUBLIC BEFORE IT GOES TO THAT COMMITTEE AS WELL. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THERE, THERE'S STILL ANOTHER, LIKE, THERE'S ANOTHER, THERE'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THE, OF THIS PROCESS BEFORE EVEN GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. WHAT, WHAT STAFF TAKES. OUR, OUR REQUESTS ARE GONNA BE CODIFIED, THAT'S GONNA BE MADE PUBLIC, EVERYONE'S GONNA REVIEW IT, AND THEN THE NEXT PHASE IT'LL BE THEN DISCUSSED AT THE QUAL COMMITTEE OF QUALITY OF LIFE. AND, AND IF, IF THERE IS SOMETHING, LET'S SAY, AND, AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD, COULD, COULD MAKE THOSE COMMENTS THERE AS WELL. AND THEN, BUT, AND THEN THEY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND THEN THEY HOPEFULLY WILL SEND THAT ON TO CITY COUNCIL. SO THIS, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST A, WE'RE JUST A SMALL STEP IN THE WAY, BUT WE ARE A NECESSARY STEP BECAUSE IT CAN'T MOVE ON UNLESS IT, UNLESS IT MOVES PAST US THAT THAT'S ALL. AND WHEN WOULD THIS BE MADE PUBLIC? WHAT, IT'S PROBABLY IN THREE WEEKS. I MEAN, CAN I JUST, UH, POINT OF ORDER? I'M SORRY. I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I WAS WRONG. UH, THE DATE IS JULY 6TH FOR QUALITY OF LIFE. SO WE'VE BEEN VERY, IT BE MADE PUBLIC VERY QUICKLY, UH, ASSUMING THAT, THAT, THAT THERE AREN'T ANY WHOLESALE CHANGES. YEAH, I, YES, I THINK I CAN. I THINK I CAN, UH, I THINK STAFF CAN CAN GET THESE THINGS DONE. WE'RE GONNA, I MEAN, OF COURSE THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION. WE WILL REVIEW THE HTV FOOTAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE LANGUAGE CORRECT. SO I WANT TO, UH, ASSURE YOU THAT WE WILL DO EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE MATCHES WHAT YOU GUYS SAID AND STATED. UM, SO, UM, IT WILL BE AS CLOSE TO DISCUSSION AS AS POSSIBLE. UM, WHEN CAN I GET THAT UP? I MEAN, WE'RE JUST GIMME A WEEK I THINK. AND I THINK I COULD HAVE, UH, YOU GUYS THE INFORMATION BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO GET IT TO QUALITY OF LIFE. WE'LL HAVE TO MEET WITH THEM BEFORE THE MEETING AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. SO YEAH, I THINK WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU IN ABOUT A WEEK. SO WITH THAT SAID, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO SECONDING THESE AMENDED, SORRY, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER GARCIA. UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY EXACTLY. UM, I WANT TO, I WANNA SECOND IF, IF COMMISSIONER BROBECK DOESN'T DO IT, BUT IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE, WITH THE, UM, WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IT WOULD BE TO ACCEPT IT MOSTLY AS WRITTEN WITH THE TYPO GRAPHICAL CHANGES AND MINOR AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. AND THEN TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING COUNTING THE ATTICS OR GARAGES THAT ARE CONDITIONED TOWARD THE FAR, AND THEN TO RECALIBRATE THE FAR CALCULATION TO MAKE IT MORE LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT. AND THAT MIGHT RESULT IN EXPANDING THE RANGES OF LOTS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING OR, AND MAYBE MOVING [03:00:01] MORE TOWARD THE 0.46 FOR A LARGER SECTION JUST TO, TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE EVEN AND A LITTLE MORE PREDICTABLE FOR PEOPLE. UH, I, I GARCIA MAKE, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE JUST PRESENTED THE THREE POINTS. SEE HE SECONDED. I THINK HE SECOND. I DIDN'T MOTION. OKAY. I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE THE MOTION. I'M JUST, I JUST GAVE FIRST STEPS TO COMMISSIONER BECK, SO I WITHDRAW. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO I, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER DAVIS' DISCUSSION. SO BASED UPON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WE ARE DELEGATING SOMETHING THAT IS THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION TO THE STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WELL AND RESOLVE. I I WOULDN'T SAY WE'RE, THAT'S MY ONLY PROBLEM. I WOULDN'T SAY WE'RE DELEGATING IT 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN ESTABLISHING THOSE NUMBERS TO BEGIN WITH. I MEAN, THAT WAS DONE THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE STAFF HAS PRESENTED THAT TO US. SO I THINK WE ARE KIND OF HANDING IT BACK TO THE STAFF TO REFINE THOSE SO THAT THERE IS A, AS I SAID, THAT IT'S JUST, IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAT, THAT AS THE LOT GETS BIGGER, THE HOUSES GO INCREMENTALLY LARGER AND THERE'S NOT THESE GAPS WHERE THAT'S NOT THE CASE. AND THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO ELIMINATE. I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR LARGER HOUSES OR MORE MASSING OR MORE SCALE. IT'S SIMPLY JUST TO MAKE IT LIKE A LITTLE SMOOTHER. MR. CHAIR, MR. SORRY. UH, MR. CARL SMITH? YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO REMEMBER AND CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS SPENT LOTS OF TIME WITH NOR HILL WITH THESE FOLKS IN THE ROOM TO DESIGN THESE GUIDELINES FOR US. UM, AND, AND TO, TO ME SEEING, YOU KNOW, A UNANIMOUS, UH, ACCEPTANCE OF THESE AS, UH, YOU KNOW, CHAIR HICK HAS MENTIONED FROM EVERYBODY IN ATTENDANCE, THERE SEEMS TO BE WHOLESALE SUPPORT. UM, AND SO, UM, I THINK IT'S UNDER OUR PEER VIEW TO TRY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR THEM KNOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL CHANCE FOR, UH, THE PUBLIC TO SEE, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY CHANGES THAT ARE COMING AS IT MOVES TO THE NEXT COMMISSION. BUT, UH, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF PUBLIC INPUT FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UM, THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR MOTION SO LONG AS THE NEW LANGUAGE IS POSTED, NO LATER THAN ONE WEEK TODAY, GIVING ANYONE WHO MIGHT WANT TO OBJECT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I MEAN, I DO AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO REVIEW IT BEFORE IT SIMPLY WAS FACT. YEAH. AND TERRENCE CAN ONE WEEK YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOOD WITH ONE WEEK. I MEAN, YOU GOTTA DO IT ANY, I MEAN, LEMME THIS WAY YOU, YOU HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY JUST TO MEET YOUR NEXT DEADLINE, RIGHT? YEAH. BEER'S ON ME. UH, SO I MEAN, LIKE, MY, MY, MY QUESTION IS TO, TO ME IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT WHETHER IT'S ONE WEEK, IT'S JUST THAT YOU GET TO JANUARY 6TH, YOU'VE GOTTA GET THIS OUT IN THE PUBLIC BEFORE JANUARY 6TH, NOT JANUARY 6TH, PLEASE. NO, I'M SORRY. I'M SAYING JULY 6TH. I MEAN IT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S AROUND THE CORNER. BUT , UM, YES SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. JULY 6TH. I WILL DO MY VERY BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE EVERYTHING WITHIN A WEEK. YES, I PROMISE. OKAY. OKAY. CAN I ASK ANYTHING ELSE? SECOND, WAIT, WAIT. OKAY. ALREADY. I DUNNO, IT'S SECOND. WELL, IT'S NOT, I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH, UM, CONDITIONS AND THE CONDITION THAT, UM, IT'S COMPLETED. ARE WE RE WE ARE ABLE TO REVIEW IT IN A WEEK, SO, SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GOING TO, THAT'S FINE. I DON'T THINK MR. UH, MR. COSGROVE OF CARES. SO WE'RE GONNA, COMMISSIONER GARCIA WILL MAKE THE OFFICIAL MOTION. MR. BECK WILL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. UM, I THINK WE, BEFORE, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE OF NOR HILL, THANK YOU FOR, UM, NEED SOME WATER FOR, FOR ALLOWING STAFF TO COME AND SPEAK WITH YOU AND, AND, AND CREATE THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU GUYS APPROVE OF. UM, I WANNA SAY THAT WHEN WE FIRST SHOWED UP, UM, WE DIDN'T FEEL THE LOVE, WE DIDN'T FEEL THE LOVE AT ALL. BUT, UM, I REALLY DO, UM, APPRECIATE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR, FOR PARTICIPATING. UM, YOU MADE THIS, YOU MADE THIS PROCESS A LOT SMOOTHER. UM, AND, AND THE TEAM, THE TWO MEMBERS THAT ARE NO LONGER HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM. UM, WE GREW A LOT, WE LEARNED A LOT FROM YOU GUYS, AND I JUST WANNA SAY WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND WE THANK YOU. [03:05:02] THANK GOD. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD. OKAY, TERRANCE, NOW WE GET, WE NOW WE CAN START OUR MEETING, UH, . UM, BUT, AND WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO ITEM E, WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, ONE OR MORE ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ONE MOTION AS CONSENT ITEMS. UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. UM, THIS IS STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON. AS YOU VERY WELL KNOW BY NOW. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING 12 ITEMS FOR ACTION IN ONE MOTION. UM, ITEM E 1 11 18 2 LANE ALTERATION EDITION IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS, E 2 46 0 1 OAK RIDGE ALTERATION EDITION IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. UH, ITEM E 4 12 15 ASHLAND ALTERATION EDITION IN HEIGHTS WEST ITEM E 5 1 21 EAST 18TH STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN HEIGHTS EAST. ITEM E 6 4 0 5 HIGHLAND ALTERATION IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS. ITEM E 8 3 10 WEST 13TH STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS, WEST ITEM E 9 21 32 TRU STREET, ALTERATION EDITION. LANDMARK ITEM E 10 21 32 TRU STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT. LANDMARK ITEM 11 19 93 WEST GRAY ALTERATION OF A SIGN. LANDMARK ITEM E 12 8 1 1 WEST MELWOOD STREET, DEMOLITION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT NOR HILL. ITEM E 13 8 11 WEST MILLWOOD, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR CARPORT NOR HILL. AND ITEM E 14, 19 23, WASHINGTON ALTERATION OF ASSIGNED OLD SIX WARD. UH, THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, UM, APPROVED ALL, ALL, OH PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASKED YOU APPROVE ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROCEEDING ITEMS IN ONE MOTION. THEREFORE ITEMS E THREE AND E SEVEN SHALL BE REVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU TERRANCE COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY PROJECTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSENT LIST YOU'D LIKE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS? IS E ONE DID YOU SAY E ONE MICROPHONE? YES, E ONE, UM, IS ON THE CONSENT LIST PROPOSED. OKAY. ANY OTHER ITEMS? OKAY, AT THIS TIME I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I JUST WANNA MENTION THAT WE HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR ITEM ITEMS NUMBER 2, 4, 5, 6 8. SO I'M SORRY, UH, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, AND 13. IF YOU SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THEN THERE IS NO REASON FOR YOU FOR THE, FOR YOU TO PULL THIS APPLICATION. UM, IF, IF THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES THEN THEIR RECOMMENDATION WILL ALSO PASS WITH IT. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS, YOU MAY AT THIS TIME REQUEST THAT ITEM BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION AND I'LL LET TERRANCE LET ME KNOW IF, CAN WE PLEASE PULL ITEM E TWO. E TWO? OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO I HAVE THE PROPOSED CONSENT LIST AS ITEM 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, AND 14. YES SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. COMMISSION MEMBERS, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REVISED CONSENT LIST AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF COSGROVE MOVES? IS THERE A SECOND JONES SECONDS? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC. THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRANCE JACKSON AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM E ONE AT 11 18 2 LANE, EXCUSE ME, THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 943 SQUARE FOOT. ONE STORY CRAFTMAN STYLE WOOD, WOOD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SITUATED ON A 6,600 [03:10:01] SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT LOCATED IN THE HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT CONSTRUCTED ITS CIRCA 1915. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ADDITION TOWARDS THE REAR OF THEIR HOME AND AN INTERIOR REMODEL OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING STONE HAS CAUSED THE FOUNDATION AND FRAMING OF THE HOME TO DETERIORATE. THUS, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE STONE PIECE BY PIECE, REPAIR THE FOUNDATION, AND WHILE FRAMING THE INSTALL SIDING IN PLACE OF THE STONE. PREVIOUS STAFF INSTRUCTED THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE THE STONE, HAVE IT PLACED ON A PALLET AND NUMBER TO TO BE PUT BACK IN PLACE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. STAFF BELIEVES THIS WOULD BE THIS STAFF BELIEVE THIS WOULD PLACE A HUGE FINANCIAL STRAIN ON THE PROJECT AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE HAC TO CONSIDER THE STONE BE REPLACED WITH SIDING. STAFF AND SENIOR STRUCTURAL INSPECTOR REVIS REVISITED THE HOME ON JUNE 5TH. PLEASE SEE THE ADDITIONAL PHOTOS IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,770 SQUARE FOOT REAR REAR EDITION FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS. THE FIRST FLOOR WILL HAVE A 732 SQUARE FOOT EDITION AND THE SECOND FLOOR EDITION WILL BE 1038 SQUARE FEET. THEY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS, PARTIALLY DEMOLISH THE REAR WALL TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE REAR EDITION. IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE MAX RIDGE HEIGHT OF 26 FEET, 10 INCHES. THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE SECOND FLOOR EVE HEIGHT AT 20 FEET SEVEN INCHES AT THE TOP OF THE EAVE. THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE ROOF WITH NEW COM COMPO COMPOSITION SHINGLES WITH A FIVE OVER 12 ROOF PITCH. THE EXISTING FOUR OVER 12 ROOF PITCH IS TO REMAIN. THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE HOME WITH A NINE FOOT FIRST FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT AND NINE FOOT SECOND FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT. THEY WILL INSTALL NEW WIND. THEY WILL INSTALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE WOOD CLAD, INSET AND RECESS FOR THE ADDITION. THE SMOOTH CEMENTITIOUS SIDING WITH SMOOTH CEMENTITIOUS SIDING AND TRIM AT THE ADDITION AS WELL. THE EXISTING FINISH FLOOR HEIGHT IS ONE FOOT THREE AND WILL BE RAISED TO TWO FEET FOR THE ALTERATION. THEY, WE WILL REPAIR THE EXISTING FACIAL SFI SOFFITS WITH INCOME MATERIAL STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UM, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT I, I DO THIS 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. UM, BUT, UH, WE ARE HERE, DOCUMENT CAMERA. UH, THIS IS THE VERY FIRST STAFF REPORT, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT THAT WAS PRESENTED THIS YEAR IN APRIL. UM, IN THIS STAFF REPORT, THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING THE ADDITION AND KEEPING THE STONE. UM, BUT AFTER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DRAWINGS, UM, STAFF MADE THE REQUEST THAT THE OWNER HAD ABOUT THE SIDING AND THIS COMMISSION ASKED THAT WE BRING IT BACK WITH THE DRAWING SHOWING THE SIDING. UM, SO, UM, I WANT TO MAKE IT, UH, CLEAR THAT, UM, IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT, THE OWNER IS PREPARED TO KEEP THE STONE IF THAT IS WHAT IS NECESSARY BY THIS COMMISSION OR IF THAT IS WHAT IS DETERMINED BY THIS COMMISSION. UM, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HAC I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, TERRANCE. UM, AT THIS TIME, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO SIGN TO SPEAK ON THIS, BUT I'M GONNA OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING JUST IN CASE THERE IS ANYONE HERE, UM, NOT HEARING ANYONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, AND COMMISSIONER DAVIS, I KNOW YOU, I HAVE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT THAT SUBMITTED BY YOU AND I KNOW YOU PULLED THIS PROJECT, BUT WOULD, WOULD YOU, UM, LIKE, LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS MATTER? CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY. UM, THIS WAS PRESENTED LAST MONTH, AND I WANNA BE REALLY IS, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? SORRY. UM, I WANNA BE DIRECT ABOUT THE SANBORN REASONING THAT WE WERE USING LAST MONTH, UM, BECAUSE I SHARED IT AT THE TIME. UM, THE THEORY WAS THAT THERE, UM, THERE WAS A EXAMPLE IN THE COA, UM, OF A BLACK AND WHITE, UM, SANDBORN CLIP. CAN YOU GO THROUGH THE SANDBORN THAT SAID, UH, ONE, ONE ONE EIGHT. UM, AND THEN WE HAD A, UM, ANOTHER SWATCH, WHICH WAS FROM PROBABLY THE 1963 VERSION, THE COLOR VERSION, WHICH IS AT THE LIBRARY, WHICH SHOWED THE CONCRETE BLOCK CONSTRUCTION. BUT, UM, I DID SOME RESEARCH AND SOME HOMEWORK AND DISCOVERED THAT, AND IT'S NOT IN YOUR IT, THE SWATCH THAT WAS IN THERE LAST MONTH AND WAS IN THERE LAST FRIDAY WHEN IT WAS PUT INTO THE, UM, WHEN WE RECEIVED ALL OF OUR THINGS THAT IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE. IT WAS TAKEN OUT SOMETIME BETWEEN. UM, BUT, UH, IF YOU WANT TO, IF THE PERSON ON THE CAMERA, [03:15:01] UM, WANTS TO PUT UP EXHIBIT TWO FROM MY, UM, I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT TWO, DOCUMENT CAMERA. I'M SORRY. EXHIBIT ONE. UH, EXHIBIT ONE LOOKS LIKE THIS. IT'S THE EXHIBIT. IT'S NOT PAGE ONE, THE EXHIBIT ONE. THERE. SOMEBODY HAS GOTTEN THOSE OUT OF, THERE'S A ONE. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO ON THE LEFT YOU SEE THE CLIPPING THAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR COA PACKET LAST MONTH AND THIS MONTH, AND IT'S JUST LABELED 1118 DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH. I DETERMINED THAT THAT IS NOT 1118 TULANE. THAT IS ACTUALLY 1118 RUTLAND, WHICH IS ONE STREET OVER. AND I HAVE IN THE NEXT LITTLE SECTION, UH, A THING CUT OUT FROM, UH, THE, UM, 1925 SANBORN MAP, WHICH SHOWS AGAIN, UM, THE, WHICH SHOWS THE, UM, WHICH SHOWS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WAS FROM THE COA PACKET. THEN I PULLED IT, THIS IS WHAT WAS IN THIS, IN THE SANBORN MAP. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S THE SAME BUILDING. UM, THEN WE HAVE IN, UH, 1925, THE 1122 IS VACANT, AND I ALSO PEARLED THE 1919 AND THAT THE 1919 MAP IT, UH, SANBORN AS EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT THE, THAT THE LOT WAS EMPTY, UM, AT THAT TIME. SO, UM, NOT THINKING THAT. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CONCLUSIVE THAT THIS HOUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN STONED. IT WAS NEVER, UM, A, UM, WOOD SIDING. AND, UM, I HAVE, UH, SO THERE WAS NO EARLIER HOUSE. UM, AND I VERIFIED THROUGH THE LIST FOR, THROUGH THE, UM, DIRECTORIES. I LOOKED AT THE DIRECTORIES FOR 19 18, 19 24, 19 25, NOT THERE. 1926 WAS THE FIRST TIME IT SHOWS UP IN THE DIRECTORY AND THEN IT SHOWS UP IN THE DIRECTORY IN 27. NOW, BACK THEN IT WAS 1122 AND THE ADDRESS HAS CHANGED TO 1118. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE 1950 AND THE 1963 SANBORNS, YOU SEE BOTH NUMBERS WITH THE CLOSEST NUMBER TO THE, TO THE SWATCH IS THE, UM, UH, IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. SO I THINK WITH THIS DATE CORRECTED, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT A 1915 HOUSE, IT'S A 19 24, 25 'CAUSE THERE'S LAGS IN THESE THINGS. GETTING INTO THE DOCUMENTS AND SEEING AS IT THEREFORE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A STONE HOUSE. UM, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. SATISFIES SECTION 33 2 41, CRI CRITERION SEVEN, WHICH REQUIRES REPLACEMENT TO BE AN ACCURATE DUPLICATION SUBSTANTIATED BY EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS HOUSE EVER BORE WOOD SITING. THE RECORD SHOWS THE OPPOSITE. SO THE SIDING IS CONJECTURAL. CRITERION NINE PROHIBITS DESTROYING SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL MATERIAL. REMOVING THE ORIGINAL VENEER DESTROYS IT. CRITERION FIVE ASKS US TO MAINTAIN OR REPLICATE THE DISTINCTIVE, UH, CRAFTSMANSHIP. SO STRIPPING OF THE VENEER ELIMINATES IT AND REPLACING IT IN, AND ANY REPLACEMENT SHOULD THEN BE OF LIKE MATERIAL, NOT PARTY PLANK SIDING. UM, AS TO THE QUESTION OF CONDITIONS, I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, AND I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT I HAVE BEEN IN A LOT OF THESE HOUSES AND I ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR HOUSE COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION IN, IN, UH, 2019. AND WE, UM, WENT THROUGH, IT WAS A VERY LONG PROCESS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD SAVE THIS HOUSE. AND WE WERE REQUIRED TO GET ENGINEERING STUDIES AND THE ENGINEERING STUDIES AND THEY WERE NOT CHEAP, CAME BACK THAT WE COULDN'T DO THAT. I THINK AT A [03:20:01] MINIMUM WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT SHOWS THAT THIS HOUSE, THAT, THAT THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. AND SO, UM, UH, I THINK THAT THERE ARE PHOTOS, THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE PREPARED, ABSOLUTELY, BUT THE OWNER ALSO HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ADDRESS THOSE UNDER SECTION 33, 2 54. AND, UM, SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO MOVE IS TO APPROVE, UH, THIS APPLICATION ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ORIGINAL VENEER BE RETAINED, REPAIRED, AND REINSTALLED IN PLACE WITH NO SUBSTITUTION OF SITING FOR THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL. THE TWO STORY REAR EDITION CAN BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS, BUT REMOVING THE ORIGINAL VENEER IS NOT SUPPORTABLE ON THIS RECORD. THANK YOU. UM, IN A MOMENT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR GINGER. JUST WE, WE, WE LOOKED AT THIS, UH, LAST TIME, BUT I, I SEE THAT COMMISSIONER HILL HAS A QUESTION. SO COMMISSIONER HILL, LET LET YOU ADVANCE THE, THE DISCOURSE. I JUST WANT TO, UM, SUPPORT WHAT BECKY SAID ABOUT, UH, THE ADDRESS CHANGING. I'VE, UH, DONE LOTS OF RE HISTORIC RESEARCH AND ADDRESSES HAVE CHANGED IN THE HEIGHTS IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN OVER THE YEARS. AND I'M ALSO, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURES ON PAGE, UM, WHAT PAGE IS THIS? 26, 25. AND THE WAY THIS HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED, UM, WITH THE SHIPLAP ON THE OUTSIDE TELLS ME THAT IT WAS, IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY IT WAS BUILT WITH, UH, WOOD SIDING ORIGINALLY. UM, SURE HOUSES GET REMODELED SOMETIMES ONLY A FEW YEARS AFTER THEY'RE BUILT, BUT THIS, THIS SEEMS PRETTY ORIGINAL TO ME, UH, HAVING RESTORED A BUNCH OF HOUSES OF THIS ERA. SURE. WELL, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR GINGER 'CAUSE I KNOW, UM, JUST TO DETERMINE, CAN YOU SEE THAT THE, I MEAN, I SEE WHAT'S ON THE NEXT SCREEN RIGHT NOW WITH TULANE MARKED AND THE ADDRESS OF, UH, 1 1 2 2 AND 1 1 1 8. BUT CAN YOU, CAN YOU CO CORROBORATE WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, UH, THIS, THIS NEW INFORMATION? UH, BASICALLY DEFINITELY, UM, I WOULD SAY COMMISSIONER DAVIS DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN HER RESEARCH AND THE, UM, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY VERSUS THE LAST ONE IS THE INCORRECT REPRESENTATION OF RUTLAND VERSUS TWO LANE. SO, UM, THIS IMAGE IS, YOU KNOW, STILL THE SAME ONE. THIS COMES FROM THE, UH, SANBORN MAPS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY AT THE LIBRARY, UM, WHICH ARE UPDATED. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S THE CORRECTION RECORD, WHICH IS I THINK TWO PAGES PAST THIS THAT TELLS YOU THE LAST TIME IT WAS UPDATED. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS REPRESENTS UP TO. 1961, I THINK IT IS. UM, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER DAVIS IS CORRECT. IT'S, IT IS BLANK, UM, THAT LOT IN THE EARLIER SANBORN. SO, UM, EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, WITH HER LOOKUP IN THE CITY DIRECTORIES, SHE DID A GREAT JOB. GREAT, THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONER BROBECK, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UH, YES. UM, DO WE KNOW HOW IT IS THE INCORRECT BUILDING MADE IT INTO THE APPLICATION WHERE THAT CAME FROM? STAFF. STAFF AND, AND WHAT'S THE PROCESS THAT GOES INTO PULLING THOSE PICTURES AND PUTTING IT IN THE APPLICATION? UH, SO TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS, SO AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK. I MEAN, I, THE PROCESS IS IF HOW THIS HAPPENED, I, I MEAN, THE PROCESS IS WE GO TO THE LIBRARY OR WE PULL UP A SANBORN THAT WE HAVE AND WE, AND WE GRAB IT FROM THERE. UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, UM, I'M JUST GONNA BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE HAVE, HE'S NOT HERE. WE HAVE ABOUT 8, 9, 10 COAS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. UM, WHEN I STARTED THIS REPORT, I JUST GRABBED THE FIRST ONE OR THE FIRST ONE THAT I FOUND. AND I MEAN THAT, THAT SANDBORN WAS ALREADY IN THERE, SO ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW, THE PICTURES ON THE FRONT, UM, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THE RUTLAND THING. I MEAN, IT WAS A MISTAKE BY STAFF AND THE CORRECT, UH, SANBORN IS IN THERE, UM, WAS IN THERE LAST MONTH. UM, SO YES, RUTLAND WAS IN THERE, BUT THAT SANBORN MAP WAS IN THERE AS WELL. I UNDERSTAND. SO, OKAY. AND SO COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR YOU HAVE A MOTION? [03:25:01] UM, I'D LIKE TO SAY IT IS VERY EASY ON THESE SANDBORN MAPS AND THIS, IT'S VERY SMALL AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE THEM BIG AND THE STREET DOESN'T SHOW ON EVERY BLOCK, AND IT'S EASY TO GET OUT OF ALIGNMENT. SO I THINK IT'S AN HONEST ERROR AND I'M JUST GLAD THAT WE CAUGHT IT. AND I HAVE TO SHOUT OUT GINGER. GINGER AND I SPENT SOME TIME ON MONDAY AND SHE TAUGHT ME EVERYTHING I KNOW. SO , I, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO VISIT WITH, UH, WITH GINGER. YES. AND I CAN TELL YOU ALSO, MR. HILL, UM, WORKING DOWNTOWN HOUSTON, UM, THE ADDRESS HAS CHANGED BY 100 . SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT ANY BLOCK IN THE OLD PART OF TOWN, UM, THEY INCREASE BY 100 AT SOME POINT. AND SO YOU HAVE TO ALSO BE KNOW, KNOW THAT. UM, BUT COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, UM, QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER DAVIS. WAS THERE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION JUST NOW THAT YOU FOUND? WAS IT THE STONE APPEARING IN INSURANCE RECORDS OR SOMETHING IN THE 1920S? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD SINCE I THINK THAT'S PART OF YOUR, THE CASE THAT YOU'VE MADE. YES. UM, WE DO HAVE, UM, A FROM THE BLA, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BLA STANDS FOR, BUT WE DO HAVE A TAX AND IT'S IN, UH, IN THE PACKAGE, IT'S EXHIBIT SIX, WHICH IS DATED 1927. UM, AND IT SHOWS STONE VENEER. THANK YOU. SO IS THERE A MOTION? I, I WILL SECOND COMMISSIONER DAVIS'S MOTION AND I'D LIKE TO SAY GOOD JOB. I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE. YEAH, BUT COULD, COULD YOU RESTATE THE MOTION COMMISSIONER DAVIS? UH, SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPRO TO APPROVE THE COA ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ORIGINAL VENEER BE RETAINED, REPAIRED, AND REINSTALLED IN PLACE WITH NO SUBSTITUTION OF SIDING FOR THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. WE MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO, STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON. UH, TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM B FOUR, I'M SORRY, ITEM E THREE AT 46 0 1 OAK RIDGE STREET. THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 1,832 SQUARE FOOT PEDIMENT BUNGALOW WOOD, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED GARAGE, SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROPOSING AN ALTERATION AND ADDITION TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERIOR REMODEL OF THE EXISTING HOME CONSTRUCT. A NEW FRONT PORCH REINFORCE THE FOUNDATION TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, CONSTRUCT THE 532 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, 65 SQUARE FOOT ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND 467 SQUARE FOOT FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THEY'LL CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH A FOUR OF A 12 ROOF PITCH WITH COMPOSITION ROOF SHINGLES. THE EVE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION WILL BE 17 FEET WITH THE MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, ONE AND A HALF INCHES. THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION TO THE HOME WITH SIDING TO MATCH THE EXISTING AND INSTALL TWO NEW WINDOWS TO BE VINYL WINDOWS TO MATCH THE EXISTING, UH, WINDOWS IN THE CONTRIBUTING HOME STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH REMAIN AS IS AND THE PROPOSED FRONT PORCH BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSED ALTERATION CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE HHC. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, TERRY. TO THIS TIME, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM. UM, FIRST ONE, GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR JORDAN, UM, APPRENTICE, WHO I BELIEVE IS THE APPLICANT, UH, FOLLOWED BY JOHN RE. HI, MY NAME IS, UH, JORDAN PRENTICE. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL, UH, BEING HERE. UM, THIS IS MY FIRST GO ROUND AT THIS. I'M NOT A DEVELOPER. THIS IS JUST MY WIFE AND I JUST BOUGHT THIS HOME BACK IN FEBRUARY. JUST GOT MARRIED LAST YEAR. UH, WE LOOKED TO BE HERE IN NOR HILL FOR AT LEAST FOR AT LEAST A DECADE, HOPEFULLY MORE. UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST ACCOMMODATE THAT HOME SO WE CAN START A FAMILY THERE. UM, THE REASON WHY WE CAME TO NOR HILL WAS FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT THE FOLKS BEHIND US TALKED ABOUT. SO WE ARE ABSOLUTELY IN LINE AND WOULD LOVE TO KEEP IT AS IS AS FAR AS THE MAKE AND THE MODEL OF THE HOME, BE AS ORIGINAL TO AS WE POSSIBLY CAN WHILE STILL BEING ABLE TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO GROW A FAMILY THERE. UM, REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE APPROVAL OF MR. TERRANCE, WHICH JUST ONE QUICK LITTLE THING. HE'S BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE. FOR, FOR MYSELF AND FOR MY WIFE. UM, ULTIMATELY WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH TO SIT ON. UH, SO ULTIMATELY THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, UH, IN ADDITION TO WHAT, UH, MR. RENSON, HIS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED FOR US [03:30:01] IS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE A PORCH SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, SOMETHING JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER. WE CAN SIT SOME CHAIRS OUT, ENJOY THE FRONT PORCH WITH OUR, WITH OUR DOGS. UH, IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING EXTRAVAGANT. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THE PHOTOS THAT I INCLUDED ON EVERYTHING ELSE. UM, ULTIMATELY JUST LOOKING TO HAVE THAT INCLUDED. UM, I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT, ET CETERA. LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK, BUT THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU. THANKS. AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN'S, UH, CENTER. REALLY? UH, HE LEFT. HE'S NOT HERE. OKAY. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, SPEAKERS FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THAT HEARING, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOW. COMMISSION MEMBERS? ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PORCH? I GUESS, UH, TERRENCE, COULD YOU REVIEW FOR COMMISSION, UM, WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL PORCH, UH, WAS, IS CURRENTLY, IF THERE'S, WHAT, WHAT CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED OR IS IT STILL IN INTACT? JUST JUST TO WALK US THROUGH. UM, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL PORCH, RIGHT? SO, SO THE, OR THE ORIGINAL PORCHES AND WHAT, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? UM, I MEAN IF I THINK IF IT WAS A LITTLE, UM, CLOSER TO WHAT THE, THE SANBORN READS, THEN, THEN IT WOULD BE A LITTLE EASIER TO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR. UM, THE PROBLEM IS, UM, ALL THE HOMES THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED WITH THE, UH, PROPOSED PORCHES, NONE OF, THERE WERE NO COAS FOR ANY OF THEM. RIGHT? SO, UM, WHAT THAT TELLS STAFF IS, ONE, THEY WERE DONE BEFORE THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED, OR TWO, THEY WERE DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. UM, SO, UM, I BELIEVE STAFF IS AT THE POSITION THAT HAD THERE BEEN EVEN JUST ONE OF THEM THAT WAS CLOSE, UM, WITH THE, WITH AN APPROVED COA, I THINK STAFF WOULD'VE BEEN OKAY WITH THIS. UM, IT JUST DOESN'T FIT THE PEDIMENT BUNGALOW LOOK. IF, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. CAN YOU REVIEW ON THE, ON THE DOCUMENT, UH, WELL, NOT WELL ON THE SCREEN. THE, THE SANBORN MAP FOLLOWED BY THE, JUST A PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AS IT IS CURRENTLY. JUST FOR A QUICK REFERENCE PAGE, PAGE FIVE. THERE YOU GO. AND THEN PAGE FOUR. SO WAS THERE PORCH ORIGINALLY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE IMAGE AND IT WAS ENCLOSED AT SOME POINT BACK IN THE DAY? THAT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK. YES, SIR. AND COULD WE LOOK AT THE CURRENT FLOOR PLAN OR THE, AND IF THEY, THEY HAVE PROVIDED AN ELEVATION THAT SHOWS THE PORCHES THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MAKE IT TOWARDS THE END IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. I CAN, HOLD ON, SAM, LET ME TELL YOU, UH, PAGE 12 WILL SHOW WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AT THE BOTTOM. SO THE TOP IMAGE IS WHAT'S EXISTING NOW, AND THE BOTTOM IS WHAT IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. SO THE CURRENT PORCH, AS IT AS IT IS BUILT TODAY, IS A SMALL PORCH AT THE ENTRY IN FRONT OF THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE DOOR. UM, THE ORIGINAL PORCH WOULD'VE BEEN TO THE LEFT OF THAT AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN BACK RECESSED INTO THE MASS WHERE THE TWO DOUBLE WINDOWS ARE SHOWN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FRONT DOOR. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, UH, IS THE PROPOSED PORCH POTENTIALLY CONSTRUCTED IN A WAY THAT IT COULD BE REMOVED AND LEAVING NO LASTING DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING HOUSE? I I MEAN, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE, THE WAY IT SHOWED ON THIS IMAGE, I, I BELIEVE THAT, THAT THAT COULD BE DONE. YES, MA'AM. IT, IT WOULD BE, UM, I, I BELIEVE THE ONLY DAMAGE WOULD PROBABLY BE TO THE ROOF. UM, THEY COULD DEFINITELY CONSTRUCT IT IN A WAY WHERE IT DOESN'T TIE IN TOO MUCH TO THE EXISTING HOME. BUT, UM, YEAH, I I THINK IT COULD, I THINK IT THAT COULD BE DONE. OKAY. SORRY, MR. DAVIS, YOU WAS, YOU KNOW, A COMMENT, UM, I THINK THAT THE AVENUE FOR THEM TO GET A PORCH IS TO REIN SET WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE. UM, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE COMPLETELY. UM, THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND. AND I MEAN, NORMALLY I'LL JUST SAY, UM, THE COMMISSION WE LOOK FOR IF A PORCH DOESN'T EXIST, BUT THERE WAS A PORCH AND WE CAN FIND EVIDENCE OF IT, THEN [03:35:01] THEY CAN, THEY CAN PUT THAT BACK. UM, SOMETIMES WE HAVE EXAMPLES WHERE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND WE, UM, ALLOW FOLKS TO DO SOMETHING, BUT VERY SIMPLE AND VERY ABSTRACT. I MEAN, EVEN WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS, I EVEN PONDERED, WHAT IF YOU DIDN'T BUILD THE PORCH ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE STORE, BUT YOU JUST BUILT A PORCH WHERE THERE WAS A PORCH ORIGINALLY, BUT JUST IN FRONT OF IT WHERE IT WAS. SO YOU, YOU WOULD, UM, JUST AS THE HOUSE WAS ASYMMETRIC ORIGINALLY PORCH ON THE LEFT SIDE, UM, WHAT IF THAT THE PORCH IS PRESENTED WAS BUILT ON THE LEFT SIDE, BUT NOT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ENTRY DOOR? SO, UM, BUT, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE NORMALLY DO. UM, BUT IT IS COMMON FOR THESE SMALLER HOMES. AT SOME POINT, THESE PORCHES, UM, WERE ENCLOSED. AND, AND JUST HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, UM, THE REASON THERE WERE PORCHES IN HOUSTON, UM, WAS BEFORE CONDITIONING WAS SO HOT, YOU HAD TO BE OUTSIDE JUST TO STAY ALIVE. AND I'VE SEEN, UH, HOMES FROM THE 1820S THAT WERE MORE PORCH THAN HOUSE FOR THAT REASON. AND THEY WERE, THEY WERE REALLY, AND THEN MANY OF THEM WERE ENCLOSED AT SOME POINT. UM, SO, UH, BUT WITH THAT, WE, MR. BLAKELY, I THINK YOU HAD A ALSO A NOTION FOR THIS OR A QUESTION OR SO, UH, YEAH. I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. APART FROM THE PORCH, THAT THERE SEEMED TO BE VERY FEW WINDOWS IN THE ADDITION, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY TWO WINDOWS. YOU GUYS ARE ADDING TWO WINDOWS? YES, IT SEEMS TO, BUT IT, IT'S A VERY SMALL ADDITION TOO. I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A VERY MODEST, UH, PROPOSAL AS TO THE PORCH. I, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE PROPOSED ELEVATION IF IT'S CONSTRUCTED IN A WAY THAT IT COULD BE TAKEN OFF IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DIAL BACK TO THE CURRENT STATE. I THINK I'M NOT QUITE AS SUPPORTIVE OF RE TRYING TO RECREATE AN INSET PORCH THAT WE DON'T KNOW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH, MORE INFORMATION ABOUT. UM, RIGHT. IF WE KNEW IF WE HAD A PICTURE OF IT OR A FLOOR PLAN WITHOUT THAT, I FEEL LIKE IT'S JUST A KIND OF LIKE FISHING EXPEDITE EXPEDITION IN THE NAME OF TRYING TO APPROXIMATE SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW. SO I MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND ALLOW THE PORCH CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN, BUT IN A MANNER SUCH THAT IT COULD BE SORT OF UNDONE IN THE FUTURE. I SECOND OKAY. AND JUST, JUST DISCUSS, I'M JUST GONNA, I'M JUST GONNA SAY, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT PORCH WAS INSET BECAUSE THE SANDBORN IS, DOES INDICATE THAT PORCH WAS THERE AND IT WAS INSET, BUT WE DON'T HAVE DIMENSIONS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SIDE ELEMENTS LOOKED LIKE. AGREED. OR, YEAH, AGREED. YEAH. CORRECT. AND THEN COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, YOU HAVE A COMMENT. I WAS ONLY GONNA MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE THE PORCH, BUT I WONDERED IF MAYBE THE COLUMNS AND STUFF SHOULD BE SIMPLIFIED TO BE MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT THE EXISTING PORCHES, WHICH ARE JUST SQUARE COLUMNS. I MEAN, JUST TO DE-EMPHASIZE, MAYBE LESS ORNAMENTATION, BUT THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT. AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE QUESTION ABOUT COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING COLUMNS? ARE THOSE WOOD? ARE THEY METAL? THE COLUMNS ON THE PORCH. WOOD. WOOD, OKAY. I, I WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT VENTURING INTO DESIGN BY SPECIFYING COLUMN SIZE. AGREED. YOU CAN SPECIFY ABSTRACTNESS THOUGH, LIKE SIM LIKE YOU CAN HAVE SIMPLIFICATION IS IS PART OF THE PURVIEW. OKAY. ESPECIALLY IF WE, IF ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE PUTTING BACK SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER THERE. YOU, THAT IT WOULD BE THE, IT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION TO BE AS, AS ABSTRACT AS POSSIBLE NOT TO CREATE A FALSE PAST. RIGHT. OKAY. I WOULD FIND THAT ACCEPTABLE. RESTATE THE MOTION PLEASE. MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, HOWEVER, TO PERMIT, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PORCH, UH, WITH THE APPEARANCE THAT'S SHOWN, BUT IN SUCH A WAY SHOWN IN THE RENDERING ELEVATION, PERHAPS WITH, UH, MORE SIMPLIFIED COLUMN PATTERN. AND TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE PORCH COULD BE REMOVED AND THE HOUSE, UH, BROUGHT BACK TO ITS CURRENT STATE IN AT A FUTURE TIME IF SOMEONE CHOSE TO. ALL IN FAVOR? A SECOND. I I HAVE A SECOND FROM JONES. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? SORRY. SORRY, IT'S, SORRY. ESCOBAR'S SECOND. SORRY. IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T CHANGE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THINGS MATERIALLY ENOUGH FOR ME TO DISAGREE. [03:40:01] THERE GO. OKAY. MY SECOND STANDS. OKAY, SO ES ESCOBAR'S SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED? SO THEY'RE TOO OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THEN WE MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE. ALRIGHT, YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. SO ONE MAN SHOW TODAY. GOOD EVENING CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC. THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON. AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM E THREE AT 5 0 9 EUCLID IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 1,651 SQUARE FOOT, ONE AND A HALF STORY WOOD, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE, SITUATED ON A 6,200 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT. THE BUNGALOW STYLE OF RESIDENCE WAS ONCE CONSTRUCTED, CIRCA 1920, LOCATED IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT EDITION, BRINGING THE TOTAL FROM 1651 SQUARE 1,651 SQUARE FEET TO 3,756 SQUARE FEET, WITH A 4,795 SQUARE FOOT COVERED. THE ADDITION WILL INCLUDE AN ADDITION AT THE FRONT OF THE HOME AND THE REAR OF THE HOME. THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WILL EXTEND OVER THE ORIGINAL ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS WELL. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PARTIALLY DEMOLISH A PORTION OF THE CONTRIBUTING BUILDING ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING ROOF TO HAVE A NEW ROOF DESIGN DEMOLISH A NON-ORIGINAL EDITION TO OPEN THE ORIGINAL PORCH, REMOVING THE WINDOWS AND SHUTTERS AND IN THE WALL TO BE REMOVED AND INSTALLED NEW WOOD COLUMNS, UH, WITH BRICK BASES. A PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE EXISTING SIDING AND INSTALL NEW CEMENTITIOUS SIDING WITH AN EIGHT INCH REVEAL ON THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION. MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS AT THE FRONT AND LEFT SIDE OF THE HOME. INSTALL TWO, INSTALL WOOD, TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS. THE HOME WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A 28 FEET, FIVE AND A HALF INCH MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT WITH AN 18 INCH FIVE AND A HALF RIDGE HEIGHT. ON THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ROOF OVER THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, IT WILL HAVE A 21 FOOT MAXIMUM TOP PLATE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND A 12 FOOT TOP PLATE HEIGHT ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE NEW ROOF WILL HAVE SIX OVER 12 ROOF PITCH. THE EXISTING GARAGE WILL BE MOVED FORWARD. ONE FOOT WILL BE, EXCUSE ME, WILL BE MOVED FORWARD ONE FOOT, AND FOR, AND WEST ONE FOOT TO MOVE IT FROM BEING ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THE ADDITION WILL THEN EXTEND OVER THE GARAGE, MAKING IT AN ATTACHED GARAGE. STAFF HAS RECEIVED A LETTER. NUMBER OF LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS IN THE REPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED ALTERATION EDITION. THE PROPOSED DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA. 1, 4, 5, 8, AND NINE. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HAHC. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, TERRY. AT THIS TIME, I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM. UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER, UM, IS, UH, TIS, UH, HOBSON. AND AS THE APPLICANT, YOU HAVE, UH, THREE MINUTES, UH, FOR, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. SURE. UH, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. UH, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE AND STAFF. UH, BASICALLY WE ARE JUST TRYING TO, UH, REMIND THIS IS WOODLAND HEIGHTS. WE DIDN'T HAVE A, LIKE A DIRECT ORDINANCE. WE DID, UH, BUILD OFF OF. WE HAVE, UH, UH, DONE SOME HOMES IN THE HEIGHTS AREAS. UH, IN THE PAST WE HAVE TRIED TO CONFORM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXISTING, UM, HOME THAT IS PRESENT. UH, THERE WAS A 1965 DESIGN, TERRANCE MENTIONED OPENING UP THE PORCH. UH, WE WERE JUST TOLD OR ASKED THAT WE RE UH, REITERATE THE PORCH, UH, BACK TO ITS 1965 DESIGN. UH, WE DO HAVE A SANBORN FROM 1920, BUT OBVIOUSLY, UH, IT DOES SHOW THE PORCH ON THERE, BUT DOESN'T DETERMINE IF IT'S CLOSED OR OPEN. UH, SO WE'RE OPENING BACK THAT BACK UP THE FRONT. MOST, ALL OF THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOME WILL REMAIN [03:45:01] INTACT AS IS. UH, THERE IS GOING TO BE A SECOND FLOOR THAT IS, UH, PIGGYBACKING ON THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOME, ABOUT SIX, ABOUT 40%, UH, IN FROM THE REAR OF THE HOME. UM, WE HAVE DONE, YOU KNOW, UH, QUITE A FEW DESIGNS TO TRY TO GET THIS IN LINE WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION. UH, ALTHOUGH THIS ISN'T HISTORIC, UH, TRYING TO GO IN LINE WITH THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS. UM, HE MENTIONED THE ROOF LINES. MOST OF THE ROOF LINES ARE INTACT FROM THE EXISTING HOME. THERE IS ONE SIDE ON THE LEFT SIDE THAT THEY DID MENTION THAT MAY NEED SOME ALTERATIONS, WHICH WE WERE, WE SAID WE WERE, UH, WILLING TO DO AS WELL AS THE BACK ADDITION ON THE FRONT HOME. YOU CANNOT SEE THAT FROM ANY SIDE, UH, WHETHER YOU STAND ON THE EAST NORTH, I'M SORRY, OF THE, THE WEST OR EAST SIDE OF THE HOME. UM, SO THAT WAS A VERY SMALL ADDITION THAT WOULD INCREASE OR ENHANCE THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE EXISTING HOME AS WELL. SO, UH, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT WE SEE. WE ARE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA. I DO HAVE PICTURES OF OTHER HOMES THAT, THAT WE'VE EMULATED, UH, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND ON THE STREET AND AROUND THE CORNER FROM US. SO AGAIN, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE, UH, TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, OUTLANDISH OR OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE, UH, PRESERVATION, THE HISTORIC YOU GUYS, YOUR STAFF ARE HERE TO DO. UH, WE COMMEND, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES LIKE NOR HILL TRYING TO TRY TO STAY IN LINE WITH WHAT THE, THE COMMUNITY, THE HISTORIC, UH, HEIGHTS LIKES TO SEE. AND THAT'S, UH, WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO, UH, AS WELL. AND, AND, AND WE ENJOY THAT AS WELL. UH, THERE IS A, I THINK WE'RE GETTING SOME, UH, I THINK HE SAID THERE WAS SOME LETTERS THAT WERE COMING IN. UH, WE BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT A TREE, AND IF I NEEDED TO SPEAK ON THAT, I CAN, BUT I WASN'T SURE BECAUSE THAT WAS JUST KIND OF LAST MINUTE THROWN INTO MY LAP, UH, ON THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I SPEAK ON THAT OR WHAT. THANK YOU. UM, THE, THERE WILL, UH, THERE MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU IN A MOMENT, BUT THERE ARE A FEW MORE SPEAKERS. SO, UM, LET ME FIRST CALL. THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE CHARLOTTE ESCAPES. ESCAPES AND FOLLOWED BY JANE BUCHANAN. UM, HELLO, I'M CHARLOTTE SCALES. THERE IS A LIVE OAK THAT LIVES IN THE BACKYARD OF 5 0 4 WOODLAND AND IT OCCUPIES SIX PROPERTIES AND THE CANOPY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 OR 8,800 SQUARE FEET. UM, IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART TO THE RE AVERY HOUSE, A DESIGNATED PROTECTED LANDMARK OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON. OVERALL, THE HOUSTON AGRICULTURE IN HOUSTON, OR HISTORIC COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT THESE PLANS BECAUSE IT WOULD KILL THE TREE. THERE'S A PROBABILITY IT WOULD CAUSE FLOODING FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND IT WOULD DISTURB THE NATURAL ECOSYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES. ONE REASON IS THAT IT WOULD KILL THE TREE. EVIDENCE FROM THIS IS SUPPORTED, SUPPORTED BY THE FORENSIC ARBORIST, AND IT STATES VERY LARGE LIMBS WILL BE HA WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THIS COULD RESULT IN REMOVAL OF UP TO HALF THE CANOPY. ONCE THE LARGE LIMBS ARE REMOVED, THE TRUNK AND THE ROOTS OF THE LIMBS WILL BEGIN TO DIE. SINCE THEY'RE NO LONG, THEY WILL NO LONGER RECEIVE NOURISHMENT. EVENTUALLY THE DEAD TISSUE WILL BEGIN TO DECAY, CAUSING THE TREE TO BECOME PROGRESSIVELY UNSTABLE. THIS QUOTE SHOWS HOW THE, IF THE HOUSE WERE BUILT, THERE WOULD BE SOME SERIOUS RISKS INVOLVED. ANOTHER REASON IS THE PROBABILITY THAT THERE, THAT IT WOULD CAUSE FLOODING, FLOODING FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. FOR THESE BUILDING PLANTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE, TAKE OUT OR COVER AVAILABLE GROUND SOIL, WHICH SOAKS UP THE RAIN FROM MANY STORMS. EVIDENCE OF THIS IS FROM THE US GS AND ITS STATES. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SPACES IN A WATERSHED AND FLOOD EVENTS HAPPEN MORE OFTEN. THIS SHOWS HOW THE REDUCED IMPERVIOUS SPACE OR GROUND SOIL, THERE IS MORE FLOODING TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS. UM, LAST AND NOT LEAST, IT WOULD DISTURB THE NATURAL ECOSYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES. UM, ALL IN ALL, IN TERMS OF THE CHECKLIST THAT HAS THE HISTORIC COMMISSION CONSIDERS IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF TERM FOUR, WHICH STATES THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY MUST PRESERVE THE DISTINGUISHING OR CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE AND OBJECT. THANK YOU, . THANK YOU. UM, YOU WERE VERY EFFICIENT IN YOUR DELIVERY. UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, JANE BUCHANAN, FOLLOWED BY PAUL WHITEHOUSE. UM, MR. WHITE HAS HAD TO LEAVE FOR A FLIGHT, SO I'M GONNA GO FAST. SO WE SUBMITTED A JOINT, UM, COMMENT, [03:50:01] PUBLIC COMMENT FROM 11 NEIGHBORS WHO OCCUP OCCUPY SIX PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. UH, THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT IS THIS TREE SHARES A BORDER WITH THE HISTORIC AVERY HOME AND IS CITED IN THE APPLICATION. AND THE, ALL THE CITATIONS ARE IN OUR THING IN THE PROTECTED LANDMARK STATUS AND APPLICATION. IT'S OVER 400 YEARS OLD. UH, WE HIRED A FORENSIC ARBORIST TO COME AND LOOK AT THE TREE. HIS RESUME IS LONGER THAN MY ARM. HE'S CERTIFIED. AND BASICALLY HE SAID CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED EDITION WOULD REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF UP TO HALF OF THE TREES CANOPY ON THE DEVELOPER FACING SIDE AND INITIATE A PROGRESSIVE DEATH. UM, SO IN CONTEXT OF THE APPLICATION STAFF DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TALKING ABOUT THE SITE AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT I DON'T THINK WAS CONSIDERED 'CAUSE YOU DON'T SEE THIS TREE AND UNDERSTAND ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE AVERY HOUSE, WHICH IS A PROTECTED LANDMARK. THE TREE ITSELF IS ON MULTIPLE REGISTRIES, SO WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FORENSIC ARBORIST ABOUT, UM, CHANGES TO THE PLAN, LIMIT THE ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE TO A SINGLE STORY, ELIMINATING THE SECOND STORY, INCREASE THE REAR SETBACK WITH NO NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN THE 30 FEET, ENGAGE A CERTIFIED ARBORIST AS A MEMBER OF THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION TEAM AND USE A APPEAR AND BEAM CONSTRUCTION. AND ALL THIS IS DETAILED IN OUR LETTER. I KNOW I ONLY HAVE 16 SECONDS, BUT, UH, I DO SAY THERE WAS A LOT ON THE STRUCTURE, BUT THE HEIGHTS AND THESE HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE MORE THAN THAT. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THE SITE AND THE ENVIRONMENT AS WELL THAT WASN'T APPARENT IN THE APPLICATION. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF AT THIS TIME. UM, NOT HEARING ANYONE, UH, MR. HOBSON, YOU DO HAVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. UM, AND THEREFORE YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE TREE. THANKS AGAIN. UH, ONE, THE, UH, TREE REGISTRY OF HARRIS COUNTY ENCOURAGES PRESERVATION IS NOT LAW. SO THAT LETS US KNOW THAT IF THERE IS A TREE IN WHICH THIS CASE IS OBSTRUCTING OUR PROPERTY AND OR, UH, CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY, THEN THERE IS RIFLE GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. TEXAS LAW. UH, THE, THE LIMBS THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED FOR THE SAKE OF, UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS, WAS ABOUT 25%. I THINK THE LADY BEFORE ME STATED 50%. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. UH, THE, THE TREE IS DIRECTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. OUR PROPERTY LINE WITH BRANCHES HANGING OVER THAT, UH, ARE CAN CREATE DAMAGE TO NOT ONLY MYSELF, BUT UH, ALSO OUR NEIGHBOR. UH, THERE ARE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS DIRECTLY BEHIND US AT 5 0 4 WOODLANDS DIRECTLY NEXT TO US, UH, THAT ALSO HAVE TWO STORY RESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION AND, AND, UH, AND, AND, AND PRESERVE OR, OR BEAUTIFY AND, AND, UH, ENLARGE THEIR HOME THE WAY THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO DO SO. SO THEREFORE WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S RIGHT FOR THEM TO IMPEDE ON OUR RIGHTS, UH, TO BUILD AND DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BEAUTIFY AND RECTIFY OUR HOME, UH, UH, WITHIN, UH, 5 0 9 EUCLID. UM, I THINK, I THINK THAT THAT WAS REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY. UH, WE'VE ADDRESSED LAW. UH, THE GARAGE HAS BEEN DAMAGED FROM THE TREE. UH, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING, WE'RE HOPING NOT TO KILL THE TREE. AND THE LAWS ONLY SAY THAT IT ENCOURAGES PRESERVATION. IT IS NOT LAW DEMANDING THAT THE TREE MUST REMAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSIONER MEMBERS OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM. UM, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY IS ONE AND FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS. I HAVE A COMMENT, WHICH IS, AND I'M SURE EVERYONE HAS SEEN THIS, THAT THE MAP ON PAGE THREE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS, RIGHT? UM, YEAH, THAT'S NOR HILL. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE'S AN AVAILABLE, LIKE WHERE CAN I FIND THE ACTUAL, WE'LL HAVE, WE'LL HAVE IT PULLED UP WOODLAND HEIGHTS. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. UM, THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT FOR RIGHT NOW. FISHER DAVIS, YOU HAD A COMMENT? YES. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS, UM, BUT IT IS EITHER IN THE NATIONAL, UM, RULES THAT SPEAK TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS A HISTORIC [03:55:01] DISTRICT AND PART OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS ALL OF THE, UM, EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT, WHICH INCLUDES GREEN STUFF. SO I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT I THINK THAT IS A CONSIDERATION FOR HIS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. I WOULD HAVE TO, WELL, I MEAN, ISN'T IT THE, IT'S THE NATIONAL REGISTER GUIDELINES. IT MAY BE, UM, I'LL JUST SAY WE, WHAT WE ARE, WHAT, WHAT THE, OR WE ARE REALLY UNDER THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS, UM, THAT IS A GUIDE I GUESS, OR AS IS IT IS OFTEN STATED THAT OUR GUIDELINES OR OUR ORDINANCE WAS LOOSELY BASED ON THOSE STANDARDS. BUT, UM, BUT WHAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH IS WHAT, WHAT THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT IT'S, AND WHAT IT STATES. BUT TERRA, CAN YOU POINT OUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE FRONT REVISED MAP? OKAY. SO IT'S THE, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHT ON NINE CURSOR IS OKAY IF YOU CAN SEE IT. AND WHERE IS THE TREE? OH, WE HAVE A OVERHAUL OVER. CAN YOU GO BACK TO, UH, ON THE SIDE? GO BACK. IT'S ON THE REAR. IT'S ON THE REAR, REAR PROPERTY LINE. IT APPEARS, BUT THAT DOESN'T, SO THE HOME SHOULD BE, YOU'RE BEHIND 5 0 4 WOODLAND. YEAH. SO THE, THE TREE IS AT 5 0 4 WOODLAND AND IT EXTENDS OVER INTO 5 0 9. SO 5 0 9 WOULD BE RIGHT NEAR THE SMALLER TREE, WHICH YOU PROBABLY CAN'T EVEN SEE BECAUSE OF BOTH. OKAY. I HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT. UM, I APPRECIATE THE NEED TO ENLARGE ONE'S HOUSE. UM, I DO THINK THAT IT'S WORTH THINKING ABOUT THE TREE AS LIKE PART OF THE COMMON GOOD. AND EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO KILL IT, UM, IT MIGHT BE WORTH CONSIDERING WHAT WORKS BEST WITH YOUR PERSISTENCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. UM, BUT WHAT TROUBLES ME THE MOST ABOUT THIS DESIGN AND WHY I AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL IS THE, A QUANTITY OF MATERIAL IN THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT IS BEING SORT OF TAKEN OUT, RIGHT? THE SORT OF AMOUNT OF RED SHADING. UM, EVEN ALTHOUGH ON PAGE 11 IT, THE ADDITION IS REPRESENTED ALMOST AS THOUGH IT IS JUST A LITTLE SIDE OF CABOOSE THERE, BACK THERE ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. THE DRAWINGS, UH, OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN AWAY ON PAGE, UH, LET'S SEE, SEE PAGE, ESPECIALLY 18 SHOWS EXTENSIVE, UH, MATERIALS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM THE ROOF AND FROM THE SIDING. AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION THREE YEARS, THAT HAS BEEN A CONCERN OF THIS COMMISSION, THAT HISTORICAL MATERIAL SHOULD BE PRESERVED, UM, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. UM, SO I FIND THE ADDITION TROUBLING NOT ONLY FOR ITS SIZE, BUT ALSO FOR THE EXTENSIVE DESTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? UM, SO THE, THE DECIDING IS AS BEST DECIDING, UM, UM, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY STAFF AGREES WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. UM, STAFF POSITION ON THAT IS THAT, UM, TYPICALLY WHEN YOU SEE ASBESTOS SIDING, THERE'S WOOD SIDING BENEATH. UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT WASN'T THE PROPOSED, THE PROPOSAL. THEY PROPOSE TO REMOVE THE SIDING INPUT, UH, CEMENTITIOUS SIDING ON. SO, YOU KNOW, UM, YEAH, I MEAN STAFF WOULD BE IN CONVERSATION TO, UM, OR STAFF IS OPEN [04:00:01] TO HAVING A CONVERSATION OF REMOVING THE ASBESTOS SIDE AND SEEING WHAT'S BENEATH IT AND SEEING THE CONDITION OF IT TO SEE IF IT COULD BE REPLACED. UM, BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT WAS PROPOSED UNFORTUNATELY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OKAY. SECOND HILL SECONDS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD TERRANCE. I'M CALLING FOR DISCUSSION. YEP. JUST ADD OH YEAH, SURE. I'LL, I'LL, UM, SO THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR REASONING FOR THE DENIAL AND ALSO, UM, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE OPEN TO A DEFERRAL TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH RATHER THAN HAVING TO START THIS PROCESS ALL OVER. UM, SO I POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THAT POINT OF ORDER. SORRY. I WILL RETRACT MY MOTION AND MAKE A NEW MOTION TO DEFER. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION M OKAY. THEN BEFORE WE VOTE, UM, DOES ANYONE WANT TO STATE, UH, THE ISSUES? I CAN, I MEAN, NOT, I, I, I, I MEAN I THINK THAT, DO YOU WANT, WELL, I MEAN, UH, I HEARD THE MASKING IS, IS VERY LARGE AND I'LL JUST MENTION ONE OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS MENTION IF THE REAR MOST PORTION OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN WAS ONE STORY, PERHAPS THE PRESSURE ON THE TREE MIGHT BE LESSENED. UM, BUT IT'S MORE ABOUT MASSING, I GUESS THAT, THAT PART. AND THEN THERE'S, THERE, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE EXISTING FABRIC BEING MODIFIED, BUT OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FABRIC IS, UH, IF, IF, IF, AND WE HAVE ALWAYS, UM, ALLOWED REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS SIDING AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER, IF WE WERE TO DEFER IT, IF SOME SOMETHING COULD BE REMOVED SOMEWHERE SO THAT ONE COULD SEE WHAT'S UNDERNEATH IT AND WHETHER THERE'S WOOD SIDING THERE AND OR DOES IT NEED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT'S SO DETERIORATED AND SO FORTH? OR MAYBE IT'S PROTECTED BY THE ASBESTOS SIDING AND IT COULD ACTUALLY BE REPAIRED EASILY. UM, BUT I'LL JUST STATE THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. AND IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD ADD TO MY COMMENTS? I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT THE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE HISTORICAL STRUCTURE. AND IN THIS APPLICATION, NOT ONLY ARE YOU INSENSITIVE TO THE HISTORICAL STRUCTURE BY REMOVING THE BAY ON THE SIDE AND REDOING THE WHOLE ROOF AND THE SIDING AND THE WINDOWS, YOU'VE CREATED AN ADDITION THAT IS OVERPOWERING TO IT. IT, IT NEEDS TO BE THE STAR OF THE SHOW HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK YOU COULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE TREE IN A NEW DESIGN. UM, THERE WAS A CASE IN THE HEIGHTS MANY YEARS AGO ABOUT A TREE JUST LIKE THAT, THAT WAS DEVELOPED AROUND IN A VERY SYMPATHETIC MANNER AND IS A STUNNING PROPERTY. AND I THINK THERE ARE LESSONS TO BE TAKEN FROM THAT, THAT IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY BUILD THE BIGGEST BOX ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE POSSIBLE, BUT MAYBE TAKE THE TIME AND THINK ABOUT THE ORIENTATION OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE TREE AND USE IT AS A, AS A POSITIVE ON THE LOT. PEOPLE WILL PEOPLE WILL REALLY LIKE THAT. AND I THINK YOU'RE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE, TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY BY, BY, YOU KNOW, NOT TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. MR. BLAKELY HAD A COMMENT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD WITH RESPECT TO THE MASSING THAT OFTEN, UM, IF AT THE REAR CORNER, AT LEAST ONE REAR CORNER, SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I JUST, UH, OF THE BUILDING CAN BE REVEALED IN OTHER WORDS, NOT JUST TO HAVE THE ADDITION NOT BE SO HUGE, BUT ALSO TO ALLOW US TO READ THE, WHERE THE END OF THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS. AND OFTEN THAT'S BEEN DONE BY LETTING A CORNER REMAIN SO THAT YOU CAN SEE MAKE OUT THE PER THE, THE OUTLINES OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. OKAY. UH, MR. DAVIS, UM, I THINK FIRST I AGREE, BUT LET'S FIGURE OUT WHERE THE ORIGINAL CORNER IS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN EXTENDED AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST, AND SO IT IT HAS BEEN. YEP. SO WHERE DOES THAT, WHERE IS THAT? AND THEN THAT I THINK THE, IN THE SANBORN COULD MAYBE COULD GET AGE STAFF A BIT ON THAT. I, I AGREE. AND I THINK MAYBE IF IT'S DEFERRED, MAYBE THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT IS AND SO, AND COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL. ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING THE PROJECT THEN? AYE AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT ITEM IS DEFERRED AND WE'LL MOVE TO OUR LAST ITEM ON THIS, ON [04:05:01] THIS AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM SEVEN. I DON'T THINK Y'ALL NEED TO SEE ME FOR ANOTHER WHAT MONTH? . UM, OH, I'M SORRY. OH, I FORGOT. I THOUGHT I WAS . CLOSE THE SHOW DOWN. I USED TO BE. IT'S OKAY. GOOD EVENING. CHAIRPERSON MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS STAFF PERSON DE LEONE. I SUBMIT ITEM E SEVEN AT 7 7 1 8 MORLEY STREET IN THE GLENBROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE ONE STORY CONTRIBUTING TRADITIONAL RANCH STYLE PROPERTY WAS BUILT CIRCA 1959, SITUATED ON A 8,550 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT. ON APRIL 15TH, 2026, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A 3 0 1 COMPLAINT FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THE INSPECTOR OBSERVED THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN DONE TO THE ROOF IN ELECTRICAL, UH, WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THAT THE PREVIOUSLY UNPAINTED BRICK WAS PAINTED AND THUS A RED TAG WAS ISSUED. THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ON APRIL 17TH, 2026. STAFF RECEIVED SIX LETTERS OF SUPPORT, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AS THE PROJECT DOES NOT SATISFY CRITERIA ONE, THREE AND FOUR, AN ISSUANCE OF COR REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF PAINT FROM THE BRICK CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT'S AT BRIANNA BENTON COURT IS HERE TO SPEAK, UH, AND WOULD, UH, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I'M ALSO AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, SOPRANO BENTON COURT CAN APPROACH THE BENCH. AND I BELIEVE, SAM, YOU ARE GOING TO HELP TRANSLATE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I LIVE 7 7 1 8 MORE STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 67 61. OKAY. OKAY. UH, I, I CAN READ A REAL GOOD, UH, ENGLISH, BUT I HAVE A LETTER IN SPANISH, BUT SHE CAN READ IN, IN TRANSLATION. OKAY. OKAY. RIO CA, COULD I HAVE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION TO PROVIDE THE SPEAKER ONE MORE MINUTE OF TIME. CEASE FOR A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. AYE. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. HERE IS A DIRECT TRANSLATION OF [04:10:01] HIS STATEMENT. HELLO. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION REQUIRING ME TO REMOVE THE PAINT FROM THE BRICK OF MY HOUSE. WHEN I PAINTED THE HOUSE, I WAS UNAWARE THAT IT WAS LOCATED WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION TO BREAK ANY RULES OR DO ANYTHING WRONG. HAD I KNOWN THAT APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED, I WOULD HAVE SOUGHT IT BEFORE UNDERTAKING THE WORK. THE REALITY IS THAT REMOVING THE PAINT WOULD BE VERY COSTLY, AND I DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE BUDGET FOR IT. FURTHERMORE, I FEEL THE HOUSE LOOKS MUCH BETTER THAN BEFORE, AND IT IS WELL MAINTAINED, A VIEW SHARED BY SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS. I EVEN HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS WHO BELIEVE THE HOUSE HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND LOOKS GOOD WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE CONSIDER MY SITUATION AND ALLOW ME TO KEEP THE PAINT OR FIND ANOTHER REASONABLE SOLUTION. I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU AND COMPLY WITH WHATEVER IS FEASIBLE, BUT REMOVING ALL OF THE PAINT WOULD PLACE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FINANCIAL BURDEN ON ME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR HEARING ME OUT. THANK YOU. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. UH, IS THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? IS THERE A MOTION THEN? I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UM, THE SUMMARY SAYS, PAINTED UNPAINTED MASONRY AND PERFORMED ROOF AND ELECTRICAL WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT. UM, WHEN, WHEN IT SAYS ROOF AND ELECTRICAL WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT, DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE QUALITY OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE? OR WHAT IS, WAS IT NOT DONE PROPERLY OR? NO, WHAT I BELIEVE WAS THAT THE ROOF JUST NEEDED SOME REPAIRS, SO THE SHINGLES WERE CHANGED OUT AND THEN JUST SOME ELECTRICAL WORK. SO, UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WERE NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, JUST MAINTENANCE. SO ELECTRICAL WORK ISN'T REALLY SOMETHING WE HAD, WE ADJUDICATE, RIGHT? CORRECT. BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO TECHNICALLY GO TO THE PERMITTING CENTER AND ACQUIRE A PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK. SO EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF OUR PARTICULAR OFFICE, IT'S STILL TECHNICALLY A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, I GUESS, UH, CODE. AND WAS THERE A BUILDER INVOLVED, OR WAS THIS SORT OF SELF DONE, OR I ASSUME I CAN GO AHEAD AND ASK IT, UH, BUT I ASSUME THAT HE, IT WAS SELF DONE. I MEAN, IF I COULD JUST SPEAK TO WHAT I SEE AS THE ISSUE HERE. I THINK ON ONE HAND WE HAVE A VERY COMPELLING PERSONAL STORY, UM, THAT BRINGS OUR SYMPATHY, RIGHT? BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE THE QUESTION OF WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT WOULD WE SET IF WE SAID OKAY THIS TIME AND OTHERS, UM, MIGHT FOLLOW SUIT. SO WE WOULD THEN BE FACED WITH VIOLATING WHAT'S ESSENTIALLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY PER THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TO, TO MAINTAIN THE CRITERIA THAT GOVERN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT'S OUR DILEMMA POINT OF ORDER. YES. COMMISSIONER BECK, TYPICALLY ONCE, UH, A DENIAL IS ISSUED, UM, HOW, WHAT, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE THEREAFTER FOR ENFORCEMENT OR WHATEVER THE APPLICANT MAY BE REQUIRED TO DO? STAFF CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO TIMELINE. IT'S JUST ESSENTIALLY THE NEXT TIME THAT HIM OR IF HE SELLS THE HOUSE, THE NEXT OWNER, WHEN THEY GO TO THE PERMITTING CENTER, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED. SO TECHNICALLY YOU COULD SAY THAT HE NEEDS TO REMOVE THE PAINT AND MAYBE THERE'S NOT ANOTHER PERMIT FILED FOR ANOTHER 30 YEARS. AND SO IN THAT CASE, YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON. YEP. AND THERE'S PAINTED PAINTED BRICK IN, UM, GLENBROOK VALLEY HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE, UM, WITH TRYING TO FIND SOME ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, UH, BECAUSE UNDER, UH, THE BUILDING CODE, YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT TO PAINT YOUR BRICK, SO THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY ENFORCE THIS. YES, IT'S IN THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRICT, AND, UM, BUT WE'VE BEEN ROUNDY, ROUNDY, ROUNDY ROUND, TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION ON PAINTED BRICK. AND UNLESS YOU CATCH THEM RED HANDED AND CAN STOP THEM, THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. IF IT'S AFTER THE FACT, YOU COULD PUT A RE YOU CAN PUT A, UH, A DENIAL ON THE HOUSE, WHICH IS BASICALLY AN ENCUMBRANCE THAT LIVES WITH THE HOUSE, [04:15:01] BUT IT'S A, IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION, UH, AND ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE COMMISSIONER HILL, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS. SO HE HAS A COUPLE OF BIDS HERE FOR, UH, REMEDIATING THIS, REMOVING THE PAINT. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE HOUSE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE UNDONE AT SOME POINT. COMMISSIONER DAVIS, UM, MY QUESTION IS, I REALIZE YOU'LL PUT A TAG SO IT CAN'T BE PERMITTED. SO I WAS THINKING THAT WHY AREN'T THESE THINGS TIED TO TITLE? UM, BECAUSE I SEE THIS WHERE, UM, I GO INTO A HOME ON A LISTING AND I KNOW THAT, AND I LOOK IT UP, AND THERE WAS A COA AND THEY JUST DIDN'T DO IT. UM, AND IT SEEMS LIKE ATTACHING TO A TITLE WOULD MAKE AS MUCH SENSE AS TO A PERMIT. AND I ALSO JUST WANTED TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT STAFF DID PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A LIST OF VENDORS THAT, UH, STAFF HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR OR WORKED WITH IN THE PAST WHO DID REMOVE PAINT. AND THE QUOTES THAT HE RECEIVED ARE FROM THE PEOPLE ON THAT LIST, BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT JUST TO FIND SOMEONE ON YOUR OWN. SO WE WERE GLAD TO ASSIST HIM WITH THAT LIST. I WILL MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND THE, THE DISTRICT IS DEFINED BY ITS HOUSES, AND IF WE ALLOW PAINTING OF BRICK AND THEY ALL BECOME PAINTED AND THE DISTRICT IS NO MORE AS IT WAS, SO, UM, AS MUCH AS IT MIGHT BE A HARDSHIP OR NOT, IF HE CHOOSES NOT TO DO IT. UM, THAT'S MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I LIKELY SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? UH, YES, I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT, UM, AFTER THE VOTE, IF STAFF COULD MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT'S FULLY AWARE THAT IF THIS PASSES, HE DOESN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HE FILES FOR SOME KIND OF A, APPLIES FOR SOME OTHER TYPE OF PERMIT. WELL, POINT OF ORDER. HE IS SELLING THE HOUSE AND MOVING OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS IS HONESTLY KIND OF UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. YEAH, I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. IT'S GOOD'S, IT'S DETERRING FUTURE BUYERS AND SOME, I, WE'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A FEW CALLS FROM OUR OFFICE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT WE WERE THE REALTOR 'CAUSE OF THE COA SIGN . AND I HAD TO EXPLAIN, NO, WE ARE NOT A REAL ESTATE OFFICE. THIS IS THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND ALL THE BUYERS SAID THAT THEY REALLY LIKED THE PAINT ON THE HOUSE, WHICH WAS OKAY. THANKS FOR SETTING ME STRAIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. AND WE NOW MOVE ON, ON THE AGENDA TO ITEM F UH, PUBLIC COMMENT, OPEN THE PUBLIC FORUM IS ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REMAINING WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, BUT YOU, YOU ARE. YOU. BUT YOU CAN, UH, I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT, UH, ON, UH, 5 0 9 EUCLID, WE NEVER INTENDED ON DEMOING OR RE FULLY REMOVAL OF THE TREE. UH, WE DID WANT TO PRESERVE THE TREE, HOWEVER, THERE WERE LIMBS THAT ARE OBSTRUCTING OVER INTO OUR PROPERTY THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MODIFY IN ORDER TO GET THE PROPER, UH, STRUCTURE, UM, UH, ERECTED. UH, BUT THEN ALSO TO, UH, WE ALSO WEREN'T OPPOSED TO, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS SAID, UH, ALL THE WINDOWS, THE WHOLE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOME, THE, UH, FROM THE FRONT, UH, TO THE, THE INTEGRITY OF, OF WHAT YOU GUYS WANNA SEE. AND I, AND I GET IT, THERE'S A SMALL LIMB ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE THAT WE, UH, THAT WE DID TAKE OUT. BUT WE WERE OPEN TO, UH, ANY DIFFERENT TYPE OF WOOD MODIFICATIONS, EXCUSE ME, SIGHTING MODIFICATIONS. WE WERE KEEPING ALL THE EXISTING WINDOWS, THE WOOD WINDOWS THAT WERE ALREADY THERE. UH, THE NEW ADDITION, UH, UH, WAS ALSO GOING TO, UH, INCORPORATE WOOD WINDOWS. UH, EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS STILL TRYING TO BE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION TO, UH, ACCEPT IN ONE. UH, IT IS, UH, HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE MASKING OF THE HOME WHEN WE SEE MULTIPLE HOMES IN THE AREA THAT HAS THIS LARGE FOOTPRINT. AND AGAIN, I'M SPEAKING OF WOODLAND HEIGHTS, YOU KNOW, [04:20:01] I GET NOR HILL IS ONE. AND, UH, HISTORIC HEIGHTS IS, IS, IS, IS, IS A DIFFERENT, UM, CONCEPT AS WELL. BUT, UM, AGAIN, WE WEREN'T TRYING TO CHANGE THE FULL ON INTEGRITY OF THE HOME. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED, WANTED THAT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE I THINK SOME PEOPLE POINTED OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO DEMO THE, OR OR TRYING TO REMOVE THE TREE AND DAM, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO KILL THE TREE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MOVE SOME LIMBS. WE'VE BEEN OUT THERE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. UM, AND SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. SURE. THANK YOU. MR. ROBINSON, COULD YOU STILL RE RESTATE YOUR NAME JUST FOR THE RECORD? JUST FOR THE RECORDING? ADAM THOMPSON. SORRY. EDIT THOMPSON. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. OKAY. POINT OF ORDER. MR. CHAIR. UM, JUST TO CLARIFY DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, THAT, THAT DIALOGUE CANNOT REFER TO SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, CORRECT? IT'S JUST IN GENERAL? WELL, THERE, THERE ARE COMMENTS. THERE'S NO DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT. IT'S NOT A CONVER, THERE'S NO, THERE ARE NO CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT. UM, THE APPLICANT, BUT HE, HE DID NEED TO STATE HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD. UNDERSTOOD. UNDERSTOOD. BUT, UM, THE APPLICANT, I, I BELIEVE, CAN STAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SAY. UM, IT'S JUST THAT FOR THIS, AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, THERE'S NOT A DIALOGUE. WE'RE, WE'RE JUST LISTENING AND, AND, AND WE'RE HEARING WHAT IS STATED TO US. AND SO, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT RESPONDING OKAY. IN ANY WAY. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM G, WHICH IS COMMENTS FROM THE HAHC. IS THERE ANY MEMBER COMMISSION WANTING TO MAKE A COMMENT? NOT HEARING ANY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFERS REPORT AND YOU SEE TERRANCE, YOU WEREN'T DONE. YEAH, I'M NOT. PLEASE DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE PRESERVATION OFFICER. I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH DUTIES. . UM, AT THIS TIME, UH, WE DO NOT HAVE A, UH, PRESERVATION OFFICER REPORT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM I ADJOURNMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU EVERYONE. GOOD JOB. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.