[Historic Preservation Appeals Board on October 19, 2026.]
[00:00:19]
VIA, THERE'S THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.AND I SEE, UH, DIRECTOR VON TRAN WALKING IN NOW.
UH, I AM, UH, AS CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM, TURN IT TO, INTO THE FRONT DESK, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN PERSON.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL OPEN WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE APPEAL THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD.
THE APPELLANT, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT AND WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
I WILL THEN CALL ON ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO COMMENT.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL ALSO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY STAFF.
THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE TIME FOR A REBUTTAL IF DESIRED.
FINALLY, BOARD MEMBERS HAVE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME ALLOTTED.
FOR SPEAKING, MAY I HAVE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, BARTELL COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND THE PUBLIC.
I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
WELCOME AGAIN TO THE HISTORIC APPEALS BOARD.
I HAVE ONLY ONE UPDATE, THE 2027 SCHEDULE FOR THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
WE'LL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA, UH, FOR NEXT MONTH FOR APPROVAL.
ONCE APPROVED, THE SCHEDULE WILL BE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
AS ALWAYS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6, OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED ON THE, WITH THIS AGENDA.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? PLEASE STATE YOUR LAST NAME WHEN YOU MAKE A SECOND.
A MOTION OR A SECOND MOTION ADMINISTER.
THEN WE HAVE THE NEXT AGENDA ON THE ITEM IS, LET ME GET THE CORRECT NUMBER.
UH, UH, CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED 2 0 2 7 HPAB MEETING SCHEDULE.
IS THAT FOR NEXT MONTH? YOU SAID IS NOT THIS ONE, HUH? 'CAUSE WE HAVE A SCHEDULE HC.
UM, I, WE WERE UNSURE IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN APPEAL FOR NEXT MONTH, SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA AND MAKE SURE IT IS APPROVED.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR A SECOND FOR THE, UH, PROPOSED SCHEDULE OR ANY CHANGES? I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION FOR IT.
AND THEN WE, SO THE MINUTES ARE PASSED.
I MEAN, THE, UM, SCHEDULE HAS PASSED, UH, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026, APPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATION AT 3 0 2 3 DEL MONTE AVENUE, DESIGNATED AS A CITY HISTORIC PROTECTED LANDMARK, KNOWN AS THE MR. AND MRS. JOHN P BULLINGTON HOUSE.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
I SUBMIT ITEM THREE AT 30 23 DEL MONTE DRIVE, DESIGNATED AS THE MR. AND MRS. JOHN B BULLINGTON LANDMARK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THE 6,568 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY GREEK REVIVAL PROPERTY WAS BUILT CIRCA 1938, SITUATED ON A 26,775 SQUARE FOOT LOCKED.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING INTERIOR AND EX IN EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR ALTERATIONS,
[00:05:01]
ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY REAR ADDITION.AND TO PLACE ALL EXISTING WINDOWS WITH CUSTOM MADE DOUBLE HUNG COUNTERWEIGHT, DOUBLE GLAZED INSULATED WOOD WINDOWS DESIGNED TO MATCH THE PROFILE'S, APPEARANCE AND OPERATION OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS.
ALL NEW WINDOWS WOULD BE PROPERLY INSET AND RECESSED TO MAINTAIN HISTORIC DEPTH, SHADOW LINES AND FACADE DETAILING.
AT THE SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026, HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION MEETING STAFF RECOMMENDED AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT ONLY THE REAR WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED.
ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE.
ELEVATIONS MUST BE RETAINED AS THE SCOPE OF WORK DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA NINE OF SECTION 33 DASH 2 41 CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTION.
THE AGENT, NADIA LAUDER, IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS, UH, CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, IT SAID IN THE WRITEUP THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS, UH, VIOLATIONS OF THE HOUSTON RESIDENTIAL CODE.
CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE? YES.
SO, AND I THINK THAT, UM, NADIA CAN GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BETTER THAN I CAN.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TO THE MICROPHONE.
OH, NADIA PALACIOS LAUTERBACH.
UM, I'M THE ARCHITECT, UM, OF THIS HOUSE.
UM, I HAVE COPIES OF OUR DOCUMENTS IF ANYONE NEEDS THEM.
UH, THE, OUR MAIN ISSUE IS THAT THE HOUSE HAS WINDOWS THAT GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR OL BRISCOE, JOHN, STOP IN HOUSES OF THAT TIME PERIOD.
UH, BUT USUALLY THOSE TYPE OF WINDOWS HAPPEN ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
VERY RARELY ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE WINDOWS THAT YOU SEE ON THE FACADE, THE ONES THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE, THOSE ARE BEDROOM WINDOWS AND THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ANY PROTECTION.
SO, NUMBER ONE, THE WINDOW GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR, WHICH VIOLATES THE RESIDENTIAL CODE.
NUMBER TWO, THE GLASS IS A KNEELED, VERY THIN GLASS, SO IT CAN BREAK VERY EASILY, AND THEN A PERSON CAN FALL, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR DEATH.
UM, SO WE'RE DOING EXTENSIVE WORK ON THIS HOUSE.
IT WILL NOT PASS INSPECTION BECAUSE THE WINDOWS, THE, THE GLASS IS NOT TEMPERED.
WHEN YOU HAVE GLASS AT THAT HEIGHT, IT'S REQUIRED THAT THE GLASS IS TEMPERED.
IF YOU HAVE IT NEXT TO A DOOR, IF YOU HAVE IT NEXT TO A STAIR, CERTAINLY IN A BEDROOM, ANYTHING ON THE SECOND FLOOR, UM, WHERE GLASS GOES BELOW A CERTAIN HEIGHT, THE GLASS NEEDS TO BE TEMPERED.
SO THAT'S A VIOLATION, NUMBER ONE.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, NUMBER TWO, LIKE, THERE'S JUST NO PROTECTION BECAUSE IT, IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SILL.
UM, SO WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE WINDOWS IN THE BACK WHERE THAT CONDITION HAPPENS IN, IN THE PRIMARY BEDROOM AND IN OTHER AREAS, UM, LIKE EVERY SINGLE WINDOW IN THE PRIMARY GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR.
UM, AND WE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, BUT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT ON THE FRONT, WHICH IS THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS. UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE PUT AN INTERIOR STORM, UM, WINDOW, BUT THAT VIOLATES EGRESS BECAUSE FOR EGRESS, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT WITHOUT SPECIAL TOOLS OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE.
AND THESE WINDOWS ARE ABOUT EIGHT FEET TALL.
SO IF YOU CAN IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, A STORM WINDOW, EVEN WHEN IT'S FLEXIBLE AND BY MAGNETS IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, A CHILD, YOU KNOW, OR JUST REALLY ANYONE, JUST IMAGINE YOURSELF TRYING TORY OPEN IN CASE OF FIRE, AN EIGHT FOOT BY 36 INCH WIDE PLEXIGLASS PANEL THAT, THAT'S JUST, THAT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
UM, THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS HOUSE IS THAT IT SUFFERS FROM SEVERE MOISTURE ISSUES.
AND IF YOU GO TO THE HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE THAT MOLD IS ACTUALLY EVIDENT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE SIDING.
THE WINDOWS FOG FOR MOST OF THE DAY, TO THE POINT THAT OUR CLIENTS CANNOT SEE OUT THEIR WINDOWS.
AND SO BASICALLY THE HOUSE IS ROTTING.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THIS HOUSE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.
AND HAVING INSULATED WINDOWS WOULD HELP.
NOW, WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE MAJORITY OF THE WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE.
AND ACTUALLY A LOT OF THE WINDOWS IN, IN THE HOUSE ARE ALREADY NEW.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT PICTURES IN THE BACK, THE ARCH WINDOWS, THOSE ARE NEW.
THAT WAS AN OPEN PORCH THAT WAS GLAZED IN
[00:10:01]
AT SOME POINT.SO A LOT OF WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED, AND WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE BACK.
BUT DOING A PIECEMEAL WORK OF CHANGING WINDOWS FROM SINGLE PANE TO INSULATED GLASS CREATES POCKETS OF DIFFERENT CLIMATES IN THE HOUSE.
SO IF WE WANT TO HELP THE HOUSE HAVE RESILIENCE FOR THE FUTURE, IT WOULD BETTER TO HAVE ALL OF THE WINDOWS HAVE INSULATED GLASS SO THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING A POCKET IN THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT'S WORKING WELL WITH THE AIR CONDITIONING AND WE DON'T HAVE CONDENSATION.
AND THEN ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE ALL OF THIS CONDENSATION, AND IT'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, ON THE FACADE THAT EVERYONE SEES, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO PROTECT.
SO THE BIGGEST ISSUE FOR US IS THE SAFETY, THE RESILIENCE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE HOUSE IS OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PRESERVATION.
BUT SAFETY IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN FOR US.
WHEN WE WERE REJECTED, THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT THE BOARD HAD WAS THAT WE WOULD BE SETTING PRECEDENT.
AND THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE WAS THAT IF WE GOT APPROVED, WHAT WAS GOING TO PREVENT EVERYONE IN THE HEIGHTS FROM WANTING TO CHANGE THEIR WINDOWS.
BUT THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION.
THE MAJORITY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THIS CONDITION.
THE WINDOWS DO NOT COME BELOW THE UNSAFE LEVEL.
WE DID RESEARCH WITH HOUSES DESIGNED BY STAUB IN BRISCOE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES THAT HAVE THIS CONDITION, THE WINDOWS ARE ON THE FLOOR.
WHEN THEY ARE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THEY ARE PROPERLY PROTECTED BY A RAILING, OR THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN CHANGED.
AND THE ONLY HOUSE WHERE WE FOUND, AND, AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE OTHER HOUSES WERE NOT LANDMARKS.
SO THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT, YOU KNOW, TO THESE, UM, TO THESE RULES.
SO PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THE WINDOWS HOWEVER THEY WANT, BECAUSE THOSE HOUSES WERE NOT LANDMARKS.
WE DID FIND A HOUSE THAT WAS THE LANDMARK BY BRISCOE.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S NOTED HERE IN OUR REPORT, AND IT'S ON THE CORNER OF INVERNESS AND WHAT IS IT? UM, IT'S ONE OF BRISCOE'S LATER, UM, HOUSES.
UM, AND SITTING HERE, 40 19 INVERNESS.
SO THAT HOUSE HAS RAILINGS ON THE FRONT, AND THAT HOUSE WAS RECENTLY RESTORED BY JOSHUA JONES.
UM, THEY'VE DONE SOME THINGS, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT, AND IT HAS ONE WINDOW IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE THAT IS IN A BEDROOM THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR.
AND BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THAT WINDOW CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
SO WE FEEL THAT ASKING YOU TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION ON THIS HOUSE WILL NOT CREATE A PRECEDENT BECAUSE I AM SENSITIVE THAT YOU HAVE TO UPHOLD THE RULES.
UM, AND SO I I'M ASKING YOU TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, KNOWING THAT THIS EXCEPTION WILL NOT CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO COME AND SAY, WELL, I ALSO WANNA CHANGE MY WINDOWS BECAUSE OF X, Y, OR Z.
UM, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING, AND WE'RE FORTUNATE THAT OUR CLIENT HAS THE RESOURCES TO DO THIS.
WE ARE PROPOSING CUSTOM WINDOWS.
WE SUBMITTED, UM, THE DESIGN OF THE SASHES.
THEY WOULD BE TWO AND A QUARTER INCHES DEEP, BECAUSE THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NEW WINDOW AND AN OLD WINDOW IN TERMS OF THE LOOK IS THAT WHEN YOU INTRODUCE INSULATED GLASS, YOU HAVE TWO PANES.
SO THE SASH REMAINS THE SAME, ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF, AN INCH AND THREE QUARTERS, BUT THE GLASS USED TO BE A QUARTER INCH.
AND SO NOW THE GLASS BEING ALMOST AN INCH, THE PROFILE OF THE WINDOW CHANGES.
YOU, YOU, YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT HAS THE CHAIN, THE COUNTERWEIGHTS AND WHATEVER, YOU SEE THE DEPTH OF THE MOUNTAINS BEING DIFFERENT FROM A HISTORIC WINDOW AND A NEW WINDOW.
BUT DOING A CUSTOM WINDOW THAT HAS A THICKER SASH ALLOWS US TO HAVE THAT PROFILE OF THE MOUNTAIN BE THE SAME DEPTH AS THE ORIGINAL WINDOW.
THEN WE PUT THE INSULATED GLASS.
AND FROM THE STREET, IT WILL LOOK IDENTICAL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA LOSE THE DEPTH OF THE ING.
UM, THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE JUST BUYING, YOU KNOW, PRE-MADE WINDOWS FROM A MANUFACTURER.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE THE BUDGET IN THIS CASE, AND A CLIENT THAT'S WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF HAVING THESE CUSTOM WINDOWS DONE.
UM, AND SO RESPECTFULLY, WE ASK THAT YOU CREATE AN EXEMPTION FOR THIS HOUSE ON THE GROUNDS OF SAFETY.
AS A REGISTERED ARCHITECT, IT IS MY
[00:15:01]
DUTY TO PUT SAFETY FIRST.IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE OF FALL, BECAUSE YOU CAN BREAK THE GLASS HURT YOURSELF.
UM, THE SOLUTION THAT STAFF, UM, SUGGESTED, YOU KNOW, THE PLEXIGLASS STORE WINDOWS IS NOT FEASIBLE.
IT VIOLATES EGRESS, WHICH AGAIN, SPEAKS TO CODE.
WE'VE ALREADY, WE'VE ALREADY TOUCHED SOME OF THIS, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO, I'M JUST DOING A, A RE A, A SUMMARY.
SO ANYWAY, I'M ASKING YOU TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR US.
AND, UM, OUR CLIENT WOULD ALSO, UH, LIKE TO ADD, IF IT HELPS IN ANY, THAT, WHEN YOU MAKE THE EXCEPTION, JUST PUT IT IN THERE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS PRECEDENT FOR OTHER PROJECTS.
I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, BUT MM-HMM
SO IF YOU COULD JUST STEP TO THE SIDE FOR A SECOND.
AND I WILL SAY I'M A DESCENDANT OF BIRDS ALL BRISCOE.
SO THIS IS A, I I DO KNOW THIS HOUSE, AND I DO LIKE THIS HOUSE
UM, THE WINDOW IN QUESTION THAT FACES THE FRONT FACADE, IS THAT THE ONLY WINDOW THAT SERVICES THE TWO BEDROOMS THAT ARE BEING DESCRIBED? JEFF, DO YOU MIND GOING TO THE, UH, TO THE BLUE DIAGRAM PLEASE? SO, I BELIEVE, AND NADIA CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THE WINDOWS IN QUESTION ON THE FRONT ARE THE TWO THAT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE UPSTAIRS GREEN DOOR.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT ABOVE THERE.
AND, UM, THERE WAS ONE ON THE SIDE, IS THAT RIGHT? THERE ARE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE, YES.
AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT ELEVATION, THERE ARE SOME ON THE SIDE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE THE FIRST TWO THAT ARE ON THE TOP LEFT.
SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THERE A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE COMPLI, NOT WORRY ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE TO THE, AND THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE LEVELS TO THIS MM-HMM
UM, MAKING THE COMPLIANCE ON THE OTHER WINDOWS THAT ARE NOT ON THE FRONT FACADE, PUTTING THE CONSIDERATION, THE OPERATION OF THE WINDOW ON THOSE, WAS THERE A CONSIDERATION TO, AND IT'S NOT USUALLY RECOMMENDED, BUT IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY OF THE TYPE OF GLASS, UM, IS THAT, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO REMOVE THE GLASS, UM, THAT IS IN THOSE WINDOWS FROM A STANDARD GLASS TO A TEMPERED GLASS? UH, THAT WAS AND WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL PANES? YEAH.
YES, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO, BUT SHE, BUT I'M SAYING, DID THE HHC TALK ABOUT THAT OR DISCUSS THAT? UH, THEY DID NOT.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE WEIGHTS AND THE THICKNESS OF THE EXISTING SASH WOULD NOT ALLOW, AND THAT'S IN THE LETTER FROM TONER.
UM, BUT YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REPLACE, UM, BECAUSE THE INSULATED GLASS IS MUCH HEAVIER AND YOU'RE HAVING TWO PANES.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THE COUNTERWEIGHTS.
I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT INSULATED GLASS.
I'M SAYING LITERALLY JUST REMOVING THE NON TEMPERED GLASS OUT OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS AND REPLACING IT WITH A TEMPERED PIECE OF GLASS INSTEAD OF THE STANDARD GLASS.
WAS THAT CONSIDERED A DISCUSS? NO, THAT WAS NOT, THAT WAS NOT SUGGESTED.
BUT THAT'S STILL THE, THE TEMPERED GLASS WOULD BE THICKER AND IT WOULD BE HEAVIER.
AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THE COUNTERWEIGHTS INSIDE AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A WINDOW REPLACEMENT EXPERT AND ADVISE WHETHER THEY CAN HOLD A NEW WEIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ENGINEERED FOR THAT.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I HAD A TWO-TIER QUESTION.
SO THE FIRST QUE PART OF THE QUESTION WAS, WERE THERE OTHER WINDOWS IN THE SPACE THAT THIS BEDROOM HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO? AND IT WAS ANSWERED THAT YES, THERE'S WINDOWS ON THE SIDE.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE FRONT PRIMARY WINDOWS THEN COULD HAVE A SOLUTION SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING, WHERE IT'S SEALED OFF, BECAUSE THOSE WOULD NOT BE THE EGRESS WINDOWS.
THE EGRESS WINDOWS WOULD BE ON THE SIDE.
OUR CONCERN IS THAT BY ADDING THE INDOOR STORM WINDOW, THEN WE'RE TRAPPING MOISTURE IN THOSE WINDOWS.
AND SO THEN WE'RE CREATING THE NEXT PART OF OUR ARGUMENT, WHICH IS THAT IN TRYING TO PRESERVE THIS HOUSE, WE'RE ACTUALLY RUINING IT, YOU KNOW, BY INTRODUCING MOISTURE TO THE HOUSE.
AND WE'RE CREATING A POCKET IN THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THAT FRONT FACADE, THEN IT ALREADY SWEATS.
AND THEN IF YOU, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF THAT WINDOW TO EVAPORATE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'VE PUT PLEXIGLASS IN FRONT OF IT, THEN YOU'RE CREATING EVEN MORE MOISTURE PROBLEMS. AND IT WOULD BE JUST IN THE FRONT, BECAUSE ALL AROUND THE REST OF THE HOUSE, WE ARE ABLE TO CHANGE THE WINDOW.
SO THE HOUSE WOULD FUNCTION WELL IN, YOU KNOW, TERMS OF CLIMATE.
AND IN THOSE TWO ROOMS WOULD SWEAT.
A LOT OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN HISTORIC PROPERTIES BEFORE.
[00:20:01]
VILLE, TEXAS CALLED WALLACE HILL, AND WE HAD TO DO STORM WINDOWS BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER WAS VERY SPECIFIC THAT WE COULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.AND THERE ARE WAYS TO ENGINEER THAT STORM WINDOW SO THAT MOISTURE COMES OUT OF IT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO CREATE AN ARGUE POINT, I'M JUST TRYING TO LIKE LOCATE WHERE THE REAL ISSUE IS AND NOT EXPAND AND CREATE SOMETHING LIKE YOU MENTIONED MOLD ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
EVERYBODY'S HOUSE HAS MOLD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
EVERYBODY'S ROOF HAS MOLD ON THE TOP OF THE ROOF.
WE CAN'T REALLY CONTROL, CONTROL MOLD ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S A NATURAL PROCESS.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE, WE ALSO HAVE IT ON THE INSIDE.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE A LOT OF MOISTURE ON THE INSIDE.
UM, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF COMING FROM EVERYWHERE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE, UH, APP, FOR THE, UH, ARCHITECT AND I'M, YOU DID SIGN UP, BUT SINCE WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN, I'M NOT GONNA CALL YOU AS A SEPARATE SPEAKER 'CAUSE WE'VE, YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN.
UH, I WAS, OF, OF THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING TEMPERED GLASS AS OPPOSED TO NEIL GLASS.
AND THE SPEAKER KEPT GOING BACK TO THE STORM WINDOW.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE GOTTEN AN ANSWER OF TEMPERED VERSUS KNEELED.
SHE WAS SAYING IT WAS JUST, SHE WAS SAYING IT WAS THICKER AND, UM, WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT MUCH THICKER.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GOT OFF ON STORM PROTECTION, STORM BOARDS AGAIN, OR STORM WINDOWS.
WELL, BECAUSE THERE WAS A, SHE HAS TWO ISSUES THAT SHE'S BRINGING, SHE HAS BROUGHT UP.
ONE IS MOISTURE, WHICH I LIVE IN A 1890 HOUSE.
I HAVE SWEAT ON MY WINDOWS EVERY DAY.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST NORMAL FOR WHAT I DEAL WITH.
BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE I'VE HAD THE WINDOWS EACH INDIVIDUALLY, VISUALLY RESTORED AND DEALT WITH.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ROT ISSUES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
I SPENT THE MONEY TO HAVE EACH SASH ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE.
BUT SO ONE WAS THE MOISTURE ON THE INSIDE OF THE WINDOWS.
TWO WAS THE SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH REQUIRE WAS REFERENCING THE TEMPERED OR THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE THAT CAN OCCUR IF YOU'RE MESSING WITH NONT TEMPERED GLASS IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.
SO I WAS ADDRESSING THE FIRST ONE.
CAN WE JUST CHANGE THE GLASS IN THE SASH FROM AN, AN KNEELED TO A TEMPERED GLASS? AND THEN IF YOU HAVE THE ADDRESS, STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE MOISTURE, YOU CAN STILL DO A SIMILAR SITUATION TO WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED, WHICH IS A STORM ON THE INSIDE.
AND THERE'S ALREADY TWO OTHER WINDOWS THAT CAN FUNCTION FOR EGRESS ON THE SIDE SO THAT YOU COULD LEAVE THE PRIMARY FACADE ALONE, WHICH IS THE ONLY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALLOWING YOU TO CHANGE EVERYTHING, BUT THE PRIMARY FACADE.
SO SAVING THE TWO WINDOWS IS KI YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY WE NEED TO EXPLORE EVERY OPTION OF SAVING THOSE WINDOWS ON THE FRONT? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED AND WHAT, WHAT THE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDS.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, DURING THE HEARING AT HAHC, THERE WAS MENTION OF, UM, A WILLING OR A, AN OFFER ON THE TABLE OF TAKING THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS DISCUSSION, SAVING THEM AND DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS BEING SALVAGED.
IS THAT STILL ON THE TABLE? THAT IS STILL ON THE TABLE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO THIS COMMISSION? WE WOULD REMOVE, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF, UM, RECOMMENDED.
AND UH, WE'VE DONE IT ON OTHER PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, WHERE MAYBE WE'RE ADDING TO THE BACK AND WE NEED TO REMOVE A WINDOW.
SO WE WERE SUGGESTING, YOU KNOW, THAT WE REMOVE THE WINDOWS.
OUR CLIENT IS, YOU KNOW, HAPPY, SAFETY, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE WORKS BETTER, BUT WE DON'T THROW AWAY THE WINDOWS.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE SALVAGE THEM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE KEEP THEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE IDEA OF PRESERVATION, YOU KNOW, AND HOW WHEN, LIKE, WHEN YOU ADD TO A HISTORIC BUILDING, YOU ADD IN SUCH A WAY THAT IN THE FUTURE IT COULD BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION.
SO, AND THAT IS WHY WE PRESERVE THE RICH AND THE ORIGINAL CORNERS, YOU KNOW, AND LIKE DOING A HYPHEN, YOU KNOW, WHICH WERE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE WORKS THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU COULD JUST TEAR DOWN THE NEW ADDITION.
YOU HAVE THE OLD, AND SO SAVING THE WINDOW SPEAKS TO
[00:25:01]
THAT IN THAT SHOULD THE HOUSE BE RETURNED, YOU KNOW, TO ITS PRIOR CONDITION.WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL.
AND THAT HAS BEEN HAPPEN, THAT, THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS WHERE YOU REMOVE NEW, UM, ADDITIONS AND THEN YOU GO AND YOU RESTORE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT WAS IN STORAGE OR, YOU KNOW, IT HAD BEEN ABANDONED, BUT IT EXISTS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THAT HISTORIC MATERIAL IS.
SO OUR CLIENT IS WILLING TO DO THAT AND, YOU KNOW, KEEP THEM.
AND LASTLY, YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE, YOU HAD, UH, OFFERED TO HAVE NEW SASHES MADE.
UH, I, WE DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE A DRAWING.
IS THERE A CROSS SECTION THAT SHOWS WHAT THE NEW WINDOW WOULD LOOK LIKE IN CROSS SECTION VERSUS THE OLD DRAW VERSUS THE EXISTING WINDOW? WE PROVIDED THAT, UM, WE PROVIDED THAT TO THE STAFF.
I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS.
IT HASN'T BEEN ON THE SCREEN YET AS FAR AS THE YEAH, THAT'S SO MINUSCULE SMART.
IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION.
AND TO THAT QUESTION, ARE YOU, WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO DO A SIX OVER NINE INDIVIDUALLY PANED TEMPERED INSULATED GLASS? YES.
WE WOULD DO AN EXACT REPLICA OF THE WINDOWS AND WE WOULD MATCH THE PROFILE AND WE CAN SUBMIT THAT FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
BUT YES, UM, UH, I WORK WITH A FEW COMPANIES, UH, ONE OUT OF WISCONSIN AND ONE OUT OF CANADA, WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO DO EXACTLY, UM, WHAT WE WANT IN TERMS OF A CUS IN, IN TERMS OF A CUSTOM WINDOW.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT THAT WE DID SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND THIS IS A COMPANY OUT OF CANADA CALLED DYNAMIC WINDOWS.
AND, UH, THIS IS WHAT WE DID FOR THAT PROJECT.
UM, WE CAN CUSTOMIZE THE PROFILES IN ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT WINDOW.
SO THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT EVEN HAS A SASH LOG.
UM, AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WINDOW IS MUCH, IT'S THICKER THAN NORMAL, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A DEEPER PROFILE, UM, ON THE MOUNTAINS.
AND SO WE WOULD WORK WITH THIS COMPANY TO REPLICATE THE WINDOWS OF THE HOUSE.
AND THEY'RE ABLE, THE LEVEL OF CUSTOMIZATION THAT THEY CAN OFFER IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY INCREDIBLE.
SO WE WOULD JUST LITERALLY REPLICATE THE WINDOWS E EXACTLY.
REPLICA IS CLEAR TO ME WHAT THAT MEANS.
UM, OUT OF CURIOSITY, THE OTHER WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE THAT YOU'RE REPLACING, ARE THEY GONNA BE EXACT REPLICAS TO? YES.
SO THIS WOULD JUST BE ADDING ONTO THE LIST OF, CORRECT.
UH, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OF STAFF.
AND MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT'S ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE WINDOWS ON THE REAR, BUT, UH, THE VOTE OF THE HAHC HAD TO DO WITH NOT ONLY THE FRONT WINDOWS, BUT ALSO THE SIDE WINDOWS.
NOW SOME OF OUR DISCUSSION HAS GONE TO FRONT WINDOWS ONLY, AND PERHAPS AT LEAST IT'S ON THE TABLE OUT THERE TO REPLACE THE SIDE WINDOWS.
UM, WAS THAT DISTINCTION? I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE TESTIMONY AT THE HAHC THAT'S DISCUSSED, THAT ASPECT OF IT? YES, GOOD QUESTION.
SO IT WAS DISCUSSED ON, UH, THE WINDOWS, PRIMARILY THE FRONT AND THE SIDES.
THE FRONT WAS MAINLY THE MAIN POINT OF CONTENTION, BUT THE SIDE AS WELL, JUST BECAUSE IT'S VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, THE REAR WAS NOT AN ISSUE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT SHE DID MENTION THAT, UM, AS MS. LAUTERBACH JUST SAID, THAT THE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE ON THE TOP RIGHT ALSO INCLUDE THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS. SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS WELL.
UM, AND IT IS, I KNOW IT'S A VERY LONG TRANSCRIPT, BUT IT IS, UH, INCLUDED IN THERE VERY BRIEFLY.
I WOULD SAY I'M, AS A 30 YEARS OF BEING IN THE FIELD,
I WOULD LIKE REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE ACTUAL PROFILE OF THE WINDOW COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL WINDOW BECAUSE WE'RE THE APPEALS BOARD.
I'VE BEEN IN, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE, NOT ONLY HISTORICAL COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT NOW THE APPEALS BOARD FOR OFF AND ON 20 YEARS.
LOTS OF PEOPLE, AND I'M NOT MAKING ANY DISCREDIT TO YOU, UH, NADIA, BUT
[00:30:01]
PEOPLE SAY THEY'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING AND THEN THEY DON'T.SO I LIKE HAVING AN ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND THIS IS WHAT'S THERE NOW.
SO I WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL, UM, PLANNER FOR THIS APPLICATION, HOWEVER, I HAVE INCLUDED THE FULL STAFF REPORT.
SO WHAT IS IN YOUR PACKETS CURRENTLY? AND, UH, THIS IS THE SLIDESHOW THAT WAS SHOWN AT OUR HHC MEETING.
SO IT COULD HAVE VERY WELL BEEN THAT IT WAS PROVIDED AND STAFF DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE IT.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT EXHIBIT E WITH THE APPLICANT PROVIDED MATERIALS, UH, THE AGENT PROVIDED THEM TO STAFF THE DAY BEFORE OUR HHC MEETING.
SO WE COULD NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE ACTUAL PACKET ITSELF, BUT IT, THEY WERE SHOWN ON A DOCUMENT CAMERA AND THEY WERE PASSED, UH, PASSED AROUND AMONGST, UH, THE HORSESHOE.
SO THEY DID INCLUDE, UH, THAT LETTER.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THE PHOTOS, UH, ARE INCLUDED IN HERE AS WELL, IN TERMS OF THE DAMAGE.
BUT NO, THERE ARE NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NOT A PROPOSAL OF THE EXACT, YOU KNOW, SPEC SHEET AND WHAT THE WINDOWS WOULD LOOK LIKE EXACTLY.
UH, WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME IS THAT WE HAVE, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL CODE AND CONFLICT WITH AN ASPECT OF THE HISTORIC CODE.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THOSE SITUATIONS? I'M SURE IT'S NOT THE ONLY TIME WE'VE HAD CONFLICTS IN OUR CODE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CODE CHAPTER 33, WHICH GOVERNS THE HHC AND THE COA, UM, APPROVALS, IT DOES SAY IN 33, 2 40, THAT IN RE IN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS FOR THE COAS, UH, THE HHHC IS CHARGED WITH A SHELL SHALL CONSIDER ALL OTHER CODES AND ORDINANCES, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE, THE ELEMENTS AND THE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER FOR HISTORIC, UM, PROPERTIES.
SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION AND ALSO A RESOLUTION IF THERE HAPPENS TO APPEAR TO BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN ANY OTHER CODE APPLICABLE TO THIS.
AND WOULDN'T THERE ALWAYS BE A CONFLICT WITH, YOU KNOW, MODERN WINDOWS, UH, ENERGY EFFICIENCY? SO THERE IS, IT'S SHALL CONSIDER MEANS YOU SHALL.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A CONFLICT.
LIKE I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER STRUCTURE WHERE, UM, ENERGY EFFICIENCY BY ITSELF IS NOT A CODE VIOLATION.
UM, IT'S, IT'S THE PROVISIONS OF THE IBC THAT REGULATES SAFETY.
SO IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE WINDOWS GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SILL, IT BEING IN A BEDROOM, UM, THAT CHILDREN USE, I MEAN, I'M SURE THOSE ARE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS HOUSE, WHICH IS WHY WE, UH, HAVE TO BE CON COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO SET PRECEDENTS.
UM, STILL YOU SHALL CONSIDER, UM, THE IBC AND OTHER CODES STAFF PERSON DELEON.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I ACTUALLY DID HAVE A LANDMARK, UH, COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION A FEW MONTHS AGO.
I'M FORGETTING THE NAME AT THE MOMENT, BUT THEY WERE TURNING A, UM, A LANDMARK WHICH WAS LIKE THIS BIG BEAUTIFUL HOME INTO A SCHOOL.
AND THEY DID HAVE TO REPLACE SOME OF THE WINDOWS IN ORDER TO MEET, UH, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THEM EGRESS.
I THINK THE ISSUE IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, APPLICATION WAS BECAUSE ONE, THE LANDMARK THAT I HAD WAS NOT NECESSARILY KNOWN FOR THEIR WINDOWS.
WE HAD, UM, OUR ARCHIVIST, UM, ARCHITECT, UM, OUR ARCH ARCHITECTURAL ARCHIVIST, GINGER, BERNIE STATE, THAT BIRD, BIRD BIRDS SAW BRISCOE, UM, MADE THESE WINDOWS.
THIS IS A KIND OF A DEFINING FEATURE OF THE HOUSE AND FOR I GUESS A LOT OF HIS ARCHITECTURAL, UH, CREATIONS OF HAVING THE FLOOR TO CEILING WINDOWS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT IN PARTICULAR IS KIND OF WHAT HAS COMPOUNDED THIS AND MADE THIS A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IN THE PAST, HAHC HAS APPROVED THE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS THAT ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE HISTORIC, UM, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN A BUILDING THAT WAS MADE BY AN ARCHITECT KNOWN FOR THESE FLOOR TO WIND FLOOR TO CEILING TO FLOOR WINDOWS.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY IN THIS, IN THIS MEETING, THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE WINDOWS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CHANGE OF THE DI DIMENSION OR LOCATION OF THE WINDOW.
THE ISSUE THAT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION IN THIS MEETING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UH, THE ISSUE WAS THAT, UM, THE APPLICANTS, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THE WINDOWS WERE, YOU KNOW, UM, NOT IN, IN OUR ORDINANCES STATED THAT THEY HAVE TO BE BEYOND REPAIR AND THAT THEY WERE NOT BEYOND REPAIR.
THIS IS OF COURSE, A SAFETY ISSUE, EGRESS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT LOOK, THE COMMISSION CHOSE TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE QUITE CLEARLY ON WHAT THAT SAYS IN TERMS OF BEING BEYOND REPAIR.
[00:35:01]
SO YES, AND IT'S A JIB WINDOW.IT'S A NOD TO A ANTEBELLUM, UH, ARCHITECTURE, UH, LOUISIANA AND THE GULF COAST, THAT'S WHAT THESE WINDOWS ARE.
'CAUSE THE IN BEFORE AIR CONDITIONING, YOU COULD RAISE THESE UP AND PROVIDE MORE AIR TO THE, SO HE'S NODDING TO A HISTORICAL GULF COAST TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL IN THESE WINDOWS.
AND AS YOU SUGGESTED, YOU COULD MEET THE CURRENT CODE BY REPLACING THE FRONT GLASS WITH TEMPERED GLASS AND KEEP THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS IN PLACE.
SO, UM, I ACTUALLY DID GO BACK AND I LOOKED IN THE TRANSCRIPT, AND IT IS ON PAGE, I HAVE IT HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
SO IT IS ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE TRANSCRIPT AND PAGE 16 OF THE TOTAL STAFF REPORT THAT YOU SEE INCLUDED IN HERE, UM, LOCATED IN EXHIBIT BI BELIEVE.
I'M JUST GONNA MAKE SURE, UM, IN EXHIBIT A, I'M SORRY.
AND IT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE EIGHT.
AND IT IS THE, UH, COMMENTS THAT, UM, UH, MS, UH, LAUTERBACH SAID, AND IT'S IN THE SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH AS WELL AS THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
UM, TO YOUR POINT, AND COMMISSIONER HICK, I'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL JUST READ IT VERBATIM.
UH, TO YOUR POINT OF HAVING WINDOWS THAT ARE AIRTIGHT, THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY A GOOD THING IN A BUILDING THAT IS NOT AIRTIGHT.
THESE HOUSES LEAK, THEY NEED TO BREATHE.
SO IF WE PUT AN ACRYLIC INTERIOR STORM WINDOW THAT MAKES THE PARTICULAR UNIT AIRTIGHT, THEN YOU ARE GUARANTEEING WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY THIS HOUSE.
UM, IT WORKS IN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNED WITH DIFFERENT PARAMETERS, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK IN A HOUSE THAT LEAKS EVERYWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAVE INSULATION ON THE WALLS, YOU KNOW, NEXT PARAGRAPH.
AND SO THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR US AND MY CLIENT, WE CANNOT RETROFIT SASHES BECAUSE TEMPERED GLASS IS HEAVIER AND THICKER.
SO THE CURRENT SASHES WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE WEIGHT IN THE THICKNESS OF THE TEMPERED GLASS.
AND ALSO WE WANT TO SAVE THE HOUSE.
SO IT WAS BRIEFLY MENTIONED, UM, AND SHE DID SAY THAT, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS NECESSARILY HAD A COMMENT ON THE TEMPERED CLASS.
AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH FILES FROM 20 YEARS AGO, SEE HOW WE DID THOSE STORM WINDOWS ON THAT BUILDING IN VILLE, THE HISTORIC HOUSE.
BUT I THINK THERE WERE LITTLE TINY HOLES DRILLED IN THE, IN THE PLEXIGLASS THAT ALLOWED JUST ENOUGH AIR TO TRANSFER OUT SO THAT IT DIDN'T FOG UP.
UM, SO FROM, I'M, LOOK, I TRIED TO PULL UP ON MY PHONE THE, UM, THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE.
UM, AND I, MY QUESTION IS DISTINCTION BETWEEN, UH, THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO LANDMARKS VERSUS OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
SO I RECALL BACK IN THE DAY WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS PUT IN PLACE, THERE WAS A 90 DAY WAIVER.
UM, AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, IS THAT THAT REMAINS IN PLACE FOR, UM, OR QUESTION DOES THAT, I KNOW THAT THAT WAS REMOVED, UM, WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS LATER, UM, AMENDED FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY.
BUT I AM CURIOUS IS WHAT IS, PARDON? I I'M SORRY.
UM, SO I SAID LANDMARK, IT IS ACTUALLY PROTECTED.
LANDMARK PROTECTED LANDMARKS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO 90 DAY WAIVERS, ONLY REGULAR LANDMARKS.
SO SINCE THIS IS A PROTECTED LANDMARK, OKAY.
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION FOR THE 90 DAY WAIVER.
SO IN MY SCRIPT, I DID SAY THAT IT WAS A LANDMARK, BUT IS ACTUALLY PROTECTED LANDMARK.
SO THE, THE 90 DAY WAIVER ONLY APPLIES FOR LANDMARKS, NOT PROTECTED LANDMARKS, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND THEY ARE, UH, NOT APPLICABLE TO LANDMARKS THAT ARE LOCATED IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, BUT THIS IS NOT A LANDMARK IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THIS IS A PROTECTED LANDMARK INDIVIDUAL HOUSE? YES, MA'AM.
JUST PROVIDING A DISTINCTION, BUT YES, YOU ARE CORRECT.
MAYBE I, I'M JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, UH, INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY.
MAYBE I COULD, IF I COULD FOLLOW UP TO GET A, WHERE THAT, WHERE'S THAT STATED? UM, OKAY.
'CAUSE MAYBE THIS IS AN OLD VERSION OF THE 33, 2 50.
I WAS JUST ON A FURTHER POINT OF THAT.
THEN I HAVE A, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, IF THE, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IF THE, UM, DECISION IS UPHELD, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS, I THINK WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT.
UM, WHAT, UH, WHAT WOULD YOUR NEXT PLAN OF, UM, WHAT WOULD YOUR NEXT PLAN BE? WOULD YOU APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL? UH, I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO MY CLIENT AND SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, THAT DECISION
[00:40:01]
DOESN'T LIE WITH ME.SO YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE CLIENT YET? NOT YET.
AND I WILL, I MEAN, NO, LEAN ON THE, UH, LEGAL TO BA TO CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT YOU, YOU, DID THEY EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THE APPEALS BOARD ACTUALLY REVIEWS IN REFERENCE TO YOUR APPEAL? HONESTLY, WE'VE GOTTEN VERY LITTLE INFORMATION.
SO THE APPEALS BOARD, WE ARE HERE, WHAT WE DO IS WE IN, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS.
IF IT WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE'D BE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
UH, YOU HAVE A PROTECTED LANDMARK.
SO WE, YOU WOULD BE COVERED BY JUST THE MAIN ORDINANCE.
AND OUR MAIN JOB IS TO SEE THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE RULES OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
AND IF, IF WE FIND THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND THE DECISION, THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANEUVER AROUND THAT.
WE CAN'T, UM, WE ALSO CAN'T REVIEW NEW MATERIALS.
SO LIKE IF YOU HAD LIKE THIS REVELATION AND THIS NEW INFORMATION, WE AUTOMATICALLY TYPICALLY SEND THAT BACK TO THE COMMISSION BECAUSE WE, WE CAN ONLY REVIEW WHAT'S, OR WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO REVIEW MM-HMM
WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE, HAPPENED AND OCCURRED IN THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND WITH STAFF PRIOR TO THAT.
SO OUR DETERMINATION'S GONNA BE BASED ON WHETHER WE FEEL THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, UM, FOLLOWED THE ORDINANCE AND TOOK ACTION BASED ON THAT APPROPRIATELY.
SO, UH, STAFF PERSON DE LEON, I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND PULL UP, I BELIEVE IT IS SECTION 33 DASH TWO 50, UH, A, WHICH STATES THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY NOT GIVE ISSUE A 90 DAY WAIVER TO ANY PROTECTED LANDMARK OR ANY PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE OLD SIX WARD.
AND THEN THE FOLLOWING LINE, UH, IT IS ON THERE.
I CAN ZOOM IN, RIGHT? SO THAT'S JUST SEPARATE, SAYS NO.
AND THEN, UH, ALSO A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS WAS NOT MY ORIGINAL PROJECT.
UH, THE PLANNER IS OUT OF TOWN.
HOWEVER, THE PLANNER DID LET ME KNOW THAT SHE WAS GOING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, ON ALL OF THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPEALS.
DOES ANYONE, DOES ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBER, DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? AND BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD JUST ASK STAFF ONE MORE TIME, SINCE WE'VE HAD SO MUCH DISCUSSION AS WE USUALLY DO TO RESTATE WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REVIEWING.
I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON OR DECIDE ON.
SO THE APPLICANT IS VOTING TO APPEAL THEIR, UH, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, WHICH WAS THAT THE ONLY, THE REAR WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED AND ALL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, UH, ON THE FRONT AND SIDE, ELEVATIONS MUST BE RETAINED.
SO THEY ARE, UM, ASKING FOR A FULL, UH, A FULL, UM, CHANGE OF ALL OF THE WINDOWS AND KEEPING THE, THE WINDOW DIMENSIONS COMPLETELY THE SAME.
NOTHING IS CHANGING WITH EXACT REPLICAS.
THE ADDITION THAT IS ALSO STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS NOT AN ISSUE WHATSOEVER.
SO THIS IS SOLELY ON THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL OF THE EXTERIOR WINDOWS.
ANY BOARD MEMBERS WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION ON THIS ITEM? OR DO WE WANNA HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? TAMMY KIM, CITY LEGAL, JUST INTERJECTING, CAN YOU CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME, WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE HHHC THAT THIS APPEALS BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO AFFIRM? YES, MA OR TO REVERSE? YES, MA'AM.
SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AS WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATION PASSED BY HAHC WAS APPROVALS WITH CONDITIONS THAT ONLY THE REAR WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED.
ALL WINDOWS, ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS MUST BE RETAINED.
THEN FOR CLARIFICATION, WAS THERE ANYTHING ADDED TO THAT, UM, DECISION BY THE HAC, LIKE DIRECTOR? UH, TRAN NOTED THAT THERE WAS SOME, SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT PRESERVING, REMOVING AND PRESERVING THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS.
I'M, I'M AGAIN NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THIS APPEALS BOARD IS, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
SO THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HAAC ACTION.
IT WAS DISCUSSED AND THEY, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT UP THAT THEY FELT THERE WAS NO REALLY A POINT IN ASKING THEM TO RE TO RETAIN AND KEEP THOSE WINDOWS, LET'S SAY IN STORAGE AND,
[00:45:01]
YOU KNOW, ADDING IN THOSE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS, UM, THAT WAS MENTIONED AND NOTHING ELSE WAS REALLY SAID.SO THIS WAS THE EXACT MOTION THAT WAS PASSED.
BUT THEY DID ENTERTAIN THE IDEA SOMEWHAT JUST SAY, I'M UNCLEAR OF THE EXACT RECOMMENDATION, BUT I WOULD NEVER ASK THE APPLICANT TO PUT PLEXIGLASS STORM WINDOWS IN FRONT OF AN EGRESS WINDOW.
THAT, FOR ME, IS A NON-STARTER.
UM, AND THEN I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION THEN BECOMES, WHAT IS THE WEIGHT OF A TEMPERED PANE OF GLASS IN FRONT OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM NINE PANELS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE AND WHETHER WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO TO THAT WINDOW TO MAKE IT OPERABLE PER EGRESS REQUIREMENTS? AND SO, UH, I MIGHT BE INCLINED, UM, TO HAVE A GREATER DETAIL AROUND EITHER WHAT THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS LOOK LIKE OR WHAT EXACTLY WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS TO REPLACE ALL THE GLASS WITH TEMPERED GLASS.
I WOULD NOT REPLACE IT WITH INSULATED GLASS.
UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FOR THE HHC? LIKE, WHAT IS THEIR APPLICATION TIME FOR THE NEXT REVIEW? SO IF YOU WERE TO SEND THIS BACK TO, YOU KNOW, BE, HAVE IT BE, UH, CONSIDERED BY THE HAC, IT WOULD GO DIRECTLY FOR THE NOVEMBER 5TH, UH, COMMISSION DATE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT FOR NOVEMBER 5TH.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THE VERY FINE DETAILS THAT WE'RE GETTING INTO, WHICH IS NORMAL WHEN IT COMES TO THE APPEALS BOARD, WHICH IS, WHAT IS THE WEIGHT OF TEMPERED GLASS VERSUS THE IL GLASS FOR THE SASH? AN EXACT DRAWING SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, THE, THE, UH, PROPOSED SASH AND THE OTHER, AND IT'S TOO QUICK A TIME FOR YOU TO GET A SAMPLE OF IT, BUT CAN YOU GET AN EXACT DRAWING OF WHAT THE, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEW WINDOW VERSUS THE OLD WINDOW SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A DECISION DETERMINED DIRECTLY ON REAL DATA AND THAT THEY, THEY CAN HOLD YOU AGAINST NO OFFENSE, BUT TO HOLD YOU AGAINST THAT YOU WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY COULD COME WITH A RULER AND SAY, YES, YOU MATCHED TO THE DRAWING THAT YOU ACT THAT WE APPROVED.
AND THAT'S NOT TOO SHORT OF A TIME, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH.
I WAS GONNA SAY NOVEMBER FOUR FIFTH IS WHAT? A, A WEEK? IT'S 15 DAYS FROM NOW, BASICALLY.
YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK WE, WE CAN DO THAT, THAT, BECAUSE VOTING IS NOVEMBER 3RD, SO YES, I MEAN, IT'S LIKE TWO WEEKS FROM NOW
AND, UM, WE CAN, UM, WE, WE CAN LOOK AT, I KNOW I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THICKER.
AND THESE WINDOWS ARE NOT TRIPLE HUNG.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOUBLE HUNG, BUT THEY'RE SEPARATED TO WHERE THE UPPER SASH IS SMALLER.
SO YOU, THE BOTTOM PART, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE ARE CONTENDING, IT'S A LOT, YOU KNOW MM-HMM
TO LIFT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE SAYING, BUT WE WILL ENTERTAIN AT AT LEAST PROVIDE YOU SOME DATA OF WHAT THE WEIGHT OF THE TEMPERED GLASS WOULD BE ON THAT SASH.
UM, WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO TALK TO BRENT HALL ABOUT THAT.
UM, I MEAN, WOULD THAT BE, WOULD THAT BE A SOLUTION THAT THE OWNER WOULD, WOULD LIKE, WOULD THEY, WOULD THEY BE OKAY WITH THAT? WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'D EVEN WANT TO DO? I, I THINK SO.
ON THE BOTTOM, I, UH, THE MAIN CONCERN FOR THEM IS SAFETY.
SO BEING ABLE TO CHANGE TO TEMPERED, UH, WOULD MAKE THEM HAPPY.
UM, AND WE WORK WITH YOU JD, YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH BRENT HALL.
THEY'RE A COMPANY OUT OF DALLAS THAT MAKES BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC LOOKING WINDOWS.
THEY SPECIALIZE IN SINGLE PANE, BUT THEY DO HAVE, UM, UH, LIKE A LAMINATED GLASS THAT HAS SOME INSULATING PROPERTIES THAT CAN HELP THE RESILIENCE PORTION OF OUR CLIENT'S CONCERN.
SO WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK, YOU KNOW, AT THAT AND PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME DATA.
WELL, YOU WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE, UH, UH, WE HAVEN'T MADE A DETERMINATION YET.
I'M JUST TRYING TO LINE UP ALL THE INFORMATION.
SO THAT IF ALL THAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED MM-HMM
THEN THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION COULD THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION YES.
BECAUSE WE CAN'T, WE REALLY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE A NEW SOLUTION MM-HMM
SO WHAT YOU'RE, WE BASICALLY HERE CAN SAY, YES, WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH HISTORICAL COMMISSION MM-HMM
AND THE STAND THAT STANDS, OR WE CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE LOWER
[00:50:01]
COMMI TO THE MM-HMMNOT LOWER COMMISSION, BUT BACK TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION SO THAT THEY CAN, BECAUSE NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN FOUND OR NEW SOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND MM-HMM
BUT WE REALLY TYPICALLY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COME UP WITH A NEW SOLUTION BECAUSE THE REAL REGULATING BODY FOR THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IS THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
SO, BUT YES, WE CAN, WE CAN WORK WITH YOU MM-HMM
LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION, BUT THEN WE CAN'T MAKE THE DETERMINATION WE'LL HAVE TO SEND BECAUSE IT'S NEW INFORMATION THAT THE COMMISSIONED WAS NOT, NOT REVIEWED.
BUT YES, WE CAN COME UP WITH THAT INFORMATION BY NOVEMBER 5TH.
UM, CHAIR BARTELL, JUST FOR SAKE OF ORDER, UM, THEN ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT FROM ME WHEN I WAS LISTENING, WHAT THE HC HAD ACTUALLY DECIDED WAS A TWO PART DECISION ON THE FRONT, THE PUBLIC FACING, UH, SIDE OF THE WINDOW APPLICATION AND ALSO THE REAR.
SO IN TERMS OF THE REAR WINDOWS BEING APPROVED TO REPLA BE REPLACED, YOU ARE AFFIRMING THAT PART OF THAT.
THAT'S NOT EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.
THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED AND SORTED.
SO WE'RE NOT EVEN DISCUSS, DISCUSS WHAT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE TRYING TO, THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY AND, UH, MOISTURE RETENTION.
UM, WE HAVE BROUGHT UP SEVERAL IDEAS AS FAR AS HOW THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED.
THAT MAY BE MORE APPEALING TO THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, BUT WE CAN'T, THEY HAVE TO REVIEW IT AT THE COMMISSION.
SO YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO RETURN TO THE HHHC COMMISSION MEETING, THE WHOLE COMMISSION TO HAVE FINDINGS.
SPECIFIC TO THEN THESE SERIES OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
'CAUSE THE FRONT ELEVATION ON THIS RESIDENCE IS A VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL.
SO WE, AND BECAUSE IT IS PRECEDENT, I WILL SAY IF IT WAS TRUE IN ALL DOCUMENTATION IN THE FUTURE, THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF THIS ONE THAT MAKES IT MORE ARCHITECTURALLY IMPORTANT, BUT TWO, THAT MEANS THAT PRECEDENT REALLY ISN'T GOING TO BE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO ANYBODY ELSE.
'CAUSE THIS WOULD BE A ONE TIME DEAL.
SO AS LONG AS THAT IS IN THE WRITTEN RECORD, UH, THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AS FAR AS MM-HMM
THE, THE, UH, PRECEDENT BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A UNIQUE SITUATION TO A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPER, A UNIQUE STRUCTURE.
AND THAT, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HAS ANY BEARING HERE, BUT THE ATTITUDE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD WAS VERY PECULIAR.
AND IF I MAY SAY DISTURBING, ESPECIALLY COMING FROM ARCHITECTS, UH, ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THEM WAS, WE ALL GREW UP IN OLD HOUSES, BROKE WINDOWS, AND GOT STITCHES.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE UP AGAINST.
I'M GOING TO JUST INTERRUPT ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT IN A, IN A PLATFORM AND A, IN A FORUM TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT WAS, IT WAS VERY, UH, IT WAS NOT SYMPATHETIC AND IT JUST SEEMED BIASED.
SO THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH, NOT WITH SYMPATHY, BUT WITH, UM, UH, COMPLYING WITH AND OBSERVING THE RULES OF THE COMMISSION.
SO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE COMMISSION RECONSIDER, UM, FOR THE, WITH THE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WHAT I'M HEARING AS WELL.
UM, SO I WAS ALSO IN THE HEARING WITH HAAC.
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ASKING, UM, I FELT THAT IT WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED, UH, DURING HAHC IN TERMS OF OPTIONS FOR THE WINDOWS.
UM, MAYBE NOT AS IN MUCH DETAILS.
I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT I HEARD AT HHC AND TODAY IS THAT THE REQUEST FOR MORE DETAILED DRAWINGS OF THE PROPOSED WINDOW, BUT IN TERMS OF THE OPTIONS THAT WERE THROWN, THAT WERE REJECTED AT HAHC WERE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING REPLACING THE CURRENT WINDOWS WITH TEMPERED GLASS.
THE OTHER OPTION, WHICH IT SOUNDED LIKE NOT SO GOOD HERE, IS HAVING THE PE PLEXIGLASS, UH, STORM BEHIND IT.
BUT PLEASE, STAFF, UM, SAMANTHA, CAN YOU VERIFY, I BELIEVE FROM MY MEMORY, THAT TEMPERED GLASS WAS DISCUSSED.
YOU BROUGHT THAT ON PAGE EIGHT.
THERE WAS TALKED ABOUT TEMPERED GLASS.
AND SO I THINK SENDING IT BACK TO HHC TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF REPLACING THE CURRENT GLASS WITH TEMPERED GLASS HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED,
[00:55:01]
UH, OR DISCUSSED AND ASKED OF THE APPLICANT.APPLICANT SAID THAT THE INTERIOR WINDOWS, IT WILL CREATE, UM, A, UM, THAT THE WEIGHT, THE COUNTERWEIGHT, WHICH THE APPLICANT CAME UP HERE.
SO LET'S BE CLEAR, IF YOU WILL, IF YOU DECIDE TO SEND IT BACK TO HAHC, PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED AND REJECTED VERSUS WHAT'S NEW.
I WAS WONDERING, WAS IT INSULATED GLASS THAT WAS DISCUSSED OR LIKE A ONE PANE TEMPERED GLASS? I THOUGHT SO.
I THOUGHT EARLIER YOU SAID, UH, THEY DISCUSSED, UH, THE IDEAS OF A TEMPERED GLASS BEING FLOATED IN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STORM WINDOWS.
SO THOSE WERE, I BELIEVE, THE OPTIONS THAT THEY WERE DISCUSSING.
THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS TO REPLACE ALL OF THE WINDOWS, WHICH THE COMMISSION DECIDED AGAINST BECAUSE OF THE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE DETAILS ACCORDING TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK, THAT YOU COULDN'T REPLACE WINDOWS THAT WERE NOT DAMAGED.
AND WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT AS A CONVERSATION PIECE AROUND TEMPERED GLASS, THE APPLICANT SAID, NO, NO, NOT THE COMMISSION WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH DIRECTLY VOTING FOR YES.
THEY COULD HAVE COME TO A DISCUSSION IN THE MEETING THOUGH, TO, TO THEN, BUT TO YOUR POINT, WHEN IT WAS DISCUSSED, IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS WANTED BY THE APPLICANT AS A SOLUTION.
'CAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TOO.
I WILL SAY IN THE DISCUSSION ALSO, THERE'S A, THERE'S A BEEN A DIVERGENT FROM WHEN YOU READ THE DESCRIPTION, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CHANGE WINDOWS ON THE BACK, BUT NOT THE SIDES AND THE FRONT.
AND DURING THE DISCUSSION, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED THAT THEY, THERE WAS SOME PERMISSION FOR THE SIDE, BUT THERE'S NO PERMISSION FOR THE SIDES.
IT WAS JUST THE BACK THAT WAS LEFT, JUST THE REAR.
BECAUSE THE APPROVAL STATES THAT ALL WINDOWS, ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT BOTH SIDE ELEVATIONS ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AS WELL AS THE FRONT, WHICH WOULD MEAN, WOULD MAIN WOULD MAKE THE REASON WHY THIS PROBLEM WITH THE EGRESS IS AN ISSUE.
BECAUSE IF IT WAS JUST THE FRONT, THIS TWO SIDE WINDOWS FOR THOSE TWO BEDROOMS WOULD BE, WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE, BUT THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THIS, THEY HAVE BEEN LOCKED OUT OF BEING ABLE TO CHANGE THE SIDE AS WELL AS THE FRONT.
AND THEN THE APPLICANT HAS A QUESTION.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I LET HER SPEAK? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THAT IN THE PRIMARY BEDROOM, ALL OF THE WINDOWS GO TO THE GROUND.
SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE FRONT BEDROOMS, THERE ARE SMALLER WINDOWS THAT DON'T GO TO THE GROUND, BUT IN THE PRIMARY BEDROOM THEY ALL DO.
SO WE HAVE AN EGRESS PROBLEM THERE.
AND SO TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S, IT'S KIND OF SILLY, YOU KNOW, IN ONE ROOM WE CHANGE THE BACK, BUT NOT THE SIDES, AND WE STILL HAVE AN EGRESS PROBLEM.
IT'S JUST THAT IT FOCUS ON THE FRONT BECAUSE THAT'S TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, WITH A COA, WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES AND WHAT WE, UM, CAN DETERMINE IS HISTORIC.
MR. CHAIR, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE BALANCING BETWEEN OUR ORDINANCE, HISTORIC ORDINANCE, AND BUILDING CODE.
AND THEREIN LIES THAT ERROR ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, THAT THERE TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS THE FRONT.
NOW WHAT I'M TORN WITH IS, IS IT FRUITFUL TO RETURN THIS TO THE HAHC OR JUST SIMPLY O OVERTURN IT HERE BECAUSE THE EGRESS OR BUILDING CODE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED? I WOULD SAY I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT IF WE ACTUALLY HAD THE DOCUMENTS THAT I'M DISCUSSING AS FAR AS THE PROFILES OF THE WINDOWS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UM, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A FINAL, ME, MYSELF, Y'ALL CAN VOTE ANY WAY YOU, YOU WANT, BUT THE, I I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE WINDOWS WITHOUT AN ACTUAL, SOME FORM OF PHYSICAL PROOF OR REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THOSE WINDOWS WILL LOOK LIKE.
AND IN FACT, I THINK THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THAT.
I'VE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE THAT ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT I'VE SUBMITTED FOR THINGS THAT, WHERE I HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE PROFILE, THE NEW WINDOW AND THE OLD WINDOW MATCH DIRECTLY ON A DOCUMENT THAT IS SPECIFIED FOR THAT RESIDENCE
[01:00:01]
AND THAT PROPERTY.SO ON PAGE 11 OF, UH, EXHIBIT A IN THE TRANSCRIPT, UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE SAYS, UM, IT'S KIND OF TOWARDS THE TOP OF THE PAGE, UM, I SAID, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT SPOKE MOST ABOUT THE KIDS' MED BEDROOMS. I MEAN, NOW, HA UH, IT NOW HAS INTRODUCED THAT THERE ARE OTHER WINDOWS THAT GO FLOOR TO CEILING HEALTH.
UH, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A FULL SCHEDULE OF EVERY WINDOW AND ITS, UH, DIMENSIONS, I MEAN, IN RELATION TO WHERE THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE.
SO FOR SOME IT COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THE WINDOW SCHEDULE THAT IS PROVIDED IN HERE IS WHAT WE ASK FOR.
'CAUSE IT KIND OF JUST SHOWS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE WINDOWS WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY ASK, UM, FOR LIKE AN EXACT PHOTO OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
NOT ALWAYS, BUT AS LONG AS STAFF IS AWARE OF, YOU KNOW, THE MATERIAL THAT'S BEING PUT IN THE DIMENSIONS.
AND, UM, IF A SPEC SHEET IS ALWAYS NICE, BUT NOT REQUIRED.
BUT, UM, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS PROVIDED, WHAT I WOULD SAY THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT MM-HMM
IS THAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING, I HAVE A ROTTEN SASH THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND I'M MATCHING THE ORIGINAL SASH.
THEY'RE SAYING I HAVE A SASH THAT MAY BE ROTTEN OR MAY NOT BE, BUT I'M NOT ONLY CHANGING THE SASH, I'M ALSO CHANGING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SASH.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT YOU NEED AN ACTUAL DOCUMENT BECAUSE WE CAN ALL SAY, I'VE GOT A LIFE SIZE EXAMPLE OF WHAT I'M DOING AND IT'S ON THE BUILDING, BUT THIS DOESN'T EXIST ON THE BUILDING AT THIS TIME.
I THINK, UM, I I CAN RECALL DIFFERENT TIMES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE, UH, TO NOT HOLD UP OR CREATE EXTRA ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON TIMING FOR BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSIONS TO HAVE SOMETHING ACCEPTABLE IN, IN THE CONDITION THAT SOMETHING IS PROVIDED LATER THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF AND THEN THEY CAN ADMINISTRATE ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIRM THAT.
SO I THINK WE COULD, I MEAN, I, I'M GOING OUT OF WHERE I NORMALLY GO, BUT I, I THINK WE COULD SAY THAT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS IN REFERENCE TO THE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES AND THAT WE'VE REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AND THAT IT GO BE, AND WE'RE LUCKY THAT THE, THE COMMISSION MEETING IS RELATIVELY CLOSE.
UM, SOMETIMES IT'S, IT'S LONGER AWAY FROM WHEN, WHERE OUR MEETING IS.
BUT I WOULD RATHER ERR ON MORE, UH, REVIEW OF IT THAN, UH, NOT ENOUGH JUST 'CAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS EVEN THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP, THIS IS A PRECEDENT SETTING, UH, PROJECT CHAIR BARTO.
SO CAN I SUMMARIZE MY UNDER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? UH, SO BASICALLY ARE YOU ASKING THAT, UM, IF THIS BOARD SENDS IT BACK TO HAHC, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE APPLICANT IS ILLUSTRATE TO ME AND SHOW TO ME THAT WITH THE ORIGINAL WINDOW, CAN YOU REPLACE THE NEO GLASS WITH TEMPERED GLASS? PROVE TO ME OR SHOW TO ME THAT IT CANNOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT IS THAT THE NEW GLASS, THE NEW TEMPERED GLASS WILL BE MUCH HEAVIER AND CANNOT WITHSTAND.
ARE YOU ASKING THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK TO THEIR WINDOW INSTALLER OR FABRICATOR AND SEE IF THE WINDOW, EXISTING WINDOW CAN BE RETROFITTED WITH TEMPER GLASS AND CAN IT WITHSTAND, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YES, BASICALLY, BUT ALSO, I MEAN JUST EVEN JUST THE EMPIRICAL DATA OF A REGULAR PIECE OF GLASS AS IS IN THE WINDOW NOW WEIGHS X AND A PIECE OF TEMPERED GLASS WEIGHS X.
SO THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE, THE FACT IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY IT WEIGHS MORE AND WE FIND OUT IT WEIGHS LIKE HALF AN OUNCE MORE AND IT'S THEN IT CAN'T FUNCTION.
CAN THE WEIGHTS IN THE WINDOW BE INCREASED AND THAT YOU JUST GET A HEAVIER WEIGHT IF IT'S A COUNTERBALANCE WINDOW? SO I MEAN, IF THE GLASS IS HEAVIER, YOU CAN DO A LARGER WEIGHT IN THE WINDOW AND AFFECT THE, THE WEIGHT OF THE GLASS ALSO.
I MEAN, SO THERE'S, AND I THINK THAT WHAT I'M, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IS THAT YOU HAVE THESE SEVERAL OPTIONS WITH THE CAVEAT THAT ADMINISTER BROUGHT UP SAYING THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT HERE WITH LIFE SAFETY DO, WHICH MAKES US FEEL LIKE IT DESERVES ANOTHER REVIEW.
IS THERE A WAY TO COME TO A COMPROMISE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS SITUATION TO
[01:05:01]
ALLEVIATE THE LIFE SAFETY, BUT ALSO APPEAL TO THE ORDINANCE AND, AND THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE CHARGED TO DO.I'M ALSO GOING TO THEN JUST CLARIFY ON TOP OF THAT, USING THE LANGUAGE OF WHAT THE APPEALS BOARD IS CHARGED WITH REVIEWING.
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THEN IS YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE HHC WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC IN ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
UM, SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO RETURN TO THE HHC FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE.
AND WE DO HAVE A PRECEDENT OF SENDING THINGS BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON SEVERAL PROJECTS AND TO ASK SPECIFICALLY TO REPLACE THE GLASS IN THE FRONT FOUR WINDOWS WITH TEMPERED GLASS, UH, RATHER THAN ASK TO REPLACE ALL OF THE WINDOWS.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AND IF THEY CAN'T, IF THEY FIND THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE TEMPERED GLASS IS SUCH, THEN THEY NEED TO PROVE TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE GLASS IS SUCH THAT WE CAN'T KEEP THESE WINDOWS AND MEET EGRESS REQUIREMENTS IN LIFE SAFETY PER CODE THAT THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED.
AND THEN IF THEY WERE GONNA REPLACE THEM, BRING A DETAILED DRAWING AS SUGGESTED ABOUT THOSE NEW REPLACEMENT WINDOWS, I WOULD ADD, I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, AS YOU STATED IT, WE CAN MAKE THE RE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE, THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THAT INFORMATION AND THAT, THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHETHER THAT
SO WE CAN SAY WE WANT, WE'VE, WE'VE FOUND SEVERAL WAYS THAT THIS, OR WE'VE DISCUSSED SEVERAL WAYS THIS CAN BE ADDRESSED, BUT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION HAS TO ASSEMBLE THOSE PIECES AND MAKE IT WORK THE WAY THAT IT WORKS BECAUSE WE CAN'T MAKE THE, THAT DETERMINATION.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT POWER.
SIR, YOU ARE ASKING THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION TO THEN ADD TO THEIR FINDINGS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND ALSO ADD TO THE EVIDENCE NO, THE APPLICANT ON A POTENTIAL IDEA OF A SOLUTION, NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROVED.
AND ALSO TO PROVIDE A, I GUESS A SPEC SHEET OR SOMETHING OF HOW THE PROPOSED WINDOWS, UH, THAT THEY ARE SAYING ARE EXACT REPLICAS WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I WILL SAY ABOUT 90% OF ALL REVIEWS THAT WE HAVE IN THE APPEALS BOARD ARE WINDOW RELATED APPEALS, BUT YOURS ARE A LITTLE EASIER TO SOLVE THAN GLENBROOK VALLEY'S, WHICH WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
GLENBROOK VALLEY'S PROBABLY THREE OUT OF FOUR MEETINGS.
WE DEAL WITH THEIR WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE'S A MANUFACTURING PROBLEM WITH THEIR WINDOWS
DO WE HAVE A, UH, RECOMMENDATION OR DO I NEED TO DO IT? UH, I RECOMMEND THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT GO BACK TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WITH AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMISSION ON THE NOVEMBER MEETING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD CLARIFY THE ABILITY OR NON ABILITY OF USING TEMPERED GLASS IN HISTORIC WINDOWS ON PREDOMINANTLY THE MAIN FRONT FACING STREET FACADE.
AND CLARIFYING THAT THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED, THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS HOW CLOSE OR HOW FAR IT WOULD DEFER, DEFER FROM THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS THAT ARE IN THE, IN THE BUILDING, IN A MANNER IN WHICH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION CAN UNDERSTAND EASILY SO THAT THEY CAN REVIEW IT, UH, EFFECTIVELY.
MAY I AMEND YOUR MOTION TO ADD THE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES THAT THEY MAKE A DETERMINATION OF THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO LIFE SAFETY? YES.
SO THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION, BUT NOT A MOTION TO ACCEPT OR DENY THEIR REQUEST TO US.
DON'T WE HAVE TO TO, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE PEOPLE FEEDBACK FOR WHAT THEY, WHAT IS A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION, BUT, SO THE APPEALS BOARD HAS 45 DAYS FROM THE TIME THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THE APPEAL TO MAKE THEIR, THEIR UM, DECISION.
SO IF YOU'RE ASKING TO ADJOURN YOUR DECISION UNTIL AFTER THESE FINDINGS ARE UPDATED, UM, WELL, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
THIS APPEALS MEETING IS NOVEMBER.
IT WOULD BE IN NOVEMBER AND I THINK WHAT IT'S NOVEMBER 17TH OR SOMETHING? WELL, I THINK BARTEL CHAIR BARTEL IS SUGGESTING IS THAT THIS THE GOES TO THE COMMISSION.
OH, IS, AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT HE MAKES A MOTION, BUT I THINK HE'S IN TRYING TO SAY THAT HE WOULD LIKE FOR THIS TO GO BACK TO THE HAHC,
[01:10:01]
HAVE THEM REVISE THEIR APPLICATION AND HAVE THE HAC MAKE A DECISION.AND IF NOT, THEN MORE THAN LIKELY THE APPLICATION WOULD COME BACK HERE IN NOVEMBER.
AND OUR MEETING'S NOVEMBER 16TH TENTATIVELY CORRECT.
WE HAVE SOME LEEWAY AS YOU STATED WITH THE 45 DAYS, BUT, SO THEN THAT'S NOT PROVIDING AN APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF WHAT THEY'VE RIGHT.
AND I THINK THAT YOU ARE CORRECT, AND THIS IS VERY HELPFUL WHAT YOU'VE STATED THAT STAFF IS AWARE OF THIS AND AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE DO, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A PART OFFICIALLY OF THE MOTION.
BECAUSE ALSO YOU SAID RECOMMENDATION, NOT MOTION.
SO, UH, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE DECISION UNTIL, ALL RIGHT.
ONE, THIS COMMISSION CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION TODAY.
YOU CAN AFFIRM WHAT PARTS OF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM HAC THAT YOU AGREE WITH, WHAT PARTS THAT YOU WANT TO SEND BACK.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM LEGAL IS WITH THAT ACTION THAT WIPES OUT THE 45 DAYS, IT STARTS ALL OVER.
DOES IT START ALL OVER? ARE WE, SO IF IT GETS SENT BACK BECAUSE YOU, BECAUSE THIS APPEALS BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT, WITHIN 45 DAYS, THE DECISION IS WE AFFIRM WHATEVER IT IS, WE ALSO LIKE TO SEND IT BACK TO HAAC FOR PART B.
SO IF THEY SEND IT BACK, DOES THE 45 DAYS CONTINUE TO COUNTER OR DO WE START ALL OVER? THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE DECISION FROM THE HAHC WAS.
IT, IT COVERED BOTH THE FRONT AND THE BACK.
AND IT'S, SO IF YOU WANTED TO AFFIRM IN PART ABOUT THE BACK WINDOWS BEING REPLACED, NOT BEING AN ISSUE, BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN UP FOR OUR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
THE HHC ALREADY APPROVED THE BACK WINDOWS.
WE'RE ONLY, WE'RE ONLY, WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING THE FRONT AND THE SIDE.
THEY'RE ONLY APPEALING THE FRONT AND THE SIDE.
AND THAT WAS JUST A SEPARATE, SO IF YOU WERE TO SEND IT BACK, THAT WOULD CON THAT WOULD NOT TOLL THE 45 DAYS? YES.
IT WOULD NOT, IT WOULD NOT TOLL THE 45 DAYS.
SO THE 45 DAYS WOULD CONTINUE IF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ADJOURNING THIS MEETING TO SEND IT BACK TO THE HAHC FOR FURTHER FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED, THE 45 DAYS WOULD CONTINUE TO TOLL.
SORRY, I THOUGHT THE 45 DAYS WAS YOU HAVE 45 DAYS TO PRESENT AN APPEAL.
WHERE WE APPEAL HAS BEEN PRESENTED, PERIOD.
I WOULD, I WE HAVE SENT MULTIPLE PROJECTS BACK TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
THEY'VE NEVER COME BACK TO OUR APPEALS BOARD.
WE'VE SENT PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE TO THE, SO THEY EITHER GOT REIGN DENIED, THEY GOT RESOLVED, DEN DENIED OR APPROVED.
I KNOW HE DID HAVE ONE BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME BACK WHEN YOU SENT IT BACK, IT WAS 11 18 2 LANE? I BELIEVE SO.
THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT, BUT THEN THEY'VE BEEN, THEY WERE DENIED HERE.
I, I THINK THEY WENT BACK AND THEN THEY DID NOT COME BACK HERE.
I THINK THEY WENT WITH A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.
THEY WENT COMMISSION, WELL, WE DENIED HERE AND THEY WENT BACK COMMISSION.
GOING BACK IS LIKE NOT A RIGHT.
I, WE HAVEN'T HAD A DOUBLE APPEAL, I DON'T THINK ON OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS A DOUBLE APPEAL.
SO I'M GOING TO READ, UH, SECTION 33, 2 53, UM, C ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS.
THE HPAB SHALL CONSIDER THE APPEAL WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR SHALL CONSIDER THE APPLICATION THE FINDINGS OF THE HHC WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING AT WHICH THE APPEAL IS CONSIDERED, THE HPAB SHALL REVERSE OR AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HHC BASED UPON THE CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
IF THE HPAB DOES NOT MAKE A DECISION ON THE APPEAL, WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR, THE DECISION OF THE HHC WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE COA SHALL BE DEEMED AFFIRMED.
SO THAT'S SAYING IF WE DON'T MAKE ENOUGH, IF WE DO NOTHING, THEN IT'S AFFIRMED.
SO, BUT I THINK APPLICANTS USUALLY WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING, RIGHT.
THAT'S OUR DUTY IS TO AFFIRM OR NOT SO LEGAL FOR ME, THE LANGUAGE SAID SHALL REVERSE OR AFFIRM THE DECISION.
THERE IS NOT AN INCLUSION OF SENDING IT BACK TO THE HAHC.
HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? BECAUSE
[01:15:01]
WE CAN REVERSE THE DECISION TODAY.OR WE CAN SAY, AFFIRM, WE AGREE WITH HAHC.
THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE SEND IT BACK, WE'RE, WE'RE TECHNICALLY DENYING IT.
AND THEN WITH MAYBE SOME ADVICE OR TECHNICALLY AFFIRMING IT.
AND THEN SENDING IT BACK AT THE SAME TIME.
SO THERE, I THINK THERE'S A, WHAT I WAS HEARING, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, WAS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT AN OPTION WHERE THE HAHC, THE APPEALS BOARD IS GOING TO TOLL ITS DECISION MAKING.
IN WHICH CASE, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HHC, IF THAT'S WHAT A MOTION THAT GOES FORWARD.
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THAT'S CORRECT.
ADDITION AND COLLOQUIALLY SENDING IT BACK.
IF YOU'RE DENIED, THEN YOU EITHER GO WITH WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH THEY HAVE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR ONE, OR THEY GO TRY SOMETHING ELSE.
AND OUR KIND OF COLLOQUIAL SENDING IT BACK IS IF THERE'S DISCUSSION HERE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND FEEL LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF SUCCESS WITH THIS GOING FORWARD THAN THEY GO BACK.
THEY ARE GOING BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION AGAIN WITH AN EXPEDITED TIMELINE, BUT WE'RE NOT SENDING IT BACK
WE'VE GIVEN MORE INFORMATION, REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION SO THAT WHEN THEY DO THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AT THE NEXT COMMISSION, THEY HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF OF COMING TO SOME SORT OF MEDIUM GROUND.
SO MY QUESTION IS, I NEED TO LOOK THROUGH THE CODE ONE MORE TIME.
ALSO, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY FOR AN APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND REHEAR THEIR CASE FROM THE HAHC EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE ALREADY HEARD IT, THEY'VE GOTTEN A VERDICT AND THEN THIS COMMISSION AFFIRMS IT.
WHAT IS THEIR CHANCE OF COMING BACK TO HAHC? CAN THEY, THERE'S, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LIMIT TO HOW MANY TIMES SOMEBODY CAN BRING AN APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
IF THEY NEED A COA, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO REAPPLY TO THE HHC WITH AN EXPEDITED TIMELINE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE MACHINE.
SO, UH, STAFF PERSON DE LEONE, WHEN IN THE PAST WHEN WE HAVE HAD APPLICANTS OR WHEN THE HPAB HAS STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEND AN APPLICATION BACK TO HHC IN THAT SCENARIO, WHEN THEY'RE SAYING SENDING BACK, THEN THAT JUST MEANS THAT THE SAME APPLICATION STAYS, IT'S THE EXACT SAME APPLICATION NUMBER.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY LIKE THE APPLICATION IS STILL KIND OF OPEN.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE H-H-P-A-B WERE TO GO AHEAD AND SAY WE AFFIRM THE DECISION AND THAT'S IT, AND THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OR ANY MENTION OF IT GOING BACK, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY AND THEN MORE THAN LIKELY BE ON THE DECEMBER AGENDA.
SO I THINK THE GOING BACK IS JUST AS, UH, COMM AS A BOARD MEMBER, KELMAN SAID, JUST KIND OF LIKE A LITTLE EXPEDITED IN THAT SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, JUST SAVING THEM THE TIME, UH, BECAUSE THE DEADLINE FOR NOVEMBER HAS PASSED.
SO KEEPING THIS APPLICATION ALIVE NECESSARILY, HAS IT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE ON THE NOVEMBER AGENDA BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE? THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE IT.
NOT SURE IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO, BUT
SO WE HAVE A MOTION CON CONFIRM CONFIRMING THE CONCERN OVER THE LIFE.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION.
WELL, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO, TO MOTION, WE HAVE A MOTION CONFIRMING OUR CONCERN WITH THE CONFLICT BETWEEN LIFE SAFETY AND THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, WHICH CRE, WHICH ALLOWED US TO CONSIDER ARE THERE OTHER MANNERS IN WHICH TO REFLECT BOTH RULES.
UM, AND WE SUGGESTED FINDING MORE INFORMATION IN REFERENCE TO TEMPERED GLASS IN THE EXISTING SASHES COUNTERWEIGHTS AND HOW MUCH THE WEIGHT WILL WORK FINALIZED DRAWINGS, UH, FOR OR EXAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED NEW WINDOWS FOR THE HHC TO REVIEW.
SO THEY CAN SEE IF THERE IS A WAY TO COMPROMISE THESE, THESE TWO CONFLICTING ORDINANCES.
UM, BECAUSE NONE OF US, UH, PARTICULARLY WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING IN REFERENCE TO LIFE SAFETY, AND THAT WOULD GO BACK TO HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THAT.
WHAT, WHAT TIME DO YOU NEED THE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO HAVE IT ON THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION? WHAT DAY DO YOU NEED THAT INFORMATION? FOR THE NOVEMBER 5TH?
[01:20:01]
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE THURSDAY, A WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING.SO DO WE KNOW WHAT DATE THAT IS? THAT WOULD BE THE 29TH OF OCTOBER.
SO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION BY THE OCTOBER 29TH, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
CAN YOU NOD? ARE YOU, SHE HAS TO PROVIDE YOU THE INFORMATION BY OCTOBER 29TH.
SO THEY CAN BE ON THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AGENDA FOR END TIME FOR THEM TO REVIEW IT FOR THE NOVEMBER 5TH MEETING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND OR ANY ALTERATION TO THE MOTION? MOTION? NO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED ALL ABSTAIN PASSES ANYWAYS.
UH, BOARD MEMBER KELMAN, WE DISCOURAGE ABSTENTION, ABSTENTION BY A BOARD MEMBER OR A COMMISSIONER IS UNDER VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.
UM, AND IT'S RESERVED FOR THOSE WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
SO ABSENT THAT, WE DO ENCOURAGE VOTING.
UM, I'LL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
UM, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UM, ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS? THEN I ADJOURN THE MEETING.