* 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 July 16, 2026.] [00:00:13] 2026. TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION. HAHC IS CALLED TO ORDER. I'M COMMISSION CHAIR DAVID EK TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM. I WILL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JONES. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. EXCUSE. SHE'S NOT HERE. NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER ZION ESCOBAR. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HILL? NOT, NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER SIDEL. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MARK SMITH PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BROWNING. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER BROBECK PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GARCIA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DAVIS PRESENT. AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WILLIAMSON. PRESENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I'M GONNA START WITH MY, UH, CHAIR REPORT, WHICH AGAIN WILL BE JUST A REVIEW OF THE SPEAKER'S RULES TO BE OBSERVED AT THIS MEETING. AS, AS THEY WERE POSTED, THIS 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 STAFF MEMBER NEAREST THE FRONT DOOR. SPEAKER RULES ARE FOUND ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SPEAKER SIGN IN FORM ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAKING ON AN ITEM ARE NOT TIMED. APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES, UH, TIME AS WELL AS REBUTTALS. NON APPLICANTS AND GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES OF TIME. THERE'S NOT AN OPTION FOR A REBUTTAL. EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FULL TIME OR YOUR FULL, YOUR FULL TWO MINUTES, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN AND TIME CANNOT BE ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER SPEAKER . UM, AND WITH THAT I'M GOING TO, UH, HAND THIS OVER TO, UM, MR. WILLIAMSON FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIR HICK. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I'M ROBERT WILLIAMSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM OUR REPORT TODAY. I ONLY HAVE ONE BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IS THERE WILL BE NO ACTION ON THE FOUR HAHC POLICY AND PROCEDURES ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS ITEMS F1 THROUGH FOUR'S. NO PROPOSED LANGUAGE WAS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW. A DRAFT OF HAHC RULES OF PROCEDURE WILL BE PROVIDED AHEAD OF THE AUGUST 13TH HAHC MEETING, WHEREBY THE ITEM WILL BE RECONSIDERED CLOSING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 18TH, 2026 HAHC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSION MEMBERS. HAVE YOU HAD A MOMENT TO LOOK THROUGH THE MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY REVISIONS? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? COSGROVE MOVES TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES. I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? BROWNING WILL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU, ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. SORRY. WHO WAS FIRST MOTION? COSGROVE COSGROVE. MR. BROWNING IS A SECOND. OKAY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION APPLICATION FOR THE NC CRANE HOUSE AT 1914 DUNSTON ROAD, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 5. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF PERSON ISHA BZA. THE FOUR PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS WE WILL INTRODUCE TODAY ARE ALL LOCATED WITHIN SOUTH HAMPTON PLACE. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED BEGINNING IN 1922 WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS, HELPING TO PRESERVE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER THAT SOUTHAMPTON PLACE CONTINUES TO ENJOY TODAY, CREATING A COMMUNITY OF BEAUTIFUL HOMES AND HARMONIOUS IN EVERY DETAIL LOCATED NEAR RICE UNIVERSITY. THESE EARLY PLANNING MEASURES HELPED ESTABLISH THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S COHESIVE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER AND ENDURING 1920S FEEL THAT CONTINUES TO DEFINE SOUTHAMPTON PLACE. TODAY I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEM A, THE INS CRANE HOUSE FOR THE PROTECTED [00:05:01] LANDMARK DESIGNATION AT 1914 DUNSTON ROAD. THE INS CRANE HOUSE IS A DISTINCTIVE EXAMPLE OF EARLY 20TH CENTURY DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE, AND IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES FEATURING ASYMMETRICAL MASSING AND A DYNAMIC COMPOSITION OF INTERSECTING GABLED ROOF FORMS. ITS CONTINUOUS SHINGLE CLADDING COMPLEX ROOF LINE AND EMPHASIS ON OVERALL MASSING RATHER THAN APPLIED ORNAMENT REFLECT THE SHINGLE STYLE WHILE THE OVERALL COMPOSITION INCORPORATES NOTABLE ELEMENTS OF BOTH THE SHINGLE AND TUDOR REVIVAL STYLE. THE INS CRANE'S HOUSE'S FIRST OWNER, JEANNIE CRANE, WAS DESCRIBED AS A RESILIENT AND INDEPENDENT WOMAN WHO EMBODIED THE CHANGING ROLES OF WOMEN IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY. ADVANCING FROM A STENOGRAPHER TO RAILROAD SUPERVISOR. LATER, LEON INS FOUNDER AND OWNER OF THE LEON INS COMPANY, A MANUFACTURER OF OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT, BECAME RECOGNIZED AS A DISTINGUISHED ENGINEER AND SERVED ON THE TEXAS TECH BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1914 DUNSTON ROAD MEETS CRITERIA ONE, FOUR AND FIVE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CRITERIA ONE AND TWO FOR PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE INS CRANE HOUSE AT 1914 DUNSTON ROAD. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. UM, MR. JOE, UH, FISHER, IF YOU COULD APPROACH THE PODIUM AND RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE FOR GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JOE FISHER, A SOUTH HAMPTON PROTECTED LANDMARK PROJECT TEAM. SORRY. GO. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THANK YOU. SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ALL TODAY'S PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS, OUR PROJECT TEAM CHALLENGED RESIDENTS DO NOT TAKE OUR ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE FOR GRANTED. PRESERVE IT, DESIGNATE YOUR HOME A PROTECTED LANDMARK. THE RESPONSE WAS INCREDIBLE, AND I'M THRILLED THAT TODAY'S AGENDA PROVES IT. RESEARCHING ONE OF THE HOMES, THE DONALDSON HOME AT 2306 TANLEY, I FOUND ITS CONNECTION TO ANOTHER BUSINESS LEADER, CB DELL HOME, WHOSE HOME WAS DESIGNATED A LANDMARK IN 2011, DEH HOME CHAIRED THE BOARD OF METHODIST HOSPITAL, SERVED ON THE BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINES BOARD, AND WAS ACTIVE IN THE GOOD SAMARITAN FOUNDATION. THE FOUNDATION STILL ACTIVE TODAY FINANCED ITS KEY ACHIEVEMENT IN $80 MILLION DORMITORY IN TODAY'S DOLLARS HOUSING. 1000 NURSING STUDENTS FUNDED PARTLY THROUGH RICE STADIUM FUNDRAISERS FEATURING BOB HOPE, JERRY LEWIS AND MICKEY MANTLE. AND HERE'S THAT CONNECTION. ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE FOUNDATION WAS JOHN WALLACE DONALDSON OF 2306 TANGLEY. AND LOOKING AT THE VIEW OF THE DELL HOME STREET TODAY, I'M SORRY, THE DELL HOME LANDMARK, I FOUND THAT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY A CONCRETE SLAB SUPPORTING A HOME THREE TIMES THE ORIGINAL SIZE, 7,884 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS WHY ALL OF TODAY'S DESIGNATED PROTECTED LANDMARKS MATTER. WE NEED VISIBLE REMINDERS OF HOUSTON'S HERITAGE THAT WILL BE STANDING FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ITS WORK, REVIEWING THESE DESIGNATIONS AND GIVING US A PATH TO STAND BEHIND PRESERVATION WHEN IT REALLY COUNTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE. UM, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. OKAY. NOT SEEING ANYONE. I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM OR IS THERE A MOTION? COSGROVE MOVES TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? JONES SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM B, A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION APPLICATION FOR THE HELEN AND JESSE O. WEBB HOUSE AT 2322 DUNSTON ROAD, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 5. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSION. THIS IS ISHA BZA. I SUBMIT ITEM B FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 2 2 3 2 DUNSTON ROAD FOR THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE HELEN AND JESSE O WEB HOUSE. THIS HOUSE IS A TUTOR REVIVAL STYLE RESIDENCE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1936 BY BUILDER WALTER AIDEN PLASTER. THE HELEN AND [00:10:01] JESSE O. WEBB HOUSE IS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE. THE PRIMARY FACADE IS DEFINED BY A STEEPLY PITCHED FRONT FACING GABLE, INTERSECTED BY A SIDE GABLE WING WITH ITS OWN PROJECTING FRONT FACING GABLE. THE EXTERIOR IS CLAD IN PATTERN BRICK WITH IRREGULAR STONE MASONRY ACCENTING THE BASE CORNERS OF THE FACADE. THE USE OF TEXTURED BRICK CONTRASTING STONEWORK AND VARIED WINDOW GROUPINGS. A SUBSTANTIAL CHIMNEY AND STEEPLY PITCHED MULTIPLE FACADE. GABLES IDENTIFIED THE STRUCTURE AS TWO TO REVIVAL STYLE. THE WEB HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING EXAMPLES OF TUTOR REVIVAL STYLE HOMES WITHIN S SOUTH HAMPTON PLACE THAT HAS MAINTAINED MUCH OF ITS HISTORIC INTEGRITY. THIS PROPERTY MEETS CRITERIA ONE, FOUR AND FIVE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CRITERIA, ONE FOR PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 2 2 3 2 DUNSTON ROAD, KNOWN AS THE HELEN AND JESSE O. WEBB HOUSE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE PROVIDED A COMMENT THAT I WILL BE SUBMITTING FOR PUBLIC RECORD. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC RECORD. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ THAT STATEMENT, UH, TO THE COMMISSION. IS THERE I ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM AS WELL? NOT HEARING ANYONE. SO IF YOU CAN READ THE STATEMENT. THANK YOU. 2, 2, 3. TWO. DUNSTON ROAD IS A CLASSIC OF ITS TIME WITH THE BRICK WORK AND LIMESTONE PARTICULARLY ATTRACTIVE. IT IS A GREAT PRIVILEGE FOR US TO LIVE THERE AND THE CURRENT CUSTODIANS, AND WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION WILL BE FAVORABLY VIEWED. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT LETTER WAS 4 2 2 3 2 OR TWO. 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, WHICH I THINK IS IC THE ADDRESSES ARE THE SAME ON THE AGENDA. THAT WAS, THAT WAS ITEM B ONE'S. KRISTEN? MM-HMM. I SEE. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK IT'S MISSPELLED IN THE THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? TODD GROVE MOVES TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A SECOND? JOAN? SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES. AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM C, PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION APPLICATION FOR THE MEYER JONES HOUSE AT 2232 TANGLY STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 5. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF PERSON EMILY RYAN. I SUBMIT ITEM C FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 2 2 3 2 TANGLEY STREET FOR THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE MEYER JONES HOUSE CONSTRUCTED IN 1925. THE MEYERS. THE MEYERS JONES HOUSE IS A TWO STORY PAINTED BRICK STRUCTURE THAT REFLECTS THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE THROUGH ITS SYMMETRICAL COMPOSITION AND CLASSICAL DETAILING. ITS PRINCIPLE FACADE IS ORGANIZED AROUND A CENTRAL ARCHED ENTRY, FLANKED BY TWO PAIRS OF WINDOWS. AND THE HOUSE IS CAPPED BY A LOW PITCHED SIDE, GABLED, ROOF CLAD AND BROWN SHINGLES COMPLETING THE COLONIAL REVIVAL COMPOSITION. ALICE STERLING MEYER, OH, ALICE AND STERLING MEYER WERE PROMINENT FIGURES IN HOUSTON SOCIETY WITH STERLING SERVING AS MAN AS A MANAGING PARTNER OF THE COURTLAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY. AND AS PARTNER IN LAW FIRM CAMPBELL AND MEYER. IN 1964, THE JONES FAMILY BOUGHT THE HOUSE AND BECAME THE LONGEST STANDING OWNERS. 2, 2 3. TWO TANGLEY STREET MEETS CRITERIA ONE, FOUR, AND FIVE FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CRITERIA ONE AND TWO FOR PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 2 2 3 2 TANGLEY STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 5, KNOWN AS THE MEYER JONES HOUSE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK CURRENTLY. OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A MOTION OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF COSGROVE MOVES TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? SECONDS. [00:15:01] ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND MOTION PASSES. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM D. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. AGAIN, THIS IS STAFF PERSON EMILY RYAN. I SUBMIT ITEM D FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 2 3 0 6 TANGLEY STREET FOR THE PROTECTED LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE MAY AND JOHN WALLACE DONALDSON HOUSE CONSTRUCTED IN 1931. THE MAY AND JOHN WALLACE DONALDSON HOUSE IS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT EXHIBITS THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE, INCLUDING SYMMETRICAL ORGANIZATION, BRICK CLADDING, MULTI PANED, DOUBLE HUNG SLASH WINDOWS, A CLASSICALLY ARTICULATED CENTRAL ENTRY AND A SIDE GD ROOF WITH DORMERS. THE EXTERIOR RE RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRITY IN MASSING MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING. ONE OF THE ORIGINAL HOMEOWNERS, JOHN WALLACE DONALDSON, WHO MOVED TO THE PROPERTY IN 1931, POSSESSES HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR HIS ACTIVE ROLE AS A CIVIC AND BUSINESS LEADER. DONALDSON FOUNDED AND LED THE DONALDSON LUMBER COMPANY, A MAJOR SUPPLIER OF BUILDING MATERIALS, AND SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS ASSOCIATION, GUIDING THE INDUSTRY THROUGH WARTIME REGULATIONS AND POST-WAR EXPANSION. HE ALSO SERVED AS A FOUNDING TRUSTEE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN FOUNDATION, WHICH HAS SUPPORTED THE ADVANCEMENT OF NURSING EDUCATION SINCE 1951. THE PROPERTY MEETS CRITERIA ONE, FOUR, 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 0 6 TANGLE STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 5, KNOWN AS THE MAY AND JOHN WALLACE DONALDSON HOUSE CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M A I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE, THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING ANYONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR A MOTION COSGROVE MOVES TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? IS THERE A SECOND? JOAN? SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OVER THAT LIST. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM E 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. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR COMMISSIONERS IN THE PUBLIC. I'M STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON. TODAY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FOR ACTION PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ONE MOTION. ITEMS E 1 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND HALF STREET DEMOLITION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN HISTORIC WEATHER. HISTORIC DIS DISTRICT NO RECOMMENDATION. E 2 5 0 9 EUCLID STREET ALTERATION EDITION IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS E 3 310 WEST 13TH STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL E 4 9 3 8 HARVARD STREET. ADDITION OF THE GARAGE OR CARPORT IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION DENIAL ITEM E 5 7 9 2 3. GLEN ALTA STREET ALTERATION EDITION IN THE GLENBROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. ITEM E 6 9 0 1 COMMERCE STREET. ALTERATION OF A SIGN IN THE MAIN STREET MARKET SQUARE AND THAT'S DENIAL OF A COA ISSUANCE OF A COR ITEM E 7 3 4 1 5 WHITE OAK DRIVE, ALTERATION OF A SIGN IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR ALL STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE PROCEEDING ITEMS. ITEMS THERE ARE NO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. WE ARE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSION MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY OF OF THESE SEVEN ITEMS YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSIONS? NUMBER ONE. OKAY. MR. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE NUMBER FOUR? OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS? [00:20:02] OKAY, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, I DO ALSO HAVE A SPEAKER WHO HAS SIGNED UP FOR ITEM TWO. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL THE ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION, LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE SUPPORTIVE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMIT, UH, MR. CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL IT TO GIVE THAT PERSON AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. OKAY? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, I HAVE TWO. OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT I HAVE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS IS ITEM 3, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REVISED CONSENT AGENDA AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF? COS SO MOVED. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. C SMITH. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THOSE ITEMS PASS. AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HAHC. THIS IS AGAIN, STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON. AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM EVE ONE AT 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND A HALF STREET IN THE STARK WEATHER HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY INCLUDED A HISTORIC 962 SQUARE FOOT. ONE STORY. ONE STORY WOOD SINGLE FAM FAMILY CRAFTSMAN STYLE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED IN CIRCA 1930, SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT IN OCTOBER OF 2025. THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE APPLICANT'S DUE TO THERE BEING NO HISTORIC HOLES ON THE PROPERTY, A PERMIT WAS ISSUED. ONCE STAFF WAS NOTIFIED BY A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT, STAFF WENT INTO IM WENT INTO THE IMS SYSTEM AND PLACED THE HISTORIC HOLDS ON THE FIVE PROPERTIES THAT DID NOT HAVE HISTORIC HOLDS ON THEM. THE PROPERTIES WERE 2 0 2, 2 0 4, 2 1 0, 2 1 3, AND 2 1 5 EAST 31ST AND HALF STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF A CONTRIBUTING HOME IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. STAFF RECEIVED TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION SEE ATTACHMENTS. STAFF HAS NO RECOMMENDATION DUE TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE STRUCTURE. THE DEMOLITION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE HHC CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE THREE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS TANYA WELLS TO BE FOLLOWED BY DR. SABRINA. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TANYA WELLS AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, I COME BEFORE YOU AGAIN. THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL COMMISSIONERS. TODAY, YOU ARE NOT SIMPLY REVIEWING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. YOU ARE DECIDING WHETHER HOUSTON'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE HAS REAL MEANING OR WHETHER IT CAN BE CIRCUMVENTED WITHOUT MEANINGFUL CONSEQUENCE. THE HOME AT 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND HALF STREET WAS A CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCE WITHIN THE STARK WEATHER HISTORIC DISTRICT. BEFORE THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS HAD BEEN COMPLETED, THAT HOME WAS DEMOLISHED. THE CITY DID NOT STOP THE PROJECT UNTIL THE ERROR WAS BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION. BY THEN, THE HISTORIC HOUSE WAS ALREADY GONE. THAT HOME CANNOT BE REPLACED. THIS WAS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THE PROPERTY'S HISTORIC STATUS WAS UNKNOWN. THE PROPERTY WAS IDENTIFIED AS BEING WITHIN THE STARK WEATHER HISTORIC DISTRICT. THROUGH THE PURCHASE DISCLOSURES, HCA RECORDS, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGNAGE IN THE COMMUNITY, THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS WERE PUBLIC AND DOCUMENTED. THE OWNER DISREGARDED THEM. THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS, WILL YOU REWARD HIM FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE? DISTURBING IS THE CITY FAILED TO PROTECT THIS HISTORIC RESOURCE AND NOT OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FAILURE TO THE COMMUNITY EQUALLY DISTURBING IS THE CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR LEFT A VOICEMAIL STATING THAT THE HISTORIC, THE INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL HAD NO STANDING IN THIS MATTER. THE HISTORIC HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL DID NOT JUST PARTICIPATE [00:25:01] IN THIS STARK WEATHER HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION. IT INITIATED, IT ORGANIZED, AND IT LED THE EFFORT THAT RESULTED IN ITS DESIGNATION. JUST LIKE THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH HAMPTON PLACE, THAT DESIRE THAT THEIR HOMES AND THEIR AESTHETIC LASTS FOR GENERATIONS. SO DO WE IN INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS. AND I ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. UH, TIME TO COMPLETE MY STATEMENT. MOTION TO EXTEND SPEAKER'S. TIME BY ONE MINUTE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL GRAB SECOND FAVOR. I ASKED THAT YOU RES I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. I ASK THAT NO REDEVELOPMENT APPRO, UH, PROPOSAL BE APPROVED AND THAT THE CITY FULLY EN REINFORCE ITS HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. HISTORIC DESIGNATION MUST MEAN MORE THAN WORDS ON PAPER. THE RESIDENTS OF INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS ARE DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND RESPECT FOR THE HISTORY OF HOUSTON'S FIRST INCORPORATED BRAC MUNICIPALITY. COULD THIS HAPPEN IN IN RIVER OAKS? COULD IT HAPPEN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DR. SABRINA SABRINA, FILED BY AMY DEN. DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. OKAY. AND IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME AND THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, DR. SABRINA NORMAN. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO AGAIN THANK YOU FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THE CONCERN OF MY STREET, THE HISTORICAL STREET, AND THE, UH, DESCENDANTS WHO LIVE UP ON THAT STREET. UM, WANNA MAKE ONE CORRECTION ON LAST, THE LAST MEETING I REQUESTED QUICKLY THAT WE CONSIDER A GARDEN. I WAS REPRIMANDED ON THAT. I MET WITH THE OLDER GENERATION ON MY STREET AND THEY SAID, NO. THAT WE WANT THE HOUSE TO BE REPLACED. WE DO NOT WANT, WE DO NOT WANT A GARDEN. WE WANT A HOUSE ON THERE. AND WE WANT, AGAIN, HALTON'S CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE. THIS, THAT WAS TORN DOWN. I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES QUICKLY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO NOW LIVE THERE. I AM A DESCENDANT. MOST OF US MOVED BACK IN TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PARENTS AND OUR GRANDPARENTS' HOUSES WERE PROTECTED. SO THESE ARE WHAT THE HOUSES ARE LOOKING LIKE. NOW. IF YOU NOTICE, THEY'RE LANDSCAPED, THEY'RE WELL KEPT. THE YOUNG MAN OR WHOMEVER HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THERE AT 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND HALF STREET. HE HAS NOT BEEN CUTTING THE LAWNS. I HAVE PICTURES OF THAT. HE ONLY CUT IT TODAY. IT WAS ONLY CUT. TODAY WE HAVE BEEN CUTTING THE LINE AND THE UPKEEP. I'M SAYING THAT AGAIN. SO THIS IS WHERE OUR LANDSCAPE, AND THIS IS THIS SIT, THIS IS WHERE HE CUT IT TODAY. THIS IS A PICTURE OF HIM, OF THE OWNERS CUTTING IT TODAY. I HAVE PICTURES OF THEM NOT CUTTING IT. WE'VE BEEN CUTTING IT. WE WANT, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION TO EXTEND SPEAKER'S. TIME BY ONE MINUTE. YEAH, WE A SECOND. DON'T. WE DO NOT WANT ANY NEW HOLD FAVOR. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. NO, NO NEW CONSTRUCTION. IF YOU'RE NOT INVESTED IN THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU FIRST BOUGHT IT, WE CAN IMAGINE WHAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE UP THERE. THIS IS WHAT, THAT'S MY HOUSE. 82 YEARS OLD. WE DO NOT WANT ANY CONSTRUCTION DONE THERE. NO NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THAT HOUSE BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGALLY DEMOLISHED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND GOOD TROUBLE. ONE MOMENT. IS THERE A QUESTION? THE SPEAKER? I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. UM, WERE YOU REFERRING TO, UM, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR? UM, WERE YOU REFERRING TO TWO SEPARATE HOUSES? UH, THE ONE OF DISCUSSION LAST TIME AND THIS ONE YOU SAID THE ELDERS SAID THAT THEY DID NOT NOT WANT A GARDEN. THEY WANT SOMETHING TO BE REPLACED. AND THEN YOU ENDED WITH THEY SAID YEAH, INSTEAD OF YEAH. CLARIFICATION. SO SAID YOU ENDED WITH, WE DON'T WANT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION. CAN YOU I I MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN DETAILS, LEMME JUST DETAILS CLARIFICATION. THERE WE'RE NOT REQUESTING THAT, UM, A GARDENING FOR WHICH ADDRESS ARE YOU REFERRING TO? 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND HALF STREET. FOR THE [00:30:01] HOUSE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED. WE REQUESTED THAT NO CON NEW CONSTRUCTION BE PLACED ON THAT PROPERTY. ALSO, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY DO NOT WANT A GARDEN THERE. OKAY. OKAY. BECAUSE I WENT BACK TO THE, SO IT'LL JUST BE MAINTAINED IN MOW IT IS TO BE MAINTAINED IN MOW NO, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT WE BE ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOMETHING PLACED THERE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD USE, LIKE A, A HOUSE FOR LIKE A MEETING PLACE. 'CAUSE WE HAVE NOWHERE TO MEET. OUR SENIOR CITIZENS HAVE NOWHERE TO MEET, BUT AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR PROPERTY, NO NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PROPERTY. BUT, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA MEET SOMEWHERE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION TO CREATE THAT FACILITY? NO, NO, NO, NO. WE'RE GONNA FIND A HOUSE. UH, WE'RE GONNA FIND A OLD HOUSE THAT'S NOT GONNA BE TORN DOWN. THERE'S A HISTORICAL HOUSE AND PLACE IT ON THAT PROPERTY. OH, OKAY. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. MM-HMM . SO NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME, YES. IT HAS TO BE HISTORICAL, POTENTIALLY REHAB STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YES. OKAY. SORRY, I JUST, I DID, I, I UNDERSTAND. MISSED A PIECE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER WHO SIGNED UP IS AMY DEN. IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. YES. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS AMY DEN. I'M AN ATTORNEY AT TEXAS COMMUNITY LAW PARTNERS. I'VE BEEN REPRESENTING THE INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY AND SPECIFICALLY INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SINCE 2017. SUPPORT PRESENTATION MODE PLEASE. UM, SORRY. UM, IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING, UH, MY EFFORTS TO HELP, UH, TANYA DEBO AROUND THE NORTH HOUSTON INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS, UM, UM, THE HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UP THERE. AND THAT'S WHEN I FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THE HISTORIC, UM, IMPORTANCE OF INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON. AND HOW IMPORTANT AND INSTRUMENTAL, UM, TANYA DEBO AND THE IHRC WERE IN ESTABLISHING THE STARK WEATHER DISTRICT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY'S LEGACY. AND THE FACT THAT THIS HOUSE WAS TORN DOWN WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION BY THE CITY THAT'S IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE JUST REALLY IS UPSETTING. GIVEN MY WORK WITH TANYA. WE HAVE, WE HAVE SUBMITTED SUPPLE, UH, WRITTEN COMMENTS, UH, THAT WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ON JULY 17TH, UH, JULY 14TH. AND THIS IS A SUPPLEMENT. THE APPLICANT'S HERE TO ASK FORGIVENESS. THE PROPERTY IS NO LONGER THERE. THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IF THEY WERE ASKING PERMISSION. IF WE WENT BACK TO THE TIMEFRAME WHEN THE PROPERTY STOOD IN EXISTENCE, IT WOULD NOT QUALIFY THE CITY'S OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA THAT OUR UNDER HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, YET THE CITY REFUSES TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION ON WHAT IT SHOULD DO. WELL, I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. THIS APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE. THE OMISSIONS OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO THE APPLICANT SPEAKS VOLUMES. THERE'S NO SELLER DISCLOSURE, WHICH WOULD'VE REQUIRED DISCLOSURE NOT ONLY OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME IT WAS PURCHASED, BUT ALSO THAT IT WAS PART OF THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT MOTION TO GIVE THE SPEAKER AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE OF TIME. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA, THIS COMMISSION CAN APPROVE IT. WHY THE CITY HASN'T MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION ALREADY. IT'S LEAD LETTING THE COMMUNITY DOWN A SECOND TIME. WHY DID THE CITY LET THIS HAPPEN? I DON'T KNOW. IT REALLY HURT THE COMMUNITY. IT REALLY HURT ME. AND I'M SURE TANYA IS HURTING IN HER GRAVE. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS TORN DOWN. THERE'S STILL A DATE DISCREPANCY IN THE RECORD. THAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION. AND THAT DATE IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE'S A TWO YEAR PENALTY FROM THE DATE THAT THE, UH, UH, PROPERTY IS TORN DOWN THAT'S IN PLACE. AND THEY DID NOT EVEN PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE, THE SERVICE THAT TORE IT DOWN AS FAR AS WHEN THEY DID IT OR WHATEVER. AND IN FACT, THE COMMUNITY MEMBER THAT WAS HERE THAT JUST SPOKE, DR. NORMAN SAYS THAT THE DATE WAS DECEMBER 4TH, 2025, NOT OCTOBER. AS IN, IN FRONT OF YOU. THE APPLICANT'S THING IS, IS SILENT AS TO THE EXACT DATE. SO WHAT PENALTY SHOULD BE ACCESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT? THE FULL EXTENT OF SECTION 33 DASH 2 0 3 D, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE TWO YEAR PENALTY AND MORATORIUM ON BUILDING THE LOT HERE. THE APPLICANT KNOWS BETTER. WE HAD A SELLER'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THAT WHAT WAS PART OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT. WE EVEN SNAPSHOTTED HCA, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY'S HISTORIC FOR ANYBODY JUST WANTING TO TAKE A LOOK. HE WANTED TO REDESIGN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN HIS OWN VISION, [00:35:01] WHICH HAS LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE STARK WEATHER DISTRICT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE HRC IN 2014. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER I HAVE IS DARNELL PETERS TO BE FOLLOWED BY JEFF STERMAN. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DARNELL PETERS. UM, THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME TODAY. I WANNA BE DIRECT. UM, MY STRUCTURE ON THE SLOT WAS DEMOLISHED WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND I UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THAT AND A DISTRICT BUILT ON PRESERVING ITS CHARACTER. UM, BUT I'M NOT HERE TO MAKE MISTAKES. I WILL SAY A DEM DEMOLITION PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON. UM, AND IT WASN'T IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC ON THE TITLE SELLER SELLERS DISCLOSURE OR APPRAISAL AT THAT TIME. UM, WHAT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND IS WHY I'M HERE. I DIDN'T COME INTO THIS DISTRICT TO ERASE THIS HISTORY. I CAME BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN WHAT THE NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOOD CAN, CAN BECOME, EXCUSE ME. I'VE ALSO PURCHASED AND NOW LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ON 32ND STREET. UM, MY WORK HERE IS ABOUT BUILDING HOMES THAT PEOPLE ARE PROUD OF AND CAN LIVE IN, LIVE IN TO REVITALIZE THE BLOCKS THAT SAT NEGLECTED FOR YEARS. THAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND EVERYTHING I DO. UM, NOT TO BYPASS THE RULES, BUT TO, UH, PROTECT THE STRICT DISTRICT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JEFF STERMAN. IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE AND CONFIRM MY PRONUNCIATION. YEAH, IT'S JEFFREY STERMAN. UM, JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS WAS, THE DEMOLITION WAS UN ACCIDENTALLY WE'RE UNAWARE OF THE STATUS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, FORGIVE IT. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE TO BUILD SOMETHING BACK THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WOULD BE OUR PLAN, UH, TO TRY TO BUILD A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE OR EVEN MAYBE MOVE AN EXISTING HOME WITH A LOT SO A FAMILY COULD BENEFIT FROM IT. UM, LIKE I SAID, IGNORANCE ISN'T AN EXCUSE. UH, LIKE DARNELL SAID IS THE SELLER'S DISCLOSURE, WHICH WE CAN PROVIDE A COPY OF. I'M SORRY. WE'VE NEVER APPLIED FOR THIS BEFORE. UH, SO IT WAS MY FAULT. UM, AND WE'VE BUILT MANY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON 35TH STREET, 36TH STREET, 33RD STREET, 32ND AND HALF STREET. AND WE'VE NEVER, UH, EX, YOU KNOW, DEALT WITH ITS DIRECT DISTRICT. SO, UH, WE'RE VERY, VERY SORRY FOR WHAT WAS DONE. AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT MAKE THE HOUSE COME BACK. BUT WE'D LOVE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY. THAT WAY SOMEBODY CAN LIVE IN IT, WHETHER IT'S, LIKE I SAID, IT'S US BUILDING A NEW CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE OR EVEN MOVING AN OLDER HOME, UH, ON THE LOT. UM, YOU KNOW, JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THAT HAS NOT SIGNED UP? OKAY, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS. UM, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR LEGAL BROWNING, MR. BROWNING? UM, WHY ISN'T THERE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION? WELL, SO THERE IS NO STAFF RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY, UH, COMPLICATED, UM, PROJECT. UM, THERE ARE, UH, I CALL THEM PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT GIVE CLEAR, UM, SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT THE HHC CAN RULE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, STAFF DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT BECAUSE OF THE SEVERITY OF THIS. AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, STAFF DID NOT WANT TO MAKE A RE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS GONNA APPEAR TO LEAN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF FELT THAT THE HHC SHOULD FULLY DISCUSS, UH, WITH THE OUTER RECOMMENDATION FROM US. BECAUSE IF I COULD GET THE DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. SO IN THIS HIGHLIGHTED SECTION, THIS IS AS, UM, I'M SORRY, I FORGOT HER NAME. UM, BUT AS SHE MENTIONED, THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT THE, THE HHC, WELL, IT, IT KIND OF INSTRUCTS WHAT THE HHC OR GIVES OPTIONS TO WHAT THE HHC CAN DO. UM, THERE ARE, UH, TWO YEAR, UM, A TWO YEAR SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S A 10 YEAR, UM, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE THEM BUILD BACK WHAT WAS THERE. UM, YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE DON'T, WE, WE, I DON'T WANNA SAY WE DON'T CARE, BUT YOU COULD SAY THAT THEY COULD BUILD BACK WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY PLEASE. RIGHT? SO, [00:40:01] UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, STAFF JUST FELT, UM, IT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE OWNERS AND THE RESIDENTS FOR US NOT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND TO HAVE YOU GUYS DISCUSS THIS, YOU KNOW, AND GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED SO THAT YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, DECIDE WITHOUT ANY INFLUENCE FROM STAFF. IF I, IF YOU WILL, ANOTHER QUESTION, IF I MAY FOLLOW UP. THANK YOU FOR THAT. NO PROBLEM. AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT ON THE SCREEN. I REMEMBER THAT FROM ONE OF OUR EARLIER MEETINGS. SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. IT SEEMS LIKE THE ISSUE ULTIMATELY BOILS DOWN TO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, WHETHER THIS WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S POSITION, AND I UNDERSTAND IT. IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, WHAT HAVE YOU UNCOVERED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS KNOWN OR UNKNOWN THAT THIS WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT? SO, UM, IN TALKING TO THE OWNERS, THE OWNERS WERE NOT AWARE THAT THIS WAS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. NOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN, YOU KNOW, SELLER'S DISCLOSURES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. I'VE ONLY SEEN WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED BY THE OWNER IN THE REPORT. UM, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WHEN DR. SABRINA NORMAN CALLED, UM, AND TOLD US THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN ACROSS THE STREET FROM HER HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED, UM, WE IMMEDIATELY STARTED PANICKING BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. BECAUSE ONCE WE FOUND OUT THAT A PERMIT WAS ISSUED, THEN WE NEEDED TO SEE HOW SUCH A THING WOULD HAPPEN. UM, IN OUR INVESTIGATION, AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED, WHAT STAFF DETERMINED IS THAT WHEN THIS DISTRICT WAS CREATED BEFORE ANY OF THESE STAFF MEMBERS WERE, WERE, UH, EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON, THERE WERE FIVE HOUSES THAT DID NOT RECEIVE THE HISTORIC HOLDS ON THE PROPERTIES. UM, WHICH I MENTIONED 2 0 2, 2 0 4, UM, I DON'T, I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT 2 15, 2 13 AT TWO 10. UM, SO, UM, IMMEDIATELY WE WENT IN, PUT THE HO UH, THE HISTORIC HOLDS ON THOSE PROPERTIES. NOW, THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE BECAUSE WHEN THEY WENT TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT FOR THEIR NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE HISTORIC HOLD WAS TRIGGERED. AND THEN THEREFORE THEY HAD THE THEN CONTACT US. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS WAS HISTORIC PROPERTY. AND, UM, YEAH, BUT IT'S JUST ACCORDING TO, FROM MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNERS AND THE AGENTS, THEY WERE NOT AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, EAST 31ST AND A HALF STREET WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. SORRY, LAST QUESTION. THAT'S FINE. WOULD WE BENEFIT BY PROVIDING STAFF AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO CONDUCT THAT INVESTIGATION INTO SELLER'S DISCLOSURES, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION, INFORMATION ON WEBSITES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS TO DETERMINE KNOWLEDGE? UM, I, I, I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK SO, HONESTLY, BECAUSE THIS, THEY'VE BEEN WAITING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME. THIS THING HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK FOR SEVERAL, SEVERAL MONTHS AND, AND, UM, IT WAS MAINLY BECAUSE THE OWNER HAD TO TAKE THEIR TIME TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY GATHERED. UM, IF YOU GUYS SO CHOOSE TO, UM, GIVE US AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO DO SO, UM, WE WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE IT. BUT, UM, HONESTLY, I THINK THAT I, I, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR DR. NORMAN, BUT I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE DR. NORMAN AND THE RESIDENTS ARE LOOKING FOR SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION. UM, I'M PRETTY SURE THE OWNERS ARE LOOKING FOR SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS IS, I THINK THEY DEFERRED IT. I THINK THEY DEFERRED IT MAYBE TWO OR THREE TIMES BEFORE WE EVEN GOT HERE. SO, UM, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SITTING FOR MONTHS, UM, OR THE LOT'S BEEN SITTING VACANTLY FOR MONTHS. SO I AM SURE, UM, THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED WOULD LIKE TO JUST MOVE ON. BUT AGAIN, IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU GUYS HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO THANK YOU, TERRANCE. I THINK, AND I THINK WE, WE HAVE A PROCEDURE WE NEED TO, WE'LL, WE'LL BE GOING THROUGH. 'CAUSE THE APPLICATION OR THE WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN, IN THIS APPLICATION WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT MERITED, UM, A, A C OF A OF DEMOLITION AND THAT WE NEED TO STILL HAVE A DISCUSSION. BUT WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS THAT SIGNED UP. SO FIRST WILL BE COMMISSIONER DAVIS, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER ELL. AND, AND THEN LAST, UM, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR. I'D LIKE TO ADD A FEW DATES, UM, UH, BECAUSE I DID A LITTLE BIT OF BACK RESEARCH. I KNOW YOU'RE SHOCKED BY THAT . UM, BUT, UH, THIS HOUSE, UM, RUBY ROSE, I THINK PASSED IN LIKE 2021. AND, UH, HER GRANDSON AND HER, [00:45:01] UH, SON AND GRANDSON INHERITED THE HOUSE. UM, THEY PUT IT ON THE MARKET ON AUGUST 14TH, 2025. THE AGENT KNEW IT WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND I, UM, AND THE, UM, HOWARD, UM, UH, HOWARD ROSE, UM, THEY KNEW THAT IT WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. WHETHER THEY PUT THAT INFORMATION ON A SELLER'S DISCLOSURE OR NOT, THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A SELLER WHO DOES NOT COMPLETELY DISCLOSE WHAT, UM, WHAT IS GOING ON. BUT, UM, IT WENT UNDER CONTRACT IN 23 DAYS, AND IT WAS INITIALLY UNDER CONTRACT WITH M AF 14TH INVESTMENTS. THEY ARE A WHOLESALER. AND, UM, WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS OF STRIKE STRIKING THE, UM, PURCHASE AMOUNT IT WAS IN, PURCHASED BY BAYOU CITY STRATEGIC REALTY. UM, I SUPPOSE IN THAT COUPLE OF DAYS, THEY MAY NOT HAVE DONE THE HOMEWORK THAT WAS DONE DURING THE TIME THAT THE, THE HOUSE WAS ON THE MARKET. UM, THE LISTING IN HAR SHOWS IT AS A RESTRICTED PROPERTY, BOTH ON THE PUBLIC AND ON THE PRIVATE SIDE. NOW, UM, YOU PROVIDED A LOT OF INFORMATION, UM, INCLUDING A TITLE COMMITMENT, BUT THAT WAS NOT THE FINAL TITLE COMMITMENT. THAT WAS THE TITLE COMMITMENT, UM, FROM THE, UH, ORIGINAL SIGNERS OF THE CONTRACT, MAF 14. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TITLE COMMITMENT ACTUALLY SAID. HOWEVER, IF YOUR TITLE COMMITMENT DIDN'T SAY THAT ON IT, THERE'S ANOTHER AVENUE FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO. UM, AND THEY HAVE DEEPER POCKETS. SO, UM, WHAT, AND I'VE GOT A LOT MORE DATES, BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THERE WAS ADEQUATE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, UM, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. BUT THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO LOTS, AND I SEE THAT BAYOU CITY STRATEGIC REALTY SOLD ONE OF THE LOTS. AND, UM, AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR, WHAT THE PROPOSAL THEN IS IF THEY DON'T OWN BOTH OF THE LOTS BECAUSE THEIR COA COVERS THE FULL, UM, THE FULL LOT, THE FULL TWO LOTS. OKAY. UM, I'LL TRY TO, UM, I'LL TRY TO, UH, ANSWER ALL OF THAT. UM, SO TO THE FIRST POINT, UM, I CAN ONLY GO BASED OFF OF WHAT IS PROVIDED TO ME BY THE APPLICANT AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE IN THE STAFF REPORT, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. UM, EVERYTHING PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT IS, IS WHAT, UM, EVERYTHING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME IS WHAT I PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. NOW, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNERS, AND I HOPE I DON'T MESS THIS UP, AND YOU GUYS CAN CORRECT ME IF I DO, BUT THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT FROM, FROM MY CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THEM IS THAT YES, IT WAS A WHOLESALER, BUT, UM, THEY CAME IN AND IT, IT, I MEAN, I GUESS THE WAY TO DESCRIBE IT WAS THERE WAS A THIRD PARTY, IT WAS BEING SOLD TO SOMEONE ELSE THAT FELL THROUGH, AND THEN THEY KIND OF SWOOPED IN AND GOT IT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD, OR THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT. SO, UM, AS FAR AS THE INVESTIGATIONS OR RESEARCH THAT YOU'VE DONE, UM, I MEAN, I, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION OR TO THOSE SYSTEMS THAT YOU PROBABLY GOT THAT INFORMATION TO. UM, SO, UM, BUT TO THE SECOND POINT, AS FAR AS THE LOT, SO, UM, ORIGINALLY THERE WAS, UH, THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING TWO STRUCTURES, UM, UNTIL, UM, THE HISTORIC HOLE WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO THE VERY END. THEY WERE PROPOSING TO DO, UM, A NEW CONSTRUCTION WHERE I'M ASSUMING THAT THE LOTS WERE TO, TO REMAIN, UM, AS A SINGLE LOT, UM, OR NOT TO BE REPLANTED. YEAH, THIS RIGHT HERE IS WHAT, UM, WAS THE LAST PROPOSAL THAT I SAW. SO, UM, YEAH, THOSE, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS I HAVE TO THAT, UM, I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED, BUT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY I JUST, I MEAN, I JUST, THAT'S A RABBIT HOLE. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, UH, UM, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED IF I WENT DOWN THOUGH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. DAVIS? OKAY. [00:50:01] MRS. BEFORE, UH, YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION, I HAVE RECEIVED ONE MORE SPEAKER'S, UH, REQUEST FROM THE PUBLIC. AND AT THIS TIME, JUST TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION FOR, FOR OUR DELIBERATIONS, I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MR. RUSSELL ETHERTON. IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE, THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. SURE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. UH, YES. MY NAME IS RUSSELL ETHERTON. I'M COUNCIL MEMBER CASTILLO'S, CHIEF OF STAFF, DISTRICT H OF WHICH THIS HOUSE IS, OR THIS PROPERTY IS IN. UM, IN SPEAKING WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER, HE DID REQUEST A DELAY, UM, ON VOTING ON THIS ITEM. UH, THERE ARE STILL SOME QUESTIONS THAT HE WOULD LIKE ANSWERED, UH, OR WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO GET ANSWERED BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE. AND SO HE DID ASK THAT I COME AND BRING THAT TO YEAR OLD'S ATTENTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. AND COMMISSIONER ELL, YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF IN PARTICULAR. IT'S MORE OF DISCUSSION OPENING UP TO THE COMMISSION ITSELF, I THINK GOT A CONUNDRUM. CLEARLY WE CANNOT PUT THE HOUSE BACK ON THE PROPERTY. I AM VIEWING THIS AS A BUILDER WHO APPLIES FOR PERMITS OFTEN AS A LOGISTICAL MISSTEP IN THE SYSTEM. IF THERE'S NOT A HISTORIC HOLD AND YOU APPLY FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND IT'S GRANTED AND YOU TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT SOUNDS VERY SIMPLE, BUT I, I THINK WE COULD SPEND PROBABLY THE REST OF THE EVENING TRYING TO DIG THROUGH PAPERWORK, WHO KNEW WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, AND WHY. BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THAT THE, UM, PROTOCOLS THAT PREVENT THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING ARE TAKEN A LOOK AT. I THINK WE HAD A SITUATION ABOUT THREE MEETINGS AGO WHERE WE HAD A C OF R BECAUSE THERE WAS A NOTE THAT WAS ADDED TO A DRAWING THAT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP IN THE REVIEW. ALRIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A KEY COMPONENT TO ALL OF THIS. YOU KNOW, I, I, IF I JUST HEARD THE CURRENT OWNERS PROPOSING, AND I'M SEEING WHAT THEIR, THEIR PROPOSAL IS A HOME, A SINGLE HOME THAT IT'S, IT'S, LOOK, IT'S NOT THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE. THAT HOUSE IS GONE. WE, NOBODY HERE CAN MAKE IT COME BACK. I THINK IF THEY'RE WILLING TO, UH, ADJUST COURSE GIVEN THE SCENARIO AND, AND BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE, AND KIND AND WOULD PASS, CLEARLY THERE'S A VIOLATION ON THE DEMOLITION, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT, THAT, THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN UNDO. UM, BUT INSTEAD OF, UH, CRAMMING, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD AND SAYING, I STILL WANT TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE MY, MY RETURN ON THIS SITUATION BY PUTTING TWO HOMES ON IT. UM, THEY'RE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY TO THE BEST OF THE ABILITY RECREATE THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ALL OUGHT TO CONSIDER TO ME. YOU KNOW, WE REVIEW ALL THE TIME HERE WHETHER A NEW CONSTRUCTION HOUSE CONFORMS AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE PUT IT THROUGH THE RINGER, UH, AND APPROVE OR, OR DENY THE CONSTRUCTION OF, OF THE HOUSES FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE CHARACTER THE HOUSE IS GONE. THEY'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT IS GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO, TO MEETING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER THAT. THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION, JUDGES. UH, TERRY, PLEASE. YEAH, SO THE, THE PROPOSAL, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THAT IS ONLY IN THE PACKET BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE. UM, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS STATED RIGHT. AND I THINK AFTER THESE QUESTIONS, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE EVALUATING THE APPLICATION BEFORE US ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT DEMOLITION WAS WARRANTED. BUT, UM, BEFORE THAT, BECAUSE THERE, THIS, THERE ARE SO MANY ANGLES TO THIS, I THINK IT'S WISE TO ADD THESE QUESTIONS. SO COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK. UH, THANK YOU. UM, SO MY QUESTION, AND THIS MAY REQUIRE SOME RESEARCH, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK ALL PARTIES PROBABLY WANT TO HAVE A DECISION HEARD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER CASTILLO'S OFFICE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PAUSE. UM, MY CURIOSITY IS, UM, I HEARD THE APPLICANT MENTION THAT THEY HAVE DEVELOPED ON A COUPLE BLOCKS OVER MULTIPLE HOUSES IN THIS [00:55:01] NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THIS AREA, UM, WHETHER IT'S THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER, THE WHOLESALERS WORKING BEFORE OR AFTER HOWEVER THE TRANSACTION'S BEING PASSED AROUND. MY CURIOSITY IS, HAS ANY ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES EVER HAD TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF HISTORIC APPROVAL? BASICALLY, LIKE IS THIS THE FIRST TIME EVER YOU'VE WORKING IN INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS? EVER HAD TO HAVE, UH, ADDRESSED A PROPERTY THAT HAD ANY KIND OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION? UM, SO, AND, AND HE, HE WAS WILLING TO STAND AND ANSWER, BUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE KIND OF MY, MY FIRST QUESTION, BUT RIGHT. SO I, AND, AND MM-HMM . SO AS FAR AS, UM, LIKE EAST 35TH OR EAST 32ND, THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. STARK WEATHER IS, UM, START WITH STARK WEATHER IS, OH YEAH, WELL, GO AHEAD. YEAH. STARK WEATHER IS ONLY ONE STREET. MM-HMM . UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A BIT, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS LIKE IT, RIGHT, RIGHT. ONE, IT'S, IT'S, UM, ONLY, UH, AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE. AND TWO, IT'S, IT'S A JUST A SINGLE STREET. RIGHT. IT ALSO, WHICH WE, UH, FOUND OUT IN DISCUSSION, UH, RECENTLY DOESN'T HAVE THE HISTORIC STREET MARKERS, BUT THERE IS A SIGN AS PROVIDED. SO, UM, YEAH, SO INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS, HOWEVER, IS A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT REGULATED BY THE CITY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO, YOU KNOW, SEEK, UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROVAL OR HAC APPROVAL TO HAVE PROJECTS ALTERED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT BOUNDARY, UM, UNFORTUNATELY CAN BE BUILT, UM, OR TORN DOWN, UH, WITHOUT OUR OR YOU GUYS' INVOLVEMENT. SO, AND SO MY CURIOSITY WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY, AND I I THINK HE WAS WANTING TO ANSWER OR ADDRESS IT, IS HAVE YOU NEVER, EVER COME, COME UP AGAINST A PROJECT WHERE YOU HAD TO HAVE ANY KIND OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPONENT OPPONENT? IF YOU, IF YOU'LL APPROACH THE, THE PODIUM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO YOU CAN RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AS WELL. THANK YOU, JEFFREY STURMAN. SO TO YOUR, TO YOUR, UH, QUESTION OVER THE DOZEN PLUS HOMES, WE'VE NEVER HAD THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. UH, YOU'VE, YOU'VE NEVER HAD ANY HISTORIC, YOU'VE NEVER DEALT WITH ANY HISTORIC HOME IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE. CORRECT. WHEN I FIRST STARTED DOING HOUSES, I DID A LOT IN THE EAST END THAT HAD HISTORIC CHARACTER AND WE TRIED TO RENOVATE THEM AND PRESERVE THE CHARACTER. AND IF OUR DEMOLITION PERMIT WOULD'VE BEEN DENIED AND WE WOULD'VE BEEN INFORMED AT THAT TIME THAT IT WAS HISTORIC, WE'VE WOULD'VE BEEN GLADLY, YOU KNOW, CHANGED COURSE AND RENOVATED IT TO THE HISTORIC CHARACTER. OKAY. CAN I ASK YOU HOW YOU MISSED, UM, THE AGENT KNOWING AND BEING AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS A HISTORIC STRUCTURE? I THINK SHE MENTIONED IT WAS STATED ON THE DOCUMENTATION IN YOUR, I WHOLE SAY, TEXT IT AS I HAVE THIS PROPERTY UNDER FOR, FOR THE THIS PRICE. DO YOU WANT IT? I DID MY NUMBER. I SAID, OKAY. NEVER LOOKED AT HR R SO I JUST RAN MY NUMBERS. I BUY OVER IT ALL THE TIME. UH, SO THEN IN THAT INSTANCE, I MEAN THE, THE FAILURE AND DUE DILIGENCE IS ON YOUR PART. YES. YEAH. I, I FAILED MY DUE DILIGENCE. WHAT YOU SAID. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE. YEAH, I ACKNOWLEDGE MM-HMM . OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, COMMISSIONER BOBBECK, YOU HAD A QUESTION? UH, YES. UH, QUICK CLARIFICATION, EITHER FOR LEGAL OR STAFF. UM, THE REQUEST FROM THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SPOKE EARLIER WAS THAT, UH, UH, SOME NEW HOUSE WOULD BE FOUND HISTORIC IN NATURE. I'M, I'M GUESSING AND PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. IS THAT WHAT NO, SIR. PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. UM, YOU, YOU COULD APPROACH THE, UM, THE MICROPHONE AND I CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK, BUT WE NEED ALL CONVERSATIONS TO BE RECORDED FOR THE PUBLIC WHO ARE NOT HERE IN PERSON. THIS TIME. IF YOU COULD JUST BRIEFLY RESTATE YOUR REQUEST. THE REQUEST, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I WANNA FIND OUT IF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ASKING FOR IS EVEN WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. OKAY. UM, AND THEN, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. I'LL, I'LL MAKE A STATEMENT AFTER THAT, PLEASE. YES. UM, COUNCILMAN SMITH, UH, LET, UH, CONS, UM, DR. SABRINA NORMAN, I WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE. I HAVE TO SAY THIS, I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE, THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED VERY HARD WITH, IT WAS THREE OF US TO, SO YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT PART TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS A HISTORICAL, UH, STREET. I ACTUALLY GOT SIGNATURES FROM THE ROWS ON THAT STREET. [01:00:01] BUT LET ME, I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE WHEN I SPOKE, WHEN I, WHEN I REALIZED THAT THEY WERE DEMOLISHING IT, I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. I TALKED TO MR. JACKSON, HE TOLD ME, SO WE GONNA DO THIS FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAVE HAPPENED WHEN THE ROSE HOUSE IS ON YOUR WEBSITE? HE TOLD ME, I'M DOING THIS FOR TRANSPARENCY NOW. HE SAID THAT THAT HAD BEEN AN UPDATE IN THE SOFTWARE FOR IDENTIFYING THE HOMES ON SARK WEATHER STREET. AND ALL OF THE HOUSES HAD NOT BEEN UPDATED ON YOUR NEW SOFTWARE. SO ALL THE HOUSES ORIGINALLY, LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU, ALL OF THOSE HOUSES WERE ORIGINALLY, 'CAUSE I SAT THERE AND WE HAD TO SIGN OFF ON THE PAPERWORK AND EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE KNEW THAT THOSE HOUSES COULD NEVER BE DEMOLISHED AND WE COULD NEVER DO ANYTHING ON THOSE HOUSES BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE HISTORICAL. SO NOW HE'S TELLING ME YEARS LATER THAT THE SOFTWARE IDENTIFYING THE HISTORICAL HOUSES HAD BEEN UPDATED AND THAT THERE WERE HOUSES WHEN I TALKED TO HIM THAT WERE NOT ON THERE. SO THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING HERE ABOUT WHO WAS DESIGNATED OR NOT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WERE FORMS SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY ON THAT STREET THAT SAID, HEY, IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR HO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TO SIGN OFF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED YOUR HOUSE TO BE DESIGNATED AS A HISTORICAL HOUSE. IF YOU DIDN'T SIGN THAT FORM, IT WAS STILL GOING TO BE A HISTORICAL HOUSE. SO I'M REALLY CONFUSED WHEN I'M HEARING THIS CONVERSATION AS IF WE DROPPED THE BALL. WE DIDN'T DROP THE BALL, THE SOFTWARE DID. YOU TOLD ME Y'ALL UPDATED IT. YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT BE MISHEARING SOME OF THAT PART BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S ACTUALLY GETTING TOWARDS. OH. SO, BUT YOUR QUESTION IS, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO LOOK, WE DON'T WANT, WE WANNA RECLAIM THAT PROPERTY, THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE, IN INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS. WE WANT TO RECLAIM THAT PROPERTY. WE WANT IT BACK TO US, AND WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE TO PUT A HOUSE ON THERE. WE WILL FIND A HOUSE AND THE FUNDS TO PUT IT BACK ON THERE. WE RECLAIMING OUR PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, THANK YOU. SO FOR STAFF, FOR LEGAL, IS THAT REQUEST WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, EVEN IF WE WANTED TO, COULD WE DO IT? YEAH, SO I THINK WHAT, WHAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW IS A COA FOR DEMOLITION. SO, WHICH WE, WHICH WE HAVE YET TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS. SO, WHICH, WHICH IS THE, AND I PROMISE I'M GONNA GET THERE. I'M, SO ONCE, UH, THE COMMISSION MAKES A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE CRITERIA FOR A COA OF DEMOLITION IS MET, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT DEFINING IS. A COA FOR, UH, RELOCATION OF A HOME COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED. UM, IT, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHERE WE GO. I AM GOING TO GUESS THAT WE'RE GONNA GO, THAT WE'RE GONNA FIND THAT THE COA FOR DEMOLITION, THE CRITERIA FOR THAT IS NOT MET. AND SO THEN IT, AND MY ANALYSIS OF THE CODE HAS BEEN THAT. SO NOW YOU REACH A IMPASSE. SO TWO POINTS. SO YOU CAN EITHER CHOOSE TO ISSUE A COR FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OR A, UH, RESTORATION OF THE BUILDING THAT WAS THERE, OR YOU CAN CHOOSE, NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE A COR. THAT TWO YEAR SLASH 10 YEAR MORATORIUM PERIOD IS GONNA BE WHAT THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED FOR THOSE PERIODS. UM, SO THE COR, IF YOU, IF THE COMMISSION DOES CHOOSE TO ISSUE THE COR, UM, THEY CAN CONDITION IT UPON THE RECONSTRUCTION OR THE RESTORATION, WHETHER THAT EXTENDS TO RELOCATION OF A HOUSE FROM ANOTHER HISTOR, FROM ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT'S UNCLEAR. UM, AND SO THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF A NEW APPLICATION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UM, I'LL MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT FOR THE COMMISSION. UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF TENSIONS IN THE ROOM. I ALSO HEAR AGREEMENT THOUGH, ON ONE THING, WHICH IS THAT I DON'T THINK ANYONE THINKS THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE RIGHT NOW. UM, COMMISSIONER DAVIS, I HEAR YOU, HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR THAT, UM, IF PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW THEY SHOULD HAVE, BUT THAT BEING AS THAT BEING AS IT IS, WE WE'RE HERE, IT GOT TORN DOWN. UM, I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANTS THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FIND SOMETHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN LIVE WITH. WE ALSO HAVE A MEMBER OF COUNCIL ASKING US TO DEFER. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO THROW OUT THERE, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE A MOTION, BUT WHAT IF WE WERE TO DEFER WITH A REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIT DOWN AND [01:05:01] I'LL GO AHEAD AND NOMINATE, UH, COUNSEL PERSON CASTILLO, TO FACILITATE THAT DISCUSSION. THAT'S MY PROPOSAL. JUST ONE NOTE. UM, I THINK SOUNDS GREAT. THAT JUST ONE NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION THAT IF A COA HAS BEEN DEFERRED THREE TIMES, IT'S CONSIDERED, UH, ACCEPTED. SO JUST WANT TO, I KNOW WE HAVEN'T REACHED THAT POINT, BUT JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT ON YOUR FOREFRONT OF YOUR MIND. WELL, AND CAN YOU REMIND US WHERE ARE WE? YEAH, WHERE ARE WE IN THIS LIST? IN THIS COUNTDOWN? I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THIS COA FOR DEMOLITION. IT WAS DEFERRED BY APPLICANT, WHICH DOESN'T COUNT TO THAT. UH, OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND FOR THE AUDIENCE, UM, IF YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UNLESS THERE'S A QUESTION FROM FROM COMMISSIONERS, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN. SO, UM, BUT I WANNA REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT WE'RE HERE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE, UM, THE APPLICATION BEFORE US, WHICH IS, UM, BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED, WAS THERE GROUNDS TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. AND THAT DETERMINATION IS NOT, UM, THAT, THAT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT DETERMINATION DOESN'T, IS HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER THERE WAS A HOLD OR NOT A HOLD IN THE CITY SOFTWARE SYSTEM. IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER THE APPLICANT KNEW OR DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS HISTORIC. WE, WE ARE ASKED, DOES THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED TO MEET THE LEVEL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO VOTE FOR DEMOLITION? AND WE NEED TO REVIEW THAT, DISCUSS THAT AT THIS STAGE IN THIS CONVERSATION. UM, ONCE YOU DETERMINE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS OTHER ITEMS INCLUDING DEFERRAL. BUT WE, WE NEED TO STILL ADDRESS THAT MAIN ITEM. MR. DAVIS, YOU, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I CAN ADDRESS YOUR, UM, AND YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON. SO YES. UM, IF WHAT WERE TO DECIDE TODAY IS WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE GRANTED A DEMOLITION, A COA FOR DEMOLITION, THE ANSWER'S NO, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET AROUND THAT. BUT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THE, THE ORDINANCE IS INCREDIBLY CLEAR ON THIS AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, DENY THE COR OR COA OR HOWEVER THEY PRESENTED IT. UH, SORRY, YOU, YOU WERE SAYING YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PERHAPS JUST GO THROUGH, UM, WHAT THAT IS BASED ON. UM, I'VE HEARD, FOR INSTANCE, THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE. I'VE HEARD THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT. UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, IF YOU'VE BEEN OUR EXPERT IN ALL THESE YEARS, AND I'VE SAID ON THIS COMMISSION, AND I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. I MEAN, I WOULD POINT THE POINT OF ORDER. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? THERE'S A MOTION. IF YOU CAN, SOMEONE CAN MAKE A SECOND, BUT THEN I'LL GO TO DISCUSSION. YOU, YOU, I'M NOT LOOKING TO MAKE A SECOND BEFORE WE CAN DO ANYTHING ELSE. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. CAN, CAN THE MOTION BE REPEATED? I WAS MAKING A MOTION TO DENY THE COA FOR DEMOLITION. AND, UM, IF, IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION OF LEGAL. SO, UM, DENY REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, THERE'S A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, AND THEN THERE'S WHAT WE, WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. RIGHT. SO, UM, I KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE HAS ALSO REQUESTED A FERRAL, BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE DEFERRAL IS FOR THE VOTE FOR DEMOLITION OR THE VOTE FOR WHAT WE MIGHT DO IF THAT VOTE WERE TO GO A CERTAIN WAY. UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT, UH, TO COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S POINT, THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER DEMOLITION WOULD BE ALLOWABLE OR ALLOWED BY THIS COMMISSION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO US AS IF IT WAS STILL STANDING TODAY IS, CAN ONLY BE MADE BY THIS COMMISSION AND STILL NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED. UM, AND THAT DOESN'T PRECLUDE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. RIGHT. AND I THINK IF, IF I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, UM, UH, MR. ETHERTON, IF I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND. UM, IS I CALL BECAUSE I, I HAVE TO CALL FOR A SECOND, UH, SOON OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS SIMPLY, UM, WE NEED TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DEMOLITION THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY BAR. WELL, IT, THAT'S, THAT DOESN'T, THAT VOTE IS ALL, ALL THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US ARE STILL BEFORE US AFTER THAT VOTE. AND, AND WE CAN POTENTIALLY DEFER ANY OF THOSE ITEMS. [01:10:01] CALL IF THERE'S CONSENSUS TO DO SO, AS HAS ALSO BEEN SUGGESTED. BUT, UM, THAT'S WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WE, WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE STANDARD WAS MET FOR DEMOLITION AS A FORMALITY SURE. SO THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND STEP FORWARD. SURE. THAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND. UH, THAT I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL. YEAH. 'CAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, SO I WANT TO ASK FOR A SECOND FOR THE MOTION AND THEN I'LL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE. POINT OF CLARIFICATION. YES. UM, SO IF WE WERE TO VOTE TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED, THAT WOULDN'T BE A FORWARD MOVING ACTION BECAUSE WE'D STILL BE WHERE WE WERE IS THAT WE, WE, WE STILL HAVE ALL OF THE OPTIONS BEFORE US, BUT WE NEED TO DETERMINE, FOR INSTANCE, IF THE APPLICATION, IF IT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS THAT IT WAS SO FAR DETERIORATED THAT IT WAS, THAT IT COULD NOT BE REHABILITATED, THAT IT MET, MET THE STANDARDS WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR DEMOLITION AND THERE WAS CONSENSUS A AMONGST THIS BODY, HYPOTHETICALLY, THAT, UM, WE COULD GRANT APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. OKAY. SO, BUT, BUT WE'RE VOTING AS IF IT'S STILL STANDING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT'S IMMATERIAL TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED. DID IT MEET THAT STANDARD? AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS ASKING COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, JUST TO STATE, 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT QUESTION IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT, WHERE DO WE GO AFTER THAT? OKAY. UM, SO, SO THAT WE CAN, UM, START TO DISCUSS THE MOTION. UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND, BUT AS OF THIS MINUTE, I'M, I'M NOT ON, I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH DENYING IT AS OF THIS MINUTE, BUT LET'S, LET'S GO FORWARD TO DISCUSSION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER COSGROVE? YEAH, SO I MEAN, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION IS THE OPENING SENTENCE OF THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH IS THEY HAVE NO, THEY DO NOT POSSESS PHOTOGRAPHS OR DOCUMENTATION EVIDENCE EVIDENCING THAT THE FORMER STRUCTURE WAS SERIOUSLY DETERIORATOR TO AN UNUSABLE STATE OR BEYOND REASONABLE REPAIR. I MEAN, THAT PRETTY MUCH MAKES THE DECISION FOR US THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THIS APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE. UM, I THINK WHERE I GET HUNG UP IS IF WE SAY, IF WE'RE SAYING NO, NO TO THE DEMOLITION, IS IT THEN AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION SINCE IT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED? AND AT THAT POINT, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS US. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S WE CAN SAY NO TO THE DEMOLITION AND THEN ADDRESS THAT AT A FUTURE DATE, AND MAYBE LEGAL CAN ANSWER THAT. OR DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY TODAY THAT IT WAS ILLEGALLY DEMOLISHED AND WE ARE DENYING THE, I GUESS COR FOR ITS DEMOLITION? UM, I, I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH CLARITY IN THE CODE, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT YOU SHOULD DISPOSE OF IT FULLY TODAY. SO IF YOU'RE DENYING THE A, THE COA FOR DEMOLITION, YOU'RE ALSO DECIDING ON HOW TO APPROACH A COR, UM, FOR RECONSTRUCTION. SO IF YOU'RE DECIDING THAT NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE A COR FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR FOR ANY OTHER RELOCATION OR WHATEVER, UM, THEN YOU'RE LETTING 2 0 3 D KICK IN WHERE THERE'S TWO YEARS BEFORE ANYTHING CAN BE BUILT, OR 10 YEARS DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE. 3D HAPPENS UNDER WHAT? SO IF THERE'S AN UNLAWFUL, UH, DEMOLITION, SO IF THIS BODY DETERMINES THAT THE DEMOLITION WAS UNLAWFUL, IT DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA, UM, THEN IT HAS A DECISION TO MAKE OF WHETHER THEY WANT TO ALLOW FOR THE A COR TO BE GRANTED, UM, TO, TO, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY PUT SOMETHING BACK. AND THERE'S OPTIONS THERE OR NOT TO ISSUE THE COR AT ITS DISCRETION, UM, IN WHICH CASE 2 0 3 D WOULD BE LIVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT 2 0 3 E WOULD ALLOW, WHICH IS THE COR FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR ALL THOSE ALTERNATIVES. UM, IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IT'S BASICALLY THE COMMISSION SAYING WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG, YOU DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA, BUT WE'RE GOING TO, UM, HAVE YOU FIX WHAT YOU DID WRONG. UM, AND WHEN YOU FIX IT, YOU'VE NOW, UM, YOU'VE NOW REMOVED THE PERMIT MORATORIUM IN 2 0 3 D SO THEY COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK, UM, WITH, UH, SOME SORT OF COA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, THOUGH I DOUBT THAT WOULD GET VERY HARD BECAUSE THE COR WOULD PUT SOMETHING ON THAT, [01:15:01] UM, ON THAT PROPERTY. UM, KIND OF COMPLICATED. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT EXPLAINING IT VERY WELL. SO YOU, WE COULD NOT, YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR US TO DO IT IN TWO SEPARATE PARTS, WHEREAS WE DENIED THE DEMOLITION. I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT PUTS A LOT OF, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO NOW MAKE A DECISION ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPERTY, AND THEN I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THAT WE ARE ALLOWING THE COMMUNITY AND THE OWNER AND THE COUNCILMAN TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS. YEAH. LIKE IF, IF I, I THINK FOR ME, THIS IS VERY COMMUNITY DRIVEN AND THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THE PARTIES INVOLVED NEED TO, TO, TO, I GUESS I'M HAPPY IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD. YEAH. BUT IF, YOU KNOW, TOLERABLE OF THE, OF THE SOLUTION THAT WE COME UP WITH, AND IF ALLOWING THEM TIME TO DO THAT WILL ALLOW US TO MAKE A BETTER INFORMED DECISION, THEN I WOULD BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. BUT I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORTIVE THAT THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION AND THAT IT SHOULD BE DENIED. UH, GOING FORWARD. I'M NOT, I WOULD NEED TO SEE THE OPTIONS AND I WOULD REALLY WANT THE COMMUNITY AND THE, THE OWNER TO, SO IF WE'RE KEEPING THESE VOTES SEPARATE OR SORRY, COMBINED, UM, AND WE WANT TO INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY, WHICH I'M ALL SUPPORTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT. UM, THEN I THINK THAT THIS COA FOR DEMOLITION SHOULD BE DEFERRED SO THAT WE HAVE TIME TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT COR IS ACTUALLY GONNA CONSIST OF. UM, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, MR. DAVIS, F COMMISSIONER BEL, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WITH THIS NEW INFORMATION, I'M SORRY. UM, THE COMMISSIONER DAVIS, EXCUSE ME. BEFORE YOU START, UM, I HAVE A MESSAGE FROM THE GOOD FOLKS AT HTV. I'M NOT TRYING TO CUT YOU OFF, I'M BE RUDE. UM, THEY'RE ASKING THAT ONCE YOU GUYS ARE CALLED ON AND YOU START SPEAKING, IF YOU COULD TURN YOUR, UH, NAME TAG, YOUR NAME, UH, BADGE BACK DOWN BECAUSE IT'S COVERING YOUR FACE FOR THE CAMERA AND THEY WANT TO GET YOU GUYS' FACE ON CAMERA. . OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, LET'S FLIP IT AROUND AND SAY, OKAY, WE DID, AND WE APPROVED THE COA, THAT WOULD, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, GIVE THEM PERMISSION THEN TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE COA WHERE THEY DEMOLISHED THE HOUSE. THAT'S HOW I AM READING THAT. AM I WRONG? NO, NO. YOU'RE CORRECT. WELL, I, I, I'M, I'M CONFUSED. SO, UM, SO IF, IF THIS COMMISSION DECIDED THIS, THE CRITERIA FOR A DEMOLITION WAS MET, UM, THEN YES. IF IT, IF IT, IF IT DETERMINED THAT UNDERSTOOD. IF THAT WAS, IT'S A BIG, IF, UM, IF THAT WAS DETERMINED, THEN, UM, YEAH, THE PER THE APPLICANT COULD COME TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH A COA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. UM, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN BY GETTING, UH, THEIR COA FOR DEMOLITION APPROVED, THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN, UM, LIKE PERMISSION TO CONTINUE BUILDING, BUT THEY COULD BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT. UM, IT'S IN A, AS LONG, AS LONG AS IT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDINANCE. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IF WE GIVE THEM A COR, WE'RE SAYING IT WAS OKAY, YOU DEMOLISH THE HOUSE NOW BUILD WHAT YOU WANT. AND THAT'S, AND THEY COULD, I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH THAT AND THEY COULD BUILD TWO HOUSES. UM, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. AND I TOOK A DRIVE OVER THERE TO LOOK AT THE DISTRICT AND I SAW SEVERAL, UM, HOUSES WHERE, AND THEY WERE THE NEWER CONSTRUCTION WHERE THEY WERE TWO ON ONE LOT. THEY WERE STILL, UM, HIS KIND OF HISTORIC, BUT THEY WERE JUST REAL SMALL. AND YOU GUYS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M, I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT. SO WE COULD SEE MULTIPLE HOUSE, TWO HOUSES INSTEAD OF JUST ONE. COMMISSIONER. ELL, YOU HAD A QUESTION. I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER BROBECK ASKED YOU THAT I DON'T THINK WE GOT ANSWERED WAS, IS IT IN OUR PURVIEW AT ALL TO TALK ABOUT, UH, RECLAIMING THE LOT AND ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT? JUST WANNA GET THAT ON THE RECORD? I, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT I'LL ASK ILLEGAL TO, IT'S STILL OWNED BY A PRIVATE PARTY, OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE CAN'T COMPEL THEM TO PUT IN A GARDEN OR A, LIKE A MEETING HOUSE, AS GREAT AS THAT MIGHT SOUND. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON TO, UM, THE RECORD. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF I'M HEARING YOU LIKE, CLEARLY THIS DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DEMOLITION, ANY COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF THE DENIAL OF THE DEMOLITION C OF A IS VOTED ON TODAY, [01:20:02] WHAT RESTRICTIONS DOES THAT PLACE ON THIS PROPERTY IN TERMS OF BUILDING SOMETHING THAT MEETS IT AND YOU STARTED DOWN THAT ROAD? YEAH. WELL, IF I, YOU KNOW, IF I CAN ASK THE QUESTION, JUST TO CLARIFY AS WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON THE MOTION, WHAT I HEARD IS IF WE VOTED TO AFFIRM THAT MOTION, WE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWING ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE FOR TWO YEARS. THAT IS WHAT THE MOTION THAT THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A CALL OR THAT IS AN EFFECT OF THAT VOTE IS RIGHT. WITHOUT, WITHOUT, YOU'RE INITIATING WITH, WITHOUT A DIFFERENT LEGAL DEMOTION, WITHOUT, WITHOUT A DIFFERENT NARRATIVE BEHIND THAT MOTION DESCRIBING ANOTHER ACTION. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LEGAL COUNSEL IS THAT IF WE VOTE TO AFFIRM WHAT WAS STATED, WE ARE SAYING NO TO THE DEMOLITION AND WE'RE SAYING NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR TWO YEARS, PERIOD. SO THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE TO CHANGE THAT MOTION. UM, THERE'S ANOTHER, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF ALSO BECAUSE THE SECOND MAY DISAPPEAR FROM THAT MOTION, UM, IT MAY WANT TO DEFER BECAUSE WE HAVE TIME TO DEFER. UH, AND THEN WE WOULD, THEN WE WOULD GIVE THE PARTIES AND THE COMMUNITY A CHANCE TO COMMUNICATE, BUT ALSO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS DISTRICT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PARTIES, UM, AS WAS THE REQUEST FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF. AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHAT TO DO LATER. BUT THAT'S RIGHT. SO IF, IF THIS BODY DECIDES WE'RE GONNA KNOCK, WE'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE A COA, UM, AND LEAVES IT AT THAT, THEN THE TWO YEAR PERMIT MORATORIUM, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. SO, BUT IF THIS BODY DECIDES WE'RE NOT GONNA, THE COA FOR DEMOLITION IS DENIED AND WE'RE GONNA ISSUE A COR FOR A RECONSTRUCTION OR FOR A RELOCATION OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, THEN, UM, THEN THOSE OTHER PARTS KICK IN, WHICH IS, WHICH IS, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, Y'ALL'S POINT OF CONSIDERATION OF THE DEFERRAL TO SAY, CLEAR UP SOME OF THAT IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. CORRECT. AND, AND, AND SEE IF YOU GUYS CAN'T COME TO A TOLERABLE RESOLUTION, AND AS, AS, AS I SEE IT, THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR THAT WOULD BE NO CONSTRUCTION FOR TWO YEARS, REBUILD WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED EXACTLY AS IT WAS, MOVE SOMETHING IN FROM ANOTHER PROPERTY OR APPROVE WHAT THEY SUBMITTED. THOSE ARE ALL POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT A DEFERRAL WOULD ALLOW SOME DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY, THE DEVELOPERS, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE. OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE I, I ORIGINALLY DIDN'T WANNA WASTE ANY MORE TIME, BUT I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE ARE NO, THERE, THERE ARE, THERE IS NO MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE CORRECT DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE. I MEAN, CORRECT. THAT, THAT'S SELF-EVIDENT. OKAY. CAN I WITHDRAW MY, YOU MAY MOTION? YES. OKAY. AND, AND REPLACE IT WITH A MOTION TO DEFER BROBECK. WOULD YOU SECOND THAT MOTION? HAPPILY. AND BEFORE I VOTE, UH, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TANYA, UH, FROM THE AUDIENCE BECAUSE IF, IF, IF WE WE'RE HINGING, UH, HEDGING, THE BET OF DEFERRAL ON IS THAT A REASONABLE AGREEMENT CAN BE ARRIVED AT BETWEEN PARTIES, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF YOU CAN RESTATE YOUR NAME, UM, OF WHAT MS. WELLS, WHAT THAT DIALOGUE IS GONNA BE ABOUT. SO THERE'S A SIGN, AMY, UH, OUR ATTORNEY, AMY, DAN SENT YOU GUYS THE PAPERWORK. THERE IS A SIGN THAT SAYS, THIS IS THE HISTORIC INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS. NUMBER ONE, THERE WAS A SIGN, OR THERE IS A SIGN SOMEWHERE ON THE STREET THAT IDENTIFIES IT AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. NUMBER TWO. UM, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO MEET WITH THE OWNER OR WHOEVER THIS INDIVIDUAL IS WITH HIM BECAUSE THE ARROGANCY OF HIM TO COME UP HERE AND SAY THAT HE'S COMING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO MAKE THE DISTRICT LOOK LIKE WHAT IT COULD BE WHEN IN ACTUALITY HE IS ENTERING THE FIRST BLACK CITY IN TEXAS. SO IT IS WHAT IT IS, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THERE WERE PICTURES THAT SHOWS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT HOME. THERE ARE PICTURES IN THE INSIDE OF THE HOME THAT SHOWS YOU IT MAY HAVE NEEDED SOME REHAB, BUT THERE'S NOTHING TO SHOW. THERE'S AN OUTSIDE VIEW OF THE HOME AT ALL. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS A DILAPIDATED FIXTURE. SO WE ARE JUST REALLY BAFFLED AT WHY [01:25:01] EVERYONE IS GOING BACK AND FORTH AND NO ONE HAS THE INTEGRITY TO, TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THIS WAS WRONG, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. HE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR GREED. AND THAT'S ALL THIS IS, IS BECAUSE HE CAME BACK WITH NOT ONE HOUSE, AS SHE MENTIONED, WITH TWO, SO UNDERSTOOD, UNDERSTOOD. HEARING YOU. UM, WHAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS WE'VE ALL KIND OF AGREED IT'S EGREGIOUS. SO NO ONE'S SKIRTING RESPONSIBILITY ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS EGREGIOUS. IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. SO I'LL SPEAK ON THAT BEHALF OF, THERE'S NO ONE TRYING TO AVOID THAT HERE. UM, THE CONFUSION WAS ON THE TECHNICALITY OF IF WE'RE BLOCKING A PATHWAY TOWARDS A SOLUTION THAT YOU DON'T END UP HAVING TO PAY FOR, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE YOU, YOU'RE NEGOTIATING WITH THE OWNER AND THE OTHER DEVELOPERS TO FIND A BETTER SOLUTION THAT MEETS BOTH THINGS IN THE MIDDLE SO THAT MAYBE Y'ALL NEGOTIATE. AND ONE OF THOSE FOUR OPTIONS IS YOU SAY, HEY, THERE'S A HOUSE OVER HERE THAT'S GONNA BE DEMOLISHED. WE KNOW THE HOUSE. WE'LL TELL YOU HOMEOWNER, YOU PUT THAT HOUSE OVER HERE, WE'VE SAVED THE HOUSE. THAT'S AN OPTION THAT HELPS. WE'VE DONE THAT IN FRIEDMAN'S TOWN WHEN THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED. SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE INQUIRY OF HOW DO WE LEAVE THE MOST LATITUDE FOR THE, THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN THE SOONEST. BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE WE'RE WEARING HERE IS TO SAY NO, AND IT'S TWO YEARS AND IT'S NO PERIOD. NO ONE GETS ANYTHING. YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING THERE FOR TWO YEARS. THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING THERE FOR TWO YEARS. YOU DON'T GET A HOUSE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE THAT WAS TORN DOWN, BUILT BACK, SO THAT IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE WAS. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL, YOU ALL NEGOTIATE, I'M SURE THEY'RE GONNA BE INTERESTED IN NEGOTIATING TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD, PERIOD. SO THEY COULD START RECLAIMING DOLLARS LOST FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT THERE. WE WERE TRYING TO LEAVE ROOM FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO ARE ANY OF THE OPTIONS THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, NOTHING, SOME HYBRID OF SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE NEGOTIATING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER UP, UP HOUSE, MOVED FROM ANOTHER PLACE THAT'S GONNA BE DEMOLISHED OTHERWISE, OR SOME OTHER OPTION. ARE NONE OF THOSE THINGS WORTH NEGOTIATING FOR YOU? BECAUSE IF SO, THEN WE'RE FACED WITH THE OPTION OF NOT DEFERRING BECAUSE THERE'S GONNA BE NOTHING TO DEFER FOR WHEN YOU GUYS AREN'T GONNA COME TO AN AGREEMENT, WE'LL JUST DENY AND THEN THERE WILL BE NOTHING THERE FOR TWO YEARS AND YOU GET NOTHING AND THEY GET NOTHING. SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE? SO IT, UH, DR. SABRINA NORMAN CAME UP THERE AND SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A HOUSE MOVED OVER, RIGHT? THAT WOULD, COULD BE USED AS A MEETING PLACE AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THAT AFTER THIS. SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. THAT WOULD BE AN, THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. IF THAT, IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR. OKAY. WE STAND BY THE COMMUNITY BEHIND THE COMMUNITY ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. SO THIS IS WHAT SHE'S BROUGHT TO THE TABLE, RIGHT? THIS IS WHAT INDEPENDENT HEIGHT STREET DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL HAS, HAS ALWAYS DONE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE ARE BEING TOLD WE HAVE NO STANDING. RIGHT? SO WE HAVE ALWAYS, UH, ADVOCATED FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR THEM TO GET WHAT THEY WANT. SAME. AND WE WANNA LEAVE YOU THE LA THE LARGEST LATITUDE FOR THAT. WITH THAT, THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. UM, THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A STATEMENT THAT, UM, I, I WILL ALSO EITHER MAKE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL SO THAT THIS THIRD RAIL CAN BE FIGURED OUT. WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL. OKAY. SO ALREADY, ALREADY. MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. I'LL JUST STATE THAT'S WHERE I ARRIVED AT LAST DISCUSSIONS, THAT CONVERSATION. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? LEGAL? YES. AND FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK AFTER THE TWO YEARS, IF THAT IS WHAT ULTIMATELY IS DECIDED, WHAT CAN THEN BE DONE WITH THE SITE? YEAH, SO THAT'S GOOD. GREAT QUESTION. UM, SO AFTER TWO YEARS, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN, UH, REQUEST A BUILDING PERMIT, UH, FOR A STRUCTURE THAT'S OF THE SAME SIZE. AND I THINK DIMENSION OF WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED AFTER 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DEMO DEMOLITION, THAT SIZE AND LIMITATION REQUIREMENT IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. SO AFTER 10 YEARS OF DEMOLITION, AFTER THE DATE OF DEMOLITION, THE OWNER CAN COME ASK, UH, COME TO THE COMMISSION AND REQUEST TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT IT DOESN'T MEET, THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE SAME SIZE, LIMITATION, SIZE, AND DIMENSIONS OF WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED. COMMISSIONER BROBECK ONE LAST QUESTION, THEN WE'LL HOLD A VOTE, UM, FOR DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MOTION. UM, I DON'T HEAR ANYONE IN THE ROOM THAT LIKES THE IDEA OF NOTHING HAPPENING FOR TWO YEARS. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT. UM, AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR. I'D BE P****D TOO, BUT A LONG TIME MENTOR ONCE TOLD ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE DON'T TALK NOTHING. SO REALLY, I THINK THE BEST MOVE HERE IS FOR US TO DEFER AND ASK THAT THE PARTIES SIT DOWN AND TALK. THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE FACILITATES THE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THAT'LL, THAT'LL MOVE THE BALL FORWARD FASTER. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO DO THINGS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M ENCOURAGING THE COMMISSION DO. [01:30:01] THANK YOU. WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL. AYE AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? DEFERRAL PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 2, 5 0 9 EUCLID STREET. I THINK IT JUST MUST BE ME. YEAH. REQUIRES LONG DISCUSSIONS. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC. THIS IS AGAIN, STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON. AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM E TWO AT 5 0 9 EUCLID STREET IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 1,651 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD SINGLE FAMILY BUNGALOW RESIDENCE BUILT CIRCA 1920 AND DETACHED GARAGE, SITUATED ON A 6,200 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 2,228 SQUARE FOOT EDITION, BRINGING THE TOTAL FROM 1651 TO 3,769 SQUARE FEET, WITH 404,006 11 SQUARE FOOT COVERED. THE ADDITION WILL INCLUDE, UH, IT WILL INCLUDE AN ADDITION AT THE FRONT OF THE HOME AND AT THE REAR OF THE HOME. THEY DEMOLISHED A NON-ORIGINAL ADDITION TO OPEN THE ORIGINAL PORCH, REMOVING THE WINDOWS AND THE WALL TO BE REMOVED AND INSTALLED NEW WOOD COLUMNS WITH BRICK BASES. REMOVE THE EXISTING ASBESTOS SIDING AND REPAIR AND REPLACE AS NEEDED. THE FOUR INCH REVEAL WOOD SIDING BENEATH. INSTALL NEW SMOOTH CEMENTATION SIDING WITH A EIGHT INCH REVEAL. ON THE ADDITION, MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS OF THE EXISTING HOME. INSTALL NEW WOOD OR WOOD CLAD ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS. IN THE ADDITION, THE HOME WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A 27 FOOT 11 AND A HALF MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT. THE ATTACHED GARAGE WILL HAVE A 26 FOOT SIX AND A HALF INCH MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT. 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 A SIX OVER 12 ROOF PITCH. THE EXISTING GARAGE WILL BE MOVED FORWARD EIGHT FEET TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TREE TRIMMING THAT WILL NEED TO TAKE PLACE. THE ADDITION WILL HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND GARAGE APARTMENT ABOVE. STAFF RECEIVE SIX PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE PROPOSED EDITION BE CLA WITH FIVE INCH SMOOTH CEMENT SIDING CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE A TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS PAUL WHITEHOUSE, FOLLOWED BY THINK PATRICK SCALES. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PUCHEK AND COMMISSIONERS AND, UH, MEMBERS OF, UH, STAFF. MY NAME IS PAUL WHITEHOUSE. I'VE OWNED AND LIVED AT 5 1 3 EUCLID STREET NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR 10 YEARS. AT THE LAST HEARING BEFORE THE APPLICANT ASKED TO DEFER, UM, THE APPLICATION, THERE WAS A MOVE, UH, TO DENY WITH SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS COMMENTING ON THE EXTREME SIZE AND MASSING OF THE PLAN. DESPITE THIS, A REVISED PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT MAY ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA, BUT NOT THE SIZE AND MASS TO ANY EXTENT. SO WE'RE SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS REGARDING THE SIDING. I MAINTAIN THAT THE PLANNED ALTERATION IS FAR TOO BIG AND IT DOES NOT DO ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE GIANT HISTORIC LIVE OAK. AT 5 0 4 WOODLAND STREET THAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE, UH, JUNE HEARING, I'VE SUBMITTED A LETTER DEMONSTRATING THAT THE ALTERATION WAS, WOULD RESULT IN A STRUCTURE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN OTHERS IN THE CONTEXT AREA. AND THE PERCENT INCREASE IN SIZE RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD BE LARGER AS WELL. THIS IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT EXTENDING THEIR HOME. THIS IS ABOUT NOTHING MORE THAN A PROPERTY DEVELOPER MAXIMIZING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PROFIT. REGARDING THE LIVE OAK TREE, THE ALTERATIONS MADE TO ADJACENT HOMES HAVE BEEN DONE IN A MANNER OF SYMPATHETIC TO THE TREE. IT'S A DEFINING FEATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PRESUMABLY NAMED WOODLAND HEIGHTS. FOR GOOD REASON, THE TREE IS LIKELY TO BE OLDER THAN THE COUNTRY, [01:35:01] AND IT HAS BOTH HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE. THE TREE SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND CELEBRATED, AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS PATRICK SCALES. COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE. AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS PATRICK SCALES. I'M A RESIDENT AT 5 0 1 EUCLID STREET, WHICH IS NEXT DOOR TO, UH, THE 5 0 9 RESIDENCE. UM, WE AGAIN, AS PAUL STATED, ASKED TO DENY THIS PLAN. UH, FIRST, THE CRITERIA OF NINE AND CRITERIA 11, UM, ARE NOT MET. IT GRANTED WHEN THEY MOVE THE, UH, GARAGE FORWARD EIGHT FEET, IT PARTIALLY ADDRESSES THE TREE ISSUE. UM, THERE IS, IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PERCOLATION FACTOR. THE CRUSHING OF THE SLAB OR THE SLAB WILL BE CRUSHING THE ROOTS OF THE TREE AND WILL EVENTUALLY KILL IT. THERE'S A ARBORIST, UH, DOCUMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED DURING THE LAST MEETING, WHICH GOES INTO THIS THAT IS NOT ADDRESSED. SO THE TREE WILL DIE OVER TIME. SECOND, THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE NEW STRUCTURE IS 26% LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT TRYING TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S JUST TRYING TO BE A MASS AND GET THE MASS MOST SQUARE FOOTAGE OUT OF THE PLAN. THE ELEVATION, AS YOU'VE SEEN, DWARFS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO INSTEAD OF BEING THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE FOCAL POINT OF THE LOT, YOU'LL SEE THIS MASS BEHIND IT. IT IS NOT, IT DOES NOT FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIRD, THE H-A-C-H-C CRITERIA FOR THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT IS VIOLATED. CRITERIA ONE AND CRITERIA FOUR, THE RISK TO THE TREE. CRITERIA EIGHT, THE TREE, THE DAMAGE TO THE TREE YOU CAN REBUILD MAY HAVE AN EXTRA MINUTE TO MOTION TO EXTEND SPEAKER'S. TIME BY ONE MINUTE. IS THERE A SECOND? UH, CRITERIA? ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. PLEASE PROCEED. CRITERIA EIGHT, THE DAMAGE TO THE TREE. ONCE THIS IS DONE, YOU CANNOT REBUILD A CENTURIES OLD TREE. IT'S GOING TO BE GONE. AND CRITERIA NINE, THE TREE HAS BEEN AROUND AGAIN FOR CENTURIES. SO IT MAKES IT A HISTORICAL AND CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. WITH THAT, WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THAT IS NOT SIGNED UP? OKAY, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER SMITH. CARL SMITH. HI. UM, OBVIOUSLY TWO SPEAKERS BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF MASSING. I REMEMBER THIS FROM LAST COMMISSION MEETING. UH, WE DISCUSSED THE MASSING OF IT. UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PLAN HAS AN EVEN LARGER SQUARE FOOT THAN THE JUNE. WHY DOES STAFF THINK THE MASSING WAS OKAY WITH THIS MODIFICATION? UH, SO TWO THINGS. ONE, THE GAR, THE GARAGE HAS NOW BEEN ATTACHED, UM, AND IT'S BEEN MOVED UP. UM, AND THEN THE PORCH AT THE REAR WAS MADE LARGER. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IF WE GO TO THE FRONT ELEVATION, UM, I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY MUCH THAT CHANGED AS FAR AS THE FRONT ELEVATION BESIDES THEY MOVED, UH, THE SET, THE PORTION ON THE LEFT, THEY MOVED THAT BACK TO TAKE IT TO THE, UH, 50% MARK AT, ON THAT SIDE. UM, WE ALSO WENT OUT, UH, AND, AND DID A SITE VISIT AFTER THE MEETING AND REALIZED THAT A LARGE PORTION OF THE, UH, RIGHT WALL WAS UNORIGINAL AND THE LEFT SIDE WAS ORIGINAL. UM, I WANNA CLARIFY THAT. UM, STAFFS MAIN REASON FOR, UH, THE DENIAL RECOMMENDATION LAST MONTH WAS BECAUSE ONE, THEY WERE, UH, DEMOLISHING, UM, [01:40:01] A, UH, PORTION OF THE CONTRIBUTING HOME. THEY WERE REMOVING THE ORIGINAL SIGHTING. UM, AND THEY WERE, I BELIEVE THEY WERE GETTING RID OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. UH, SO, AND, AND OF COURSE THE, THE ADDITION BEING UP ON, ON THE, UH, OVER THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. SO ONCE THE APPLICANT, UM, REMEDIED THOSE ISSUES, UM, STAFF FELT THAT, UM, THEY WERE MEETING, UH, CRITERIA. THEY ALSO LOWERED THE RIDGE HEIGHTS, UM, ON BOTH THE HOME AND THE GARAGE. UH, SO IT'S AN INTERIOR LOT. UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT'S BUILT, THERE'S A LOT OF THIS THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE FROM THE STREET. UH, SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR, FOR STAFF'S, UH, CHANGE IN RECOMMENDATION. BUT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SUBJECT TO WHAT YOU GUYS RULE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SEL? JUST FOR MY KNOWLEDGE, DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY RELATED TO TREES? I WILL ASK THAT OF STAFF. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE TREES. I KNOW THAT THE CITY, UM, PROTECTS TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, CERTAINLY, YES. AND I DON'T KNOW, UM, IF THERE'S A PROVISION ABOUT THE TREES, BUT CLEARLY IT'S A IMPORTANT ELEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY. UM, IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME AND, UM, AND IT'S, UM, PART, I GUESS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS PART OF THE CHARACTER OF THE COMM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF THE CRITERIA THAT IT IS YES. OF CERTAIN SIZE AND WEIGHT THAT IT HAS MADE ITS PRESENCE KNOWN. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC PASSAGE IN OUR ORDINANCE REGARDING THIS, BUT I DO THINK IT IS OF NOTE. YEAH. IT STILL REMAINS THE QUESTION LIKE, NO, I MEAN, IT'S, SO STAFF CAN'T CONSIDER THE TREE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S NO MENTION OF TREES IN THE ORDINANCE AS FAR AS THE CRITERIA IS CONCERNED. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE'RE GOING BASED ON THE 11 CRITERIA. AND IN THAT 11 CRITERIA, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND NOT, NOT TREES. AND TYPICALLY WE'RE NOT REGULATING LANDSCAPING. RIGHT. SO THAT'S, THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT I'LL ASK LEGAL FOR CLARIFICATION. YEAH, YOU'RE CORRECT. THERE'S, UM, BUT I GUESS, SO I WANNA ASK TERRANCE, IS THERE A, ISN'T THERE A CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING ANY OTHER SORT OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT THE PROPERTY? IS THAT AT ONE OF THE YEAH, I MEAN THERE, THERE ARE. IT'S, IT'S, UM, UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, YES. UM, DOES A TREE QUALIFY FOR THAT? I, I'M NOT SURE. I, I MEAN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT WERE MADE BASED ON, UH, THE, THE, THE POSITION OF THE TREE. UM, I MEAN, SO I MEAN, I, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE TREE, UM, I MEAN, GOING OUT THERE AND SEEING HOW BEAUTIFUL THE TREE IS AND WHAT IT DOES FOR THE BACKYARD, I MEAN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO SAVE IT. I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE PROPERTY VALUE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY DARN HIGH. SO, UM, ALL THOSE THINGS CONSIDERED, AGAIN, I, I CAN ONLY ADVISE THE APPLICANT TO, TO, TO LET HIM KNOW, HEY, THIS IS YOUR SITUATION BASED ON WHAT PEOPLE CAME TO SAY. RIGHT? I MEAN, WHEN WE WENT ON THE SITE VISIT, THAT WAS KIND OF THE TALKING POINTS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT INSTRUCTING HIM HOW IT NEEDS TO BE DESIGNED WAS JUST BASICALLY TELLING HIM, HEY, I, I CAN'T TELL YOU TO CHANGE YOUR CA SQUARE FOOTAGE. I CAN'T TELL YOU TO MAKE IT BIGGER. I CAN'T TELL YOU TO MAKE IT SMALLER. THAT'S ALL ON YOU. BUT WHAT, WHAT I CAN TRY TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO IS TO TRY TO DESIGN AROUND THE TREE SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET WHAT YOU WANT, THE RESIDENTS CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT, AND AS A RESULT, HIM CONNECTING THE GARAGE IS, IS WHAT HAPPENED AND, AND MADE THE, THE SPACE A LITTLE BIGGER. UM, SO YEAH, I MEAN, I, I'M SORRY, THAT'S A REALLY HARD QUESTION FOR ME, BUT I CAN'T, I, I JUST CAN'T, UH, WITH THE CRITERIA, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I MEAN, I, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH SIGHT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF A TREE WOULD BE INDEPENDENT OF THAT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. TERRANCE. I'M GONNA ASK MR. JONES IF SHE CAN [01:45:01] OPINE ON THAT QUESTION AND WHAT HER QUESTION WAS. I WILL JUST SAY THAT WHETHER A TREE DIES OR NOT, IT'S USUALLY, TYPICALLY MAINLY BASED ON IMPACT OF THE ROOT ZONE. YEAH. SO, UM, TREES REQUIRE OXYGEN AND AIR EXCHANGE AND, YOU KNOW, MOISTURE WATER, BUT IT'S THE AIR OR SO THEY SUFFOCATE WHEN THEY ARE, UM, IF THEY DON'T HAVE BREATHING TUBE OR BREATHING TUBES, WHICH IS ONE, ONE METHOD IS USED WHEN SLABS ARE USED OR, UM, RAISED, UH, I'VE, I'VE SEEN SLAB, YOU KNOW, UM, SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONS THAT WERE ELEVATED ABOVE GRADE JUST TO HAVE AN AIRSPACE. SO, UM, IT, THERE, THERE ARE WAYS OF DOING IT AND, BUT THE FASTEST WAY FOR A TREE TO DIE IS TO, IS TO COMPACT THE ROOT ZONE OR TO SMOTHER THEM. AND THEY, THEY, THEY SUFFOCATE WITH THAT COMMISSIONER JONES, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK AND COMMISSIONER COSGROVE. OKAY. I AGREE WITH DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TREE AND I THINK THAT IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. CAN WE LOOK AT PAGE 14 OF 51 IN THE PACKET? I BELIEVE IT'S THE LEFT ELEVATION. THERE WE GO. SO I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS THAT I DID THE LAST MEETING IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH HISTORICAL MATERIAL IS COMING OFF OF THE HOME. UM, IS THIS THE SIDE THAT HAS AN ORIGINAL MATERIAL ON IT OR IS IT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE? SO, SO THIS, THIS IS MAINLY ORIGINAL. OKAY. UH, WELL, I'M SORRY. THIS IS MOSTLY ORIGINAL HERE. ACTUALLY. IT'S ALL ORIGINAL. SO WHERE THE, UM, INDENTION STARTS MM-HMM . THAT IS THE ORIGINAL CORNER, WHICH IS WHY THEY NOW INDENT, UH, TO SAVE THAT ORIGINAL CORNER. UM, THE OTHER SIDE IS THE SIDE THAT'S BEEN HEAVILY ALTERED. UM, BASICALLY THAT WHOLE WALL HAD BEEN ALTERED. THEY'VE, UH, TORN OUT WINDOWS, THEY'VE GOT A PATIO DOOR, UM, AND THEN THE WHOLE BACK WALL ON THAT RIGHT SIDE HAS ALSO BEEN HEAVILY ALTERED. BUT EVERYTHING ON THAT LEFT SIDE WHERE YOU SEE WHERE THEY INDENTED, THAT'S ALL ORIGINAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROBECK? UM, YES, A BRIEF RESPONSE TO, UM, COMMISSIONER SEIDEL. UM, I KNOW IT MAY NOT, TREES MAY NOT SPECIFICALLY BE IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT I DO BELIEVE IN THIS INSTANCE IT FALLS UNDER THE, UH, SUBJECTIVITY PART OF OUR CHARGE WITH COMPATIBILITY. AND IF SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, APPROVING OR DENYING WOULD IMPACT, UH, SOMETHING LIKE A TREE THAT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS AS INTEGRAL TO THAT ENVIRONMENT AS THIS TREE IS, THEN I THINK IT FITS UNDER, UM, COMPATIBILITY. UH, MOREOVER, AS A MATTER OF POLICY IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, MY UNDERSTANDING IS TREES ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU TOUCH A TREE, UH, IN THE, UH, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, IT'S LIKE A $7,000 FINE OR SOMETHING PRETTY STIFF. SO I KNOW THAT IN HOUSTON, TREES ARE IMPORTANT. AND WITH THAT SAID, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AS SOON AS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ARE OVER. COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT I ACCOMPANIED TERRANCE TO THE, TO THE SITE VISIT. AND I WILL SAY THAT THE APPLICANT WAS RECEPTIVE OF A LOT OF IDEAS AND WE DID SPEND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME FOCUSED ON THE TREE BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE STANDING UNDER IT, YOU REALIZE IT'S MAGNITUDE WHICH IS NOT PORTRAYED IN THIS APPLICATION. UM, WE TALKED ABOUT, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICATION HAS IT, THIS, I MEAN, THE ADDITION WILL BE ON A APPEAR AND BEAM AND THE GARAGE WILL BE ON A SLAB, BUT IT WILL BE MOVING FORWARD, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY MY SUGGESTION TO GET IT OUT FROM UNDER THE ONE BRANCH THAT IS SO LARGE. UM, AND I BELIEVE HE WAS GOING TO SWITCH THE DRIVEWAY FROM CONCRETE TO GRAVEL TO ALLOW MORE WATER. UM, SO HE WAS AGREEABLE TO SOME CHANGES. NOW, I DID NOT LEAVE THE MEETING BELIEVING THAT WE WERE GOING TO SEE A HOUSE THAT WAS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET LARGER THAN WHAT HE HAD PROPOSED BEFORE. UM, WE DID DISCUSS A LOT ABOUT SCALING BACK THE SIZE OF THE ADDITION AND THE NECESSITY OF ALL THOSE ROOMS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. UM, HE DID REMOVE ONE OF THE TWO STAIRCASES, WHICH WAS, WAS ALSO A RECOMMENDATION. BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT LOOKING AT THIS DESIGN, THAT I AM SUPPORTIVE OF IT, UM, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER HILL, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UH, EXCUSE ME. I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, NUMBER ONE, UH, THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY MUST RETAIN AND PRESERVE THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE HOUSE. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? [01:50:04] UH, MY, WELL, I MAY, UH, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER LEGAL AS A CAN OPINE ON THAT OR WHETHER THERE'S STAFF. UM, I I WOULD, WHAT WAS THAT FOR ME? STAFF? YEAH, . OH, OKAY. UM, IF, IF YOU'RE ABLE, I I DON'T THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A LAW SCHOOL, UH, CAN SUBJECT MATTER, BUT, UM, YEAH, UM, I MEAN THAT YOU GOT ME. WELL, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK THAT THE, THE QUANDARY HERE I HAVE HERE IS THAT WE DON'T REGULATE LANDSCAPING. UM, BUT THIS TREE IS MORE THAN A NORMAL TREE. AND SO, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS, UH, IT'S, IT IS SOMETHING. SO IT'S, UH, I DON'T KNOW. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ADDRESS, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE ORDINANCE AS WE GO FORWARD. BUT I MEAN, BEYOND THE TREE, THERE'S STILL THE ISSUE OF SCALE AND THE, THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US IN, IN SPITE OF THAT ISSUE, WE STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF, UM, A VERY LARGE ADDITION. SO, UM, THERE, THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT THIS COMMISSION CAN LOOK AT THIS, UH, APPLICATION AND MAKE IT A JUDGMENT. I JUST MY OPINION THAT THE TREE IS A BIG PART OF THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT. WELL, TERRENCE, YOU HAVE ONE THING TO ADD. UM, YEAH, I, I, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE ABOUT TO MAKE A A, A MOTION. UM, I, THE OWNER IS NOT PRESENT. UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS BACK. IF IT IS DENIED, THEN THEY HAVE TO START THE PROCESS ALL OVER. UM, SO IF IT'S DEFERRED THEN THEY CAN COME BACK NEXT MONTH. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. AND THIS WOULD BE OUR SECOND DEFERRAL, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. GIVEN TERRANCE'S STATEMENT THAT YOU BELIEVE THE OWNER WOULD BE OPEN TO ANOTHER DEFERRAL. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND SIDE. I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU TERRANCE. NO THANK YOU GUYS. , I'LL SEE YOU IN A BIT. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 4 9 38 HARVARD STREET. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF FIRST AND SAMANTHA DEION. I SUBMIT ITEM E FOUR AT 9 38 HARVARD STREET IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE 4,000, UH, 809, UH, THE 4,089 SQUARE FOOT NON-CONTRIBUTING TWO STORY NEW STYLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WAS BUILT IN 1997, SITUATED ON A 6,600 SQUARE FEET LOT INTERIOR LOT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH 219 SQUARE FEET FROM THE EXISTING NON-CONTRIBUTING 704 SQUARE FEET. DETACHED ONE STORY GARAGE AND AND CONSTRUCT A 714 SQUARE FOOT. SECOND STORY GARAGE EDITION ON TOP OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT SATISFY FLOOR, UH, FLOOR AREA RATIO OR THE SECOND STORY PLATE REQUIREMENTS IN THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP, UH, WHICH IS, UM, MR. MIKE SHELTON. IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UM, APPROACH THE PODIUM AND RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE. SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S MIKE SHELTON. UH, GIVE MY NOTES. I, UH, WITH HARVARD HEIGHTS CONSTRUCTION AND I'M THE DESIGN BUILDER FOR THIS PROJECT WITH OVER 25 JOBS ON MY STREET, HARVARD ALONE. AND ACTUALLY LIVE NEXT DOOR IS A PICTURE OF MY HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. SO THESE ARE MY NEIGHBORS AND UH, WE WANT TO ADD A SECOND STORE TO THEIR EXISTING GARAGE. WE WANTED TO GO RIGHT STRAIGHT UP 'CAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. WE ARE TAKING OUT A LITTLE BIT OF THE, UH, BOTTOM OF THE GARAGE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA SPACE BY THEIR SWIMMING POOL. AND THEY, IT MADE IT SLIGHTLY OVER OUR FIRE AND THE OWNERS STARTED WORKING FROM HOME AFTER THE PANDEMIC AND THEY HAVE FOUR ROWDY BOYS. I KNOW 'EM, I KNOW 'EM ALL. AND THEY WANTED A HOME OFFICE SEPARATE FROM THEIR HOUSE. [01:55:01] AND I WANTED TO SEE IF YOU GUYS WOULD CONSIDER, UH, OUR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? UM, UH, CAN YOU, CAN YOU REMIND THE COMMISSION HOW FAR OVER THE FAR THEY WOULD BE WITH THIS PROPOSED, UM, ALTERATION? YES. I ALSO PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS SPECIFICALLY, UH, WHERE THIS WAS OVER FAR, BUT DOCUMENT CAMERA. SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, IT IS ABOUT 700, UH, SQUARE FEET ABOVE, UH, OVER FAR 721 SQUARE FEET. COMMISSIONER DAVIS. SO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, WHEN WAS IT BUILT? 1997. OKAY, SO IT WAS BUILT BEFORE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? CORRECT. SO, AND PART OF THE REASON IT'S GOING OVER FAR IS BECAUSE YOU'RE COUNTING THE HOUSE THAT EXISTS THERE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO TRYING TO, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S ALREADY A GARAGE THERE. UM, I I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND PENALIZING THESE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT, WHO BUILT THEIR HOUSE IN 1997, I DON'T KNOW HOW OLD THE GARAGE IS. DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW OLD THE EXISTING GARAGE IS ORIGINALLY WITH HOUSE? SO ORIGINAL MATERIAL, THEY'RE PROPOSING REUSING EX UH, ORIGINAL MATERIAL AND PUTTING A SECOND STORY ON THAT. AND THE ONLY REASON WE'RE DENYING IT IS BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS TOO BIG. SO, SO SINCE THE HOUSE WAS CREATED PRIOR TO, SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE HEIGHT, HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, THEY'RE THERE FOR GRANDFATHERED IN. IF THEY KEEP THE HOUSE EXACTLY HOW IT IS, THEY'RE ABLE TO KEEP IT. WHEN WE ARE ADDING ON SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE EXEMPTION. SO THEY WOULD GET 528 SQUARE FEET FOR THEIR EXEMPTION. SO THEORETICALLY THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND SHRINK THAT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND MAKE IT 528 SQUARE FEET AND THEY WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD THIS HOUSE. HOWEVER, AS MIKE JUST STATED, THEY DID NOT WANNA ALTER THEIR, UH, THEIR PROPOSAL AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. OKAY. SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION. THE, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE THIS IS HIGHER MATH. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, UM, SORRY. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 5 28 AND THE GARAGE AND THE, 'CAUSE THE WHOLE THING ISN'T 700 THOU 700 FEET OVER. SO WHAT IS, I THINK WE ARE LIKE QUIBBLING OVER A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET. I THINK WE'RE QUIBBLING OVER AROUND 200 TO 300 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, STAFF HAS NO BUT THE NET BUT THE NET INCREASE IS 7 21 BECAUSE OF THE PRIMARY HOUSE. THE WEIGHT, THE, THE, THE OVER OVERALL HOUSE IS OVER IS OVER WHAT'S ALLOW ALLOWED, BUT IT IS GRANDFATHERED. AND SO PART OF THAT EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE MASSING IS PART OF THE EQUATION THAT'S BEING PRESENTED BY STAFF. AND I UNDERS AND I, I GET THAT, UM, BUT FAR IS NOT A MASSING STANDARD. IT IS A PROXY AND WE USE IT AS THAT, BUT WE ARE, THE HOUSE IS THE HOUSE. WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 200 SQUARE FEET HERE. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT THE MATH MATHS CORRECTLY FOR THIS, FOR THIS EDITION. AND I LOVE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE USING THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AND NOT TEARING IT DOWN. 'CAUSE THEY COULD TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD A NEW 528 SQUARE FEET, BUT THEY WANNA PRESERVE IT. I THINK WE SHOULD REWARD THEM FOR THAT. I JUST WANNA GO AHEAD AND JUST PROVIDE CLARIFICATION [02:00:01] THAT STAFF CANNOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES. HOWEVER, THIS WAS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION. SO IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO. YEAH, AND I'LL JUST ADD, I MEAN, 'CAUSE SOME OF US WERE HERE WHEN THE HEIGHT DESIGN GUIDELINES WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BUT THE FAR IS THE BYPRODUCT OF THE MASSING STUDIES THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS APPROVED. SO, UM, THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH MULTIPLE MASSING STUDIES, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGES ABOVE A SECOND STORY, UH, ABOVE, ABOVE A SECOND STORY ABOVE A GARAGE. WERE PART OF THE COMMUNITY'S VOTING AT THE TIME AND THAT'S WHY IT, IT IS, UM, THE NUMBERS THAT, THAT'S WHY THE NUMBERS ARE COUNTED. UM, THAT WAS PART OF HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEWED THEIR MASSING AND FROM THEIR MASSING, UM, THE MAJORITY OF MASSING THAT WAS, UM, HAD THE MOST SUPPORT THE FAR WAS CREATED TO REFLECT THAT MASSING. SO I I, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT EARLIER, BUT THE FAR IS A DIRECT, IT WAS CREATED FROM THAT STUDY OF MASSING THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS, UH, WANTED, UM, PRESENTATION MODE, PLEASE. THEY'RE, I'M JUST SAYING THEY'RE NOT SEPARATE THINGS BECAUSE ONE'S A HOUSE, ONE'S A GARAGE. IT, IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME MASSING ON THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO THIS COMMUNITY. OKAY. I SIMPLY DISAGREE THAT THE ADDITIONAL 200 SQUARE FEET IS WORTH ARGUING ABOUT. AND I, I'M SORRY THAT MS. BLAKELY ISN'T HERE TODAY 'CAUSE I, I THINK SHE WOULD BACK ME UP AND SAY LET'S SAVE THE GARAGE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? GIVE YOUR ESCOBAR HAS THIS BEEN DEFERRED BEFORE? NO MA'AM. SO JUST ALSO TO PROVIDE CONTEXT, UH, WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, UH, AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATION, STAFF COMMUNICATED WITH THE ARCHITECT TO LET HIM KNOW THAT HE HAD TWO OPTIONS FOR APPROVAL, WHICH WERE EITHER TO ONE LOWER, THE SECOND GARAGE, SECOND FLOOR GARAGE EDITION TO 528 SQUARE FEET. SO IT COULD BE EXEMPT FROM, UH, FAR CALCULATIONS AND MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE OR TO HAVE THEIR APPLICATION GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION AS IS WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO HAVE THE COMMISSIONERS DECIDE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION THAT VIOLATES MEASURABLE STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT EMAILED STAFF ON JUNE 26TH, 2026 TO ASK FOR THE APPLICATION TO GO ON THE JULY AGENDA AS IS. SO IT HAS NOT BEEN DEFERRED? NO, MA'AM. IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ADDITION AS DRAWN. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? GARCIA? SECOND. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? AYE. AYE. AYE. COULD BE RAISE HANDS JUST SO I HAVE FOUR. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? AYE. 1, 2, 3, 5. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER BROBECK LEFT THE ROOM. IT IS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. OKAY, BUT I, BUT I BELIEVE THAT MOTION DID NOT PASS. MM-HMM. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? BROWNING? I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A DENIAL. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND IT. COSGROVE SECONDS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ME, I'M, YEAH, DALE, I, I'M STILL THINKING , EVENTUALLY I'M GOING TO BE FORCED TO VOTE. UNDERSTOOD. . THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. , WOULD THE APPLICANT PREFER A DEFERRAL TO DENIAL? BUT I I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE SAME. YEAH, THEY ARE OPEN TO OPENING. THEY ARE OPEN TO AMENDING THIS. UM, AND IF THEY WERE AMEND TO AMEND IT IN, HAVE IN A WAY WHERE IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY OR IT CAN BE AMENDED AND STILL COME BACK NEXT MONTH. BUT WE DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION. RIGHT. 'CAUSE IF WE DID A, IF WE DID A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT THEY REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE UPSTAIRS TO 528 FEET, IT THEN ACTUALLY WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND NOT REQUIRE US TO VOTE ON IT. CORRECT. [02:05:02] I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION BASED UPON THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY WILL, THEY DON'T WANT A STRAIGHT UP OR DOWN VOTE AND VOTE FOR A DEF UH, AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS IF THEY MEET THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, WELL THEY, IF THEY, THEY DON'T NEED A VOTE FROM US. IF THEY, IF IF THEY MEET THE DESIGN, IT'LL JUST BE APPROVED YOU, BUT YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER AND IF THERE'S A SECOND IN THAT WORD TO PASS, THEN THEY'D HAVE THE OPTION TO TALK WITH STAFF AND, AND TALK AND TALK AMONGST THEMSELVES. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, THEN I'LL CHANGE FOR THE THIRD TIME AND, AND DO A MOTION. A, A DEFER. THIRD TIME IS A CHARM. OKAY. I WILL SECOND THE DEFERRAL. AND SDE. COMMISSIONER SDE, DO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? READY? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. WE'VE DEFERRED THAT ITEM. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE NOW GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM F, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DE I'M SORRY, RULES. OKAY. WE'LL BE DEFERRING THAT. NO DISCUSSION. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO, SO DO YOU NEED, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE ITEM H AHEAD OF ITEM G. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND AND I'LL HAVE DISCUSSION IF YOU LIKE BEFORE WE VOTE. BUT THERE'S A, THERE'S A REASON, UM, MANY OF YOU IN THIS ROOM, THEY'RE STILL HERE ARE, I BELIEVE HERE FOR ITEM G, ORAL DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTATION WHERE STAFF IS GOING TO REVEAL HOW THEY, UM, RESOLVED THE CONDITIONS THAT WE PLACED ON THE, ON THE ORAL DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WERE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AT OUR LAST MEETING. THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER ITEM G. SO, BUT I HAVE A STACK OF FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT ITEM G. AND SO WE ARE, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE PUBLIC COMMENT TO ITEM G AND AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, EACH OF YOU CAN, CAN ADDRESS THIS COMMISSION IF YOU, I'LL JUST SAY IF YOU HAD COMMENTS ABOUT ITEM G, YOU COULD MENTION THOSE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS AND CONCERNS. SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE MOVING PUBLIC COMMENT AHEAD OF COMMISSION MEMBERS. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF MOVING PUBLIC COMMENT IN FRONT OF ITEM G? I DO HAVE, HAVE A QUESTION PLEASE. UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, UM, WHAT I DON'T BELIEVE WE COULD EVEN ACT ON THE NOR HILL, UM, GUIDELINES TONIGHT, EVEN IF WE WANTED TO PROCEDURALLY, UM, BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS MOTION PASSED AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. UH, AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION GIVEN ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY ACTION TAKEN. UM, IT JUST SAYS, NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTATION LAST MONTH, IT SAID NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTATION AND HEARING, WHICH SUGGESTS WE WOULD TAKE ACTION, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID. SO, UM, ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S NO MYSTERY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STRONG OPINIONS, UH, ABOUT THESE GUIDELINES ON EITHER SIDE. UH, THAT BEING SAID, I, I'VE LOOKED AT THOSE OPINIONS AND IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME EARLIER THAT REALLY THE TWO SIDES ARE NOT THAT FAR APART. AND SO MAYBE, UM, IF THERE WERE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS COMMISSION THAT WERE TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THOSE ISSUES, OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THOSE FOLKS COULD COME ADDRESS THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THAT COMMITTEE COULD COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR A FULL PACKAGE OR A RECOMMENDATION NOT TO EVEN RECONSIDER. BECAUSE BEFORE WE COULD DO ANYTHING, WE HAVE A PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION THAT WAS ALREADY PASSED LAST MONTH. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T EVEN ACT TONIGHT EVEN IF WE WANT IT TO. [02:10:02] UM, THIS COMMISSION. WELL, I'VE ASKED THAT STAFF PRESENT HOW THEY, UM, AMENDED THE DOCUMENT PER OUR REQUEST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE DONE PER OUR INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM BECAUSE WE GAVE THEM A LOT OF CONDITIONS. THERE ARE A LOT OF, THIS IS A PRETTY EXTENSIVE GUIDELINE AND I WANT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS TO HEAR AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE LIKE, LET'S SAY THAT FOR SOME REASON A MEMBER OR THIS CONSENSUS TO CHANGE OR AMEND AN ITEM OF THE CONDITION THAT WE PLACED THAT WE THINK WASN'T WHAT WE INTENDED. WE'RE NOT GONNA BE VOTING ON THAT TODAY. NO, YOU'RE CORRECT. BUT BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WILL NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK DURING ITEM G, I WOULD STILL WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC ALL THE, ALL THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO US SO THAT WE MAY HEAR FROM OUR PUBLIC. AT OUR LAST MEETING I MENTIONED THREE TIMES. WE HAD A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WHO CAME BEFORE US. IT'S THE ONLY TIME IN MY ENTIRE TIME ON THIS COMMISSION THAT EVERY PERSON WHO WHO CAME TO THE MEETING AND SPOKE WAS FOR APPROVING THE, THE, THE, THE, THE GUIDELINES. NO ONE SPOKE AGAINST IT. UM, THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS INSTITUTION EVER. SO, UM, NONETHELESS, UM, THERE ARE FOLKS WHO HAVE COME TO SPEAK TO US. I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. I'D LIKE ALL THE MEMBERS OF COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, HOW STAFF INTERPRETED OUR INSTRUCTIONS. I WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THIS MATTERS THAT WE AS A COMMISSION ARE ALSO COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE. AND ONLY UNTIL WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WILL WE KNOW HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THAT OR WHAT WE MIGHT DO NEXT. SO THAT, THAT CONVERSATION MAY STILL BE DISCUSSED LATER THIS EVENING. BUT WE WILL NOT BE VOTING ON AMENDING ANYTHING IN IN THIS. I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT YES, YOU'RE CORRECT, BUT WE WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN OPEN CONVERSATION AND UM, I'D LIKE THIS TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO TO QUALITY OF LIFE SO THAT WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ALL THIS INFORMATION AND WE'RE AWARE OF THAT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING TO MOVE PUBLIC COMMENT AS A PROCEDURAL ITEM. LET STAFF PRESENT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION AMONGST OURSELVES AND THEN WE CAN, WE CAN TALK FURTHER. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW PROCEED WITH ITEM H, PUBLIC COMMENT. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, I WILL ASK THAT EVERYONE SIGN UP. UM, AND I DO HAVE A STACK OF FOLKS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP AND WE WILL, WE WILL PROCEED IN ORDER. UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS VIOLA TOON, FOLLOWED BY TRACY BOWARD. FIRST. I DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE FIRST. THIS IS A LITTLE UGH. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSION FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK TODAY. UM, I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF GO DOWN MY NOTES BY BULLET POINTS BECAUSE I'M A RAMBLER, ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M NERVOUS, SO IT'S NOT THE MOST ELOQUENT SPEAKING YOU HEAR TODAY. I APOLOGIZE. UM, I JUST WANTED TO START, UH, TELLING YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME. UM, WHEN I GOT MARRIED, MY HUSBAND AND I LIVED IN MONTROSE IN A 950 SQUARE FOOT BUNGALOW WITH A LARGE BACKYARD. WE LOVED THAT YARD. I HAD A GARDEN BACK THERE. UM, AND WE THOUGHT WE HAD ROOM TO EXPAND THE HOUSE WHEN IT WOULD COME TIME FOR US TO START A FAMILY. AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED, OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR SOLD HER HOME AND THEY BUILT A HUGE ADDITION ON THE BACK OF THAT HOUSE. AND MY ABILITY TO ENJOY MYSELF IN MY LARGE BACKYARD AND TEND TO MY GARDEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE WAS COMPLETELY DISRUPTED BECAUSE HER WHOLE SECOND STORY LOOKED DOWN INTO MY KITCHEN WINDOWS AND MY BACKYARD. SO MY HUSBAND AND I MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE AND WE CHOSE THE NORTH NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A HISTORIC PROTECTED DEED, RESTRICTED COMMUNITY, FEELING SAFE THAT IF WE BOUGHT A HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE THAT WE HAD IN OUR PRIOR HOUSE. UM, AND WE HAVE RAISED TWO SONS NOW. WE'VE LIVED IN OUR HOUSE FOR 22 YEARS. SINCE 2004, WE'VE RAISED OUR TWO SONS. ONE IS NOW IN COLLEGE, [02:15:01] ONE IS GOING INTO HIS SENIOR YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL. UM, AND WE RAISED THEM HAPPILY AND COMFORTABLY IN OUR HOME. UM, I HAVE HERE ONLY ONE COPY, BUT UM, I'D LOVE TO GIVE YOU GUYS A TIMELINE THAT SOME OF US PUT TOGETHER. UM, I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION A LONG TIME AND SOME OF YOU HAVEN'T. UM, BUT I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL SINCE 2004 AND HAVE BEEN THERE THROUGH MOST OF THE STUFF THAT'S ON THIS TIMELINE. UM, THE REASON I WANNA GIVE YOU THIS TIMELINE IS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN OVER 10 YEARS, WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THESE GUIDELINES IN NOR HILL. AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE HERE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW WHERE PUBLIC OUTREACH THAT YOU DID, AND THAT DOESN'T EVEN EN COUNT, COUNT THE PUBLIC OUTREACH THAT THE RESIDENTS OF NOR HILL ELECTED TO THE BOARD HAVE DONE. SO IT'S TIME TO PASS THE GUIDELINES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. PASS. AND IF, IF YOU COULD HAND THAT DOCUMENT TO STAFF, THEY, THEY CAN PASS IT ALONG TO COMMISS COMMISSION MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS TRACY BOWARD, FOLLOWED BY ADAM TILL, IS TRACY HERE? TRACY BOWER IS NO LONGER HERE. OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ADAM TILL, FOLLOWED BY BRETT B DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. UH, HELLO. ADAM TILL, UH, RESIDENT OF NOR HILL ON PETTY STREET. UH, THIS FUGATE HOME NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION. UH, ONE WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED MUCH IN THE PAST AND RECENTLY LISTED FOR SALE. DESPITE ITS UNFINISHED NATURE, THIS 3,133 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IS UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT AND CHARACTER FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND A BLIGHT ON THE CHARMING AND HISTORIC LANDSCAPE OF NOR HILL. I'M SHOWING THIS HOUSE NOW TO HIGHLIGHT THE VERY REAL AND CURRENT THREAT WE ARE FACING FROM DEVELOPERS AND REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNISTS. THESE GUIDELINES THAT WERE APPROVED AT THE LAST MEETING OF THIS BODY WITH UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM THOSE MAKING IN-PERSON COMMENTS DO THE VERY IMPORTANT TASK OF PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE BOER AGAINST THIS FOR THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS OF NOR HILL NOR HILL, IS THE LAST PART OF THE HEIGHTS THAT PROVIDES ACCESSIBILITY. AND I'M GONNA STRETCH THIS TERM A LITTLE BIT HERE. AFFORDABILITY FOR YOUNG FAMILIES AND NEW HOMEOWNERS THAT SEEK SIMPLICITY, MODESTY, PRIVACY, AND A REAL CONNECTION TO THE HISTORIC ROOTS OF THIS VALUABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS AMPLE COMPROMISE AND SPACE WITHIN THESE GUIDELINES AS WRITTEN TO IMPROVE, EXPAND AND MODERNIZE A HOME. IN NOR HILL, A TRADITIONAL HISTORIC 1100 SQUARE FOOT BUNGALOW, SUCH AS MINE COULD DOUBLE ITS SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SIZE. SO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPROPRIATE EXPANSION IS ABSOLUTELY THERE, BUT WHAT IT PROTECTS AGAINST IS THIS. AND THIS IS WHAT THOSE THAT WILL SPEAK THE LOUDEST AGAINST THESE GUIDELINES ENVISION ON EVERY SQUARE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN NOR HILL WITH ITS SUPPRESSIVE, MASSING AND SCALE. IT ROBS NEIGHBORS OF OPENNESS, LIGHT, AND PRIVACY, THE VERY THINGS THAT WE SHOULD ALL HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF AND ARE ENTITLED TO IN OUR HOMES. THE VERY THINGS THAT THESE GUIDELINES WERE WRITTEN TO DEFEND AND PROTECT. SO WITH THAT, I'M HUMBLY ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE THESE GUIDELINES AGAIN AS WRITTEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. TILL. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS BRETT BCUS, FOLLOWED BY BRUCE MICHELLE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M BRETT BACKERS AND I HAPPEN TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE NOR HILL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I'M JUST A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL. UM, AND I THINK I MENTIONED TO YOU TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN I THOUGHT WE MIGHT PASS THEM THAT NIGHT. UM, I MOVED FROM MONTROSE TO NOR HILL, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF MASSING OF THE HOMES. THEY WERE SINGLE STORY BUNGALOWS WITH DETACHED SINGLE FLOOR, SMALL GARAGES, AND I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE A HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND I HAD TO LEAVE MONTROSE BECAUSE OF THE MCMANSIONS THAT WENT UP ALL AROUND MY HOUSE. AND MUCH LIKE VIOLA MENTIONED, UH, AND POSED ON THE BACKYARD AND ROBBED OF THE BACKYARD, I ALWAYS SAY THAT I CAN NOW SEE OUT AND SEE THE SKY FROM EVERY WINDOW IN MY HOUSE. AND IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN IN A BUNGALOW, THERE'S A LOT OF WINDOWS, BUT THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AND WHY I MOVED THERE. UM, SO I, AGAIN, SECOND THE, THE ITEMS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED AND ASK THAT YOU PASS THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. AND, UH, TO THE POINT IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS, THE CO THE PUBLIC HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO COMMENT. UH, WE NEED THESE BECAUSE I CAN ALSO TELL YOU WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT ON THINGS LIKE THE FUGATE HOUSE THAT YOU JUST SAW. SO PASSING THESE WILL HELP US AVOID, UM, THOSE LEGAL ISSUES GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [02:20:05] MY NAME IS BRUCE MICHELLE, AND I'M A NOR HILL RESIDENT SINCE AUGUST OF 2024. UH, I MOVED INTO A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 2010. SO CLEARLY IT IS NOT OF ANY HISTORICAL VALUE. UH, WHEN I MOVED IN, I NEEDED TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS 'CAUSE THEY WERE LEAKING. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE NOR HILL ASSOCIATION. I WENT DOWN THERE AND I MET WITH THEM AND I WAS TOLD FLAT ASS, NO, EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE, THAT I COULD NOT REPLACE THE WINDOWS WITH VIOLENT WINDOWS. THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE HAD. CITY RESTRICTIONS, YOUR RULES, EVERYTHING IS REPLACED WITH LIKE MATERIAL. AND I SAID, WELL, EVERYTHING I'VE READ SAYS LIKE MATERIAL. OH NO, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE IT WITH WOOD. I SAID, I'M REPLACING MY WINDOWS. IF YOU WANT TO SEE ME IN COURT, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO. SO. I LOOKED AT THE CHARTER FOR NORE HILL, AND THE CHARTER IS FOR BEAUTIFICATION. OKAY? WHEN THEY PASSED THESE NEW GUIDELINES, I SAY THEY, THE BOARD AND A VERY, VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THAT PARTICULAR MEETING WOULD NOT MUCH, IF ANY NOTIFICATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THEY WERE HAVING THIS. I WAS ONE THAT I THINK THE EIGHT PEOPLE IN THERE THAT VOTED AGAINST THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REASONABLE. THEY'RE TOO AMBIGUOUS. THEY DON'T CALL OUT ANYTHING FOR A HOUSE THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM IS, NONCONFORMING, NON CONTRIBUTING. CHOOSE, CHOOSE YOUR LANGUAGE. DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. MINE'S A 2010 HOUSE. I DIDN'T BUILD IT. Y'ALL LET IT HAPPEN. THEY LET IT HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. SO I'M NOT ACCUSING ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD. BUT THE SIMPLE FACT REMAINS AS I'M A TAX PAYING CITIZEN AND A DISABLED VETERAN WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, I BELIEVE THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I NEED TO DO TO MY HOUSE TO FIT MY LIKING WITHOUT EVERYBODY TELLING ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH THE PROPERTY. MAY I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE, PLEASE. UH, IN PUBLIC COMMENT. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SIMPLY THE TIME ALLOWED. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DWAYNE BRADLEY, FOLLOWED BY ALLISON ALEXANDER. AND IF, AND JUST FOR MY COMMISS MEMBER, SORRY FOR MY COMMISSION MEMBERS, THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. BUT THANK YOU. GOT IT. DWAYNE BRADLEY HERE. SAW Y'ALL LAST MONTH. SAW YOU THE MONTH BEFORE. UH, I WAS REALLY HAPPY, UH, TO LINGER WITH YOU LAST MONTH, UH, AND WATCH YOU IN MY ESTIMATION PASS CONDITIONALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD GUIDELINES THAT WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING TO GET THROUGH. AS I MENTIONED TO Y'ALL LAST MONTH, EVERY MONTH THAT THIS CONTINUES TO HANG. THINGS LIKE OUR FRIENDS SHOWED YOU ABOUT THIS. MASSIVELY BEAUTIFUL, BUT TOO MASSIVE FOR A NOR HILL KIND OF HOME POP UP BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF OUR LITTLE BUNGALOW PROPERTIES. AND, AND THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. UH, IT'S ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD, YOU GUYS MADE A LOT OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT TERRANCE AND THE CREW HERE HAD TO JUMP THROUGH BEFORE THE 4TH OF JULY, SO IT COULD GET TO QUALITY OF LIFE. BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE HOLIDAYS AND, YOU KNOW, TIME CRUNCH AND ALL THAT. BUT IT GOT DONE. APPARENTLY YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN IT. WE'RE GONNA HEAR IF THERE'S ANY REAL BIG DISCREPANCIES, BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, Y'ALL VOTED TO PASS THIS THROUGH. AND UNLESS THERE'S SOME REAL PROBLEM WITH WHAT THEY DID THAT YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU REALLY SHOULD JUST BLESS IT, SEND IT TO QUALITY OF LIFE. SO WE CAN GET THIS IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAY, FINALLY, THE FIRST HISTORIC DISTRICT IS KIND OF A SIGN SEALED AND DELIVERED THING THAT WE CAN COUNT ON FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES AND MOVE ON AND USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE TO DO RIGHT IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY AS WELL. SO FOR DOING THAT, AND I HOPE YOU'LL CONTINUE TO TREAD IN THIS CORRECT PATH. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, UH, VERY MUCH. YEAH. AND I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCREPANCY SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE BETWEEN THE GUIDELINES THAT WE'VE WORKED ON SO MUCH, AND THEN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH IS A TOTALLY NOTHER MATTER. MORE INTERNAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALISON ALEX ALEXANDER, FOLLOWED BY ANDREW THRA. SORRY. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I WANNA BEGIN BY STATING THAT I'M NOT HERE BECAUSE I COMPLETELY OPPOSE NOR HILL ASSOCIATIONS WANTING GUIDELINES. THE FACT IS WE NEED THEM. [02:25:01] THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS AND THE BROAD COMMUNITY WAS NOT MADE AWARE THAT THIS WAS GOING FOR VOTE. THE LAST THE COMMUNITY WAS MADE AWARE WAS IN THE FALL OF 2024, THAT GUIDELINES WERE BEING PROPOSED. AND THEN THERE WAS A MEETING AFTER THAT IN DECEMBER THAT TERRANCE LED THAT WE ATTENDED. WHEN WE LEARNED THAT A VOID HAD TAKEN PLACE, WE WALKED THE COMMUNITY TO SPEAK WITH EVERYBODY THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO REFLECT THE BROAD COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE OPINIONS OF A SMALL GROUP. FOR THAT REASON, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE MATTER BE SENT FOR REVISIONS. I DO NOT THINK WE ARE FAR OFF, WHICH I AGREE WE ARE NOT. AND WE DO NEED THEM. WE DO NOT WANT PEOPLE COMING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TEARING DOWN THESE HOMES AND PUTTING UP MONSTROSITIES THAT DO NOT GO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND RESEARCHING HISTORIC DISTRICTS ACROSS THE US FARS ARE EVERYTHING FROM 0.4 TO 0.8. I DO THINK 0.8 IS TOO BIG. I ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO INCORPORATE A BALANCED BAR WHEN REVIEWING THINGS, AND I'M SORRY TO MAKE MORE REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT FROZEN IN TIME. IT WANTS TO GROW WITH THE PEOPLE WHO INVEST IN IT. THOUGHTFUL PRESERVATION AND SENSIBLE PROGRESS. THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. WHEN BALANCED APPROPRIATELY, THEY STRENGTHEN ONE ANOTHER BY ENSURING HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS REMAIN VIBRANT, ECONOMICALLY STABLE, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND RELEVANT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. I JUST PLEASE RECONSIDER TAKING THIS BACK AND LET THE BROADER COMMUNITY HAVE A, HAVE A VOICE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. UM, FOLLOWING ANDREW THRA WILL BE ALEX SHUFFLED AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S ANDREW THARP. IT MIGHT BE MISSPELLED, SORRY. UM, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENCE OF UP NOR HILL SINCE OCTOBER OF 2020. UM, AND TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME, I'M A NATIVE HOUSTONIAN. UM, I'M, UH, PROUDLY GAY, TRILINGUAL, UM, GREW UP HERE, MY THIRD GENERATION HOUSTONIAN, AND WENT TO TEXAS A AND M. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ABOUT ME THAT COMES FIRST, IT'S HOUSTON AND THEN TEXAS. UM, WHEN I MOVED TO THE LOWER HEIGHTS IN 2018, I HADN'T EVER BEEN TO THE HEIGHTS. I DON'T RECALL EVER GROWING UP, AND WE DIDN'T COME UP TO THE HEIGHTS VERY OFTEN. UM, BUT I WAS DRAWN TO THE AREA. IT WAS VIBRANT, GROWING. UM, AND THEN I WAS LIVING AT EIGHTH AND YALE AND I SAW EVERYBODY TOWNHOUSES MOVING UP. AND I SAID THE SAME THING THAT MY NEIGHBORS WERE SAYING BEHIND ME, THAT I WANTED TO MOVE TO A HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND SO I FOUND NOR HILL, I BOUGHT MY HOUSE ON ONE OF THE ESPLANADES BETWEEN 14TH AND NORTH MAINE. UM, AND I LOVE IT. AND THE BEST PART ISN'T IS THE HOUSES. I THINK EVERYBODY'S DRAWN FOR THE CHARM OF THE HOUSES THEMSELVES. AND THEN THEY MEET THE NEIGHBORS. AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE THE REASON THAT I STAY. I'VE BEEN IN A NEIGHBOR'S WEDDING THAT I DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE I MOVED IN. WE'VE TRAVELED, WE'VE DONE ALL THESE THINGS TOGETHER, AND THEN SO MANY OF THEM HAVE TO UP AND MOVE FROM MY FRONT YARD. I CAN ACTUALLY SEE MY MOTHER'S FIRST HOUSE IN HOUSTON ON PETTY STREET, AND SHE HAD TO MOVE TO SOUTHGATE BECAUSE HER FAMILY WAS EXPANDING, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE RULES. SO 35 YEARS LATER THAT IT'S STILL HAPPENING, IS FINE. FAMILIES EXPAND. CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT. WE DO NEED, THEY STILL NEED THE GUIDELINES, BUT THEY NEED TO BE REASONABLE AND THEY NEED TO BE SINGULAR. WE NEED ONE SET OF STANDARDS THAT'S APPLIED SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THE RULES UNDER WHICH THEY'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS. BECAUSE I AM EX CONSIDERING AN ADDITION TO MY HOUSE THAT'S NOWHERE NEAR THE LIMITS OF WHAT THIS COMMISSION AND WHAT THE GUIDELINES SAY IN NOR HILL. BUT STILL, I DON'T KNOW WHICH STANDARD TO FOLLOW. AND I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND $15,000 TO JUST GET ONE OPINION FROM EX AN EXPERT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO GO WITH. AND I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ AMBIGUOUS GUIDELINES AND INTERPRET THEM, AND IF MY NEIGHBORS CAN'T DO THAT EITHER. BUT THEY DO WANT STANDARDS. WE JUST NEED THEM TO BE CONSISTENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. OKAY, GOOD. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ALEXIS STIFLE. I AM HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THE GI Z GUIDELINES. IN THEIR EXISTING FORM, WE MOST CERTAINLY, I ECHO EVERYONE'S CONCERN. WE WANT HISTORIC HOMES AND WE WANT CLEAR, CONSISTENT GUIDELINES. AS A LAY PERSON, IT IS VERY HARD TO READ THROUGH THESE AN ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL STRUGGLES TO EVEN READ THROUGH THESE. I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ITEMS OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, STARTING WITH THE FAR IN YOUR FAR, UM, IT APPEARS TO BE THE FOURTH, OH, LET ME REFERENCE THE DOCUMENT CAMERA. I DON'T JUST COME TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF. AND WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS OPPOSING THESE GUIDELINES. WE HAVE BLOCK WALKED FOR THE PAST SEVEN DAYS AND REACHED OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AS SHOULD HAVE DONE, BEEN DONE BY MANY OTHERS BEFORE. AND WE HAVE 111 NORTH HILL RESIDENTS, PEOPLE WHO [02:30:01] LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO SPECIFICALLY OPPOSE THE GUIDELINES IN THEIR CURRENT FORM AND ARE ASKING FOR FURTHER COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO THE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT I'LL DISCUSS THIS EVENING. UM, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ON THE FAR IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS EXCLUDED FROM FAR CALCULATIONS ARE ITEMS FULLY ENCLOSED IN THE ATTIC OR NEWLY BUILT DETACHED GARAGE GARAGES WITH NO OPENINGS OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE EXTERIOR. I CALLED TERRANCE TO DISCUSS THIS POINT TO ME. NO OPENINGS OR EXTERIOR OR EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS STATES ANYTHING. MY ATTIC HAS BARS IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK THAT ALLOW FOR AIR VENTILATION. IS THAT A PENETRATION? NOTHING ABOUT MY ATTIC IS LIVABLE. THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST ME. AND SO MY, MY GARAGE WAS DILAPIDATED. IT ACTUALLY CAUGHT FIRE AND STOOD THERE BURNT TO A CRI FOR A LONG TIME. WOULD THAT COUNT AGAINST ME? BECAUSE IT HAD A DOOR AND A WINDOW THAT, THAT'S ILLOGICAL AND THAT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GUIDELINES. I GO ON TO THE PAGE ABOUT PLATE HEIGHT. IT'S PAGE 21. IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THE GUIDELINES OPEN, IT SPECIFICALLY STATES, MAY I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE, PLEASE? I'M SORRY. WE'RE, WE'RE JUST USING STANDARD TIME AND PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL TIME. OKAY. I'LL EMAIL THE REST OF MY COMMENTS. BUT THE, THE, THE POINT HOLDS, THESE GUIDELINES ARE NOT COMPLETE AND IT WOULD BE A FAILURE TO THE PEOPLE OF NOR HILL AND A, A FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO PUT THEM THROUGH IN THEIR CURRENT FORM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU CAN HAND THE COMMENTS TO STAFF AND THEY WILL, UM, ADD THAT TO THE RECORD. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY SCHULTE, FOLLOWED BY BOB RABINOWITZ. MY NAME IS, EXCUSE ME, I'M MARY SCHULTZ. UM, I SPOKE WITH YOU ALL LAST MONTH, AND WHEN WE CAME HOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER LAST MONTH'S MEETING, WE FELT LIKE WE WERE GOING TO GET OUR GUIDELINES FINALLY PASSED. AND A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. HOWEVER, IN THE MEANTIME, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH A LOT OF, UM, ACTIVITIES GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALERTING PEOPLE TO FEARS AND, AND, UH, MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE GUIDELINES REALLY MEAN. FOR ONE THING THAT, UH, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN MADE INTO MEMES ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT HOW WE'RE TRYING TO DEFEAT ANY KIND OF CHANGE OR PROGRESS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE MAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE DEFEATED, THAT WE DO NOT WANT ANY KIND OF ADDITIONS OR MODERN MODERNIZATION. AND THAT IS ALL MISINFORMATION. AND BECAUSE, AND BECAUSE THAT'S HAPPENING, I WANTED TO BRING A PICTURE AND I BROUGHT, UH, FOUR, UH, IT'S FOUR DIFFERENT HOMES IN DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. YEAH. FOUR DIFFERENT HOMES IN THE NOR HILL AREA, WHICH ARE, WELL, THEY ARE NOT SINGLE STORY. THEY ARE NOT, UH, BUNGALOWS TO, IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE, THEY'VE HAD ADDITIONS MADE FOR FAMILIES THAT NEEDED TO GET BIGGER. THEY'RE NOT JUST 1000 SQUARE FEET. SO IT'S QUITE REAL THAT EVEN BEFORE WE GOT THE GUIDELINES, THERE WAS A FLEXIBILITY WHERE PEOPLE COULD BUILD ON AND ACCOMMODATE FAMILIES. BUT I DO ALSO WANNA SAY THAT I, I REALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH OWNERS, ESPECIALLY NEWCOMERS WHO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVEN'T HAD THINGS VERY SPECIFIC. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE NEED GUIDELINES. WE'VE HAD, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR DECADES, BUT THEY ARE GENERAL, THEY NEED MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE SO WAITING ON GETTING THESE PASSED. UM, AND SO, OKAY, THAT'S MY BASIC MESSAGE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS RACHEL. SORRY, SORRY. THE NEXT SPEAKER WAS BOB REITZ, FOLLOWED BY RACHEL BEATON. SORRY, DOCUMENT CAMERA AGAIN, PLEASE. MY NAME'S BOB RABINOWITZ. I'M AN ARCHITECT, LONGTIME HEIGHTS RESIDENCE, AND MY FIRM'S LOCATED IN THE HEIGHTS, AND WE'VE DONE A TON OF PROJECTS THERE. UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINITELY NEEDS GUIDELINES. I THINK WE'RE REAL CLOSE. UM, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE POINTS I WANNA MAKE. I'M SORRY I COULDN'T MAKE THE LAST MEETING. I, OR BLOCK FOR SOME REASON IS NOT ON THE MAILING LIST. I, I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, THE LIVING AREA INSIDE A A GARAGE BEING FINISHED WAS COUNTING AS LIVING AREA. I HEARD THAT WAS ADDRESSED BECAUSE THE LAST DRAFT STILL STATES THAT THAT COUNTS TOWARDS LIVING AREA. AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE THAT WAY. SO I HOPE THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. [02:35:01] UM, WHAT I WANNA TALK ABOUT, MY, MY REALLY SINGLE MAIN PROBLEM I HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH THE GUIDELINES IS ON THE ONE HAND, THERE'S A 19 FOOT REAR SETBACK, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU CAN'T GO OUT BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH A TWO STORY ADDITION AT THE REAR. AND IT'S A COMBINATION OF THOSE 10 THINGS. TWO THINGS THAT I THINK IS REALLY HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE AND SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. UM, AND I JUST WANNA SHOW YOU THAT THIS WAS PRESENTED A A COUPLE OF, UH, MEETINGS AGO. THIS IS AN IMPROVED COA WHERE WE WENT OUT THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING 7 27 KEY. THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION WERE THAT IT WAS ELEGANT AND THAT THEY ACTUALLY LIKED THE SIDE EDITION ON IT. AND, UH, AT THAT TIME, VIRGINIA FROM THE NNA CAME UP AND SHE, SHE SHOWED AN EXAMPLE OF TAKING AWAY THE SIDE AND, AND FOLKS LIKED IT BETTER. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE MORE FREEDOM IN THIS TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE, CREATE ARCHITECTS, MORE CREATIVITY TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. ONE THING WE'RE ABLE TO DO ON THIS IS WE PULLED THE SECOND FLOOR IN OVER THE HOUSE, UM, TO REDUCE THE MASSING THERE. WHAT I WANNA REAL QUICKLY SHOW YOU IS I DID SOME STUDIES OF HERE'S WHAT WE DID, HERE'S WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE ALLOWING. OKAY. AND WE'RE, I'M BELOW THE FAR CALCULATION IF I HAVE IT ATTACHED, TWO STORY GARAGE. I CANNOT MEET THE FAR CALCULATIONS ON THIS SIZE LOT. AND I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY. THIS IS KIND OF COMPLEX A LITTLE BIT. SO THEN I STARTED INTERPOLATING. OKAY, NOW I'M STICKING TO THE REAR AND I'VE GOT A ONE STORY GARAGE. ANYWAY, THANK. AND JUST REAL QUICK, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GONNA GET BY FORCING EVERYTHING TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS MASSING LIKE THAT. I WOULD SUGGEST, UM, IF YOU WERE SHARE THAT WITH STAFF SO THEY COULD HAVE THAT FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT. I WILL. OKAY. LET ME ORGANIZE IT FOR YOU. OKAY, GREAT. IS RACHEL BEATON IN THE ROOM? YES. OKAY. FOLLOWED BY LAWRENCE FIBO. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS RACHEL BEATON AND I LIVE IN NOR HILL WITH MY HUSBAND AND OUR TWO CHILDREN. WHEN WE WERE HOUSE HUNTING, WE DIDN'T JUST WANT ANY HOUSE IN HOUSTON. WE WANTED TO LIVE SOMEWHERE WITH REAL CHARACTER WHERE THE STREETS, THE SETBACKS, AND THE SCALE OF THE HOMES TELL THE STORY OF THE CITY'S HISTORY. NOR HILL IS ONE OF THE BEST PRESERVED HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE CITY. THAT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. IT'S THE RESULT OF DECADES OF RESIDENTS CARING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT'S WHY FAMILIES LIKE MINE CHOOSE TO RAISE OUR KIDS HERE. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE NOR HILL GUIDELINES AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. I WANNA BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S BEING ARGUED. OTHERWISE, PRESERVING THE SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT PREVENT FAMILIES FROM LIVING HERE. MY FAMILY IS PROOF OF THAT. WE HAVE TWO KIDS, A MODEST HISTORIC HOME, AND WE LOVE IT. THE GUIDELINES AREN'T ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE OUT. THEY'RE ABOUT KEEPING NOR HILL RECOGNIZABLE AS THE PLACE PEOPLE MOVED HERE TO BE PART OF. IF A FAMILY WANTS TO BE IN A MUCH BIGGER HOUSE, HOUSTON HAS NO SHORTAGE OF NEIGHBORHOODS BUILT FOR EXACTLY THAT. BUILDERS HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN TRYING TO DELAY OR STOP THESE GUIDELINES, BUT BUILDERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT OR WHEREVER THEY WANT ON WHATEVER SCALE THEY WANT IN EVERY PART OF THE CITY. NOR HILL HAS NEVER BEEN THAT KIND OF PLACE. AND THE GUIDELINES BEING PROPOSED REFLECT YEARS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND IN PUBLIC INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND HAVE A STAKE IN WHAT HAPPENS HERE. PLEASE HONOR THAT PROCESS. PLEASE PROTECT WHAT MAKES NOR HILL WORTH LIVING IN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS LAWRENCE FIBO, FOLLOWED BY KAREN STOKES. UH, HANK, UH, THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR HEARING ME. MY NAME IS LAWRENCE FIBO. I HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU MANY TIMES AS A PERSON SUBMITTING A HOME FOR RENOVATION, WHICH I HAVE DONE. AND NOW I DIDN'T PUT THAT, UH, STAINED GLASS WINDOW IN THE GABLE, SO WE'RE GOOD THERE. BUT, UM, UH, HAVING BEEN A PROCESS PART OF THIS PROCESS, AS VELA POINTED OUT FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, UM, I DO FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD SO MANY MOMENTS WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN VERY CLOSE TO THE FINISH. UM, AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED TO HEAR ABOUT THE OPPOSITION GETTING TO THIS POINT. AND, UM, SOMEONE MENTIONED A SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING A WALKABOUT THROUGH NOR HILL TO LOOK AT, ALL RIGHT, WHAT WE MIGHT THINK IS TOO BIG, BUT WHAT WE THINK IS OKAY. AND I DO THINK THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR EVERYBODY TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO DEESCALATE THE SITUATION. AND WE DON'T WANT NEIGHBORS AGAINST NEIGHBORS BECAUSE UNLIKE [02:40:01] YOU GUYS, WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE TOGETHER. AND WE SHOULD NOT BE FIGHTING ABOUT THIS IN A STUFFY ROOM WITH VERY LITTLE AIR CONDITIONING AT TIMES. AND, UM, I THINK THAT WE COULD BUILD COMRADERY, NOT FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE DIVIDE WITH NEIGHBORS, UM, BY JUST DOING IT HERE. I THINK IF WE GO OUT AND LOOK AT THESE HOUSES IN PERSON, THEN WE WILL BUILD A CONSENSUS TOGETHER. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN STOKES. NOTES THIS TIME . UM, HELLO EVERYBODY. UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ENERGY. UM, I WANTED TO JUST, UH, REITERATE THE DURATION OF THE WORK THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE AND THE WORK THAT TERRANCE AND THIS STAFF HAS DONE OVER SEVERAL YEARS. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S A SENSE FROM SOME PEOPLE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A VERY RUSHED PROCESS AND WE'RE JUST THROWING THIS GUIDELINES TOGETHER IN SOME WAY. BUT ACTUALLY IT'S BEEN A VERY OPEN PUBLIC, UH, TRANSPARENT PROCESS. AND NOT EVERYBODY IS A MEMBER OF NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE'RE NOT A HOMEOWNERS UH, ASSOCIATION. UM, BUT WE ARE A CIVIC ORGANIZATION THAT IS MANDATED TO WORK WITHIN THE RESTRICTIONS, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE NEIGHBORS, UM, WHO HAVE NOT JOINED NNA AND ARE NOT WITHIN OUR NORMAL RANGE OF GETTING INFORMATION, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TO JOIN NNA SO THAT WE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN NNA. UM, SECONDARILY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WE'RE TALKING TO TALKING ABOUT TODAY, UM, ARE THE WORK OF A VERY LONG AR ARDUOUS WORK. AND THE VOTE THAT Y'ALL DID LAST TIME, UM, MEANT SOMETHING BECAUSE IT MEANT THAT WE WERE COMING TO A PLACE WHERE EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE SOME PEOPLE ON ONE SIDE THAT DON'T LIKE IT, AND SOME PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT DON'T LIKE THAT THERE WAS SOME MIDDLE GROUND, I MENTIONED THIS LAST, THERE WAS SOME MIDDLE GROUND THAT EVERYBODY WAS COMING FORWARD AND SAYING, THIS IS THE MIDDLE GROUND. IT'LL BECOME IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU CONTINUE TO TWEAK EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY THINKS THEY NEED TO PASS THIS GUIDELINES. THAT'S SORT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN THIS PROCESS OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO I WANT TO ENCOURAGE, UM, YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THAT IS THE LAST PERSON WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. AND IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED UP OR WANT TO SPEAK, PLEASE, PLEASE, UM, APPROACH THE PODIUM. YOU, YOU MAY, AND IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD. DO I NEED A PRESS OR ANYTHING OR IS IT ON? IT'S ON, HOW IS IT ON WILL MOODY LIGHTS ON, UM, 14TH STREET? UH, I STAND HERE PRIMARILY BECAUSE I SAW A FLYER WHEN I WAS OUT ON A WALK MADE BY THE GOOD PEOPLE IN THE BACK. UH, AND THAT'S REALLY MY REASON FOR SPEAKING. HERE IS THE ONLY REAL TANGIBLE WAY OF GETTING INFORMATION OUT BY JOINING THIS ASSOCIATION. AND IF IT IS FINE, I'LL DO IT. I, I THINK MY MAIN CONCERN WITH HOW THIS IS BROUGHT ON IS THE FACT THAT I JUST DIDN'T REALLY GET ANY SORT OF NOTIFICATION THAT A VOTE WAS HAPPENING. AND MAYBE THAT'S A ME THING, AND IF IT IS, THEN I'M APOLOGIES FOR WASTING ALL'S TIME. BUT I, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE REASONABLE WAYS WHERE I CAN QUICKLY GET INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING, BOTH VOTING AND JUST IN GENERAL ABOUT DESIGN GUIDELINES. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, LIKE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR A FLYER, I WOULDN'T BE HERE. I WOULDN'T KNOW THIS IS HAPPENING. SO ANY SUGGESTIONS? GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? OKAY, AT THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC I HEARING FOR THE, FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AND WE WILL NOW, UM, OPEN ITEM G, WHICH IS THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTATION. YOU KNEW WE'RE COMING BACK TERRANCE. SO, UM, STAFF MEMBER TERRENCE JACKSON. UH, SO I'M, I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICKLY. UM, THIS IS, UH, JUST THE CHANGES [02:45:01] BASED ON THE MEETING THAT WE HAD LAST MONTH. UM, YEAH, SO I, I I'LL JUST, I'LL GET RIGHT TO IT. OKAY. SO FIRST IN SECTION, UH, 2.2 POINT A, THE FAR CHART. UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE HAD, UH, I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, YOU SPOKE MOSTLY IN LAST MEETING, SO YOU WILL BE MENTIONED A LOT TODAY. UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE HAD TWO COMMENTS. UH, HE SAID, SINCE WE ARE APPLYING THE 4.6 TO 75% OF THE HOMES IN A DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK APPLYING IT TO A FEW MORE HOMES IS REALLY GOING TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY. AND HE ALSO STATED THAT GOING IN 200 FOOT INCREMENT INCREMENTS IS TOO SMALL. UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FEWER CATEGORIES IN LARGER RANGES. UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE FROM, UH, THE, THE PREVIOUS DRAFT, UM, WHERE WE WENT IN TWO, UH, A HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT INCREMENTS. WE NOW GO, UM, TO 499 SQUARE FOOT INCH INCREMENTS. UM, AND WE GO FROM, UH, 0.47 FAR IN LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND FOUR POINT, I MEAN 0.46 IN 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 6 9 9, AND THEN, UH, GREATER THAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET. UM, OF COURSE THE HOUSE SIZE IS GONNA VARY AND WE WENT WITH A 0.45 FAR. UM, THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM WAS ALWAYS WAS, I MEAN, NATURALLY REMOVED BECAUSE THE FAR CHART IS CHANGED. SO THAT IS, UH, CHANGE NUMBER ONE. UM, CHANGE NUMBER TWO IN SECTION 2.2 POINT A, UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE HAD ISSUE WITH THE CONDITION SPACE IN THE GARAGES. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT JANUARY, 2026 DRAFT VERSUS THE JUNE, UH, 2026 REVISED DRAFT. UM, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT NOW SAYS CONDITION SPACE, SPACE THAT IS PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR CONTRIBUTES TO THE OVERALL MASSING OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COORDINATE, UH, CONDITION ATTICS, UH, CONDITION ATTACHED OR DETACHED GARAGES AND CONDITION ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND. IT ALSO SAYS LIVING SPACE ON TOP OF GARAGE, UM, IS INCLUDED IN THE FAR EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR YOU HAVE ITEMS FULLY ENCLOSED IN THE ATTIC OR NEWLY BUILT DETACHED GARAGES, CONDITIONED OR NOT WITH OPENING WITH NO OPENINGS. PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE EXTERIOR ALSO EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR UNCONDITIONED SPACE THAT IS PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BUT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL MASSING OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LIMITED TO UNCONDITION ATTICS, CARPORTS, DETACHED UNCONDITIONED GARAGES, OTHER UNCONDITIONED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO SECTION 2.3 POINT C, THE INTERIOR LOT TWO STORY REAR ADDITION, UH, THE HHC YOU GUYS AS A WHOLE. UM, WHAT AND, AND STAFF DISCUSSED REMOVAL OF, UNLESS IT IS CONNECTED TO A GARAGE STRUCTURE, WHICH MAY EXTEND PAST THE SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S BEEN, UH, STRICKEN THROUGH AND THAT PORTION HAS BEEN REMOVED. AND IT WAS ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE NOTE BELOW, IT WAS ALSO REMOVED FROM SECTION 2.3 POINT F CORNER, LOT TWO STORY REAR EDITION. THERE WAS ALSO A DISCUSSION FROM YOU GUYS ABOUT HAVING A DIAGRAM OF A NEW SINGLE DORMER WHERE 60% BOUNDARY IS ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. SO STAFF HAS PROVIDED A, UH, YOU KNOW, SIMPLE DIAGRAM SHOWING THE 60% OF A, UH, OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND SHOW SHOWS WHERE THE DORMER WOULD BE LOCATED. SECTION 2.4 B TO SECTION 2.4 C TWO STORY EDITION. UH, COMMISSIONER HICK AND COMMISSIONER GAR GARCIA STATED TO RECONCILE 2.4 B THROUGH 2.4 C TEXTS TO THE DIAGRAMS OR VICE VERSA. CONFIRM CONFIRMING WHETHER THE ONE STORY PLATE CAP IS 11 SIX OR 11 SEVEN AND ONE EIGHTH. UH, THE HAAC CONFIRMED 11 SEVEN AND ONE EIGHTH. AND AS YOU WILL SEE, THE, UH, CEILING HEIGHTS WERE REMOVED AS PART OF, OF THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL. SECTION TO TWO. AGAIN, UM, THAT SAME COMMENT. AND THEN, UH, THERE WAS ALSO A COMMENT BY COMMISSIONER CROSS GROVE VISUAL MASS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FAR, WHETHER IT IS AIR CONDITIONED OR NOT. MAKE SURE THAT LANGUAGE IS CLEAR THROUGHOUT THE GUIDELINES. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT HAS BEEN ADDED BE BENEATH 2.4 POINT C. [02:50:05] UH, SECTION 2.3 POINT B SIDE EDITION NOTE. UM, UH, THIS WAS BY THE PUBLIC AND, UM, I'M SORRY, I HAVE, UH, THAT MIGHT BE A TYPO. SO THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE, UM, SHOULD, MUST SHALL, UM, I DIDN'T PUT ALL OF THEM IN THERE BECAUSE AS YOU GUYS KNOW, SHOULD, MUST AND SHALL WAS THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT QUITE A BIT. SO I JUST PUT AN EXAMPLE HERE AND I'LL GIVE YOU A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT, WHAT WAS LEFT. SO I I TY TYPICALLY WHAT I DID, OR WHAT WE DID WAS STAFF DID WAS WE LEFT SHOULD, WHEN WE, WHEN IT DISCUSSED A ARCHITECT IN THE LIKE, PRE-DESIGNED PHASE, LIKE AN ARCHITECT SHOULD CONTACT, YOU KNOW, STAFF FOR X, Y, Z AND THEN AS FAR AS SHALL AND MUST, THAT WAS PUT IN SITUATIONS WHERE LEGALLY IT SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD, IT CLARIFIED THAT, OKAY, YES, THIS SHALL BE DONE OR VERSUS SHOULD, RIGHT? SO THAT WAY, UM, THERE'S NO DISCREPANCY OF, OKAY, WELL, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT IN CASE SOMETHING, ONE OF THOSE CASES WOULD'VE COME BACK BECAUSE IT SAID SHOULD, AND THEN WE HAVE NEXT STEPS. PLEASE FORGIVE ME, I I HATE PRESENTING AND READING EXACTLY FROM THE, FROM THE POWERPOINT. SO, UH, SO NEXT STEPS, UM, I MEAN IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE TBD, UM, BUT STAFF TO MAKE CHANGES IF NECESSARY, PUBLIC MEETING DATE TO BE SET FOR REVIEW BY THE QUALITY OF LIFE COUNCIL, UH, PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO BE SET WITH CITY COUNCIL. UM, AND THEN FINAL DRAFT OF THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND ALL OF THE, ALL OF THESE DATES WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. UM, KEEP GOING. UH, I WAS GONNA SAY FOR THE, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE FOR THE GENTLEMAN THAT, UM, NEXT ONE, UH, THAT HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO, UM, GET INVOLVED OR HOW TO, UH, CONTACT STAFF. THERE'S A QR CODE HERE. I SEE HE'S GONE, BUT, UM, HE, HE'S MORE THAN WELCOME TO REACH OUT TO ME, UM, IF HE HAPPENS TO, UH, WATCH THIS PLAYBACK. UM, AND I I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME SORT OF DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE CITY'S, UH, DESIGN GUIDELINES. THAT'S WHAT I TOOK FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS SAID. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR THE RECORD. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE JUST A FEW, UM, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS. SO, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF TERRENCE ABOUT HIS PRESENTATION? I, OH, SORRY, COMMISSIONER. UH, JUST A QUESTION. UM, ON JUNE 18TH, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE GUIDELINES WITH TWO CONDITIONS THAT THE POSTED DRAFT DID NOT IMPLEMENT ONE STRIKE COUNTING THE ATTICS OR GARAGES THAT ARE CONDITIONED TOWARDS FAR, THAT WAS GARCIA AT TWO MINUTES AND 59, UH, TWO HOURS AND 59 MINUTES. THE RATIONALE WAS TO NOT REGULATE THE INTERIOR USE OF THEIR SPACE IF THEY ARE CONDITIONED OR CONDI, IF THEY CONDITION OR UNCONDITION IT. THAT WAS COSGROVE AT TWO MINUTES, TWO HOURS AND 51 MINUTES AND RECALIBRATE THE FAR CHART TO MAKE IT MORE LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT. UM, AND, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED. EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED, NO OPPOSITION. UM, SO I DON'T SEE HOW THOSE THINGS WERE DONE IN THIS DRAFT. UM, EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR CALCULATIONS ITEMS FULLY ENCLOSED IN THE ATTIC OR NEWLY BUILT DETACHED GARAGES, CONDITIONED OR NOT WITH NO OPENINGS. PENETRATIONS THROUGH THIS, THROUGH THE EXTERIOR ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR, UM, THERE WAS. NOW WHY WOULD YOU, I'M SORRY. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO DO, UM, WHAT WE VOTED ON OKAY WAS STRIKE COUNTING THE ATTICS OR GARAGES THAT ARE CONDITIONED TOWARDS THE FAR NOT REGULATE THE INTERIOR USE OF THEIR SPACE IF THEY ARE CONDITIONED OR UNCONDITION IT AND THEN RECALIBRATE [02:55:01] THE FAR CHART TO MAKE IT MORE LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT. UM, WE CAN, SO I DISAGREE THAT YOU DID WHAT WE ASK YOU TO DO ON THOSE PO POINTS. I, I, OKAY. UM, I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION, UH, 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT EVERYONE ELSE'S FACES. SURE. I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE IN TERMS MAYBE AS YOU ASK THE QUESTION, MAYBE WE COULD PUT THE LANGUAGE HERE THAT WHEN YOU REFER TO THE CHANGES, COULD WE BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT LARGER ON THE SCREEN? IT IS, IS THAT, DO WE NEED TO GO A LITTLE LARGER THE OTHER SIDE? YEAH, THAT WORKS A LOT BETTER. THERE YOU GO. SO CAN I JUST, OKAY, SO INCLUDE INCLUDED IN THE FAR THE REASON WHY THE LANGUAGE STATES THAT IF YOU SEE CONDITION SPACE THAT IS PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR CONTRIBUTES TO THE OVERALL MASSING OF THE PROPERTY, UM, IS INCLUDED IN THE FAR FROM WHAT I RECALL, AND I, SORRY, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A TIMESTAMP OF WHEN SOMETHING WAS ACTUALLY SAID. I RECALL THAT THE CONVERSATION WAS, UM, WE'LL PUT, PUT THAT IN THERE AND THEN WE'LL ALSO STATE THAT IF, I'M SORRY, LET ME, LET ME BACK UP. THE WAY I, UNDER THE WAY STAFF UNDERSTOOD IT WAS THAT YES, YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CONDITION SPACE ON A, ON A GARAGE, UM, THAT WILL BE EXEMPT FROM THE FAR, HOWEVER, IF IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE MASSING, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY IT'S WORDED AS SUCH, THEN THAT IS WHY THAT NOTE WAS PUT IN THERE AS FAR AS INCLUDED IN THE FAR, UM, EXCLUDED FROM NAFA, UM, WHICH IS ITEMS FULLY ENCLOSED IN THE ATTIC OR NEWLY BUILT DETACHED GARAGES. UM, I MEAN, I GUESS STAFF FELT THAT PLACING THAT NOTE UNDER EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR COUCH CALCULATIONS KIND OF, UM, MADE THAT, UM, EXPLANATORY WITH THE, WITH THE BOLD NOTE OVER THE TOP OF IT. UM, BUT IF IT'S UNCLEAR, UM, YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE ON THE BEHALF OF STAFF, BUT, UM, I, I, YEP, I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT ARGUING THAT SOMEBODY NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT AT 2300 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE IS PLENTY BIG FOR A FAMILY TO LIVE IN. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT AT ALL. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, I AM THOUGH, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT CAUSE WAS MISINTERPRETED, UM, ON THAT, AND I HAVE A LOT OF OTHER POINTS IN THE, UM, IN THE GUIDELINES THAT, UM, I FEEL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND AS PART OF YOUR MOTION, WE WERE ALLOWED TO BRING, UM, SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS TO THE TABLE. AND SO I HAVE QUITE A FEW OF THOSE. AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO BUILD BIG HOUSES, JUST MAKING THE GUIDELINES WORK BETTER AND SO SOMEBODY CAN ACTUALLY BUILD FROM IT. UM, SO, WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD TALK THROUGH THESE. I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE THE TIME TO DO SO. AND AGAIN, I, UM, I, AGAIN, MY QUESTION, TERRANCE IS, I MEAN THIS WORD, YOU KNOW, THE WORDS UNCONDITION AND CONDITION KEEP COMING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN THIS DOCUMENT, BUT THE MASS IS THE MASS. I MEAN, IT, IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S UNCONDITIONED OR CONDITIONED IF IT'S A VISUAL MASS. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROOMS LIKE A ROOM THAT HAS WALLS AND CEILINGS AND A FLOOR IS A, MAKES A SPACE. SO I, I DO RECALL, UM, THE COMMENTS FROM BOTH MR. COSGROVE AND COMMISSIONER GARCIA, THAT ATTIC SHOULDN'T COUNT TOWARD THE FAR, AND IF YOU CAN HABITAT IN THAT ATTIC WITH A LOFT, LET'S CALL IT A LOFT, AND YOU COULD EVEN HAVE AC IN IT, BUT YOU DIDN'T ADD ANYTHING ON TOP OF YOUR ROOF. AND, AND SO I DON'T CONSIDER ROOFS TO BE A MA A A VISUAL MASS, IT'S JUST A ROOF. UM, WE ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO USE THEIR ATTIC SPACE IF THEY CAN, FOR LIVABLE SPACES AND NOT COUNT TOWARD THE FAR. SO, 'CAUSE EARLIER, EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION, WHEN YOU REFER TO MR. COSGROVE, YOU SAID THAT ATTICS DIDN'T COUNT TOWARD THE FAR, SO I'M JUST, I'M [03:00:01] A LITTLE CONFUSED THERE. OKAY. REGARDING THE GARAGES, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, I THINK IT'S 5 85, THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD A GARAGE FOR 5 85. AND IT, IF YOU BUILD A GARAGE EQUALS THAT AMOUNT, IT DOES NOT COUNTER YOUR FAR. AND THAT IS STILL THE CASE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. BUT YOU MAY WANNA BUILD A BIGGER GARAGE. YOU KNOW, SOMEONE HAS THE, YOU KNOW, THEY, AND THEY MAY WANNA PUT A QUARTERS ABOVE A LIVING SPACE ABOVE THAT GARAGE, WHICH THEY'RE ALLOWED BY THE SAME GUIDELINES. UM, BUT ANYTHING BEYOND THE 5 85 WOULD BE COUNTED TOWARD THE FAR THAT, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. AND IS THAT, THAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR YOU THE LAST TIME. AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THESE, UM, DESCRIPTORS, BECAUSE IF IT'S, IF IT'S BUILT, UNLESS IT'S A SCREEN PORCH OR AN OPEN PORCH, WHICH AGAIN IS EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR, THEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ADD ONTO THE, YOUR GARAGE BEYOND 5 85, THAT COUNTS TO THE FAR, IF YOU BUILD ABOVE THE GARAGE, IT COUNTS TOWARD THE FAR AND IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S CONDITIONED OR NOT CONDITIONED, IT'S STILL VISUAL MASS. SO DO YOU THINK THERE'S, UM, A QUESTION THERE THAT TO, UM, BETTER DEFINE TO, TO BETTER DEFINE IN IN THE TEXT? UH, I MEAN, LISTEN, I'M, I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. UM, I THINK, UH, UM, I THINK WE, WE, WE JUST, WE, WE WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING SO FAST, UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND AND THAT'S WHY I CALLED FOR THIS PRESENTATION SO WE COULD HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. YEAH. SO, SO THAT WE COULD, WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT. YEAH. AND, AND LIKE, SO FOR ME, I MEAN, HAD WE DISCUSSED THE WORDING, THEN I WOULD'VE GLADLY PLACED THE WORDING THE WAY YOU GUYS WANTED IT IN, RIGHT? I HAD TO GO BASED OFF OF, YOU KNOW, REVIEWING THE MEETING, LISTENING TO ALL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. SO I TOOK THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS STATED IN THE MEETING AND APPLIED IT TO WHAT, WHAT THE INTERPRETATION WAS FROM WHAT YOU GUYS STATED. NOW, IF THE WORDING IS PROBLEMATIC, UM, THEN, YOU KNOW, I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO CLARIFYING THAT WORDING SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLEAR BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS, WAS A LOT OF THE COMMENTARY FOR THE OPPOSITION. SO IF, IF THAT IS, OR PEOPLE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION, I'M SORRY. UM, SO YES, I, I MEAN I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO REWORDING THIS IF THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. UM, I'M SURE THE RESIDENTS AND ANY, EVERYONE WOULD BE OPEN TO THE REWORDING. UM, BUT YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST KIND OF HOW WE GOT HERE TO THIS. OKAY. MR SIDE, ILL, WELL, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT. I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A, LIKE, LIVE EXAMPLE OF PERHAPS WHY WE MAY NEED A SUBCOMMITTEE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. I, AND I, I, I CAN EMPATHIZE, LIKE, TO TRY AND TAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMMENTS AND DIFFERENT NOTES AND SORRY, PUT THEM INTO THE EXACT PROPER WORDING WITH CONSIDERATION. I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S, I, I'VE, YOU KNOW, HAD UNFORTUNATELY WAS ON A VACATION LAST MONTH, THAT'S MY PROBLEM. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST IN, IN, IN MY REVIEW AND, AND NOTICING INCONSISTENCIES IN HERE, UH, SOME POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH JUST CONSTRUCTABILITY IN GENERAL, UH, NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I WANNA SAY IT 'CAUSE I KNOW WE'RE IN A PUBLIC MEETING. I, I, THE, UH, IT, IT IS THE DEFINITION OF NOT BEING VERY FAR APART. LIKE THE RESPECT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE, THE MAIN POINTS IN THE, UH, FOR THE FOLKS WANTING TO HURRY UP AND GET THIS PROVED. I THINK WE CAN KEEP THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM MY SEAT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME, SOME CONSISTENT AND HARD AND FAST AND, UM, RULES THAT MAKE SENSE. LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE, EVERYBODY CAN TALK IN THEORY AND LOOK AT DIAGRAMS. UH, FOR ME, I HAVE TO PUT IT TOGETHER. AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN HERE ARE STILL GRAY. I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHOLESALE CHANGES, UM, LIKE, YOU KNOW, MOVE THE FAR TO 0.8. I LIKE, THAT'S NOT WHERE, WHERE I'M GOING. I JUST THINK THAT IT IS A MORE EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO SUBCOMMITTEE THIS OUT. GIVE TERRANCE [03:05:01] THE, OR WHOMEVER ELSE WE WANNA PUT ON THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. THE, UM, TIME FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM TO PROCESS WHAT IS BEING SAID, SAID, ASK THE QUESTIONS, CONFIRM IT, WRITE IT DOWN. WE COULD PROBABLY TALK IN HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT. UM, CERTAINLY ON, ON DIFFERENT THINGS. I, I, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A COVERED EXTERIOR FIRST STORY PORCH IS PART OF THE FAR CALCULATION. AND IN THIS CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HISTORICALLY, IT MAKES ZERO SENSE TO ME. THERE IS NO MASSING TO THAT. WHY IS THAT IN, WHY IS THAT IN THE CALCULATION? BUT THOSE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS WOULD BE, UH, FIGURED OUT AND SURE, SOMEONE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE NOTES AND GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. I'M NOT CERTAINLY, BUT I CAN ANSWER. I'M WITH YOU. I'M NOT, I'LL ANSWER YOUR, I'M SAYING THAT UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S LIKE WE, YEAH, WE DID OUR BEST. I'LL, BUT I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE PORCHES. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE HEIGHTS. THERE WAS A, YOU KNOW, A, A LATE EFFORT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN PRIMARILY, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A PORCH IN THE HEIGHTS, THERE WERE REALLY ONLY PORCHES ON THE FRONT OF HOUSES. THERE ARE VERY FEW PORCHES ON THE REAR OF A HOME IN THE HEIGHTS, HISTORICALLY OR ON THE SIDE. BUT, UH, EVERYONE HAD A PORCH ON THE FRONT. THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD A WRAPAROUND PORCH IF THEY WERE A TWO STORY HOME, THEY'D HAVE A PORCH THAT WOULD BE A DOUBLE PORCH STACKED, ONE ABOVE THE OTHER. AND, UM, AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE AN OPEN PORCH WHERE YOU SCREEN IT IN, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED OPEN. IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD THE FAR, WHEN YOU HAVE A PORCH ON LEVEL ONE AND THEN YOU BUILD CONDITION SPACE ABOVE IT, YOU NOW HAVE PUMPED UP A VISUAL MASS ON THE SECOND FLOOR THAT MAKES IT, YOU BALLOON THE STRUCTURE BY PUTTING A VOID UNDERNEATH IT. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS, BEFORE THIS COMMISSION WAS IN, IN, IN, IN EFFECT, THE COMMISSION SAW A PROJECT THAT HAD A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT PORCH ON LEVEL ONE WITH A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON LEVEL TWO. SO THAT 2,500 SQUARE FOOT OF CONDITIONED SPACE ON ONE LEVEL BECAME A TWO STORY MASS, NOT A ONE STORY MASS, JUST BECAUSE THE PORCH WAS A VOID. AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S A BAY HOUSE IN BOLIVAR, BASICALLY. THAT'S NOT A PORCH. I MEAN, A PORCH IS ALSO DEFINED LIKE IN THE GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF SIZE AND SO FORTH. BUT THE, AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN, WHEN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS LOOKED AT MASSING MODELS, THEY LOOKED AT A MASS AND THEY VOTED ON A MASS THAT, THAT THEY SAW, WHICH WAS, UM, IN SOME CASES TWO STORIES. AND SO THE FAR IS BASED ON THAT SHELL, IF YOU WILL. AND THE IDEA WAS MOST HOMES THAT ARE STOR HAVE PORCHES THAT ARE TACKED ONTO THE MASS, AND THEY, THEY, AND THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL MASSING CREATED BY THOSE OPEN PORCHES. SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE ENCOURAGED. IT'S ONLY WHEN THEY ARE IN INJECTED INTO THAT SHELL TO POP TO MAKE THAT SPACE EVEN LARGER IN APPEARANCE. THAT'S WHEN IT STARTS TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE SIGNED OFF FOR. SO IT, IT'S KIND OF, UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE ALSO LOOKED AT, IF YOU DO HAVE AN INSET PORCH, DOES IT MEET THE HISTORIC DIMENSIONS AND SIZE? UM, 'CAUSE MANY, MANY TIMES WE'VE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN. AND SO IT'S KIND OF JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S DRIVING MASS, TRYING TO KEEP CONTROL ON THAT MASS IN A WAY THAT USES THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE. THAT THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT, WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION. WELL, WELL, YOU, YOU ASKED I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. LIKE, I, I GET THAT. I THINK THAT'S AT THE CENTER OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO PRESENT IS THAT ALL OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS PROBABLY GO INTO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE 10 TO 12 OF THESE SECTIONS. AND THAT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION. AND REALLY, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM MY STANDPOINT, LIKE I'VE ALWAYS SAID, THE, THE, THE CLEAR, UH, AND AND CONCISE AND MEASURABLE GUIDELINES IS, IS, IS WHAT I AM AFTER. UH, BECAUSE THESE WERE DEVELOPED BY, YOU KNOW, A, A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE OVER TIME. THAT'S GREAT. I RESPECT THAT. DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT AT ALL. BUT WHEN THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS AND THEN SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN WORK, [03:10:01] WE PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. Y YES. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS AGENDA ITEM. SO I, IF I MAY MAKE LIKE A PROCEDURAL COMMENT. SURE. SO THESE GUIDELINES WERE APPROVED AT THE JANUARY 18 MEETING WITH CONDITIONS. UM, IF THE COMMISSION, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER BROUGHT BACK, YOU MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THIS AND I WOULD LOVE TO GET YOUR READ ON IT. IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO RE-LOOK AT THEM FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE AND LIKE TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THEM AND ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THEM, UM, THEN I THINK THAT MOTION OR THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT VOTE NEEDS TO BE RESCINDED OR THERE'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN FOR US TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK, UM, AND TO ACTUALLY HAVE, LIKE, MAKE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST DOING A PRESENTATION, UM, HAVING A DISCUSSION. BUT THOSE, ALL THIS DISCUSSION, WHATEVER FRUIT COMES FROM, IT NEEDS TO BE, IF, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES IT NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED, THEN IT, THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN ANOTHER FORUM. SO I SEE COMMISSIONER BROUGHT BACK, UM, POINT OF ORDER REAL FAST. ARE WE IN DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW OR ARE WE STILL ASKING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WHAT ARE WE DOING? OR BOTH, OR BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? WE'RE, YEAH, I MEAN WE, WE CAN, WE CAN OPENLY DISCUSS AND ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN THAT, THAT IS OUR PURVIEW TODAY. GREAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS THOSE, TO IDENTIFY THEM. WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION, YOU KNOW, ON ANY THESE THINGS TODAY. AND IF WE, BUT IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT WE WANT TO REVISE SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO RESCIND WHAT WAS VOTED ON THE LAST TIME AND THEN PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT, UM, THAT'S ONLY IF WE CAN COME TO SOME RESOLUTION ON WHAT THOSE, WHAT MIGHT BE HYPOTHETICALLY. SO I MEAN, IF WE, I MEAN, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, IF YOU'RE GONNA, IF CONSIDER, IF WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER CHANGES, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN KNOW WHEN IT'LL COME BACK ON THE AGENDA. UM, SO, BUT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THESE, UH, THE, THESE REVISIONS AND FIND OUT WHETHER WE AGREE OR WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THIS MEETING'S ABOUT TODAY. COMMISSIONER BROBECK. OKAY. UM, SO TO CLARIFY, THE MOTION THAT WAS PASSED, UM, LAST MONTH WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE MADE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND FORWARD THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. UM, AND, UH, AND IT WAS IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION, THE, THE VERY FULL DISCUSSION THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ABOUT THE GUIDELINES AS THEY WERE, UM, I MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, UH, BECAUSE OF MY DISCOMFORT IN VOTING ON LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD NOT SEEN. UM, MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS SIMPLY TO ASK THAT STAFF POST THE REVISED LANGUAGE BY A CERTAIN DATE. UM, AND THAT, UH, AND THAT SO LONG AS THAT LANGUAGE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, THEN IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD. UM, MY QUESTION FOR STAFF REAL QUICK AND THEN I'LL FINISH MY STATEMENT, IS, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REVISED LANGUAGE THAT YOU POSTED WAS CONSISTENT WITH OUR DISCUSSION LAST MONTH? YES. OKAY. UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, WE PASSED IT UNANIMOUSLY. I REMEMBER APPLAUSE, I REMEMBER HUGS AND KISSES. WE, IT, IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UM, THAT BEING SAID, AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER, BUT THERE'S A PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T NOTE NOTICE, WE DIDN'T PUBLICLY NOTICE THAT WE MIGHT TAKE IS THAT WE MIGHT TAKE ACTION ON THIS TONIGHT. WE CAN'T EVEN PASS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER TONIGHT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO NOTICE THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE ACTION ON THE NOR HILL GUIDELINES. THAT WOULD BE NEXT MONTH. IF THAT MOTION WERE TO PASS, THEN WE COULDN'T TAKE ACTION ON THE GUIDELINES UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONTH BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T PRESUPPOSE WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO IF YOU PASS A MOTION TO CONSIDER RECONSIDER. SO WE'VE GOT AT LEAST TWO MONTHS BEFORE WE COULD TAKE ANY KIND OF ACTION, WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO THE PROPOSAL OF A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT GIVES A SUBCOMMITTEE PLENTY OF TIME [03:15:01] TO ACT. AND THEIR FIRST TASK WOULD BE TO CONVINCE THE COMMISSION THAT VOTED UNANIMOUSLY LAST MONTH TO RECONSIDER THAT WOULD BE TASK NUMBER ONE. WE HAVE TO BE CONVINCED TO REOPEN THE DISCUSSION. THEN IF WE CHOOSE TO DO THAT, THEN THERE'S A DISCUSSION THAT CAN HAPPEN. BUT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS EARLIER SUGGESTED THAT HAVING THAT DISCUSSION IN THIS FORUM IS NOT REALLY PRODUCTIVE. IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER IN THE FORM OF A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WE WOULD ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND IF THEY WANTED TO. AND THEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE COULD BRING ANY PROPOSED CHANGES BACK TO US. BUT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PASS A MOTION, ESPECIALLY UNANIMOUSLY. YOU GOTTA BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT REVISITING IT. BECAUSE PART OF MY CONCERN HERE IS ABOUT PRECEDENT. WE HAVE TO BE REALLY, REALLY CAREFUL, ESPECIALLY ABOUT SOMETHING AS BIG AS THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WAS WORKED ON FOR 10 YEARS. IF WE SO EASILY REOPEN SOMETHING THAN ANYTHING CAN BE REOPENED. AND I'VE GOT A LIST OF A FEW THINGS I'D LIKE TO RECONSIDER, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE MY COLLEAGUES WOULD REALLY RATHER THAT WE NOT. SO I WILL RESTATE MY SUGGESTION THAT WE JUST FORM THE SUBCOMMITTEE NOW THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY KIND OF FORMAL ACTION, AND THEN WE MOVE FORWARD ACCORDINGLY. SO WOULD, WOULD THE DESIGN GUIDELINES GO TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE AS THEY'RE NOW? OR WOULD THEY LIKE BE KIND OF HELD IN LIMBO? THAT'S, YEAH, I'M LIKE COMMISSIONER, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON SPEAK AND THEN COMMISSIONER JONES. WELL, I, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR MATT BECAUSE, UH, PART OF THE CONDITIONS AND YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS THAT WE POST THEM BY A CERTAIN DATE AND WE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO ARE THEY NULL AND VOID BECAUSE WE MISSED OUR DATE? I, I WOULDN'T THINK SO. I THINK YOU'D STILL TRY TO WANT TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS VOTED UPON OR WHAT WAS, BUT MY, MY POINT IS BECAUSE WE HAD DIFFICULTY DRAFTING THOSE AMENDMENTS, WE MISSED OUR DATE MM-HMM . AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT BY RESCINDING THE APPROVED DOCUMENT, WE CAN THEN DRAFT THESE ADDITIONAL CHANGES WHICH ARE ON THE MARGIN. WE'RE NOT TALKING, AS EVERYBODY SAID, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A WHOLESALE CHANGE. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOUBLING THE FAR, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MINIMIZING THE SET, THE REAR SETBACKS, EVERYTHING THAT'S IMPORTANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AS COMMISSIONER SEL SAID, MAKING A DOCUMENT THAT PEOPLE IN THE FIELD CAN PICK UP AND READ AND UNDERSTAND AND NOT HAVE AMBIGUITY LIKE THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE GOT ON THE SCREEN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX. MAY I RESPOND, UM, RESPECTFULLY, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT MISSING A DEADLINE, UH, RISES TO THE LEVEL OF NULLIFYING THAT VOTE. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN. IT'S, IT SOUNDS UNREASONABLE TO ME. COMMISSIONER JONES. I'M TRYING TO COLLECT MY THOUGHTS HERE. 'CAUSE MY BRAIN IS MUSH NOW AT 5 49. MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ON A, A CERTAIN TIMELINE HERE AND THERE'S VERY REAL CONSEQUENCES TO CONTINUING TO KICK THIS DOWN THE CURB AND HAVING COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES AND EVERYTHING. AND I ALSO REALLY UNDERSTAND GETTING THIS RIGHT AND GETTING IT OUT TO BE A USABLE, FUNCTIONAL DOCUMENT. SO WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE PROCESS OF THIS, RIGHT? ONE'S BEFORE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE OTHER ONE'S BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. IS THERE ROOM WITHIN THAT PROCESS TO INCORPORATE THESE CHANGES SO WE CAN KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DOCUMENT, BUT STILL HAVE SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE, WORKS FOR MOST, UH, THAT, UH, YOU'RE MAKING THE BET THAT WHEN IT GOES TO QUALITY OF LIFE, THAT QUALITY OF LIFE IS OPEN TO CHANGES. QUALITY OF LIFE CAN SAY, NO, WE, WE THINK THIS SHOULD BE PASSED AS IS AND THEN WE'VE GOT AN UNWORKABLE DOCUMENT, SO WE CAN'T SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT WITH IT OR CHANGES TO IT. THE, THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK AT THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE. I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO SEND SOMETHING OR SEND A STATEMENT OR SPEAK AT THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE SAYING, YOU KNOW, I, THESE AREN'T READY, YOU SHOULD REFER THEM BACK TO THE HHC TO MAKE FURTHER AMENDMENT. THEY MAY, THEY MAY, UH, ENTERTAIN THAT. OKAY. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT, AND ANYONE, ANY PUBLIC MEMBER CAN, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES NECESSARILY, BUT MORE CLARIFYING EDITORIAL CHANGES. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES. BUT THERE ARE SOME, BUT THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE COR THAT HAVE TO BE CORRECTED. THERE ARE DEFINITIONS THAT, UM, LEFT OVER FROM PREVIOUS DISTRICTS, GUIDELINES, ET CETERA, THAT DON'T APPLY [03:20:01] TO THIS. THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T DEFINE THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE SO THAT THESE GUYS CAN BUILD IT. UM, AN EXAMPLE, WE USE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND EXISTING HOUSE IN THE SAME SENTENCES, MEANING DIFFERENT THINGS. AND WE DON'T ADDRESS, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH A, UM, A HOUSE THAT HAS A, HAS AN EXTENSION ON IT, AND WHAT, HOW DOES THAT COUNT? AND BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO OUT WIDER, OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT EXTENSION, HOW CAN YOU COME OVER IT? THOSE ARE JUST THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO NAIL DOWN SO THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING THE QUESTIONS LATER. UM, RIDGE HEIGHT, WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF RIDGE HEIGHT IN HERE. WE SHOULD ONLY HAVE ONE THAT SHOULD BE REALLY CLEAR. UM, THE SHALL APPROVE, UM, SECTION, UH, WE, THE, THEY TOOK OUT THE SHALL APPROVE SO THAT WE WOULD ALL BE VOTING ON EVERYTHING EVERY TIME. SO ANY ADDITION. SO THERE SO THAT, UH, STAFF CAN'T APPROVE AN ADDITION LIKE THEY CAN SAY IN THE HEIGHTS. CAN CAN I JUST NO, YEAH. JUST TO THAT, I JUST WANNA ADD. OKAY. NOT YET. OKAY. SO, UH, BECAUSE I'LL FORGET WHAT I'M GONNA SAY. SO, UM, BUT WE STILL HAVE IN THE DEFINITIONS, THE SHALL APPROVE ADDITION IS IN THE DEFINITIONS. SO WE EITHER, WE HAVE TO RECONCILE THOSE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT TO, TO GOT TO TALK ABOUT. UM, AND SOME OF THEM ARE, UM, AS SIMPLE AS, IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A GAR, IF YOUR GARAGE HAS TO BE THE SAME PLATE AS THE EXISTING HOUSE, YOU'RE GONNA, IN A LOT OF THESE HOUSES, YOU'RE GONNA END UP WITH AN EIGHT FOOT GARAGE, WHICH NOT A DOOR. IT, IT'S NOT A WORKABLE THING. I MEAN, IT'S A GREAT THING TO SAY, BUT IT'S NOT PRACTICAL. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE PRACTICAL RULES, UM, AS WELL. UM, SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS. AND I SENT, I THINK ALL OF YOU GOT A COPY OF WHAT I SENT, AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE THINGS WERE TALKING ABOUT MAKING BIG HOUSES IN NOR HILL. UM, BUT THEY ARE TECHNICAL THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE DOCUMENT. AND SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPROPRIATE, AND, UH, WE GOT THIS FROM LEGAL APPROPRIATE THING TO DO, IS TO RESCIND THAT VOTE, REWORK IT, BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH, AND WE'LL BE, AND THEN WE'LL BE DONE. BUT THERE'S MORE WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE ON THE DRAFT. WELL, LIKE, LIKE OUR MEETING LAST MONTH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DISCUSS THESE THINGS AND ALLOW STAFF TO ADDRESS THAT EACH OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY LIKE WE DID. SO WE CAN SEE HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSED IN THE DOCUMENT, SEE WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A REMEDY THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING, UM, SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHICH, WHAT ARE THE AREAS THAT, THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED FOR POTENTIAL CLARIFICATION. SO LIKE, YOU'D NAMED A NUMBER OF THINGS RIGHT NOW, BUT IF WE COULD GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM ONE AT A TIME, AND I THINK TERRENCE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT YOU HAD SAID, UM, BECAUSE FOR THE, FOR THIS COMMISSION TO HEAR WHAT, WHAT THESE THINGS ARE, HEAR WHAT STAFF HAS TO SAY, LET'S LOOK AT THIS TEXT SO WE CAN AT LEAST UNDERSTAND THAT THIS, EACH OF THESE POINTS, WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION ON THEM, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD BE, WHILE WE'RE HERE, WE WOULD HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND I KNOW TERRENCE, YOU WANTED TO, TO RESPOND, BUT I'D LIKE IF WE COULD DO IT IN ORGANIZED FASHION POINT BY POINT SO WE COULD HAVE A RECORD OF THAT. UM, IS THAT POSSIBLE? I I MEAN I I I WAS ONLY GOING TO COMMENT ON THE, THE SHALL APPROVE. UM, SURE. 'CAUSE THIS IS, AND, AND MAYBE EVEN THE DEFINITIONS, UM, I MEAN, THERE WERE ONLY TWO DEFINITIONS THAT WERE ADDED. UH, JUNE, JUNE, IN THE JUNE 18TH MEETING, UM, I WAS ASKED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, ADD TWO DEFINITIONS. SO WE ADDED TWO DEFINITIONS. SO I, I MEAN, I, I GUESS IF, IF THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE DEFINITIONS, THEN YOU KNOW, HEY, THAT THAT IS WHAT IT IS. AND, UM, WE'LL ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET TO IT. UM, I JUST WANT THE COMMISSION, [03:25:01] UH, MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND WITH LET'S, LET'S JUST SAY TO THE SHELL APPROVES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA COMMENT ON. UM, THE OTHER THINGS I WASN'T, YOU KNOW, I WASN'T GONNA COMMENT ON, BUT AS FAR AS THE SHELL APPROVES, THOSE WERE VOTED ON BY THE RESIDENTS. UM, SO THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS, UH, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO, UM, HAVE THE RESIDENTS VOTE ON NOT LET ALLOWING STAFF TO APPROVE SHALL APPROVES SIMILAR IN THE WAY THAT OLD SIX WARD DOES, UH, NOT ALLOW AAS, BECAUSE OLD SIX WARD RESIDENTS VOTED TO DO SO AND PLACE IT IN THEIR GUIDELINES. NOW, WHAT ALSO IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE IN STAFF'S OPINION IS IF WE ARE GOING TO DO SUCH A THING TO NOT INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF WHAT SHALL APPROVE IS. SO IF THE VOTERS VOTE, I MEAN, IF THE RESIDENTS SUBMIT A SURVEY SAYING THAT THEY DON'T WANT SHALL APPROVES TO BE, UM, APPROVED BY STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY OR APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND WE PUT, AND THAT'S STATED AND THAT'S STATED, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THAT DEFINITION IN THE DEFINITIONS. BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WOULD GET CALLS OF PEOPLE ASKING, WELL, WHAT EXACTLY IS A SHELL APPROVE? SO THAT WAS REALLY GOING TO BE MY ONLY COMMENT TO THAT. I'M, AGAIN, I'M OPEN TO ANYTHING, ANY CHANGES THAT YOU GUYS HAVE. SURE. BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS BEEN, AS THESE PEOPLE HAVE SAID, AND YOU KNOW, OTHERS HAVE SAID IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS OF WORK FOR MOST OF THE RESIDENTS, AND IT'S BEEN OVER THREE YEARS OF WORK FOR STAFF. AND IN THAT, THAT INCLUDED PUBLIC MEETINGS, SURVEYS, UM, I KNOW A GENTLEMAN SAID EARLIER THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY FOUND OUT THE INFORMATION FROM THE WEBSITE AND SURE. BUT, AND PEOPLE GOING DOOR TO DOOR. BUT, BUT THERE'VE BEEN, WE WENT DOOR TO THERE'VE BEEN MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY CERTIFIED NOTICES. YES. OVER 10 YEARS. YES. AND WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR IN THE SUMMER. SO, UM, YEAH, I, I MEAN, I JUST, I JUST WANT, IF IT'S GONNA BE A SUBCOMMITTEE, I'M OPEN TO A SUBCOMMITTEE SURE. IF IT'S GONNA BE TWO MONTHS FROM NOW THAT WE DO IT. I, I MEAN JUST THAT'S, THAT'S POINT ME IN WHICH DIRECTION YOU WANT ME TO GO AND I'LL, AND WE'LL GO. THAT'S FINE. BUT WHILE WE'RE HERE, MAYOR GATHERED, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA EXCEPT FOR A FEW SMALL ITEMS. BUT LIKE THIS ITEM, LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF, INSTEAD OF JUST STATING A LOT OF THINGS, IF IT, IS IT NOT CLEAR THAT SHALL APPROVES CANNOT BE APPROVED BY STAFF, AND THERE'S A DEFINITION OF WHAT A SHALL APPROVE IS, IS IS THAT REALLY A CONFLICT IN THIS DOCUMENT? I MEAN, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IN TERMS OF LIKE, IF WE COULD BRING IT UP IN THE TEXT, WE CAN SEE IT. I'M JUST TRYING TO TAKE A PULSE. DOES THE COMMISSION, IT'S JUST INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT. YOU HAVE TO ADD A FEW MORE WORDS IF YOU WANNA MICROPHONE PLEASE. IT'S INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT IN THE DOCUMENT AND YOU WANT THE DOCUMENT TO BE INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. SO IF THAT IS THE INTENT, THEN WE ADDRESS IT AND WE MAKE IT. RIGHT. IS IT POSSIBLE TO BRING UP THE TEXT THOUGH THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? IS THAT AS STAFF UNDERSTOOD IT, WE WERE JUST DOING A PRESENTATION. I DID NOT GIVE, UH, UH, SAMANTHA THE, UH, NEW DRAFT OF THE GUIDELINES. I JUST UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE JUST PRESENTING. THERE WAS BE NO DISCUSSION AND WE WERE, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, THAT PUT THAT SOLELY ON ME IF YOU'D LIKE. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. YOU, UM, BUT COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU DID PREPARE A DOCUMENT THAT WAS CHRONOLOGICAL THROUGH MM-HMM . THAT, THAT LISTED OUT THE POINTS. SO MAYBE SHE COULD GO THROUGH THAT POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR. UM, YES. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT WE ARE BEGINNING TO DELIBERATE ON A MATTER THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED OF. THAT'S WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS BEGINNING TO RESEMBLE. UM, I'M DOING MY LEVEL BEST TO PUSH US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. LET'S DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY, DO IT IN A WAY WHERE IT CAN'T BE CHALLENGED, AND WE CAN FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE OF PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THIS THE MOST. THEY CAN DISCUSS IT, DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND RECOMMEND THAT WE NUMBER ONE VOTE TO RECONSIDER. AND THEN IF WE DO THE FOLLOWING MONTH, COME BACK TO US WITH WHAT WE SHOULD RECONSIDER UPON. BUT UNLESS THERE'S AN OPEN MATTER, WE WE'RE DELIBERATING ON A MATTER THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED OF. UM, WELL, FOR US TO DECIDE TO GO TO FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE, WE'VE GOTTA DECIDE WHY AND FOR WHAT, UM, AND NOT JUST LOOSE CHANGE [03:30:01] TALK TO, UH, CONCEPTS. RIGHT. SO I'M TRYING TO DEFINE THE MEAT OF THESE ISSUES. COMMISSIONER, SEL, YOU HAVE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY DIMENSIONAL ISSUES WITH CONSTRUCTION. SO I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE REFERRING TO HEIGHTS. YES. WALL HEIGHTS. YES. RIDGE HEIGHTS. AND SO THAT IS, THAT'S, YOU HAVE DEFINED THAT FOR ME. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES IN, IN, IN TOTAL THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT I KNOW WHAT A RIDGE HEIGHT IS. I KNOW WHAT A PLATE HEIGHT IS. AND, UM, I I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION WITH THE SHALL APPROVE. I DON'T STILL UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENT THAT THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING TERENCE TO EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENT SO THAT WE HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING. BUT I KNOW THEY'RE, UH, COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU'VE RAISED MANY, MANY POINTS AND, AND, AND I JUST WANNA GET THEM OUT SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE AND GIVE STAFF A CHANCE TO, TO AT LEAST GIVE US SOME INSIGHT IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DELIBERATE OURSELVES, BUT I AM TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOTALITY OF THESE THINGS AND, AND, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE, WHAT TERRANCE HAS DONE STILL SATISFIES SOME OF THESE THINGS, OR THERE'S SOME OTHER CLAUSE THAT TAKE CARE OF THEM. THAT THAT'S ALL. AND I THINK LEGAL COUNSEL, UH, WELL, I SEE YOUR, YOUR FLAG IS UP, SO I'LL LET YOU ADDRESS, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, YOU'RE GONNA KEEP US OUT OF ANY AR AREAS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING. SO HOPEFULLY, BUT I SAW COMMISSIONER GROS COSGROVE WANTED TO SPEAK BEFORE I, SO, OH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION THAT, I MEAN, WE APPROVED THE, THE DOCUMENT WITH CONDITIONS, AND IT APPEARS TO ME AS IF THE COMMISSION IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONDITIONS. AND I, I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, HOW, WHERE THAT PUTS US, LIKE, I MEAN, IT, IT WAS APPROVED WITH THESE CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS COME BACK TO US IS NOT, YOU KNOW, ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMISSION. AND DOES THAT ALLOW US TO ACCELERATE THE PACE OF OPENING IT BACK UP AND REDOING IT? I MEAN, I CONSIDER THIS AS THE POSTING THAT WE REQUIRED, RIGHT? YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS THAT IT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GET IT ONLINE BEFOREHAND IN THE TIMEFRAME, BUT WE DO HAVE IT NOW. AND NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT IT AND SAYING, WE MAY NOT LIKE THE, THE WAY THE STAFF, NO OFFENSE, INTERPRETED THE CONDITIONS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, ACCEPTED IT UPON. SO JUST HAD THAT QUESTION. RIGHT. SO THE, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN THE WHOLE POINT OF PRESENTATION, GIVING A PRESENTATION TODAY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND WAS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT CONDITIONS WERE MADE, YOU KNOW, IF, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS SATISFACTORY. UM, WE HAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SPEAK, SAY, SOME SAID WE DON'T LIKE IT, SOME SAID GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING FORWARD, FORWARD WITH IT. SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER DAVIS HAD SOME WELL RESEARCHED, YOU KNOW, WELL-WRITTEN, UM, ISSUES WRITTEN OUT. UM, I WOULD ADVISE THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE MOTION OR MAKE A MOVE TO RESCIND WHATEVER WAS APPROVED, UM, FOR FAILURE OF, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T, IT DIDN'T MEET THE CONDITIONS OF WHAT, UM, WAS VOTED UPON IN THE LAST MEETING. UM, AND THEN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR RECONSIDERATION, UH, IN THE AUGUST COMMISSION MEETING. UM, SO THAT CAN BE LIKE A, A DOUBLE A DUAL MOTION, BUT WE DON'T, WE WANT TO AVOID GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE OR, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY KICK IT DOWN. WE'RE GONNA JUST HAVE TO, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE SAME PROCESS OVER AGAIN. UM, SO WE KIND OF JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE WITH A CLEAN DOCUMENT THAT EVERYONE IN THIS COMMISSION SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO APPROVE THIS. AND SO TO GET TO THAT POINT, I THINK, LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE NEED TO, TO, THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO MOVE, OR THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO MOVE, UM, TO RESEND OR SAY THAT, UM, WHAT WAS APPROVED AT THE JUNE MEETING THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WEREN'T MET. UM, AND THEN MOVE TO PLACE THE, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION, UH, ON THE AUGUST AGENDA. UM, AND I THINK THAT WILL ALLOW US TO, UM, GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN TELL, WE CAN GIVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE A CLEAN DOCUMENT, UM, THAT HAS ALL THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE, WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW AS PART OF THAT. SO THAT'S [03:35:01] WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND. SO, FIRST QUESTION, UM, AS, AS WAS ASKED EARLIER BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK, DO, DID LEGALLY, CAN THE COMMISSION VOTE TO RESCIND THE DECISION FROM THE LAST MONTH IN ORDER TO SEEK MORE CLARITY ON THE REVISIONS THAT WE INTENDED AT THIS MEETING? YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A, THERE'S NOT GUIDANCE TO SAY THAT WE CANNOT, SO I MEAN, AS A, UM, YOU KNOW, AS THE COMMITTEE, YOU GUYS, OR AS THE COMMISSION, YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT OF DEFERENCE TO, TO MAKE DECISIONS, UM, AS TO PROCEDURE. SO I THINK THIS WOULD FALL WITHIN THE POWER THAT Y'ALL HAVE TO, TO DO. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE, WHAT WE CANNOT DO AT THIS MEETING IS VOTE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, UH, TO THE DOCUMENT, UM, AT THIS MEETING, HOWEVER, THAT'S RIGHT. UM, BECAUSE THAT'S THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WENT WE WE'RE, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT. HELLO. RIGHT. UM, THIS MEETING WAS, OR THE AGENDA ITEM FOR TODAY WAS ONLY A PRESENTATION. UM, AND THEN ALLOW FOR THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS. OKAY. AT, WE'D HAVE TO MOVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF CHANGE OR TO ALLOW FOR SOME CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, VRAN. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR. I FEEL LIKE, UM, WE ARE AT A PLACE THAT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. AND THE DISCUSSION IS, WHAT I LIKE TO SH TO BRING IN AT THIS POINT IS THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST, AT THIS MEETING ON THE AGENDA, THIS ITEM IS SET AS A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE AGENDA THAT SAY THAT WE ARE TO MAKE A CONSIDERATION. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE PRESENTATION FROM THE STAFF IS TO PRESENT WHETHER OR NOT THE STAFF HIT THE TARGET OF WHAT YOUR GUIDANCE WERE. IT APPEARS FROM LISTENING TO THE, I'VE BEEN SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WE, THE STAFF AND MY TEAM HAS NOT MET THE TARGET. THERE ARE STILL AREAS THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED IN ADDITION THAT THE LANGUAGE NEEDS WORKING ON, SO THAT THERE IS CLARITY TO THE PUBLIC AND ANYONE WHO PICKS UP THIS DOCUMENT IN THE FUTURE THAT THERE IS NOT GONNA BE ANY CONFUSION. SO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, AS MATT, I THINK GAVE US ONE OPTION, BUT WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO GUIDE THIS BOARD IS THAT BECAUSE STAFF HAS NOT HIT YOUR TARGET, WHAT I LIKE TO DO IS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THAT JUST STATE THAT STAFF HAS NOT HIT THE TARGET AT THE NEXT AUGUST MEETING, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT WE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERATE, TO BE CONSIDERED. THEN YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION ON ALL THE THINGS. COMMISSIONER BALDRICK, UH, SUGGESTED FORMING A SUBCOMMITTEE. OTHER PEOPLE SAY, KEEP WORKING STAFF, YOU DIDN'T HIT TARGET. WE CANNOT MAKE A DECISION. WE CANNOT MAKE A VOTE TODAY. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, IT HAS TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING, THE AUGUST MEETING, ALL RIGHT, WE COME BACK, YOU, YOU, YOU OPEN THIS ITEM UP AGAIN, AND THEN YOU CAN SAY, I SUGGEST COMMISSIONER BALDRICK, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR MOTION. CAN WE FORM A COMMITTEE? SOMEONE ELSE CAN SAY NO, WE KEEP WORKING IN THE MEANTIME IF WE WANT TO, THE STAFF CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE RED LINE FROM WHAT WE CAPTURE. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THIS IS A LOT TRICKIER THAN WHAT WE NEED EVERYBODY. WE NEED THE RED LINE TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYONE SO THAT WE DID WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. ALRIGHT, WE CANNOT MAKE A VOTE. WE CANNOT MAKE A CONSIDERATION. SO WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CAN CLOSE THIS AND CONTINUE NEXT TIME WHERE WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A MOTION. ARE WE IN A AGREE AGREEMENT? I THINK SO. UM, ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER ELL HAS A QUESTION. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T, UM, DISCUSS AND FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN LIKE, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. I MEAN, I JUST SHARED MY, MY VIEW OF THIS, IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS. I'VE, I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION VERY SHORT TIME. IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS. IF IT'S, IF IT'S TWO MORE MONTHS, LET'S GET IT RIGHT. LIKE THAT MAKES SENSE. [03:40:01] I FEEL THOUGH, AS IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, WE COME BACK HERE, WE HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION THAT PRODUCES SOME CONFUSING TASKS FOR STAFF, THEN THEY DON'T GET IT. RIGHT. I'M TRYING TO BE AS EFFICIENT WITH TIME. IS THERE A REASON WHY WE COULDN'T CREATE A SUBCOMMITTEE? HAMMER HOME THE, THE SIGNIFICANT POINTS. MAKE IT CLEAR AND THEN, THEN, THEN TAKE A LOOK IF THAT FULFILLS WHAT EVERYBODY'S LOOKING FOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF WHAT COMMISSIONER BALDRICK BROUGHT UP, THAT YOU ARE AT RISK OF DOING SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE NOW. OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE YOUR RED LINES. YOU WANT TO, YOU'RE MAKING AN ACTION. WE ARE AT RISK OF YOU DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. AND, AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR STAFF. OKAY? YEAH. YOU CAN CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. SUBCOMMITTEE. SEND US YOUR COMMENTS IN THE, IN IN THE MEANTIME. OKAY. THAT, THAT CLEARLY ANSWERS. WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GONNA STOP WORKING. YEAH. YEAH. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY TO MAKE ANY KIND OF MOTION. WE, WE PRESENTED TO YOU. DID WE HIT THE MARK OR NOT? WE HEARD YOU, WE DIDN'T HIT THE MARK. WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK ON, ON THIS. YES. OKAY. NEXT TIME WE'LL COME BACK. IT WILL BE A PRESENTATION AND A CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME WHEN WE REPRESENT TO YOU AND WE HIT THE MARK, YOU CAN CONSIDER AND GO DONE, MOVE FORWARD AS WE SAID, OR MM-HMM. WE, WE NEED TO FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE OR WHATEVER. THERE IS NOT A VOTE ON THE TABLE TODAY. QUICK QUESTION. SO AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE WOULD HAVE THE OPTION, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE COULD DO IT IN ONE MEETING THAT WE COULD RESCIND THE PREVIOUS VOTE AND VOTE. I MEAN, JUST SO THAT HOWEVER THE AGENDA NEEDS TO BE AWARDED, THE AGENDA WILL SAY, SO WE CAN VOTE CONSIDERATION. WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE A CONSIDERATION. YES. ARE YOU SAYING WE CAN'T, I I DISAGREE THAT WE CAN, WE, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE OVER TWO MEETINGS. THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THE NOR HILL GUIDELINES INVOLVE VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. AND SO IF WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING ON SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, WE GOTTA POST THAT IN ADVANCE SO THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. SO IT WOULD BE PERFECT. SO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTOR'S COUNCIL, YES. THE SOONEST WE COULD MAKE ANY CHANGES IF WE DID AT ALL WOULD BE SEPTEMBER. MM-HMM . UM, BUT BEFORE THAT, I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, APPLAUSE AND HUGS AND KISSES, WE NEED TO BE CONVINCED JUST TO RECONSIDER FIRST IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE CREDIBILITY MOVING FORWARD. THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY POSITION. MATT, PLEASE CHIME IN. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER BALDRICK STATED EXACTLY WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PROCESS, SO PLEASE CHIME IN. BUT THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT. ALL RIGHT. IT'S GONNA BE TILL SEPTEMBER AND I'M SO SORRY THAT ANYONE IN THIS ROOM IS DISAPPOINTED, BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT WORK AND YOU DON'T WANT THIS TO FALL APART BECAUSE A PROCESS, RIGHT? LIKE YOU SAID, DIRECTOR, UM, YEAH, YOU HIT IT ON, ON THE HEAD. UM, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IT'S GONNA TAKE A BIT MORE TIME. AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY, UM, WE'RE WE HAVE TO OPERATE. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, DIRECTOR TRON, UH, I, I WANNA COMMEND YOUR STAFF. THEY'VE WORKED REALLY HARD AND THE TIMELINE THAT WE PUT ON 'EM ORIGINALLY WAS, UM, UNREASONABLE. BUT, UM, TERRENCE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PARTIALLY GUILTY FOR THAT, FOR SAYING YES. UM, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. AND I, THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED OF THEM. I WANT YOU GUYS TO, TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND IT REALLY MEANS A LOT TO US TOO FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR CONTRIBUTION, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT OF MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO AT SIX O'CLOCK RIGHT NOW, . UH, BUT THIS MEANS A LOT TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS MEANS A LOT TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT WORK. AND I REALLY, REALLY ALSO AM VERY HONORED TO BE A PART OF THIS WORK. I KNOW I'VE BEEN BEHIND THE SCENE. UH, AND THEN MOST OF ALL, I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE CHAIR OF HICK WHO HAS BEEN HERE [03:45:01] WITH US FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND THIS IS A WORK OF LOVE AND IT'S A, A, IT'S A GIFT TO OUR CITY. IT'S A GIFT TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S WHY I APOLOGIZE THAT, UM, IT'S A DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THIS IS GONNA HAVE TO DRAG OUT TWO MORE MONTHS. BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOR HILL, AND WE WANT THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO READ THIS DOCUMENT AND REALLY UNDERSTAND IT, OKAY? AND WE NEED MORE WORK. AND I, I WANT TO GET US THERE. OKAY? AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM G AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, ITEM I, COMMENTS FROM THE HAHC. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANY COMMENTS. OH, BY THE WAY, . OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT. I DON'T KNOW IF ROBERT DID, DID YOU INTEND TO SAY ANYTHING OR ? I THINK IT'S BEST FROM THAT SIDE OF THE, UH, PODIUM AS WELL. THANK YOU. THERE IS NO REPORT TODAY FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. THANK YOU. THEN THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. * 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.