[Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on October 8, 2026.]
[00:00:16]
TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
I'M COMMISSION CHAIR DAVID BUTCH.
TO VERIFY OF A QUORUM, I'LL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER HILL, NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER BROBECK NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS PRESENT AND SECRETARY AND PLANNING DIRECTOR VON TRAN PRESENT.
I'M GOING TO, UM, START WITH, UM, UH, THE SPEAKER RULES, UH, FOR THIS MEETING.
UM, THIS MEETING CAN BE VIEWED ON HTV, ALTHOUGH VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE.
MEETING START A FEW MINUTES AFTER THE SCHEDULED TIME TO ALLOW THE HTV BROADCAST TO GO LIVE.
UH, SPEAKERS, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKER'S FORM BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO STAFF.
UH, THE SPEAKER RULES ARE POSTED ON THE AGENDA AND ARE AT MY DISCRETION AT THIS MEETING.
UM, THE APPLICANTS WILL OPEN AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES.
YOU MAY ALSO BE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE WITH AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES.
I MAY CALL ON YOU FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.
OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS MAY SPEAK ONE TIME UP TO TWO MINUTES WHEN I RECOGNIZE YOU TO SPEAK.
UM, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, HICK, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC.
I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
WELCOME FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER SIX, PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW REQUESTS OR RECEIVED 21 NEW CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED.
NOW STAND AT 30 PRE-APPLICATION REVIEWS AND 242 COA SUBMISSIONS STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED FOUR COAS DURING THIS CYCLE, BRINGING THE YEAR TO DATE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO A TOTAL OF 65.
WE ARE VERY PLEASED TO CONGRATULATE OUR VERY OWN HAHC CHAIR, DAVID EK, FAIA, WHO WILL RECEIVE AN A I A HOUSTON AWARD FOR THE, FOR HIS CAREER DISTINCTION IN DECEMBER.
IN RECOGNITION OF HIS WORK, A I A HOUSTON IS RAISING FUNDS TO ACQUIRE AN ARCHITECT DESIGNED OBJECT IN HIS HONOR FOR THE HOUSTON MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS PERMANENT DESIGN COLLECTION.
THE OBJECT WILL BE UNVEILED AT A I A HOUSTON ANNUAL HOLIDAY PARTY ON DECEMBER 15TH, 2026 AT THE MUSEUM'S KLINEAN HALL.
WE HOPE Y'ALL CAN JOIN, UH, THE A I A HONOR AND CELEBRATION.
UM, UH, WE WILL MOVE ON, UH, TO THE, UH, MAYOR'S LIAISON REPORT ON MARRA CORNO.
AM I ON ONE BRIEF UPDATE? UM, WE DID HAVE AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK THE MOTION TO SET THE HEARING FOR PROTECTED LANDMARK AND LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS.
THAT HEARING WILL BE ON THE 28TH.
THE FOLLOWING WEEK OR TWO, DEPENDING ON WHEN WE GET ALL THE PAPERWORK TOGETHER, WILL BE THE ACTUAL COUNCIL ACTION TO SET ALL THOSE DESIGNATIONS.
SO, UM, BEFORE THE END OF NOVEMBER, WE'LL HAVE THE HEARING DONE AND WE'LL HAVE ALL OF THOSE ITEMS DESIGNATED.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026 HAHC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSION MEMBERS, IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES.
ARE THERE ANY CLARIFICATIONS? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? UH, GARCIA A MOTION TO ACCEPT.
IS THERE A SECOND? COSGROVE SECONDS.
[00:05:01]
AYE.THE MEETINGS ARE APPROVED AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO, UH, ITEM A, THE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, ONE OR MORE ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ONE MOTION AS CONSENT ITEMS. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
I AM TAF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FOR ACTION PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ONE MOTION.
ITEMS A 1 2 21 EMERSON STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED IN THE WESTMORELAND HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, A 3 8 1 5 ARLINGTON STREET AL ALTERATION EDITION LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION OF A DENIAL OF A COA ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR EXCEEDING THE APPROVED COA SCOPE OF WORK ITEM A FOUR 2002 BULLS OVER STREET ALTERATION.
ADDITION, THE, UH, IT IS THE LANDMARK.
UH, IT IS THE LACHNER HOUSE, WHICH IS A LANDMARK RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
ITEM A 8 10 21 MAIN STREET, AL UH, ALTERATION, OTHER LANDMARK, THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK APPROVAL WITH CONDITION.
THE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL GRANTING THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY.
ITEM A 9 2 29 WEST 16TH STREET ALTERATION ADDITION LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A TEN TWO TWO NINE WEST 16TH STREET.
NEW, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR CARPORT LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 13 1 1 OR 1119 WALLING STREET, ALTERATION OF A GARAGE OR CARPORT LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 14 5 3 9 HARVARD STREET ALTERATION OTHER LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL AND ITEM A 15 11 39 WEST MILLWOOD STREET, ALTERATION WINDOWS LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE PROCEEDING.
ITEMS, ITEMS PROPOSED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE ARE ITEMS A TWO, A FIVE, A SIX, A SEVEN, A 11 AND A 12.
WE ARE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSIONS? SEVEN.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS IS NUMBER SEVEN.
WELL, SEVEN IS NOT ON THE CONSENT.
OH, MR. BLAKELY, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION? EIGHT AND 10 PLEASE.
NO CLARIFICATION FOR, YOU SAID ITEM A 8 10 21 MAIN STREET, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
YEAH, WHICH I HAD ON YOUR CONSENT.
ON CONSENT, YOUR LIST CONSENT, RIGHT? YES.
ANY COMMISSION, OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS WANT TO PULL ANY OTHER PROJECTS? OKAY.
UM, I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MOMENT.
IF YOU ARE HERE IN THE PUBLIC AND YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, CURRENTLY THE REVISED CONSENT CONSENT LIST, WHICH IS ITEMS 1 3 4, 9, 13, 14, OR 15.
AND YOU DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY NOW TO HAVE IT PULLED FOR CONSIDERATION AND INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION.
IF YOU AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO PULL THE, THE ITEM, IT'S REMOVED.
SO I'LL, I'LL, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, AND JUST TO MENTION, SO THE TWO ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS WERE ITEMS EIGHT AND NUMBER 10 WERE PULLED FROM CONSENT.
CLARIFICATION, ITEM A NINE WAS NOT PULLED, JUST A 10, IS THAT CORRECT? EIGHT AND 10.
[00:10:01]
CONSENT.I I PROBABLY WE SHOULD PULL BOTH NINE AND 10 IF WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT ONE OR THE OTHER.
DO YOU WANNA PULL NINE AND 10 OR JUST, OR ONE OF THE, AND 10.
UH, LET'S SEE, MAYBE IT'S AN HOUR.
I SEE THAT ONE IS THE HOUSE AND ONE IS THE GARAGE.
UH, SO I WOULD PROBABLY PULL NINE INSTEAD OF 10 BECAUSE I SUPPOSE THE HOUSE IS THE ONE THAT I I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT BOTH, WHICH IS PROBABLY A QUICK QUESTION.
SO, WELL, WE COULD PRESENT THEM TOGETHER AND THAT COULD BE OKAY.
I THINK IT'S BEST TO PULL, SO WE'LL, WE'LL PULL NINE.
SO THEREFORE, UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS, I NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REVISED CONSENT LIST, WHICH IS ITEMS 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, AND 15, AND THE RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF.
IS THERE A MOTION COSGROVES? SO MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND? FOR A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR STAFF TO MAKE THE FIRST PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A, I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOTION TO MOVE, UM, ITEM C PRESENTATION AND UPDATE ON THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES, UM, TO BECOME ITEM B AND TO MOVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BECOME ITEM C.
IS THERE A MOTION TO DO SO? SO MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND? GARCIA? A SECOND.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON.
ITEM A TWO AT 5 0 9 EUCLID STREET IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE 1,561 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING BUNGALOW PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1920.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,738 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, BRINGING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 1,561 TO 3,299 SQUARE FEET LIVABLE WITH 4,260 SQUARE FEET COVERED.
THEY PROPOSED TO DEMOLISH THE NON-ORIGINAL ADDITION BY OPENING THE ORIGINAL FRONT PORCH AND INSTALL NEW WOOD COLUMNS WITH BRICK BASES.
REMOVE THE EXISTING ASBESTOS SIDING AND REPAIR AND REPLACE THE FOUR PERFORMANCE REVEAL WOOD SIDING BENEATH AS NEEDED.
INSTALL NEW CEMENTITIOUS SIDING WITH THE SIX INCH REVEAL.
MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS AT THE ADDITION.
MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS OF THE EXISTING HOME.
INSTALL NEW WOOD ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS AT THE ADDITION.
CONSTRUCTED WITH A, IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A 27 FEET, FIVE AND A HALF INCH MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT.
THE ATTACHED GARAGE WILL HAVE A LOWER RIDGE HEIGHT THAN THE HOME.
IT WILL HAVE A 21 FOOT MAXIMUM TOP PLATE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND 11 FOOT, UH, TOP PLATE HEIGHT ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
THE NEW ROOF WILL HAVE A SIX OVER 12 ROOF PITCH.
STAFF RECEIVE THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AND ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I DO HAVE A, A FEW, UM, FOLKS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
UM, WE'LL TALK, WE'LL START WITH, UM, EDITAS HOBSON, IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME AND JUST RESTATE YOUR NAME.
DOCUMENT CAMERA ITEM 2 5 0 9 EUCLID.
UH, COMING HERE TODAY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, UM, WE HAVE, UM, PREPARED OURSELVES AND FOUGHT TIRELESSLY TO POSITION A PLAN OR A HOME THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO, UM, TO, UH, WHAT, WHAT WE WANTED TO BUILD AND FEEL THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE
[00:15:01]
TODAY'S AVERAGE HOME AND LIFESTYLE.UM, I THINK OUR BIGGEST, UH, HURDLE WAS THE TREE THAT SAT BEHIND US.
AND I WILL RE, UH, STATE THIS, AND I SAID THIS FROM DAY ONE.
MY INTENTIONS WERE NEVER TO BUTCHER THE TREE.
I ALWAYS WANTED TO, UH, DO WHAT I CAN TO PRESERVE THE TREE.
NOW I GET IT, MAYBE THE FORMER PLAN DID NOT SUFFICE OR DID NOT SEEM THAT THAT WAS THE ANGLE IN WHICH WE WERE GOING.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE TAKEN NUMEROUS, UH, STEPS TO MODIFY THE PLAN, UM, FROM NOT JUST TAKING THE CONCRETE CURRENT DRIVEWAY OFF OF THE BASE OF THE TREE, BUT ALSO MOVING THAT UP, UM, 20 OR SO FEET SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF THE TREE AS IT'S DOING.
NOW, CURRENTLY THERE IS A GARAGE SITTING ON THE BASE OF THE TREE, AND THAT GARAGE IS, IS PRETTY MUCH GETTING BEAT UP FROM THE TREE.
SO MOVING THAT HELPS NOT ONLY THE TREE SITUATION, BUT THEN PUTS US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR PROPERTY BEING DAMAGED.
UH, SECONDLY, WE BROUGHT A ARBORIST OUT TO KIND OF GIVE US SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE HAVE THE ARBORIST REPORT, UH, IN, IN THE FILE AS WELL, I BELIEVE, UH, JUST STATING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT, UM, JEOPARDIZE THE LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF THE TREE.
UM, SO, UH, WE GOT WHAT A PROMINENT ARCHITECT THAT THAT HAS DONE QUITE A FEW HOMES IN THE AREA.
AND SO THAT HELPED US KIND OF REDIRECT OUR VISION AS TO HOW WE CAN DESIGN THIS TREE.
UH, SO THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT WERE DONE.
I CAN, I CAN NAME 'EM OFF FOR YOU.
UH, WE DID GET APPROVAL FROM JULIE MOORE WITH THE, UH, HOA, UH, D RESTRICTIONS, UH, FOR, FOR WOODLAND HEIGHTS.
AND, YOU KNOW, HER THING WAS, AS LONG AS WE'RE FOLLOWING WHAT THE ARBORISTS HAD RECOMMENDED AND SUGGESTED, THEN YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE IN LINE OR THEY WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH THE NEW REVISION OF THE HOME AT 5 0 9 EUCLID.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SAM OCCUS.
AND THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ONES HERE.
PRESENTATION, UH, SAM LUCAS CREO DESIGN.
I I'VE WATCHED HIM FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS TRYING TO GET THIS THROUGH THE COMMISSION WITH DOCUMENT CAMERA, THE TREE AND THE LOCATION IT'S IN.
AND, UH, WENT OVER AND LOOKED AT IT MYSELF.
AND THE, THE ACTUAL GARAGE THAT'S SITTING THERE NOW IS, IS FIVE FEET OFF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE AND IT'S A SLAB RIGHT ON TOP OF THE ROOTS.
AND SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE ACTUALLY, HERE IS THE GARAGE AGAIN.
THEY'VE ACTUALLY MOVED THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE FORWARD WHERE THE OLD PARKING PAD WAS, WHICH IS ALSO CONCRETE AND DEMOING THE CONCRETE WHERE THAT EXISTING GARAGE IS, WHICH RELIEVES 22 FEET OF CONCRETE THAT IS ON TOP OF THE ROOTS.
THEY'VE ALSO ON THE LAST EIGHT FEET OF THE HOUSE, HAVE IT AS A CRAWL SPACE SO THAT THEY DON'T, THEY AREN'T, UH, DOING A SLAB OVER THE TOP OF ANY OF THE ROOTS THAT MIGHT BE VENTURING THAT FAR.
SO, I MEAN, I REALLY THINK WHAT THEY, THE, THE SOLUTION THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH WAS REALLY A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THEM.
AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE WATCHED, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE GETTING IN OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, BUT I WENT OVER THERE MYSELF AND LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS MAKES SENSE NOW.
UH, 'CAUSE I LOVE THOSE TREES TOO, AND I WOULDN'T WANNA CUT THAT TREE DOWN.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JANE BUCHANAN.
THIS IS FOR THE, YEAH, THERE'S FIVE COPIES.
UH, THANKS FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS TODAY.
I, I LIVE BESIDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
I'VE COMMENTED EVERY TIME WE'VE MET ABOUT THIS.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE WOODLANDS HEIGHT CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS NOT AN HOA AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE MASSING OF THE CONTEXT AREA IS STILL OFF THE FRONT FACING EUCLID PROPERTIES ONLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
THE CALCULATIONS AT THE END OF THE APPLICATION ARE NOT IN THE CONTEXT AREA, AND THIS STILL IS OUT OF THE MASSING ZONE THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.
UH, LAST MEETING STAFF MISSPOKE ON WHAT THE CONTEXT AREA ACTUALLY SHOULD BE AND INCLUDED WOODLAND, WHICH IT IS NOT.
UM, AND WE'VE SUPPLIED THOSE STATS ON EUCLID HOUSES THREE TIMES.
SECOND OF ALL, NO WAIVER OF CRITERIA 11 PROPERTY LINES DUE TO THE TREE.
THE APPLICANT'S OWN ARBORIST STATES THAT TOUCHING THE ROOT BALL WILL BE A RISK TO THE TREE,
[00:20:01]
NOT THE LIMBS.SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE MOVING THE GARAGE AT ALL.
WELL, I DO KNOW WHY IT'S FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND WE CANNOT DO THIS UNDER THE GUISE OF THE TREE.
UM, THE FOLKS WHO OWN THE HISTORIC HOME COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY, BUT, UH, WE APPRECIATE THAT THE ARBORIST ACTUALLY POINTED OUT THAT OTHER TREES ON MY PROPERTY ARE IN JEOPARDY AS WELL.
A FINAL NOTE, WE NOW HAVE TWO CONFLICTING ARBORIST OPINIONS.
SO A SET OF 10 NEIGHBORS IN THE CONTEXT AREA APPROACHED, UH, CITY COUNCILMAN MARIO CASTILLO.
AND THAT TO REQUEST A MINIMUM DEFERRAL SO THAT WE CAN, HE CAN BRING IN AN INDEPENDENT ARBORIST TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE COPIES OF.
UM, PARTICULARLY HIGHLIGHTS ON PAGE TWO.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS RECEIVE THAT OR NOT.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS PAUL WHITEHOUSE TO BE FOLLOWED BY NANCY WOOD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR EK AND COMMISSIONERS.
UM, THANKS FOR, UM, YOUR TIME TODAY.
UM, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE, UH, MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN OF FIVE OH UNKNOWN EUCLID THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED.
THE MASSING IS STILL CONSIDERABLE.
IT'S DOMINATING, OVERPOWERING AND SIZE WISE.
IT'S STILL LARGER THAN THE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT AREA, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED AND, UH, REVIEWED THE LETTERS WE'VE SUBMITTED ON THAT.
UM, THAT, UM, ON, ON THE, ON THE SUBJECT, THE PROPOSED PLANS, WHICH, UH, ARE ON THE CAMERA HERE, UM, SHOW THAT THE BULK OF THE ADDITION IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE A TWO STORY MONOLITHIC, UH, 50, ALMOST 54 FOOT WIDE.
UM, UH, ADDITION THAT'S NEARLY THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE LOT, AND IT'S WIDER THAN SEVERAL OF THE ACTUAL, LOTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THIS MONOLITHIC ADDITION WOULD BE BUILT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE MAIN LIVING AREAS OF THE TWO ADJACENT HOMES.
ONE'S A ONE STORY HISTORIC HOME AND ONE'S A TWO STORY, UM, ALTERED HOME.
AND THAT MONOLITHIC ADDITION'S GONNA BE LIKE 15 FEET FROM THE LIVING AREAS OF, UH, YOU KNOW, MAIN LIVING AREAS OF THE, OF THESE HOMES.
UM, INCIDENTALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE, THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE STREET.
UM, THAT DESIGN DOES NOT, UH, LOOK SUBSERVIENT TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO ME AT ALL.
IT'S A BIG WALL, THAT'S WHY I'M CALLING IT A MONOLITH.
INCIDENTALLY, IF I LOOK AT THE OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
SO HERE'S ONE OF THE WORKSHEETS.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, MAXIMUM WIDTH AND DEPTH, UH, UH, FIGURES, THEY DON'T MATCH THE PLANS.
SO THERE'S SOMETHING INCONSISTENT HERE, HERE, AND THAT'S WORRYING TO ME THAT THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S INFORMATION, UH, THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, THAT DOESN'T FIT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEEN, UH, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DESIRED OUTCOME IS GONNA BE.
UH, LOOKING AT THE, UH, CONT I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE BRIEFLY, IF I MAY, IS THERE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER ADDIT MINUTES? I'LL MOVE TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER IN ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
UH, LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT AREA WORKSHEET, UM, THE APPLICANT IS FOCUSED ON, UM, THREE PROPERTIES THAT AREN'T ON THE SAME STREET.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME CONTEXT AREA.
UM, THEY'VE ALSO MENTIONED, UM, 5 0 8 EUCLID STREET, WHICH IS ACROSS, UH, THE STREET FROM THE, FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, I SEE THE WORDS ON THERE, SOMETHING TO DO WITH LIKE NEIGHBORING NEXT DOOR, UH, HOMES.
HE'S IGNORED THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ONE STORY HOMES IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
SO I'VE MODIFIED, UH, HIS, UM, MAP HERE TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE ONE STORY HOMES IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
HIS PROPOSED DESIGN IS STILL BIGGER THAN ALL OF THE OTHER HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT AREA, AND THIS IS WHAT SOME OF THOSE HOMES LOOK LIKE.
YOU CAN SEE NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 5 0 9.
WE HAVE 5 1 3 AND 5 1 5 SINGLE STORY HISTORIC HOMES.
AND YOU CAN SEE AT THE BACK OF 5 0 9 WHERE THAT MONOLITHIC EDITION'S GONNA BE.
IT'S GONNA BASICALLY OVERCROWD BETWEEN FIVE 13 AND 5 0 1.
AND FINALLY, JUST WANNA SHOW A VIEW FROM THE BACK OF 5 1 3 EUCLID STREET OF THE TREE AND WHERE THAT ADDITION'S GOING TO GO.
IT'S GONNA GO FROM THE END OF THE RIDGE LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
IT'S GONNA GO UP AND BACK AND FILL THAT ENTIRE SPACE, AND IT'S GONNA REQUIRE THE
[00:25:01]
REMOVAL REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ARBORIST SAYS OF QUITE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF LIMBS FROM THAT TREE.AS MENTIONED, THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE NANCY WOOD.
I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO 5 0 9 EUCLID.
I SPOKE TWO MONTHS AGO ABOUT MY CONCERNS AROUND SCALE AND MASSING.
AND THOSE CONCERNS REMAINED UNCHANGED BECAUSE THE PLAN DOES NOT APPEAR DIFFERENT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WOODLAND AND BAYLAND ALWAYS HAD LARGER HOMES THAN EUCLID, AND SO IT'S CONCERNING TO ME TO SEE THOSE HOMES USED AS A COMPARISON FOR WHAT'S PLANNED AT 5 0 9 EUCLID.
THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT TWO OF THE HOMES IN THE PROPOSED CONTEXT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ONLY JUST THE OTHER ISN'T EVEN STARTED YET.
AND THEN LOOKING AT WHAT WAS USED TO SUPPORT THE PLANS FOR THOSE HOMES ARE ALSO HOMES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT.
AND IN FACT, ONE OF THOSE HOMES, 3 0 9 BAYLAND WILL COME BEFORE YOU NEXT MONTH BECAUSE THE OWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO HAVE THAT HOME RECLASSIFIED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SO IT CONCERNS ME TO SEE THESE LAYERS OF UNBUILT HOMES USED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASED SCALE AND MASSING.
SO I ASK THAT THE COMMISSION USE EXISTING RELEVANT HISTORIC CONTEXT TO EVALUATE 5 0 9 EUCLID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS WHO HAS NOT SPOKEN YET? NOT HEARING ANYONE ELSE.
MR. HO, MR. HOBSON, YOU DO HAVE A REBUTTAL.
UH, JUST QUICKLY, UM, THEY MENTIONED THE MASKING OF THE HOME.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT 5 0 9 EUCLID, UH, WELL, UH, 5 0 9 EUCLID.
OUR HOME, UH, IS SET TO BE ALMOST A 3,300 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON 11 ON A LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 62 55 0 1.
CURRENTLY AS SITS RIGHT NOW IS 3070 LIVABLE, AND THE LOT IS 62, 55, 32.
EUCLID IS 29 36 LIVABLE LOT SIZE IS 62 50.
HERE'S WHERE THINGS GET A LITTLE MORE INTERESTING.
AGAIN, THESE HOMES ARE ON OUR STREET DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.
5 24 EUCLID IS 34 50 LIVABLE, AND THE LOT SIZE IS 5,500 SQUARE FEET, 750 SQUARE FEET SMALLER THAN OURS, FIVE 14 THE SAME, 32 94 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND 5 10 33 50 LIVABLE.
AND THE LOT IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHEN THE, UH, NEIGHBORING SUGGESTS, UH, PARTIES SUGGEST THAT OUR HOME IS OVER MASKING, UH, AND WE'RE NOT FITTING, FALLING IN LINE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, I FIND THAT TO BE FALSE BECAUSE, UH, I JUST DETAILED FIVE HOMES, UH, RIGHT THERE DIRECTLY ON OUR STREET, ACROSS THE STREET FROM US THAT HAVE A SIMILAR MASKING.
UH, SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT THE HOME WE ARE KEEPING THE HOME WITH AS IT SITS NOW, UH, WITHIN THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOME.
THE ONLY ADDITION, THE ONLY PORTION THAT IS EXTENDING IS THE ADDITION PORTION ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOME.
SO, UM, UH, UH, UH, WE ARE THE, THE TREE ARBORIST.
WE HAVE REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE, THE, THE GARAGE HEIGHT SO THAT WE WOULD NOT CUT INTO THE 2028 FOOT HEIGHT OF THE BRANCHES AS THEY SIT.
OUR WHOLE GOAL HAS BEEN TO REFRAME FROM CUTTING INTO, IF AT ALL, UH, THIS PARTICULAR TREE THAT'S SITTING BEHIND US.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARBORIST CAME TO HELP US WITH.
UM, SO, UH, UH, SOME OF THE STATEMENTS I, I, I FEEL THAT WERE PUT UP THERE, UH, ONE OF THE ELEVATIONS THAT WERE PUT UP THERE WASN'T OUR CURRENT ELEVATION.
UH, AGAIN, WE HAVE REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE HOME FROM WHERE IT WAS AT ORIGINALLY, AND IF THE BOARD WOULD PLEASE, I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR THIRD TIME, MAYBE FOURTH, IF WE COULD GET AN UP AND DOWN VOTE TODAY, I GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
UH, WE, WE HAVE BEEN DOING EVERYTHING.
I BELIEVE EVEN, UM, MR. COSGROVE HAS COME OUT TO OUR SITE TO STUDY IT WITH US TO TRY TO HELP US FIGURE OUT, UM, A BETTER, UH, GO-TO DIRECTION FOR THIS.
UH, WE'VE WORKED TIRELESSLY WITH THE STAFF AND AGAIN, UM, UM, HAD HELP FROM PEOPLE LIKE MR. SAM AND, UH, JULIE TO, TO KIND OF HELP US, UM, PUT A PLAN AND HOME TOGETHER THAT WOULD SATISFY
[00:30:01]
THE NEIGHBORS, BUT ALSO GIVE US, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE WANTING TO ACHIEVE AS WELL.WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, ASK INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS REVISED APPLICATION THAT WE'VE SEEN MANY TIMES BEFORE, AS WAS MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER, UH, BLAKELY.
UH, THIS, UH, DOCUMENT WE RECEIVED, WHICH IS A TRANSCRIPT OF A SERIES OF EMAILS BETWEEN, UH, THE SPEAKER AND, UH, CON, UH, COUNCILMAN CASTILLO.
YES, MA'AM, UH, INDICATES THAT HIS RESPONSE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, I RECEIVED THAT, UM, I RECEIVED THAT IN AS PART OF PUBLIC, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT ON YESTERDAY.
UM, I HAD NO COMMUNICATION WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CASTILLO MYSELF, SO NO RESPONSE FROM THE COUNCILMAN WAS RECORDED AT ALL.
UH, BUT JUST THE EMAIL, THE SAME EMAILS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
I RECEIVED IN PUBLIC COMMENT YESTERDAY.
UH, ICI WISH I COULD TELL YOU THE TIME, BUT I RECEIVED THEM YESTERDAY BEFORE THE 24 HOUR, UM, DEADLINE WAS, UH, YEAH, I MEAN, THE LAST ONE SAYS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HAS CONFIRMED RECEIPT OF COUNCIL MEMBER CASTILLO'S RESPONSE.
AND THAT, THAT VERY WELL COULD HAVE WENT TO OUR, UM, COUNCIL LIAISON OR, OR SOMEONE OF THAT, BUT IT DID NOT COME DIRECTLY TO ME.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THIS APPLICATION? IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LETTER THAT YOU, THAT YOU REFERENCED? COMM COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS FOR PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION WHO MAY KNOW THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES BETTER THAN I DO, IS THERE ANY ASPECT OF THE PLAN THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES? SO, SO, UH, MR. UM, MR. COSER, COULD YOU MAY ADDRESS THE QUESTION? I YEAH, THE, THE MICROPHONE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE GROUNDS THE PROPERTY'S IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS, SO IT ONLY FALLS UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
SO THERE'S NO DESIGN GUIDELINES, NO DESIGN GUIDE FOR WOODLAND HEIGHTS.
SO IT FALLS UNDER THE, JUST THE, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
SO AS TO RIDGE HEIGHT AND OTHER ISSUES OF MASSING, I ASSUME THIS WAS PART OF THE DILIGENCE OF THE, UM, UH, YES MA'AM.
UH, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD COUNTLESS CONVERSATIONS.
I MEAN, THIS, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN COMING IN FRONT OF YOU SINCE JUNE.
UM, SO IT'S GONE THROUGH MANY ITERATIONS AND YOU KNOW, THIS, THE LAST FEW STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND STAFF FELT THAT THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS GONNA BE A HARD THING FOR THEM TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE MASSING.
SO I'M JUST LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU GUYS.
MR. JONES, THIS IS PROBABLY MORE OF A COMMENT.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE GRAPPLING WITH IS THE MASS AND THE, THE GARAGE SWINGING OUT TO THE SIDE, AND YOU ONLY REALLY SEE THAT ON CORNER LOTS RATHER THAN AN INTERIOR LOT.
WE'RE SEEING THE DESIGNS ON INTERIOR LOTS FITTING NEATLY BEHIND THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE SWINGING OUT LIKE THE GARAGE THAT'S PUSHED ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE LOT AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE IF WE'RE GONNA PROTECT A HISTORIC TREE.
SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT NOW INFORMING OUR DECISION MAKING ALONG WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND HOW THIS DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THOSE DUE TO SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
CAN WE PUT BACK ON THIS ELEVATION? ON THE FRONT ELEVATION? CAN WE HOLD ON THAT FOR A MOMENT? MY, MY COMMENT ABOUT THIS ELEVATION, IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE LONG THE BAR.
I MEAN, WHAT WE WERE SEEING ON THE LEFT IS THE ADDITION TO THE HOME, WHICH IS TWO STORIES, AND THERE'S ALSO, UM, A TWO STORY GARAGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, AND THEY ARE CONJOINED TOGETHER.
THEY'RE NOT DETACHED, BUT, BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ROOF SYSTEMS LIKE HIP ROOF SYSTEMS ABOVE EACH OF THOSE TWO MASSING ITEMS, THE PRIMARY ADDITION AND THE PRIMARY GARAGE ADDITION, WHICH IS CONJOINED.
AND THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME TYPE OF LIKE CRICKET OR SADDLE ROOF THAT CONNECTS THE TWO TOGETHER.
I, IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE, UH, WAY TO MAKE THAT CRICKET A LOWER PITCHED ROOF SO THAT THE, UM, PYRAMIDAL SHAPE OF THE GARAGE WOULD APPEAR TO BE MORE LIKE A SEPARATE STRUCTURE AND BREAK UP THE, FROM THE ROOF STANDPOINT, ALLOW, ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF AREA, AGAIN FOR PERHAPS, UH, TREE LIMBS TO, TO COEXIST AS WELL.
[00:35:01]
PRIMARILY TO, TO BREAK THE MASSING ABOVE THE, UM, THE ABOVE THE, THE EAVE, UH, OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR MR. HOBSON TO, TO ADDRESS MY, MY QUESTION.ETIS HOBSON AGAIN, UH, AGAIN, YES, WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE OPEN TO MAKING THAT CONFIGURATION.
UH, WE'VE BEEN OPEN TO ALL THE SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE OFFERED UP UNTIL THIS TIME.
UH, I, I, I WISH MY ARCHITECT WAS HERE.
WE COULD DRIVE THIS FOR YOU NOW,
UM, WE WOULD DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO HELP, UH, DEVIATE FROM THE, FROM THE LOOK OF THE GARAGE LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, TO THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE HOME.
WELL, UM, WE'LL LET OUR CONVERSATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS CONTINUE AND SEE WHAT, WHAT THEIR CONSENSUS COMES, BUT THANK YOU.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, JUST TO MY COMMISSION MEMBERS, IF THERE'S ANY APPETITE TO LOWER THAT CONNECTING ROOF.
UM, THE ONE THING I WOULD ASK IF, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO, WE NEED TO GIVE IT A FINITE NUMBER AND FEED OR INCHES OR SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, AN ACTUAL NUMBER.
BUT ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MASSING AND THE GENERAL APPLICATION? MR. BLAKELY? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, I REALLY FEEL TROUBLED BY THE DISSENSION BETWEEN THE ARBORISTS.
IT, UM, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ARE NOT REALLY ALLOWED TO, PER THE ORDINANCE, MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF PROTECTING A TREE THAT'S NOT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO I THINK EVEN IF WE WERE THOUGH, AS IF I COMPARE IT TO A, A PRIOR INCIDENT THAT CAME UP WITH TWO COMPETING SURVEYS, WE'RE ALSO NOT IN THE POSITION TO ADJUDICATE BETWEEN DIFFERENCES IN THE SURVEY.
WE HAVE TO GO BY WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
SO WHATEVER DECISION WE ARRIVE AT, I THINK IT'S GONNA REFLECT THOSE TWO CONSTRAINTS.
UM, AND, AND JUST, JUST MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE IS THAT IT'S A LIMITATION OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT IT DOES NOT MAKE MORE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO TREES, BUT ALSO THAT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE IS POSSIBLE AND, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO AS THE COMMISSION.
AND I MAY ASK LEGAL COUNSEL JUST TO COMMENT ON THAT STATEMENT AND THEN, AND THEN WE CAN, UH, RESUME A QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER DAVIS.
YES, CERTAINLY AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE ARE POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION TODAY TO MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS.
THAT WOULD BE A, A PROCESS OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING TODAY.
I JUST WANNA CONFIRM, I THOUGHT IT WAS DISCOVERED AFTER THE LAST MEETING THAT THAT TREE WAS A LANDMARK TREE.
THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A HAIR, IT'S ACTUALLY A DOCUMENTED TREE AND HAS PROTECTIVE RIGHTS TO IT.
I IMAGINE THAT I COULD HAVE SWORN I SAW AN EMAIL COME ACROSS WITH THAT INFORMATION.
UM, THERE, THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT MADE THE COMMENT, UM, THAT THE, THAT THE TREE WAS HISTORIC.
UM, AT THE LAST, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE, IT WASN'T SEPTEMBER, SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AUGUST WHEN THAT WAS SAID.
UM, AGAIN, HOWEVER, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING, UH, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE SECTION 33 DASH 2 37, UM, WHICH SAYS THAT GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUT STORM WINDOWS AND DOORS, WINDOWS, SCREENS, SCREEN DOORS, TEMPORARY EMERGENCY WEATHERIZATION FEATURES SUCH AS PLYWOOD, COVERINGS OVER WINDOWS, PORCH CEILINGS, FANS, LIGHTS, FIXTURES, HVHC UNITS AND LANDSCAPING ARE EXEMPT.
AND I THINK I'LL ADD, I THINK OUR PLANE DIRECTOR, UH, VON TRAN ALSO STATED IN THE LAST MEETING THAT THIS, THAT THERE'S A COUNTY PROGRAM.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A CITY PROGRAM INTO, I THINK TO HER KNOWLEDGE IN THE LAST MEETING, SHE STATED THAT IT WAS NOT PART OF THE CITY, UH, LANDMARK OF TREES AND COMMISSIONER TRAN, COULD YOU HELP US? YES, I THINK THAT, I BELIEVE MY STATEMENT WAS THAT, UM, THE HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM IS SEPARATELY FROM OUR PROGRAM WITH REGARDS TO YOUR RECOLLECTION OF SOMEONE EMAILING AND MAKING CLAIM THAT THIS TREE IS HERITAGE.
I DON'T HAVE THAT IN MY RECORD, AND IF IT IS A HERITAGE TREE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE FORESTRY AND DOUBLE CHECK THAT RECORD.
NOW, MAYBE SOMEONE MADE A STATEMENT.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PRODUCTION OF ANY TYPE OF CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE THAT THE TREE IS A HERITAGE.
THE, I BELIEVE THE INFORMATION WAS ATTACHED TO IT.
I'M GONNA CHECK FOR IT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
[00:40:04]
UM, I THINK THE THING FOR THIS MEETING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I'LL ASK LEGAL COUNSEL AGAIN, IS THAT WE'RE LARGELY TODAY BEING LOOKING AT A MASSING APPLICATION BECAUSE THE TREE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS NOT PART OF OUR PURVIEW.UH, EVEN IF IT IS OR AN APPLICATION IS MADE AND BECOMES, UM, THAT STATUS, THEN THAT OTHER DEPARTMENT WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND PERHAPS LOOK AT THE TWO, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ARBORIST AND, AND WORK THROUGH THAT.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, WHETHER OR NOT THE MASSING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, WHICH THIS THIRD OR FOURTH REVISION TO THE, TO THE PROPOSAL, UM, MEETS THE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE, DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT OR NOT? AND IF NOT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE AS A CONDITION OR NOT? I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY, I I THINK THE MASSING IS WHAT WE'RE REALLY HAVING TO RULE ON, UM, AT THIS TIME.
AND THERE, THERE IS STILL ADEQUATE, UH, MEASURES TO LOOK AT THE TREE AND THE, THE DUELING ARBORIST.
IF, IF THAT IS THE CASE, C CAN BE RESOLVED OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION AS WELL.
UM, SO TO THE COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD ENTERTAIN, UM, THERE BEING SOME ADJUSTMENT, IT, IT NEEDED TO BE SPECIFIC, UM, FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I'M CURIOUS AMONG, AMONG US, UM, THE ARCHITECTS AMONG US, UM, BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT, UH, AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION ON THE FLY THAT UM, WOULD NOT FUNCTIONALLY DISABLE THE ACTUAL PLAN.
WE COULD RECOMMEND THAT THE, UH, RIDGE HEIGHT BE REDUCED BY 6, 7, 10 FEET, WHATEVER.
UM, DO YOU STILL HAVE A TWO STORY BUILDING AT THAT POINT? AND IS THIS EVEN THE SAME PLAN? SO, SO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION HERE WITH CONDITIONS AND STATE BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT THOSE CONDITIONS, OR IF OUR ALTERNATIVE IS, WE, I THINK THIS IS OUR THIRD TIME WITH THIS, SO AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY FULLY START OVER, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO THIS, I THINK WE, WE HAVE TO, THIS IS A NEW APPLICATION.
THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS A NEW APPLICATION.
THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED OVER, SO THIS IS, OH MY APOLOGIES, SORRY.
IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF ROUNDS AND SO I FORGOT WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR,
SO THAT, THAT WAS MY CLARIFICATION IS ARE WE GONNA HAVE TO START OVER? WE'RE ALREADY STARTING OVER.
THIS IS THE POINT WHERE WE WOULD DO THE ADJUSTMENTS, RIGHT? SO THIS ISN'T THIS, UH, IT WAS DENIED.
WELL DEFERRED TWICE AND THEN DENIED FINALLY.
AND SO, UM, RATHER THAN APPEALING, THE, UH, OWNER HAS DECIDED TO JUST SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION WITH THE ENTIRELY NEW DESIGN.
AND SO NOW WE CAN START THAT WHOLE, UM, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT WORD RIGHT,
BUT, UH, JUST FOR, JUST FOR CLARITY, WHAT, WHAT THE CONDITION I PUT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION WAS NOT CHANGING THE ROOF RIDGE OF THE PRIMARY FORMS. IT WAS, THERE'S A, THERE ARE TWO FORMS. THERE'S A SMALL CONNECTING ROOF THAT CONNECTS THE TWO TOGETHER, CONJOINS THEM.
IT'S SOMETIMES CALLED A SADDLE BECAUSE, OR SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL IT A CRICKET.
UM, I ONLY PONDERED IF THAT CONNECTING ELEMENT HAD A LOWER SLOPE, IT WOULD GO DOWN AND THEN WE WOULD SEE TWO ROOF FORMS AS OPPOSED TO ONE MEGA ROOF FORM.
AS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SORT OF IMPLIED, THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE FLOOR PLAN DOESN'T CHANGE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT JUST CHANGES HOW THAT APPEARS FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AGAIN, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY IS, BUT POINT OF ORDER, UH, PLEASE, STAFF IS CIRCLING THE AREA FOR THOSE WHO DON'T, UH, KNOW WHERE THE CRICKET IS, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT'S THE FORM THAT COMMISSIONER HICK IS SPEAKING OF.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, AS TO THE APPEARANCE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THOUGH, IF THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF COULD BE DECREASED, THE RIDGE COULD BE LOWER, AND THEN THE WHOLE THING WOULD TOWER OVER THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES SOMEWHAT LESS AND ALSO WOULD APPEAR LOWER FROM THE STREET, IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, BASED ON THE PLAN AND THE FENESTRATION, IT SEEMS THAT THAT'S A SORT OF CAVITY UNDER THE ROOF.
MAYBE MY ARCHITECT OR BUILDER FELLOW COMMISSIONERS
[00:45:02]
COULD SHED SOME LIGHT HERE.UM, WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING THAT PREVENTED THE RIDGE BEING LOWER? 'CAUSE THAT ALSO MIGHT BE AN IMPROVEMENT IN ADDITION TO REMOVING OR REDUCING THE CRICKET? CERTAINLY THE TWO PRIMARY DRIVERS, AND I I CAN CONFER TO MR. GARCIA, ARE THE PLATE HEIGHT FOR THE SECOND FLOOR, UM, WHICH IN THIS CASE APPEARS TO BE MODEST.
WE COULD REVIEW WHAT THAT PLATE HEIGHT IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
BUT ALSO WE, WE, YOU NEED TO CONFIRM WHAT, JUST GIVE, WE COULD RESTATE, UH, TERRANCE, WHAT IS THE ROOF SLOPE AS PRESENTED ON THE DRAWINGS? UH, SO TO ANSWER TO, TO CLARIFY BOTH OF YOUR QUESTIONS, THE ROOF SLOPE IS SIX OVER 12, AND THEN, UH, THE PLATE HEIGHT ON THE FIRST FLOOR IS 11 FEET.
AND THE TOTAL, UH, PLATE HEIGHT FOR THE SECOND FLOOR IS 21 FEET.
SO THEN THAT WOULD MAKE THAT A 10 FOOT PLATE, UM, FROM FINISHED FLOOR TO PLATE ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, YEAH, 10 FEET FROM THE FLOOR LEVEL OF LEVEL TWO, YES.
21 FOOT PLATE HEIGHT ON THE SECOND FLOOR, 11 FOOT PLATE HEIGHT ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
ANY DIS I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS OR COMMISSIONER GARCIA? SO I, I THINK THE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, DATE OR THE, THE COMMENT, UM, IF YOU, IF YOU DO MODIFY THAT CENTER, UM, ROOF LINE, THAT RIDGE LINE, I THINK THAT'S REALLY A, A PRETTY SIMPLE FIX.
IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE OVERALL MASSING.
UM, AND, AND I THINK ONE OF THE STRUGGLES WITH THIS 2D ELEVATIONS IS IT, UM, YOU HAVE BREAKS IN THE, IN THE, YOU HAVE HIPS AND VALLEYS ON HERE THAT, THAT DON'T GET REPRESENTED CLEARLY.
I THINK WITH A 2D MODEL, I THINK IF, IF YOU SUBMITTED A 3D MODEL, IT MAY MAKE IT A LITTLE, A LITTLE CLEARER, EASIER TO SEE THE BRAKES AND THE DEFINITION OF THE, OF THE PLANES.
YOU DON'T HAVE A, RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A BIG FLAT WALL.
SO, UM, I, I THINK, I THINK LOWERING THAT RIDGE BETWEEN THE TOP RIDGE AND THE GARAGE WILL HELP ALSO.
AND I DON'T THINK LOOKING AT THE PLAN WILL AFFECT THE, THE FLOOR PLAN TOO MUCH, BUT IT AFFECTS ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THAT.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY HISTORIC, BUT UM, ANY KIND OF TED DOCUMENTS, IT WOULD, IT WOULD AFFECT THOSE DRAWINGS.
SO I THINK, I THINK IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO DEFER, IT MAY BE A PRETTY SIMPLE MEETING NEXT TIME IF THEY, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO MODIFY THAT MASSING BETWEEN THOSE TWO RIDGES.
IT LOOKS LIKE, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET ANY MORE IMPROVEMENT UNLESS YOU ELIMINATE A GARAGE WITH THE TREE.
BUT TO ME, I THINK MOVING THE BUILDING FIVE FOOT AWAY FROM THE TREE BENEFITS THE TREE.
SO, UM, I THINK IT'S JUST A MASSING, UH, ISSUE THAT WE HAVE CHALLENGES WITH RIGHT NOW.
I IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER ELL, YOU'VE BEEN VERY QUIET.
AND THEN I THINK EVEN BETTER QUESTION IS, ARE THERE ANY CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF THE CRITERIA FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW? THE ONLY VIOLATION OF THE CRITERIA IS THE SETBACK FROM THE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY TO THE GARAGE, WHICH THAT HAS CHANGED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE TREE PER PERHAPS, UH, I MEAN PRECISELY THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I'VE BEEN EVALUATING THIS FROM THE GET GO IS ON ALL OF THE PROJECTS WHERE WE HAVE THESE SECOND STORY GARAGES, WE'RE TRYING TO GET 'EM BACK AS FAR AS WE CAN FROM THE STREET, BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ARE RISKING KILLING A BEAUTIFUL, HOWEVER MANY YEAR OLD TREE.
UM, AND THEN SAYING THAT THE MASSING IS TOO MUCH.
UM, I, I'M, I'M SITTING, I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK, I THINK THE, THE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS ARE TOUGH WHEN, WHEN YOU AREN'T SEEING, UM, HIPS AND VALLEYS AND THE MOVEMENT OF THE HOUSE, THAT THAT IS NOT A MONOLITHIC WALL ON THE, ON, ON, ON THE SECOND STORY EDITION.
[00:50:01]
IT JUST ISN'T, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IN THE HIGHLIGHTED GREEN PHOTO.SO I AM INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S APPROVAL FOR, FOR ITEM A TWO, AS AS IT IS.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'M GONNA TAKE THAT AS A MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED, OPPOSED? OPPOSED.
SO WHAT IS OUR COUNT TWO? BUT IT WAS FIVE FOUR.
THE MOTION? NO, 4, 4, 5 AGAINST.
IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION PERHAPS LOWERING THE HEIGHT OF THE SADDLE ROOF BETWEEN THE TWO FORMS OF THE ROOF? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO LOWER THE SADDLE.
IS THERE A SECOND? CAN I PUT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IN ON THAT? UM, SINCE I AM NOT AN ARCHITECT AND YOU ARE NOT AN ARCHITECT, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ATTACHING A NUMBER TO IT, BUT CAN WE HAVE IT LAND WITH STAFF THAT STAFF CAN APPROVE? YOU KNOW, IF, IF THIS SADDLE IS DIMINISHED, COMMISSIONER, UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER, UM, A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL TO EXPLORE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
COMMISSIONER, DIRECTOR, TRAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE VOTES AGAIN? WAS IT FOUR? FOUR? CAN WE JUST, SHOULD WE DO A ROLL CALL? WHAT WAS THE VOTE AGAIN? RAISE YOUR HAND UP.
YOU HAD THAT, YOU HAD, I'M, I'M 1, 2, 3, 4.
DID YOU OPPOSE 1, 2, 3, 4 ZION? I WAS OPPOSED.
I WOULD LIKE RIGHT, AND BLAKELY BLAKELY WAS OPPOSED.
I GUESS WHAT I'M, UM, WHAT I'M SAYING IS MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, FROM THE COUNCIL, FROM THE APPEALS BOARD IS THAT WHEN WE CAN BE SPECIFIC ABOUT A CHANGE, WE SOME, AND IF IT'S A SIMPLE CHANGE, WE CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS WITHOUT COMPLETE DRAWINGS.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ARCHITECTURALLY WE ASK THE QUESTION, WELL WHAT IS THE CURRENT SLOPE OF THE CRICKET? AND THEN, AND THEN IF WE LOWER IT, WE WOULD LOWER IT TO A LOWER SLOPE BUT STILL HAVE A MINIMAL SLOPE TO STILL FUNCTION AS A ROOF.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, SO IT'S UM, IF THAT IS SIX AND 12 AND YOU MADE THAT A THREE AND 12 AS YOUR CONDITION, THEN IT WOULD GO DOWN BY HALF BASICALLY.
SO LIKE IF YOU SIMPLY STAFF COULD DRAW A LINE FROM THE TOP LINE AND FIND THE MIDPOINT OF THE HEIGHT AND DRAW A LINE AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT IT IS.
SO FOR, FOR ME, A CRICKET MOVE IS A VERY SIMPLE REFORMING AN ENTIRE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT IS A, A REDRAW FOR CERTAIN.
BUT, UM, AND I'LL REMOVE MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND JUST SECOND YOUR MOTION.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FRIENDLY MOVEMENT TO MOVE TO DEFER.
WELL, I'LL, WE, WE CAN DEFER, WE CAN DEFER WITH LEGAL AS WELL.
I'M JUST, WELL IF, IF TRYING TO DEFINE, IF I CAN DEFINE A WITH A NUMERICAL WAY TO, IT'S VERY CLEAR AND THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY AMBI AMBIGUITY TO, TO THE, TO THE CONDITION.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPEAL BOARD IS COMFORTABLE WHEN, WHEN THEY, IF IF IT WERE TO BE SOMETHING WERE TO BE APPEALED TO THEM AND THEY, IT COMES TO THEM, THEY, THEY LIKE THAT TO BE.
SO, UM, THAT'S MY ONLY SIDEBAR COMMENT ON.
SO, SO YES, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR MOTION AS IS.
GIVE SPECIFICS AS TO THE SLOPE.
IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE WITH THAT CONDITION, YOU CAN DO THAT.
UM, OR IF YOU'D PREFER TO DEFER TO ESTABLISH A GREATER COMFORT LEVEL AND EXPLORATION WITH THE APPLICANT, YOU HAVE THAT OPTION AS WELL.
OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UM, I WITHDRAW MY PREVIOUS, UH, MOTION TO RESTATE IT AS I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, RECOMMEND THAT, UM, THIS BE APPROVED UPON THE CONDITION THAT THE SADDLE SLOPE, UH, THE SADDLE ROOF SLOPE BE, UH, TO THREE TO THREE TO 12 AS OPPOSED TO SIX TO 12 AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.
IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THE VOTE? COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, ARE WE GOING TO ASK FOR THE ENTIRE RIDGE TO BE LOAD THE SLOPE OF THE WHOLE ROOF OR JUST THE SADDLE? THIS MOTION IS JUST
[00:55:01]
THE SADDLE.THE, THE TYPICAL SLOPES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD, WOULD, YOU KNOW, SIX AND 12.
UM, IT COULD BE FIVE AND 12, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT IS, UM, UM, THE ROOF SLOPE AS PROPOSED IS A, IS A FAIRLY COMMON SLOPE.
SO, UM, YOU'D HAVE, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE MOTION MAKERS OF WHETHER THEY WOULD MAKE THAT AMENDMENT OR NOT OR TEST THE VOTE.
BUT, UM, MY, I'M OKAY WITH PROCEEDING WITH THE VOTE.
MY, AND BY THE WAY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MY INTENTION IS THAT BECAUSE REDUCING THE SLOPE, UM, OF THE SADDLE IS NOT A COMPLETE REDESIGN OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE, BUT WOULD STILL PROVIDE A VISUAL BREAK IN THE MASSING WITHOUT HAVING TO MATERIALLY CHANGE THE DESIGN.
I FEEL LIKE IT COMPROMISES BETWEEN, THERE'S NOTHING CRITERIA WRONG HERE, HOWEVER, VISUALLY IT IS QUITE DOMINANT AND THIS WOULD BREAK THAT BY JUST TAKING THAT CENTER DOWN BY 50%, UNDERSTANDING ARCHITECTURALLY THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE, WHICH I WASN'T FULLY AWARE OF, BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SPECIFICITY.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS SOME LEVEL OF THE MASSING WITHOUT HAVING TO MATERIALLY CHANGE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN VIOLATION OF OUR CRITERIA, BUT SUPPORTS THE MASSING, THE TREE, AND THE OBJECTIVE OF BREAKING THINGS UP, UH, VISUALLY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDED VOTE? AYE.
SO BLAKELY WAS OPPOSED OR FOR I SAID AYE.
SO COSGROVE IS OPPOSED WHEN OPPOSED, BUT THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON YASMINE ARSLAN, I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEMS A FIVE AND A SIX TOGETHER.
THE ITEM IS FOR 15 0 5 2 LANE STREET, A CIRCA 1930 CONTRIBUTING CRAFTSMAN RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE HOME IS UM, A 2,192 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY WOOD RESIDENCE SITUATED ON AN 8,799 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
THIS, UH, PROJECT WAS DEFERRED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 10, UH, MEETING AND THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REVISED THE PORCH ROOF DESIGNS AND LOWERED THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTOR.
AS FOR THE ADDITION, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY READER EDITION THAT WILL ADD 1,881 SQUARE FEET OF CONDITIONED SPACE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WILL BE RAISED TO A 32 INCH FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT AND ALL FOUR HISTORIC CORNERS WILL BE RETAINED.
THE ADDITION IS INSET FROM THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT AND WILL UM, CONNECT TO THE, UM, PROPOSED GARAGE VIA A COVERED BREEZEWAY AND UNCONDITIONED STAIRCASE.
EXTERIOR MATERIAL MATERIAL WILL INCLUDE, UM, UH, HORIZONTAL LAP HARDY SIDING WITH A FIVE INCH TRIVIAL AND A SIX AND A HALF HIP ROOF AND ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS WILL BE, UH, WOOD AND INSET.
THE SOUTH ELEVATION WILL, UM, HAVE A RECONSTRUCTED WOOD WINDOW MATCHING THE ORIGINAL OPENING AND THE NON HISTORIC FRONT PORCH WILL BE REMOVED AND REBUILT USING HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE MATERIALS.
AS FOR THE GARAGE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF THE NON-CONTRIBUTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO STORY GARAGE WITH A 649 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT.
THE 680 SQUARE FOOTPRINT INCLUDES 5 28 SQUARE FEET EXEMPT FROM THE LOT COVERAGE.
THE GARAGE WILL BE CLAD WITH HARDY SIDING WITH AN EIGHT INCH TRIVIAL, A COMPOSITION SHINGLE.
SIX, UM, OVER 12 HIP ROOF WOOD INSET WINDOWS, AND A COVERED UNCONDITIONED BREEZEWAY WITH STAIR ACCESS.
UH, CONNECTING TO THE ADDITION, A LETTER OF OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED AS IN AND IS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL REPORT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR BOTH ITEMS AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE AGENT AND HOMEOWNER ARE BOTH HERE, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
AND YAME, MAY I JUST ASK A CLARIFY CLARIFYING QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED BOTH FIVE AND SIX IN YOUR PRESENTATION? YES.
SO THAT WE CAN, UM, WE MAY VOTE SEPARATELY, BUT UM, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN TRY TO HANDLE THIS YES.
AS, AS ONE, AS CLOSE TO ONE APPLICATION AS WE CAN
[01:00:01]
AT THIS TIME.I DO HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THE FIRST IS JUSTIN PATTERSON.
UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME BACK.
UM, WANTED TO QUICKLY BUZZ THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOT SIZE DISPUTE THAT'S GOING ON.
IT IS A PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE BASED ON THE SANDBORN MAP THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
IT'S SHOWING 66.7 FEET WIDE BY 132 FOOT DEEP.
THAT PUTS THE, AT 88 0 4 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S 5.4 SQUARE FEET BIGGER THAN WHAT WE ARE SHOWING.
AND THE SURVEY THAT WAS PRESENTED LAST TIME SHOWS A THREE FOOT, UM, OFFSET OF THE PROPERTY TO THE HOUSE AT THE FRONT AND A 2.7 FOOT OFFSET AT THE BACK.
THE PROBES FELT SURVEY THAT WE SUBMITTED SHOW A 2.8 FEET OFFSET AT THE FRONT AND A 2.4 OFFSET AT THE BACK.
THIS IS A DIFFERENCE OF 2.4 INCHES AT THE FRONT AND THREE AND A HALF INCHES AT THE REAR.
I HAVE RUN SOME QUICK NUMBERS.
JUST WORST CASE SCENARIO, FAR IS NOT IN QUESTION.
IF WE ARE OFF THREE INCHES ON ONE SIDE, THEN THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH BECOMES IN A DISPUTE.
THE WHOLE TITLE POLICY FOR THE 66.66 SQUARE FEET PROPERTY BY 1 32 SIMPLY WOULD MOVE NORTH.
UM, I I DID NOT HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE MASSING, THE DESIGN.
I DID HEAR SOME COMMENTS FROM Y'ALL AND I WANTED TO ADDRESS THOSE.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN OUR UPDATES IS WE CHANGED THE PITCH OF THE MAIN PORCH ROOF ON THE MAIN FLOOR FROM ORIGINALLY FOUR AND 12 DOWN TO THREE AND 12.
UM, CHANGED IT FROM A SOUTH FACING GABLE TO A HIP LOWER THAT MASSING A LITTLE BIT.
WE HAVE, I I I DID WANT TO CORRECT YASMIN'S, UH, DESCRIPTION OF THE GARAGE.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FIVE AND 12 PITCH ROOF ON THE GARAGE, NOT SIX.
WE DO HAVE A SIX ON THE GARAGE.
THE MAIN HOUSE EXISTING HAS AN EIGHT AND 12.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE GARAGE ROOF, WE CHANGED IT FROM A FRONT FACING GABLE TO A HIP ROOF.
AND WE ALSO CHANGED THE PITCH OF THE SADDLE BREEZEWAY CONNECTION FROM THREE TO TWO IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE MAIN HOUSE AND THE GARAGE.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ANTHONY LEVITT.
UM, WE'RE BACK TODAY BECAUSE OF THE, UM, NOT ONLY THE BOUNDARY ISSUE BUT ALSO UM, THE LOT ISSUES IS THERE.
UM, THIS IS CONSIDERED, IT'S NEVER BEEN RE PLATTED AND IT'S CONSIDERED TWO LOTS.
SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE HOUSE IS ALREADY OVER THERE FAR AND THE CONTRIBUTING GARAGE CANNOT BE BUILT ON A PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PRIMARY HOME IN FRONT OF IT.
UM, BESIDES THAT, WE HAVE OUR BOUNDARY ISSUE.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 16 OUT OF HIS, UM, THEY HAVE THE PROBES SURVEY AT THE TOP AND AT THE BOTTOM THEY'VE MOVED THE PROPERTY LINE SO FAR SOUTH THAT IT CUTS OFF THE HOUSE AT 5 0 9 WEST 15TH STREET.
AND THEN WE HAVE, UM, THE CONNECTOR IS STILL AN ISSUE.
UM, THEY HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY, UH, FLOORING FOUNDATION PLANS AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THESE BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATE OR TOGETHER AND THE BREEZEWAY COVER COULD BE CONSIDERED PROBLEMATIC IF THERE'S DIFFERENT SOILS HAPPENING.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
UM, IF NOT MR. MR. PATTERSON, YOU DO HAVE A REBUTTAL IF YOU CHOOSE.
IN REGARDS TO THE SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS, THE MAIN HOUSE IS GONNA BE CRAWLSPACE, PIER AND BEAM TO MATCH EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
THE GARAGE IS GONNA BE A SLAB ON GRADE AND THERE'LL JUST BE FLAT WORK WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, WE RELY ON ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TO MANAGE SHIFTING SOILS, SOILS REPORTS.
SO THAT DOESN'T BECOME AN ISSUE FOR US OR THE, UH, OWNER.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE CAN, UH, START WITH QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.
I GUESS I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE FOR LEGAL OR FOR OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, UM, ABOUT THE PLATTING FOR THE, THE LOT, WHETHER OR NOT THE R TWO LOTS AND WHETHER OR NOT, UH, RE PLATTING THAT IS REQUIRED, UH, TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
I THINK THE QUESTION BEFORE IS TODAY IS STILL MASSING WITHIN A CERTAIN, UM, DIMENSIONAL AREA, AND SO IF WHETHER THERE IS AN ISSUE OR NOT AN ISSUE, I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED OUTSIDE OF THIS
[01:05:01]
BODY.BUT I JUST WANT TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY PLATTING ISSUES, THEY WOULD GO TO A SEPARATE COMMISSION TO RESOLVE THAT IT WOULDN'T BE HERE.
SO WITH THAT COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS REVISED APPLICATION? COMMISSIONER BLAKELY.
UH, MY QUESTION IS, UM, HOW DID THIS DESIGN CHANGE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MAKING THE GARAGE AND THE MAIN HOUSE SEEM MORE SEPARATE VISUALLY? SO IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FRONT ELEVATION OR THE 3D, UM, THE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE GARAGE, UM, HE DID LOWER THE PITCH OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LIKE THE CONNECTING ROOF BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND, UM, THE MAIN HOUSE.
UM, SO HE LOWERED IT AND THEN, UM, AND THEN THE, THE PORCH, UM, THE ROOF OF THE FIRST FLOOR PORCH, HE ALSO SWITCHED THAT ROOF, UH, TO MAKE IT LESS, UH, VISIBLE AND NOT OVERWHELMING.
I, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER DAVIS POINTED THAT OUTLAST COMMISSION, UM, HE ALSO CHANGED THE ROOF ON THE, UH, SECOND FLOOR PORCH.
UM, SO BECAUSE TO ME, AS LONG AS THAT ROOF IS THERE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, IT REALLY STILL LOOKS LIKE IT'S CONNECTED.
AND IN THE, LOOKING AT THE 3D RENDERINGS, I, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE BOTTOM ONE, UH, NOT THAT ONE, BUT THE, THE ONE A BIT LATER THAT SHOWS THE TWO, THE BOTTOM ONE EVEN WAS JUST TILTED DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I THINK IT'S MAYBE A PAGE OR TWO PAST THAT IT'S NOT THERE.
IT IT'S ON YOUR FINAL, BUT MAYBE NOT ON THE POWERPOINT.
VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE AT THE TOP.
I, I GUESS, YEAH, SO IT'S PAGE 14.
THE HOUSE HAS JUST, IT'S, IT'S BEEN TILTED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN THE LOWER ONE, BUT TO ME IT STILL LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PART OF THE SAME SINGULAR VOLUME.
UM, SO I DON'T FEEL THAT THE SEPARATION ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THIS DESIGN.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE, UH, THE, THE SCREEN THAT WE, THE HANDHELD SCREEN WE HAVE ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA JUST SO THAT WE, THAT WE THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO SEE? UM, SO TYPICALLY THE POWERPOINT, UM, IS, IS A MORE LIKE CONDENSED SMALL CONDENSED VERSION BECAUSE IT, IT'S, UM, SO I, I APOLOGIZE.
I DON'T THINK I INCLUDED THAT TO MAKE IT, BUT I CAN, YOU KNOW, I CAN PUT IT ON DOCUMENT CAMERA HERE.
AND WE MIGHT AFTER THAT LOOK AT THE ROOF PLAN ONE MORE TIME JUST TO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT CONNECTING ROOF IS RELATIVE TO THE OVERALL ROOF.
I WOULD JUST ADD IN THIS CASE, WE DO HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES, I BELIEVE THAT STIPULATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE AS VISUALLY SEPARATE.
AND THEN ALSO THE WAY THIS BODY RULES, YOU KNOW, BUILDS A KIND OF PRECEDENT FOR HOW WE RESPOND TO THIS ISSUE.
SO I AM CONCERNED THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN A WAY THAT IS EFFECTIVE, UH, FROM, ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, ESPECIALLY HOW IT WILL APPEAR FROM THE STREET, NOT FROM AN AERIAL VIEW.
COULD WE ALSO PUT UP ON THE ROOF PLAN JUST FOR REFERENCE, AGAIN, AND YAME COULD, I GUESS, COULD YOU POINT ON THE, ON THE DOCUMENT WHERE THE ACTUAL CONNECTION IS? IT SEEMS THAT THE ROOF OVER THAT CONNECTING PIECE IS NOT DRAWN IN THIS DRAWING.
AM AM I MISTAKEN ABOUT THIS? WE, WE'D HAVE TO ENLARGE IT FURTHER.
[01:10:01]
TO SEE IF IT HAS MORE DETAILS THERE? YES.AND WE MAY NEED ENLARGE THAT EVEN FURTHER.
JUST SO WHAT I SEE IS BASICALLY ANOTHER SADDLE TYPE OF ROOF OR WHAT WE CALL A HALF SADDLE ROOF.
SO IT'S SORT OF HALF, HALF A DIAMOND IN PLAN, WHICH IS THAT YOUR QUESTION ON THE ROOF? UH, YES FORM.
IT'S DRAWN IN A WAY THAT IS AS IF IT'S TRANSPARENT.
I BELIEVE THE STEPS ARE JUST DOTTED IN BECAUSE THEY'RE BELOW.
BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY, THAT STRIPED P PIECE IS A SOLID ROOF AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SEE STILL FROM THE STREET.
COULD, COULD WE BLOW IN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ONTO THAT? 'CAUSE I, UH, SO, UM, THE, THE STRIPES THAT YOU SEE, SO ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THE APPLICANT, UH, HAS LOWERED THE SLOPE SUBSTANTIALLY TO TWO AND 12, AND THEREFORE HE'S GONE LOWER THAN HE CAN ACTUALLY PUT SHINGLES ON A ROOF AND STILL HAVE THE MANUFACTURER, UM, ADDRESS THE WARRANTY ON THE SHINGLES.
SO HE HAS PROPOSED TO CHANGE TO A METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF.
SO WE, YOU'RE SEEING THE RIBS OF A, OF A METAL ROOF, WHICH IS, UH, NOT VERY VISIBLE BASED ON THE LOW SLOPE.
UM, ALTHOUGH IT IS HIGH ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THOSE, THOSE LINES, AND HE IS DOTTING IN THE STAIR WITH DOTTED LINES JUST TO REPRESENT THAT THE STAIRS ARE BELOW THAT AREA FOR UNDERSTANDING.
BUT WHAT YOU WOULD PHYSICALLY SEE WOULD BE THESE LINES OF RIBS THAT ARE GENERALLY ABOUT AN INCH OR SLIGHTLY OVER AN INCH IN HEIGHT AND CONSISTENT WITH STANDING SEAM, WHICH IS ALSO THE CHALLENGE WITH THESE SMALL PLANES THAT WE GET TO SEE THESE LARGE DETAILS AT TIMES.
BUT YES, I THINK MY ISSUE IS WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS A ROOF THAT CONNECTS THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE AT THAT POSITION.
I APPRECIATE THAT EFFORTS WERE MADE TO MAKE IT SMALLER, BUT BASED ON THE DRAWINGS AND THE RENDERING, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME TO CHANGE THE SITUATION.
UM, I THINK YOU ADDRESSED LAST TIME, DIDN'T THE ELEVATOR OPENED TWO WAYS.
AND SO THAT'S BEEN SEPARATED AND DO I SEE DAYLIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO, THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE? AM I SEE ACTUALLY SEEING DAYLIGHT THERE? I'M NOT SURE.
THERE'S, YEAH, THERE'S NO WALL THAT'S JUST, YEAH, IT'S OKAY.
AND I DON'T KNOW IN THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES WHAT IT SAYS IN TERMS OF CONNECTING THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE, UM, TOGETHER, HOW FAR IT HAS TO BE.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT THE COMMENT I HAVE ABOUT IT IS THAT WHILE, UH, LOWERING THE, UM, CHANGING THE ROOF ON THE PATIO OR THE PORCH, UM, IMPROVES THE SITUATION, IT STILL READS AS A BIG MASS.
SO, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX THAT.
UM, IF, CAN I ADDRESS JUST THE SEPARATION? UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES TALKS ABOUT WHAT IS CONSIDERED.
SO, UM, STAFF HAD TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER.
UM, SO WE WENT WITH FOUR FEET BECAUSE YOU ARE CORRECT, PEOPLE WOULD SAY, WELL, THE GARAGE IS ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THIS MAIN STRUCTURE AND THAT'S DETACHED.
UM, SO WHEN WE'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN A LOT, WE SAID, OKAY, FOUR FOOT MINIMUM, UM, WHICH IS WHAT HE HAS, UM, RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, UH, IT, IT COVERS A LOT OF THINGS, UM, BUT NOT EVERYTHING.
AND SO THE DETACHMENT OF GARAGE VERSUS THE MAIN HOUSE, UM, IT'S DURING, I WANNA SAY COVID, PEOPLE WANTED MORE SPACE.
[01:15:01]
COME UP WHERE THEY'RE CONNECTING THROUGH A UNCOVERED BREEZEWAY OR A, I'M SORRY, UNCONDITIONED BREEZEWAY.UM, AND SO IT HAPPENED A LOT AND SO IT WAS CONSIDERED, UM, DETACHED, BUT YES, DESIGN IS DIFFERENT AND HOW IT READS AND VISUALLY READS IS DIFFERENT FROM DESIGN TO DESIGN.
COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR IS A QUESTION.
QUESTION FOR STAFF AND, HELLO.
UM, UM, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE DETAILS AROUND THE MASSING IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES? LIKE, UM, OBVIOUSLY YOU REVIEWED THEM FOR CRI FOR CONFORMANCE TO CRITERIA AND TO THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO WHAT ARE WE MISSING HERE THAT, UM, YOU FELT SHOULD BE APPROVED THAT THIS WASN'T IN A VIOLATION? UM, I THINK THE MAIN THING, UM, IS THAT THE COMMISSION BROUGHT UP THAT IT DOES LOOK LIKE, UM, ONE BIG MASS.
WE DON'T SEE, UM, HOW THE GARAGE IS DETACHED.
UM, AND, AND SO THE APPLICANT TRIED TO PUSH IT AS FAR AS HE CAN OR AS FAR AS HE ALSO WANTS TO.
UM, FOR US, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE IS UNTOUCHED, SO THE ADDITION IS NOT ENCROACHING ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
THE MAIN, THE ORIGINAL CORNERS, UM, ARE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THIS IS A, NOT A TYPICAL LOT SIZE.
USUALLY THERE'S 6,600, THIS IS 8,700 SOMETHING AND IT, IT IS A WIDER LOT.
AND SO A LOT OF IT IS MORE VISIBLE.
USUALLY THE ADDITION SITS BEHIND THE HOUSE WHEN IT'S AN INTERIOR LOT, YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF THAT HERE.
IT'S VISIBLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CORNER LOT, BUT IT IS A WIDER THAN, UH, TYPICAL LOT.
AND SO TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE ARE THESE ADDITIONS IN THE GARAGE AND THE MASSING OF THOSE.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINE THAT ADDRESSES MASSING OUTSIDE OF THE PRIMARY, UH, STRUCTURE? BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S WHERE I, I DON'T HAVE A TECHNICAL DETAIL TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION BASED IN THIS EITHER IS OR IT'S ABOVE OR IT'S AT THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES MAX.
SO WE, WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AREA AND THE CONTEXT AREA IS THAT BLOCK FACE.
UM, AND SO HIS NEIGHBOR HAS A TWO STORY ADDITION.
UM, AND THEN IF YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE 12 OF 27, IT DOES SHOW THE CONTEXT AREA.
UM, SO IT SHOWS THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AROUND IT, UM, THAT WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE AND THEY'RE MASSING AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS WIDER THAN THE OTHER LOTS, IT IS MORE VISIBLE.
BUT YOU SEE, UH, TWO STORIES, UM, ADDITIONS AROUND IT.
AND THEN THERE'S ONE HOUSE THAT'S ALREADY, UH, TWO STORY, I, I INCLUDED THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW TO SHOW THE FEELING ON THAT STREET, UM, AS WELL.
BUT OF COURSE, IT'S, UH, STAFF ONLY RECOMMENDS BASED ON, UM, THEIR RESEARCH AND UM, COMMISSION HAS THE FINAL ACTION.
APPRECIATE THE REMINDER AND THE CLARIFICATION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONERS, UH, BLAKELY AND, UH, DAVIS, IF THE CONNECTING ROOF ABOVE THAT STAIR WERE REMOVED AND DID NOT EXIST, ONLY THE STAIR EXISTS BETWEEN THE TWO FORMS, WHAT, WHAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF YOUR FEELING ABOUT THAT? I'M NOT SURE THAT'S EVEN AN OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS FOR YOUR OWN EVALUATION.
THE ROOF BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS DOESN'T, I'M NOT MAD AT THAT AT ALL.
UM, I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE MASSING OF THE PORCH IN FRONT OF IT.
IT JUST LOOKS BIG AND MAYBE IN REAL LIFE IT WON'T, BUT IN THIS PICTURE IT JUST LOOKS OVERWHELMING.
AND I GUESS THEREFORE MY QUESTION WAS FOR MR. BLAKELY, BUT I MEAN, I AM, I FEEL A CERTAIN COMPASSION FOR THE OWNER BECAUSE THERE ARE SITUATIONS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HOUSEHOLD SITUATION IS, BUT LET'S SAY I SEE THERE'S AN ELEVATOR THERE.
MAYBE THE UPSTAIRS DEPARTMENT IS DESIGNED FOR SOMEONE WHO, YOU KNOW, HAS MOBILITY ISSUES AND, AND SO THEN IF WE SAY NO, THEY CAN'T HAVE A ROOF, UM, BETWEEN THE MAIN VOLUME AND THE GARAGE APARTMENT, THEN IT'S SORT OF LIKE, I WOULD SAY CREATING A HARDSHIP IN A SENSE BECAUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER LIVES THERE WILL HAVE TO GO IN THE RAIN OR THE WEATHER BETWEEN.
UM, I GUESS I MIGHT ASK IF THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY TO PROVIDE SHELTER.
[01:20:01]
NOT TO CREATE A PHYSICAL HARDSHIP, UM, FOR EXAMPLE WITH SOME SORT OF LIKE GLASS, LIKE SMALL CANOPY THAT WAS TRANSPARENT RATHER THAN A ROOF.UM, CONNECTING THOSE, THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE CON, MORE CONVINCING THAT THEY WERE VISUALLY SEPARATE VOLUMES THAN IF THERE'S A, A SOLID PHYSICAL CONNECTION.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE HAS A STATEMENT OR QUESTION.
I JUST WAS GONNA OFFER MY OPINION.
I THINK WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH ON IT IS THE TWO REFORMS THAT INTERACT BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE CREATING ONE SINGLE MASS ON THAT SIDE.
AND I'M NOT SEEING A CLEAR DEFINITION THAT THAT IS A DETACHED GARAGE, EVEN THOUGH IT TECHNICALLY IS, IT IS THIS PORCH ROOF CREATING ONE CONNECTION AND THEN THE SECONDARY BREEZEWAY COVER CREATING THE OTHER.
AND FOR ME, I FEEL LIKE ONE OF THEM NEEDS TO, TO GO AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE VISUAL DISCONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO SEPARATE MASSES, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE.
'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR SOME KIND OF COVERED ACCESS PERHAPS BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE.
UH, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION.
COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR ARE, I THINK THIS DISCUSSION IS, IS HELPFUL FOR THE NON ARCHITECTS, UM, TO BE ABLE TO HEAR HOW WE ARE DISCUSSING, HOW WE FEEL ABOUT IT VERSUS WHAT CRITERIA IS STATED, UM, AND AVAILABLE THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON.
I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES THAT YOU POINTED OUT AND REMINDED ME TO LOOK BACK AT THOSE, THAT IF THOSE LOTS WERE AS WIDE AS THIS ONE IS, WE'D HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM BECAUSE THOSE HAVE CONTINUOUS MASS AND STRUCTURES ALL THE WAY ACROSS WITH NO BREAK, WHETHER IT'S A GARAGE OR NOT, THAT ARE PART OF THAT SECOND STORY, TWO STORY, WHATEVER IS GOING ON IN EACH OF THE FOUR, SPECIFICALLY THAT BOTTOM, UH, BOTTOM LEFT HAND STRUCTURE.
UM, WHERE WERE THAT, UH, 15 15 2 LANE STREET TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, UM, THAT IF ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THAT CONTINUED TO CROSS VISUALLY, WE'D HAVE, UM, SOMETHING SIMILAR IF THIS LOT WERE WIDER.
UM, I AGREE THAT THERE'S A ISSUE OF PRECEDENT AND THIS MASSING CREEPING UP IN GENERAL.
I STRUGGLE WITH HAVING A TECHNICAL AND CONCRETE DEFENDABLE STANCE VERSUS IT FEELS TOO BIG AND IT FEELS OVERWHELMING AND THAT THAT ROOF, THAT SEPARATION VISUALLY IN THE MIDDLE AND THE MECHANICS OF CONTORTING, HOW WE WANT IT AESTHETICALLY TO LOOK AND KIND OF THE REMOVING OUR, UM, OUR INABILITY TO BE DESIGNING FROM THIS SPACE.
I FEEL LIKE WE'VE CROSSED INTO DESIGN.
I AGREE THAT IT FEELS, IT FEELS LARGE, IT FEELS BIG.
I'M STRUGGLING WITH WHERE WE LAND TECHNICALLY WITH WHAT IT FEELS LIKE VERSUS WHAT REQUIREMENTS STATE AND VERSUS THE CONTRIBUTING ERROR AREA.
SO THAT'S A LOT OF NOTHING TO SAY.
I'LL JUST STATE MY OPINION OUTSIDE OF, UH, UH, A MOTION THAT, UM, IT'S DIFFICULT TO, UM, HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT SURE VERSUS, AND TECHNIC, I JUST STATE YOU.
I MEAN, ANOTHER REMEDY FOR SOME OR ANYONE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION IS TO SIMPLIFY THE ROOF FORM STRUCTURE.
SIMPLIFY THE ROOF SHAPE ON THE PRO ADDITIONS IS OFTEN A WAY TO MAKE IT BETTER, LESS COMPLICATED AND MORE, UM, USUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY CONTORTED PROPOSED ROOF AND THE, THERE'S A VERY SIMPLE ROOF STRUCTURE IN THE MAIN HOUSE, IT, IT DOESN'T HELP THE APP APP AN APPLICATION, LET'S JUST SAY.
SO, UM, MR. DEL, I JUST WANT TO, UM, SECOND YOUR COMMENT ABOUT QUANTIFIABLE, MASSING AND SIZE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK BACK A LONG TIME AGO WHEN, WHEN THE COMMISSION WAS CREATED AND THESE DISTRICTS WERE CREATED, I THINK THERE WAS SOME ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY SOME OF THIS.
I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR EVALUATION, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBMISSION, UM, THAT REALLY MATTERS.
BUT AS A WHOLE, I I, I ACTUALLY MADE THAT NOTE FOR THE SECOND TIME.
UM, THAT, THAT I HEAR IT ALL THE TIME ABOUT IT FEELS TOO BIG.
I MEAN, THE REALITY IS WE'RE ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE TO SMALLER HOMES AND, AND SO IF, IF THERE IS A BOUNDARY,
[01:25:01]
A QUANTIFIABLE BOUNDARY THAT CANNOT BE CROSSED, WE, WE NEED TO WORK TO, UH, CREATE THAT.IT'S SIMPLY WHY I ASK ON, ON A LOT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE, IS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE? AND, AND CAN A HOMEOWNER, CAN AN ARCHITECT, CAN A BUILDER LOOK UP WHAT IS REQUIRED AND CROSSCHECK WHAT IS BEING DESIGNED AGAINST THAT? BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE SAME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW EVERYONE FEELS ABOUT IT.
AND SO I'M JUST HOPEFUL THAT AT SOME POINT WE CAN CREATE A SYSTEM BY WHICH THOSE QUANTITIES CAN BE WRITTEN DOWN AND REFERENCED.
AS FAR AS IT GOES WITH THIS, UH, THE, THE, UH, I BELIEVE THE REDESIGN HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY THE BEST POSSIBLE OPTION TO, UM, NOT DISCARD ANY, UM, ACCOMMODATIONS IN TERMS OF PROTECTING SOMEONE FROM RAIN OR WHATEVER OTHER WEATHER ELEMENTS, UH, COME, COME TO US HERE IN THIS CITY, UM, BY LOWERING AND ADJUSTING THE, THE, THE PORCH ROOF STRUCTURE.
UM, AND, AND IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION.
EVERYBODY CAN ARGUE OVER THE SIZE OF THIS LOT, BUT IF WE GO OFF OF, UH, UH, REPUTABLE SURVEY, WHICH WE HAVE, UM, I'M LOOKING AT IT ON, ON GOOGLE EARTH RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU VISUALLY SEE MORE OF THIS HOUSE FROM THE STREET AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT AND THE POSITION THAT IT'S IN AND THERE'S NO TREES THERE.
UM, SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCES, WHICH I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY QUANTIFIABLE ONES, I WILL MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A FIVE AND AS SIX.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT, GARCIA? A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSIONS BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER JONES? I HAVE A DISCUSSION.
SO COMMISSIONER SEL, WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
RIGHT? FEELING IS ACTUALLY AN INTEGRAL PORTION IF YOU LOOK UP AT FEDERAL LEVEL ON HISTORIC DISTRICTS, RIGHT? YOU WALK IN, YOU GET A CERTAIN SENSE OF WHAT THEY ARE AND HOW THEY'RE DEFINED THROUGH THAT WAY.
SO YES, FEELING IS NOT TANGIBLE, RIGHT? AESTHETICS AREN'T ALWAYS TANGIBLE, BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE USE TO DESCRIBE WHAT WE SEE WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING A HISTORIC PROPERTY.
UM, IN TERMS OF THIS PROPERTY, I DO NOT READ THEM AS TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
I STILL SEE AN ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT ON AT IT.
THEY STILL DO NOT READ LIKE TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES AND THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? YES.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD ALSO IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER SEIDEL'S COMMENTS THAT MASSING IS A MATTER OF PROPORTIONS.
UM, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE JUST QUANTIFIED.
IF THAT WERE THE CASE, IF WE, WE WOULDN'T REALLY BE NEEDED HERE.
UM, I THINK THE PART OF THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION IS TO DELIBERATE.
THE ANTICIPATION WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THINGS.
UM, THAT'S WHY THERE'S A BUILDER AND AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN AND A CULTURAL HISTORIAN AND SO FORTH.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SO, BUT IT COULD JUST BE SORT OF LIKE A COMPUTATION MATTER AND IT ISN'T.
UM, SO I APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER JONES' COMMENT AND, AND IT'S A MATTER OF COUNTING, REALLY NOT FEELING TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS TWO LOOKS, LIKE TWO VOLUMES OR LOOKS LIKE ONE, RIGHT? SO, UM, I, I HEAR YOU AND I, I DO THINK WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING IN TERMS OF EMOTIONS WHEN WE NEED TO BE TALKING MORE IN TERMS OF QUANTIFICATION, BUT I DON'T THINK WE COULD EVER REDUCE IT JUST TO ONE OR THE OTHER.
MAY I ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? CAN I PLEASE? UM, SO THE AGENT IS WILLING AND FLEXIBLE ON CONDITIONS LIKE WHETHER IT'S MAKING THE FIRST FLOOR PORCH SMALLER OR MAYBE, UM, MAKING THE, UM, WITH THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE MAIN HOUSE BIGGER.
UM, HE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER CONDITIONS, UM, THAT ARE CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND HE'S WILLING TO HAVE THEM, UM, AND WILLING TO BE FLEXIBLE AND DO THEM WELL.
LET ME CALL THE VOTE 'CAUSE I HAVE A, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND I, I THINK WE'VE
[01:30:01]
HAD ADEQUATE DISCUSSIONS.UM, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
CAN YOU RESTATE IT? UH, COMMISSIONER SEIDEL WILL RESTATE THE MOTION.
YEAH, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S APPROVAL OF A FIVE AND A SIX GARCIA GARCIA SECOND.
FULL OF HANDS OF THE OPPOSED, UH, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR, YOU HAVE TO RAISE YOUR HAND OR, OR I, OR, OR NOT SORRY, I'M I I'M, I'M, SHE'S RAISING NO, NO.
UM, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO, I DON'T MEAN TO HOLD EVERYONE UP ON THE DECISION.
UM, THE MOTIONS THAT WE ACCEPTED THE WAY IT IS AND WE'RE NOT THE MO THE MOTION TO WAS TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT MOTION FAILED IS THAT IS FROM MY COUNT.
SO, UM, THOSE SUGGESTIONS ARE REMEDIES PER PERHAPS FOR, FOR MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCED AND WE MAY HAVE TO SEE A REVISED DRAWING TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE, AND I'LL SAY THIS, THE APPLICANT DID MAKE THE FRONT PORCH, THE FREESTANDING PORCH SMALLER THAN HE DID THEN, THEN IN THE LAST TIME WE SAW IT.
BUT IT WAS STILL FOUND, I BELIEVE BY MAJORITY OF FOLKS TO, THEY STILL HAVE ISSUES WITH THE SIZE OF THAT, OF THAT PORCH.
I MEAN, TO ME THERE'S MAYBE ONLY OTHER REMEDY.
I MEAN, I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF THERE'S A WILLINGNESS TO CREATE MORE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES, EVEN IF THEY REMAIN CONNECTED BY A ROOF LINE, THAT THAT MIGHT BE AN ADEQUATE SOLUTION.
ALTHOUGH I CANNOT SAY THAT I COULD TELL YOU WHAT THAT DISTANCE MIGHT BE.
IT'S, IT'S WITHOUT A REVISED DRAWING, IT'S WITHOUT A REVISED DRAWING.
IT'S TOO, TOO OUT THERE FOR ME TO KNOW.
BUT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT I HEAR FROM THE COMMISSION THAT THIS VISUAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO IS REALLY THE STICKING POINT, PROBABLY MORE SO THAN THE, THAN THE ROOF LINES THEMSELVES.
AND IF WE COULD JUST MAKE IT FEEL LIKE IT'S TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES.
I I I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE ADDITION IN HOUSE ARE FINE.
IT, THIS IS, IT'S JUST THIS COMING TOGETHER OF MANY, MANY ROOF LINES IN A VERY TIGHT AREA THAT MAKE VISUALLY, WHEN YOU GLANCE AT IT, IT APPEARS ONE MASSIVE STRUCTURE.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADVISE WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS, BUT, AND I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO SEE IT.
SO I WOULD PROBABLY MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER THIS SO THAT WE CAN EXPLORE THAT SMITH SECONDS.
AND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS MOTION WOULD, WOULD, IS IT TOO LATE, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT TO ACCEPT A DEFERRAL? IF WE, IF IT'S BEEN DENIED THE MOTION HAVE BEEN DENIED, I NEED TO, WELL, YA HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS ONE DEFERRAL ONLY SO WE, IT HAS BEEN DEFERRED ONCE.
IT CAN BE SO IT CAN BE DEFERRED ONE ADDITIONAL TIME, RIGHT? YES.
THE MOTION TO PASS DID NOT CARRY.
SO WE, WE DON'T HAVE A, WE HAVE NOT RENDERED A DECISION ON IT YET.
ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING THE PROJECT.
ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, THAT, THAT PASSES, PLEASE.
UH, DIRECTOR TRAN, WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM HTV TO WHEN WE RAISE OUR NAME TAG TO RAISE IT TO THE SIDE BECAUSE IT'S BLOCKING YOUR FACES.
CAN I, OKAY, BUT YOU, YOU DIDN'T ANNOUNCE ITEM SEVEN, THAT'S WHY I'M READING.
UH, WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH ITEM SEVEN, A SEVEN CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THIS ITEM I PRESENT TO YOU.
ITEM A SEVEN AT 8,844 CORTLAND STREET, UH, AS CIRCA 1910 CONTRIBUTING QUEEN ANNE RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE HOME IS A 1,518 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD RESIDENCE, SITUATED ON A 13,200 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UM, APPROVAL FOR AN ALTERATION AND ADDITION PROJECT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
[01:35:01]
CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PRESERVE AND REPAIR THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS, RETAIN THE HISTORIC FRONT ENTRY DOOR AND PORT STRUCTURE, RESTORE THE TURNED BALLER PORCH RAILINGS.
REINSTALL SHUTTERED, VERIFIED BY THE 1904 PHOTOGRAPH.
PRESERVE THE DECORATIVE GABLE SIDING, REMOVE THE NON HISTORIC DORMERS AND RETURN THE ATTIC TO UNFINISHED STORAGE.
AS FOR THE ADDITIONS, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES, UM, A NEW ONE AND A HALF STORY REAR ADDITIONS, INCLUDING A ROTUNDA AND EXPANDED PORCH AREAS.
THE ADDITIONS WILL CONNECT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE THROUGH A HYPHEN DIFFERENTIATED BY SIDING MATERIAL, AND THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC CORNERS WILL BE PRESERVED.
ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS WILL BE WOOD INSET AND RECESSED.
AND THE MAXIMUM PROPOSED RIDGE HEIGHT IS 34 FEET, EIGHT AND THREE QUARTERS, UH, INCHES.
THE PROJECT RESULTS IN 3,589 SQUARE FOOT OF FIRST FLOOR AIR CONDITIONED SPACE AND 1,578 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR A TOTAL OF LIV LIVABLE AREA OF 5,167 SQUARE FEET WITH 665 SQUARE FEET OF COMBINED PORCHES ON THE 13,200 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THE ALLOWABLE, UH, FAR IS 5,280 SQUARE FEET AND THE PROPOSAL REMAINS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE FARA SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE AND CARPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED LATER.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ALL WINDOWS ON THE ADDITION MUST BE ONE OVER ONE.
REMOVE THE FISH SCALE SHINGLES AND THE ILS FROM THE ADDITION.
SIMPLIFY THE FIRST FLOOR PORCH COLUMNS AND REMOVE DECORATIVE DETAILING FROM THE TRANSOMS. REDUCE THE MAX RIDGE HEIGHT, 2 32 FEET CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S, UM, PRESENTATION FOR ITEM SEVEN, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WE ALSO HAVE THE HOMEOWNER AND THE AGENT HERE TO SPEAK.
AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I AND I DO HAVE A SPEAKER SIGN UP, UH, FOR NADIA ES DOCUMENT CAMERA, BRITTANY TINI.
UM, I AM THE HOME HOMEOWNER OF 8 4 4 COURTLAND AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT EACH OF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW NOT ONLY THE PLANS THAT WE SUBMITTED, BUT ALSO THE NARRATIVE AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROPOSAL.
I THINK THEY REFLECT NOT ONLY OUR INTENTION, BUT OUR CARE THOUGHTFULNESS AND DEDICATION TO THIS PROPERTY.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT OF YOUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
PRESENTED OUR REPORT, NOTATES, THAT WE FAIL TO SATISFY APPROVAL CRITERIA THREE AND 10.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AND WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF OUR POSITION.
ITEM 10, SPECIFIES THE CRITERIA, UM, WAS NOT SATISFIED DUE TO NO CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BLOCK BASE EXHIBITING THE DEGREE OF ORNAMENTATION PRESENT WITHIN OUR PROJECT, EVEN WITH A LIMITED CONTEXT AREA, THE MOST SIMILAR PROPERTY TO OUR OWN, AND ONE FROM WHICH WE DREW INFLUENCE IS IN FACT WITHIN OUR IMMEDIATE CONTEXT AREA, THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY AT 3 0 1 EAST NINTH.
DO YOU WANT THE SECOND PAGE AT ALL THAT IT SEEMS THE DETAIL? OKAY.
UM, IS IT, AND ARCHITECTURE IS SIMILARLY LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT AND FULLY SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT NECESSITATED ALL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS WERE, UH, REQUESTED FOR REMOVAL, INCLUDING THE SHINGLED GABLES, DECORATIVE COLUMNS AND TRANSOMS ARE PRESENT ADDITIONALLY, AND ALSO WITHIN OUR IMMEDIATE CONTEXT AREA.
THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY AT 8 2 3 COURTLAND EAB ESTABLISHES THE SAME SHINGLED GABLES DECORATIVE PORCH ELEMENTS, INCLUDING TRIM WORK AND COLUMNS AS WELL AS NON 1 0 1 WINDOWS ARE ALL PRESENT.
AND WHILE I DO HAVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF THE FALS WITHIN BOTH THE IMMEDIATE AND ADJACENT CONTEXT AREAS, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAL ATOP THE FIRST FLOOR METAL PORCH, WHICH WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS VISIBILITY, WE ARE WILLING TO CONCEDE AND REMOVE ALL OTHER ROOF FALS IN GOODWILL.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE NOTE THAT THE PRESENCE OF SHINGLED GABLES AND NON ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS NOT ONLY EXIST WITHIN CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES.
MOTION TO GRANT THE SPEAKER ADDITIONAL TIME.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
WELL, IT HAS THE, OKAY, SO HERE IS THE LIST OF THE ONES THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT AREA THAT DO HAVE, UM, NON ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS, BUT ALSO WITHIN THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES.
[01:40:01]
THERE IS NEW CONSTRUCTION IN OUR BLOCK AREA THAT HAS THE SAME, ALTHOUGH THE, ALTHOUGH THESE WINDOWS ARE NOT REFLECTIVE OF OUR DESIRED EXACT STYLE, THEY DO ESTABLISH THAT NON 1 0 1 WINDOWS AND TRANSOMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND EXIST WITHIN OUR CONTEXT AREA.HISTORIC GUIDELINES CLEARLY STATE THAT NO SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLES ARE REQUIRED, THEREBY NO PARTICULAR STYLE, UM, STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE SUCH AS CONTEMPORARY FARMHOUSE SHOULD RECEIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR PRIVILEGE OVER ANOTHER, SUCH AS A MORE TRADITIONAL OR QUEEN AND INSPIRED STYLE.
UM, LASTLY, PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED RIDGE HEIGHT LIMITATION, THE NECESSITY OF INCREASED EAF AND RIDGE HEIGHTS WAS THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIAL, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT IF NEEDED.
OUR ADDITION CANNOT BE BUILT WITH A RIDGE HEIGHT OF 32 FEET.
THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING ONE STORY STRUCTURE IS ALREADY AT 27 8.
IT'S NOT MATHEMATICALLY PO POSSIBLE TO SATISFY THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES WITHOUT SACRIFICING SCALE AND COMPATIBILITY, WHICH WERE OF MORE SIGNIFICANCE THAN RIDGE HEIGHT AS THEY PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A HIGHER ALLOWABLE RIDGE HEIGHT.
IN ADDITION, CANNOT BE PERMITTED AS IT WILL FAIL TO MEET THE CITY OF HOUSTON BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL EXCEPTION REQUEST, WE GENUINELY MADE SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS IN CONCESSIONS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT REQUESTED TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES.
IF A MAX RIDGE HEIGHT NEEDS TO BE NEEDS TO ACCOMPANY OUR APPROVAL, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A MAX RIDGE HEIGHT OF 35 FEET.
I DO WANNA PROVIDE ASSURANCE AND EMPHASIZE THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE CONDITIONS OF OUR HOME, WHICH HAD AN EXISTING HIGHER THAN AVERAGE RIDGE HEIGHT, HIGHER THAN AVERAGE FIRST FOUR, FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT AND 12 OVER 12 ROOF PITCH.
THE APPROVAL OF THIS EXCEPTION WOULD NOT APPLY FOR MOST PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT NECESSITATE AN INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE RIDGE HEIGHT FOR OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL PEACE OF MIND.
IT IS ALSO RELEVANT THAT THE THREE CLOSEST NON-CON, NON-CONTRIBUTING RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES ON OUR BLOCK BASE HAVE RIDGE HEIGHTS OF 36 FEET, 33 FEET AND 36 FEET RESPECTIVELY.
SO EVEN WITH AN APPROVAL OF A 35 FOOT RIDGE ALLOWANCE, OUR PROPERTY WOULD STILL NOT BE THE TALLEST WITHIN OUR IMMEDIATE CONTEXT AREA.
BASED ON ALL THE AFORE FOUR MENTIONED INFORMATION, WE FIRMLY BELIEVE OUR PROPOSAL DOES IN FACT SATISFY ALL OF THE APPROVAL CRITERIA REQUIRED.
AND WE KINDLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE OUR PROJECT AS PROPOSED.
AND I'M HERE ALONG WITH MY ARCHITECT FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
UM, THE ONES THAT YOU PRESENTED, THEY'RE PART OF LIKE THE PUBLIC.
I DO HAVE NADIA CIO ALSO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK NADIA PALACIOS, AND I'M THE ARCHITECT, ARDI HERE, THE PROJECT MANAGER.
UM, I REALLY, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UH, WE HAVE MET ALL MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
MY CLIENT HAS MADE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR THE RICH HEIGHT.
AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS THE REASONING BEHIND ASKING US TO REMOVE ALL ORNAMENTATION, REMOVE THE FISH SCALES, SIMPLIFY THE COLUMNS, AND NOT HAVE MONTH THINGS ON THE WINDOWS.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND IT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU PRESENTATION, PLEASE.
I, I, I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO MAKE, MAKE YOUR STATEMENT.
WE, WE WILL BE DELIVERING THESE QUESTIONS AND THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS, BUT I I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT QUESTION WILL COME UP FROM STAFF.
SO, SO WHAT, WHAT I, IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE STAFF ASSIGNED TO OUR PROJECT AND IN PREVIOUS PROJECT PROCESSES, THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE ORNAMENTATION, TO REMOVE MOUNTAINS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT WE ARE PROVIDING A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORY.
THAT THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO IMITATE THE HISTORIC HOUSE THAT WE ARE COPYING, THAT YOU DON'T WANNA REPLICATE.
SO THAT ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A PARTICULAR ARCHITECTURE TO OUR TIME AND THAT THAT ARCHITECTURE IS MODERNIST.
AND YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE NO LONGER CAN DESIGN AND BUILD HOUSES IN A TRADITIONAL STYLE.
AND THAT IS WHY YOU USUALLY RECOMMEND STRIPPING DOWN ALL OF THESE ORNAMENTS BECAUSE IT'S NOT, QUOTE UNQUOTE OF OUR TIME.
SO WE BROUGHT SOME PICTURES HERE FOR YOU.
ITALIAN EIGHT, VICTORIAN 2023 IN BROOKLYN, ROSEMARY BEACH IN FLORIDA.
MOTION TO GRANT THE SPEAKER IN ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
BASED ON GALVESTON 2008 GINGERBREAD VICTORIAN.
DO YOU WANNA GIVE THAT TO ME? SURE.
[01:45:03]
EACH GALVESTON ALSO 2008, SEASIDE, FLORIDA, MORE BEACH TOWN, GALVESTON, CONNECTICUT, SHINGLES, UH, STYLE VICTORIAN WITH DIAMOND PATTERNS ON THE WINDOWS.ALSO CONNECTICUT, ALSO CONNECTICUT, MORE DIAMONDS.
AND THAT ONE IS ALSO IN CONNECTICUT.
THESE ARE ALL CONTEMPORARY VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSES.
THERE REALLY IS NO ARCHITECTURAL OF OUR TIME.
WE HAVE DIFFERENTIATED OUR HOUSE WITH A HYPHEN THAT WILL HAVE VERY DIFFERENT WINDOWS.
THE HOUSE WILL LOOK ALL OUR TIME, MEANING THAT THE MATERIALS ARE NEW AND WE ARE MATCHING THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS, BUT WE ARE ALSO NOT TRYING TO COPY SPECIFIC THINGS ABOUT THE HOUSE.
WE HAVE TAKEN INSPIRATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FROM THE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AVAILABLE TO US AS ARCHITECTS.
AND WE'RE NOT LIMITING OURSELVES TO JUST A BLEEP IN HUMAN HISTORY, WHICH IS WHAT MODERNIST ARCHITECTURE IS.
AND I THINK THAT AS CREATIVE PEOPLE, AND BECAUSE THIS IS NOT WRITTEN ANY CODE, THAT THERE IS A PARTICULAR STYLE TO OUR TIME, MR. TAKE YOU, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DESIGN WHATEVER STYLE WE WANT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT'S HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? AND IF SO, ANNOUNCE YOURSELF NOT HEARING ANYONE.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND WE'LL BEGIN DECLARATIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS OF STAFF AND, AND PERHAPS YOU COULD, UM, UH, PUT UP THE CRITERIA THAT WAS, UM, MOST OF THE, OF THIS DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT, UH, UH, APPEARS OF A FALSE PAST ESSENTIALLY, BUT IN OUR CRITERIA.
UM, UM, SO I CAN READ THE CRITERIA THAT SHE'S, UM, THANK YOU, UH, REFERRING TO, WHICH IS, UH, CRITERION THREE AND HOPEFULLY I DIDN'T MIX UP PAPERS.
UM, THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY MUST RECOGNIZE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, OBJECT OR SITE AS A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME AND AVOID ALTERATIONS THAT SEEK TO CREATE AN EARLIER OR LATER APPEARANCE THAT IS CRITERION THREE.
AS FOR A CRITERION 10, THE PROPOSED ALTERATION OR ADDITION MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MASSING SIZE, SCALE MATERIAL AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CONTEXT AREA.
THOSE TWO WERE THE ONES THAT STAFF FELT, UM, DID NOT SATISFY.
AND I'LL SHARE WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION BECAUSE THE, UH, SPEAKERS HAVE BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT, UH, TOPICS AND, UH, VIEWS.
UM, THOSE OF US WHO FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION AND TOOK PLACE IN THE CAMP, THE LAST CAMP, UH, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, WE HAD, I GUESS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO NOW, UH, IN A MONTH.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED IS THAT OBVIOUSLY IN OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS ACROSS THE, THE NATION, UH, THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE CREATED ORDINANCES AND, UH, AROUND THEIR CITIES AND, AND WHAT THEIR, UM, CONSTITUENTS WANT.
AND SO, UM, AS PRESENTED TO US, THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE, UM, GUIDELINES THAT ALLOW YOU TO DO ANY NUMBER OF TRIM CONFIGURATIONS AND SO ON.
WHAT WE ARE GOVERNED BY IS THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL.
AND, AND IF NOTHING ELSE, I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT ABOUT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME IS THE HOME THAT IT'S BEING ADDED ON TO.
SO THE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CONTEXT AREA, BUT WHAT WE'RE ADDING ON TO IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT, UM, AND THIS IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL DESIGN.
I MEAN, I HAVE TO SAY IT'S, IT'S A VERY, UH, INTERESTING DESIGN THE WAY THAT IT'S, UH, PUSHED BACK BEHIND THE MAIN STRUCTURE WITH A A HYPHEN.
UM, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS A QUESTION OF WHAT IS IN OUR ORDINANCE AND HOW, WHAT THE CONSENSUS OR WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY TO ALLOW THESE VARIOUS ELEMENTS THAT IN THE PAST WE HAVE ASKED FOR ABSTRACTION IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHAT IS ON THE ORIGINAL HOME.
UM, AND WE ALSO HAVE SEEN PROJECTS COME BEFORE US THAT ARE MORE OF OUR TIME AND DEPENDING ON MASSING SCALE AND CONFIGURATION AND OR ABSTRACTION, UM, THIS, THIS BODY HAS WEIGHED, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT
[01:50:01]
THOUGHTS ON THAT.SO I'LL OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS.
UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? YES, I HAVE, UH, A COMMENT I GUESS REALLY FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE ARCHITECT ACTUALLY.
UM, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME OF THE MICROPHONE.
I MEAN, AS AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM FOR HISTORIC STYLES.
UM, AND I ALSO WANNA SAY THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ORNAMENT PER SE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IF THE QUEST, IF THE REQUEST WAS REMOVED, ALL ORNAMENT, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I WOULD NECESSARILY SAY THAT ALL ORNAMENT HAS TO BE REMOVED, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THE CASE THAT YOU MADE AND THE CASE THAT, UH, THE OWNER MADE SO CAREFULLY, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S SORT OF A TENSION BECAUSE ON ONE IN THE FIRST PRESENTATION WE HEARD THAT THE HOUSE EDITION IS DRAWING, UH, THE SCALLOP DETAILS AND THE FINIALS FROM HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
SO WITH EXAMPLES OF OTHER HOUSES WITH SCALLOPS, OTHER HOUSES WITH, UH, DECORATIONS.
AND THE PROBLEM PERHAPS LIES THERE BECAUSE IF IT'S TAKING THOSE DETAILS AND ECHOING THEM IN A BIGGER HOUSE, THEN IT WON'T BE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT, WHICH IS THE OLD ONE AND WHICH IS THE NEW ONE, UH, ON, ON YOUR SITE.
SO THE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE STYLE OF THE ADDITION SO MUCH AS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STYLE OF THE ADDITION AND THE STYLE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE BECAUSE THEY'RE SO SIMILAR, IT SORT OF BLURS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THEM.
WHEREAS THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES EMPHASIZE DIFFERENTIATION, WHICH IS DEFINED IN VARIOUS WAYS.
UM, AND SO I BELIEVE THE INTENT IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UM, WASN'T TO LIKE CREATE A MODERNIST DESIGN OUT OF THE ONE YOU PRESENTED, BUT, UH, TO, TO, TO ASK FOR INSTEAD A, A DESIGN THAT IS, UM, SHOWS MORE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND THE NEW.
SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DIFFERENTIATION, THE WINDOWS, AND THAT IS, YEAH, THAT'S OUR BIGGEST, I KNOW THAT IT'S DIFFERENT IN MANY WAYS, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S PHYSICALLY SEPARATED EXCEPT BY THE HYPHEN, WHICH IS VERY SENSITIVE.
BUT THE ECHOING OF THE SCALLOPED, UM, SHINGLES AND THE ECHOING OF THE, UH, DECORATIVE ELEMENTS IS OPERATING TOO STRONGLY AS A SYMBOLIC, UH, SIGN OF SAMENESS TO THE DIFFERENTIATION IS NOT, UM, NOT OVERCOMING THE SIMILARITY THAT'S COMMUNICATING BY REPEATING THE SAME DETAILS.
WE'RE NOT REPEATING THE SAME DETAILS.
WELL, BY ECHOING OR TAKING INSPIRATION, AS YOU SAID, THEY, THEY COME ACROSS IN WHAT WE'RE SEEING AS TWO SIMILAR.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE POSITION.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT AN ANTI HISTORICIST STANCE.
WHAT IF WE CHANGE THE FISH SCALES TO A DIFFERENT SHAPE? WHAT IF WE CHANGE THE GABLE ORNAMENTS, UM, TO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SHAPE? WE WON ORNAMENT? YES, I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT IS DELIBERATION.
I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD, WOULD ENTERTAIN, UH, A REVISION THAT HAD MORE DIFFERENT LOOKING ORNAMENT PROGRAM.
I MEAN THAT SEEMS THAT IT WOULD BE IN YOUR RIGHT.
WHAT I ASK THAT THE, THE HOMEOWNER, IF YOU WOULD SIT DOWN, WE WE'RE JUST, THE QUESTION WAS CURRENTLY FOR THE ARCHITECT.
SO WE'RE JUST, IT, MY RESPONSE WAS SPECIFIC TO THAT BECAUSE, UM, I DID REALIZE I ONLY HAD THREE MINUTES INITIALLY, SO I DID ADDRESS THAT.
THE PARTICULAR CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE, I UNDERSTAND, BUT THE, THE QUESTION WASN'T FOR YOU, THE QUESTION WAS FOR THE ARCHITECT.
SO, UM, AND IF, IF, IF THE ARCHITECT CAN JUST, JUST, UH, SURMISE HER COMMENT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
SO WE, THERE MAY BE A LENGTH MORE LENGTHY BACK AND FORTH, BUT, UM, BUT, BUT WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS THAT YOU COULD OFFER A DIFFERENT, UH, WAY TO ACHIEVE THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT MAY LOOK DIFFERENTLY.
AND WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANNA POSTMODERN VICTORIAN ADDITION, WHICH IS WHERE THIS BUILDING WOULD LAND IF IT WAS STRIPPED OF ALL DECORATION.
WE DON'T WANT A DIAGRAM OF A VICTORIAN HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AT IT WILL LOOK IN CONGRESS.
WE WANT ORNAMENT, WE WANT INTEREST.
UM, MY CLIENT IS JUST NOT INTERESTED IN A DIAGRAM.
UM, WE CAN COME UP WITH OTHER WAYS TO ORNAMENT, BUT WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SIMPLIFYING,
[01:55:01]
YOU KNOW, LIKE THE COMMON, YOU KNOW, TO SIMPLIFY THE COLUMNS.THE COLUMNS ALREADY ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE COLUMNS IN THE HOUSE.
WE WERE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE.
UM, THAT'S WHY WE MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE THE DIAMOND PATTERNS ON THE WINDOWS.
THEY DO NOT APPEAR IN THE HOUSE.
WE KEPT THE PROPORTION OF THE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS, BUT WE ADDED MOUNTAINS THAT ARE NOT IN THIS HOUSE.
THEY ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT NOT IN THIS HOUSE.
SO I DON'T CONSIDER THAT WE ARE REPLICATING THE DECORATIVE ELEMENTS OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE EVEN OUR BRACKETS ON THE GABLES ARE DIFFERENT THAN IN THE HOUSE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THE SPIRIT, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO BE INNOVATIVE.
THE SIDING OF THE HOUSE ALSO WILL BE DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE WE CANNOT, YOU KNOW, GET THE SIDING ORIGINALLY IN THE HOUSE.
AND IT'S ALSO COST PROHIBITIVE TO GO IN AND HAVE IT CUSTOM MADE.
SO JUST THERE WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN MATERIAL AND SO ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE ADDITION IS A NEW ADDITION IN THE SPIRIT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'D LIKE TO ADD ON TO WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY WAS SAYING AND GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF MORE WORDS THAT WE USE.
UM, AND ONE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND ONE IS SUBORDINATE.
AND SUBORDINATE DOESN'T JUST MEAN SMALLER.
IT MEANS THAT THE ORIGINAL NEEDS TO BE THE STAR.
AND IN THIS CASE, WHILE YOU IN THESE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS CAN BE SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU DON'T SEE 'EM ALL ON ONE HOUSE.
SO IT'S REALLY SOMEWHAT OVERWHELMING.
AND THEN THE OTHER WORD IS HARMONY, UM, AND COMPATIBILITY.
SO, UM, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE REST.
NOT THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO JUST, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY STUNNING AND GORGEOUS, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE WHAT WE SEE IN THE HEIGHTS.
COMMISSIONER SEIDEL, YOU HAD A COMMENT? YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M PERPLEXED THAT THE CONVERSATION HAS GONE DOWN THE ROAD OF ORNAMENTATION ON A HOUSE LIKE THIS.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
IT'S, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS ONE FOR, FOR ME, I, I'VE, I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH IT SINCE LAST WEEK.
I MEAN, TO TO CALL IT HISTORICALLY IRRELEVANT IS CRAZY.
UM, BUT I AGAIN, HAVE TO ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE ORDINANCE AND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE IN CHARGE OF, OF, UM, COMPARING AGAINST WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE GROUP IF THERE WERE ANY MASSING COMMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY PURPOSES HERE.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK, BUT I, I JUST, I, I, I, FROM MY SEAT, I, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
I'M, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT AND I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO COMPARE IT TO THE ORDINANCE.
MR. JONES, IS THERE A, A COMMENT ON THE MASSING OR, OR ANY OTHER ASPECT YOU TO ADD TO THE, I MEAN DISCUSSION I, I'M GOING TO KIND OF BEAR ALONG WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER DAVIS SAID, YOU KNOW, IN THESE PROJECTS, THE STAR IS THE HISTORIC HOME AND THE ADDITIONS SHOULD REALLY, UM, BE SECONDARY TO THE HOUSE AND, AND SHOW OFF WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT THE HISTORIC HOME.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, I LIKE HAVING THE, THE SKETCH DRAWINGS DOWN BELOW BECAUSE IT KIND OF GIVES AN IDEA OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND THE HOUSE, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM.
BUT YOU STILL DO HAVE THIS LARGE MAST VERY BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE SITTING BEHIND THE HOUSE, BUT I QUESTION IF THEY'RE COMPATIBLE WITH A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
GIVE MR. GARCIA TO, TO, TO REINFORCE WHAT, UM, TO REINFORCE WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER JONES, UM, SAID.
YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK I, STANDING ALONE, IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY A GREAT HOUSE, BUT, UM, IT'S NOT A STRONG ADDITION.
IT LOOKS, IT, IT DOESN'T, IT, IT'S, AND, AND ALSO WITH COMM COMMISSIONER DAVIS, IT'S, IT'S ITS OWN BEGINNING.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I I SEE HOW SHE, HOW THE ARCHITECT PULLED THE, UM, THE ORNAMENTATION, SOME OF THE ORNAMENTATION FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE.
BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AND PLAN,
[02:00:01]
UM, AND YOU LOOK, YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE A HOUSE, A SEPARATE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE AN ADDITION.UM, WHICH IS WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS JUST, IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT IS JUST, IT'S CHALLENGING TO TRY AND GET PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S JUST A SEPARATE STRUCTURE.
IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT AN ADDITION.
I, I, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RIDGE, I PROBABLY SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT, UM, THE RELEVANCE JUST SEEMS TO BE MISSING ON THIS.
UM, FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS, UM, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE TEND TOWARD ABSTRACTION BASED ON THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN, RIGHT? LIKE THIS, OUR ORDINANCE COULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW FOR THINGS THAT WOULD BE LIKE IN SEASIDE, IF THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTED, THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SAID, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
AND THE CONSENSUS WAS MADE AND THE ORDINANCE GOT CHANGED AND CITY COUNCIL PASSES IT.
AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S A PROCESS THAT CAN HAPPEN.
BUT THAT'S NOT, IT'S NOT IN, IT'S NOT IN PLACE HERE.
UM, TYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TRIED TO ABSTRACT AND SIMPLIFY THINGS.
OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT HAS SPOKEN THAT THEY'RE TRYING NOT TO CREATE, UM, THE WORD WAS POSTMODERN OR SORT OF A, A SIMPLIFICATION OF THINGS.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE ALLOWED LIKE TO MATCH, LIKE WE HAVE A COLUMN ON THE HOUSE.
WE'VE ALLOWED, WE'VE, WE'VE ASKED TO MAKE THE COLUMNS ON THE ADDITION TO BE SIMPLIFIED SOMETIMES HOW WE'VE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO MATCH THE COLUMN.
IF THE COLUMN WAS PRETTY SIMPLE IN THE MAIN HOUSE.
SOMETIMES WE'VE ALLOWED THEM TO MATCH SOME OF THE DETAILS ON THE MAIN HOUSE.
SOMETIMES IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT BECOMES, YOU CAN DO THIS OR THAT, BUT WHEN YOU DO THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER, IT ALL ADDS UP TO TOO MANY THINGS THAT THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM.
SO SOMETIMES MAYBE NOT ALL THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE REMOVED, BUT, BUT IF SOME OF THEM ARE REMOVED, IT STARTS TO BRING THE INTENSITY OF THE VISUAL, UH, PRESENTATION DOWN A BIT.
SO IT'S, THIS ONE ON THE CONDITION IS REALLY HARD BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO EXACTLY IMAGINE WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE EVEN FOLLOWING STAFF'S CONDITION, WHICH SORT OF LEADS ME TO A DEFERRAL.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I, THIS IS ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT, IT'S A VERY LARGE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A LONG BAR, WHICH WE'VE SEEN, UH, TWO ALREADY BEFORE US TODAY.
UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I I DO FIND THIS PROJECT INTRIGUING.
I MEAN PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND BECAUSE OF HOW FAR BACK THAT LONG BAR IS FROM THE MAIN HOUSE ACTUALLY.
AND, AND THE PLAN WOULD BE, WHICH IS ONE ROOM DEEP IS, IS AND IS VERY INTERESTING.
I FIND, AND, AND I WILL SAY ALSO TO, TO THE POINT THAT THE, UM, BOTH THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNER AND THE UM, THE, UH, ARCHITECT MENTIONED WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT OUR TIME, I MEAN THERE, THE JURY IS OUT ON WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE, UM, YES, MANY PEOPLE OPERATE IN A MODERN SENSIBILITY, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.
AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OPERATING, UM, STILL WITH TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE AND, UM, DETAILING.
THEY'RE, THEY, THEY ARE, THEY ARE CONTEMPORARY, BUT WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND, YOU KNOW, THAT WHAT IS THAT BALANCE, YOU KNOW? AND SO I THINK THAT'S, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT ABOUT THIS THAT I LIKE, FRANKLY, BUT, BUT IT'S ALSO, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON AND THAT'S ALSO PART, PART OF THE ISSUE, I THINK.
IS THERE ANY OTHER, MR. DAVIS? I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I DON'T MIND THE HEIGHT.
YOU MENTIONED THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THE STYLE OF THE QUEEN ANN, IT, I THINK THE HEIGHT VERY MUCH IS IN LINE WITH, WITH THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S BECAUSE THE, THE MAIN HOUSE HAS A 12 OVER 12 ROOF.
IT'S ALREADY REALLY, REALLY BIG AND AND TALL AND YEAH, THE HOMEOWNER REQUEST, HOMEOWNER REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
THERE HAS TO BE A QUESTION OF THE HOMEOWNER, BUT MR. BLAKELY, WOULD THE HOMEOWNER LIKE TO ADD ANY MATERIAL TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED? CAN I ASK THAT THAT'S DONE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PLEASE.
WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT IF WE'RE GONNA GO FORWARD WITH A COMMENT THAT IT STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY AND NOT GO OVER.
I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT THIS BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THE POINTS ARE VALID, EVEN MATTER PRESENTATION MODE PLEASE.
UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, UM, IMAGE, IT CAN LOOK BIGGER.
SO WHAT I WANTED TO PROVIDE WAS CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
SO THIS IS THE CURRENT HOME AND WE HAVE MASSIVE TREES
[02:05:01]
THAT BORDER IT.PART OF THE REASON THAT WHEN WE DID DO THIS LAYOUT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CONCEALED.
SO THIS IS JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A VIEW OF LIKE WITH WHAT THE HOUSE WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE ADDITION WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE FRONT VIEW.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GONNA BE A FENCE THAT'S INSTALLED THAT'S ALSO GOING TO OBSTRUCT IT.
AND THIS IS GONNA BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TREE ALONG THE, UM, NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG NINTH STREET.
THE SAME THING IS GOING TO BE APPLIED HERE, WHERE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
'CAUSE WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THE, THE FULL VIEW, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FENCE LINE THAT'S GOING TO CONCEAL SOME OF THAT MASSING.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE EXISTING VERY MATURE TREES TO HELP CONCEAL BECAUSE I DO AGREE I DON'T WANT IT, I WANT THE OLD HOME TO LOOK PROMINENT.
THAT IS THE INTENTION AND THAT IS WHY WE PUSHED EVERYTHING BACK AND LAID IT OUT.
BUT IT IS HARD TO PERCEIVE WITHOUT VISIBILITY OR WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FULL CONTEXT OF YOU'VE EXCEEDED YOUR TIME.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION OR IS THERE A FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO DEFER THIS SECONDS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER TRAN.
UM, CAN YOU ALSO MAYBE GIVE SOME INDICATION OF WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING FOR DURING THE DEFERRAL THAT WILL HELP THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.
SO, UM, DON'T WANNA SPEAK OUT OF MY ARCHITECTURAL DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE.
UM, THE BASIS FOR MY REQUEST TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DEFERRAL IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE MULTIPLE, UM, POINTS OF ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF PROPOSED.
UM, I WOULD, I, I GUESS MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT THIS IS DEFERRED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TIME FOR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO WORK THROUGH THE NECESSITY OF WHAT WAS THE INTENTION BEHIND THE SHINGLES AND THE ORNAMENTATION AND FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN THOSE THINGS, WHICH I, I DON'T THINK I'M EQUIPPED TO DO FROM HERE AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT IT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INTENTION WAS NOT ELIMINATE ALL ORNAMENTATION.
UM, AGAIN, UM, THE DEFERRAL WOULD ALLOW TIME FOR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS WHAT DIFFERENTIATION LOOKS LIKE BETWEEN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND WHAT SUBORDINATION LOOKS LIKE FOR THAT SECONDARY STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE MASSING AND ADDRESSING SIZE PROPORTION, UM, FROM BOTH, UM, FROM THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE VISUAL, THE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE VISUAL, UM, STREET SIDE AND, UM, THAT A, UH, CONSIDERATION TO THE HOMEOWNER'S POINT ABOUT THE 32 FEET BE RETRACTED.
I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THAT, THAT THIS QUEEN ANN HAS A VERY, UM, UM, STEEP ROOF LINE.
UM, AND, AND THAT, THAT'S NOT PROBLEMATIC FOR ME PERSONALLY, BUT WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE IS REVIEWING THIS AND THAT MASSING IN THAT CONVERSATION WITH STAFF SO THAT WHAT'S RE PRESENTED LOOKS DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT BASED OFF OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS HEARD HERE.
UM, AND DOES NOT KILL THE INTENT OF THE HOMEOWNER AND, AND PROVIDES A BALANCE.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE ALLOWED TO BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE TWO.
THAT, SO I, THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL AROUND WHAT DEFERRAL MEANS, BUT BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE POINT BY POINT SO THAT IT'S NOT UNCLEAR WHAT THE AGENDA OF THE CONVERSATION FOR THE DEFERRAL IS, AND IT'S NOT AMBIGUOUS SAYING THEY CHANGE EVERYTHING.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING THAT DEFERRAL TIME WISELY AND THAT WE ARE, WE'RE HAVING TARGETS TO WORK TOWARD.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION REMAINING.
SINCE THE APPLICANT PRESENTED SOME NEW INFORMATION ON FENCING AND TREES, UM, IS THE COMMISSION TAKING ANY CONSIDERATION IN THAT NEW INFORMATION AND DO YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK FOR STAFF? I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
WE CANNOT TAKE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE TREES, LANDSCAPING AND FENCES ARE NOT PART OF OUR CONSIDERATION.
LIKE A TREE COULD DIE, A FENCE COULD REALLY BE BLOWN OVER OR BE REPLACED OR JUST GO AWAY.
SO BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE CANNOT FACTOR IN WHAT IS OBSCURED BY TREES OR FENCES, WE, WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT.
I DO, I DO TAKE NOTE THOUGH THE, THOSE THE LARGE SIZE OF THE LOT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR LARGER STRUCTURES.
I PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, I DO NOTE, YOU KNOW, I NOTE THE THINNESS OF THE LONG BAR AND HOW IT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE SIDE VIEW AS PRESENTED
[02:10:01]
BY THE, THE, BY THE HOMEOWNER, YOU HAVE A, THE, THE MAIN MASS OF THE HOUSE IN THE FRONT AND WHEN YOU SEE IT FROM THE SIDE, UM, THAT LONG BAR APPEARS TO BE REALLY THIN AND SMALL IN COMPARED TO THAT MAIN HOUSE.SO I, I DO, I DO TAKE THE POINT THAT THE HOMEOWNER MADE THAT CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THE PRIMARY HOUSE STILL IS THE PRIMARY VIEW AND, AND SACRED OBJECT ON THE SITE.
I I THINK IT'S JUST THE, CAN THE ORNAMENTATION BE REPRESENTEDED IN A WAY? AND I THINK THE COMMISSION WANTS TO SEE IT VISUALLY BEFORE THEY CAN MAKE A VOTE ON IT.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE FEEDBACK.
MAY I ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? CAN I, UM, I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DETAILING.
WHAT COMMISSIONERS, UM, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT DESIGNING HERE, BUT JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU FEEL MIGHT BE, UM, THE MORE OF A PROBLEM AND WHAT IS OKAY.
UM, LIKE FINIALS, UM, FISH SCALE SHINGLES, UM, THE TRANSOMS JUST TO BETTER GUIDE HER IN A DIRECTION WHERE SHE CAN GO TOWARDS AN APPROVAL.
OKAY, I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND THEN COMMISSIONER BLAKELY.
I THINK THAT, THAT THE ORNAMENTATION ON THE ADDITION SHOULD BE MORE OF AN INTERPRETATION RATHER THAN A COPY OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE THAT, THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN.
YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE AND DESIGN IS TO JUST PULL EVERY CONTRIBUTING ELEMENT AND PUT IT IN YOUR ADDITION.
THE IDEA IS THAT THE HOUSE ON THE LOT IS THE STAR OF THE SHOW AND THE ADDITION IS SUBSERVIENT TO THAT.
AND THEREFORE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO MODERN INTERPRETATION OF THESE ELEMENTS, BUT DRAW DIRECT ELEMENTS FROM THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT AREA IS I THINK WHERE IT, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR.
UM, SO I'M NOT, I WOULDN'T SAY I WOULD RULE OUT ALL ORNAMENTATION, BUT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T TYPICALLY DO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WINDOW SCHEDULE IS, BUT WE TYPICALLY ENCOURAGE ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS IN THE ADDITION BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO OVER TWO WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE AND WE'RE TRYING TO LET THE HOUSE SHINE, NOT DRAW ATTENTION TO THE ADDITION BECAUSE IT IS OVERLY, YOU KNOW, OR ORNAMENTED
BUT, UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE DIRECTION I WOULD SAY ON THE ORNAMENTATION IS THAT I DON'T, I I I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO KIND OF A MODERN INTERPRETATION OF IT.
AND I MEAN, PERSONALLY FOR ME, THE RIDGE HEIGHT, WHILE I THINK IT WORKS WITH THAT HOUSE, I WOULD AM VERY CAUTIOUS TO GO AGAIN, WE HAVE GUIDELINES, WE HAVE THEM FOR A REASON AND I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF MAKING EXCEPTIONS TO THEM.
UM, I DO FIND THE SCALE OF THE ADDITION, IT IS TALL, IT COULD BE BROUGHT DOWN THAT WILL HELP, YOU KNOW, WITH THE MASSING AND THE SCALE.
I ACTUALLY MAY, MAY I ADDRESS THAT THE 30 FEET IS IN THE QUALITATIVE AND NOT THE MEASURABLE STANDARD.
THAT'S WHY WE SAID 32 BECAUSE THE, THE 12 OVER 12 AS IT'S NOT THE EVE HEIGHT IS IN THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS, BUT NOT THE 30, THE 30 ISN'T THE QUALITATIVE PART.
SO IT IS THAT, THAT'S WHY STAFF OKAY.
KIND OF PUSHED THE LIMIT ON THAT.
WELL, I, I LEAVE THAT TO STAFF TO WORK WITH THE, WITH THE APPLICANT OVER.
AND I DO HAVE JUST ONE SIDE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH FAR IS REMAINING ON THIS PROPERTY? UM, SO THE MAX FAR ALLOWED IS 5,280 AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS 5,000 188.
THIS TIME I DID THE CALCULATION.
I, I ONLY ASK BECAUSE IN THIS RENDERING IS A FOOTPRINT OF A FUTURE GARAGE, WHICH APPEARS TO BE QUITE LARGE MM-HMM
AND THERE IS ONLY A PORTION OF THAT THAT IS EXEMPT IN THE, IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND I JUST, I THINK AS A POINT FOR THE, THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THEY'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE FAR AND THAT ANYTHING OVER THE 5 28 ON THAT GARAGE IS GOING TO COUNT TOWARD THE FAR MAY I ONLY BECAUSE THIS STARTED WITH BOTH OF THEM AND THEN, UM, LIKE THE HOMEOWNER REALIZED THAT SHE NEEDS TO FOCUS ON THE ADDITION AND APPROVE THAT THEN DO THE GARAGE.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND SHE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE INTENTION WAS FOR THE GARAGE TO BE DETACHED AND ATTACHED WITH A COVERED BREEZEWAY AGAIN.
SO THAT'S, THAT KIND OF FALLS INTO IT.
AND THEN THERE'S A CARPORT, AM I CORRECT? YES, YES.
[02:15:01]
THE, THE CARPORT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS AND IF SHE ATTACHED TO, TO THE HOUSE WITH A UNCONDITIONED BREEZEWAY, THEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED DETACHED, WHICH SHE GETS THE EXEMPTION FOR THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR.BUT WE WOULD, WE DID NOT OFFICIALLY GET THAT SUBMISSION, BUT THAT'S HOW IT STARTED.
UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY HAD A QUESTION AND UM, YES.
UM, AS TO SORT OF, UH, THE ISSUE OF THE ORNAMENTATION, LOOKING AT THE RENDERINGS ON PAGE, UM, 12, IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THE ADDITION IS, HAS MORE ORNAMENTATION ON IT THAN THE HOUSE.
UM, THE TRIM UNDER THE, THE EVE OR THE, THE GABLE AS IT FACES THE STREET AND THEN THE VERTICAL KIND OF DECORATION AT THE, AT THE RIDGE.
UM, AND THEN, UH, THE VERTICAL DECORATIONS ON THE, UH, DORMERS THAT FACE THE MAIN BUILDING, THEY ALL, THEY HAVE A KIND OF GOTHIC QUALITY THAT'S TYPICAL OF QUEEN ANN, BUT THAT'S MORE PRONOUNCED THAN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
UM, SO I THINK LIKE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE SHOULD BE THE GUIDE.
THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT USE ORNAMENT WAY UP IN THE AIR.
THAT'S MORE DECORATIVE, FANCIER, IF YOU WILL, THAN THE MAIN HOUSE.
OTHERWISE THAT DOES SEEM TO UNDERMINE THAT THE HOUSE AS THE SORT OF STAR.
I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER DAVIS PUT THAT QUITE WELL.
AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT HOUSTON'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE BASED ON SUBDIVISIONS.
AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE AS A BODY DELIBERATE OVER ONE PARCEL AT A TIME, WHICH FRANKLY I THINK IS PART PROBLEMATIC, WHAT'S BEING THE SPIRIT OF PRESERVATION HERE IS TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, WHICH MEANS THE CONSISTENCY OF THE HOUSES, UM, AND THAT ORIGINAL SET OF ORIGINAL HOUSES BEING SO SIMILAR TO ONE ANOTHER BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILT IN MORE OR LESS THE SAME TIMEFRAME AND BY SOME OF THE SAME COMPANIES, UM, IS REALLY WHAT THAT, THAT WHOLE AREA IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.
SO IF YOU PUT SOMETHING VERY STRONGLY DECORATIVE IN THAT CONTEXT, IT'S NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF, UH, SHOWCASING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CONSISTENCY, THE REGULARITY FROM ONE TO ANOTHER IRREGULARITY THAT IS FIGURED IN SCALE, UM, AS WELL AS IN ORNAMENTATION AND OTHER STYLISTIC DETAILS.
YOU HAD A COMMENT YOU WANTED TO MAKE, I JUST WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK.
I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTFUL, UH, COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO MY QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCING AND THE TREES.
UH, WHILE STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT IN THE NEXT, UH, FEW WEEKS, UH, TO GET, UM, FORWARD, UH, HOPEFULLY, UH, TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS, MY REQUEST TO COMMISSION, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, IS TO REALLY THINK THROUGH THE TREES AND THE FENCES BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS ON A CORNER.
UH, NORMALLY WHEN A PROPERTY IS IN LINE, WE DO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE STREET.
AND SO, UH, WE ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE LENIENT.
UH, IT'S JUST THAT WHILE WE ARE WORKING WITH STAFF OR THE APPLICANT STAFF IS WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, PLEASE TAKE TIME TO THINK THIS THROUGH.
I THINK THIS PROJECT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE APPLICANT, AND I JUST WANT ALL OF US TO, UH, BE, UM, AS, UH, THOUGHTFUL AS WE ARE AND AS YOU ARE RIGHT NOW.
AND REALLY THAT'S JUST MY REQUEST TO YOU COMMISSIONERS.
AND I JUST ADD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU ASKED ME, UH, IF, AS, AS POINTED OUT THE HOME THAT THEY'RE ADDING ONTO, I'M PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, OPEN TO MATCHING CERTAIN THINGS ON THE PRIMARY HOUSE MYSELF.
UM, MAYBE NOT EVERYTHING ON THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT I FIND SCENARIOS WHERE ONE COULD MATCH THINGS ON THE HOUSE.
THERE, THERE WE'RE NOT MATCHING ANOTHER HOUSE DOWN THE ROAD, DOWN THE STREET, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, MAYBE IF THE WINDOWS WERE ONE OVER ONE, BUT WE, BUT WE DO HAVE A BUNCH.
WE WERE MATCHING THE HOUSE IN OTHER WAYS BECAUSE THE WINDOWS ARE NOT TWO OVER TWO.
THAT HELPS TO DIFFERENTIATE THAT FROM THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT IT STILL HAS ELEMENTS THAT ARE ON THE MAIN HOUSE.
AND, AND, AND SO I, I MEAN, I PERSONALLY AM A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN TO ORNAMENTATION, UM, AS PART OF OUR CONVERSATIONS IN NOR HILL, WE HAVE THAT QUITE FREQUENTLY.
AND SO, UM, I THINK THERE, AND THIS COMMISSION HAS, YOU KNOW, ENTERTAINED SOME MORE OF OUR TIME, MODERN ADDITIONS AND THINGS TO, TO HOMES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, UH, WE, WE HAVE OPENED OURSELVES IN THAT WAY.
[02:20:01]
STILL OPEN MYSELF TO THINKING ABOUT ORNAMENTATION.I JUST THINK WE'RE, THERE'S JUST A LOT GOING ON HERE AND IT, IT NEEDS TO BE TONED DOWN A BIT AND, AND TO USE THE MAIN HOUSE AS A REFERENCE POINT AND WHERE, WHERE ABSTRACTION CAN OCCUR SUCCESSFULLY FOR, FOR IN THE EYES OF THE, THE ARCHITECT AND THE HOMEOWNER BE EXPLORED BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY VISUAL CHANGES TO WHAT WE'RE THIS POTENTIAL DEFERRAL SEEING.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TO GET TO AN APPROVAL IT APPEARS.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL CALL THE VOTE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM A EIGHT.
AND JUST, JUST A NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER GARCIA HAS HAD TO LEAD THE MEETING.
CAN THIS ONE SHOULD BE LIGHTER.
UM, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I PRESENT TO YOU, ITEM EIGHT AT 10 21.
UM, ITEM A EIGHT AT 10 21 MAIN STREET AT 32 STORY STEEL FRAMED COMMERCIAL TOWER WITH AN ATTACHED SEVEN STORY PARKING GARAGE SITUATED ON A 64,268 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT.
THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1961 IS A PROPOSED CITY OF HOUSTON LANDMARK.
THAT IS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.
THIS PROJECT IS A HISTORIC TAX CREDIT REHABILITATION REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND IS SEEKING STATE AND, UM, FEDERAL TAX INCENTIVES.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ALTERATION.
IN ADDITION, THAT INCLUDES A NEW SKYBRIDGE CONNECTION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE, UM, GARAGE ROOF.
THE SKYBRIDGE WILL BE A METAL FRAMED OPEN AIR SKY BRIDGE, UH, CONNECTED TO THE TOWER SIXTH FLOOR AMENITY SPACE.
UM, CONNECTING IT TO A NEW ROOFTOP AMENITY AREA ON THE GARAGE.
IT WILL BE CENTERED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION WITH PARTIAL VISIBILITY AND CLAD IN METAL PANELS, MATCHING THE EXISTING GRANITE PANEL DIMENSIONS.
A 15 FOOT TWO INCH OPENING WILL BE CUT INTO THE PARAPET TO ALLOW ACCESS.
THIS OPENING IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 90 FEET, 10 INCHES FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AS PER DOORS AND WINDOWS.
UM, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES INSTALLING VENTILATION LOUVRES WITHIN RESTORED WINDOW WALL SECTIONS ON FLOORS TWO TO 29, REMOVING NON HISTORIC ALTERATIONS TO WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS, AND RESTORING THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION, REPLACING THE NON HISTORIC REVOLVING DOORS IN ON MAIN LAMAR AND MCKENNEY WITH PAIRED GLAZED DOUBLE DOORS, MATCHING THE HISTORIC DESIGN, RETAINING AND REPAIRING ALL ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMS. AS FOR THE GARAGE ROOF DECK, THE EXISTING GARAGE ROOF WILL BE RENOVATED TO INCLUDE A POOL AND AMENITY DECK.
THE DECK IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 38 FEET, EIGHT INCHES FROM THE PARAPET, AND WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET LEVEL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION.
THAT APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL GRANTING LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY, UM, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S, UM, PRESENTATION.
UM, THE AGENT, UM, BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND HISTORIC CONSULTANTS ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A SPEAKER'S FORM THAT I'M AWARE OF FOR THIS ITEM.
SO IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ITEM, UH, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO, UM, APPROACH THE PODIUM AND ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
THEY WILL ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE, BUT IF NOT, THEY, THEY DON'T PLAN TO SPEAK.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS, UM, FROM COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? THANK YOU.
I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION ON PAGES 16 AND 17.
I APOLOGIZE, BUT I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THOSE PHOTOS AND WHERE THE LOOPERS ARE THAT, THAT ARE BEING SHOWN THERE.
YOU THE, IF YOU COULD PRONOUNCE YOUR, YOUR NAME, FULL NAME AND THE, MY NAME MARCO GUTIERREZ, AND I'M WITH GENSLER ARCHITECT AND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FROM THE, FROM THE BEGINNING.
UM, THE REASON WHY YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE IDEA, IS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING GLASS PANELS.
AND BECAUSE OF IT BEING A RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE, UM, EXHAUST RIGHT FOR THE KITCHEN, FOR THE, UH, UH, FOR THE RESTROOMS AND FOR THE WASHER AND DRY, UH, DRYERS.
[02:25:01]
HAVE TO PROPOSE NEW LOUVERS ON THE FACADE, AND ESSENTIALLY WE WANNA MAKE THOSE LOOK SEAMLESS AS IF, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA REPLICATE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PUTTING THE NEW LOUVERS AND WE WANNA MAKE IT SEEM LIKE, UH, WE WE'RE MATCHING THAT COLOR TO BE BLACK TO MATCH THE, THE, THE EXISTING GLAZING.UM, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE FROM THE PICTURE BECAUSE THAT WAS THE IDEA WAS TO MAKE IT LOOK SEAMLESS.
SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PICTURE, NOTHING HAS BEEN ADDED.
UH, IS THAT THE MOCKUP PICTURE? I BELIEVE THAT'S THE MOCKUP PICTURE.
SO THIS IS THE EXISTING, AND IF YOU GO TO THE PROPOSED, THERE SHOULD BE A MOCKUP FRAMING.
YEAH, IT SHOULD BE OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT.
YOU COULD BARELY SEE THAT LOUVRE THERE.
WHERE CAN SOMEONE POINT IT OUT? I MEAN, I JUST, IT'S SEEMS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT EXACTLY IS CAMERA IS, EVEN IF IT WILL BE SUBTLE.
UM, THERE'S A HORIZONTAL MUL IN THERE THAT'S SUPPORTING THAT LOUVRE THERE.
UM, BUT YEAH, THAT WAS THE IDEA IS TO JUST MAKE IT LOOK SEAMLESS.
SO IT'S JUST IN THAT CORNER, IN EACH WINDOW BAY, EACH BAY OF WINDOWS? WELL, IT'LL BE, SO WE HAVE, OR IS IT IN EACH, AT THE TOP OF EACH OF THOSE WINDOWS? IT'LL BE FOR EACH UNIT.
WE'VE GOT 553 UNITS FOR THE 32 FLOORS, BUT, UM, THERE'S ABOUT 20 UNITS PER FLOOR.
SO THERE'LL BE ABOUT 20 LOUVERS THAT THEY RUN FROM, UH, NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH, ALL, ALL SIDES OF THE, UH, THE BUILDING ESSENTIALLY.
BUT THE LOUVERS ARE ONLY LARGE ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE AIR MOVEMENT NEEDING, NEEDING, NEEDED FOR EXHAUST.
AND THE REST IS STILL GLAZED? CORRECT? THEY'RE ABOUT, UH, 10 INCHES HIGH.
AND THEN WE JUST WENT THE, WE RAN THE WHOLE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING, UH, PANEL.
SO THE DARK AREAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOWS IS THAT LOUVERS IS, WHAT IS THAT? OH NO, THAT'S THE EXISTING TRANSOM AT THE BOTTOM.
SO THAT, THAT'S ALL EXISTING AT THE BOTTOM.
ALL WE'VE REALLY MODIFIED IS, IS, UH, RIGHT OVER THAT, THAT LURE AREA.
SO IT'S BASICALLY A FLAT PERFORATED METAL PANEL OR IS IT A GRILL? IT'S A GRILL.
IT'S A, IT'S A HORIZONTAL, UH, LOUVER.
UH, COMMISSIONER SEL? YEAH, I JUST HAVE MAYBE A, I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS PROJECT IS COMING BEFORE US.
SO I, I'M MIGHT JUST BE MISSING SOMETHING.
I SEE THAT IT'S A PROPOSED LANDMARK AND THAT LIKE, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BUILDING.
SO, UM, COMMISSION PASSED THIS AS A CITY OF HOUSTON LANDMARK AND SO IT, AND, BUT IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY A CITY OF HOUSTON LANDMARK UNTIL IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
BUT THEY DO WANT TO START THE C OF A UNTIL IT GOES.
'CAUSE WE'RE, WE, WE DON'T GO EVERY MONTH TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR IS THERE A MOTION I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION JONES SECONDS.
ANY DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON, UM, TO ITEMS A NINE AND A 10 TO BE PRESENTED.
MEMBERS OF THE, UH, HISTORIC COMMISSION.
UH, I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, UH, AN ADDITION IN A NEW GARAGE APARTMENT FOR 2 29 WEST 16TH STREET.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE 1027 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING CRAFTSMAN PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1920.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TWO STORY REAR ADDITION IN A GARAGE APARTMENT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE BOTH REQUESTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE DISTRICT AND IS FLANKED BY TWO, TWO STORY STRUCTURES.
THE LARGER, THE LARGER NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES SHIELD MUCH OF THE PROPOSED WORK FROM THE STREET VIEW.
THE REAR ADDITION WILL UNSET AT EACH OF THE CORNERS OF THE EXISTING HOME.
A SHED ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME WILL BE REMOVED, BUT THE SIDEWALLS WILL REMAIN.
THE ADDITION WILL FEATURE AN EVE HEIGHT OF 21 FEET AND A RIDGE HEIGHT WILL MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 28 FEET FROM AT THE TALLEST POINT OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ENCLOSED DINING AREA AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME.
THE SECOND STORY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE REAR 14 FEET OF THE EXISTING HOME.
THE HOMES WILL TAKE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM THE ALLEYWAY AND THE ADDITION WILL FEATURE SEVEN
[02:30:01]
A SEVEN OVER 12 ROOF PITCH TO MATCH EXISTING.ALL EXISTING WOOD ONE OVER ONE HISTORIC WINDOWS WILL BE RETAINED, AS WILL THE HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING.
STAFF FINDS THE APPLICATION MEETS ALL CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE CERTAIN COMMENT.
UH, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE A FEW, UH, DISCREPANCIES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
UM, FOR THE GARAGE EVE HEIGHT, UH, ON THE, UH, FRONT PAGE, IT WAS OMITTED.
IT IS, UH, 19 FEET SIX INCHES.
UM, AND FOR THE EVE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION, IT IS 21 FEET AND NOT 20.
UH, FOR THE ADDITION, IT STILL MEETS THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS REQUIREMENT, UH, BASED ON THE SETBACK FROM THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
AND IT STILL MEETS FAR CORRECT AS WELL, SO THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED UP.
UM, MR. SAM NUAS, UH, SAM NUAS CREO DESIGN.
ANY QUESTIONS? I MEAN, I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
YOU CAN MAKE, MAKE WHATEVER STATEMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE SO WE CAN NO, I I MEAN WE, IT FEEDS ALL, IT MEETS ALL THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
WE WERE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND, UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'LL, WE'LL, IF, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING ANYONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? YES, I PULLED THIS ONE, BUT I THINK THERE MUST HAVE BEEN WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT BEFORE ARRIVING HERE.
THE REPORT, I THINK THE APPLICATION WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
IT SEEMED THAT LIKE NOT APPLICABLE HAD BEEN CHECKED NEXT TO HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THAT.
BUT I SEE IN THE REPORT AS I'M AS PRESENTED TO ME HERE, THAT THAT IS NOT BEING SUGGESTED.
PERHAPS I'M LOOKING AT, UM, A 10 ON PAGE FOUR, BUT I THINK IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S HAS TO DO WITH THE PORCH, IT SAYS NOT APPLICABLE.
UM, SO I, MAYBE THERE WAS JUST AN INTERMEDIATE VERSION OF THE, UH, APPLICATION THAT I SAW SOME, SOME ERRORS MAYBE THAT HAD BEEN CORRECTED, RIGHT? I, I APOLOGIZE.
BUT YES, THAT THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY CLICKED AS NON-APPLICABLE WHEN IT APPLIES.
IS THERE A MOTION I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFFED RECOMMENDATION SECOND BROWNING SECONDS.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? BOTH ITEMS? THIS IS FOR BOTH ITEMS. IT WAS PRESENTED.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, THOSE BOTH, UH, THOSE ITEMS NINE AND 10 HAVE PASSED.
MAY I MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE MOVE ON? YES, SIR.
SO I JUST, THE, THE CONNECTION OF THE GARAGE AND THE VISUALIZATION IS KIND OF CONSISTENT FROM A PREVIOUS APPLICANT.
I'M JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT FOR THE RECORD.
YEAH, I THINK FOR THIS PROJECT, FOR ME IT'S STILL A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT THERE'S A TWO STORY MASS, BUT THEN THERE'S A ONE STORY MASS AND THEN THERE'S A CONNECTION TO THE GARAGE.
AND SO THERE'S, THERE'S A KIND OF A, THERE'S AN EBB AND FLOW TO THIS ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT MADE IT, I BELIEVE, MADE IT GO THROUGH MUCH MORE QUICKER AND WITH LESS, UH, DELIBERATIONS.
UH, UH, SAMANTHA, PLEASE PROCEED WITH THE 11.
SORRY, I WASN'T SURE IF YOU HAD ANNOUNCED IT ALREADY.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DEON.
I SUBMIT ITEM A 11 AT 4 1 4 WOODLAND STREET IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
THE 2,365 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING QUEEN AND STYLE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1895.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY REAR ADDITION, ADDING 529 SQUARE FEET TO THE FIRST FLOOR
[02:35:01]
AND 1,537 SQUARE FEET TO THE SECOND FLOOR, TOTALING 2000, UH, 0 66 SQUARE FEET.PROPOSING A TOTAL PRIMARY RESIDENCE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 3,590.
THE APPLICATION RECEIVED FOUR LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, THE FIRST, UM, SPEAKER I'VE SIGNED UP IS SAM G NUAS, SAM LUCAS CREO DESIGN.
UH, WE WORKED REAL HARD ON TO TRY TO GET MO THIS REMODEL EVERYTHING BEHIND THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM, CAN YOU SHOW THIS, UH, FROM THE 3D RENDERING DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE.
UM, I DID MEET WITH STAFF, UH, SAMANTHA LAST WEEK OR MAYBE THE WEEK BEFORE NOW, AND SHE ASKED ME TO DROP THE RIDGE ON THE ADDITION IN THE BACK BY A FOOT, WHICH WE DID, AND ASKED ME TO ELIMINATE TWO WINDOWS THAT WERE ON THE SIDE OF THE, OF THE BAY WINDOW THAT COMES OUT THERE, WHICH WE DID AS WELL.
AND SO IT, UH, I THOUGHT IT ALL BLENDED REALLY WELL AND, UH, AND, AND THE CLIENT REALLY LIKES THE BAY WINDOW.
AND THAT'S, UH, INITIALLY I HAD JUST A FLAT WALL THERE AND AFTER SEEING THE BAY WINDOW, 'CAUSE I'M NOT A BIG BAY WINDOW FAN, I ACTUALLY LIKE THE BAY WINDOW
SO I, I THINK IT WORKS REALLY WELL IN IT.
AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE 3D IMAGE THAT YOU DON'T REALLY NOTICE THAT ADDITION HERE IT IS HERE AS WELL.
WE'RE ACTUALLY 12 FOOT NINE INCHES WITH THAT RIDGE FROM THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, 12 FOOT NINE INCHES BEHIND THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
SO WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WITH THAT RIDGE.
AND WE'RE ALSO, UH, 56 FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
SO WE'RE CON ON A HUNDRED, ON A HUNDRED FOOT DEEP LOT.
SO WE'RE CONSIDERABLY FAR BACK ON THE LOT AND IT'S AN OVERSIZED LOT ALSO.
OKAY, THE NEXT SPEAKER SIGNED UP IS BRADLEY ADAMS. PRESENTATION MODE PLEASE.
UH, THANK YOU FOR ALL BEING HERE AND LISTEN TO OUR CASE.
I'M BRADLEY ADAMS. I'M, I'M THE APPLICANT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, MY WIFE ALYSSA AND I ARE BOTH PHYSICIANS IN THE COMMUNITY HERE IN HOUSTON.
WE LIVE IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS AND OUR KIDS GO TO SCHOOL HERE IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF OUR DREAM TO BUILD, UH, ALONG THE, IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT AND, AND HONOR THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
UM, WE'VE HAD THE PLEASURE WORKING WITH SAM, WITH CREOLE, WHO I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL VERY WELL, UH, VERSED WITH, UM, TO HELP DESIGN THIS RENOVATION.
IN ADDITION TO THE HISTORIC PROPERTY, UH, IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US TO PRESERVE THE BEAUTY OF THE EXISTING HOME AND MAKE THAT SORT OF THE, UH, UH, FRONT PIECE AND, AND MOST IMPORTANT VISUALIZATION, WHICH IS WHY AS YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO PUT EVERYTHING BEHIND SO THAT WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THAT, UM, ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
UM, THE HOUSE IS VERY OLD, 1895, AND THAT WAS, WE'RE ONLY THE THIRD FAMILY TO OWN THIS HOUSE.
WE'RE VERY, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US TO KIND OF PRESERVE THAT, UM, AND, AND HONOR THAT.
UM, THE ONLY, THE SIDE BAY WINDOW, WE, WE ACTUALLY KIND OF DROVE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT OTHER QUEEN AND UH, HOMES AND UM, TRIED TO UH, SORT OF, UH, KINDA HONORED THAT, THAT THE, THE APPEARANCE OF THAT WITH THE BAY WINDOW, WE, UH, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY NON-STANDARD FLAT WALL THERE, BUT WE ADDED THAT ON THE SIDE WITH THE GABLE ABOVE IT AND WE FELT THAT THAT SORT OF KEEPS IN LINE AND, AND HONORS THE, THE STRUCTURE THERE QUITE WELL.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, SAM AND US, UH, WORKED REALLY HARD TO HOPE, HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, KEEP THIS ALL IN LINE AND WORKED WITH STAFF TO MAKE A FEW SMALL ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE REQUESTED.
LIKE HE SAID, THE MAKE DECREASE IN THE SIZE AND WINDOWS WITH THE BAY WINDOW, UM, WHICH WE WERE HAPPY TO DO AND UM, WE JUST ASKED FOR YOUR HELP AND APPROVAL AND HELPING US BUILD OUR DREAM HOME.
SO I THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
THE NEXT SPEAKER SIGNED UP IS GAIL PRIEST.
I LIVE ON EAST WOODLAND STREET.
UH, I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE, WROTE A LETTER.
UM, THE REASON I CAME TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY WAS I WANTED TO JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT I KNOW THESE PEOPLE WELL.
THEY TOOK GREAT CARE AND WHEN THEY WERE WORKING ON KEEPING THE OVERALL HISTORIC FEEL TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BY PUTTING A MODERN TWIST ONTO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, UM, YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE SHOULD BE THE STAR.
AND I THINK THEY'VE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT MAKE IT THE STAR.
UM, THE HOMEOWNER BEFORE THEM HAD TAKEN THE WRAPAROUND PORCH AND HAD CHANGED IT INTO A CLOSET ON THE ONE
[02:40:01]
SIDE AND THEY FOUND THE, UM, ORIGINAL DRAWINGS THAT SHOWED THAT IT WAS A WRAPAROUND PORCH.SO THEY WENT AND PUT THAT BACK IN THE HOUSE.
ALSO HAS NUMEROUS CHIMNEYS TO IT, WHICH THERE ARE NO FIREPLACES DOWN IN THE ORIGINAL BUILDING ANYMORE.
AND SO THEY'RE LEAVING THOSE FIRE, THOSE CHIMNEYS THERE TO AGAIN KEEP THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF THE STAR OF THE SHOW.
AND THANK YOU AND I HOPE YOU APPROVE IT.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING YOU.
AND I'M GOING TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS APPLICATION? COULD WE ROLL THE, MAYBE THE IMAGES ON THE DRAWINGS, PERHAPS ON THE SCREEN WHILE WE DELIBERATE ELEVATIONS PLEASE? STAFF WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD FOR CLARIFICATION THAT THIS HOUSE IS LOCATED ON A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND THAT THERE ARE ALSO NO DESIGN GUIDELINES IN WHITLAND HEIGHTS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMENTS? MR. ESCOBAR? CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S UH, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? SECOND,
ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? AYE.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 1512.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEONE.
I SUBMIT ITEM A 12 AT 515 COLUMBIA STREET IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF A PARTIAL APPROVAL.
THE 2,848 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING GABLE FRONT COTTAGE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1910.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED 352 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND ADD EIGHT, UH, 16 SQUARE FOOT WALKWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FRONT PORCH TO UPDATE CURB APPEAL.
THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE CARPORT WOULD BE 14 FEET AND THE EVE HEIGHT WOULD BE 12 FEET.
AS THE CARPORT LOCATION AND ITS ATTACHMENT DOES NOT MEET THE HEIGHTS MEASURABLE STANDARDS OR DOES NOT MEET THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES.
STAFF CANNOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS AWARE AND REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED A STATEMENT THAT IS LOCATED ON PAGE 14 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS PARTIAL APPROVAL DENIAL OF THE CARPORT EDITION AND APPROVAL OF THE PORCH RENOVATION.
THE APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF YOU COULD PLEASE ADDRESS THE, UH, COMMISSION AND, AND STATE YOUR FULL NAME, UM, IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.
I AM, UM, AN EMPLOYEE OF A LIBO REMODELING AND WE DID A PROJECT AT THIS HOUSE TWO YEARS AGO AND HAD TO REBUILD THE GARAGE 'CAUSE IT WAS IN REALLY BAD CONDITION AND WE HAD A HARD TIME GETTING THROUGH HISTORIC WITH THAT GARAGE AND HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS BECAUSE WHEN WE WENT TO REPAIR IT, IT FELL APART AND, UM, THE, THE FOUNDATION CRUMBLED SO WE HAD TO HOLD THE WALLS UP.
SO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS HOUSE IN THE PAST.
UM, THIS IS JUST A CARPORT IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
THEY HAVE TWO YOUNG CHILDREN AND WOULD LIKE A COVERED, UM, CARPORT TO GET THE KIDS INTO THE HOUSE WITHOUT RAIN.
UM, THE CARPORT IS, UM, NOT, UM, NOT ENCLOSED.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING, GOING OUT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS? ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? SO, UH,
[02:45:01]
ONE OF THE RENDERINGS SHOWS THE GARAGE, I GUESS IT'S IN THE BACK, SORT OF LEFT CORNER OF THIS LOT AS YOU FACE THE HOUSE, BUT ONE OF THEM SEEMS NOT TO SHOW A BUILDING A STRUCTURE BACK THERE.SO THAT ONE IS THAT THE GARAGE IS THE BACK CORNER THERE OR WHAT, WHAT IS THAT? YES MA'AM.
THAT IS THE GARAGE IN THE BACK CORNER AND THAT'S GOING TO STAY THERE.
RIGHT? THAT THE DETACHED GARAGE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION? ONLY THE CARPORT.
AND THEN IS THERE A REASON WHY THE CARPORT CAN'T BE FARTHER BACK FROM THE STREET? AS THE AGENT STATED, THE APPLICANT OR THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD LIKE A CARPORT MORE COVERED SO THEY'RE ABLE TO GET INTO THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH RAIN.
SO THAT WAS JUST, UH, CAN YOU SHOW ME THE DOOR? GO BACK.
IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE.
JACK, ISN'T THE DOOR OUTSIDE THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED IN THE FRONT DOOR? THE A THE AGENT BEHIND ME IS SAYING THAT THEY ENTER THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR.
I DON'T SEE A DOOR IN THE COVERED AREA.
THEY GO THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR ON THE FRONT.
IS THAT THE CARPORT THAT I'M LOOKING AT OR IS NOT THE, THE PROPOSED CARPORT? YES, MA'AM.
BUT WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO GO? OKAY.
I I'M CONFUSED BY THIS RENDERING 'CAUSE I SEE A FENCE WHICH MAKES IT, IS THAT THE SIDE FENCE THERE? SO THE FENCE IS THE SIDE FENCE? YES.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE GARAGE IS A REAR.
SO THIS IS A RENDERING AND I BELIEVE AN AI RENDERING.
SO THERE MAY BE SOME INCONSISTENCIES ON WHAT PLACEMENT OR CERTAIN, UH, FENCING PLACEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT, BUT THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A DOOR IN THE COVERED AREA IN THAT IMAGE.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY THAT THEY'RE ENTERING THROUGH THE FRONT PORCH, WHICH IS NOT CONNECTED, WHICH WOULD MEAN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE TO GET INTO THE FRONT DOOR.
UH, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FLOOR PLAN.
SO THIS DOESN'T, THE CARPORT WOULD NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF NOT HAVING TO GO OUTSIDE.
I'M NOT JUST BEING TENDENTIOUS, BUT IF THE CLAIM IS THAT THE IDEA IS TO HAVE A COVERED PLACE TO GO FROM YOUR CAR TO THE INTERIOR, UM, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.
UM, AND THEN I'M NOT SURE WHY THE CARPORT IS NOT FARTHER BACK ON THE SITE.
SO FARTHER AWAY FROM THE STREET, MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER, THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? STAFF? WHAT, SO FOR CARPORTS, HOW FAR BACK ARE CARPORTS GENERALLY? SO IN THE HEIGHTS WITHIN, WITHIN THIS AREA? YES.
SO IN THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH SHOULD BE ALSO RIGHT, RIGHT, THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND SEE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT OVER HERE STATES THAT CARPORT SHOULD BE LOCATED IN THE 50%, UH, TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT.
SO THIS IS OBVIOUSLY LOCATED TOWARDS THE FRONT AND NOT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT TOWARDS THE FRONT, NOT IN THE 50% OF THE REAR.
AND IT IS ALSO ATTACHED, WHICH THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES CLEARLY STATES THAT ATTACHED CARPORTS ARE NOT PROHIBITED OR ARE NOT ALLOWED.
COMMISSIONER CORO, I JUST WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SECOND, ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
ALL OPPOSED TO THE MOTION THAT MOTION PASSES? UH, SO, UH, WE, AS I'VE MENTIONED THE VOTE EARLIER, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE PRESENTATION AND UPDATE THE ORAL DESIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE CONVEYED TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING TODAY, AND WE ARE GONNA HAVE, I BELIEVE, A VERY, UM, A, A VERY ROBUST, UM, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATION AND UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT I BELIEVE IS STILL A DRAFT.
IT, IT'S STILL A VERY MUCH A DRAFT.
AND SO WE ARE AT A VERY, UM, STILL EARLY STATE IN, IN, IN A SENSE, AND I'VE ASKED TO MOVE THIS PRESENTATION FORWARD SO THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND THE DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO, I BELIEVE ENSUE,
[02:50:01]
THEN THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT JUST AS WE WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESENTATION.AND THEN, AND THEN WE, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO THE, SO THEN THE PUBLIC CAN THEN COMMENT BASED ON ALL THAT THEY HAVE HEARD, UH, IN THE TOTALITY.
SO WITH THAT, UM, I'D LIKE TO PROCEED WITH, UH, THE PRESENTATION AND UPDATE ON THE NOAL DESIGN GUIDELINES.
HI STAFF PERSON, SAMANTHA DEION.
I WAS JUST INFORMED BY THE ARCHITECT.
UH, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A DESIGN REVIEW FOR MY PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT, THAT WAS JUST, THAT YOU GUYS JUST, UH, ACTED ON, WAS A DESIGN REVIEW.
THEY DID LET ME KNOW IN THE DESIGN REVIEW THAT THEY PLANNED ON ADDING A POOL WHERE WAS NOT SPECIFIED, BUT SHE DID INFORM ME THAT THE REASONING FOR THE CARPORT WANTING TO BE IN FRONT TOWARDS THE FRONT WAS BECAUSE THE POOL WOULD BE KIND OF IN THAT BACK AREA WHERE THEY COULD HAVE MOVED THE, THE CARPORT THEORETICALLY.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT CHANGES ANYTHING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HAC CAN RESCIND A VOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT AS NEW INFORMATION, UM, OR THIS CAN BE DEFERRED UNTIL NEXT MONTH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE THAT CLARIFICATION.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN, UM, I'LL JUST SAY I DON'T THINK WE CAN ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION FOR A POOL OR, OR A POOL, RIGHT, THAT WE DIDN'T SEE.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME.
THERE, THERE, THERE MIGHT BE, I CAN'T SAY THERE WOULDN'T BE A DEFERRAL, BUT I'D HAVE TO, UM, I'D HAVE TO SEEK FROM THIS BODY WHETHER THERE WAS CONSENSUS TO, UH, CHANGE THE RECONSIDER A DEFERRAL FOR, FOR THE VOTE.
BUT, UM, I'M NOT SENSING THAT'S THE CASE, SO NO, NO PROBLEM.
I JUST HAD TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE AND SAY THAT.
ITEM C IS A PRESENTATION OF AN UPDATE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S WORK ON REVIEW OF PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BEEN TASKED WITH FINALIZING A FINAL VERSION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO BE ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE HHC.
TODAY'S PRESENTATION WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY ACTION OF THE HHC, RATHER AS A SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S WORK ON THE NOR NOR HILLS DESIGN GUIDELINES.
A DRAFT OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WAS APPROVED BY THE HHC WITH CONDITIONS.
HOWEVER, THE VERBAL CONDITIONS ISSUED AT THE JUNE MEETING PROVED DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE AND A SUBCOMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED.
TO ADDRESS THESE CONDITIONS, THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS PRODUCED A DRAFT OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES PER THE INSTRUCTION SET FORTH BY THE HHC.
THESE INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDE REFINING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENT, RECONCILING THE ATTIC AND GARAGE SPACE SPECIFICATIONS WITH EXTERIOR MASSING, RESOLVE BUILDING AND PLATE HEIGHT ISSUES, AND TEST THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO CONFIRM THEIR, THEIR APPLICABILITY AND TO COPY EDIT THE FINAL DOCUMENT.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S PROCESS WAS, UH, INCREMENTAL AND COLLABORATIVE, FOCUSING ON TECHNICAL REFINEMENTS AND FEASIBILITY CHECKS.
THE INFORMAL NATURE OF THE MEETINGS ALLOWED FOR FLEXIBILITY AND DIRECT ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS, AND AS SUCH, THEY WERE TREATED AS INTERNAL WORKING MEETINGS RATHER THAN PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS.
THE PROCESS WAS SHAPED BY BOTH INTERNAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK COLLECTED THROUGH VARIOUS CHANNELS, ENSURING THE REVISED GUIDELINES ADDRESS BOTH TECHNICAL AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS.
SOURCES OF THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK COLLECTED INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
REGARDING FLORIDA AREA RATIO OR FAR, THE SUBCOMMITTEE IDENTIFIED THAT ROUGHLY THREE QUARTERS OF NOR HILL PARCELS FELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF 5,000 TO 5,200 SQUARE FEET.
GARAGE APARTMENTS AVERAGED APPROXIMATELY 520 SQUARE FEET.
USING THIS INFORMATION, THE FAR PROVISION RE REVISED THE SIMPLIFY THE TABLE TO APPLY TO MOST LOTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION OF LARGER TRACKS.
THIS ALSO ELIMINATED THE CLIFF PROBLEM FROM PREVIOUS DRAFTS, WHICH RESULTED IN LESS ALLOWABLE SPACE OVER MULTIPLE TIER TRANSITIONS.
MOST PARCELS WOULD HAVE A FAR LIMIT OF 2300 SQUARE FEET WITH HIGHER ALLOWABLE SPACE IN LARGER PROPERTIES.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE THEN CONDUCTED SITE PLAN MODELS OF THE FAR REQUIREMENT TO TEST THE APPLICATION WITH OTHER MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
WE FOUND THAT THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS ACHIEVABLE OVER VARYING ADDITION TYPES AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, THE TWO STORY ADDITION AND MAXIMUM BILLABLE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 1,980 SQUARE FEET.
AFTER APPLYING THE 19 FOOT REAR SETBACK, THIS BUILDABLE AREA FALLS SHORT OF THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE FAR, THE SUBCOMMITTEE THEN REVISED THE FAR EXEMPTION TO ALLOW FOR DETACHED GARAGES.
MORE TYPICAL OF THE PROFILE OF THE DISTRICT REGARDING ATTICS AND GARAGE SPACES.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE REVISED LANGUAGE TO ELIMINATE THE REFERENCES TO CONDITIONED ATTICS AND GARAGE SPACES.
[02:55:02]
THIS PLACES THE EMPHASIS ON MASSING.IT WOULD NOT REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THE SPACES BEING FINISHED WITHIN AN INTERIOR.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEWED PREVIOUS CFAS TO COMPARE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WITH WHAT HAD BEEN RECENTLY APPROVED.
THIS IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS CAN BE PRACTICALLY APPLIED.
REGARDING EDITS FOR CONSISTENCY, THE COMMITTEE MADE EDITS INTENDED TO MAKE THE DOCUMENT MORE CONSISTENT AND ACCURATE.
THESE INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO REVISING THE GRADE DEFINITION TO INCLUDE CROWN OF THE STREET FOR MORE CONSISTENT BENCHMARK AS WELL AS REVISING CONTEXT AREA TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE.
STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO INCLUDE REVISIONS TO IMPROVE THE DOCUMENT'S, CLARITY THROUGH TEXT AND SUPPORTING ILLUSTRATIONS.
FOR TODAY, NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.
WE HAVE SUBMITTED A DRAFT OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC VIEWING AND FURTHER DISCUSSION.
OUR ONLINE COMMENT PORTAL YIELDED 22 RESPONSES WITH 11 INDICATING OPPOSITION TO THE GUIDELINES AND NINE EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE JUNE VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT AND SUBCOMMITTEE REVISIONS.
AND TWO FOLLOW WITHOUT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UM, I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, UH, START BY ASKING COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND THEN COMMISSIONER DAVIS TO, UM, DISCUSS A BIT ABOUT THIS EXPERIENCE THAT YOU, UM, YOU HAVE, UH, SPENT MANY HOURS AND AT TIME GOING THROUGH, UM, THE INFORMATION.
AND THIS HAS ALSO BEEN A PROCESS SO THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS MET AND THEN THE COMMITTEE IS WORKING WITH STAFF AND, UM, SO PART OF WHAT I BELIEVE IS ONLINE HAS TO DO WITH THE COMMITTEE WORK.
PART OF IT HAS TO DO WITH STAFF THAT, UH, THERE'S BEEN A DRAFT BACK AND FORTH.
AND I THINK, UM, I'D JUST BE CURIOUS TO HEAR SOME COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE, OF THE COMMITTEE STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER COSGROVE FILED BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS OR VICE VERSA.
UM, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN LONG.
IT IS NOT BEEN EASY TO GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT, THE JUNE DRAFT AND SORT OUT ALL OF THE INCONSISTENCIES.
AND THESE CAN RANGE FROM THE WORD MEASURABLE BEING MISSPELLED IN THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS SECTION TO REFERENCES TO PAGES THAT DON'T EXIST OR SECTIONS THAT DON'T EXIST, OR DEFINITIONS THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENTLY APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.
AND SOME OF THE DE DEFINITIONS IN GENERAL AND HOW THEY INTERACT WITH THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
AND I KNOW I'M, THIS IS A RED LINE VERSION.
THIS WAS, WE WORKED FOR STAFF.
WE COULD NOT WORK ON THE DOCUMENT AS A SINGLE ENTITY.
SO I READ THROUGH IT, I WORKED ON IT, I CAME UP WITH A LIST OF SUGGESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS DID THE SAME, STAFF DID THE SAME.
AND THEN WE HAD TO MERGE ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS INTO ONE RED LINE.
SO IF YOU SEE SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN IT, THERE ARE, IF THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT DON'T QUITE MAKE SENSE OR THAT YOU WEREN'T EXPECTING, WE WE KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE CASE BECAUSE THE CONTEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT IS WHERE WE WERE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME WHEN WE PUT IT ALL TOGETHER.
AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING YOU'RE READING TODAY IS GOING TO BE IN THE, THE FINAL DRAFT THAT THERE, THIS IS STILL A WORKING DOCUMENT.
THERE ARE STILL CHECKS GOING ON IN TERMS OF HOW THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS INTERACT.
MAYBE INDIVIDUALLY, THEY ALL WORK AS INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, BUT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS SOMETIMES WHEN YOU START COMBINING THEM, WE ARE HAVING SOME ISSUES MEETING FAR ON SOME OF THE LARGER LOTS.
UM, AND IT, IT, IT'S JUST A PROCESS OF TRYING TO WORK THROUGH IT SO THAT WE CREATE A DOCUMENT THAT ANYONE CAN PICK UP AND USE AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B.
AND IT, IT, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT IT IS A WORK, WORK IN PROGRESS AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE GOING TO, I, I THINK OUR GOAL IS TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENT FOR YOU TO SEE THAT WILL HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN IT BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE HAVE ANALYZED.
AND SO THAT THIS COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC CAN MAKE COMMENT ON CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MIGHT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE, THE CONFLICT AND THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
AND THEN ALLOW THIS COMMISSION AS A BODY TO VOTE ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT THE PUBLIC GIVES.
AND BASED ON THE DISCUSSION IN THIS ROOM TO DETERMINE THE DIRECTION
[03:00:01]
OF SOME OF THESE MEASURABLE STANDARDS, UM, I AM THE, THE FAR WAS, WE WERE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT PRETTY EASILY.YOU DON'T SEE A CHANGE IN THAT.
I AM SURE A LOT OF YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GARAGE SITUATION WITH, AS, AS IT RELATES TO THE GARAGE APARTMENT AND THE FAR NUMBER IN OUR C COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THERE WAS SOME CONFLICT BETWEEN HOW THINGS WERE DEFINED AND WE WERE CHARGED WITH EXCLUDING.
THERE WAS A LOT OF, I'M TRYING TO JUST FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY THIS EASILY.
THERE WAS TALK ABOUT CONDITION SPACE IN HABITAL SPACE AND LIVING SPACE AND WHAT AN ATTACHED GARAGE WOULD AND WHAT A DETACHED GARAGE WAS.
AND I THINK THAT THE GARAGE IS, IS EVOLVING BASED ON HOW WE'RE DEFINING IT AND HOW IT'S GOING TO INTERACT WITH ADDITIONS.
AND IT BY NO MEANS, MEANS THAT EVERY LOT COULD SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A 2300 SQUARE FOOT EDITION AND A TWO CAR GARAGE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT AND, AND IT'S NOT WORTH, I I I THINK IT'S WORTH LETTING THE PROCESS PLAY OUT TO SEE WHERE THAT GOES AND WHAT RECOMMENDATION WE MIGHT HAVE ON THAT WHEN THE FINAL DRAFT IS, IS PUT FORTH.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO WHAT COMMISSIONER, UM, HAR UH, COSGROVE, UM, HAS, HAS SAID.
AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE SOME TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHAT WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN DOING SINCE AUGUST, UM, SINCE I'VE HEARD THAT WORD A LOT LATELY.
UM, FIRST I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW WHERE WE STARTED.
NONE OF THE DATA BEHIND THE EARLIER DRAFTS WAS AVAILABLE TO US.
WHATEVER WAS GATHERED TO SUPPORT THOSE NUMBERS, WE DID NOT HAVE IT.
SO BEFORE WE COULD ANSWER THE COMMISSION'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR AREA THESE GUIDELINES AC ALLOW ACTUALLY FITS INSIDE THE SETBACKS THEY REQUIRE, WE HAD TO BUILD THE RECORD OURSELVES.
WE READ OFF SURVEYS PROPERTY BY PROPERTY TO GET REAL LOT DIMENSIONS AND REAL HOUSE DIMENSIONS.
INSTEAD OF ASSUMED ONES, WE READ OFF CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THIS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED IN NOR HILL TO FIND THE RIDGE HEIGHTS AND THE FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHTS OF PROJECTS.
THIS, THE PROJECTS THIS BODY HAS ALREADY APPROVED.
WE PULLED 20 YEARS OF APPRAISAL RECORDS FOR THE WHOLE DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT RATHER THAN WHAT PEOPLE ARE AFRAID WILL BE BUILT.
WE PHOTOGRAPHED HOUSES FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, ABOUT 20 OF ABOUT 20 PROPERTIES, THREE VIEWS EACH FRONT AND BOTH SIDES.
THIS COMMISSION ARGUES ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE AS A NUMBER AND A NUMBER IS NOT WHAT ANYBODY SEES.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT A SQUARE FOOTAGE FIGURE ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU'RE STANDING IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF IT.
ON ONE BLOCK, WE PHOTOGRAPHED TWO HOUSES THAT ARE 80 SQUARE FEET APART.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THE ROOF ON ONE.
THE SECOND STORY IS ABSORBED INTO THE HIP ROOF AND THE HOUSE READS FROM THE STREET AS A ONE STORY COTTAGE.
THE OTHER, IT SITS UP AS A BOX AND YOU CAN'T MISS IT.
A SECOND STORY ON BOTH AND THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE.
I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT TO ARGUE FOR A BIGGER NUMBER OR A SMALLER NUMBER.
I'M TELLING YOU THAT FLOOR AREA AND WHAT THE STREET ACTUALLY SEES ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND A STANDARD BUILT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE THE SAME THING IS GOING TO SURPRISE PEOPLE.
WE MAP THE LOTS BY SIZE AND WHERE THEY SIT BECAUSE WHERE THE LARGER LOTS ARE TURNS OUT TO MATTER AS MUCH AS HOW MANY THERE ARE.
AND WE BUILT THESE HOUSES ON PAPER, ELEMENT BY ELEMENT, FLOOR PLATE, FLOOR, FLOOR TO PLATE TO ROOF.
AGAIN, WE ARE MODELING EACH STANDARD ON ITS OWN AND THEN ALL THE STANDARDS TOGETHER BECAUSE A STANDARD THAT READS SENSIBLY BY ITSELF CAN COMBINE WITH OTHERS TO PRODUCE A HOUSE THAT NOBODY INTENDED.
THAT WORK DID NOT EXIST IN AUGUST.
IT EXISTS NOW AND WE HAVE REAL DATA TO NOW WORK WITH, AS JEFF SAID, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF SMALL HOUSES.
TWO OUT OF THREE ARE UNDER 1500 SQUARE FEET.
NINE OUT OF 10 ARE UNDER 2000 SQUARE FEET.
AND NOR HILL HAS BEEN UNDER DESIGN REVIEW SINCE JUNE OF 2000 WITHOUT EVER HAVING AN ADOPTED SIZE STANDARD.
SO WE'RE NOT GUESSING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT ONE.
238 HOUSES HAVE EXPANDED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.
THREE OF THEM FINISHED AT 3000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
THREE, THE MEDIAN ONE LANDED 600 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE CAP THAT THIS STRAP WOULD SET.
ONE CAUTION AGAINST MY OWN NUMBERS,
[03:05:01]
THE APPRAISAL ROLE LAGS CONSTRUCTION SOMETIMES BY TWO YEARS.SO THE FIGURES STOP AT THE 2025 ROLL.
SEVERAL HOUSES THIS COMMISSION APPROVED RECENTLY ARE NOT ON IT YET.
SO THE RECORD THROUGH 2 25 SHOWS NO DRIFT IN SIZE AND THE MOST RECENT YEARS ARE NOT FULLY IN THAT RECORD.
SO I WOULD TELL YOU THAT WHETHER THEY HAVE IT TURN UP LATER, UM, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU NUMBERS ON THIS TODAY.
I HAVE TO TAKE WHAT, UM, AND A NUMBER I HAVE TO TAKE BACK LATER IS WORSE THAN NO NUMBER AT ALL.
WHAT I CAN GIVE YOU IS THE QUESTIONS WE ARE FINALLY ABLE TO, UH, TO ASK, WHICH WE COULD NOT ASK IN AUGUST.
CAN A HOUSE OF THE SIZE THIS CHARGE PERMITS, CHART PERMITS ACTUALLY BE BUILT INSIDE THE SETBACKS? THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES WHAT DOES A 28 FOOT RIDGE HEIGHT, RIDGE HEIGHT CAP ACTUALLY LIMIT ON A NOR HILL LOT? WHAT DOES A PLATE HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR CONTROL IF THE FINISHED FLOOR ITSELF IS NOT CAPPED AND WHEN TWO OR THREE OF THESE STANDARDS APPLY TO THE SAME HOUSE, WHICH ONE BINDS AND DOES THE DOCUMENT SAY IT ANYWHERE? THOSE QUESTIONS WEREN'T ANSWERABLE SIX WEEKS AGO.
WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THEM AND THE COMMISSION WILL GET THE ANSWERS WITH THE WORK BEHIND THEM.
THERE ARE DECISIONS AHEAD THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND AND THIS COMMISSION ALONE CAN MAKE.
MY VIEW IS THAT WE BRING THOSE BACK TO YOU AS A SET WITH THE MODELING BEHIND THEM, NOT ONE AT A TIME AS WE FIND THEM.
AND NOT BEFORE WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT EACH ONE COSTS AND EACH ONE BUYS NOTHING TODAY.
WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DECIDE ANYTHING TODAY.
I GUESS WITH THAT, I WANNA SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION ON THE DRAFT THAT WAS POSTED ONLINE.
UM, AND I I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS MYSELF.
UM, UH, BECAUSE I KNOW ONE OF THE BIG CONDITIONS, OR THERE ARE MANY CONDITIONS THAT WE SET BACK IN THAT JUNE MEETING.
ONE IS THAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO, UH, DWELL WITHIN THEIR ATTICS WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR ROOF, UM, SLOPE AND THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY VISUAL MASS IS UH, THIS COMMISSION DID NOT WANT TO COUNT THOSE ATTIC, UH, FLOOR PLANS AS PART OF THE FAR SO IT'S AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE SPACE WITHOUT HAVING ANY ADDITIONAL VISUAL PRESSURE.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS IN THIS DOCUMENT.
AND SO THAT THAT IS, THAT IS, THAT IS THERE CORRECT.
NOW, UM, THERE IS A PROVISION TO ALLOW FOR A GARAGE OF A CERTAIN SIZE THAT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD FAR.
UM, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT NUMBER.
IT IT'S LARGER THAN THE NUMBER IN THE HEIGHTS, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER, UM, IS OR WILL BE.
BUT, BUT THERE'S A NUMBER THAT SAYS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD, UH, A GARAGE OF X AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET AND IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD FAR.
AND THAT'S STILL, THAT'S STILL IN THIS DOCUMENT.
WHERE I WAS CONFUSED IS, AND I STATED IN A COUPLE OF MEETINGS, MAYBE THREE MEETINGS, UM, IS THAT WHATEVER THE FAR IS AND, AND THE FAR DOES CHANGE A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THE SIZE OF LOT THE LARGER LOTS CAN BUILD, CAN BUILD BIGGER HOMES, UM, TRY TO KEEP THAT UNDER CONTROL.
THERE'S ALSO THE, THE FAR AMOUNT CHANGES SLIGHTLY.
SO AS THE BIGGER YOU GO, THE THE NUMBER GOES DOWN SLIGHTLY TO TRY TO FIND A BALANCE.
BUT, UM, SO THERE IS A FAR NUMBER AND I, AND I TAKE IT FROM AT LEAST THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THAT THERE'S AGREEMENT WITH THAT, THOSE NUMBERS BASED ON WHAT I HAD HEARD FROM FROM COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD AGREE, COMMISSIONER DAVIS, ACTUALLY THE MODELS SHOW THAT, UM, WHEN YOU PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER, THERE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT.
OKAY? AND THERE ARE HOUSES THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIT 2300 WITH THE SET SETBACKS.
WE HAVE TO PUT ALL THOSE FACTORS TOGETHER AND DETERMINE WHAT WORKS.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO BE NECESSARILY A HIGHER NUMBER, BUT THAT'S A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE, RIGHT? IF A IF KEEPING IT TO 2300 MEANS WE HAVE TO PUSH IT BACK, UM, THE SETBACK BACK, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT, THAT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
UM, OR YOU KNOW, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT VARIABLES AND IT FRANKLY TAKES A COMPUTER TO FIGURE IT OUT WHAT CAN ACTUALLY WORK.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
AND WE DON'T, HAVEN'T MADE ANY DECISIONS.
UM, INDIVIDUALLY, JOHN AND I, WE LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS AND DEFINITELY NO, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REWRITE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM WORK.
[03:10:01]
PIGGYBACK ON WHAT COMMISSIONER DAVIS IS SAYING IS WHAT WE HAVE FOUND, AND I THINK WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT NOR HILL IS HOW UNIQUE THE HOUSING STOCK IS.AND A LOT OF THE DIAGRAMS YOU SEE IN THE, THE GUIDELINES SHOW A CONSISTENT SQUARE WITH A BUILDABLE AREA BEHIND IT.
BUT WHAT WE ARE DISCOVERING IS THAT HOUSES ARE NOT CONSISTENT SQUARES IN ONE PARTICULAR POSITION ON THE LOT.
AND THAT SOME OF THE DATA NEEDS TO BE DRIVEN BY THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CURRENTLY SIT ON THE SITE.
AND NOT SO MUCH THIS JUST CONCEPT OF LIKE, THIS IS AN AREA THAT YOU COULD BUILD IN BEHIND A GENERIC SQUARE.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE HARDEST PART ABOUT THIS IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE AND STILL MAINTAIN WHAT THE SURVEYS SAY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS AND DESIRES IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND MASSING.
AND, AND I, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO GETTING, TO GETTING THERE TO PRESENT TO Y'ALL SOME, SOME DATA-DRIVEN NUMBERS AND, AND CONFIGURATIONS THAT, THAT WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS THAT DON'T REALLY PERHAPS CHANGE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF ADDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE STUFF THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
UM, SO I, I HATE TO KIND OF LIKE SAY IT'S A WAIT AND SEE KIND OF THING, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.
JUST AS WE SIFT THROUGH BOTH THE WRITTEN 20, THE JUNE 26TH DRAFT, AS WELL AS ALL THE DATA THAT THAT, THAT WE'VE COLLECTED TO SEE WHERE THOSE NUMBERS CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME DISCONNECT BETWEEN SOME OF THE NUMBERS.
WE JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY ORIGINATED FROM.
MY, MY THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS AT LEAST, OR IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT DIFFERENT HOUSES ARE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT WIDTHS OF HOMES AND OF COURSE BASED ON THE WIDTH OF YOUR HOME, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT, IT'S DIFFERENT.
IF YOUR HOME IS NOT VERY WIDE VERSUS A VERY WIDE HOUSE AND YOU HAVE A SETBACK, YOU GENERATE AND YOU HAVE MORE SPACE BEHIND SET HOUSE, IT GENERATES A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
SO IT'S ONE VARIABLE THAT THAT CAN, THAT'S PART OF THIS, THIS CONVERSATION, RIGHT? SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, IF YOUR HOUSE IS 30 FOOT FEET, 30 FEET, YOU ONLY HAVE 30 FEET OF DEPTH WITH A SIX OVER 12 ROOF.
IF YOU MAKE SOME ALLOWANCES FOR THE, UM, FOUNDATION AND A FEW OTHER MAGIC THINGS IN THAT, THEN THEN IT WILL WORK.
IF YOUR HOUSE IS WIDER, YOU'RE GOING TO BLOW THAT 28 FOOT, UM, RIDGE HEIGHT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THERE AREN'T RIDGE HEIGHTS IN THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES IS BECAUSE RIDGE HEIGHT IS, IS A FACTOR OF, OF HOW YOU STACK THE HOUSE AND WHAT'S STACKED AND HOW YOU BUILD IT.
AND SO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A SOLUTION IF A HOUSE IS WIDER THAN, OR IF HOUSES IS NARROWER AND THE NARROW HOUSE CAN'T EVEN GET TO THE FAR NUMBER.
SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE'RE STRU WE'RE NOT STRUGGLING WITH, BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH.
BUT MR. JONES, I DO WANNA POINT OUT, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A HISTORIC COMMISSION TOO, RIGHT? SO TO ADDRESS THESE VARIABILITIES THAT DON'T FIT NEATLY IN THE BOX, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TO, TO TALK ABOUT THOSE PROJECTS.
SO I'M NOT AS WORRIED THAT EVERY HOUSE BE MODELED.
I I MEAN SOME OF THOSE, UH, OUT OUTLINE OUTLIERS WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN FRONT OF COMMISSION.
BUT, UM, APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE HOMES BASED UPON OUR STA SAMPLE THAT WE DID ARE WIDER THAN 30 FEET.
SO, UM, THAT'S GOING, THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER.
WE DON'T WANNA HANDLE THAT ON A ONE-OFF BASIS.
NOW IF IT TAKES US A LITTLE LONGER, LET US SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOING FORWARD.
JUST TO, AND COMMISSIONERS DAVIS AND COSGROVE HEARD THIS AD NAUSEUM, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TRIED TO KEEP IN, IN MIND WITH THE, THE GENERAL MODELING VERSUS THE MORE SPECIFIC MODELING IS THE TASK THAT WAS ASSIGNED.
THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WITH A COUPLE AREAS THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP AND IT IT, WE FOUND IT TO BE APPROPRIATE TO USE GENERAL SCENARIOS AS FAR AS TEST SYSTEM GENERAL TESTING AS FAR AS WILL THE FAR WORK
[03:15:01]
IN, IN THESE SCENARIOS, UH, BECAUSE THIS DOCUMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND GONE THROUGH THAT, THAT STUFF WE'RE NOT RIGHT AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE JUST KIND OF CLEANING SOMETHING UP.UM, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WEIGHED WITH THE MORE DETAILED MODELING, USING SPECIFIC FOOTPRINTS AND, YOU KNOW, LOT CONFIGURATIONS OF WHERE THE HOUSES WERE LOCATED.
UM, MS. ES ESCOBAR, UM, I AM VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT YOU ALL ARE PROVIDING BECAUSE I TOO WAS WONDERING WHAT'S GOING ON? WHY IS THIS TAKING SO LONG? YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST TO CLEAN UP.
WHAT I WILL SAY IS THE VERY QUANDARY WE ADDRESSED EARLIER WITH MASSING AND FEELING, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GETTING AT WITH THESE MODELS, WHICH WHAT I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID WAS NOT NECESSARILY THE ORIGINAL CHARGE JUST TO, TO MODEL EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO.
UM, DOES ANSWER WHY THERE'S SO MUCH.
IS THIS ONE TOO MUCH? IS THIS MASSING TOO MUCH? IS THIS NOT ENOUGH? BECAUSE THAT WIDE WIDE HOUSE VERSUS NARROW HOUSE WIDE LOCK VERSUS NARROW LOCK CHANGES, HOW, UH, HOW IT FEELS, WHICH TO YOUR POINT, I ACCEPT THAT, UM, AS VALID AND, AND THAT THERE'S NUANCE IN HOW IT FEELS, BUT YOU'RE HELPING ME PUT MATH BEHIND 50% OF OUR FEELING MAY NOT.
AND THAT'S, THERE'S WHY THERE'S NO SPECIFIC NUMBER FOR MASSING BECAUSE IT IS RELATIONAL.
AND SO WHILE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDE GUIDELINES, IT FEELS UNFAIR THAT YOU'VE WAITED THIS LONG.
I KNOW THAT IN MY HEART THE INTENTION THAT I WAS HOPING TO SEE FOR NOR HILL WAS THAT YOU WOULD HELP SET A PRECEDENT FOR WHAT COMES NEXT AND THAT YOU WOULD HELP US RESOLVE SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE SUBJECTIVE, THAT CAUSES US TO HAVE SPLIT VOTES AND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE MORE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY WITH KNOWING WHAT'S COMING.
THIS ADDITIONAL DATA, I THINK HELPS SQUASH SOME OF THE SUBJECTIVENESS AND THE SQUISHINESS AND ACTUALLY HELPS JUSTIFY, AS YOU SAID, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED SQUISHINESS BECAUSE THERE'S OUTLIERS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ON EVERY LOT.
UM, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT AND A CONVERSATION TO HAVE PUBLICLY WHEN IT FEELS LIKE THINGS FEEL SUBJECTIVE AND CONTRADICTORY FROM ONE VOTE TO ANOTHER.
EVEN IN OUR AGENDA TODAY THAT NOR HILL HAS ALLOWED US AS A COMMISSION TO REALLY GET A HOLD OF HOW NUANCED MASSING AND PRESENTATION AND SETBACKS ARE.
UM, AND SO I'M GRATEFUL TO HAVE THAT DATA POINT, UM, SO THAT I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M WORKING OFF OF JUST A FEELING AND NOT A CRITERIA AND REALIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE TO GO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO USE OUR SQUISHINESS TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE AND STILL MAINTAIN THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR MYSELF.
SO THANK YOU, UM, FOR, FOR THE LENGTH OF, I HATE THE LENGTH OF THE WORK, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO GET TO THAT LEVEL OF ANSWER, SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.
WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WHAT OUR GOAL IS AND UM, AND I SHARED THIS WITH THE COMMITTEE, IS WE WANT THAT MOM, PREGNANT MOM SITTING AT HER DINING ROOM TABLE AT 11 O'CLOCK TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER SHE CAN ADD ON TO HER HOUSE OR SHE NEEDS TO MOVE.
WE WANT HER TO BE ABLE TO USE THE DOCUMENT AND HAVE THE INFORMATION BEFORE SHE HIRES AN ARCHITECT AND INCURS A LOT OF EXPENSES TO HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT'S GONNA BE A LOT ALLOWED.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGES IN THE GUIDELINES IS, IS IN ADDITION TO JUST FLAT ONES BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T VISUALIZE, WELL, WHAT DOES THAT SITE EDITION ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE? IN FACT, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT SIDE OFFIC EDITION ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU PUT IT STANDING UP INSTEAD OF FLAT ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
SO THAT'S OUR GOAL IS WE WANT TO HAVE A CUSTOMER FRIENDLY DOCUMENT.
COMMISSIONER SEIL, UH, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO THANK BOTH OF Y'ALL FOR THE TIME AND THE EFFORT AND THE FOCUS.
UM, AND I DO WANNA HIGHLIGHT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUBCOMMITTEES IN A SETTING SUCH AS OURS AND IF IT MEETS THE LEGAL RULES.
UM, I, I THINK A, A, UH, LOOK SEE AT, UM, UH, ORDINANCES, UH, I I HEARD IT THREE OR FOUR TIMES A DAY THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND ADJUST THE ORDINANCE.
UH, I THINK THAT WAS MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES.
UM, AND SO IT'S A LENGTHY PROCESS.
[03:20:02]
80% THERE.'CAUSE I STILL AGREE WITH YOU GUYS.
UM, I, I MEAN I'M, I'M A, I'M A BUILDER.
LIKE THERE ISN'T REALLY A FEELING TO A SET OF PLANS.
IF THERE WAS, I WOULD BUILD SOMETHING THAT I FELT LIKE BUILDING AND NONE OF MY CLIENTS WOULD BE HAPPY.
SO, AND, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES.
I'M, I'M, I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A REALLY LONG TIME, JUST I'M, I AM VERY ENCOURAGED THAT THERE IS SOME OPENNESS AT EVALUATING WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE MAJORITY AND THEN ALLOWING US TO HAVE A LITTLE CONVERSATION ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SMALLER THINGS RATHER THAN, UM, HAVING CLIENTS OR HAVING HOMEOWNERS OR ARCHITECTS OR BUILDERS SPENDING A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY, UH, NEEDLESSLY.
SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE WORK ON THAT.
YEAH, WE'RE DEFINITELY TRYING TO AVOID THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECTS COMING IN FRONT OF HERE, WHERE THERE ARE GOING TO BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BECAUSE WE'VE MISSED SOMETHING ALONG THE WAY, AND THAT IT BECOMES A MORE SUBJECTIVE PROCESS WHERE EVERY PROJECT IS EXPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, OPINIONS, DIFFERING OPINIONS.
IT COULD BE STAFF, IT COULD BE THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMISSION, AND IT COULD CHANGE OVER TIME.
AND THE, THE MORE PROPERTIES THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN ENCOMPASS IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, UM, THE BETTER RESULT FOR EVERYBODY.
AND WE'VE ALSO TAKEN A REALLY HARD LOOK AT THIS THROUGH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION LENS AS WELL, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CHARGED AS A COMMISSION WITH PROTECTING EACH ASSET WITHIN THE DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE.
THAT, THAT ARCHITECTURALLY THESE ADDITIONS HAVE TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO THE DISTRICT.
THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH THE HOUSES THEY'RE BEING PUT BEHIND.
AND ANY OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND MASSING NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS A WHOLE WITH THOSE PROPERTIES.
AND THAT, THAT IS, THAT IS A FOCUS OF THIS IS TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE MAINTAIN THAT HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF NOR HILL AND ALSO ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF MODERNIZATION.
SO I WANTED TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS 'CAUSE I HAD SOME CONFUSION I GUESS IN SOME, SOME ASPECTS OF THE DRAFT.
BUT, UM, THAT WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS THAT DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE, UM, AND SOME OF THE SETBACK WHERE THE REAR OR SIDE MAY BE AN ISSUE GETTING TO THE FAR, THE FAR AS BEING PROPOSED.
BASICALLY THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, UM, ITERATIONS OF THESE GUIDELINES OVER THESE YEARS.
THE FAR AT ONE POINT WAS MUCH SMALLER THAN IT CURRENTLY IS, IS, YOU KNOW, LOCATED, UH, NOW, UH, BUT THE NUMBER NOW APPEARS TO ALIGN WITH THE MORE RECENT SURVEYING.
AT LEAST IT'S STILL MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT I, I HAVE SEEN AND PRESENTED TO US.
SO I AM WORKING OFF THAT NUMBER AS RIGHT NOW AS A GIVEN IN THIS, IN MY, IN MY QUESTION THAT COMES.
BUT THAT IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A PROVISION, UH, FOR A VERY LONG TIME THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE IS AFFORDED TO A GARAGE THAT WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARD FAR.
AND THERE'S A NUMBER, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS TOO BIG OR TOO, OR, OR SHOULD BE SMALLER.
UM, SO THE JUNE DRAFT WAS 5 85.
THE CURRENT DRAFT IS 5 28, WHICH I BELIEVE IS CLOSER TO WHAT IS IN THE HEIGHTS FOR THE, FOR THE FIRST FLOOR GARAGE.
SO, BUT WHAT I'D STATED IN MANY MEETINGS AND WHAT I'D ASKED THE STAFF ALONG THE WAY IS THAT IF WE TAKE THAT 5 28 OUT FOR A GARAGE AND SINCE WE DON'T GOVERN USE, SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE A GARAGE AND THEY HAVE A GARAGE, THEY USE IT, THEY USE IT AS A, A FITNESS ROOM, YOU KNOW, IT MAY HAVE A CAR IN IT, IT MAY HAVE STORAGE IN IT, IT MAY HAVE A COUCH IN IT, RIGHT? BUT IT, BUT IF, IF IT'S A GARAGE, IT'S GONNA GET THAT EXEMPTION OF 5 28.
BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT EXEMPTION, AND WE HAVE A FAR, WHICH IS LARGER NOW THAN IT WAS AT ONE POINT, BUT IT SEEMS TO MATCH WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE RESPONDED TO, UM, HAVE ASKED FOR.
UM, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S VISUAL MASS IS STILL MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD STILL FIT WITHIN THE FAR AND SO I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT, UM, WELL IF YOU BUILT A, A APARTMENT ABOVE YOUR GARAGE, WHICH MANY THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN, IN THE, UH, NOR HILL WOULD LIKE THE OPTION TO DO SO.
UM, MY QUESTION BEFORE IT WAS STATED IS THAT YOU COULD DO IT, BUT IT, IT'LL TAKE UP PART OF YOUR FAR TO DO IT.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD VISUAL MASS, IT'S GONNA COME
[03:25:01]
OFF OF THAT FAR NUMBER SO THAT THE FAR NUMBER IS STILL THE NUMBER AND THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH ANOTHER 800 FEET OR 500 FEET OR, YOU KNOW, BEYOND FAR BECAUSE OF SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THAT.SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS CONFUSED IN THE DRAFT.
AND I KNOW PART OF THE DRAFT IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WELL WHAT ARE WE CALLING THINGS AND SINCE WE DON'T REGULATE USE, UM, SO LIKE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT OUTBUILDINGS CONVERSATION ABOUT, AGAIN, THIS IS MORE TRIGGERED MORE TOWARD IF YOU HAVE A GARAGE APARTMENT OR IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER STRUCTURE, UM, IS THE FAR STILL HOLDING AS IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THESE LAST FEW MONTHS, WHICH WAS THE CASE WHEN WE VOTED FOR OUR, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
I STILL HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND I WAS CON SOMEWHAT CONFUSED ON SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT I READ.
SO, AND I KNOW IT'S STILL A DRAFT, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO THE INTENT OF THE GARAGE SECTION, I THINK IT'S 2.2, UH, IS TO PRECLUDE THE, THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE GARAGE, UH, UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET.
UH, AND TO ALLOW FOR, UH, ANOTHER EXEMPTION FOR A, AN UPSTAIRS LIVING SPACE SLASH YOU KNOW, A A SHED OR, YOU KNOW, GAZEBOS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN OUTBUILDING.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS IN SPEAKING WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY, UM, THAT IS GONNA BE PART OF THE REFINEMENT PROCESS IS CAPPING THE NUMBER OF OUTBUILDINGS.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, USING THE, THE, THE MODELING THAT WE'VE DONE, IT, IT, IT MAKES SENSE VISUALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE YOUR, YOUR FAR THAT'S ALLOWABLE ON THE HOUSE.
YOU'D HAVE A, AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE GARAGE AND AN UPSTAIRS LIVING SPACE AND THAT WILL PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, CONSUME THE, THE LOT.
BUT IF YOU READ IT A CERTAIN WAY, IT MIGHT READ THAT YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE OUTBUILDINGS THAT YOU COULD PUT IN THIS PROPERTY IF, IF YOU WANTED TO.
SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW PROBABLY NEEDS SOME REFINEMENT TO CAP IT WHERE THE INTENT IS YOU GET YOUR FAR FOR THE, UH, E EXISTING STRUCTURE AND, AND A PROVISION FOR UPSTAIRS LIVING SPACE AND PERHAPS ONE.
SO THREE STRUCTURES TOTAL ON THE LOT.
I WOULD JUST SAY, UH, 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED IN, IN THESE MEETINGS, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS TOLD.
UM, BECAUSE IF I TAKE THE FAR AND THEN I ADD ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 5 28 ON TOP OF THE 5 28 EXEMPTION.
NOW A A A SMALLER HOME WILL HAVE A FAR OF, UH, A MA A VISUAL MASS, WELL OVER 3000 SQUARE FEET.
I MEAN, IT'LL BE LARGER THAN THE LARGEST HOUSE EVER BUILT IN NOR HILL, WHICH WAS THE HOUSE OUR, OUR FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UH, PROCLAIMED.
UH, THAT IS WHEN THIS IDEA OF VISUAL MASS IS FOR THE MASS THAT WE SEE, UM, IN THE HEIGHTS WHERE THERE ARE LARGER HOMES AND SOME LARGER LOTS, THERE WAS A PROVISION, IF YOU HAD A TRULY DETACHED GARAGE, WHICH THE WORD DETACHED SEEMS TO BE A CONCEPT PEOPLE CAN'T UNDERSTAND OR TRY TO, YOU KNOW, UH, CONNECT SO, UH, INTENTLY.
BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED BY THAT, THAT, THAT TO ME IS, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CONDITION THAT WE SET IN JUNE.
THAT THAT IS BASICALLY AN INCREASE OF FAR BY 528 FEET THROUGHOUT.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY, SO I I'M LOOKING FOR THAT BALANCE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, I, THAT'S WHY I ASKED, I THINK IT WAS TERRANCE AT THE TIME.
WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? I CAN PUT IT HERE, I CAN PUT IT THERE.
YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE OUTBUILDINGS AND SHEDS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT CONVERSATION TO ME IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND NUANCED.
BUT, BUT I DO WORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IF ONCE, ONCE I ADD THAT SQUARE FEET, I SEE THAT FROM THE, FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND I'M, AND I'M USING THAT HOME THAT, UM, OUR FORMER, OUR, OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UM, DISCUSSED WITH US IN THAT HE ENCOURAGED US TO, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT PROJECT WENT THROUGH MANY, UH, ITERATIONS.
THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF THINGS WITH THAT APPLICATION.
UM, THEY DID COME BACK MANY TIMES.
AND IF THAT IS, WAS TO BE THE LARGEST HOME IN NOR HILL, THEN THAT STILL BE THAT VISUAL MASS OF THAT GARAGE WITH A QUARTERS ABOVE THE GARAGE AND A HOME AND THE CONNECTION, WHICH WAS A HARD CONNECTION, YOU KNOW, UM, IT HAD WINDOWS.
IT WASN'T DETACHED IN ANY WAY.
I MEAN THAT, SO I'M TRYING TO AVOID THAT OUTCOME.
'CAUSE TO ME THAT'S A BACKSTOP THAT IS PROBLEMATIC WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FAR OF 2300 SQUARE FEET.
[03:30:01]
THIS, WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH 3000.I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING IS AMISS.
I, I THINK IN THE TRANSLATION OF OUR CONDITIONS.
'CAUSE I'M JUST SAYING THAT DOESN'T MEET THE CONDITION THAT THAT I, THAT I, I PUT FORTH.
THAT'S ALL UNDERSTOOD IF I COULD INTERJECT.
I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON WHAT WE AGREED TO DO IN JUNE AND WE HAVE GONE OVER THE TRANSCRIPT MANY TIMES AND THE, AND IT, AND IT IS VAGUE AS IT, AS IT AS YOU COULD EVER BELIEVE.
AND UM, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE DID IN JUNE WAS WE DID EXEMPT ATTICS AND GARAGES, MEANING THE WHOLE THING.
NOW, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE ABOUT.
THE TWO STORY GARAGE IS A HISTORIC FEATURE IN NOR HILL.
THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAD TWO STORY GARAGES.
THERE ARE 200 NO, NO, A POINT OF ORDER FOLKS, EXCUSE ME, LET'S BE FLIGHT.
SO THERE HAVE BE THE ORIGINAL DEED RESTRICTIONS PERMITTED A TWO STORY GARAGE AND WE, I HAVE COUNTED HOW MANY TWO STORY GARAGES THEY ARE.
THERE ARE IN HEIGHTS AND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IS, ARE VERY SPECIFIC.
IT DIDN'T SAY GARAGE APARTMENTS.
IT WAS, THEY GAVE LIVING SPACE FOR, UM, STAFF, HOUSEHOLD, STAFF, SERVANTS, CHILDCARE, WHATEVER.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS THIS IS WHAT THE HISTORIC CONCEPT OF NOR HILL WAS.
BUT NOW I AGREE ABOUT THE MASSING AND I AGREE.
YOU NEED, WE NEED TO, YOU NEED TO LET US DO OUR WORK AND LET US SHOW YOU WHAT WE COME UP WITH.
I MEAN, ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE HAVE IS A ONE AND A HALF STORY GARAGE GIVING A SMALL PORTION UPSTAIRS FOR AN ADDITIONAL ROOM AND WE CAN DO IT WITH THE CAP THAT IS IN THE GUIDELINES THAT WE ALL APPROVED.
SO WE ALL APPROVED A TWO STORY GARAGE BACK IN JUNE, AND WHAT WE WERE SAYING WAS, WE DON'T CONTROL USE, WE'RE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THAT, BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS, I I MEAN LOOK, I I DO WANT THE, THE PROCESS ISN'T FINALIZED AND OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
UM, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, BUT I WAS VERY CLEAR IN ALL THOSE MEETINGS AND I ASKED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE EXEMPTION WAS FOR THE GARAGE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE TERM, A GARAGE BEING A BLANKET EXEMPTION ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO A SECOND FLOOR WAS NEVER PART OF ANY DISCUSSIONS THAT THIS COMMISSION HAD IN THOSE MEETINGS.
AND WE CAN GO BACK AND WE CAN PLAY THE TAPES ON THAT STUFF.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, IT'S PART OF THE VISUAL MASS.
IF I, IF I, IF I JUST MAKE THAT, IF I JUST THROW IN ANOTHER UP 5 28 ON TOP OF A, THE 5 28 THAT'S ALREADY GIVEN, I END UP WITH THE LARGEST HOUSE IN NOR HILL IT.
RIGHT? I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING, BUT THE CHANCES THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET TO 2300 SQUARE FEET AND DO A GARAGE APARTMENT IS REALLY SLIM.
WELL, WELL YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE GARAGE APARTMENTS EVERYWHERE.
WELL, IF YOU DO THAT, I UNDERSTAND, BUT ONE THING I THINK WE'RE MISSING, UH, IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY, THERE MAY BE, AND, AND, AND THEY WERE ALLOWED WHATEVER, YOU CAN HAVE A GARAGE APARTMENT IN NOR HILL BACK IN THE DAY, BUT MOST PEOPLE BACK IN THE DAY DIDN'T BUILD A 2300 SQUARE FOOT HOME AS YOU POINTED OUT.
SO IT'S, IT'S ONE THING THAT YOU COULD DO THIS OR YOU COULD DO THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE DO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE, ALL AT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S CHANGING THE, THAT'S CHANGING THE CONVERSATION.
UM, BECAUSE EVEN IN THE HEIGHTS, THE FAR WAS SET WITH THE FAR, THERE WAS A PROVISION AT THE END THAT BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE WE WERE SEEING A LOT OF GARAGES THAT WERE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, THEY WEREN'T DETACHED AND WE WERE HAVING SOME VERY AWKWARD MASSING WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME.
SO A PROVISION IN THE HEIGHTS WAS MADE TO SAY, WE'LL LET YOU HAVE THAT EXTRA SQUARE FEET ABOVE A GARAGE IF YOU DETACH IT SO THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT MASSES.
THAT WAS SOMETHING DONE IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT, DIFFERENT HEIGHTS OF HOMES, DIFFERENT.
THAT WAS PART OF, IT WAS PART OF THE GUIDELINE PROCESS FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HAS NOT BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD
[03:35:01]
OR DELIBERATE DELIBERATIONS THAT I'M AWARE OF.ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T MAKE THESE THINGS, I WASN'T IN THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS MYSELF.
UM, I'M JUST SAYING THAT FOR ME, THAT'S MY, MY MAIN ISSUE IS THAT THAT IS A CHANGE FROM WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND WHY I ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS AT THE TIME.
SO I KNOW THEY'RE NOT FINALIZED AND YOU WE'RE STILL DOING THE NUMBERS I HAVE AND HAVE VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND BASED ON THEIR REAR SETBACK AND OR THE SIDE SETBACKS.
IN ALL CASES THERE'S SOME ISSUES MEETING THE FAR.
AND SO THAT TELLS ME WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN THOSE CASES OR ALLOW SOME, SOME FLEXIBILITY TO OVERCOME THAT, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT COMMISSIONER JONES WAS GETTING AT.
BUT I'M TRYING NOT TO CHANGE THE FAR FROM 2300 TO BE 2300 PLUS 5 28 BECAUSE THAT, THAT IS NOT WHAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I STATED.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED AND I DID IT, I'M THINKING THREE MEETINGS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT I'S STILL NUANCED AS YOU SAY BY CAN YOU ACHIEVE THIS OR THAT? I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO YOU ALL AS YOU DO THE MASSES.
I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE RIDGE HEIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS FROM AN OLD DRAFT, FROM THE WINTERS GROUP THAT'S STILL IN THE DOCUMENT IN TERMS OF 28 FEET IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT'S ONLINE FROM, 'CAUSE THERE'S SO MANY GUIDELINES THAT HAVE OCCURRED.
UM, WHETHER I DON'T, WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS WHAT IS THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF ALL OF NOR HILL, YOU KNOW, IF WHEN THEY HAD TWO STORY STRUCTURES, LET'S SAY, I DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBER, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, WAS IT 28 FEET OR WAS IT DIFFERENT? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE GARAGES OR WHAT ARE YOU TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE GARAGES? THE AVERAGE SIZE OF TWO? WELL, BOTH REALLY.
THE AVERAGE SIZE OF A TWO STORY GARAGE IN NOR HILL IS AROUND 520 SQUARE FEET.
I JUST WANT, I'M TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF THE DISCUSSION JUST SO WE CAN HAVE PRODUCTIVE DELIBERATION BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING.
YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE DETACHMENT OF THE GARAGE.
IT, IT, I UNDERSTANDING THAT TO MEAN THE UPSTAIRS LIVING SPACE PROVISION IS MORE ACCEPTABLE IF THERE'S A PHYSICAL DETACHMENT, A A CLEAR PHYSICAL DETACHMENT WITH NO, I, I'M, I'M SAYING LOOK, I'M GONNA SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BUT I I'M SAYING NO.
OKAY, THAT'S NOT BEEN PART OF THIS PROCESS FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVOLVED IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ROLLED DIFFERENTLY, HAD DIFFERENT MASSING, DIFFERENT SIZES.
AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED IN JUNE, AND I'VE ASKED EVERY TIME WE'VE, WE'VE COME UP, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FAR WHAT IS THE FAR, WE HAVE THE EXEMPTION FOR THE GARAGE, WHICH IS THE GROUND FLOOR EXEMPTION BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE IN NOR HILL WANT TO HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE.
THEY DON'T WANT AN ATTACHED GARAGE.
AND IN THE HEIGHTS YOU JUST GET 5 28 ON GROUND FLOOR.
THAT'S ALL YOU GET WHEN YOU DO THAT.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THIS, MY MAIN ISSUE IS THAT THIS IS A CHANGE, THIS ASPECT IS A CHANGE THAT IS RADICAL IN MY OPINION TO, TO WHERE WE WERE, THAT THIS IS BEYOND THE CONDITIONS THAT I, I ASKED FOR, WHICH INCLUDED, DOES, CAN YOU MEET THE FAR CAN YOU DO THESE THINGS? I MEAN, AND, AND I'M STILL OPEN TO THE RIDGE HEIGHT AND I'M OPEN TO THE EVE HEIGHT.
I'M OPEN TO ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT, BUT THIS IS A CHANGE AND I'M, I'M JUST NOTING IT OUT LOUD AND I KNOW THIS DOCUMENT'S NOT FINISHED, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT REAL CLEAR IF I WASN'T CLEAR BEFORE, I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR TODAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? UM, SHALL WE PROCEED TO PUBLIC COMMENT OR THEN YES, SIR.
SO AT THIS TIME I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC COMMENTS, WHICH IS NOW ITEM C AND I DO HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, MR. CHAIR.
UM, FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT, I, I ASSUME WE'RE GONNA HAVE A VIGOROUS DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION FROM A NUMBER OF FOLKS.
WOULD THE CHAIR ENTERTAIN, UM, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OUR FORTHCOMING SPEAKERS TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A FAIR TIME TO PRESENT THAT WE STAY STRICTLY WITHIN THE, UH, TIME ALLOCATIONS WITH NO EXTENSIONS.
IS THERE A TIME ALLOCATION THAT YOU RECOMMEND? UH, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE, THEY WERE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES.
[03:40:01]
AND THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT, SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESENTERS, BUT, UM, BUT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND GET THE INPUT THAT THEY HAVE TO BRING TO US.SO WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE FIRST SPEAKER IS TIFFANY TILL.
HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON OR EVENING.
MY NAME IS TIFFANY TILL I'M A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL.
AFTER ALMOST 10 YEARS OF WORK AND RESEARCH IN NEIGHBORHOOD POLLING YOU, THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO PASS THE NOR HILL GUIDELINES.
SHORTLY AFTER YOU RESCINDED THAT VOTE, BECAUSE YOU SAID THE LANGUAGE NEEDED POLISHING, NEEDED, CLARIFYING, AND MAKING THE LANGUAGE QUOTE WORKABLE, WE WERE ASSURED BY THIS BODY THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE TO THE APPROVED GUIDELINES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TRUE.
I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE AND LISTENING TO Y'ALL DISCUSS THESE HOMES BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE HOMES PRESENTED SEEM TO MEET REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES, BUT YOU CONFIRM THAT VISUALLY THEY ARE TOO BIG, TOO MUCH, THERE'S TOO MUCH MASS.
YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING IN NOR HILL.
THE ORIGINAL GUIDELINES THAT AGAIN, YOU ALL VOTED TO APPROVE UNANIMOUSLY IN JUNE, ACCOUNTED FOR RESIDENTS OPINIONS ON ALL SIDES.
I'M ASKING YOU TO WITHDRAW THESE NEW CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AND REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL GUIDELINES.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ADAM TILL, FOLLOWED BY EMILY ARWAN.
UH, MY NAME IS ADAM TILL I RESIDE IN NOR HILL ON PETTY STREET.
I FIRST WANT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLARIFICATIONS IN THE DEFINITION SECTION.
THE DEFINITIONS FOR ATTACHED VERSUS DETACHED GARAGES DO NOT ALIGN.
THE DETACHED GARAGE DEFINITION STATES THAT THE PRESENCE OF A BREEZEWAY DISQUALIFIES THAT AS DETACHED OR SET ANOTHER WAY.
THE BREEZEWAY WOULD NOW DEFINE THE GARAGE AS ATTACHED.
SIMPLY STATED, A PHYSICAL CONNECTION MAKES A GARAGE ATTACHED.
THEREFORE, THE DEFINITION OF ATTACHED GARAGE SHOULD READ AS ANY GARAGE WITH A PHYSICAL CONNECTION, INCLUDING A BREEZEWAY TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THE DETACHED GARAGE DEFINITION SHOULD READ A FREESTANDING GARAGE WITH NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
SECOND, THE THREE 120 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING PROVISION NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
UM, IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROPOSED SURVEYED OR SUBJECT TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND SCRUTINY AND GROSSLY OVERSTEPS THE STATED REMIT OF LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION AND POLISHING.
THAT WAS THE PROMISE OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I WOULD LIKE TO STATE MY DISAPPOINTMENT AT THE EVER WIDENING ALLOWANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THIS VERY COMMITTEE THAT THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO BUILD BIG HOMES IN NOR HILL.
YET HERE WE ARE ALLOWING FOR VASTLY BIGGER OUT OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENTS OF VERITABLE BLUEPRINT FOR MORE FU GATES.
ARE WE NOW PROPOSING A 2300 SQUARE FOOT HOME PLUS ANOTHER POSSIBLE 1056 SQUARE FEET OF GARAGE MASS, PLUS ANOTHER POSSIBLE 360 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
YOU ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SHOULD AND CAN HOLD THE LINE FOR THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
DEVELOPERS DON'T NEED YOUR HELPING HAND NOR HILL'S.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS EMILY ARTAN, FOLLOWED BY VIRGINIA KELSEY.
ANY OF THOSE FIRST IF, IF SHE LIKED ME? NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA KELSEY, BEFORE I BEGIN, I HAVE HANDOUTS.
CAN YOU GIVE EVERYBODY HERE HANDOUTS? PUT IT ON THE HERE'S FOR DOCUMENT CAMERA.
HERE'S ALL OF THESE TO GIVE EVERYBODY, I HOPE.
UM, INSTEAD OF THE NEW DRAFT, UM, JUST CLEANING UP, UM, LANGUAGE, IT IS FILLED WITH INCONSISTENCY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, CHANGES THE INTENT OF WHAT THE GUIDELINES WERE.
THE FAR NO LONGER REFLECTS THE THREE HOLDING OR COMMUNITY BILL BUILDINGS, UH, MEETINGS.
IN, IN JUNE, THE DRAFT ADDRESSED MASSING ON THE LOT.
AND IT DID SO BY COUNTING ALL THE BUILDING MASS ON THE LOT, MINUS 5 85.
NOW THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING AS DAVID POINTED
[03:45:01]
OUT, SO THAT THE TOTAL ON THE LOT WENT FROM 2,885 TO 3,716.THAT'S AN 831 SQUARE FOOT INCREASE, BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OR JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE FAR THERE ARE.
MANY, MANY EDITS, DELETIONS, UM, TO THE DEFINITIONS, CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE SUCH AS EXCLUDING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES OR ELIMINATING HOW SQUARE FOOTAGE IS CALCULATED.
THE EDITED VERSION HAVE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AND MANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY COMING TO THE PEOPLE OF NOR HILL.
WE HAVE SPENT THE LAST FOUR AND A HALF YEARS STUDYING EVERYTHING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAVE ANSWERS FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU ARE ASKING.
WHY NOT COME TO US AND BRING US TO BE PART OF THAT EQUATION? PRESERVE NOR HILL BY MOVING THE JUNE GUIDELINES FORWARD.
ABANDON THIS MOVE, WHAT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE FORWARD.
NEXT SPEAKER IS EMILY EMILY WAN, FOLLOWED BY DWAYNE BRADLEY.
I'M SPEAKING ON AN, AN UNRELATED, UH, TOPIC TODAY.
UM, I AM EMILY ARWIN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF PRESERVATION HOUSTON.
UM, NEXT WEEK MARKS THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.
A KEY PART OF THAT LAW IS SECTION 1 0 6, WHICH REQUIRES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CONSIDER ITS IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES IN PROJECTS THAT FUNDS APPROVES OR CARRIES OUT.
THAT CONSIDERATION HAPPENS EARLY, BEFORE DECISIONS ARE FINAL AND IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCES ARE LOST.
AND IT HAPPENS WITH INPUT FROM THOSE MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED, INCLUDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
TWO CURRENT FEDERAL PROPOSALS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THIS PROCESS.
ONE IS A REWRITE OF THE SECTION 1 0 6 REGULATIONS.
THE OTHER IS A SENATE PERMITTING REFORM BILL THAT REWRITES THE STATUTE ITSELF ALONG WITH OTHER REVIEW PROCESSES.
THE NEXT MAJOR STEPS FOR BOTH ARE ANTICIPATED IN EARLY NOVEMBER.
THE DETAILS ARE DIFFERENT, BUT THREE THEMES ARE INCLUDED IN BOTH.
THEY BOTH WOULD LIMIT THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LIKE THE CITY OF HOUSTON IN FEDERAL DECISIONS AFFECTING OUR HISTORIC PLACES.
BOTH WOULD REDUCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS TO PARTICIPATE, AND BOTH WOULD NARROW THE REVIEW ITSELF, INCLUDING WHICH RESOURCES ARE CONSIDERED, WHICH PROJECTS ARE REVIEWED, AND WHAT TYPES OF IMPACTS ARE CONSIDERED.
THE RESULT WOULD BE LESS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LESS SAY FOR THE CITY AND HOUSTONIANS IN PROTECTING HISTORIC PLACES AFFECTED BY FEDERAL PROJECTS.
WE'RE PREPARING AN INFORMATIONAL MEMO FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY, UM, ON THIS DETAILING THE CHANGES, BUT I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND FLAG IT HERE TODAY.
UM, AND YOU CAN ALSO VISIT THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEBSITE@SAVINGPLACES.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION.
AS MENTIONED, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DWAYNE BRADLEY, FOLLOWED BY UH, IAN HO.
HI, MY NAME IS, UH, ING HO AND I LIVE IN NOR HILL FOR 23 YEARS.
AND I'VE, THE LONGER I'VE BEEN THERE, THE BIGGER THE, UM, ADDITIONS ARE AND THE BIGGER THE HOUSES ARE.
WE ARE LOSING OUR BUNGALOWS AND WE ARE LOSING OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD SET SOME RULES FOR THAT AND PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS TERRY MCGUIRE.
AND, UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT THAT Y'ALL ARE GOING INTO WITH THIS AND GATHERING THE DATA THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING TO TRY TO MODEL THINGS.
I ASK THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, PLEASE BE TRANSPARENT WITH NOR HILL RESIDENTS WHO HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED, I THINK, A MAJORITY VIEW ON THINGS AND THAT YOU SHARE MODELS OF WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS.
UM, I'M MOST CONCERNED, I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE GONNA BE NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED IN JUNE.
AND I, LIKE OTHERS, AM SURPRISED ABOUT THE THREE NEW STRUCTURES.
AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF THE
[03:50:01]
GARAGE SPACE THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE FAR, SO I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE MOVE MORE TOWARDS WHAT WAS OFFERED IN JUNE.I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN NOR HILL THAT HAVE RESPONDED TO POLLS ARE MORE IN LINE WITH THIS THAN WITH EXPANDING THE MASS OF THE HOMES.
AND I'M SURE YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, BUT I HEAR MUCH ABOUT THE VIEW OF THE HOUSE FROM THE FRONT AND THE MASS.
BUT WHEN WE LOSE TREES BY ALLOWING THE MASS, WE'RE DESTROYING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
AND I LIVED IN MONTROSE AND I'VE SEEN THAT CHANGE.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, VERY SAD TO SEE A LACK OF TREES IN AN AREA WHERE YOU KNOW THAT THERE WERE MANY BEFORE.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, VIOLA, UH, TOSON.
I'M NOT VIOLA, BUT SHE HAD TO GO AND I DIDN'T HAVE A THING TO SIGN UP.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR MICROPHONE.
UM, SO I'M A SIX YEAR RESIDENT OF NOR HILL ALMOST.
UH, IN MY TIME IN NOR HILL I HAVE GOTTEN MARRIED.
SO COMMISSIONER DAVIS, I HAVE BEEN THAT PREGNANT LADY AT 11:00 PM UH, WONDERING WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY HOUSE.
'CAUSE HAVING A TODDLER AND A BABY IN 1200 SQUARE FEET, IT'S LIKE NOT THAT EASY.
UM, BUT I ALSO HAVEN'T REALLY WONDERED WHAT'S ALLOWED BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA RUIN IT FOR MY NEIGHBORS.
UM, WITH THE JUNE DRAFT, I COULD BASICALLY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF MY HOME.
LIKE, I DON'T NEED THAT MUCH MORE SPACE.
UM, I DON'T THINK I REPRESENT A MINORITY.
I THINK I REPRESENT A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TWO KIDS AND, UM, THEY'RE BOTH SICK AND I NEED TO COOK DINNER
BUT I DID WANT TO COME HERE TODAY BECAUSE I, AS WELL AS EVERYBODY ELSE WAS ALARMED BY THE SIZE INCREASE IN THIS MOST RECENT DRAFT OF THE GUIDELINES.
UM, I WANT MY NEIGHBORS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THIS GUY.
MY DAUGHTER RUNS AROUND IN HER BIRTHDAY SUIT OUTSIDE.
I DON'T WANT GARAGE APARTMENTS LOOKING OVER MY BACKYARD, FRANKLY.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT THE VIEW FROM THE STREET, BUT AGAIN, LIKE I'M LIVING, I'M NOT LIVING ON THE STREET, I'M LIVING IN MY HOUSE.
I'M DON'T WANT ALL THESE BIG HOMES LOOMING OVER ME.
YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT.
IT FEELS CLAUSTROPHOBIC AND IT'S REALLY RUINING THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, TO THE POINT ABOUT THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES, THERE'S THREE OF THEM.
YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON THE DE RESTRICTIONS COMMITTEE AND ON THE NOR HILL BOARD FOR FOUR YEARS.
EVERY SINGLE TIME WE DENY A PROJECT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WITHIN REASON, THEY POINT TO THOSE HOMES AND THEY SAY, WELL, YOU APPROVE THAT.
SO WE REALLY NEED THESE GUIDELINES.
THE JUNE DRAFT DID ACCOMPLISHED A LOT.
UM, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT Y'ALL WILL CONSIDER MOVING BACK TOWARD THE JUNE DRAFT.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, SISTER ELEANOR DICKMAN.
IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME OF THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
UM, I WAS ASKED TO READ A LETTER FROM, UM, IVANA MOORE PAL, WHO'S A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD BE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES FOR HER AND TO ALLOW US BE ALLOWED.
I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ THAT AND THEN YOU CAN DECIDE.
IS THAT OKAY? I THINK YOU COULD GIVE THE LETTER, UM, TO STAFF AND THEY CAN, THEY CAN, THEY CAN PRESENT THAT TO US SO THAT YOU, SO THAT YOU COULD MAKE YOUR STATEMENT TO US.
I HAVE LIVED IN NOR HILL FOR 28 YEARS.
I REALLY LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.
IT'S A HISTORIC, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE HAVE, THE HOME THAT I LIVE IN IS A NICE SIZE.
THERE'S A LOT OF YARD IN THE BACK.
AND IN THE FRONT I HAVE FIVE TREES ON MY PROPERTY.
AND THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, THEY ALSO HAVE A NICE PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO NEEDED HER OWN ROOM, AND THEY SIMPLY USE THE ATTIC AS IT WAS TO PREPARE HER BEDROOM.
I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO KEEP WITH THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES OF NOR HILL AND KEEP THE HOMES REASONABLY SMALL, NOT BUILD ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THE HOME ON FUGATE, ON THE CORNER OF FUGATE AND STUY WOOD
IT'S WAY OUT, IT'S WAY OUTSIZED.
AND, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE TODAY.
I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND I AM VERY HAPPY TO BE IN NOR HILL.
WE'RE, WE'RE FRIENDLY, WE'RE NEIGHBORLY, WE'RE KIND TO EACH OTHER.
[03:55:01]
HELP EACH OTHER.WE SEE PEOPLE GO BY WITH THEIR BABIES IN THEIR STROLLERS.
AND THE P DOGS ON THE LEASHES.
AND I JUST WANNA THANK THE PEOPLE BEFORE ME WHO HAD THE WISDOM TO BUILD THE HOUSES, LIKE THE ONE I LIVE IN, WHICH IS NOW 106 YEARS OLD.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS, UM, JILLIAN, UH, STEINHOWER.
I'M JILLIAN STEINHOWER AND I LIVE AT 1102 PETTY STREET.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR SIX AND A HALF YEARS, AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SMALL HOUSES.
AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO PUT A LITTLE EXTRA SPACE ON THEIR HOUSE WHEN THEY HAVE MORE KIDS, THAT'S FINE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE HAVING SPECULATORS BUYING HOMES AND THEN BUILDING ENORMOUS PLACES.
IF PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN MANSIONS, THAT'S FINE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN NOR HILL.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS BRETT BCUS.
ARE THEY UP? UH, I'M BRETT BKI.
I LIVE AT, UH, 1129 EAST DOCUMENT CAMERA.
IS IT UP? UH, THIS FIRST PICTURE IS WHAT I LIVED IN, UM, UH, ON IN MONTROSE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT A HOUSE CAME IN AND, UH, OVERPOWERED WHAT I LIVED IN.
IT IS A FEAR OF THAT THAT DRIVES MY CONCERN ABOUT THE CURRENT GUIDELINES AND THE MASSING AND THE ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACE THAT'S BEING ALLOWED.
THIS IS WHY I MOVED TO NOR HILL.
WE NEED TO SEE THE WHOLE THING.
YOU CAN SEE THAT I CAN SEE THE SKY FROM EVERYWHERE AROUND MY HOUSE.
AND THE FAR RIGHT PICTURE SHOWS MY BACKYARD.
I SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT THAT BECAUSE I CAN SEE THE SKY FROM MY BACKYARD ACROSS THE GARAGES.
THERE'S NOBODY LOOKING IN ON MY BACKYARD.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR WHY I LIVE WHERE I DO.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'M VERY UPSET THAT WHEN YOU COMBINED THIS FAR WITH THE GARAGE, YOU HAVE MORE OR LESS CODIFIED THIS HOUSE INTO EXISTENCE IN NOR HILL.
AND THIS IS WHY I MOVED INTO NORTH HILLS.
IT'S NOT IN OUR CURRENT DEED RESTRICTIONS.
YOU CANNOT DRIVE THROUGH NOR HILL AND THINK THAT WE DID HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A HUNDRED YEARS WITH 800 HOUSES AT APPROXIMATELY 1400 SQUARE FEET IS OUR AVERAGE HOUSE, 1400 SQUARE FEET.
THE SURVEY SAID 2300 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING UP AT THE FARS THAT YOU GUYS ARE AT.
I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU'RE AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, NOT A DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN STOKES.
I AM A PROPERTY OWNER AND RESIDENT OF NOR HILL.
UM, I ALSO HAVE A LETTER WHICH, UM, ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ABOVE THE GARAGE.
I ASK THAT YOU DO NOT USE ANY LANGUAGE THAT SAYS GARAGE APARTMENTS, BECAUSE OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS EXPLICITLY SAY NO GARAGE APARTMENTS.
AND IT'S IN MY LETTER QUOTED, SO I'M NOT GONNA READ THAT OUT LOUD.
SO IF THERE'S GONNA BE ALLOWED, UH, SPACE, UH, ABOVE A GARAGE, THAT THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE FAR, THEY MUST SUBTRACT THAT FROM THEIR ALLOWABLE FAR, IT CANNOT BE AN ADDITION.
AS DAVID SAID, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM JUNE 4TH AS WELL.
ADDITIONALLY, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF THREE SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURES IN THE BACK UP TO 300 SQUARE FEET, UH, BEYOND THE FAR, UH, THIS GETS INTO CRAZY WORLD.
OKAY, SO THOSE THINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AND I CONCUR WITH, UH, DAVID'S ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS MY, UH, NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THERE'S BEEN A CHALLENGE OF CONFLATION BETWEEN WOODLAND HEIGHTS, HEIGHTS PROPER AND NOR HILL.
NOR HILL IS A DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOOD, AS ARE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THEY HAVE DISTINCT CHARACTERISTICS.
DO NOT CONFLATE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
[04:00:01]
I'VE NOTICED THAT HAPPEN A COUPLE OF TIMES.PLEASE TRY TO REMIND, UM, EVERYBODY THAT NOR HILL IS A PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH FEATURES SMALL HOUSES, AND THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS THE WOODLAND HOUSE HEIGHTS.
THAT WAS A MUCH MORE DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE BEGINNING.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE FROM THE TWO POLLS THAT THE CITY HAS DONE, THE ONE IN 2024, AND THE ONE THAT, UM, UH, DIRECTOR TRAN ASKED US TO DO IN 2025 LARGELY ALIGN THE NEIGHBORS 75 AND 2020, UM, FOUR.
AND, UH, 76 AND 20, UH, 25 SAID THAT WE WANTED RESTRICTED SIZES AND THE SIZES LARGELY ALIGNED.
IT IS WORTH GOING TO THAT 2024 SURVEY TO SEE HOW IT'S BROKEN APART, BECAUSE IN THE PEOPLE, THE MAJORITY PEOPLE WHO WANT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE POLLS AND THOSE OUTCOMES.
THIS IS IN MY LETTER, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
IS, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT IS PRESENT WHO HAS NOT SPOKEN AND STILL WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? NOT HEARING ANYONE MIGHT HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS.
SO THE LETTER THAT WAS PRESENTED, UM, UH, FROM THE PERSON WHO WAS WASN'T HERE, CAN THAT BE READ OUT LOUD OR THAT WE BETTER DISTRIBUTE TO THE COMMISSION? BEST TO JUST DISTRIBUTE.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
DID YOU HAVE A LETTER READ BY? YEAH, I, I THINK, I THINK THAT, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL IF YOU CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT LETTER TO US, UH, JEFF IN, WE CAN, WHAT GETS PRESENTED IN NOVEMBER, WE'LL HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FINDINGS FROM THE POLL THAT WAS DONE RECENTLY.
UM, EXCUSE THE, THE SURVEY THAT'S DONE RECENTLY, UH, AS WELL AS EMAIL COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.
SO THOSE WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THAT.
SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON, UH, TO COMMENTS FROM THE HAHC AND, UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? COMMISSIONER JONES, I'M SORRY FOR MAKING THIS EVEN LONGER.
UM, OCTOBER IS ARCHEOLOGY MONTH HERE IN TEXAS.
UM, THERE ARE ARCHEOLOGY RELATED EVENTS OCCURRING ALL OVER THE STATE, INCLUDING HERE IN HARRIS COUNTY.
YOU CAN GO TO THE TCS WEBSITE, THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION'S WEBSITE AND FIND ALL THE VARIOUS ARCHEOLOGY RELATED EVENTS, UM, GOING ON THIS MONTH.
UH, COMMISSIONER DAVIS, JUST ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT NEITHER COMMISSIONER COSGROVE OR I HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE THREE STRUCTURES AT 120 SQUARE FEET CAME FROM.
JUST WANNA PUT THAT OUT THERE.
YEAH, I MEAN, I CAN, CAN I SAY THIS OUT LOUD? THE, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING IN EARNESTLY AS, AS REPORTED.
YOU'VE MADE SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS, WHICH YOU'VE GIVEN TO STAFF.
AND, AND SO YOU HAVE DONE THAT.
YOU HAVE NOT MADE THE DRAFT THAT IS CURRENTLY ONLINE.
YOU, YOU YOURSELVES, I MEAN THAT'S, SO THIS IS A PROCESS OF YOU ALL WORKING WITH STAFF AND, UM, THIS IS STILL A DRAFT.
THIS IS, WE'RE WE'RE NOT VOTING ON IT.
WE ARE, IT'S BEING PRESENTED TO US.
AND THIS DISCUSSION WE HAD TODAY WAS SO WE COULD ASK QUESTIONS AND HAVE DELIBERATIONS, WHICH DID OCCUR.
UM, SO YEAH, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM EITHER, BUT THAT, THAT WAS PART OF WHAT I SAID.
UH, ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
I'LL MOVE ON TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT FOR DIRECTOR TRAN.
IT SO HAPPENED THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT, SO Y'ALL CAN ADJOURN EARLIER.