Good afternoon.

It is 237, Thursday, March 24, 2026.

Today's meeting of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission, HAHC, to discuss the proposed Nor Hill Design Guidelines is called to order.

I am Commission Chair David Buchek to verify we have a quorum.

I will call the roll.

The Chair is present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Carl Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Blakely.

Present.

Commissioner Zion Escobar.

Not here.

Commission uh Commissioner Hill.

Present.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Present.

Commissioner Seidel is not in the room.

Commissioner Mark Smith, not here.

Commissioner Browning.

Present.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

Not here.

Commissioner Garcia, not here.

Commissioner Davis.

Present.

And uh Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

We're going to move on to the um the chair's report.

And the first thing I just want to say is welcome everyone.

Um this is a day we've been looking forward for a long time.

Um if you've been a frequent uh visitor to these sessions, uh, we've long anticipated a day uh when we're working uh to achieve design guidelines uh in all of our districts and especially in Norhill.

And so I am very pleased that this day has come, and I know we'll there'll be some um passionate conversations and so forth, and um but again this we should celebrate that we have made it this far, and um this process will be um coming to a conclusion very soon.

But this is still another step in that process, as we'll be discussed shortly.

Um I just want to mention um we are gonna have a presentation from staff to the commission.

The commission will have some questions of staff after uh the presentation and questions uh have been answered.

I will open open the public forum and uh members of the public are allowed to speak, and they will be allowed to speak uh for two minutes.

And with that, I will move on um to the director's report.

Thank you, Chairman Buchak.

Welcome everyone.

I am Robert Williamson, Deputy Director of the Planning Department and Acting Secretary for this Commission.

The purpose of today's meeting is to receive comments from Commissioners and the public on the draft Nor Hill Design Guidelines.

There will be no vote today.

Once today's comments are reviewed by staff, a revised draft will be resubmitted to this commission for a vote.

We recognize that Nor Hill is a special place and needs additional protection in the form of district-specific design guidelines.

The draft before you today is a collective effort with tremendous work by our team and significant input from the residents of Norhill.

That said, not everyone in the process will get what they wanted.

At one end of the spectrum, overly ambitious homeowners and investors will have to work within clearly defined parameters that protect the character of Norrhill.

At the other end of the spectrum, preservation advocates will need to allow greater flexibility for the changing needs of growing families.

Fortunately, there's plenty of middle ground where everyone agrees, and the result will be a historic district that maintains its integrity while accompanying the needs by accommodating the needs of today's residents.

Like it or not, Norhill is no longer the modest working-class neighborhood it was originally designed to be.

Today it is a well-established, diverse community with residents in every stage of life, from retirees or empty nesters to young couples with growing families that are drawn to Norrill's strong sense of community, but also want the option to expand rather than move when they outgrow their small bungalow.

Adoption of these guidelines will help ensure Norr Hill continues to thrive as a desirable community-centric historic urban neighborhood close to Houston's Central Core.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I believe it also concludes um item A of on our agenda today for our welcome and an overview.

And with that, we will move on to item B with uh Terrence.

Um if you will now present the proposed guidelines to the Commission and to the public.

Absolutely, thank you, Chair.

Um, I'll just so y'all know I'm the only face y'all will be seeing for the rest of the day, so bear with me.

Or the back of my head.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC and members of the public.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson.

Today, staff is presenting the Nor Hill Design Guidelines to the HHC for staff to receive their comments.

There will be no vote at the end of the meeting as staff will need to review the comments of the HHC and the public.

Before we get started, I would like to thank those who committed and committed an unlimited number of hours to the development of these guidelines.

Although all but me of those who originally began work on this ever-changing document are no longer with the city of Houston.

I cannot stand here and present this without acknowledging their hard work.

During those times, all of us lost someone we love, and we believe, and believe it or not, we bonded over discussions about setbacks in ridge heights.

I would like to thank them all for their contributions to this document as I stand here as the loan planner of the Nor Hill Design Guidelines team.

Those uh planners were Rowan McAllen, Jason Lilienthal, and Kara Quigley.

Thank you all for your hard work and dedication over the years.

I submit to you the final draft of the Nor Hill Design Guidelines.

If there's anyone that would like to follow along via phone, please feel free to scan the QR code on the screen or on the sheets provided.

Next slide.

So the Nor Hill Design Guideline process.

This process began some time began sometime in 2017 before anyone you see here was employed with the city of Houston.

The very first meeting for me on this project was on December 4th, 2023 at Proctor Plaza to announce to a very to the very eager residents of Nor Hill that we would be beginning this the process of creating their guidelines.

And yet here we are, full circle with a number of public meetings and workshops in between, and staff feels confident that we have a good document that we hope will require minimal edits and or amendments to satisfy the HHC.

There were two separate surveys.

I'm sorry, next slide.

Oh, you already dare.

That's cool.

There are two separate surveys which included a total of 404 participants between the two.

The first survey was conducted two separate times with online and hard copy responses.

And the second survey was done in an attempt for the newly appointed administration and staff to verify that everything was done properly.

The second survey was an online survey where all residents were contacted via mail mail out to all 855 Nor Hill owners.

And I would also like to add that all 855 owners were contacted on the very first survey.

Next slide.

Oh, you're your next slide.

Yeah, there we go.

Explaining the weighted averages.

Please see the question on the screen.

What would be the acceptable minimum distance of a two-story addition from the front property line on an interior lot?

To the left, you have a pie chart showing the results of the resident selections.

Below the pie chart, you will see the selections of the number of residents and the and the answers that they chose.

So I will go through the weighted averages.

So as you see in the chart, we have a 40-foot selection, which 70 residents uh selected the 40-foot setback.

We divided that number by 180 total non-residents surveyed to get a 37%.

We take that 40 feet, multiply it times the 37%, and you get 15 for that weighted average.

So as you see, so on and so forth, if you go to if you follow the bold text uh that says 70, 85, 18, 7, and 9, those are the same selections, number of selections that the residents selected.

So the totals from the survey added to get the results.

So we got 15 plus 20.25 plus five plus two plus three.

It gives us 45.3 feet.

So that is how we conducted the weighted average math for all the questions that this was required.

Next slide.

The next two slides show the results from the uh 2024 and 2025 survey.

Chart one on the left has the results from the 2025 resurvey.

Chart two in the middle has the results from the 2024 original survey.

And the last, which is on the right, shows the results from staff combining the surveys to develop the final numbers for the floor to area ratios and setbacks.

Next slide.

And this is just a continuation of those results.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

So the Nor Hill Pole Reserve Survey.

This is a public hearing, but there will be no vote taken at the end of the meeting.

Staff will need time to review and address the comments of the HHC and the public before we get to that stage.

With that being said, without reading every question on each slide.

What you will see is the original poll survey question at the top with the results and at the bottom with the results, and at the bottom you will find the resurvey in the 2025 with its corresponding results.

As you can see, we begin with question number three.

The reasoning for that is due to the first two questions asking the name and address of the residents.

This was used to cross-reference what was listed in HCAD to verify that the results from the residents were authentic.

Recognizing that some changes needed to be made.

So that is the first question from 2024, and as you can see, the weight is average came out to a 45.5 foot result.

Now, the corresponding question, which was on the second poll, or the resurvey as I'll refer to it.

The questions, some questions were rewarded differently for because we had discussions and we felt like that was the right thing to do.

So the second question the typical Nor Hill home has a 15 front set 15 foot front setback from the street.

What should be the minimum front setback for a two-story edition?

So we asked them to review the to review view the guidelines for the visual reference.

And as you can see, the weighted results were 43.4 feet.

So you may notice the a difference in results on something like that, something like this on page 12.

In this case, we would then take the two sums and discuss if there was a need for a change or if we needed to develop an average from the two results.

As you can see, the majority of the answer remained close in proxy proximity of one another.

The reason the resurvey also asked the question about the replacement of windows, doors, and siding.

Finally, you will notice as we also use this method to develop the numbers for the floor to area ratio results, with this first survey results coming in slightly over 2200 square feet, and the resurvey coming in slightly over 2400 feet, causing the final number for a 5,000 square foot lot to be 2300 square feet.

So just to explain, I don't think I have to.

Everyone in here is very smart and intelligent, but we just decided that we needed to combine the two, and if we were using weighted averages, then we needed to use averages for the two separate surveys, and that was staff's thinking as far as that goes.

Are there any questions on the surveying?

Okay.

All right.

HAC draft guideline review.

So to keep the presentation as concise as possible, sections one, two, three, I'm sorry, one, three, four, and five will be done differently from the measurable standards.

Staff will not go through them section by section as we will with the measurable standards.

So we ask if anyone in the HAAC has any comments on section one, which includes section 1.1, the introduction, 1.1A background, 1.1B, work authorization.

1.2 definitions.

If so, please feel free to state your comments and or concerns now.

My type of party.

Yep.

Go ahead.

Yes.

My question is about the chart in 2.2, or didn't we?

So we're gonna go through section one.

Is it 1.2?

I'm sorry, I missed my apologies.

I got ahead of myself.

Okay.

So I I mean I I just want to make sure that I ask the question because staff has received a few comments about a few things, but does anyone have any questions or concerns about any of the definitions?

Do I state my name?

Uh my question is about one of the definitions.

Okay.

Specifically the definition of massing.

Okay.

Well uh mass or massing, it's on page nine.

Yes, yes, ma'am, I got it.

Uh for the public, I'll read it.

Uh a combination of building volume, height times width times dip, and the arrangement of shapes, forms that make up the building.

Each dimension also contributes individually, individually to the overall visual effect of the building.

Yes, so I am concerned that it's too vague that massing in my experience of the applications that come before the HAHC massing is often an issue.

So uh I would just propose that we edit and refine that definition uh to speak more specifically to something some find some way of assessing this because it's quite qualitative massing.

And I guess my proposal is that we um introduce proportions into the design guideline in some way, and then so I don't have a a solution right now to propose, but I wanted to flag that as a place where I think we could do some more work.

All right, thank you for that.

We will definitely um take a look at it.

And Terrence, I was making a question or statement.

The poll survey is a response to an individual question about an aspect of an application.

Like various kinds of setbacks at various locations and so on and so on.

That's correct.

And I think we'll probably get into this more intently later in your presentation.

But uh I guess I'll just mention obviously the what the commission looks at is a totality of many different individual criteria.

So one might apply, but not all of these might apply, like depending on each case.

So it's kind of uh so I'm curious how when we we get to that part of the presentation.

Um just talking about how far you can start or how far you can build back, all of which could happen individually, but it if all cases were done, uh you know, you couldn't you wouldn't meet FAR if you did the you know the weighted front setback and the weighted rear setback.

So it's still subject to the FAR, subject to the proportions, if you will, and other factors.

Right, but just making that clear as a there's a lot of information here, but they're they're each in a small amount showing the appetite of the community for this or that, which is helpful to know.

Yes.

And then we start to put this whole thing together, like ingredients to make the actual product.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, and just so I mean, I I didn't want to give a whole history lesson of how we got here, but um I was originally here, and I'm sorry, I'll get to your question in just one second.

Um I was originally here in 2020, um, and given this project, and um architecture firm came calling, and uh I went running.

Um, and then um so that the the project just sat for a minute, right?

And then when the city called back and and wanted me to come back and uh uh everything worked out and I got back.

I mean the the guidelines were sitting here waiting on me.

Some things had been worked on.

Um so the team that I then put together, we all went through those things.

So a lot of these numbers eventually started from a base when I was gone, but of course we looked at them, we had conversations.

There were um uh we have one member, one planner of staff that went around uh Norhill and surveyed everything that he could for every existing home.

Uh so setbacks and uh ridge heights, we looked at uh ridge heights from projects that were that had been uh that had come through staff uh through the HHC.

We we we took averages of all these things.

So all the legwork was done before we actually started getting these questions together.

So I don't want anyone, whether in the public or the HHC to think that we just came over arbitrary numbers.

They they were drawn from projects that you guys approved, project that that uh the HAC didn't approve, and from uh uh just us going out and surveying and observing what's the typical setbacks and everything were in the district.

So uh Commissioner Davis.

Yes, thank you.

Um would suggest that we add a word to the definitions.

Um the concept of compatibility, it appears throughout the guidelines, but it's not clearly defined because it's really hard to define that.

Um but since it's a primary standard used to evaluate the alterations in additions and new construction.

If we don't have a clear explanation of what compatibility means in practice, then we are going to be dealing with with inconsistency.

So we need an explanator or a definition of compatibility, but in each time that the word is used in the guidelines, we need to explain how that compatibility is for that particular um criteria.

Thank you.

Forgive my binder, I had a uh had a meticulous planner that did not want to lose anything.

Okay, if that is all the questions, then um we will get to the uh HAC draft guideline review.

Okay, at this point, it is time for us to review the measurable standards portion of the Norheel Design Guidelines.

Staff has allowed the HHC and the public to review the current draft, which was posted in mid-February.

Today we plan to hear those comments from both the commission members and the public.

These meetings are recorded, therefore we will review the recordings, comments sent in, and comments made here today, and try to come back with an edited version that addresses the things that warrant addressing.

Again, there will be no vote from the HHC.

This is their opportunity to comment and give staff their thoughts on the draft guidelines in their current state.

Okay, so section two.

Okay.

Uh 2.2 size.

And and if I don't if you don't need me to go through each and every section, I can just go by the main section.

I don't need to go by the top, the subsections, but um, I mean, we're gonna naturally go through the subsections when we get to size and the heights.

Um section 2.2 is size.

I'm merely stating that for the um public.

So 2.2A is residences.

Well, I'm sorry, size.

Do we have any comments on the far chart?

Okay, um, so the framework um that we've got here is we're broken into standard lots and non-standard lots.

Um as um and what this does mathematically, you come up with a couple of problems because of the because of doing the um these tranches the way that you the way that they're on here.

For example, a 5,250 square foot lot will receive a smaller allowable house than a 5200 square foot lot.

Um and a 5650 square foot lot would receive a smaller allowable house than a 5616.

And that's just because math and it's the um it's irregular and so it won't it does not compute smoothly and I think you've got and I'm not sure why we didn't use you the heights bar standards um because they they actually start in the same place.

Uh you are assuming that the most common thing is 5,000 square feet per 2300.

So you're using the same basis, but then for your increments, unless your increments are even, then you're gonna end up with potentially a problem where you have a where you have some houses that where the product does not um make sense.

Does that make sense?

Um I'm gonna try to answer that best I can.

Uh and please note that we won't be able to answer all the questions.

Some of them will have to come back and address that a later meeting, but um I'm gonna try to address all your questions that I can.

Um to the comment that um well to answer your question why we didn't start with the heights design guideline base is because Nor Hill homes and lots are smaller than the homes in the heights, right?

So what we did to get the numbers that we have is we surveyed the residents about 5,000 square foot lots to a I believe it was 5,999 square foot lot, and then we surveyed the residents on 6,000 to 6,999 square foot lots.

And then we used that since those were going to be the top numbers, we used those as our basis to start with, if that makes sense.

So we didn't want to use something from the heights that doesn't necessarily apply to Nor Hill.

We wanted to get the residents input, and then once we got the residence input, that's when we modified the FAR.

Um when I initially got this project the FAR uh four or five thousand square foot light with 1900.

So we then surveyed the residents and realized that the residents wanted a bigger home than that.

And thank you for that.

I am not arguing with the numbers or what they should be.

I'm just saying that mathematically, your tranches don't work completely.

So I'm just asking you to look at the math.

Okay.

And then correct the issues that where you have inconsistent results.

So you uh if I want to make sure I understand what the issue is.

Your issue is that when you get to the larger lots, the far gets too small?

No, it's not uh I'm not talking about the sizes at all.

I'm just talking about mathematically with your um where you have your uh your groupings um on there because they are not in order.

Um you can't if you let's look at it.

5250 square foot lot under the uh is going to get a smaller allowable house than a 5200 square foot lot.

That's just the way the math works.

I'm just saying correct the math.

Could I be asked a question?

Could we make a distinction between the FAR and living area?

Because listening to you the living area does progressively go up as the floor area increases.

But the FAR sometimes goes down.

I think that's because it's a ratio.

Right, and the far should go down as the lot sizes go up.

That is that is what should happen.

Okay.

And so this is just a quirky thing.

I'm just asking you to check it, okay.

Okay, yeah.

We'll we will we will take a look.

We will definitely take a note of take note and uh and and respond to that accordingly.

Um any other questions on the uh FAR chart.

That include the calculations or we got gotten to that.

Oh sh we it's on the same page, so yeah, let's just go to the calculations.

All right, so I have a question.

Okay.

Um attics or garage structures that are finished as well as conditioned.

Okay, so we have had discussions about that.

Um I don't want to get ahead of the uh ahead of what may to c may be to come, but staff is considering removing the term finished.

And if it's conditioned, then we would we would may allow it to, but again, we need to have longer conversations and see what comes out of this meeting before we both before we will have an answer, but um finished will more than likely be removed.

Okay.

It would be my opinion that it it should be removed because you are you okay with the condition?

Yes, I believe that if someone has addic space that can be finished without penetrating the roof, that they should be.

It shouldn't be applied to far.

Right.

It changes not the scale or mass of the house.

And so and the same with a a garage, if someone wants to air condition their garage, I mean it doesn't change the it where the garage is placed, its size or anything, whether it's got cool air blowing or not.

So I just think that that's an area that is someone shouldn't be penalized for.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So that's included in FAR calculations.

And then we also have excluded from FAR calculations.

So if any commissioners have any um comments on that section, please feel free to do so.

Yeah, Terry said, I was just gonna just follow up again, our last point with Commissioner Davis.

Is the question is really relating to lots that are less than 5,000 square feet.

Is that what I'm what I'm like like like uh one thing I'm at least I question I have is at 5,000 square feet for a standard lot, uh it's 0.460.

And then as the lots get larger, that number starts to go down ever so slightly, right?

Yes.

So when we get to the nonstandard lots, when we're at 5250 or larger, it's more the number starts to do that.

And you have a challenge of building a structure on it, and nonetheless, would not the FAR for the less than 5,000 square foot lot be more similar to the 5,000 square foot lot or even slightly over that number.

I was just curious whether that's a accurate or that's uh or I'm I just kind of wondering how that for me, how that one number was created of 0.400.

Yeah.

Um I I will have to look in my notes to give you the exact uh how we exactly came up with that.

I'm just gonna be honest with you.

I don't really think that's fine.

I'm just trying to make the case that if we have a really small lot, we we might allow someone a little bit more opportunity to build on it to make it livable for family.

Uh given it's a small lot and it's not a huge lot.

Um that's really what I'm trying to get at.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would agree with that.

And also I think it might be helpful for this exercise since there are only six lots to know the sizes of those six lots, because if one is 4,900 square feet and one is 2,500 square feet, there you know, I it's almost as if those six lots would need to be you know looked at individually depending on their size, before we can just assign a specific proportion to them because like I mean over a hundred foot difference in lot, you're telling them 300 feet of house is reduced, and that that does not seem proportional.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh so Section 2.2B porches.

2.2 C detached garages, enclosed storage, and other outbuildings.

2.3 setbacks.

And if anyone needs to come back to any of these, please feel free to come back.

I don't want to feel like I'm racing through it.

It's no place I'd rather be.

Well, just for the clarity for the 2.2 B porches.

So porches will not be counted as part of FAR unless there's condition space above them.

Yes, sir.

To the written and element, and then but that also there's a caveat, though it goes in more about the proportion or the size, sorry, the size of the porches are granted basically 240 square feet.

Yes.

Um and then if the if someone wants a porch larger than 240, the additional square footage would count toward the far.

Right.

So I'm just stating what's written.

I don't have an issue issue with it, but just making sure that the evidence.

Yes, and to explain it, I think that was that was staff's way of um creating something that uh that allowed us the ability to prevent the beach house type of look on rear porches.

Um so we we we felt that um since we had to do a uh policy for the heights, we felt that we need to have that in the actual design guidelines for Norhill.

Okay.

Uh 2.2 detached garages, enclosed storage and other outbuildings.

2.3 setbacks.

I don't have a question about the setbacks.

I'm sorry, can I go back to 2.2 B porches on the microphone?

Microphone.

I'm sorry.

So two point to be porches.

So we have to, if there is living space over the porch, then that space is going to be considered in FAR.

And I guess I question the reason for doing that.

We know that these homes and bungalows porches are um one of the key things.

And having being able to put a living space over a porch just makes all kinds of sense.

It doesn't affect your massing, doesn't affect any of those other factors.

So to say that you have to include the area in FAR, I'm just I just have a question about why that is.

Right.

Um so um the policy that I was referencing that we had to write for the heights um came from uh during COVID.

Um we understood people wanted to be outside, but they were creating these large porches at the rears of their home and not standard to a typical um historic porch, if you will.

Um and so they were putting these large square footages above these porches, which is why we included the 240 square feet.

Um it was a creative it was creating a situation where we had a bunch of homes or a bunch of projects that were being proposed that looked like they belonged on the beach front.

Um so that's the reasoning why the 240 square feet is given.

So it's so let to put it plainly, if you had a 200 square foot porch and you put square foot and you put square footage over that, it would not count to your far.

If you did 230, it and then you put something over, it would not count to your far.

But once you get to 240 and you start putting square footage or 240 and above and you put square footage above your porch, then that's when it would count to far.

Okay.

And I'll just say uh because for those of us or at least a few of us that were here when the heights went through and the porches came through.

Um historically, most homes in many of our districts only had one porch as on the on the front of the home.

And then some of them had a rear porch that is that sometimes they've been enclosed and might have been a sleeping porch or something in the back in the day.

But um but essentially, like in Norhill, there are very few two-story structures generally, they're all one story.

And also in the heights or just in the the immediate area around, if there was a two-story structure and it had a porch, um typically it either had a porch that was stuck onto the mass, or if it had a two-story porch, like like a double decker porch, it was a porch above a porch.

And those don't count toward the far because they're they're a void, they're open, they're they're not uh solid mass.

And so part of the issue is that when you when if you don't tack on a porch, which is how porches were generally always used in our historic districts, and you put so now you introduce something above it that it has mass, then in fact we're making the mass look bigger than the far would would allow.

So that that's where um I think that this is this is in part a reaction to what has happened in the heights and why they had to come up with a plan to address that.

Um because it wasn't part of how that those guidelines were conceived and it was sort of being abused.

So it it's in a way it's trying to keep the far what you see from the right-of-way the same, because when you look at the rear, like if if you're at the right of way looking at a new two-story edition on say a home in Norhill, you can't see the first floor, but what you can see is a second floor mass that's been that's been pushed up.

And so um I think this this language was derived as a way to be fair to all to all sides to allow allow that.

Um but like let's say this person in Norhill wanted to have a rear two-story porch, like a porch above the porch, off of that second floor mass, they would not it that would not count to the far either.

So because it's still a void, it has a column and has a roof, but it's still you can see the openness there.

And um that that's I think how this language got created is my um that's my that's my best sense about why this is stated the way it is.

That that's all if if if I was helpful, that's correct.

I do I do want to uh before I get to uh move to the next section.

Uh point of clarification.

I need are we fine with the standard lot sizes with FAR?

It's just the non-standard sizes that we need to look at.

Uh because I I think that's the question.

I think as far as the the let's just say call it the baby blue section, I think it seems like we're fine with what's up top.

It seems like what's at the bottom is what staff needs to really take a look at.

Is that what I'm understanding?

Well, my understanding based on the blue section and the and the vast majority of homes are 5,000 square feet in terms of 63 percent.

So, you know, a clear majority.

And it's my understanding that you're saying that the far that you that you're showing is based on the input from the community.

That's correct.

The majority of the community.

And I'm not sure you can if you can go back and just state what that what that percentage was, but um but that's coming from the from the folks who live in this district, right?

And so, and then uh it it makes it makes sense to me that as you get larger, that far may go down slightly so that you don't have a super out, you know, um large structure that just sticks out in a way.

My only point was and so it seemed to me that when you applied to the smaller lots, you you allowed less square footage, it's sort of like going down a sliding scale, which I understand the concept.

I just think um there's not that many of them.

Right.

And in order to give uh a family today the ability to raise a family and have um you know meaningful rooms and so forth, it it may be necessary to to to run the other direction for these super small lots.

Um if especially if they are far you know much far less than 5,000.

Okay.

Just to give them to make them a viable for contemporary use, I guess.

Okay.

Um, there's still going to be a smaller structure, I mean in terms of overall square footage, but that that's all.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure that I'm not sure.

I'm not saying what should be, I'm just just trying to evaluate it and see if you all can look at it and you know the sizes of those lots that are 1 percent.

So that may also help you all.

We'll do.

Um, so sorry for the distraction.

But go ahead, so 2.3 setbacks.

Any comments.

And then if not, we can just go right into the 2.3a interior lot, one-story rear edition.

Oh, there is something down there at the bottom.

So I'm just whatever you got.

I have a question.

Um which isn't about specifically 2.3a, but about a kind of notation that's used that seems to appear for the first time in 2.3a.

Which is this use of uh Okay.

East-west and north-south.

Are these absolute east-west and north-south?

No, it's not a good thing.

Because it seems to me that.

No, no, no.

It would this is not this was not absolute.

This was um uh this was just put on here as a point of reference just in just in case someone was looking at it, is but it's not um and I can we can 100 percent remove that if that's gonna cause some type of confusion.

It was meant to be this is plan east or west, or this would be plan north or south.

That that's what it was meant for.

I just think it might be worth just swapping those, because if I recall correctly, or what's the majority?

The majority of the lots are oriented the same way.

I believe so.

So maybe this terminology could be the actual directions.

Whichever applies to the majority of the houses.

Okay.

That makes sense.

And I guess uh Terrence, just to state the obvious of what uh refer to the front setback just in in this comment.

From the result of the measuring the neighborhood, the typical setback to the front wall of the condition space is what I take this of is 15 feet.

Do you mean not going to the porch?

Well, it says that typical homes in Norhale have a 15-foot front setback.

Was that 15 feet to the front of the porch or 15 feet to the front of or the to the back of the porch if it if it was tacked on to the front and not and not sort of uh to the side.

So you also allow, like if you want to have a porch, you in front of the 15 feet you can, but you can't go more than six feet forward of that line.

Right.

So my understanding and and I will if if this is wrong, I will correct it.

But from what I recall, it's 15 feet from the property line to the actual wall that has air conditioning on the opposite side of it.

It does not include porches.

Right.

So someone wanted to build at 15 feet just for the front door and put a six-foot porch in front of it toward the street right away.

They couldn't build a side room around the side of the porch.

No.

It has to start at 15 feet.

Yes, sir.

So that's yeah, just want to I'm just stating the obvious so it's clear.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so we just in case anyone is lost, we're on 2.3 A, interior lot one story rear edition.

Okay.

Uh moving on to 2.3B, interior lot one story side edition.

Question, is that minimum 35 minimum front setback on that?

Is that correct?

Or is that should be so yes, for the but that's for the actual side that you're doing.

So if you're doing an addition for if you're doing a side addition, that addition can't can only start 35 feet from the property line.

Okay.

Okay.

2.3 C interior lot two-story rear addition.

2.3 D corner lot one story rear edition.

2.3E, corner lot one story side edition.

2.3 F corner lot two-story rear edition.

2.3G interior lot, portachet, carports, auxiliary buildings, and garage construction addition.

I have a just a quick comment on that.

Okay.

Um most of the schematics that show a side driveway.

Um, they're like 12 and 13 feet wide.

And if the requirement for a port of cachet is to be five feet from the property line, that would render it useless.

That would only leave seven feet of driveway.

Okay.

So repeat the you said.

So it says the outside face of the support column should be a minimum of five feet from the side property line.

If the driveway is only 12 feet and I've got to come in five feet from my column, then I'm only left with seven feet.

And I don't know what the prevailing driveway size is, but the schematics used in here all show 12 or 13 feet.

So Yeah, and I mean these were just drawn for I mean but drawn to make it look better than the previous version of the I will I will look at that um because you know, with with the different number of sizes of lots, um, it's hard to provide a schematic for each and every one of them.

Um what I will do is I will go and check the measurements on the driveways and make sure that they align more with you know what's what's realistic.

Um because I mean uh all the setbacks, I mean these these diagrams were were just yeah, they were done to make it look better than what was what we originally had.

And um I you know when it came down to the driveways, um, as I was drawing them in AutoCAD, I wasn't necessarily thinking about the size of the driveway.

It was the more software.

Oh, I know.

I mean I just know Norho well enough to know that most driveways are pretty narrow.

Right.

Yeah, okay.

I mean especially just between the structur home and the property line.

Right.

And I'm thinking that if you looked and you surveyed the houses that do have port of cachets, most of them are probably all the way over.

Right.

So you know, I mean, just from a consistency standpoint.

I mean, it might render it impossible for someone to do it and it doesn't matter, but you know, it's something at least to look at.

Yeah.

I'll take a look at it and then um I mean it I we'll probably have to go in and edit some of the wording and make this a situation where and it's a portacochet and car ports and auxiliary buildings.

I don't see where that won't be a scenario where it could be a case-by-case basis and we review how we approach it.

Yeah.

Okay, 2.3 H corner lab portacoet, carports, auxiliary buildings, and garage construction edition.

You know, if we keep this up, I'm gonna think we got a good document here.

Okay.

Um, seriously, uh now we're moving on to 2.4, the height, I mean heights.

Um, and in this section we have roof roof pitch, one story edition, two-story edition, garage portachet, carport construction edition.

Um I'll just open up the floor for whatever section you guys want to address.

Uh so section 2.4 heights, 2.4a roof pitch.

I have a question about that.

Oh, why do you go first?

Oh.

Uh Commissioner Browning.

Yes, sir.

Um specifically in this section and throughout the references to carports and flat roofs, which doesn't seem to strike me as consistent with the time period.

So I was wondering what the thinking was in uh expressly permitting flat roofs for carports.

Uh it's uh I'm going to take a shot and say that uh um this was based on what was out there in Nor Hill already um previously.

Um and then I want to think that the uh the conversation that I recall having with uh Roman was um they didn't didn't want to give the opportunity for a carport to have a higher ridge than the house at some point.

Um but this definitely can be looked at.

I mean, that does make sense.

I'm not gonna push back on that.

It's definitely something we should look at.

Um and maybe um if the I mean I'm from the conversation I had, if the ridge point, I mean the ridge height was the issue, then maybe it could be something that's written that says that the the uh roof pitch not exceed the height.

It could either match or not exceed the height of the existing contributing roof.

Um that seems like something that would be reasonable.

I think the homeowners would be okay with.

No problem.

You need to turn you did you did, thank you.

Go ahead.

Um I I notice under Ruth Pitch that shed roofs are not mentioned, and yet I do see house proposals come up for the heights, for example, that have shed roofs.

So sloping in only one direction.

It's I don't know if it would make sense to allow shed roofs in Norhill.

I personally haven't seen any of them.

I mean that could possibly just be an oversight on our part.

Uh I think she should stipulate one way or the other.

Personally, I think maybe shed roofs shouldn't be permitted.

But maybe people who know the neighborhood better than I have seen shed roofs around there.

I I mean I I I don't remember every project, but I do feel like there have been some proposed projects where the roof was shed or a dormer, uh shed roof dormer was added on onto a Norheel project.

Um But typically they'd be in the rear of the structure most times, so you wouldn't see it and it would be like a classic you build a gable form and then later, like the old classic farmhouse in Texas, and then you build a rear edition.

Well, actually you have a rear porch because it's too hot to be inside without AC, and then later it gets enclosed sometimes.

So I I think um I think if I think it does come up like with the proportion like you mentioned earlier about if if all the houses have a certain proportion and none of them have shed roofs on the front, then the we would maintain those proportions of um but there may be some outliers on the rear, perhaps, I guess from that's what I maybe can recall.

Should we perhaps stipulate that shed roefs are permissible in dormers or rear editions.

But not in the sort of main roof of either the main building or accessory structures.

You can make a comment yeah you can make that comment and I have a question.

Excuse me.

A question about 24 C.

Yes sir.

With regards to calling out the maximum uh plate heights of the different floors.

Yes.

Um is there a reason it seem it seems like the overall height of the building might take care of keeping something from being too tall.

And these numbers almost seem to me like we're telling people what to do on the inside of their house.

Yes.

So staff has had that discussion.

I I believe in the next draft that you see um we will just be referring to the ridge height versus ceiling heights and plate heights.

I it's we'll we'll have to have an in-depth conversation because I'm okay well I understand calling out the plate heights.

I don't understand calling out ceiling heights, right?

Because in the heist design guidelines you you you have plate heights that are called out.

Plate heights and ridge heights.

If we're going to do a one story we can call out the one story plate height.

And then the ridge height and I think that'll allow architects the uh the opportunity to be creative.

That was a lot of the conversations that we had and a lot of things that were removed were um things that we felt were not allowing to arch the architect to be as fully creative it's to uh fulfill his potential in creativity if you will um and we were telling them like you said what to do on the inside.

So um the next draft that you see will probably have some of these things eliminated.

So for instance you could vault the ceiling long as you maintain the plate height you could even maintain the plate height and raise the ceiling 18 inches like in River Oaks and still have a small area sloping but then go to a flat roof.

And so there it's really the plate height and so on.

I I had a question on also on um 2.4 point C regarding um finish the the first floor finished floor height.

Yes.

Can you talk a little bit about how 2 foot 4 maximum max was um created yes so um we we did some we we looked at some of the a lot of the projects that were submitted um to to the H H C and we looked at what those um finished floor heights were and then when when uh Jason went out to resurvey he also would stop occasionally and measure some of the uh so the to the people that would allow them on his property on their property but he would stop and he would measure the finished floor height and um so it was developed from there.

Now I mean if we're talking about removing these things then you know I'm I'm not saying to do that.

I'm just trying to get at the we had two different construction types in the high in the in this north in the in Norhill.

Right.

These homes is my understanding originally are balloon framed.

Correct.

So which is different than how we would a builder would typically build a new home today if it was pure and beam which would be western framed.

So this so the type of structure and the and the some of the dimensions of that structure can be different.

And so and of course this guide this diagram is really for new construction if you will and and the key thing is that you know the city the city code uh for construction requires an 18 inch air space between the ground and the bottom of the floor system.

Any wood that's closer than 18 inches has to be treated.

Right.

And so and it's generally a good idea to have 18 inches of space also just to get for air to breathe.

So one one you can crawl in your house and fix your the broken pipe if if you had a freeze but also the big issue I have seen is just these older homes or even newer newer homes, especially the newer homes with with the wood, the growth rings not as close together but from termites is that you want it you want your your wood to dry out underneath the home.

Right.

Um if it's if you're allowed to, you know, you want that wood to dry.

And one of the issues that as I see from from what I do before my day job is just that so many home existing homes that are originally built over time through mowing the grass or adding flower beds, is that under the home, the ground is typically lower than outside the home, unlike your diagram.

And so what what I see is that there's moisture always forming under the house that's that's to causing the floor system to deteriorate.

So we're always recommending that they fill in those holes.

Um and I've seen a number of this these occurring in Norhill, and we still want to make sure that we have that 18-inch air space.

So I would just want to, you know, have like I know Commissioner Sidale is not here, but I would be curious to know his thoughts on what it takes to build this current to current standards, and if it were 30 inches in height, is that an issue?

I guess it's I'm not I don't have an issue with 2.4, but some of the things I've seen sometimes suggests 30 inches is easier to achieve all of these goals.

Um many times these existing homes are much lower than what we're talking about.

Correct.

But in many cases they need to be raised to save them.

Yes.

And so from deterioration.

So that I just want to kind of maybe um we could ask Commissioner Sidel, given his experience in construction.

Um I know that we did a sim we did a similar analysis when the heights design guidelines were being evaluated with Commissioner McNeil.

And so I'm just curious to run run some traps on that.

That's that's my only question.

Okay.

We'll do Terrence.

Oh, sorry.

So would would it make more spent in other and not to use the ground as one of your um standards, but to use the um underside of the joist or the top side of the joist, and use your measurements for your plate heights going up from there because you're um we don't know how high that house is going to be off, you know, the ground as you're speaking as you were speaking to the 18 inches.

It could be it could be almost nothing and it needs to be raised.

But so why not just make the standard be from the uh from the joist instead of from the ground?

So there's another caveat about ground.

So ground itself is a I mean uh can be a huge issue.

So the ground is generally established as sort of the outside the house, what natural grade is.

And I'm just making a point, we that these homes have low spots underneath what need to be filled up.

But what we see often is that folks will just bring in twelve inches of soil and raise the ground.

And then they build above that, and then next thing you know, there's a there's a house next to you on a hill, and that's also that becomes an issue.

So I think the I think ground should be it is an important factor, and it should be likely maybe maybe seated like uh the uh the preexisting natural grade or something to that extent that because uh we have seen where folks manipulate ground and it causes other issues.

Uh different from just this topic, but um but perhaps we can also look at this and when we meet again we can get a get a ref wording back.

Because I I'm yeah, I mean it it's it's um I that's a great point.

And then I mean, who's to say uh because you don't need a CLA to raise your house eight inches, right?

So the rate er raise your house one block, you don't need a CLA.

So um who's to say someone doesn't present a project, get it approved, and then they come in and then after everything's done, which probably wouldn't happen, but they would go and raise eight inches.

Well now they've got a taller house than what was approved.

Right.

All because of technicality.

Um I think if you use the grade, it basically gives you an even play and field for everyone, especially if someone comes in and and brings in uh a foot of soil.

So uh but we will definitely discuss it and take a look at it.

Yeah, and that and the foot of soil issue is also um a big issue in Norhill and other all parts of Houston is just the moment someone raises their grade more than the natural grade, they push their water on their neighbor, which which so which is not allowed by City Code, but it but invertly it does happen uh if you're not in a floodplain, and so it's each of these things can affect another and uh maybe it might make sense to add ground to the definitions.

And maybe it might make sense to add ground to the definitions.

Okay.

So that can be set as like some kind of average grade in the context area or something like that.

Okay.

So at the bottom it talks about the styles of housing that you could consider.

And it on section four of the document, you actually have a whole discussion on architectural styles.

And it would be my opinion that that that section four to me is unnecessary in this document as the history of Norhill is already published in the public record when the district was established.

But that part of it seems important to this to allow people to see what those styles are that they would be considering when designing a house.

Okay.

So take section four about the type of construction in Norheel and put it beneath the new residence.

I mean, as I said, the history of Norhill is already already known.

I mean, this is a document to help people design a house.

Right.

Presumably they already have chosen Norhill.

Right.

Um and then I I always I think the sentence that homeowners should ensure any additions are sympathetic to the historic design aesthetic is that that's put in a I I think we we're trying to define what what it is that they should be doing, and we shouldn't be allowing just a wild interpretation, because what someone, you know, like we're not the design police, so what someone likes, yeah.

You know, I might not like or you might not like, but I I don't know.

I find that sentence to be unnecessary.

Okay.

If I could just add on to that comment, because I actually had an issue I was going to raise in section four.

Okay.

Um I think part of what's at stake there is the question of what's measurable, like what is measurable mean and what can be measured and what can't be measured.

Um I think relating to the point I raised earlier about massing uh the qualitative side um of compatibility, as Commissioner Davis pointed out, is really not well defined.

So what I would propose is that in addition to the very helpful list of styles in section four, that uh for each style uh floor plan be added with dimensions so that the proportions that are characteristic of each style can be uh taken into account by the developer or the architect.

Um so this sounds may sound a bit sort of extreme, but um after consulting with um the library collections, I realized or actually Ginger Burney explained to me that Norhill is mostly made up of houses that came from pattern books.

So what we're really looking at is not sort of architectural works in the sense that someone starts with a blank drawing page and develops it, but sometimes like house kits that were ordered and um constructed.

And meanwhile, today what we often have our developers who cut and paste a standard floor plan onto the site.

So we're not really looking at architects trying to match an existing style.

We're looking at how, I mean, we meaning the HAHC have to rule on how to make one developer culture produce a product that's compatible with the product of another developer culture.

So what I would recommend is I support Commissioner Crosgrove's suggestion of putting the information on character and style in section two, but in addition adding floor plans and proportions.

And actually, I prepared a sort of dummy page that maybe might explain in more detail what I'm talking about.

Jim, should we put that on the document camera just so everyone can see?

Pardon my handwriting there.

But basically, I took section four.

So I took a page from section four.

And if you look at at section four, you'll see that it goes sort of 42A craftsman, 42B, and then there's another style and another style and another style.

Okay.

Each of those styles actually corresponds to a standard pattern book house.

So there are sources in that are available for the actual for plans of that house type, which will closely match the existing.

Okay.

So the idea is that someone could within the design guidelines figure out or find a point of departure in terms of the proportioning of parts of the house in relation to each other.

And I think this would also address the massing, because for example, I try to indicate like A and or like B and C or F and G.

F is like the overall width of the house, and G is like that protruding room.

So the proportion of the width of that protruding part to the overall house, those kinds of proportions are essentially the essence of sort of architectural character.

Okay.

So that's why I would support that kind of modification.

I'm happy to talk with anyone about clarifying what's just something I just quickly drew up there.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

I didn't I wasn't aware about that bit of information.

Sure.

Well, and I well, I know I did read in the introduction.

It mentioned it does mention that Noriol is much of Noryl is based on pattern books.

Yeah.

Um I don't know, like just like Westmoreland has a number of ol older pattern book um designs that were implemented.

My question for Ginger is Are there pattern books in the library collection of actual homes built in Norhill?

And could for just for reference, could could we get a like put a page or illustrations from those actual books into the guidelines to reference what that means, just so not that you have to copy it necessarily, but just but the fact that we have this knowledge and maybe put language in the guidelines that information can be found at the library.

I'm not sure if that's a guideline criteria, but making because I wasn't aware that that was the case that we're in the library.

Yes.

Um is your microphone on?

Yes.

Can you hear?

Um I did some quick gathering of resources and uh you'll notice in the history of Norhill, it specifically mentions the crane ready-cut houses, and the library has two original um books from the Crane Ready Cut Company, which is a Houston company that that made those homes.

Um it is full of all the designs, including the floor plans.

Um these are from the 20s and the 30s.

Wow.

Um it's a great resource.

Um I would be happy to, you know, make copies, make it available.

Um I also kind of put together a few other possibilities, but those are absolutely the most valuable um materials.

Yeah, maybe Terrence is a I'm not sure.

I know there's some place on your website for facts and context, but maybe if the library can provide scans of these things, perhaps there could be a link on the website and the design guide like design guidelines might refer to the link just so that then applicants you wouldn't have to put you could have an example of one in in the guidelines, let's say but then have a reference where where you could go to get much more information, which would then make new construction likely better proportions and compatible because there'd be something to kind of to work off of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Could I add one more uh friendly suggestion?

Um in the COA application.

Uh can we go back to the presentation, please?

There you go.

Sorry.

In the staff review of COA applications, there's a page that typically includes uh sandborne map footprint of the building and a like uh what else, like an archival photo from Harris County, I suppose.

Yes.

Um it's I wonder if for um there might be space in the COA application for Nor Hill and similar neighborhoods to include a pattern book reference on that page along with the Sanborne and so forth.

But that's just a suggestion.

Okay.

Thank you.

My only worry with that is we don't know what ended up being actually produced in the end.

Right.

We know what the pattern is, but we don't know what was actually the ultimately the person who bought the home and built it may have made changes.

One more thing to add to that.

For Norhill, you can see in the 1920s version, you can see the beginnings of Norr Hill.

Whereas the library has the 1960 uh sandborns, which are fully complete and represent that year.

If anybody ever wants to come and look at those, they're available in the library.

Okay, moving on.

Oh, can we more sorry?

Sorry.

Um not from a uh personal preference point of view, but merely from a legal point of view.

I agree with Commissioner Cosgrove's comments in section 2.6 point A.

Um, particularly as a lawyer, the word sympathetic is vague.

Um so that might be addressed if Commissioner Blakely's good suggestion on a definition of compatibility is addressed, and we use that term instead.

Um an alternative, and I'm sure the legal department is better versed at this than I am, would be if you can't have a definition of compatibility, you take these styles that you've identified as examples, and list the applicable styles that must be provided for the neighborhood.

It must be a craftman bungalow.

It must be a prairie style, it must be this, this, and this, which would then be consistent with uh Ginger's comments as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Or yeah, or it might say it match the proportions, sort of matching, matching the proportions of so there's some flexibility in the design, but but it's it's the still that's the massing uh how big it is is a big part of it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so that we're in 2.5 residential new construction.

Uh do we need any comments for 2.6 materials and design?

I'll start with 2.6a character and style.

2.6 B doors and windows.

2.6 C roofs, roofs, and eavesd.

2.6 D dormers.

I have one quick comment.

I'm not a big fan of toward the rear of the house.

I think these are guidelines and we should define a certain distance back that the dormer can be placed.

I mean it just seems arbitrary to say toward the rear.

So you mean like is it the heights that says a certain percentage?

Just I I think just define what towards the rear is.

Like if it's 60 percent back, whatever.

I mean, what uh if there are other existing dormers, where do they fall in the district?

Um it seems easy enough.

2.6e painting of historic brick.

Okay, and then we'll go to 2.7 site plan elements and 2.7a impervious coverage.

The A and B to me uh I'm not sure their need in the design guidelines since neither of them fall under the purview of the ordinance or our our jurisdiction.

Gotcha.

I mean we we don't regulate fences, and I I certainly don't think as much as I appreciate what the neighborhood association has done to help get this going, that their desire of a body that will evolve over time should be stated in the design guidelines.

But since we don't regulate either of these, I'm not sure.

It's not ever assembling some if it's going to come to a vote in front of us.

So I can I I mean, I'm not gonna argue against a shorter document, that's for sure.

But just Commissioner uh Cosgrove, I mean, the statement really is just to say, like you know, like you you and I may know that, but like an applicant may not know I mean I read this just to say that it's not it it's exempt from the C of A, so therefore it's not.

It's just it's more of an information thing.

Maybe maybe it could be simplified, but but it's just um maybe not.

So if it would if it were to stay, could it go under the 3.4 exemptions, no COA required, or I mean if it were to stay, which is probably mentioned here.

Because you have a list that mentions what needs to go in front of a COA and what doesn't, it could easily be added in there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think it's not in the measurable standards is yes, so that that's what we'll do.

Okay, fences is here.

I don't see impervious cover, but if we uh if we um need to add impervious cover, we will.

Um we have uh we have spoken to legal about the uh about the mention of the uh neighborhood association, so we will be addressing that as well.

Ms.

Davis So you were not using lot coverage as a standard in Norhill.

What was the consideration on that?

Well, it's it uh impervious cover is done by the No, I'm not impervious cover, totally different.

I mean it's kind of one and the same as far as the City of Houston is going to look at the impervious impervious coverage.

Um we felt that uh the way the FAR that was done, it was gonna handle it.

Um and I mean North Hill doesn't have huge lots like there are some in the heights.

Um so we didn't think that uh that that was necessary, so to speak.

Um I don't think I think it was more so an idea of not hamstring it hamstringing the owners and the architects with some on some other measurable standard when you already have the Florida area ratio to worry about.

Um and plus that being that you're on a smaller lot, um that was our thinking.

But the heights guidelines do have a impervious cover.

There is a far and and there's also an impervious cover.

There is a far and an impervious cover, but we didn't see the need to add the impervious coverage on the on this one.

It's just a definite definition.

Well, I mean it's this saying it's 65 percent, but I mean that's City of Houston standard, so it wasn't something that we just arbitrarily developed.

Um maybe you state mid-65 percent.

And we'll do because it's still in effect, it's just not by this body, I guess.

Okay.

Um so again, as I stated at the beginning, um at the well, I'm sorry.

Do we have any comments on section three, four, or five?

I just have one comment on section three.

Okay.

Um, the community has spent a lot of time putting this together.

The city has spent a lot of time putting this plan together, and I just want to make sure that while we need to stay flexible at the city and respond to changing things in a quick manner that any significant changes to this plan do go back to the public.

Okay.

And um go through some sort of public comment process before those changes are are signed off on.

Okay.

Commissioner Davis.

A question about um 3.5 administrative uh approvals.

I'm a little confused because on page seven, we say that uh the guidelines remove administrative approvals of shall approve additions.

Um but we still have this section in here.

So does everything need to come to the to the commission now?

Well, but uh so yes, uh that is the plan.

Um but the reason why administrative approvals are in this section is because this is a full, I mean to basically sum this up.

Section three is basically the ordinance, and basically giving you uh a cliff notes version, if you will, of the City of Houston preservation ordinance.

So 3.5 administrative approvals is in there just to give you a breakdown of what an administrative approval is.

It isn't meant to say, okay, well, we're against administrative approvals in in this district, but oh sorry, you scared me.

I would like to give okay.

So shell approves is what's been removed.

Uh my preservation officer just explained to me with her lovely outfit.

Um so shall approves have been removed, but administrative approvals are still there.

I'm sorry for misspeaking.

Um so the shell approved is basically um you could do a um aside addition or a rear edition that of an existing home that had does not have that done, has not had that done before, and that goes directly to the director for approval, so they're removing that.

Um this is something that old six ward also practices as well, except for they do not allow administrative approvals at all.

And it was because of the Shell approves that they made that provision, to my understanding.

Um so I want to make sure I clarify that.

This document or or this document will not allow the shell approved, it will still need to come to the commission, but administrative approvals are still.

So, say for instance, if someone wanted to put a porch on the back of their home, they still can do that, and that's still an administrative approval if we can see it, or it's exempt.

Um so it's things like that that are still in there.

But again, this section three is basically just a cliff notes version of the uh City of Houston preservation ordinance, and that is the reason why it's there.

Um have any questions for section four or comments, I'm sorry.

I want to make a uh we're going to uh we received an email that uh required us to uh address it, so we're gonna look at the map.

I'm just gonna say that out loud.

We're gonna look at the map and make sure that everything is correct.

Um section five.

Oh I have uh just a couple comments.

Okay, five.

Is this section four or section five?

Section five.

Well, you know my thoughts on section five thoughts on section four.

So section five.

Since these are guidelines, correct.

And so this is to help somebody plan their project.

And while I think like stewardship and maintenance is an important thing, I think this should be more of a resource than integrated into the design guidelines because I think it muddies the water a little bit in what is expected of a homeowner.

I mean, we do not regulate the maintenance of a house.

If someone chooses not to maintain their house, it's it's not something they they get in trouble for from this commission.

But I feel like it kind of stretches the document out where it could just be a resource for people like of good practices for maintaining their their home.

But buried within this section are a couple little nuggets that I think tend to be more of the measurable standards or or or something we're we're asking of people, and most notably probably in the replacement of windows, which are referenced in here, and I mean I I don't have every detail memorized, but and also when we're dealing with a duplex property, how we're addressing the what can and can't be done with two front doors.

And to me, those fall more under the measurable standards and less under maintenance or whatever the title of stewardship and maintenance that those are requirements of people if they are buying a duplex that they're going to have to do something with that second door.

Right.

So I would maybe take the requirement parts of the section five and integrate them into the design guidelines so that it's clear so that people aren't caught off guard.

Um but as far as the you know, you know, as I said, I I think that could be more of a resource rather than part of the document.

Okay.

Yeah.

So uh we've had we discussed before this draft, before this the last two drafts went out.

We discussed um making this section its own document.

Um so um it sounds like if we remove some of the information that's valuable and um and then leave the rest of the stewardship maintenance for uh for residents as a as a resource, like you said, I think that'll that'll help and yeah, it'll make it shorter.

Okay, well, um else.

I don't know where this is the site editions and bump outs.

Is that in four is that in three or four or five?

So I have a comment about those.

Okay, I'll take your comment and then I'll go find it because I don't want to look like a okay.

So I don't know what I'm doing.

The guidelines appear to discourage or prohibit the site addition certain site editions and certain things.

Um and I'm confused about that because just recently we have approved side bump outs.

Uh-huh.

And um I think that I'm not sure why, since we've got a something that has been done before and it works.

Right.

Um and it's a design approach that has proven compatible with the district.

So I'm wondering why we are eliminating that in the guidelines.

Well, well, it I I think I I do not think it is eliminated.

I think that it may mention that it is discouraged because I believe if I'm not mistaken, there's a section for yeah.

So we have uh section 2.3e is corner lot, one story side edition, and then 2.3b, we have interior lot one story side edition.

So um maybe we need to take a look at if the wording um may be this leading by saying it's discouraging someone to do so, but it's we do not it.

I mean, we we have it here in the measurable standards um with actual you know setbacks and uh minimums that they have to do for or that we s suggest to them to do for uh side edition.

So um I think that we just have to look at fund where we discourage it and and modify that word in a bit.

Okay.

Okay.

Um at this time we would like to open the floor for public comment while we apologize for the time this may have taken.

It was important that we as staff got this right.

Um where it may be it it may not be perfect and it may not be what everyone wants, but everyone's voice was heard in these documents.

I mean in this document.

To the public, thank you so much for being here.

Um thank you for your particip participation, and most of all, thank you for your patience.

Um I know this has been a long process.

Um I know I've probably gotten on a lot of you guys' nerves.

Um, but hopefully I've answered a lot of you guys' questions.

I've been a been a more of a help than a hindrance to you.

Um staff will ask that you keep all your comments as concise as you possibly can.

Um we ask that you all keep the repetitive comments to a minimum.

Uh we will keep a strict timer on the on the comments.

The public will get a minute or two to speak.

We have asked HHC to not extend the time of the public so we can get through all the comments and give everyone the same uh amount of time to speak.

Um the public is always allowed to send their comments.

So if there's anyone in the audience that feels that their comments weren't relayed clearly after today, please feel free to send them in or make sure that uh make sure they have been added to the comments cards.

Um if you uh have the the QR code, I'm sorry, if you have the QR code, um you'll be able to scan and add comments there because it takes you to a page where you can add comments.

Um so thank you, and we're gonna turn the floor over to you guys.

Thank you, Terrence.

So at this time we'll move on to item C on the agenda, which is for public comment.

At this time, I will open the public hearing.

Um we do have a number of uh folks that signed up to speak.

And so um we'll be uh starting with Mr.

Brian Wilson.

Hello again, everyone.

Um I don't have anything formally written down to to say.

I just want to say that um this this effort has been a long time coming.

Um I've worked worked as a member of the Norhill board um on the document for many hours.

Um fully support the all the efforts uh that have that have taken place and the the need for such a document.

Um I know we've spent many hours in Norhill uh among the board members of Norhill um going over plans all the time.

Is this something that we can approve or not?

Uh just want to say that I fully support um all the the work that's gone into it and the need for it.

Um I think I think you all would agree that it's it's very much uh long time coming and just look forward to seeing the success of it.

Thank you.

The next speaker is um Alexis um ask you to pronounce your last names, but I don't see any correctly.

Alexis Stifle.

Stifle, thank you.

Commissioners, thank you so much.

I appreciate your comments about the reasonability, livability, and ensuring that Norhill remains a family friendly neighborhood as it was originally intended.

It really is an idyllic and magical place to live full of wonderful neighbors and families.

I implore you all to recall that these are our houses in which we live.

Um look after unruly children, care for aging parents, and uh engage with our neighbors.

I sincerely hope we do not over-engineer or overcreate so many restrictions that it imposes undue burdens on homeowners, hoping to create a livable space compatible with their life circumstances as they are for the modern world.

Um I would like to advocate against the square footage restrictions.

Um it I would encourage us to retain the current square footage restrictions as those the the proposed guidelines feel limiting and um overly aggressive to be able to create a family that's uh at home that's family friendly.

I'm also opposed to the height proposals, and I I think this was brought up in the discussion, but they do feel that they are trying to impose on homeowners what to do within the home.

I'm also opposed to the driveway limitations that were also brought up in the discussion, so I appreciate that.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you for your considerations, and I do appreciate the consideration of reasonability and that these are the places that we live, and we hope that that is sincerely considered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Stephen Bennett Johnston.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Uh I'm Ben and Johnston.

Um thank you very much for a couple minutes of your time.

Uh I it's unfortunate the whole thing kind of becomes enough versus them.

I think everyone here is the line that that some guidelines are needed to preserve the neighborhood.

Um certainly uh, you know, without everyone willing to be dedicated to something like this, I think everything north of I-10 and inside the loop would have been raised and turned into townhouses and apartments by now.

So it it really is a matter of of hashing out the details.

Um I love the character of the heights and uh of Norhill.

I I certainly don't want to disrupt that.

Uh the the one thing that I'd like to highlight, you know, is that the nature of work has changed substantially since these houses were were first built.

Uh and not only are you know typically both parents, if you have you know two in a household working, uh at least one of them is usually working from home.

Uh if you have children, if anybody's tried to work from their house while their kids are around, you probably know it's near impossible to get anything effective done if you don't have your own space that you can close off.

Um so part of that of course means you uh allowing you know uh per perhaps you know larger square footage uh in the far uh and probably also allowing the garage apartments to be excluded from far, because right now you have to choose, you know, am I gonna put the square footage in the house or am I gonna say put you know 500 square feet in a garage apartment and then pretty much you can't do anything to the house.

So um that would be my main uh you know hope is that the garage department could be excluded and and you know so thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Kazi Zuweyer.

So my name is Kazi Azair.

Uh my brother was the one you called up, his name's Kazi as well.

And we're residents in Norhill.

And just wanted to share our experiences going through the process and everything that's happened and what we really what we really feel um is at the essence of Norhill.

So Norhill has been an amazing neighborhood to come into because it has that historic effect that the rest of Houston doesn't actually have, and it has the character that we're looking for that uh duplex or four-plex that's built right next door doesn't have.

So we're not we we understand that we need to build our homes with that in mind, but at the same time, um some of the things that are that we're looking for that are proposed in the guidelines really are constructing these homes to where we can't build a family.

Um so things like the square footage and the garage apartments being part of the house, make it to where me as a business owner I'm unable to live in Norhill and really build a home that my family and I can live in and grow into.

Um so those are the things that I really think we should address and look into, and maybe if we can edit to be more accommodating for the families as we grow them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the other name was uh causing you clear, which I think you just spoke, but your is your brother here?

Uh no, he has that.

He is okay, thank you.

Okay.

So the next speaker is Dwayne Bradley.

Sure.

Hi, I'm Dwayne Bradley, uh 36-year resident of the heights and uh 26-year resident of Norhill.

And um I spoke here a few months ago uh expressing my love of the community and wanting to keep it in it in its current form and not see it blow up the way other parts of the heights I had lived in in the decade prior to to moving into Norhill back in 2000.

Uh so I wanna I want to thank Terrence and and everybody for this.

I have been a participant in the process.

I've done the surveys, I've gone to the meetings, I've given feedback, I've spoken to this group once before.

Um I'm happy that you know we're incrementally but positively moving forward, and uh I encourage you.

I support these uh guidelines with some of the modifications y'all have uh brought up, which I I think are fine.

Um thank you for your dedication to the process.

I Googled uh Crane's craft homes and got into into those things this morning.

So I'm I'm kind of surprised that y'all didn't already know this, but um I'm glad that uh Twila brought it to your attention and uh thanks for what you do.

I look forward to this process coming to a successful conclusion.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Adam Tilly State Yes.

Hello, my name is Adam Till.

I live on Petty Street uh in Norhill.

I live there about five years.

Um I'm here today to voice my support for the passage uh of the Norhill uh design guidelines.

Uh the guidelines are the result of many years of deliberation and diligence on behalf of the residents uh of Norhill and prospective residents of Norhill.

Uh it's product of intense surveying and uh community debate, uh so they don't come lightly.

They provide a, I think a very reasonable and appropriate level of protection of the charm, character, and uniqueness of Norhill, while also allowing current and future residents clarity, consistency, and flexibility, increased flexibility, we might even say, uh, in realizing and renovating their homes.

Um so if you hear nothing else from me, that's it.

I support these and I hope they're passed.

Um I will point out a few areas that I think could be improved.

Um definition of living area, section 1.2.

I think it could be further clarified to simply state living area is defined as all portions of a property that are conditioned, period.

So sort of an awkward sentence structure there that uh doesn't seem to align with what we read later in 2.2a, um, which I think is more well defined and more of a spirit of what we're trying to get to in the guideline.

Um 2.3C interior lot, two story rear edition.

Uh I think there should be no relaxation of the 19 foot rear setback.

I think you're 45 foot um uh front setback, 19 foot rear setback.

End of story on that.

Lastly, 3.1.

Um few sentences in there that give the director of planning and development uh a great deal of license to institute policy revisions of these guidelines at any time.

Um I think there should be further language in there to sort of limit and restrict um that ability to do that as stated previously.

I mean, I think the process for changing these guidelines after passage should be just as rigorous as they've been to arrive at the point we are today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Till.

The next speaker is Sam Janukas.

Sam Janukas Creole Design.

There are three things that I I want to address deed restrictions, measurable standards, and garages.

The deed restrictions that are in the current deed restrictions that are in place, and y'all hear me every month talking about the deed restrictions in Norhill, allow for a 15-foot building line in the front and a six-foot porch zone in front of that build line.

They allow a 40-foot ridge height on a house.

The deed restrictions do not limit the width of an addition by any means.

But they do not say no two-story garages.

And I believe that was to prevent rental units in in the area.

I'm doing a house right now in Tanglewood in the area I'm working on the house.

It says only one story garages.

So it was very clear on the deed restrictions.

I could only do a one-story garage.

And I believe that if uh they wanted that in the deed restrictions, they would have said only one story garages.

So I think two story garages are crucial for the neighborhood.

The um your wall section doesn't add up.

Um, and I don't know what section, it's on page 21.

The wall section doesn't add up with today's standards.

Typically, we'll use an 18-inch truss between a first floor and a second floor in that in that uh area for mechanicals and and so therefore the crawl space.

If you look at the wall section, I'm happy to draw one for somebody, it it doesn't add up.

Um the code requires 18 inches from the bottom, the dirt, y'all talked about this to the bottom of the floor, Joyce.

Most of these houses over time, the flower beds have been built up, and so that that numbers needs to be a variable.

It's almost like like in Piney Point, for instance, they take it from uh finished floor, first floor, finished floor to the ridge height.

And and I don't know that the plate matters.

I have a house right now in Norhill that the owner wanted 10 foot ceilings, it's on an eight-foot ceiling house, and the house is two foot six off the ground, so we lowered it.

Um that's it.

Nope.

Thank you, Sam.

Okay, thank you all.

The next speaker is Russell Um Etherton.

Good afternoon.

My name is Russell Etherton, and I am Councilmember Castillo's chief of staff.

The council member couldn't be here today because he is in public session uh at this time.

Um the councilmember did ask that I come and just uh make you all aware and articulate his support of the Nor Hill Design Guidelines process.

Um community engagement in all of its aspects is how the council member uh likes to govern its uh number one priority for him is community engagement.

And so um since being elected into office, the council member has uh been invested in helping to move the process forward, though the design guidelines process forward.

And while you're not voting on the guidelines today, the council member is uh eager to see the final product.

So if you all have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out.

Um and um thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mary Schultz.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mary Schultz.

I live on Petty Street in Norhill.

I've been there 13 years and many more years in uh the western part of the heights.

I want to say that I'm really, really happy to see that we have these guidelines finally in almost final draft.

I'm pleased with most of what I'm hearing.

Um I will say that uh in regard to the question of footage and setbacks and so on.

We did have less footage, less square footage before these current guidelines, and so I think it is an expansion that allows for room for growth for families that didn't um exist there before.

The guidelines that are decided upon must be grounded in a lived understanding and acceptance of what Norhill is, which is the largest contiguous, still vibrant group of 1920s bungalow houses in the United States.

If we make them very big, have large additions at front, back, or wherever, they may be nice houses, but they're not part of this group of bungalows.

And as I said, I think that there is room for some expansion that didn't exist before.

The last thing I'll say though, however, is that I uh congratulate everybody for the arduous work of putting this together.

Um also I really appreciate some of the comments and suggestions that have been made by the members of the committee today, and I hope that to see the end product of your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Virginia Kelsey.

Um Virginia Kelsey, I'm a resident of Norhill.

No one could be more thrilled to be here today than me.

And to see this moving forward.

I'm thrilled.

Nor Hill is desperate for preservation.

It is not desperate for redevelopment.

We have a lot of redevelopment.

We lack meaningful protection.

The guidelines should be a clear, predictable path for the project for any project's approval, and but however, must not be treated as a flexible document, subject to inconsistent or subjective interpretation.

The guidelines proposed are a clear and equitable standard for judging approvals.

They allow for a lot of growth.

Although we wholeheartedly support these, I wholeheartedly support these guidelines.

I do support a do not support a planning director having the ability to change them as that leads to their being subject to political changes.

The option for two-story garages should be removed to bring the guidelines into alignment with the Noor Hills deed restrictions.

Two-story garages change the very massing of the neighborhood that these guidelines aim to protect.

And it's already been spoken to some that the definition of living area limits to only area attached to the primary residence, whereas significant portions are often in outbuildings or in two-story garages, which do contribute to the massing.

Having it specified as conditioned space and limited at that would achieve you could have a garage or storage place that's finished, but if it's once it's air conditioned, it needs to be included into the definition.

And I too agree that the 19-foot rear setback should remain in all situations.

Again, Norhill needs preservation.

And thank you and thank everyone in the department.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Danielle Trailer.

Hi, I'm Danielle Trailer.

Um, I'm a Norhill resident.

I moved in in 2022.

Um, bought the house.

It's a one of the two ones, 1,100 square feet.

Tiny bought it from a family who started started to have children, so they had to move out.

My next door neighbors starting to have children, they're gonna be moving out.

Caddy Corner for me, again, again starting a new family, gonna move out, two houses down, same thing.

It and everyone who's lived in Norhill for a long time sees the same thing.

Great community, great neighborhood, but we start to lose people because they just can't make the houses large enough to accommodate kind of a modern family.

Um so I just want to encourage the flexibility of um whether it's larger um larger square footage, um, setbacks, whatever, to um to allow that flexibility for the modern family.

Um and then also um yeah, that's it.

Keeping keeping that in mind.

Oh, and uh somebody brought up some specificity of the of the proposed guidelines.

It sounds like there's not a lot of specificity in some areas, which means when people are starting new projects, they can those projects can be cut short or can be um they can run into um to um obstacles down the road that they didn't plan for because there's a little bit of um a little bit too much um lack of specificity in the in the guidelines.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Lawrence Phibox.

Good afternoon, thank you.

My name is Lawrence Phibo.

I live on West Cottage Um Street, and I've been in the neighborhood for about 17 or 18 years.

And I'm here to offer my support for these guidelines.

I imagine you would know that already.

Um these get guidelines matter because they create measurable standards that protect the neighborhood while still uh giving homeowners flexibility.

Without clear rules, you end up with avoidable conflicts like two-story back, uh two-story rear editions that are pushed right up to the easement.

Um, standards will help people add livable space and invest in their homes while preserving the historic character of the bungalow and protecting neighbors, the privacy of the neighbors.

You all know, because I've been here before that I have a two-story, two and a half bath um house, and I love it.

It's wonderful.

Um I definitely sub, but they fall within the guidelines, so I support you know what we're doing here.

You can still have a large uh dwelling.

As you know, Steph McDougall started this process back in 2016, so nothing here should be a surprise to anyone.

Uh what's in here is very mature and very solid.

I ask that you please ultimately approve these guidelines.

I thank you for the excellent discussion that I've heard today and the comments from the uh the public here and um what we don't need, I think are any more endless meetings, feedback loops, um, ad finitum or last minute changes that are driven by a few stakeholders who reflect a narrower set of priorities.

So please adopt them and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is uh Brett Backus.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brett Bacchus.

I live on East 16th Street.

I lived uh I moved into Montrose in 1996, and over the course of about 25 years, uh my bungalow neighborhood demolished.

And all the houses around me are two-story.

I can't got to where I could not see the sun from my house.

I moved to Norhill five years ago, specifically because they were single story bungalows, and I moved to that neighborhood because the whole neighborhood was single story bungalows.

If I had been involved at the beginning, I would have said no two-story editions, no two-story houses, everything would have to say uh as a single story bungalow.

I live in a thousand square feet, and if people can't raise a hump family as they have for decades, then you know Norhill is not for them.

Um I support the um uh guidelines as have been gone through a great deal, and I would ask that nothing be allowed to be larger than it is.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Emily Ardwan.

Good afternoon.

I'm Emily Arnwell with Preservation Houston.

Um just commend the Office of Preservation staff, past and present, um, for all of the work that they've put into this document over years and for the commission for the the time that you've taken to really thoroughly review this document and offer comments.

Um it's it's very important for preservation in Houston in general.

Um specific comments would mostly be duplicates of things that have been said already today.

Um I agree with many of the comments raised by commissioners.

Um I just want to point out a couple of things specifically.

Um in two point two A.

Um I do agree with Commissioner Cosgrove that mass is mass, whether it's conditioned or unconditioned, but I want to specifically point out excluded from the far unconditioned space that is part of the primary structure, but does not contribute to the overall massing of the property.

And examples of those include detached, unconditioned garages or other unconditioned accessory structures.

Those both are not part of the primary structure and do contribute to the mass of the property.

So I think just more clarification and and um looking at that language would benefit the document.

Um I also agree with Commissioner Jones about the um comments in 3.1.

Um the process for making changes is technically a departure from the ordinance, which says any amendments have to go through the same process as adoption of the guidelines.

Um I do think it's important to allow flexibility where possible, but if there is a a departure from the ordinance, there just needs to be a lot more clarity about in what circumstances um you know this will be allowed and what the public engagement process would be for it.

Um those are my uh my comments.

I think um this is it's a long hard process, and it's very hard to strike that balance.

So I commend everyone for all of your efforts in making this happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Oh, uh sorry.

Yes, I do.

You're not on the agenda, Terrence.

I know.

But I do have I would like to submit for the record comments from a Miss Lita Allen.

I'm sorry, I got wrapped up in all the changes that you guys want, and I just forgot about it.

No problem.

You're back.

You're back on the agenda.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I want to submit for the record comments for Letha Allen.

Um, is it possible for you to read the comments?

I can surely read the comments.

Dear members of the Houston Archaeological Archaeological and Historic Commission.

I support the City of Houston's much anticipated adoptions of the proposed design guidelines for the Nor Hill Historic District.

As an attorney with the MS in community and regional planning.

I appreciate the difficult task of consider considering constructing clear, well written design guidelines that allow for modifications to adapt to modern taste and exceptions while also preserving the neighborhood's character.

Throughout this multi-year process, neighborhood participation has been robust and many compromises have been made to accommodate diverse perspectives.

As such, the proposed section allowing the planning director to revise the design guidelines is unacceptable and undemocratic.

Allowing a political appointee who may have no relevant professional qualifications to change the guidelines disregards years of stakeholder engagement and takes away the predictability that design guidelines should provide.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely, Letha Allen, 1028 Walling Street Thank you, Terrence.

Is there anything else from staff you'd like to say or Yasmin?

Oh yes.

Um let's do that.

Uh so as far as the net next steps are concerned, and this is just the informational for the public.

Um staff is going to take all of your comments and all of the comments from the commissioners, and we're going to make adjustments uh accordingly.

Um staff and and the director's team will have many, many conversations about this, and then we'll come back and um with the edits and hopes that uh the commission the HAC will approve the changes.

Um unfortunately it will not be able to be a single meeting like this.

We will do it at a commission meeting.

Um so it will be an agenda item on the commission meeting.

So I apologize in advance to those who submit projects to whichever meeting that will be, because it will be a long meeting.

Um what else?

Uh the plan originally was for staff to come back, we'll go to make the changes and come back on April 23rd.

However, we have received an ab uh an astronomical number of uh COAs for next month because we had ethics training in March.

So um we will not be putting that on the agenda for April 23rd because everyone has a bedtime, I'm sure.

Um and we don't want to we don't want to leave out of here.

We we don't want to leave after security leaves.

That that's basically it.

Um what else is there?

Oh, and then once HAC approves it, um, it will then go to quality of life uh for city.

Um sorry.

We will send it to legal.

And um then we will if if legal needs to make any changes, suggested changes, we'll make those changes um to the public.

Legal will not make any changes to measurable standards or anything like that, any things that you guys um polled for.

Um it will mainly be for uh language and make sure we don't do anything to get ourselves in any trouble.

Um so it'll go to legal and then it will go to quality of life.

Once it goes to quality of life, then it will go to city of council.

This is assuming that all these things are approved, um, and then you will have your desired guidelines.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terrence.

And um I'll just state, I mean, I think the the vote that will eventually come to us is not to approve but to recommend for approval to city council.

Uh and I think the same as the true of the quality of life.

Um I guess Deputy Director Weeps and I might ask, uh I'm I know that when this meeting will be posted uh in advance.

Um, but I'm assuming that the uh recommended text will be posted online uh as other in the past.

So it I don't know when you mean I have a date yet when that will be um but prior to the meeting, more than just the the normal uh you know Friday before the week we we meet.

I'm assuming that this will go online at some point and there'll be some ample time to the community to go through all that.

That's correct.

We'll we'll post that in plenty of time for people to go through it.

I mean, it might not be 30 days again, but it will be more than Friday by the following Thursday.

Perfect.

Will a version be provided in track changes format?

Well I mean with the document that we have, um I mean I think we'll discuss it because uh just full transparency here.

The document that we're working off of is from the very first document that was started in 2017.

So the track changes will be a lot, right?

Um now if we can I'm no Microsoft Word guru, but but Samantha.

Terrence, I think he's saying just track changes from this current document.

Yeah, I don't know how we're gonna do that from the from the we can we'll figure that out.

Okay, yeah.

But we'll figure it out.

And if I may add, I mean, um as I recall when we went through this the last time, when when when you all when staff came back with any amendments or uh corrections, um we really focused on what those corrections amendments were.

Like we did we didn't repeat this process today from from page one to every sentence.

But we really focused just on what the if there was a change, we focused on those things so that the commission and the public uh would just be dealing with that given that we've now worked through the the you know the majority of the of the proposed guidelines.

Right.

And that'll so I mean I guess the best way to do that it when you get the comments that will be posted previous to the meeting, it probably won't have the track changes.

But when I lay out the PowerPoint presentation, I'll have what was there and what we changed at the bottom.

And that way you'll be able to track the changes on the same page.

That's the way it was done previously.

Correct.

With that, we are now adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

I really appreciate it.