Thursday, June 18th, 2026, today's meeting of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission, HAHC, is called to order.

I am Commission Chair, David Buchek.

And to verify we have a quorum, I will call the roll.

The chair is present.

Commissioner Jones.

Is present.

Awesome.

Commissioner Carl Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Blakely.

Present.

Commissioner Escobar.

Present.

Commissioner Hill.

Present.

Mr.

Cosgrove.

Present.

Commissioner Mark Smith.

Present.

Mr.

Broadbeck.

Present.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

And Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We have a quorum.

I'm going to begin the meeting with the chair's report.

And as typical, I'm going to read the speaker rules to be observed at this meeting.

First of all, the meeting can be viewed on HTV, although virtual participation options are not available.

Meetings start a few minutes after the scheduled time to allow the HTV broadcast to go live.

Speakers, if you wish to address the commission on an item, please fill out the speakers' form before the item is called and turn it into the staff nearest the front door.

At this meeting, the applicant will open with and speak for three minutes.

You may also be recognized to close with an additional two minutes.

Other public speakers may speak one time up to two minutes when I recognize you to speak.

And also for commission members, we have a number of items on this list that are very important and will be in some discussions, I think today, for a few of them.

And so if you wish to address the commission, please raise your name plate and I will call on each of you individually so that we can um ask questions in order and and move through um each of those um those items swiftly.

Uh please note for individual consideration of certificates of appropriateness after staff's initial presentation.

I will open the public hearing.

Uh commission members uh please hold your questions for staff until our deliberations.

Um please hold your questions for deliberations until after the public hearing.

And um, and that should also um make our meeting go a bit faster.

Again, we have a number of items that we're there are a number of speakers that have already signed up, and I expect there still will be a few more um arriving.

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

Thank you, Chair Buchak, and good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public.

I'm Robert Williamson, acting secretary for the commission and deputy director of the planning and development department.

For my report today, I just have two brief announcements.

First, I want to introduce and welcome our two summer interns that will work with our historic preservation team this summer.

We've have uh Isha Boshvar, hope I said that right, a sophomore at UT Austin, and Emily Ryan, a recent grad Rice graduate.

Welcome both of y'all.

Next, the HIHC workshop to discuss possible changes to policy and procedures for the commission that was proposed last month was not scheduled due to scheduling issues with summer vacations and et cetera and issues getting a quorum.

As such, the four items will be discussed at the order to be discussed at the workshop or added to today's agenda.

In closing, if you have any questions, you can call the Houston Office of Preservation at Preservation Hotline at 832 393 6556 or visit our website at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we do not have a mayor's uh liaison report.

Um, I guess I'm gonna move the consideration for the minutes till after item A, then on our list.

So um what I'll do is next I'm gonna move on to item A, um, which is a public hearing in consideration of and possible action on the following HAHC policy and procedures.

I think Robert, you want to start start that off?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Uh, there are four items to be dis uh discussed today for um consideration, and contrary to the agenda, there will be no vote on these items today, as they will be voted on next month.

The first item is rules on abstention votes.

So we're gonna have discussion on whether whether or not we should allow abstention votes.

So I would open that up to the floor.

Okay.

Um, is this what you want to say?

Exactly.

Commissioner Commissioner Broadbeck.

Um with respect to um abstention votes, um I since uh the the topic has come up the last few meetings.

I've received um a legal opinion from the city attorney's office that um there is no legal basis for uh us preventing uh abstention votes for any reason at all.

Um the AG for the state of Texas uh has issued an opinion that any member of any commission can abstain for any reason they want to, so long as that vote is cast in good faith.

So even if we voted to place restrictions on it, we can't.

We're prevented from doing so legally.

If I may, I know uh Matthew is not available today um for us, but we do have legal counsel uh from the city of Houston.

And if um if you could state your name for the record and the microphone turned on, but also could you could you give us some advice for the commission from the perspective of the city's legal department?

Certainly.

My name is Matthew Smith, uh, and representing the city legal department.

Uh it is the position uh despite this uh this characterization that you've provided.

It is the city's position that taking a vote with regard to abstentions is inconsistent with the city charter and the uh ordinances that created the HAHC, and that it should not it should not pass.

There should be no vote, no vote taken.

And can you refer to the ordinance the HAC ordinance that you're referring to?

Sure, section 33240A and B.

Could I ask that you read those out just for clarity for the commission?

Sure.

The HAHC shall be the body responsible for approving certificates of appropriateness unless otherwise provided in this article.

The HAHC shall review and approve or disapprove a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the applicable specific criteria in this division and a design guideline approved pursuant to section 33 268 of this code or division six of this article for the old sixth ward protected historic district to the extent possible.

Three, in the event of a conflict between the criteria in this division and design guidelines, more restrictive criteria shall control and b the applicant for a certificate of appropriateness shall have the burden of demonstrating the application satisfies the criteria applicable to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness to approve or disapprove an application for certificate of appropriateness, the HAHC shall consider and make findings with respect to the relationship between those are the two material provisions that set out a binary choice for the HAHC, which is to approve or disapprove.

And there's expressly no abstention option provided, neither there or under Article 7, section three of the city charter.

Okay.

But there is a recusal um if you had a contract of interest directly tied to as defined by the city of USA for all public employees, I believe is it's a it's mandatory for all employees, which is a recusal if you were connected to the project in some way that is um that that's be that's the other uh avenue that one could use when looking at a binary vote if they had if if like if a commissioner member lived across the street from an application or they were hired by the applicant, they would recuse themselves, and that that is the other way this this would be looked at.

That's correct.

Okay, and I guess that director you Williamson, you have a comment?

Uh yes, thank you, Chair.

Uh I would also just want to point out for the record that this is the practice that's used by city council in all the city council meetings.

It's also the practice employed by the planning commission and the tower commission.

Okay, Commissioner Blakely, you had a question.

Yes, I thank you.

I've been trying to understand what the what would be problematic about abstentions, just for the sake of thinking it through.

Um, and it seemed that in the wording of the document we got, there was the implication that the by abstaining if if too many commissioners abstain, then the the body, the commission can't actually approve something.

Um that the abstaining members give over their power of the body to just a minority, right?

So it what could happen just if we had unlimited, unrestricted abstention, is uh ten commissioners abstain, two vote for like uh uh motion and one against it, and then it passes, right?

So that would mean like only three commissioners were actually involved in the actual approval.

Um and whereas the the body, the I think that the ordinance is the intention is that we are diverse and numerous, and so when a motion is approved or disapproved, it's the implication is that the whole of us have taken a position.

Um, and so if only three of us are participating and ten are abstaining, um that seems to me like it would be not optimal as far as the body operating.

But but is that a is that a possibility like if we did allow unrestricted abstentions, could that happen?

Based on the rules.

I don't know who to ask even.

Based on the rules of what what does it mean?

Does it do we have to have a like certain number approving or disapproving for the body to approve or disapprove?

Or could it pan out that way?

Whereas only three people voted, but it was approved.

Um is that a scenario that could happen if we changed?

Uh I haven't done legal research with regard to the uh impact on quorum uh for how abstentions would affect that.

I can anticipate there there might be some issue um with regard to that.

Um, but I'm not not prepared at this time to address how specifically it would affect a quorum or to engage in a hypothetical despite its it's obvious important.

Okay, but what I'm hearing uh from what you said is that obviously all the members of this commission are appointed either by the mayor's office or the mayor directly or and or a city council person to decide uh to approve or deny applications that come before us.

That that's that's what we are charged with, and it's my understanding this conversation is based on um based on the information that we have, and I know another we we'll be talking a little about a number of item three drafts staff reports.

Um but based on the information we have provided to us at the given time, the request um of our own ordinance is that we are either for or against an application as presented to us at the time that we review the information, and that that's and that's why we're here.

I mean, we're here to vote up or down.

I mean that's that's our that's our charge.

So I'm just stating what I'm hearing as is what our ordinance um states.

And with that, there's a question from Commissioner Broadbank.

Yes, quick question for legal.

So is it the position of the city attorney's office that um that city ordinance supersedes state law and the opinion is issued by the attorney general of Texas?

Is that the position?

No, that's not.

Okay.

Please state the position.

In what way?

I was provided with the attorney general's opinion by the city attorney's office that states fairly clearly, and I was looking for the exact text just now.

I apologize I couldn't find it, um, but it states pretty clearly that we can abstain for any reason or no reason so long as we're casting our vote in good faith.

I believe that's a mischaracterization of what the attorney general's letter on the matter suggests, which states that it is permitted, that abstentions are permitted, but they are not provided to the extent that the state does not uh disallow abstentions, but it does not suggest that there is a universal right or an innate or inalienable right to abstain for government officials, and consistent with our city charter that expressly prohibits it, and the specified binary choice provided in the ordinance that created this board, uh those are consistent with the with the statement from the attorney general to say that there are op there are situations in which a governmental body might decide to provide for abstentions, but subject to this charter to the city charter and the ordinances, this is not that body.

Okay.

Um I remain unconvinced, um, but to my colleagues on the commission, the reason why this matters is I've only been a commissioner for eight or nine months now, and uh just in that short amount of time on multiple occasions involving instances more than just myself, there have been two reasons that I've noticed other commissioners have cast abstaining votes.

The first is when new materials have been submitted to the commission after the public posting of those materials to the general public and to us.

So, in other words, we're showing up to a meeting, seeing materials for the very first time, and then being asked to vote on that matter without having had an opportunity to consider those materials.

The second, uh, and this has also happened more than once, not even involving myself, is that there have been substantive questions that members of the commission have made um and posed to staff members uh and or applicants that they just weren't able to answer at that time, which is totally understandable because how can an applicant or a staff member know what questions they might be asked in advance, and so if that commissioner or more than that commissioner deem the answer to that question as being important, well then I think we'd like to know the answer.

So the the alternative that that we are afforded is to move to defer.

Now, if our motion to defer that matter fails, I am not I'm still not going to be comfortable voting on something where particularly new materials were submitted at the meeting that weren't publicly posted, which is also, by the way, the law in Texas.

The public needs to be able to see everything we're voting on at the meeting in advance of the meeting.

So that's my issue here.

Thank you, Commissioner Escobar.

Followed by Commissioner Garcia.

I'll be I'll be quite brief.

Um all points taken.

Um it's understandable.

Um it sounds like um abstention and recusal are being used um in different ways at different times to have different purposes.

Um but I feel like the reason that you're stating for abstention um to me is why something would would be denied, and that's why we have an appeals board is so that things that didn't have all the necessary pieces can be appealed, and if all the justification is provided in a separate body, they're reviewing those in detail so that that decision can be overturned or changed if it wasn't justified.

And so to do that abstention move for that purpose at this board level, nullifies the use of the appeals board to me.

I just wanted to state that, and if there's any feedback, because I'm also a new commissioner for this particular commission, I just think that's what the appeals board is for, and we have to judge with what we have in front of us.

If you say this makes me uncomfortable, I don't know enough.

I've been in that position as well on some of these, and I say I have to deny it because I don't like what I'm seeing and I'm not sure.

And then the appeals board will say, Well, with more information, we decided that it was okay or with modifications that have been accounted for, it's now okay, and it addressed all of those outstanding doubts.

And so to me, um, I understand why one wouldn't need to abstain.

I would understand why someone would want to recuse, and I've had to do that for myself with Freedmanstown projects, which I'm associated with, and I did not abstain.

I recuse myself or I wasn't even present to vote to solve that issue.

Thank you.

And but the recusal process is part of the city charter.

I mean, that I'm not sure where that where that's codified, but I mean it's it's a it's it's something we have to do to disclose the uh interest that we have in in projects and to um and I think that's not at question with the today.

Um Commissioner Garcia, you had a comment.

So um I'm gonna uh I I won't be quite as eloquent as Commissioner Escobar, but uh my first meeting.

I'm a new commissioner also.

My first meeting, I um abstained on the vote because I disagreed with the with the process on how it was it was turning out and I was um respectfully corrected by um by Marbad and and um Ms.

Commissioner Williamson or Secretary Williamson.

Um I started thinking afterwards what were what were um the alternatives if it's something that I disagreed with as far as not the full package but um materials coming in after the fact or if I disagreed with an elevation and um it seems like there are avenues for us to to um accept a um abstention only for only for a um a conflict of interest if if you if I wanted to um abstain because I didn't feel the way the process was proceeding I should have just recommended a deferral or uh recommend or denied it.

So um to me, I think those two avenues are all we need to accept the accept the um conflict of interest only for for an abstention.

Well, and I just want to mention as well because um Mr.

Broadbreck has brought up a number of points um and to the item of draft staff reports and when what is posted and what we see uh when we arrive for this meeting will be item three for this subset of questions.

So we we are going to address that uh head on as well.

And um, and again, I think that the again this the second meet uh means to resolve such an issue of deferment will again be discussed as part of number three, because uh again, if a project is not in is incomplete or if determined to be incomplete or determined to be inaccurate would be grounds to defer it uh regardless.

And we're having this conversation so that we can agree upon if there's a project where that occurs, then we might agree we're gonna defer that project because there's an issue there, and and therefore um Mr.

As Commissioner Broadback said, if we're in agreement with that then that we won't have a situation where we have to vote is it because there's a vote taken on it so um that's the purpose of this discussion so that we can determine how we will look at these things but we will address those two points in detail uh in just a moment so Mr.

Broadback.

Um question has there ever been an instance where so many people abstained that there wasn't quorum or we couldn't get a passing vote in other words are we talking about a solution without a problem?

Has it ever happened?

Well I think we're talking about what our requirements are per the city charter and what our ordinance does state and I know there's a lot of research also and the making of this body and some of that information was um distributed to you all but um but because we've these these have been raised we're gonna discuss them and find a consensus um because that is what this body is charged to do and so as I understand it though is that per the city charter and per per language in our ordinance is our role is to either approve or disapprove of the projects that we see unless um unless we need to recuse ourselves because we have an i uh actual invested interest in the project as also defined um in the city uh requirements so um commissioner blakely I just have another question for legal um does the ordinance differentiate between the commission approving or disapproving and an individual member approving or disapproving no it does not okay so I think part of the question if we're going to be clear about this is does the ordinance say that individually we have to vote yes or no on everything or does it say that collectively we have to vote yes or no on everything.

Personally I think maybe part of the anxiety around having to say yes or no when you're not comfortable could be addressed by pushing a little bit harder for more discussion um so that you have a chance to explain disagreement or or or to propose another way of framing uh the problem for a vote right because I think sometimes one doesn't like the way the motion has been made um and doesn't want to deny it um because it doesn't feel like that's your position but I think in that kind of case we could push a little harder if we're not comfortable to s to make sure that we either can dis have a motion that we can all either disagree or agree on right.

So like that could help resolve the distention between individual and collective.

Sure and Commissioner Blakely I would just add that um as you are well aware there are many different folks around the dais um there's an architect uh archaeologist historians um members of representing the public from city council members um and by design um the the folks here are coming from different points of view the builders um society and um real estate interest and so um we're not here to find um consensus that we like everyone agrees with I mean I'm just saying that different points of view have been placed uh at this table to represent all the different aspects of a project and so it seems to me that um it it wouldn't be we wouldn't necessarily always have voting one way like all for or all against because the the the folks around this table are coming from different points of view and and that's by design.

So that different points of view can be can be brought up and discussed as you were saying, and with that additional discussion could could take place.

Um I just want to say that we may not always agree as as a group, but we agree that uh everyone will be respected, every every viewpoint will be entertained, listened to, discussed, and and that and that's by design.

I mean, no, I'm not hoping for unanimity, but I think it's maybe would be something to aim for, like to have something that everyone can disagree or agree on, right?

So some are against, some are for, but no one's like, I can't vote either way on this because I think if you're in that position, I can't vote on either way on this.

Um you need to be more specific about why and maybe help us to understand maybe we can help address that so that everyone can be one or the other.

That would be my ideal.

I understand.

And and perhaps today, as a group, you all will determine if there's adequate questions or some issue that deferment is the cure for for that.

So that for at least for some of those cases, um, not all.

So we again, as mentioned, we're not taking any votes today.

So with I'm gonna move on if sorry, Commissioner Broadbeck.

Sure.

Um I I found the text from the previous guidance that I've received on this topic from the city attorney's office, and here it goes.

This is from the city attorney's office.

There is no Houston City Code of Ordnance Provision, ordinances provision, city charter provision, or Texas statute statute authority affirmatively prohibiting a commissioner of the Houston of the HAHC from abstaining from a vote for reasons other than a conflict of interest under Chapter 171 of Texas Law.

It goes on to say there is an AG opinion generally stating that voluntary abstention outside of chapter 171's framework is permissible.

So I think that made our decision for us, but I just wanted to read the the guidance that I got from the city attorney's office so that the commission's aware.

Now, if the city attorney's office would like to reverse itself and issue new guidance, fair enough, I'd like to see that in writing, and then the commission can consider it when that occurs.

Is there a response from the city this legal office or um because I was gonna say that um we're not taking a vote today, and um if there's any additional research or any needed, we could we can discuss it at our next meeting, but but if you would like to respond, I just want to give you the opportunity.

Uh legal maintains its position, okay.

Thank you.

Um let's move on for discussion purposes of item two or record recordization of votes.

Uh the record actually the recording of votes um is has been done in current practice as is been outlawed in ethics trainings and other um procedural motions made by the legal counsel in setting up and advising this body so we remain um the votes that have been cast and recorded previously are uh are what they are.

Is there any discussion on this item from commissioner members?

Commissioner Broadback.

So I have a quick question.

If based on what we just heard, does that mean then that when a commissioner casts an abstaining vote, it will be recorded in the minutes as abstaining and nothing else?

Uh in incorrect, it will be recorded according to policy, and current policy is that vote will be recorded as a non-standard vote, meaning opposed slash abstained.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

So what I just heard then is one follows the other.

We we can't the number two is directly correlated and tied to number one.

Um when we decide one, we'll decide the other.

But again, I maintain the position, it's been decided for us.

This is state law.

Um I concur that number two derives from number one, it appears to me, as you s as you stated, and um, and again, I don't know.

Um whatever you read, I don't think it came from um from legal counsel, mr.

Mr.

Smith here today, I'm I I'm assuming.

So, but I and again I don't know, I know since you first raised questions, a lot of research has happened, including into the ordinance uh previous decisions and what has been codified, even starting, you know, resurrecting the founding document for this commission.

So I don't know if that was a premature statement or not, but the city legal department is represented here, you know, before us in real time.

So but again, we can reconvene this next month, as is as of the custom of our original documents.

So, with that, I will move on to item three.

If there are no other questions on two, which I think there's a lot to be said here because that's this is the basis of many of these questions, Robert.

Thank you.

So draft staff reports is the next item on here.

So historically staff in an effort to uh make the process as user-friendly as possible for the public, has modified draft reports after they've been posted on the Friday before the commission.

And then the final reports that are that are presented and voted on the day of commission are the final reports.

But it's correct.

There has been instances where there's been information that has been added to those reports.

So in February of this year, we took actions to halt that practice, and beginning in March, we put in a strict rule that there will be no additional applicant materials added to the staff draft staff reports after they're posted on Friday.

Now we have added ancillary information that is not come from the applicants that's come that would need to rely on the county or other third party sources, uh, such as Sanborne maps or the BLAs, some some minor information.

Um, but again, there have been no additional information as regarding uh dimensions, new drawings or anything.

That practice has come to a full hard stop.

So thank you for bringing that to our attention, and we've addressed that matter.

And uh and director Robinson uh Williamson, um so that would include renderings or any other kind of I understand the design isn't changed, but um that would that would mean we wouldn't be adding any additional renderings or anything else submitted between the Friday uh in the next meeting.

That's correct.

If it if it originates with the applicant, they will not be added to the staff reports.

Now that's not to say the applicant can't show up here and in discussion time.

They're f they are feel they're free to present those documents to the commission during their um public speaking time.

Okay, and I know questions have been raised about when applicants do come to the document camera and put up renderings or other or other designs, frankly.

I mean let's be honest.

So um if that they have the right to do that, it's a public process is that's my understanding.

And but the commission has the right to review what was submitted when it was required to be submitted and what was posted online, like the the commission can determine whether to entertain what is being shown at the last moment, but they they can but they can also not use that as part of their decision-making process.

I mean, if like if if the concern is that we want to review what was posted on the Friday before our meeting, and all the public had a chance to review that information.

Um it's up to each individual commissioner to decide whether or not what is brought in by the applicant weighs on their decision.

That is correct.

And then consequently, commissioners are free if if what is presented the day of commission that's contrary to what's in the package by the applicant, uh, is is so complex or so undestable, then they're free to defer the vote.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

So I'm sure as my colleagues on the commission know this is another issue that I'm very sensitive to.

Um the reason why is is not only because we are being when new materials are presented to us the day of the meeting, we're being asked to cast a vote on things that we've seen for the first time that day.

And indeed, we have been presented with new materials at meetings for the first time where more than one of us have stated, paraphrasing something to the effect of, well, this makes a difference to me.

So without us having the opportunity to review those in advance, carefully consider what those materials mean to us and being asked to vote at the moment, it just feels improper.

More importantly, I'm concerned about members of the public.

They take a look at what's posted for our meetings in advance, and there are people who come here with frequency from the public that decide whether or not they're going to come based on what's being presented.

And so if applicants know that you can bring new things to the meeting that the public may not be able to see, and they have a sense for what might make a difference to more than one commissioner, we're inviting that, and that to me doesn't seem fair.

But beyond all of that, um based on what I understand and the guidance that I've asked for from city attorney's office, there doesn't seem to be anything in city ordinance that specifically prohibits um applicants from bringing new materials to the meeting.

In other words, adding to their application, but um part of city ordinance in Houston is the international building code, the IBC, and the IBC specifically prohibits that practice.

And if you're adding more to it after that date, well then it wasn't complete as of that date.

So I think I'm reverting to a previous position on a different topic.

I think this has already been decided for us in the law through the IBC, which is part of Houston City ordinance.

Deputy Director Williamson.

Again, the applicants or members of the public or civic clubs or whomever are free to bring additional items for public comment.

That's a freedom of speech issue.

We can't control that.

Uh then you can if it's so controversial and so overwhelming, then you can vote to defer.

Now, to your point about the international building code, uh, we are researching that, but um legal is pushing back very hard on that.

Those are separate and distinct items that one does not govern the other, um, and there's certificate appropriateness while it's part of the process, it does not get triggered and is not subject to the IBC.

Commissioner Robbeck, uh obviously speaking, but I wouldn't make a comment too, because I think part of the nuance of this conversation is that let's say that there's something very small in nature, easy to comprehend.

I but it would be my what I have witnessed and seen is that if if a a very small proposed change was made that all members of this commission could wrap their minds around and understand what the implication of that is, um, the public members, um again, that's why I I'm asking the applicant to to speak first so that anyone that also comes here from the public and speaks on a project can hear what the applic the applicant is going to bring and what they're going to they're gonna put there.

But if something is very small in nature and one could understand what that is, um you all have the deference to decide on that matter, and if it is, as you said, radically different, um, one could offer a deferral, and I think based on these conversations and this this agenda item, uh the deferrals for these kinds of issues are going to be thought through the lens of this meeting.

So I think that that's different than where we were a month ago, let's say.

So I think it it may depend on what is what the app the public is bringing, which is their right to do so, which is also the right of each commissioner to accept or not to accept that information and make a judgment based on even if if even if your position is I'm gonna make a judgment based on what was submitted and posted, that is that is also my understanding the right of each each commissioner on this body.

So it would with that please add your comment.

Thank you.

Sure.

Response uh to either of you, um, or to both of you, I'm sorry.

Um Deputy Director Williamson, of course the public is welcome to bring whatever they'd like to the meetings.

And you're absolutely right, that's a free speech issue.

Um it's not the members of the public that I'm talking about.

See that in the HAHC process, these meetings is the first opportunity for the members of the public to address and participate in the process prior to each HAHC meeting.

There has been an ongoing process that applicants have been participating in in working with staff to complete their application, find out what whether or not staff will recommend denial or approval, etc.

And so if all of that is based on the materials that's in the application packet, we gotta know what the packet is before the meeting, so we know what we're gonna vote on, and we is not just the commissioners, it's members of the public.

And I would respond by stating that we have taken care of that with what we instituted in March, and that the draft packages that are posted on Friday, there are no substantive changes made to those before the meeting.

So what you see is what you get.

Respectfully, at last month's meeting there were new materials that um commissioners remarked, this makes a difference in my thinking.

That's a direct quote.

And those materials came from an applicant.

We also, by accepting those materials, we would have denied the public the opportunity to review the very same things in advance, decide how they feel about it, decided whether or not they want to come to the meeting and address us.

It just it feels wrong, but aside from all of that, it's prohibited by the IBC.

Um I'll just say this.

So um as an architect and how I deal with the IBC when I'm not in this venue, but I'm at the planning permit office, um, which has its own rules and uh procedures and so on, but um as far as far as I understand, the our decisions are based on our ordinance and and has as we all interpret our ordinance, which is separate from the IBC.

Um but I I don't really think that's the issue that we're discussing, though.

I think that number one, and that's why it's a question about a rendering, because I think at one point a rendering may have been added into the staff report.

So the what I'm what I'm hearing, the change is going to be that no information from the applicant will be added to the staff report that was presented on the screen that wasn't posted on the Friday before the meeting.

And if, I'll just say this, if an applicant wants to come in here and bring another scheme and put it on that document board, then they risk the real issue of having their project deferred and having to push it off another month.

So I I would say to the public, if that's something you want to do and you have the right to do so, you may delay your project another month just by doing that based on this conversation.

So I just there I think that tomorrow will be different than yesterday based on your the your your concerns and comments, Commissioner Broadback.

And I think that um again, I'm I believe that I'm hoping we can get to a place where all of us agree on what where we've landed on the item number three and what will be allowed to be presented and it'll be what is posted.

And only if, as was mentioned, um if there's a sandborne that's found, if there's something from Harris County or there's a typo, that'll be corrected.

Um I think there is there not a policy that if letters from the public are received prior to the meeting that those are sometimes added, but that's not from the applicant, that's from the public.

Uh that is correct, and um uh and and planning commission actually follows a different p policy than that, and and we're going to adopt the planning commission policy, which is we're gonna hold all of those public comments and present them uh at a date before the um public hearing.

So, okay, so then they would be due the same time the final applicant's due date would be due as well.

So what's posted is posted.

What's posted no because the public uh is allowed to post things to written comments up until 24 hours before the process.

What planning commission does is they then post those the night before so the public and everybody can see what the public commit what the public comment is regarding that item.

Okay.

But again, in full disclosure, I think that we're the many steps are being made to address those concerns and um and I would imagine there'll be a number of deferrals coming if if we're having things presented to us that are substantially different than what is in the packet.

And so that I think that's kind of the CSAW that we're gonna be looking at in terms of um what we're gonna see and what the what the what the public may also find.

Commissioner Broadback.

So my sensitivity to the statement you just made is that we are going to be placed in the position of having to subjectively decide what matters and what doesn't in the moment, not to mention we're still denying the public the opportunity of seeing those items in advance before the meeting to decide whether or not they'd like to come testify, join the meeting, etc.

So it it's a subjective opinion that I'd really rather the commission not be forced to have to make in the moment.

Just submit your materials in full by the deadline and the issue goes away.

I understand, but I think as was mentioned by legal counsel, our job is to approve or disapprove of a project based on what it was submitted.

We anyone has the right if someone wants to bring something, they may be deferred another month.

That's that that's that's up to them that that risk, and and if there is something presented that commission members don't want to accept or just consider and just want to consider as it was submitted as you say, they they have the right to do so.

But I mean, we're here to make decisions.

That's why we were asked to join this commission.

And so I think that we are in the best possible way by discuss these discussions, you know, will are resulting in changes to what we have done, so that we can still be accommodating to the applicants.

We're still giving the applicants extra time to resolve or make changes to their applications, but it's due the day before they're posted online, and that's a that's a hard date.

And so that's that's a that is a change from when this current commission started their work.

So and that's thanks to you, uh, you know, for bringing these up.

So now again, we're going to no votes are happening today, but we do have one more item, which is speaker time.

And um, do you Robert, do you want to discuss the position of speech?

Yeah, but this will be a real quick one.

It it's just um it was brought to our attention that uh some of these practices are not written in uh in uh rules of order anywhere.

So we're just gonna codify uh the speaker time is currently written, or just three minutes for the um applicant, two minutes for other speakers, and then two minutes for rebuttal if required.

And then second, we're gonna codify or we'll put to a vote next week the uh practice of granting speakers additional speaker time via a motion that has to be seconded, uh a motion with the amount of time granting it which has to be seconded and then a majority vote.

So again, that's just a procedural thing so that we get all that stuff uh in paper.

Okay.

And again, I'd like to add on this discussion point, it would be my recommendation that um instead of saying that the applicant may have three minutes to present, but the applicant would be the first presenter, so that for the for the benefit of the public in the room that um they can hear everything that the applicant has.

Sometimes we have multiple applicants, but obviously the applicants choose among themselves who will represent them as the applicant for those three minutes, and then um, you know, it is the practice that if someone speaks against the applicant, then the applicant has the ability to have a two-two-minute rebuttal.

But if no one speaks against the project, then there is no there is also no two inch to uh there is no two-minute rebuttal.

So uh for clarity, I think that that would be my advice about this item.

Are there any other discussion items?

Uh question, um the way that Deputy Director Williamson just laid it out.

I believe that's how we've been doing it.

Is there any change in the did I hear you wrong?

No, there is no change.

Uh it's just that it's brought to our attention that that someone was looking for all of these procedures to be in writing somewhere, and they weren't we couldn't find any written documentation, so we're just going to vote on them.

So they'll be on the record with written documentation on how we're going to proceed.

Right.

Okay.

And that vote again will be at our next meeting that we can be.

There are no other questions for this item.

I'm going to open the public hearing and just it.

I just after that.

Yeah.

Um is there anyone that wants to um address the commission on this item or for these um for item a um not hearing, I'm gonna close close the public hearing and um then we'll move on to consideration of the April 23rd, 2026 and May 21st, 2026 HAHC main meeting minutes.

Commissioner Broadbank.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion with respect to the April 23rd, 2026 meeting.

Um I would move to approve uh the April 23rd, 2026 minutes with two corrections.

Um, first, item D three needs to reflect my vote as abstaining rather than the way it was recorded uh being opposed, abstained because that's not what the vote that I cast.

Um second, uh the director's report language stating that the hard cutoff change quote supports the commission's longstanding policy of only allowing commissioners to abstain from conflict of interest items, that needs to be corrected.

The City Attorney's Office, as I mentioned earlier, has since acknowledged uh in writing that that characterization doesn't have a legal basis and contradicts an AG opinion.

Um now given our discussion that we just had.

Uh if um we are not prepared to make that change, then I would suggest that we simply defer this until after we've had an opportunity to vote on the abstention item, but all of that aside, the minutes need to be a reflection of what actually happened, and that's not what actually happened.

Well, um it's my understanding again from what I've heard from legal counsel, that the like the current our current um ways of making decisions or voting on these items is either to approve or disapprove.

And that is in effect as we speak.

Like we've not changed, like we've not voted on item one or item two, so um, so we're still under where we are as of this moment in time, in terms of where we have been according according to the city charter, and according to the rules of this of this commission.

So um it's my understanding that we can vote on this, because we either have to vote to approve or disapprove.

And I'm not sure that the word abstain in this context, a lot of research has been done, but I think that it's my understanding that the word abstain when we have a contract of interest is really in a recusal.

That is, we recuse ourselves from the deliberations and the vote on a subject.

So again, I would ask legal counsel.

Um it seems to me that we can vote on these because we haven't changed our position and our position from from as the research has been ongoing research to this matter, both from the city charter but also from the ordinance itself that you read out loud in this meeting that our charge is to approve or just disapprove.

I believe that I've got your question.

Could you please clarify your question?

Certainly.

Um I understand that there's not language about abstentions in our or our own ordinance, if you will.

There is language in the city charter about making decision for or against.

There's language in our ordinance about making decision for or against, and there's a process of recusal if we have a conflict of interest.

And to do so, one member has to fill out a form and state the reason why and what and what that is has to be done in advance of the meeting and and verified and all that.

But what I'm understanding or hearing from you is that we don't have a method to abstain as we sit here today, according to your office and the ongoing research that has been ongoing.

Um we can vote on these minutes under the rules that we're currently under.

That's my question.

That's correct.

Okay.

Is there a second to the motion on the floor?

I have to have a second for a motion to move forward to a vote.

Okay.

Is there a different motion?

And just to go back.

The motion was to defer the minutes.

No, that wasn't the motion.

The motion was to approve the minutes with the two corrections as stated.

I don't know how we can approve the motion as stated if there's a disagreement in terms of what is stated and our current the current rules that are we are subject to.

Like we haven't voted on any changing any rules.

So that's my that's my um, my understanding, Mr.

Chair is that um for an item for a housekeeping item like this, as chairman, you can table this until we've settled the abstention question.

That's something that I'm under Robert's rules of order, you are empowered to do.

Um perhaps, but we're under certain rules or order that we're that we're under.

This commission hasn't voted to change those rules.

Um we can't vote at this meeting because it's part of our rules is to wait to the following meeting if we make a change.

Um I have legal counsel here stating that we're either voting for or against, and if you and under the current rules, it's my understanding from legal counsel that a vote to abstain is a vote against a measure.

That's all I'm asking.

That's that's what was my question for legal regarding the minutes.

A vote to abstain would be counted as the action would be a no vote, or an un not a not approved vote.

And so to change to change the record would be inconsistent with legal's recommendation.

Okay, and without a second of that motion, I can't advance that that motion either, nonetheless.

Um is there another motion from a commissioner on the minutes?

I make a motion to approve the minutes.

Okay, is there a second?

I second, okay.

Is there any other discussion before I call for the vote?

Okay.

Oh, Commissioner Blakely, yes.

I just want to say that it seems clear that what it however we vote on whether to change the abstention policy.

Uh it wouldn't impact the meeting minutes.

Right.

There's no reason why we should not uh approve the meeting minutes because how they were recorded is governed by the policies that were in place at the time that are still in place until we change them.

I just want to make sure that's clear.

I think that's what I was pointing to make.

Um I mean I've been as successful, but um all in favor of the motion.

I all against opposed.

Okay, but motion passes, and now we will move on to item B.

Which one is this?

It looks like two.

Okay.

Starting with.

Okay.

222.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the commission.

This is staff Person Emily Ryan.

I submit item B for your consideration at 232 Dunstan Road for the protected landmark designation of the Irene and George Robinson House.

The house is a two-door revival style residence that blends elements of shingle.

Oh, second.

Chair, I'm sorry, point of order.

Was that um April and May or just April?

We just wanted to clarify.

Okay, both of them.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

Point of order, Mr.

Chair.

Um, possible for someone to accept one minute one month's minutes and not accept another.

Understand, but it's also possible to approve the minutes together.

We have a law meeting today, and we are going to discuss this matter again at our next meeting.

Um, Emily, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Apologies.

I'll just restart.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the commission.

This is staff person Emily Ryan.

I submit item B for your consideration at 2322 Dunstan Road for the protected landmark designation of the Irene and George Robinson House.

The house is a two-door revival style residence that blends elements of shingle-style architecture and was built by Elbert A.

Bertelson in 1930.

The Robinson residence is situated with South within Southampton Place, an undesignated historic neighborhood that began development circa 1922 under the leadership of E.H.

Fleming.

Much of the original neighborhood was able to maintain its 1920s residential character through strignant deed restrictions.

The housing stock contains a variety of historic architectural styles, including classical Georgian and two-door revival homes, as well as brick cottages and bungalows.

However, the Robinson Residence is one of the few remaining examples of two-door revival style homes within Southampton Place that has maintained much of its historic integrity.

The Robinson House is a one and a half story structure.

The facade is clad in a combination of red ornamental brickwork at the ground level and painted wood shingles on the upper east story, creating a distinctive two-tone exterior.

The home's prominent front gable, steeply pitched roof, substantial chimney arched doorways, and ornamental brickwork identify the structure as two-door revival style, while the cross gable asymmetrical roof arrangement, grouped window fenestration, and shingled surface on the upper story reflect shingle style influences.

The original owners of the home, George William Robinson and Irene Elizabeth Canfield Robinson, who moved to 2322 Dunstan in 1930, possess historic significance for their active participation in professional, civic, and intellectual life of their neighborhood and greater Houston community.

Irene was college educated during a time when higher education opportunities for women were limited, having graduated from Wheaton College in Massachusetts in 1926.

During the early 30s and 40s, while residing at Dunstan, she hosted study group meetings for the American Association of University Women in her home.

These gatherings brought together college educated women for discussions and presentations on architecture, design, and the decorative arts, reflecting broader patterns of civic engagement and intellectual exchange among women in Houston during this period.

George was a prominent engineer, spending the latter part of his career with humble oil and refining company.

He also played a key role in Bay Town's civic infrastructure development, serving as president of the Board of Supervisors of Fresh Water Supply District Number 8.

The designation report was researched and written by Kathleen Nuzo and Joe Fisher.

The property meets criteria one, three, four, and five for landmark designation and criteria one for protected landmark designation.

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council the Protected Landmark Designation of 2322 Dunstan Road, Houston, Texas, 77005, known as the Irene and George Robinson House.

Before I conclude my presentation, those involved with the designation have submitted the following comment for public record.

Document Cameron.

I'll go ahead and read their comment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments following a successful year-long centennial celebration, completion of a full restoration of all 1940s concrete street markers in Southampton neighborhood has taken the next step in honoring our shared heritage.

In response to growing development pressures that increasingly threaten the character of our community, residents have formed Preserve Southampton, a new committee dedicated to protecting Southampton's historic homes, the majority of which were built during the 20s and 30s.

Following an initial neighborhood meeting, six homeowners came together with shared commitment to seek protected landmark designation for their properties.

The two nominations submitted today are the first from this group.

Four additional nominations are planned for presentation in July with more anticipated to follow.

These homes are not only architecturally significant, reflecting the craftsmanship and design of their era, but are also embedded in cultural history of our community.

Their designation as protected landmarks would ensure the legacy is preserved for future generations.

We look forward to continuing working alongside you in support of historic preservation across Houston.

Respectfully submitted by Preserve Southampton, Chair and members of the commission, I'm available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I'll open the public hearing.

I don't have anyone sign up to speak on this item, but if there's anyone that would like to say something about this item or address the commission, uh please announce yourself and not hearing anyone.

I'll close the public hearing.

Commission members, is there a motion or any questions of staff on this item?

Motion to approve staff recommendation.

Is there a second?

Jones seconds.

Joan seconds.

Any discussion?

Questions?

All in favor.

Any opposed?

That motion passes.

We'll now move on to item C.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Isha Bavsar.

I submit for your consideration item C, the Merle and Will Vernon Williams House for the Protected Landmark Designation at 2107 Tangley Street.

The Williams House, located in Southampton Place, was built in 1938, and it is a traditional red brick residence constructed by prolific Houston builder William Farrington.

Development began in 1923 of the Southampton subdivision, and early deed restrictions enforced the building of only single family residences, with required minimum setbacks to ensure that the neighborhood still had a 1920s feel.

However, historic houses in this neighborhood are increasingly being torn down, while many new residences do not complement the neighborhood's historic character.

The current owners, Ellen and William Sparker, are seeking a protected landmark designation for 2107 Tangley to preserve the house and historic character of Southampton Place.

This building is a two-story brick house exhibiting both colonial revival and restrained tutor revival influences expressed through its massing, materials, and facade composition.

The primary elevation is characterized by a subtle asymmetrical arrangement, a hallmark of the Tudor design, in which the central entrance bay, varied window groupings, and chimney mass create a balanced yet informal composition.

The house has a side-gabled roof with composition shingles.

A brick chimney on the left emphasizes verticality and traditional masonry.

Exterior walls are clad in pale brick laid in running bond pattern.

Fenestration consists of vertically proportioned multi-light windows arranged in varied groupings, and the primary entrance is recessed beneath a curved metal canopy supported by decorative scrolled brackets.

Vernon Williams and his wife Merle were the home's first owners and lived there until the 1970s.

Mr.

Williams worked as a wholesale clothing salesman, representing regional garment distributors.

Wholesale businesses clustered in the downtown warehouse district, while salesmen such as Williams served as a link between these firms and retailers across the region.

His wife, Merle Williams, was an active participant in professional and civic organizations, notably hosting meetings of the American Association and University Women's Interior Decoration Study Group at her Houston home, bringing together college educated women for discussions on architecture, design, and decorative arts.

The Williams Household reflects the type of professional family drawn to the Southampton subdivision during Houston in the 1920s and 1930s.

This designation report was researched and written by Kathleen Nezzo and Joe Fisher.

2107 Tangley meets criteria one, three, four, and five for landmark designation, and criteria one for protected landmark designation.

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to the City Council the protected landmark designation of the Merle and Vernon Williams House at 2107 Tangley Street.

I am available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation, and thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I will open the public hearing.

I don't have anyone sign up to speak on this item, but if there is anyone in the public that would like to say something about this application, please announce yourself now.

Not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing.

Commissioner members are any questions of staff on the application, or is there a motion?

Is there a second?

Broadback second.

Broadback seconds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes.

Now we'll move on to item D.

Houston Office of Preservation presentation of the Norhill Design Guidelines Public Hearing.

Terrence.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, Members of the Public.

Staff Member Terrence Jackson.

I am here to pres present a review of the Nor Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.

In an effort to kind of have this meeting move forward, we're just going to review the changes that were made.

So we're just gonna go through these items.

These items are strictly based on the comments made by you guys in the meeting in March.

And you will find that some of these things were edited, and some things uh we did not, but um I will give explanations for that.

Okay, so without further ado.

So for the uh section one in definitions, um, Commissioner Davis asked for uh staff to add the uh definition to concept or compatibility.

Um as you can see, the definition from compatibility has been added.

Um do you guys need me to read the definitions or we don't we just read a very briefly and um see if there's a question?

Okay, compatibility, the degree to which new or altered buildings bend with their historic surroundings by respecting the established scale, massing orientation and spacing of the district.

Um then Commissioner Blakely asked that we refine the definition of massing to introduce proportions in some way.

Um and you can see that it's been added in red.

Um I will read the whole definition for clarity, the combination of building volume, height times width times depth, and the arrangement of shapes, forms that make up the building, the relative proportions of these dimensions and the proportions between individual forms within the overall composition strongly influence how the building is perceived.

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

Uh, and then we will go to the next slide.

Um section 2.2 point A, the FAR chart.

Uh Commissioner Davis asked that the FAR chart for standard and non-standard lots having different FAR for each come up with the random size.

Look, look at a match for each.

Excuse me.

False alarm.

So as you can see, the chart on the left was the original chart.

And then the chart on the right is the chart that is currently in the uh in the current draft.

And uh would do we have any comments.

I just the only question I have, Terrence on you adjusted some of the FAR numbers.

Can you just point to which ones those were it was two of the smaller properties as I recall, but yes, and it it's uh it was based on the lot sizes, so um I believe it's the 5201 to I think it's everything believed below 5,000 to 5200 if I'm not mistaken, and there was and what we did was kind of do a uh we grouped them together um and in increments of uh approximately 200 square feet.

Um so 5200 is the same.

I'm sorry, it's up by point zero zero five.

Um because they're grouped, it's kind of hard to tell you what what uh what is what um okay but the change from before is minimal.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir, okay, that's fine.

With regard, there are still two far tables in the guidelines, correct?

There's still two.

No, just the one on the right.

That's the only table that's presently in the guidelines.

Thanks for correcting that.

It was confusing in the mark app as to whether there were two or one.

So it's only the one on the right.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Terrence.

I think I think as we go that there may be questions here, and then um, once we go through this, I'm gonna open up the public hearing so that we have a number of speakers sign up to speak on this item, and then and then commissioners, we will have another uh conversation with uh staff, okay.

Uh, because I'd like to the first part of this one.

Just want to understand the criteria, and if you if if it makes sense for commissioner to ask a question for clarity at the time, please do so.

But again, I'd like to not to do any deliberation at this time until we have the public hearing, and then we will do that.

But it's it's fine to ask clerical uh questions.

Um section 2.2.

Uh Commissioner Cosgrove stated attics and garages that are finished.

Consider consider removing the word finish.

If someone has addict space, it can be finished without it going towards the massing or far numbers.

Um, and as you can see, um in red attics or garages that are conditioned and uh included in the far and excluded in the FAR, it says attics or garages, garage structures that are finished but not conditioned.

So staff were basically removed the word finish and and included the word condition or condition remained.

Next slide.

Section 2.2 point B.

Commissioner Davis made the uh statement that having porches with conditioned space above does not impact the massing of the property.

Um staff did not make a change to this based on the fact that we had uh a number of meetings with the with the neighborhood, and uh this was a huge part of the discussions.

Um, and when we had the discussions, uh no other commissioners kind of chimed in and agreed, so um staff felt that that uh that this two point two point B should remain.

Next slide.

Section two point three point A diagrams and graphics.

Uh Commissioner Blakely made the comment uh that east, west, north, south directions might be worth swapping around.

So they read the same across the board as they do the actual lots diagrams say north and south should be uh west and east.

Uh as you can see, with this is just one example of the diagram.

We have uh made that change, and all of the uh diagrams in the draft or in this draft currently have made that switch.

Again, uh section two point three point B.

I'm sorry.

Uh Commissioner Davis made the uh statement wherever it says side additions and bump outs clarify that it is not discouraged, and there is a chance for it to be allowed.

Um, so staff has added uh if you see there in blue underlined, it says on the contributing structure that was added, but um it currently said only one side addition allowed.

So because the language allowed was already there, staff did not make that change as well.

Uh section 2.3 point G, uh entry a lot, auxiliary buildings.

Commissioner Cosgrove, 12 to 13 wide schematic garage having a five foot setback would only leave seven foot of driveway, so it would be essentially useless.

Hard to provide schematic for each one, check the measurements on driveways of what is most realistic for the proposed numbers.

Most that have portico shades could have them all the way to at that line.

Um, so um when we went to look back at this, um what we realized is that um the 12-foot uh setback was for uh uh the setback for a for an addition, I'm sorry, and then um for the portico shades, they had a three to five foot setback.

Um what we do understand is that these um these lots are gonna vary.

Um so if there is a need for us to change it, what we will do is we will just change the dimension, we'll remove the div the 12-foot dimension or the 13-foot dimension and just put varies and then review it on a case-by-case basis.

Also, um we need to go to North Hill and we need to get an average of what the uh what those lots are um so or what those dimensions are.

I'm sorry.

So now that we will have time in July to go back, we will go and we will survey it and hopefully come back with something better for you guys to to look at.

Um, but right now the alternative will be to just include varies on that dimension, and then of course it'll have to be a case-by-case basis type of deal.

I'll tell you what, if one of you happens to have air conditioning your pocket, I I would like to bother borrow it.

Um let's see.

Section 2.4.

Uh Browning, Commissioner Browning made the statement.

Car parts and flat roofs not filling not fitting with the area.

This was based on what was out there in the district already.

Didn't want to give the opportunity for the carport to have a higher ridge than the house, may change to have it say roof pitch may match or not exceed the pitch of the existing house.

And then Commissioner Blakely made uh the statement mention if shed roofs should or should not be permitted, stipulate shed dorm or roofs to be at roofs be added to the rear of the structure.

Um so what staff has done, um I'll just read it.

Roofs are required to have a roof slope between 5012 and 7 over 12 carports attached to a garage can have a low slope or flat roof, and eight over twelve roof slope will be considered on a case-by-case basis if the existing slope of the house is eight over twelve.

A steeper roof pitch may be considered when mimicking original architectural details, shed roofs and dorm dormers, and shed roofs, and I'm sorry, it should say shed dormers will be allowed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

So for this one, staff added uh low slope to match to match would be considered.

Staff also added a note for shed roof and shared dormer proposals to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Next slide.

Please, Commissioner Blakely.

Oh, sorry.

I'm just maybe a little concerned that allowed will be allowed.

Sounds like it's okay.

And I don't know if this is deliberation or clarification, but what I had in mind was the house type that like a house that has a single slope shed roofs.

Seems to me that it would be not in keeping with the neighborhood.

Right.

Um and I this doesn't address that.

I don't know whether.

I'm okay.

Uh where we're considered better than allowed or questioned.

Probably better, yes.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, okay, next slide.

Uh Commissioner Hill made the comment.

Max plate heights.

Make it appear that the numbers are dictating what is allowed in the interior of the house.

Maybe call out one plate height rather than uh mentioning anything with the ceiling height.

Um what you see here, um, there was a change in the uh maximum height because we increased uh can you go to the next slide, Sam?

Uh we increased, we changed the diagram.

Um, so I want to actually have the commission deliberate and and decide if we should include the ceiling heights as mentioned by Commissioner Heel.

Um staff didn't want to remove that from the draft without you guys considering it.

Um we'd like to hear what your comments are on that.

Um the diagram has changed uh because the uh 30 inch, it went from 28 inches to or 26 inches.

I believe it's 28, I'm sorry.

28 inches to 30 inch max for the finished floor.

And um that was based on a comment from oh, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Sorry, we'll still hear a commissioner heel's comment.

So I know we're not gonna deliberate now, but I did just want to point out that the diagram had diagram has changed, the dimensions have changed, and we have called out the overall plate height on the uh diagram.

So um if if we can discuss that when we get to deliberation, that would be great.

Next slide.

Uh 2.4 height.

Um Commissioner Buchek, how was a two feet four inch max created?

Many of these are bloom frame versus pier and beam, so these diagrams are more so for new construction.

And the city requires 18 inches for code, so having that much space is good for it to breathe and let the wood dry out under under the home.

If it were to be 30 inches, would that be better to achieve the goals?

Um staff agreed because of the discussion that was had.

Um, so staff has changed the finish floor height to 30 inches, and that is reflected as you can see.

Um then Commissioner Blakely added add added add the word ground to the definition section.

Um I put here that we have the word the definition for grade, but as you will see at the end, Commissioner Blakely, we will be adding the word ground to the definitions.

Um, so we'll discuss that in a bit.

Uh section 2.6 materials and design.

Uh Blakely Browning and Cosgrove said insert the examples here from section four here for further clarification.

Um so they did not go under section 2.6.

Uh there were other items in section 2.6.

We did put it under section, it has its own section move from section four to section 2.7.

Um, if you guys think it is more beneficial to put it directly under that uh corresponding section, then then at 2.6, then staff will that'll be an easy change, an easy fix for us to go ahead and make, and we'll be willing to do so.

Uh section 2.6 point D.

Not a fan of towards the rear, define a certain distance of where the dormer can be located.

Um, I don't want to read the whole um whole section, but as you can see where it says where the red is, it says locate a new single dormer, no closer than 60% from the front wall of the original structure.

And then uh 2.7 site plan elements.

Uh Commissioner Cosgrove made the comment there's no need to include these in the guidelines.

There's no regulation over these topics, so don't need to stay here.

If it were to stay, move it in the listings.

I really didn't do you a disservice.

I did you a disservice on these comments, Commissioner Cross Grove, make you sound mean, man.

Um, so staff removed all those sections, um, and and two, maybe I'll cue two birds and one stone there.

Um, and I'll I'll just mention that we did remove that section along with a lot of other sections.

Um, and go to the next slide, Samantha, please.

Uh, and I'll just comment on that along with this.

Um, Commissioner Blakely, um, you said perhaps include a copy of a particular pattern for the floor plan addition uh to the sandboard maps.

Um, so answering those two together.

Um, staff is in conversation about uh creating a document that'll be for reference that will not be included in the design guidelines.

We kind of feel like there's enough information there where we could create a separate document where people can reference the floor plans, the sandborns, and all that good stuff.

We didn't want to increase the size of this, um, it was already starting to grow uh beyond the you know we had clipped it so much, so we want to make sure that we do create a document that is for reference for applicants and agents and as such, so that way they will have that to reference, and that will be referenced in the guidelines where they can just click on the PDF and it'll take them to another website if they're looking at it online.

Um, and then Commissioner Jones said any significant changes to this plan will need to go back to the public for comments before anything is signed off on.

Um, so staff only plans to utilize policy changes for minor changes.

Um, we do not plan on you know creating a policy to change the FAR or to change the side setbacks.

Um, what we want to do is use a policy um just in case something comes up with like the windows or the siding or something like that.

So that's how staff is going to try to approach that unless you guys say otherwise, but that is how staff is addressing that issue.

Um about the district, move this section under the sections 2.5.6.

Uh, people have something to reference when designing the structure.

Um, and Commissioner Blake has said, in addition to the list of styles in section four, each dial have a floor plan be added so the proportions of each dial can be taken into consideration.

Norhill is mostly made up of houses from pattern books, so those uh house kits that were constructed will correspond with the pattern book it came from.

Cain ready cut pattern books are available at a live at the library.

Ask Ginger for help.

This will also help address the issue with massing proposed and new construction.

Again, this is all this will all be a part of that reference document.

Um it'll be something where people can go and see the patterns that they have for their houses, or they can be referenced to that crane uh pattern book.

Um again, unless you guys say otherwise.

Uh stewardship and maintenance section should be more of a resource rather than the end of the document and can be known as a separate reference again that this will be part of that as well.

And then uh staff corrections from the draft.

Um, so many of you may have seen the uh comment in 2.3 or the statement in 2.3.

Unless it is connected to a garage structure which may extend past the side of the original structure.

So that which is underlined in blue will be removed.

It was not in there originally, so we will be removing that uh sentence.

Next slide, and then we have staff corrections from the draft.

Um we're going to add the definition of porches.

Not abutting the structure and contains no walls, partition will read a covered roofed except for supporting columns or required railings.

A port shall remain unenclosed or screened in architectural projection and shall not be considered a it could not be considered a habitable space.

And then we will also add the definition ground.

Thank you, Terrence.

I just want to comment on that because I think it's the word fill.

Okay.

That is the thing that has been an issue in the past in other districts.

So it's uh because people could add fill and say, what ground is higher than it is.

So it's the net the word natural is referring to the what is here and has been there for some time before someone added fill.

So thank you for that.

No problem.

May I make a follow-up comment?

Please, Commissioner Blakely.

I just want since we're talking about it to go back to grade.

There was a suggestion about looking not just at the site, but at the sort of context area grade in order to define grade out of some of the same concerns.

Like let's say you have a plot and the house has been raised and the grade level is unclear.

It would be good to have a reference that takes into account this the context area.

Um, and I do interpret the word natural to refer to beyond the lot itself to what you're speaking to, because you could have fill that was added prior, and it's higher than the the neighbors, but I think because fill is excluded from that you you would look at the the context if you couldn't determine if it's if that site appeared to be abnormally higher than all the neighbors, the neighbors would be would qualify as under natural that that is in that that property would be assessed as having filled that wouldn't be we wouldn't be measuring from the top of fill.

So I agree with that, and with however you amend your language or not or not, or how we interpret that, but that's that's my understanding of what fill means is that if it's it been raised higher than the natural grade, then we that would not be natural ground.

I was just referring to the definition of grade that was discussed earlier, which did seem to limit its scope to just the plot itself.

So I maybe look at these two together and make sure they operate the way that we're suggesting, okay.

Okay, Jaren.

So you're I'm gonna at this time I'll open the public um hearing.

I have a number of speakers signed up, and the order is simply how they were um as they came in.

Um the first speaker will be um Emily Ardwan, followed by Adam Till.

And I'll just mention to each of the speakers that your speaker time is two minutes.

Good afternoon, uh, commissioners and deputy director.

I'm Emily Ardwan with Preservation Houston.

Um, first again, we want to applaud the Office of Preservation Staff and the Commission on all of the work, thought, and public engagement that has gone into this document.

Umieving balance in a document like this is no small feat.

Um there are a few items here that we feel would reduce ambiguity and better align the guidelines with the overall intent of the preservation ordinance.

However, um I know there was a lot of public engagement here, and we weren't present at all of those meetings.

So if anything here contradicts something that was reached as a consensus, you know, between neighbors and the city through that public engagement process, that's not our intent.

Um we encourage reconsideration of the use of conditioned space as a standard for inclusion in the FAR.

The presence of climate control uh speaks more to the use of the space than visual massing and visual massing, is what we're intending to regulate both with this ordinance and these guidelines.

We also encourage a second general review of the use of words like must, shall, and should, just to make sure that the language matches the intended impact of each stated guideline.

Um for example, the last paragraph of page 19 says the outside face of support columns should be a minimum of five feet from the side property line, when maybe that should be must or shall.

Um because living space and living area are two distinct terms, both used in the guidelines, and living space defines, among other things, the second floor space that would result in the inclusion of a first floor porch in the FAR.

Um we suggest adding living space as one of the definitions in the document.

Um also we believe enclosed space would set a clearer standard for the second floor space over an open porch rather than living space.

Finally, section 33.2 or 268 of the ordinance states that amendments to design.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As I mentioned, our next speaker is Adam Till, to be followed by Virginia Kelsey.

My name is Adam Till.

My wife and I are residents of uh Norhill.

Uh I stand here to ask you uh to approve uh the architectural guidelines for Norhill as they are written.

Um there has been um extensive compromise, and in my humble opinion, maybe too much compromise, but there has been compromise and extensive revision, and the time has come to approve these guidelines to give all parties involved a clear and positive path forward from here.

There's enormous amount of latitude in this document for renovation and enlargement of the unique and important homes in our historic district.

The value of these guidelines uh to the in my humble opinion, the largest uh majority of Nornhill residents cannot be overstated.

You will give us a fighting chance to retain, protect, and celebrate the unique bungalow culture we are fortunate enough to enjoy.

Um, with each delay with each deferment with each must that passes some of that uniqueness and some of that charm and some of that character is taken away.

So I ask that if we could get this passed, you would be a hearty thank you from uh the residents of Norhill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the next speaker is Virginia Kelsey to be followed by Ty Coa.

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

Thank you, Terrence.

Thank you, Robert.

Uh, this has been a long camera.

Coming.

Uh my hope for Norr Hill is that you pass the guidelines today.

That said, I have a few simple suggestions and modifications that could be made right now to remove a few inconsistencies, but I don't want them to get in the way of passage of this document.

On page nine, to clearly align with what is included in the FAR.

Revise the definition of living area by including the first stopping the first sentence after the word conditioned.

In the FAR, all conditioned space as it should be included in the FAR.

On page 12 of this document, it also says, I want to remove within the house to avoid confusion about living space in areas outside of the house.

On page 16 and 18, um, you're already removing the area at the top, unless, but I also want to call attention to the part where it um adjusts the rear setback on how far a house is back from the street.

The polling was clear that residents support a 45 front setback and 19 foot rear setback for two stories.

Through the polling process, residents expressed a desire to protect the green space in their backyards.

The 19 feet is what they want.

And houses are all over the place.

It's the 45 feet, it's the 19 feet.

And lastly, the one point on the It's the plate height that is critical for creating the massing, not the ridge height, it's the plate height of the walls.

And in that regard, I'm suggesting 20 foot 11 inches, taking into account the 30 inches, that's valid.

And then that would allow a 14-inch truss.

But keeping the plate heights is critical.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is uh Ty.

Coa.

You know, I need you to help me pronounce your last name more correctly, uh, followed by Dwayne Bradley.

Yes, my name is uh Ty Keikoa.

Uh I'm here representing the district age office on behalf of Councilmember Mario Castillo.

Uh first, want to thank the uh Houston Office of Preservation and Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission and Historic Preservation Appeals Board and the residents of Norhill for the tremendous work that has gone into this process.

These guidelines reflect years of community engagement, public input, stakeholder discussions, and technical review.

The results is a document that balances preservation best practices with neighborhood priorities.

One of the greatest benefits of the design guidelines is predictability.

Homeowners, architects, builders, and preservation staff are benefit when expectations are clear, consistent, and transparent.

These guidelines help preserve the character that makes North Hill unique while allowing property owners to maintain improve and invest in their homes.

Councilmember Castillo appreciates the commitment of staff and residents to shaping these guidelines through thoughtful and inclusive process.

Community buy-in is critical to the success of any preservation effort.

Ultimately, these guidelines are about stewardship.

They provide a framework for managing change thoughtfully so future generations can continue to enjoy the historic character and sense of place that make Norho special.

For these reasons, Councilmember Castillo supports the recommendation of the Historic Preservations Appeal Board and Houston Archaeological Historical Commission and appreciates the work that has brought us to this point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next speaker is Dwayne Bradley, followed by Mary Schultz.

Document Cameron.

Hi there.

Uh Dwayne Bradley, 26-year resident of Norr Hill, 36-year resident of the heights, uh, even more a Houstonian.

Uh thanks for the work that you do.

Thanks to the preservation office.

I've been I was here in March when we talked about some of these issues.

I'll probably be here again, it sounds like, because I'm not getting that you are maybe in a place to actually approve this and move it on to city council to finalize it at this point.

But I support these guidelines after all of the work that's been done, after the revisions that have been made, after the multiple consultations with the community that have been had over the years, and in the interest of harmony for the neighborhood, I I support all of this.

I would like to see the conditioned space include garage apartment conditioned spaces when these considerations are being made.

This is a time-sensitive issue.

If it goes on another month, another month, another month, in the absence of these guidelines each month, another project gets approved or another project comes on board, and some of these quite frankly are mistakes.

And if you look at the picture, you'll see one of them, which is at 11 38 West View Gate.

That if you see the FAR as it is in the guidelines, you would see the lower picture without that big garage apartment with the flying hallway connecting it to the main house, creating about a 2900 square foot home in our neighborhood, which might look nice in Woodland Heights, but it's way inappropriate and not harmonious to the Norrhill Historic District, whereas the original uh approved uh far meeting guidelines uh of this house would have it in that picture you see below, uh, which was what was approved, not what was constructed and staring at us now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Mary Schultz, followed by Kimberly Sturrock.

Good afternoon, Council.

Um, I'm Mary Schultz.

I live in Norrhill on Petty Street, 1100 1111 Petty Street, and I just want to say one simple thing, and that is I'm so glad that we have finally come up with these guidelines which seem to match pretty well what all of the years of work we have put into it, with um working with our neighbors to try to get them to come to meetings and to fill out surveys, and we have needed desperately to have some guidelines for the uh pressure that is coming on us from developers who want to build giant homes like the one that you just saw in the picture.

In fact, one of our previous owners, our previous speakers, representing Southampton, made a comment about that same pressure, which is just taking away the historic nature of that particular area, and Norhill is even different from that because what makes us historic is the bungalow.

It is uh not a uniformity but a similarity or a comparable likeness of a working man's community.

There's plenty of room to build on appropriately and maintain the space.

If people are certainly welcome to have a very big house, but there are plenty of other places in Houston to build them, and they would love to give the developers that business.

So, in summary, I just want to urge you.

I'm very disappointed that you're not taking a vote today.

Um we need a vote, we need it soon.

We need because we're having developers coming in all around us trying to make mansions, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker is Kimberly Stuarch, followed by John Satterelli.

Hi, my name is Kimberly Sturrock.

I've been living in Norhill Heights for 46 years.

I walk my dogs all the time.

I can walk across Studiwood.

I live on Petty, walk across Studiwood and see where bungalows are torn down.

I've seen three of them torn down in the last two months, and they are being replaced by giant full lot houses.

Um if people want to come and live in Nor Hill, then accept the neighborhood like it is.

You don't go walking in the neighborhood going, wow, that's something else there.

So that's my feelings on the subject.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Speaker's John Center really ask you to correct my pronunciation.

John Santorelli from uh the very new um deed restrictions board member for the Nor Hill Neighborhood Association.

So uh thank you for being here and listening.

First, first I'd like to thank the commission for uh your uh deep consideration of this matter.

Um it's very important to Norhill.

So uh thank you.

I'd also like to make a special thanks to the staff who have worked so hard um to develop for our community um the these guidelines.

Um thank you so much.

We appreciate it very much.

I strongly support the passage of these guidelines to preserve the unique historic neighborhood of Norhill in a way that allows context appropriate modernization, not modernization and enlargement of our homes.

Um amazes me every morning about Norhill because I walk my dogs too, and I walk outside of the Norhill neighborhood, when I walk back into the neighborhood, I'm always stunned by the fact that the volume of everything in Norrill is is reduced.

The trees are towering over the bungalows, the bungalows are nestled into the neighborhood.

We can see the sky, our backyards have light, uh, and we can appreciate the the green space around us.

I'm hoping that the guidelines will pass quickly so we can preserve that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Rebecca Heckworth, followed by Lawrence Phibo.

Hi, thank you for uh allowing me to speak.

My name's Rebecca Hackworth.

I'm a longtime resident of Norrill.

I am a longtime renter.

I've been in Norrill renting for 20 years with the hopes of being a homeowner.

And one of the things I love about Norrhill is what a lot of the previous people have been saying.

Um I have a small two-bedroom, two bath bungalow, two growing boys, but I approve and support these Norrhill guidelines because it just feels like home.

So thank you guys.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lawrence Phibo.

Thank you for letting me be here today.

I strongly support these guidelines and um rather than give me give me giving you my opinion today.

I wanted to uh bring a voice out of the past from an article in American Bungalow.

It's called Norrhill Preserving a Piece of Houston's history.

And this was written 25 years ago when we got our historic designation.

And the thing that I want to point out here is that they uh Jeff DeBevick, a former president of the association in the neighborhood, at the time said of the significance of that moment, that this is a tremendous achievement for our neighborhood and all supporters of historic preservation for Houston.

Um this designation ensures the character and integrity of Norhill stays in place and their restoration projects and new uh construction will be appropriate to the existing structures, preserving the past while celebrating the present.

Norhill residents are doing both, and as a result, they're protecting a unique part of Houston's history for generations to come.

And I think if you guys are able to approve these today or at least get them to approval, then you are ensuring that something like this in this magazine.

Document camera can be written in another 25 years into the future.

That's that's it.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Karen Stokes.

First of all, I have to thank all of you here today and the wonderful staff who has been taking so much time to put these guidelines together.

Um I am a owner in a of a bungalow in Norrill.

I've been living there since 2001, so 25 years now, and although it doesn't match the 47 years, it's a significant part of my life.

And I really strongly, strongly urge this commission to pass these guidelines.

I know there may be a few little minor tweaks that have been suggested.

I I definitely think that the plate height is important as well as the roof pitch.

So those kinds of things that may need to be ironed out just a tad.

But I think by and large, this thing's ready to fly.

And the sooner you guys can vote on it, I wish you would vote on it today, you know, as kind of like this is it.

Maybe we'll make a couple of you know minor changes, but we're moving this forward because it has been a long haul.

A lot of y'all are relatively new to this commission.

I say under a year, right?

That's new, but some of the members of our uh neighborhood have been doing this for several years, and this staff, some of these members of the staff has been doing it for several years, and we've seen many rotations of this council and amongst the staff.

So we don't want to have to start over again.

We really want you guys to take this under your wing and see the hard work that has been put into this that the community has weighed in, and that we're ready, we're ready to move on with this middle way, because we do allow expansions, but a middle way, right?

Not full giant houses, but also beyond the thousand square feet that my house is, right?

Twenty four hundred square feet is significantly larger in far than my current house proper.

So I think we've come a long way, and I hope you guys can take it to the distance really soon.

Don't sit on this, please.

I beg of you.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you.

That was the last speaker who signed up for this item.

Is there anyone else in the public who has not signed up but would like to speak and address the commission?

Not hearing anyone.

I did have one follow-up question for our first speaker, Emily Ardwan.

I was just curious if you you stated uh your last comment was stating a section of a comment.

Could you could you address the commission to um restate that section number and just make uh briefly mention what that comment was so that we commission might consider that in the our deliberations that will follow?

Yes, thank you.

Um this is a comment that I've made before, um, but section 33-268 of the ordinance states that amendments to design guidelines that have been approved by city council shall be considered in accordance with the process for the adoption of design guidelines in this section.

Um so we maintain that if the process for revising this document um is in any way different um than the process required by the ordinance, that process should be clearly defined, um, especially where it pertains to neighborhood input.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, I'll close the public hearing and I will now open the floor from commission members.

Um, and if you would raise your um name name plates but if you have questions for Terrence on items that have um questions that you may have that he's discussed, or um some of the items again that were mentioned just um briefly.

I just want to come make one comment uh having um there are a few of us here that when the heights design guidelines were uh brought to us and finally um voted on by this commission to uh recommend uh moving it uh towards city city council for final approval.

I don't ever recall um a time when all the speakers signed up were supportive of the measure that we were talking about.

So I just want to say that in the history of this commission, I don't think that's ever happened, and I want to uh say thank you, I guess, you know, to the community because a new day a new day has also uh be following us.

So and I don't know that we're not taking a vote today.

I just uh again what really determines what happens next is these questions.

So commission members, this now's your time to ask initial questions, Commissioner Davis.

Yes, um we only received the markup on Monday, and so that this is a lot of material to get through in a very, very short period of time, and I am not saying that we that there are things that are horribly wrong, but they I have 11 pages of things that are inconsistent that need to be.

I was an editor in one of my former lives that need to be resolved, and some are policy issues, such as the one-story height limit has no single value stated three ways against the text and two diagrams.

You've got an eleven foot seven and an eighth, and eleven sixths and an eleven and two and one-eighths, and you can't enforce the cap height if you can't state it.

Um the blanket 2.3 caveat guts the setbacks.

All diagrams are representations only.

Case by case basis sits over the entire measurable setback section and converts bright lines into discretion crossing the 33-267B3 line that standards must illustrate compliance or non-compliance.

I have a lot of these, and I don't is it possible.

I know I'm going to move to defer to get a lot of these things cleaned up.

Not that we're trying to that I'm trying to.

Is this referring to changes or this is referring to general document itself?

I have there, I'm I've got a lot of things all over the board, some with specific statements.

Especially where discretion is lodged where we really need to have a solid line.

Is there is I guess Terrence, is there a way to bring up the document, the actual document?

I have a hard copy.

We did not upload it to the uh to the presentation.

We didn't expect uh that so I mean I have a hard copy that I could show on the document camera if necessary.

Um the commission has appetite for that, but yeah, sure, we can we can do that.

I mean, it won't be ide the ideal situation, but um, well, to the extent possible, I'd like to try um if we can state them but actually reference the reference the page where it is and determine um for this commission to take those in while why we are here because that's why we are here today.

Um, okay.

I do not have all the sites.

I did a summary of the substantive points as opposed to just the this is going to the wrong place kind of things.

Um, and and just uh be advised what like also like look what let's say that we reach a point where the consensus is to recommend to advance this to the next stage, it's not it's gonna go to the quality of quality of life.

So just know that if there's some small things that we can quantify that can be resolved, um this text is going is going to be um it's it's in some ways if we make a no, let's say we make a motion, but we make a motion to resolve some of these smaller items.

They I believe they can be resolved in the process of before is that actually sent um because it'll get reviewed again and then it goes before city council and gets reviewed again.

But um I would I would like not to hold it up for small things that could be the more clerical or could be worked out.

I know that there were there were some repeated comments from the public about even adding a little bit more height to the plate height to allow folks to raise their house up, which I would also think developers probably would welcome.

And I'll just say, but if we if we can uh go through your list uh a little bit slower, it may help us just understand the even if it's just your summary comments is okay.

Um okay, one I'd like clarification on the period of significance in the post-war style section.

Um we because it differs from what has been previously published for Norhill, um, and it that should have been that should be done by the designation, not the guidelines.

I agree, but but that could be a condition of approval if we want if for something like that, because it's not in debate.

Um I still have some issues with the uh with the far calculations.

Um I did some fast math and I got a couple of different answers, so I still think it has some ambiguity in it.

Um what I just mentioned about the one-story height limit has no single value.

Um, then uh did I read the blanket 2.3 caveat guts the setbacks?

All diagram.

I think I just read that one.

All diagrams represented on a case by case basis.

It's over the entire section.

Um, then uh two substantive loosenings appeared in the markup and uh moving finished and unconfinished space out of FAR, the massing loophole and letting a two-story edition extend past the side wall if tied to a garage, which is a massing change.

Um and then I said uh uh discretion is lodged where bright lines belong, two story garages, the largest accessory massing up to 24 feet are approved case by case with no standard two-story edition width, which is only encouraged to be limited, no enforceable cap.

The roof pitch exceptions are unbounded.

Um we have conflicting garage thresholds, 585 square feet for corner cap versus a 600 square feet administrative approval contradiction, and the 512 roof pitch floor um is a and I have a another site from uh because I think that particularly needs to be looked at um because you're setting a hot at 512, um, azure minimum, which is and some of these styles have lower pitched roofs, so I was so that's just another example, um uh dormer placement, two 2.6 ED page 38.

Uh you can locate a new single dorm or no closer than in a location that's forward more than 60% from the front wall of the depth of the original structure toward the rear of the house, splices a new 60% formulation into the old toward the rear found formulation, the two aren't equivalent, and the sentence is now contradictory.

Um window materials.

This one windows should all be wood, wood clad, shall be inset and restessed.

Last week we just approved 14 casement windows.

So I see that to be a contradiction there.

So what is it?

Uh which one is it?

Um, and we also with doing uh like having a porch with living shape space above it.

Um I realize North Hill is a different district, but there should be some kind of compatibility between the districts, and we approved that that was okay last week.

I believe it was in the woodlands, and there's one today, Woodland Heights, and there's one today that's in the heights.

And so we're should those be consistent in whether they should be part of our or not.

So I don't want to belabor this any longer, but um we'll be happy to certainly, but I think we ought to try to address some of these items uh like with with the commission so we can pull up those pages and look at some of those items.

Um I think that um the window question though is that as far as Norhill is concerned, they don't have design guidelines as of yet, and so as part of their design guidelines, they can mandate that they want double-hung windows.

Let's let's just say that they can mandate as part of the guideline process a certain style of window.

Because we're not under these guidelines even at this moment yet.

So these these guidelines will be another layer of information once they are passed, then any projects within Norhill would then be reviewed by what has been written.

So my understanding is that the window configuration isn't through a public process.

The majority of the neighborhood will like the windows to be like they are and always have been.

And if once once these guidelines are approved, then that will be what will happen going forward.

So it just some things have happened in the past because they didn't have guidelines in effect yet.

So that's not a reason for us to that.

I would just say that would not be a reason for us to delay that item.

That's all I'm saying.

But uh staff member Terrence Jackson, uh uh I do recall one of the items uh that was considered a contradiction with the five hundred and eighty-five square feet uh for garages and then the six hundred square feet for garages uh for administrative approval.

Um, just to clarify um the 585 square feet is the square footage that will be used for the Nor Hill design guidelines.

The 600 and 600 square feet is for administrative approval for staff, so that basically means that if someone comes with a 600 square foot garage, not even considering Nor Hill, but then that means that it it qualifies to be approved for administrative approval if they have a 601 square foot garage, then that would then come to the commission.

Right, I would also like okay.

And if I may to answer the question, I think that you asked, is that the applicants in this case could have a 585 square foot garage, and that would now count toward far?

Yes.

But if they were to increase it, say to 601.

Or 586.

Right, right.

The difference between what they're allowed then would count toward the far.

So it doesn't mean that garages have can't be larger than 585, but above but above 585, just like in the heights, there's a number, then it counts toward the overall visual mass.

Correct.

And and if it's under six, if it's if it's six hundred or under, it could be administratively approved.

Correct.

And it and and if it's six oh one or larger, then it would come to this body for for either you know for consent or for individual discussion.

Correct.

And I would also like to state um for clarity, uh, because I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but um in the ordinance it states that design guidelines can be more restrictive than the historic preservation ordinance.

So um yeah, I'll just throw that out there for the 585.

Okay.

Additional questions, Commissioner Davis.

When I said we're stated three ways, that is on pages 28.

Sorry, the height and plate dimension stated three ways, that is on pages 28 through 30.

Okay.

And we do have a we had a number of questions from the public today about increasing that number to a slightly higher number, um, to allow for the 30-inch uh cross the floor the first floor height above natural grade.

Um, so I think we'll probably be discussing that as part of this, and I'll just say that we could we might come to a consensus on what the actual number should be and just say this is what the number shall be um for clarity, um so on the roof pitch, that is two C heights and setbacks.

The 512 roof pitch floor North Hill requires a 52 to 57 slope and or an 812 on a case by case basis, um a minimum pitch rule is permissible as stricter, but the flag internal descension internal to tension into E and two F.

Um, some of the styles, minimum or traditional, certain four national styles carry lower lower intermediate pitches.

So a rigid five twelve could conflict with replicating a contributing structure's actual historic pitch.

So that's where that one is.

I don't know.

Um these are design guidelines, but like if you have a under under the way that's written, Terrence.

If you have a pitch that's different, and it's a it's a contributing structure.

Um is there I mean, I would imagine there's still deference to match the contributing structure.

Yeah, I mean the the sentence following says a different roof pitch may be considered when mimicking original architectural details.

Uh I would tend to believe that that um rather than stating a case-by-case basis, that kind of gives you gives the um agent or owner or architect or whatever what have you gives them the ability to match that and also um informs them that staff would be okay with that and would review that as as needed.

Okay.

On the dormer question, can you can we address that just briefly?

Uh could it can can you repeat the dorma question, please?

Page thirty eight, I think is the page.

Page thirty eight or twenty-eight.

I wrote down thirty-eight, but I'm um page it's 2.6 uh page 38 38 is where it is yes uh on the new version on page 38 I have the um section three certificate of appropriateness process COA and ordinances I may be looking at a different my page numbers this is late um but it's two point six two point six point E yes okay that's page twenty eight on the new version okay and it's two point six and it's dormers two point six e I believe that's what I wrote E D but that probably is not possible.

Okay and the question I'm sorry can you repeat the question for the dormers I'm so you have a uh you have a statement that no single dorm uh single locate a single dormer no closer than in a location that is forward more than sixty percent from the front wall the depth of the original structure towards the rear of the house and I wrote that and um I wrote that it's by a new 60 percent formulation under the uh onto the old um toward the rear formulation um and those are not two equivalent things they're contradictory and I it needs a little more fleshing out there from um can we review that or like can you look at your paper documentary so we can just try to under wrap our minds around this document camera so um I mean the 60 percent came from uh suggestion from Commissioner Cosgrove in the last meeting um because he didn't like the because uh the towards the rear language um did not seem clear and he asked for a hard number which is why we came up with 60 percent um the 60 percent is basically where the dormer can start um I mean and that's based on the original home yes on the original home from the front wall not from the porch yes sir 60 percent from the front wall is what uh I mean I've looked at this thing enough I thought I believe the language is 60 percent from the front wall of the contributing structure then no new dormer can start 60 if no new dormer should start 60 percent before 60 percent of the front wall if they do the document camera gets so blurry I'll read it's which I think means that it would be starting 40 percent back from the front wall that's correct so from the back wall well so if the front if the front wall is the front door and the back wall is the back wall yes um I mean if I I guess there's a number of ways we could call it the right but if we but if we're measuring from the rear which as 60 percent then what's left between is 40 percent that's correct so it's essentially it's it's whether it's six sixty percent within sixty percent from the back wall or beyond beyond forty percent beyond the front wall it's still the same D mark I think so it's I mean okay would it be better if we had a diagram maybe showing where the 60% is okay because staff staff can do that I mean I mean because for well I just took this point to mean that the dormer can occur within the rear 60 percent of the home the original home no sixty percent just back.

Let me read it.

Let me read it.

So it's clear.

Okay.

Locate a new single dormer no closer than sixty b 60% from the front wall of the original structure.

And then it says do not extend the dormer over the eve of the roof.

It is to be set back from the Eve.

Okay.

So I mean, I think as far as you guys are concerned, I I guess the discussion is do we prefer the language towards the rear, or do we prefer a hard number?

And it sounds like that we need to show a provide a diagram that shows the 60 what the 60% is on the original structure, and maybe that'll clear everything up.

Okay.

I can I can handle that.

Okay.

But my point is I think we can agree to what it means if once we it's firmly established.

Okay, it's got it.

And my last one um is the two-story past the side exception.

It's uh paragraph two three C, um, and I've got two three uh F.

So the new markup adds language that allows a two-story addition to extend past the site of the original structure, unless it's connected to a garage structure which may extend past the site of the original structure.

Um and relative to the earlier draft, there was a flat prohibition.

So this is so was that a it was that something that people wanted.

So the the comment that uh are you speaking of I'm sorry, the there was a there's a uh something that we put in as a mistake that is coming out and we called that out in the oh that's at the bottom, sorry.

So um we will be removing unless it is connected to a garage structure which may extend past the side of the original structure.

Yes, that will be removed.

Okay.

So by removing that that satisfies your question, Commissioner Davis.

Yes.

And then there's um I have a number of places where there's discretion is put into it.

Um and um I think in some places, especially in the biscuit and measurable standards where you flat out say, um, like uh plate height exception if the if the existing house has a plate height higher than nine feet, an exception will be considered.

Um so there's a lot of phrasing about will be considered on a case by case basis.

I've got a number of references that, and I believe one of our speakers spoke to that fact as well, that some things seem wider open than others.

Um so Terrence, I I take well, again, my quick take is that we have measurable standards which which rule if we have a contributing structure that was built a certain way that's outside of those measurable standards, then that that might influence the design and might it might lead to something that was acceptable, uh, because it's it's contributing, it's original, it's not new construction or or recent addition, and that may be considered and we even consider it doesn't mean that it would be allowed, it just means that it could be considered and so is there something beyond that that you're concerned with?

It's so much looser than what we see in the heights guidelines where people know exactly what it is and what it is.

So I'm don't have a particular problem with that, but we will be.

Sure.

I mean, I think one one thing about again is mentioned Nor Hill's a lot.

So if there's a slightly higher plate height, it's gonna be the lowest thing in in the in the in the heights compared comparatively.

So um again, I I don't I I think I don't see a huge issue there.

Um, and maybe maybe it does our words mything to to do that.

Yeah, um, so staff staff's is just like with what we discussed with the roof pitch, right?

Um, we we we need to be able to have the flex flexibility to adjust to circumstances that you know we may not see on a regular basis, or you know, there may be um a home that was modified and now the plate height and this may be a stretch and now the plate height is ten feet and they're doing an addition well we want to have the flexibility to allow them to do that addition and match that plate height um so we don't want to put a plate height in and this probably goes back to uh commissioner heels uh point um and maybe plate height is a bad example but it's things like that with the roof pitch if someone has a roof pitch that's like abnormal or you know they may have a Victorian style home and they may have a high roof pitch or they may have a bungalow with a with a low roof pitch we need to be able to because we have hard numbers set in there we want to be able to make sure that we have the ability to adjust right there right now before we have that applicant bring that project to you right because if we have those hard numbers and we come to you guys with the design guidelines and you are familiar with design guidelines you say well you got eight over 12 pitch here clearly states that you can only have five to seven over twelve roof pitch right so we want to be able to be flexible in that moment and that's where you will see some of those uh comments on a case by case basis because um staff would like to think that we have learned from our I don't want to call it mistakes but we have learned from uh our experiences with the heist design guidelines okay thank you any other comments commissioner davis I know um thank you commissioner cosgrove has a question um I have a just a couple comments um supportive of the design guidelines there are two issues one that was brought up in the public comment and one I believe Commissioner Davis and I might share some issues on one is the the the conditioned space okay including that in the far for something that is not impacting the mass or the scale or the footage of the property seems punitive and conditioned is interior space and I believe it's really outside the purview of this commission to tell somebody what they can and can't do inside of their dwelling if I want to make a storage room in my existing attic and run a duct to it I don't need a C of A to do that I don't need a permit I don't we're unless we're going to ask people to get a C of A to install air conditioning so that we know exactly what is being conditioned then I think we're overstepping on that.

Okay.

And that I just I see no logical reason to include spaces that are existing that are not changing the the mass or scale of the of the of the house in in the FAR.

So I just want to make sure I understand um so when you're speaking of far are you speaking of the existing home attic or are you speaking if they do an addition and they have an attic and condition that space or are you or are they I want an assignment.

So speaking of any space that is inside the envelope of whatever is approved if if there is no puncture to the exterior in the attic and that it is just space that is already existing in a house that someone chooses to finish or use as they see fit which is their property right to do not ours to to regulate and the same with the garage if someone wants to wood work and they want to put a mini split in their garage suddenly we're deducting 200 square feet from their ability to add on to their house just because they conditioned the space which already exists so I really struggle with that as a as a as a regulatory measure for for this body just that that's not a that is interior use and and we regulate the X if they want to change the exterior of the garage, they've got to get a C of A.

But I mean, if they want to sheetrock their garage, they don't need to get a C of A.

I mean, we're it's you know, I just think that's a very fine line.

Okay.

Commissioner Cosmer, could I ask you a question?

Just talking about while you're on that point.

And I understand what you said, and I I support that.

Um, but again, my concern with the word condition space is that I think as one speaker mentioned is what we're really here about is visual mass.

And you know, like an open porch or screened in porch doesn't contribute to that unless there's something maybe built two stories above it, which, but uh you know, that said um is there a way that like you can have a garage that's 585, you can of course you can make it any size you want, but you're allowed, and then what you do with it you do with it, but but my concern is you uh someone builds a shed or or they build something on the house and say what's a storage room, but it's not air conditioned, but it is part of visual mass, and it's not in, you know, the the far was based on a total visual mass for the property when when people were shown examples.

So that might I don't know how to resolve that with your text, but I think they think that the two sides of this conversation is that if we perceive a room that's built walls and so on, then it ought to be counted toward the far, whether it's conditioned or not.

If if you're in an attic space, it that's not contributing to the visual mass, so it shouldn't count toward it anything, which I think was the last point as well.

Yeah, but but the there are two sides of the same sort of because like in the heights, we we I don't think we have I don't recall air condition is as a topic or a concept.

Yeah, we we've got a far.

You're allowed so much on your primary house, you're allowed so much on your garage.

Um, but the heights it does allow you to to build out your existing attic as long as you don't penetrate the outside and that will not count towards your far.

True, and and you could have a dormer under certain conditions, which you can use.

And then the whole area wouldn't actually count towards your far.

So I mean, I know Commissioner Davis mentioned consistency sometimes between the guidelines.

I mean, this is something that we you know, this by a different body deliberated, but this was part of the process about you know, creating an opportunity for people to use space that might be there.

You know, I don't think this is gonna be a real big deal in Norhill, because I'm not sure there's enough roof pitch for most of the bungalows to actually build any usable space out of an attic.

But in the event there are, I don't think someone should be penalized if they want to to use space that's already part of the mass.

And the same kind of goes true for the garage.

If it's an existing garage and somebody wants to condition it, I I'm not under I don't really see what impact that has at all on on the district as a whole.

And then jumping on the the far calculations, there's an inconsistency in the logic to them.

And and I think that's what troubles me a little bit, is that if I have a 5201 square foot lot, I have to build a smaller house than if I have a 5200 square foot lot.

And I think this is a byproduct of too narrow of ranges, right?

That that and I'm looking at this, and 75% of the lots are between 5,000 and 5200 feet, which is the point four six.

I mean, even if you took the point four six and you went all the way up to the 5650 at 0.46, it would be only a nominal difference in the square footage that would be inconceivable from the street.

Okay.

And I I just feel like it's like, you know, that the logic says that the bigger the lot, you could get a slightly bigger house.

But the way these numbers are translating, I'm getting a smaller house on a bigger lot in certain circumstances, and I think there needs to we need to iron that out so that there's a better progression.

Um, and I don't know what the cutoff is, you know, but I think going in 200 foot increments is just too too small.

Okay.

And I don't think there's gonna be, I mean, you're talking about 25, 50 feet, maybe if you go to 0.46.

I don't think it's gonna really impact you know, most projects or even the vi their visual impact, but I'm just looking at if 75% of the houses are are in one category, maybe that's the number we should we should apply, because you're really only talking about a limited chance that you know you're gonna get a slightly larger home, you know, if only a handful of them exist on a 5650 square foot lot.

Okay, so um well, so like i the resolution would seem to be that we increase the range from 200 to 500 or 200 to a thousand something like that it's hard for me to give you a specific range I just think there would be a little more uniformity to it right if you had fewer categories and larger ranges just I think it would the numbers would play a little better um in terms of people feeling like they're not getting penalized for actually having a larger lot.

Right.

Um and as I said I this chart just goes to 5650 and I think if you went and you applied the 0.46 to 5650 i it's like 50 feet bigger than than what the 2514 is I just I'm not seeing that there's real reason to like not have maybe that as one range and then everything over 5650 be you would have to do the math I don't you know I can't off the top of my head tell you whether it's 0.445 or 0.44 or you know okay those were my thoughts and you know they're not you know I'm not gonna die on these swords but I just think you know there are ways to improve this so that it is even more user friendly and that you know there's less confusion particularly when we have someone that might have a lot that's a little outside of the the ranges.

Okay.

Commissioner Coswell your suggestion is perhaps reducing the number of light items on that chart.

I think my suggestion is that we we choose larger increments to apply the FAR to if we said we were going to apply a 0.46 far for lots between 5,000 and 5650 I'm just using the chart that's here.

You know that that that would result in a more even mathematical approach to it and not really create.

Especially since majority of the homes fall within that range.

Right since we're applying the 0.46 to 75% of the homes in the district I don't think applying it to a few more homes is really going to substantially change the fabric of the community.

So it's less than a hundred feet difference even if you went all the way to six thousand in that range and applied the point four six uniformly and then anything above that would need to um be a smaller far um so these are just ideas.

Commissioner blankly comment on that because just to pay sort of piggyback on that one because I think what I'm seeing is that at some point if you get a bigger lot suddenly you you can build build a bigger house but then that does seem to maybe feed back into the question of what do the houses look like in the neighborhood do they resemble one another so I I mean I wonder if there might be a way to look at you know the pattern books are something I know I'm obsessed with them.

You have no idea how obsessed I am actually but um it seems like there should be a ceiling like on how big a house you can build right I mean maybe maybe the best approach wouldn't be just like every five hundred every thousand like grid to make your FAR increments change but like as was pointed out like this family of houses or this this quantity of houses that are all around the same size and then look for some kind of pattern in the the bigger houses and try to figure out like what an average might be um among the bigger houses among the contributing houses, right?

As a reference.

Maybe the reference should come for the FAR should come from within the contributing homes in the neighborhood rather than just a fraction of the lot.

Right I yeah, that's the I mean there is the disconnect between the improvements and the site, and this is solely applied on the site, and that's why I think there you get these mathematical inconsistencies.

Are there additional questions, Commissioner Cosgrove?

I'm Commissioner Davis.

So we want to Commissioner Davis.

I just want to confirm for my own understanding that if someone builds a court, has does a two-story with a porch and a game room or a bedroom above it, then that all of that is considered far.

Even though that's not air conditioned state space.

Is that how we're interpreting it?

Yes, I think that's how it's stated in the um yes in what was what was read to us.

Um I don't I know so I mentioned earlier that I would uh request that you guys discuss whether we should call out the ceiling height heights at Commissioner Heel's request.

Um so if you could could we put that diagram up for reference that you're referring to and my question for for this um I'll I'll get to the page here so you can see it a little more clearer.

Yes.

There's one for garage there's this and then uh there's one for garages.

Right.

But the the my question is, like one of the speakers spoke to this, the issue regarding like from natural grade is the plate height, whether it's a one story wall or two-story wall, I think is the issue.

The ceiling height could be established, which these these guidelines, these these diagrams are based on a ceiling height in which the ceiling is resting on top of the plate height.

I think there are there's somewhere there in the in here there's a diagram where you could raise the ceiling and slope, you know, from the plate height up to a higher ceiling.

If you wanted a higher ceiling, for instance, on a one-story home, you could do so.

Correct, or in addition, but as long as the plate height was still uh within what what's being prescribed, then there's no visual impact to that.

Correct.

That's an internal decision, and it's it's we don't regulate that that aspect.

So and there were some discussions about allowing uh maybe a slightly higher by few inches plate height just to allow to allow the ceiling heights that are uh in the diagram along with the 30 inch uh below and a 14-inch truss uh for at least for the two-story, right?

So the is there um, I mean there was a recommendation for um uh I think for the two story diagram that we have up right now, there's a recommendation to increase the plate height to twenty feet eleven inches.

I I can't see what it is on that.

Uh so this one is twenty-one two and a quarter, so it would actually um lower it a few inches, and and I think um staff's uh view on that when we when it when we originally started discussing it was that um it's probably gonna sound like an oxymoron with the um ceiling heights being in there, but um staff didn't want to get into the business of telling architects or engineers with size uh trust they needed to use.

Um we just didn't want their liability.

Um so you know uh again I'm I'm open to discussion.

I think um I'm all for um not having to call out the the ceiling heights and just calling out the plate.

Um, and I would agree uh with with that.

I mean, personally I would agree with that that's that's what that's what the visual mass is created by from the right of you I mean I I if the commission would all agree or if the majority would agree then you know all it takes is delete.

Okay.

So then the question earlier from Commissioner Davis is for the two examples and I can see clearly with it enlarged for the one story uh plate height above natural grade 11 feet seven and a quarter sorry eleven feet seven and an eighth of an inch and for the two story it's 21 feet two and a quarter inches is was there any a place where the numbers were different than these two numbers that because my question for Terrence is I'm assuming that that diagram is what staff's recommending that these these numbers this is what you're hanging your hat on.

Yes and and listen um I know despite what y'all may think I'm not perfect.

Okay but um I I what could have happened Commissioner Davis is that I probably missed somewhere in the written language where the height needs to change I know that it I did change this one if it's written somewhere oh I'm sorry I didn't get a manicure so this number right here did change for the first floor and I I very well could have missed it somewhere else so if it's a typo then I apologize.

So what I have is recommend reconciling 2.4 B through 2.4 C text to the diagrams or vice versa confirming whether the one story plate cap is 116 or 1178.

And what I'm hearing is it's it's 11 foot seven and an eighth and for the purpose of this review if like if this body were to recommend these for moving these forward in the process that would be the number that would hold and again that that small issue could be resolved by staff uh with without us look having to look after it again.

Are there any other questions of oh sorry Deputy the uh rounding to an eighth of an inch just seems very unpractical to me.

Could should we should we make that just a kind of even number and for a field verification an eighth of an inch is yeah I mean I don't a quarter inch tolerance is an industry standards but plus or minus yeah and and usually there is a plus or minus there and I mean I don't I mean the question the question is if we put eleven foot seven plus or minus right if architect comes and says well I did it at you know eleven eight as or eleven ten that's that's plus seven you know I I don't it doesn't matter to me either way are you recommending um a quarter or just rounding it off or commit I'm gonna ask another architect on the commission Commissioner Garcia you have your you're have your sign up and you enlightened us.

I I think the the one eighth of an inch is important to keep because um a lot of the decking is at one and one-eighth inch so I I think um if you don't keep if you change that depth you're gonna be uh builder or homeowner um it's gonna incur additional expenses because they're gonna have to buy special lumber or they're gonna have to cut standard pieces.

So I think the that's probably where the eighth inch came in.

Yes sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions.

So Terry Terrence can you can you resolve this issue then from that was raised by someone in the public about visual mass I think with the first speaker mentioned this if um you can have a garage and you've got five eighty five doesn't count toward far.

And you can have a bigger garage, but then anything in addition counts toward FAR.

That's that's what how this reads.

Yes, sir.

That's that was the intent.

And if you build if you build a house or you build, you you add on to the house, what I guess my question is whether it's a a tool shed or whatever it is.

I mean, if it's a mass, is it in the far the FAR?

The way this is written.

Again, it because this is comes back to the word conditioned space, I think.

Um that's trying to understand how this works.

So a tool shed, a 585 square foot tool shed, or you mean just No, I just mean like like you're gonna have a garage that's 585, whether whether the car parks in there, whether it's storage, whether it's a wood shop, it's you get 585 and it doesn't cut go that doesn't count toward your FAR calculation is my understanding.

Right.

Um then and then you're gonna build improvements on the property, and there's a FAR.

Correct.

And does the FAR apply to all improvements on the property that are that are visual mass?

It it reads that way, and I think that was the intent.

Um however, I will state that from my recollection and my memory, um a tool shed was not considered in this, and and maybe that's something that we should have looked at.

Um just being and I'm really I'm not trying to harp on a tool shed, actually.

I mean, um, no, but I'm just trying to say that um when you build a room though, it's it's it's visual mass.

Yes.

And we're not regulating use because that we don't do that on this commission, it's not an ordinance.

So um will visual mass be subject to the FAR.

Again, whether it's their condition or not, that that's my question.

Per the language we have.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I I mean that's that's that seems like the correct way to do it.

Um now if there's some sort of language that we need to put in to uh you know help help the good people of Nor Hill move this forward.

I I'm I'm open to that.

Well, there's language and then there's like you said, there's gonna be um opinions from staff that say, well, that's what this means.

You know, whether um so just trying to understand what if that's the intention, then it seems like that concern that was raised isn't isn't is not is not justified.

That is to say that it's yeah, I mean that's all.

Yeah, every I mean you've heard these great residents of Nor Hill speak um that their concern is to make sure that um Nor Hill doesn't start um producing these these massive additions, right?

So everything that's written in here was written with that intent to make sure that the mass does not get out of hand.

Um so yes, you are correct.

Um I think you raise a great point bringing up the tool shed.

Um and I know you weren't you know harming on tool shed, but but you raised a great point, and that's something that we we probably need probably could look at.

Um but also I think something like that, and just and just speaking in the tool on on the tool set shed in that instance, I believe that that would be something in it in the case that we could take care of with the policy, right?

Um something that's minor, and we can make sure that we we we clear that up.

Sure, and I agree with that, yeah.

Yeah, but again, I think that the way that it's written right now, we are trying to make sure that the mass is is controlled by the FAR.

You know, yeah, by the FAR.

So the only thing I've heard today that going back and forth, the only thing I've heard is whether or not the FAR we reduce the number of groupings in the FAR, or to adjust that ever so slightly.

But other than that, I don't think I've heard anything else that's really contrary.

Um to public comments or from comments from commissioners.

Um I mean, I know there was there was a comment about what shall and should, but I mean I know you're still cleaning the document up slightly for some of those things, as was mentioned by one speaker.

Yes.

We've addressed the living space.

Um I'm just trying to determine whether or not we can we make a vote to recommend moving this forward and not delaying this vote.

And if the only thing we have is this far, is there some can we put in a condition uh a request for staff to resolve you know for for us to to move forward um because this has been a long time.

I mean many of you may not know Terrence used to work for the city and then he didn't, and then he does he and now he does again and and when he was here before in a past life, he was working on these guidelines.

So I mean it is very true about the number of years that it's taken to get to this point, and so I I feel like we are really at the cusp of a vote, and if there's any condition we could put on this to make this happen, I would I would ask you know for some consideration.

I would be happy to put forth a vote on it with the condition maybe that staff recalibrate, you know, really take a hard look at it, so that it just has a logical progression as the lot gets bigger, that the house gets bigger and we don't have these gaps where we have a larger lot with a smaller house.

Yeah.

Um I still I still am concerned about the counting the garage and attic as conditioned space.

Um because in your scenario you just spoke of that they get 585 exempt for the garage.

Well, if they condition it, it counts totally toward the far according to the guidelines.

But I'm advocating for it not, right?

But we would need to strike that language from the from the from here.

So I mean, you know, I would move to accept the guidelines with the few typographical changes, the striking of the attic and garages that are conditioned being counted toward the FAR, and the recalibration of the FAR calculations and maybe expansion of the of the increments that we're looking at just to make that logical and consistent.

Okay.

There's a question from that question.

Is the public Mr.

Chairman?

Public uh hearing closed.

He's trying to closed unless there's a question from a commission member.

Um I have a question for Virginia Kelsey.

So let me open the public hearing and I want this passed today, okay.

But what my question is is if you ru remove the word condition, would it include areas above the garage?

I understand what your concern is, and I think the proper way of saying it is to not include any um condition space, a new condition space within an attic space of a new or existing structure.

But I think it's important to have a condition space because that goes to volume, and it could be interpreted that a garage apartment or something isn't included because of that one definition on living space that states that it's only related to the building or what's attached to the building, and I agree with all your comments about mass.

So I'll sit down.

Well, may I may I ask a question?

Because again, I'm I'm and I guess I'm thinking of the heights design guidelines where we have a far for the home and the mass of the home, and we have um garages, which in it in that in those guidelines they can either be detached or attached.

This it's different in this neighborhood.

Historically they're detached, but there's a certain amount of square footage that's allowed to for a garage to exist and not count against the FAR.

And in this case for Norhill, that number is 585.

And so and what I've tried to state, and I'm curious is that anything that's built beyond 585 gets count toward the far, whether it's on the side of it, the back of it, or above it, period.

And I guess that would pre that would take it into account, and that would be okay.

I just want to make sure that that there isn't a loophole there.

And because of that example on FewGate, it was built, it was approved as two separate measures that even though they're connected and you can't get to it.

And so I wanted to just make sure that that kind of loophole.

So if we're clear, then let's pass this sucker today and move on down the road.

My my intention is that this would exclude this would be things enclosed in an attic that have no punctures to the outside and really primarily existing or newly built garages.

Should we just add that language in as a simple sentence and add it to?

The staff can, yeah.

I'm I'm open.

Okay.

You know, this is a conditional thing we're talking about.

That's a reasonable request, and I think the people of Northill would accept it.

It's just we don't want there to be a loop, a bigger loop.

Right.

And I and there's no, I don't think anybody here wants to increase the mass.

We're just trying to allow people to use the existing mass more effectively to their needs and not try to regulate the interior use of their space if they condition or uncondition it.

Um I mean it's just it's kind of the words that that make a difference here.

So but I think we're on the same page.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll close a public.

I'll close a public hearing.

Is there a motion?

Mr.

Chair, point of order.

Um please, Mr.

Board.

If we were to approve the guidelines tonight, what is the soonest that it would make it to council?

Well, it's got it's it it has to go to the soonest it would get to the next step.

Apologies.

We're tentatively on the agenda for what's the date, Darren's don't quote me.

But I think it's July 16th.

It's it's it's like almost a month from now, July 14th or July 16th, something like that.

So the next opportunity to get on the quality life's agenda.

Okay, with that said, I'm happy to make a motion.

Well, I think there is a motion.

There's not a second.

Should I restate it or does everyone have it?

Well, I just want to state the condition though.

Um, because I don't recall the exact language of the condition.

So the the two can is to accept it generally as it is done correcting some typographical errors that um maybe Commissioner Davis pointed out.

Um the two conditions would be to strike the attics or garages that are conditioned from being included in the FAR, as just discussed, and then to recalibrate the FAR chart to either increase the increments of lot size and how we apply the numbers just so there is a consistent and logical progression from lot size to home size.

Could could we add taking into account this the house sizes of contributing buildings in the district?

Well, they're smaller, I mean their contributing homes are much smaller than these FARs.

I mean, like like they're like a thousand square feet, so and we're allowing you know a larger a larger number for the for that far for the addition.

Like we're allowing additions to occur to the fars.

Um I just don't know how we would regulate that.

I mean, how we would include that, that would be a whole different calculation.

I understand.

I'm a little worried that like getting scoring a big lot means you can bring in a big house, and then that because it's much bigger than other houses in the context of it.

But it but in this case the far would would be lower for a larger lot.

It's just a matter of finding that kind of happy ground of like we have 75% of the lots between 5,000 and 5200 square feet, and you know, that number maybe applied to a few bit larger lots, but not going to the 6,000 square foot lots.

If you drop those down to say 0.44, then you've scaled back the size to a more proportional amount.

Can I make a really quick comment?

Sure.

Commissioner Jones, I think what we're seeing is the outliers are pulling the far or skewing the far, right?

And so if we consider the majority together and pull those outliers out, then you're gonna see a fairer distribution of lot coverage than you see right now.

Well said, so Commissioner Broadbeck, would you second the motion as the mid as amended question?

Um let me make a brief statement.

I I sense that staff, we've talked about a lot of amendments, small amendments that need to be made to the language tonight.

I sense that staff understands what those amendments are.

Um that being said, uh I I also sense that there's broad consensus in the room that we can move this forward.

That notwithstanding, I am um a little uncomfortable about the idea of voting for language that I haven't seen, but I believe there's a way we can move this forward tonight, which is to say um a motion to approve the guidelines as discussed tonight, including amendments.

Um, and if we can get new language by the first of July, and then we this uh the commission would have an opportunity to make substantive objectives until what the 5th of July, maybe a little few days longer because of the holiday.

Uh short of any substantive objections, it's moving forward.

That I would be okay with, but I just feel like we have a responsibility to not just vote on language we haven't seen without some kind of a safety valve in there in case there's a problem with the new language.

I'm happy to craft that into a motion, but that's that's my thoughts.

Well, again, as part of the process, I mean I'll ask Deputy Director Williamson.

We were to approve this with conditions based on these general concepts that we've outlined, it then it is gonna be packaged and sent to the quality of life committee.

It's gonna be made public before it goes to that committee as well.

That is correct.

So there's still another like there's another there's another piece of the of this process before even goes to city council.

What staff takes uh our requests are going to be codified?

That's gonna be made public, everyone's gonna review it, and then the next phase it'll be then discussed at the committee of quality of life.

And and if if there is something, let's say, and any member of the public could could make those comments there as well.

And then they take that in consideration, and then they hopefully we'll send that on to city council.

So this we're we're just a we're just a small step in the way, but we are necessary step because they can't move on unless it unless it moves past us.

That's all.

And when would this be made public?

It's probably in three weeks.

Can I just a point of order?

I'm sorry.

I want to clarify something I was wrong.

Uh the date is July 6th for quality of life.

So it'll be very it'll be made public very quickly.

Uh assuming that that there aren't any wholesale changes, yeah.

I yes, I think I can I think I can uh I think staff can get these things done.

We're gonna I mean of course there have been a lot of discussion.

We will review the HTV footage to make sure that we get the language correct.

So I want to uh assure you that we will do everything to make sure that the language matches what you guys said and stated.

Um so um it will be as close to discussion as as possible.

Um can I get that up?

I mean, we're just give me a week, I think, and I think I could have uh you guys the information because we'll have to get it to quality of life.

We'll have to meet with them before the meeting and all that good stuff.

So yeah, I think we can get that to you in about a week.

So with that said, would you be open to seconding these amended?

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Garcia.

Commissioner Cosgrove, if you just clarify exactly um I want to I want to second if if Commissioner Broadbeck doesn't if you could just exactly what uh with the um what you're proposing, it would be to accept it mostly as written with the typographical changes and minor amendments that we've discussed, and then to strike the language regarding counting the attics or garages that are conditioned toward the FAR, and then to recalibrate the FAR calculation to make it more logical and consistent, and that might result in expanding the ranges of lots that we're considering or and maybe moving more toward the point four six for a larger section just to to make it a little more even and a little more predictable for people.

I uh Garcia, make I make a motion to approve with the conditions that um Commissioner Kosgrove just presented, the three points.

So he said, I think it didn't make it makes that motion.

Okay, well, I think we have the motion.

I just I just gave first dips to Commissioner Broadbeck.

So I withdraw.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So I any others, but Commissioner Davis has discussion.

So based upon what you're saying, we are delegating something that is the purview of this commission to the staff.

To figure out and resolve.

I wouldn't say we're my only problem.

I wouldn't say we're delegating it because we didn't have any say in establishing those numbers to begin with.

I mean that was done through public comment, and the staff has presented that to us.

So I think we are kind of handing it back to the staff to refine those so that there is a as I said that it's just it makes more sense that that as the lot gets bigger, the houses go incrementally larger, and there's not these gaps where that's not the case.

And that's all I'm trying to eliminate.

I'm not advocating for larger houses or more massing or more scale.

It's simply just to make it like a little smoother.

Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair.

Sorry, Commissioner Carlsmith.

Yeah, I think it's important to remember and consider that you know staff has spent lots of time with Norhill with these folks in the room to design these guidelines for us.

Um and and to me, seeing you know a unanimous uh acceptance of these as uh you know, Chair Buchek has mentioned from everybody in attendance.

There seems to be wholesale support.

Um, and so um I think it's under our peer review to try to move this forward for them, knowing that you know there's still chance for uh the public to see um you know any changes that are coming uh as it moves to the next commission.

But uh it's pretty clear that there's plenty of public input for us to make a decision today.

Any other discussions?

Um Commissioner Cosgrove, if you would accept a friendly amendment, um that we would move forward with your motion so long as the new language is posted no later than one week today, giving anyone who might want to object the opportunity to do so, I'm good with that.

I'm okay with that.

I mean, I do agree that it would be good for us to review it before it simply was fact, yeah.

And Terrence can one week you're you're good with one week.

I mean you gotta do it any, I mean, let me just say, you have to do it anyway just to meet your next deadline, right?

Yeah, beers on me.

Uh so I mean, like my my question is it to be it's it's not it's not whether it's one week, it's just that you get to January 6th, you've got to get this out in the public before January 6th.

January 6, please.

I'm sorry, July 6.

I mean that's that's a that's that's around the corner, but um, yes, sir.

That's correct, July 6.

I will do my very best to make sure that you have everything within a week.

Yes, I promise.

Okay.

Okay.

Can I ask for anything else?

Second.

Okay.

I don't know.

I make the motion to approve with um conditions and the condition that um it's completed.

Are we re we were able to review it in a week?

So we're gonna we're gonna that's fine.

I don't think Mr.

Commissioner Cosgrove cares.

So we're gonna Commissioner Garcia will make the official motion.

Commissioner Broadbeck will second.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Um, I think before we move on, um, I just want to say to the people of Norheel, thank you for um for allowing staff to come and speak with you and and and create this document that you guys approve of.

Um I want to say that when we first showed up, um we didn't feel the love, we didn't feel the love at all, but um I really do um appreciate each and every one of you for for participating.

Um you made these you made this process a lot smoother.

Um, and then the team, the two members that are no longer here, um, you know, I think I speak on behalf of them.

Um we grew a lot, we learned a lot from you guys, and I just want to say we really appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, we get the show on the road.

Okay, Terrence, now we get we know we can start our meeting.

Uh but and we will be moving on to item E, which is the consideration in possible action on the following applications for certificates of appropriateness.

One or more items may be taken in one motion as consent items.

Uh good evening, Chair, Commissioners, and the members of the public.

Um this is staff member Terrence Jackson, as you very well know by now.

Um staff recommends the following 12 items for action in one motion.

Um item E1, 1118, two lane alteration addition in Houston Heights, E2, 4601, Oak Ridge, alteration addition in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Uh item E4, 1215 Ashland alteration addition in Heights West.

Item E5, 121 East 18th Street, alteration addition in Heights East.

Item E6 405 Highland, alteration in the Woodland Heights.

Item E9, 2132, Trune Street, alteration addition landmark, item E10, 2132, Trune Street, new construction of a garage or a carport, landmark, item 11, 1993 West Gray, alteration of a sign, landmark, item E12, 811 West Millwood Street, demolition of a garage or a carport, Norhill, item E13, 811 West Millwood, New Construction of a Garage or Carport, Nor Hill, and Item E14, 1923, Washington, alteration of a sign, old six ward.

The plan and development department approved all and development department asked you approve all the staff recommendations for the preceding items in one motion.

Therefore, items E3 and E7 shall be reviewed individually.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Terrence.

Commission members, are there any projects on the proposed consent list you like pulled for individual considerations?

E one say E.

Yes, E1 is on the consent list proposed.

Okay.

Any other items?

Okay, at this time I'm gonna open the public hearing and I just want to mention that we have speakers signed up for item items numbered two, four, five, six, eight.

So I'm sorry, uh two four five six twelve and thirteen.

If you support staff's recommendation, then there is no reason for you for the for you to pull this application.

If if the consent agenda passes, then their recommendation will also pass with it.

If you are opposed to what staff's recommendation is, you may at this time request that item be pulled for individual discussion.

And I'll let Terrence let me know if can we please pull item E2?

E2, okay.

I'll close the public hearing.

So I have the proposed consent list as item four, five, six, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Commissioner members, is there a motion to accept the revised consent list and the recommendations by staff?

Conscribe moves.

Is there a second?

John seconds, all in favor.

I any opposed.

Motion passes.

We'll move on to item one.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item E1 at 1118 2 Lane.

Excuse me.

The property includes a historic 943 square foot one-story crafting style wood wood single family residence situated on a sixty six hundred square foot interior lot.

Located in the Heights Historic District, constructed at circa nineteen fifteen.

The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition toward the rear of the home and an interior remodel of the existing home.

The existing stone has caused the foundation and framing of the home to deteriorate.

Thus the applicant would like to remove the stone piece by piece, repair the foundation and wall framing and install siding in place of the stone.

Previous staff instructed the applicant to remove the stone, have it placed on a pallet, and number to to be put back in place as closely as possible.

Staff believes this would be this staff believe this would place a huge financial strain on the project, and the applicant has requested the HAC to consider the stone be replaced with siding.

Staff and senior structural inspector revit revisited the home on June fifth.

Please see the additional photos in the staff report.

The applicant proposes to construct a 1,770 square foot rear rear edition, first and second floors.

The first floor will have a 732 square foot addition and a second floor addition will be 1,038 square feet.

They plan to maintain the existing windows and doors, partially demolish the rear wall to accommodate for the rear edition.

It will be constructed with the max ridge height of 26 feet 10 inches.

They will construct the second floor eve height at 20 feet seven inches at the top of the Eve.

They will construct the roof with new comp composition shingles with a five over twelve roof pitch.

The existing four over twelve roof pitch is to remain.

They will construct the home with a nine foot first floor ceiling height and nine foot second floor ceiling height.

They will install new windows to be wood clad, inset and recessed for the addition.

Then we will repair the existing facial soffits with income material.

Staff recommends approval.

Um also would like to um make sure that uh I do this because I know there's gonna be discussion about it.

Um but uh we are here.

Document camera.

Uh this is the very first staff report uh for this project that was presented this year in April.

Um in this staff report, the applicant was proposing the addition and keeping the stone, um, but after discussion about the drawings, um staff made the request that the owner had about the siding, and this commission asked that we bring it back with the drawing showing the siding.

Um so um I want to make it uh clear that um if it comes down to it, the owner is prepared to keep the stone if that is what is necessary by this commission, or if that is what is determined by this commission.

Um chair members of the HAC I'm available for any questions, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

Um at this time I don't have anyone decided to speak on this, but I'm gonna open the public hearing just in case there is anyone here.

Um not hearing anyone, I'll close the public hearing.

Um and Commissioner Davis, I know you I have a written document that submitted by you, and I know you pulled this project, but would would you um like to like to speak about this matter?

Certainly.

Certainly.

Um this was presented last month, and I want to be really microphone on sorry.

Um I want to be direct about the sandborn reasoning that we were using last month, um, because I shared it at the time.

Um the theory was that there what um there was a example in the coa um of a black and white um sandborne clip from that said uh 1118 um and then we had a um another swatch which was from probably the 1963 version the color version which is at the library which showed the concrete block construction but um i did some research and some homework and discovered that and it's not in your the swatch that was in there last month and was in there last friday when it was put into the um when we received all of our things that it's not there anymore it was taken out sometime between um but uh if you want to if the person on the camera um wants to put up exhibit two from my um I think it's the document camera I'm sorry exhibit one uh exhibit one looks like this it's the exhibits not page one the exhibit one though somebody has gotten those out of there's a one I that's it that's it okay so on the left you see the clipping that was included in our COA packet last month and this month and it's just labeled 1118 doing a little research I determined that that is not 1118 to lane that is actually 1118 Rutland which is one street over and I have in the next little section a thing cut out from uh the um 1925 Sanborne map which shows again um the which shows the um which shows so in other words that was from the COA packet then I pulled it this is what was in this in the Sanborne map and you can see that it's the same building um then we have in um 1925 the 1122 is vacant and I also pulled the 1919 and that the 1919 map it uh Sanborn is exhibit three which also shows that the the lot was empty um at that time so um not thinking that so I thought that was pretty conclusive that this house has always been stone it was never um a um wood siding and um I have uh so there was no earlier house um and I verified through the list for through the um directories I looked at the directories for 1918 1924 1925 not there 1926 was the first time it shows up in the directory and then it shows up in the directory in 27 now back then it was 1122 and the address is changed to 1118 and then you can see that on the 1950 in the 1963 Sanborns you see both numbers with the closest number to the to the swatch is the um uh is the right number.

So I think with this date corrected, um obviously it's not a 1915 house, it's a 1924 25, because there's lags in these things getting into the documents, and seeing as it therefore has always been a stone house um and I don't see how this application is submitted satisfies section 33241 criterion seven, which requires replacement to be an accurate duplication substantiated by evidence.

There is no evidence that this house ever bore wood siding, the record shows the opposite.

So the siding is conjectural.

Criterion 9 prohibits destroying significant historical material, removing the original veneer destroys it.

Criterion five asks us to maintain or replicate the distinctive uh craftsmanship.

So stripping of the veneer eliminates it, and replacing it in any replacement should then be of like material, not party plank siding.

Um, as to the question of conditions, I had an opportunity, and I am not an engineer, but I have been in a lot of these houses, and I actually had a similar house come before this commission in uh 2019, and we uh went through it was a very long process trying to figure out how we could save this house, and we were required to get engineering studies, and the engineering studies, and they were not cheap, came back that we couldn't do that.

I think at a minimum we don't have anything in the record that shows that this house that that's the only option that we have available to us, and so um uh I think that there are photos, there are things that need to be repaired, absolutely, but the owner also has an affirmative duty to address those under section 33-254.

And um, so what I'd like to move is to approve this application on the condition that the original veneer be retained, repaired, and reinstalled in place with no substitution of sighting for the original material.

The two-story rear edition can be judged on its own merits, but removing the original veneer is not supportable on this record.

Thank you.

Um in a moment, I have a question for Ginger.

Just we could we looked at this uh last time, but I see that Commissioner Hill has a question, so Commissioner Hill let you advance the the discourse.

I just want to um support what Becky said about uh the address changing.

I've uh done lots of historic research and addresses have changed in the heights and other parts of town over the years, and I'm also I'm looking at the pictures on page um page is this 26, 25, and the way this house is constructed, um with the ship lap on the outside tells me that it was it's highly unlikely it was built with uh wood siding originally.

Um sure houses get remodeled sometimes only a few years after they're built, but this seems pretty original to me.

Uh having restored a bunch of houses of this era, sure, well, I have a question for Junior because I know um just to determine can you see that the I mean I see what's on the screen right now with two lane marked and the address of uh 1122 and 1118, but can you can you corroborate what has been presented this this new information uh basically?

Definitely um I would say Commissioner Davis did an excellent job in her research, and the um difference between what we're talking about today versus the last one is the incorrect representation of Rutland versus two lane.

So um this image is you know still the same one.

This comes from the uh sandborn maps that are physically at the library, um, which are updated as you can see.

There's the correction record, which is I think two pages past this.

That tells you the last time it was updated.

So that's really what this represents up to 1961.

I think it is.

So everything, you know, with her lookup in the city directories, she did a great job.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Brodbeck, you have a question.

Uh yes.

Um, do we know how it is the incorrect building made it into the application where that came from?

Staff.

And what's the process that goes into pulling those pictures and putting it in the application?

Uh so typically what happens.

So again, I'll go back.

I mean, the process is if how this happened, I mean the process is we go to the library or we pull up the sandborne that we have and we and we grab it from there.

Um on this particular application.

Um, just gonna be honest with you.

We have he's not here.

We have about eight, nine, ten COAs for this particular project.

Um I started this report.

I just grabbed the first one or the first one that I found, and I mean that that sandborn was already in there, so along with you know the pictures on the front, um things like that.

So um, yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna talk about the Rutland thing.

I mean, it was a mistake by staff, and the correct uh sandborne is in there, um, was in there last month.

Um, so yes, Rutland was in there, but that sandborn map was in there as well.

I understand.

So, okay, and so Commissioner Davis, you have another question or you have a motion.

Um I'd like to say it is very easy on these sandborne maps, and this it's very small, and you have to make them make and the street doesn't show on every block, and it's easy to get out of alignment.

So I think it's an honest error, and I'm just glad that we caught it.

And I have to shout out Ginger.

Ginger and I spent some time on Monday and she taught me everything I know.

So I I encourage you to go visit with uh with Ginger.

Yes, and I can tell you also, Commissioner Hill.

Um research working downtown Euston, um the address is changed by 100.

So if you are looking at any block in the old part of town, um they increase by 100 at some point, and so you have to also be no know that.

Um, but Commissioner Blakely.

Um question for Commissioner Davis.

Was there other evidence that you didn't mention just now that you found?

Was it the stone appearing in insurance records or something in the 1920s?

I just want to make sure we have that on the record since I think that's part of your the case that you've made.

Yes, we do have um a from the BLA, which I don't know what's BLA stands for, but we do have a tax and it's in uh in the package it's exhibit six, which is dated 1927, and it shows stone veneer.

Thank you.

So is there a motion?

I will second Commissioner Davis' motion, and I'd like to say, good job.

I'm glad you're here.

But could you restate the motion, Commissioner Davis?

Uh so I'd like to move to approve to approve the COA on the condition that the original veneer be retained, repaired, and reinstalled in place with no substitution of siding for the original material.

Okay.

Is there a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion passes.

So move on to item two.

Staff member Tanis Jackson.

Uh today I submit to you item B for I'm sorry, item E3 at 4601 Oak Ridge Street.

The property includes a historic 1,832 square foot pediment bungalow, wood single family residence and attached garage situated on a 5,000 square foot corner lot located in the Norhill Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to proposing an alteration and addition to construct an interior remodel of the existing home, construct a new front porch, reinforce the foundation to accommodate for the second floor addition, construct the 532 square foot addition, 65 square foot on the first floor and 457 square feet on the second floor.

They will construct the addition with a four over 12 roof pitch with composition roof shingles.

The eve height of the addition will be 17 feet with the maximum ridge height of 20 feet one and a half inches.

They will construct the addition to the home with siding to match the existing and install two new windows to be vinyl windows to match the existing uh windows in the contributing home.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the existing front porch remain as is and the proposed front porch be removed from the proposed alteration.

Chair members of the HAC, I'm available for questions, and this concludes the presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

At this time open the public hearing, I have two speakers signed up for this item.

Um first one give the opportunity for Jordan apprentice.

Who I believe is the applicant, uh followed by John Center Relly.

Hi, my name is uh Jordan Prentice.

I appreciate y'all uh being here.

Um this is my first go around at this.

I'm not a developer.

This is just my wife and I just bought this home back in February, just got married last year.

Uh we look to be here in Nor Hill for at least for at least a decade, hopefully more.

Uh what we're trying to do is just accommodate that home so we can start a family there.

Um the reason why we came to Norhill was for all the things that the folks behind us talked about.

So we are absolutely in line and would love to keep it as is as far as the makeup and the model of the home be as original to it as we possibly can while still being able to allow us to be able to grow a family there.

Um really the only thing that we're looking to do that was outside the approval of Mr.

Terrence, which just one quick little thing.

He's been extremely helpful during this entire process.

So thank you very much for all that you've done for for myself and for my wife.

Um ultimately we would just like to have a front porch to sit on.

Uh so ultimately the only thing that we're requesting, in addition to what uh Mr.

Terrence and his staff has recommended for us, is that we are able to make a porch similar to the rest of the neighborhood.

Uh something just a little bit longer.

We can sit some chairs out, enjoy the front porch with our with our dogs.

Uh it wouldn't be anything extravagant, it would be something like the photos that I included on everything else.

Um ultimately just looking to have that included.

Um I understand uh the implications of that, etc.

Looking forward to your feedback, but that is what I would like to be considered.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And the next speaker is John's uh center really.

Uh he left.

He's not here, okay.

So is there any other uh speakers from the public like to speak on this item?

Not hearing, I'll close the public hearing for now.

Commission members, are there questions for staff?

Are there questions about the porch?

I guess uh Terrence, could you review for commission um what your understanding of the original porch uh was is currently uh if there's what changes have occurred or is it still intact?

Just to walk us through, um I mean what you understand about the the original porch, right?

So so the the original porch isn't what what's being proposed.

Um I mean, if I think if it was a little um closer to what the the sandborn reads, then it would be a little easier to to recommend approval for.

Um the problem is um all the homes that the applicant proposed with the uh proposed porches, none of there were no COAs for any of them, right?

So what that tells staff is one they were done before the district was created, or two, they were done without a permit.

Um so um I believe staff is at the position that had there been just one of them that was close um with it with an approved COA, I think staff would have been okay with this.

Um it just doesn't fit the pediment bungalow look, if if that makes sense.

Can you review on the on the document uh well not well on the screen the the sandborn map followed by the just a picture of the front of the house as it is currently just for a quick reference?

Page page five.

Oh, there you go, and then page four.

So was there a porch originally on the left side of the image and it was enclosed at some point back in the day?

That that's what I would that's what I would think, yes, sir.

And could we look at the current floor plan or the and if th they they have provided an elevation that shows the porches they would like to uh make it towards the end?

If you guys would like to see it, I can hold on Sam, let me tell you.

Uh page 12 will show what what they're proposing at the bottom.

So the top image is what's existing now, and the bottom is what is what they're proposing.

So the current porch as it is it is built today is a small porch at the entry in front of the primary entrance door.

Um the original porch would have been to the left of that, and it would have been back recessed into the mass where the two double windows are shown on the left side of the front door.

Yes, sir.

Commissioner Blakely.

Uh is the proposed porch potentially constructed in a way that it could be removed and leaving no lasting damage to the existing house.

I I mean I I believe that the the way it's showed on this image, uh I believe that that that could be done.

Yes, ma'am.

It would be um I I believe the only damage would probably be to the roof.

Um they could definitely construct it in a way where it doesn't tie in too much to the existing home, but um yeah, I I think it could I think it that could be done.

Okay.

Sorry, Commissioner Davis, you always wait your comment.

Um I think that the avenue for them to get a porch is to re-inset what was originally there, um, what they're proposing changes the character of the house completely.

Um, I understand.

And I mean normally I'll just say um the commission we looked for if the porch doesn't exist but there was a porch and we can find evidence of it, then they can they can put that back.

Um sometimes we have examples where we don't know what it was, and we um allow folks to do something but very simple and very abstract.

I mean, you even when I looked at this, I even pondered what if you didn't build the porch on the right side of the entrance door, but you just built a porch where there was a porch originally, but just in front of it where it was.

So you you would um just as the house was asymmetric originally, porch on the left side, um, what if that the porches presented was built on the left side but not the right side of the entry door.

So um, but it's it's not something we normally do.

Um, but it is common for these smaller homes at some point, these porches um were enclosed, and and just historically speaking, um the reason there were porches in Houston was before conditioning was so hot you had to be outside just to stay alive.

And I've seen uh homes from the 1820s that were more porch than house for that reason, and they were they were really, and then many of them were enclosed at some point.

Um so uh but with that we Mr.

Blakely, I think you had a also a notion for this, or a question or so uh yeah, I just have one other question apart from the porch that there seem to be very few windows in the addition.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

I believe it's only two windows you guys are adding.

Two windows, yes, it seems like it's a very small addition to, I mean it seems to me like a very modest uh proposal as to the porch.

I I would have no problem with the proposed elevation if it's constructed in a way that it could be taken off if someone wanted to dial back to the current state.

I think I'm not quite as supportive of re trying to recreate an inset porch that we don't know that we don't have enough more information about.

Um if we knew if we had a picture of it or a floor plan, without that, I feel like it's just a kind of like fishing expedit expedition in the name of trying to approximate something we don't know.

So I move to accept staff's recommendation and allow the porch constructed as shown, but in a manner such that it could be sort of undone in the future.

I second, okay, and just to just discuss, I'm just gonna discuss it, but we do know their porch was inset because the sandborne is does indicate their porch was there and it was in set.

But we don't have dimensions, we don't know what the side elevation looked like or then Commissioner Cosgo, you have a question.

I was only gonna make the comment that I'm generally supportive of allowing them to have the porch, but I wondered if maybe the columns and stuff should be simplified to be more similar to what the existing porch is, which are just square columns.

I mean, just to de-emphasize maybe less ornamentation, but that's just a thought and are there any other questions or discussion before I call the vote?

Question about what is the nature of the existing columns?

Are those wood?

Are they metal columns on the porch?

Would you I would be a little bit concerned about venturing into design by specifying column size?

Agreed.

You can specify abstractness though, like simple like you can have simplification is part of the purview, especially if we if especially if you're putting back something that was never there, you that it would be the it would be the recommendation to be at as abstract as possible, not to create a false past, right?

Okay, I would find that acceptable.

Restate the motion, please.

Motion to accept staff's recommendation, however, to permit uh the construction of the porch uh with the appearance that's shown, but in such a way it's shown in the rendering elevation, perhaps with uh more simplified column pattern, and to be constructed in such a way that the porch could be removed and the house uh brought back to its current state and at a future time if someone chose to all in favor.

I have a second from Jones.

Do you agree with that?

Sorry, or sorry, it's uh it's sorry, Escobar's second, sorry.

It doesn't it doesn't change, it doesn't change things materially enough for me to disagree.

Okay, so I second stance.

Okay, so as of our seconds all in favor.

I aye.

Any opposed opposed?

So they're two opposed motion carries, and we move on to item three.

Oh, I wonder.

All right, you go.

All right, it's a one-man show today.

Good evening, Chair and Members of the HHC.

This is staff Person Terence Jackson, and today I submit to you item E3 at 509 Euclid in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

The property includes the historic 1,651 square foot one and a half story wood single-family residence and detached garage situated on a 6200 square foot interior lot.

The bungalow style of residence was once constructed circa 1920, located in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,115 square foot addition, bringing the total from 1651 square 1,651 square feet to 3,756 square feet with a 4,795 square foot cover.

The addition will include an addition at the front of the home and the rear of the home.

Applicant is proposing to partially demolish a portion of the contributing building on the left and right sides.

Demolish the existing contributing roof to have a new roof design.

Demolish a non-original addition to open the original porch, removing the windows and shutters in the wall to be removed and installed new wood columns with brick bases.

Maintain the original wood windows at the front and left side of the home.

The home will be constructed with a 28 feet five and a half inch maximum ridge height with an 18 inch five and a half ridge height on the newly constructed roof over the contributing structure.

It will have a 21 foot maximum top plate on the second floor and a 12-foot top plate height on the first floor.

The new roof will have six over 12 roof pitch.

The existing garage will be moved forward one foot.

Excuse me, will be moved forward one foot and for and west one foot to move it from being on the property line.

The addition will then extend over the garage, making it an attached garage.

Staff has received a number of letters of opposition.

Please see attachments in the report.

Staff recommends denial of the proposed alteration addition.

The proposed does not meet criteria one, four, five, eight, and nine.

Chair members of the HAHC, I am available for questions.

This concludes my presentation.

The first speaker is uh Eddis uh Hobson.

And as the applicant you have uh three minutes uh for your presentation.

Sure.

Uh thank you, appreciate you guys.

Uh chairman, members of committee and staff.

Uh basically we're just trying to uh remind this is Woodland Heights.

We didn't have a like a direct ordinance.

We did uh build off of we have uh uh done some homes in the Heights areas uh in the past.

We have tried to conform as much as possible to the existing um home that is present.

Um there is a 1965 design, Terrence mentioned opening up the porch.

Uh, we were just told or asked that we re uh reiterate the porch uh back to its 1965 design.

Uh we do have a sandborne from 1920, but obviously uh it does show the porch on there, but doesn't determine if it's closed or open.

Uh so we're opening the back that back up.

The front most all of the front portion of the home will remain intact as is.

Uh there is going to be a second floor that is uh piggybacking on the back portion of the home.

About six about 40 percent uh in from the rear of the home.

Um we have done, you know uh quite a few designs to try to get this in line with the historic preservation.

Uh although this isn't historic, uh trying to go in line with the woodland Heights.

I'm sorry, other the west or east side of the home.

So that was a very small addition that would increase or enhance the flexibility in the existing home as well.

So again, we're not trying to deviate from what we see we are in the context of the area.

I do have pictures of other homes that we've emulated directly across the street and on the street and around the corner from us.

So again, we don't feel like we're trying to do something that is uh outlandish or outside of what the uh preservation, the historic you guys, your staff are here to do.

Uh we commend, you know, communities like Norhill trying to try to stay in line with what the community, the historic uh heights likes to see, and that's uh what we've been trying to do uh as well, and and we enjoy that as well.

Uh there is a I think we're getting some uh I think he said there were some letters that were coming in.

Uh we believe is about a tree, and if I needed to speak on that, I can, but I wasn't sure because that was just kind of last minute thrown into my lap uh on that.

So I don't know if uh speak on that or what.

Thank you.

Um there will uh there may be a question for you in a moment, but there are a few more speakers, so um let me first call the next speaker will be Charlotte Escapes.

And followed by Jane Buchanan.

Um hello, I'm Charlotte Scales.

There is a live oak that lives in the backyard of 504 Woodland, and it occupies six properties, and the canopy is approximately 800 or 8,800 square feet.

Um is an important part to the RE Avery House, a designated protected landmark of the city of Houston.

Overall, the Houston Agriculture and Houston or Historic Commission should reject these plans because it would kill the tree.

There's a probability it would cause flooding for the surrounding properties, and it would disturb the natural ecosystem that has been built over the last couple of decades.

One reason is that it would kill the tree.

Evidence from this is supported supported by the forensic arborist, and it states very large limbs will be half will have to be removed to accommodate the new elevation of the structure at the rear of the property.

This could result in removal of up to half the canopy.

Once the large limbs are removed, the trunk and the roots of the limbs will begin to die since they are no longer they will no longer receive nourishment.

Eventually the dead tissue will begin to decay, causing the tree to become progressively unstable.

This quote shows how the if the house were built, there would be some serious risks involved.

Another reason is the probability that there that it would cause flooding flooding for the surrounding properties.

For these building plants, they would have to take take out or cover available ground soil, which soaks up the rain for many storms.

Evidence of this is from the USGS, and it states studies have shown that development and the amount of impervious spaces in a watershed and flood events happen more often.

This shows how the reduced impervious space or ground soil there is more flooding to the surrounding lots.

Um, last and not least, it would disturb the natural ecosystem that has been built over the last couple of decades.

Um, all in all, in terms of the checklist that has the historic commission considers, it would be in violation of term four, which states that the proposed activity must preserve the distinguishing or character of the building structure and object.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um you were very efficient in your delivery.

Um the next speaker is uh Jane Buchanan, followed by Paul Whitehouse.

Um Mr.

White has had to leave for a flight, so I'm gonna go fast.

So we submitted a joint um comment, public comment from 11 neighbors who occupy six properties in the area.

Uh the long and the short of it is this tree shares a border with the historic Avery home and is cited in the application, and the all the citations are in our thing in the protected landmark status and application, it's over 400 years old.

Uh we hired a forensic arborist to come and look at the tree.

His resume is longer than my arm.

He's certified, and basically he said construction of the proposed edition would require the removal of up to half of the trees canopy on the developer-facing side and initiate a progressive death.

Um, so in context of the application, staff did a really good job, but there's a lot of talking about the site and the environment that I don't think was considered because you don't see this tree and understand its historic context, especially with the Avery House, which is a protected landmark.

The tree itself is on multiple registries, so we're not opposed to the full development, but we do have recommendations from the forensic arborist about um changes to the plan.

Limit the addition over the existing garage to a single story, eliminating the second story, increase the rear setback with no new structure within the 30 feet, engage a certified arborist as a member of the design construction team, and use a peer and beam construction, and all this is detailed in our letter.

I know I only have 16 seconds, but uh I do say there was a lot on the structure, but the heights in these historic districts are more than that, so please consider the site and the environment as well that wasn't apparent in the application.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public here to speak on this item?

If so, please announce yourself at this time.

Um, not hearing anyone.

Uh Mr.

Hobson, you do have a two-minute rebuttal.

Um, and therefore you can't address the tree.

Um, thanks again.

Uh one, the uh tree registry of Harris County encourages preservation, is not law.

So that lets us know that if there is a tree in which this case is obstructing our property and or uh causing damage to the property, then there is rifle grounds for removal, Texas law.

Uh the the limbs that we have looked at that would need to be removed for the sake of uh this development is was about 25 percent.

I think the lady before me stated 50 percent.

We don't believe that to be true.

Uh the the tree is directly on the property line, our property line with branches hanging over that uh are can create damage to not only myself but uh also our neighbor.

Uh there are surrounding residents directly behind us at 504 woodlands directly next to us uh that also have two-story residents that have been able to complete the construction and and uh and preserve or or beautify and uh enlarge their home the way they have chosen to do so, so therefore we don't feel like it's right for them to impede on our rights uh to build and do what we need to do to beautify and rectify our home uh within uh 509 Euclid.

Um I think I think that would that was really, you know, we we have a right of way.

Uh we've addressed law, uh the garage has been damaged from the tree.

Uh again, we're not trying, we're hoping not to kill the tree, and the laws only say that it encourages preservation.

It is not law demanding that the tree must remain.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This time I'll close the public hearing.

Uh Commissioner members, other questions of staff on this item.

Um Commissioner Blakely is one, and followed by Commissioner Davis.

I have a comment, which is, and I'm sure everyone has seen this at the map on page three, does not seem to be the woodland heights.

Right.

Um, yeah, that's Nor Hill.

Yeah, okay.

Sorry is it possible that there's an available like where can I find the actual we'll have we'll have it pulled up woodland heights okay that would be great um that's my only comment for right now you had a comment yes and I don't know where this is um but it is either in the national um rules that speak to the environment this is the historic district and part of the historic district is all of the um everything that's in it which includes green stuff so I I don't know where it is but I think that is a consideration for his in a historic district.

I would have to well I mean isn't it then it's the national register guidelines.

It may be um I would just say we what we are what but the order we're really under the ordinance that we have which is um that is a guide I guess or as if it is welcome stated that our guidelines or ordinance was loosely based on those standards but um what what we're charged with is what with the ordinance and what it's and what it states but tears can you point out the subject property on the respite revised map.

So the uh would be the highlight on the cursor is okay if you can see it.

And where is the tree?

Oh we have an overhaul over can you go back to uh on the site it's on the rear property line it appears but that doesn't so the home should be here behind about the so the the tree is at 504 woodland and it extended over into nine so 509 would be right near the smaller tree which you probably can't even see because of both I have one other comment.

I appreciate the need to enlarge one's house um I do think that it's worth thinking about the tree as like part of the common good and even if you have the legal right to kill it um it might be worth considering what works best with your persistence in the neighborhood as well.

But what troubles me the most about this design and why I'm inclined to support staff's recommendation of denial is the a quantity of material in the existing building that is being sort of taken out right the sort of amount of red shading um even although on page 11 it the addition is represented almost as though it is just a little site of caboose there back there on the back of the house the drawings uh of what's going to be taken away on page uh let's see?

I think page especially 18 shows extensive uh materials being taken away from the roof and the siding.

And in my experience, I've been on the commission three years.

That has been a concern of this commission that historical material should be preserved um as much as possible.

So I find the addition troubling not only for its size, but also for the extensive destruction of the existing house.

Obviously, staff agrees with what you're saying.

Staff position on that is that um typically when you see asbestos siding, there's wood siding beneath.

Um and unfortunately that wasn't the proposed the proposal.

They proposed to remove the siding and put uh C Menticious siding on.

So, you know, yeah, I mean staff would be in conversation to um or staff is open to having a conversation of removing the asbestos INEC and what's beneath it and seeing the condition of it to see if it could be replaced.

Um, but that wasn't what was proposed, unfortunately.

Any other questions of staff?

Is there a motion?

Motion to accept staff recommendation.

Okay, second.

Heel seconds, any other discussion?

Um, sorry, go ahead, Terrence.

Uh, calling for discussion.

Yep.

Just uh, yes, other than that, um so the applicant is asking for reasoning for the denial, and also um I believe the applicant would be open to a deferral to come back next month rather than having to start this process all over.

Um, clarification for that point of order, sorry.

I will retract my motion and make a new motion to defer.

Okay.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, then before we vote, um does anyone want to state uh the issues.

I mean, just I I mean I think that well, I mean uh I heard the massing is is very large, and I just mentioned one of the public speakers mentioned if the rear most portion of the other proposed design was one story, perhaps the pressure on the tree might be lessened.

Um but it's more about massing, I guess that that part, and then there's there was a comment about the resisting fabric being modified.

But of course, we don't know what the fabric is.

Uh if if and we have always um allowed removal of asbestos siding, and I don't know whether if we were to defer it, if some something could be removed somewhere so that one could see what's underneath it and whether there's wood siding there or and or does it need to be replaced because it's so deteriorated and so forth, or maybe it's protected by the asbestos siding and it could actually be repaired easily.

Um but I'll just state that in terms of what to answer the question and is there anything else the commission members would add to my comments?

I would simply say that the addition needs to be subservient to the historical structure.

And in this application, not only are you insensitive to the historical structure by removing the bay on the side and redoing the whole roof and the siding and the windows, you've created an addition that is overpowering to it.

It it needs to be the star of the show how it is right now.

And I think you could be sensitive to the tree in a new design.

I mean, there was a case in the heights many years ago about a tree just like that that was developed around in a very sympathetic manner and is a stunning property, and I think there are lessons to be taken from that that it's not just simply build the biggest box on the back of the house possible, but maybe take the time and think about the orientation of the structure to the tree and use it as a as a positive on the lot.

People will people will really like that, and I think you're doing a disservice to the to the whole property by you know not taking that into consideration.

I would just like to add with respect to the massing that often, um if the rear corner, at least one rear corner.

Sorry, that's okay.

I just uh of the building can be revealed.

In other words, not just to have the addition not be so huge, but also to allow us to read the where the end of the original one was, and often that's been done by letting a corner remain so that you can see make out the the outlines of the original house.

Okay, uh Mr.

Davis.

Um I think first I agree, but let's figure out where the original corner is because I think that the house has been extended at some time in the past, and so it has been, yeah.

So where does that?

Where is that?

I think the same in the sandboard could maybe could get uh aid staff a bit on that.

I agree, but I think maybe if it's deferred, maybe they can figure out where that is, and so we come back with a different proposal.

All in favor of deferring the project, then I any opposed.

Okay, that item is deferred, and we'll move to our last item on this on this agenda, which is item seven, I don't think y'all need to see me for another what month.

Um, I'm sorry.

Oh, I forgot that the show down.

Good evening, Chairperson members of the commission.

This is Stafferson De Leon.

I submit item E7 at 7718 Morley Street in the Glenbrook Valley Historic District for your consideration.

The one story contributing traditional ranch style property was built circa 1959, situated on an 8,550 square foot interior lot.

On April 15th, 2026, the applicant received a 301 complaint for construction without a permit or certificate of appropriateness.

The inspector observed that the work had been done to the roof in the electrical uh without a permit, and that the previously unpainted brick was painted and thus a red tag was issued.

The applicant applied for certificate of appropriateness on April 17th, 2026.

Staff received six letters of support, which are included in this report.

Staff recommends denial as the project does not satisfy criteria one, three, and four, an issuance of COR requiring the removal of paint from the brick.

Uh and with uh would like to speak and is available for any questions.

I'm also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

At this time, I'll open the public hearing and um soprano betancourt can approach the bench, and I believe Sam, you are going to help translate.

Okay.

Okay, uh, but I had a Valera in Spanish, but she can read it.

But you can read an incalculation, okay?

Okay, hola.

Quiero pedirles que recursion the decision de que quitar la pintura del ladrillo de mi casa.

Cuando pintella casa, yo no sabía que estaba dentro de un distrito historico.

Nunca fue my intention romper ninguna regla.

Si hubiera sabido que necesitaba approvación, el trabajo.

La verdad is que quitarla pintura me costaria mucho dinero.

Stan de acuerdo.

Incluso tengo cartas de apoyo de mis vecinos que creen que la casa ha mejorado y que tu se viene dentro de la comunidad.

Les pido que por favor considering my situation if you permitan mantenere la pintura or in contra alguna other solution razonable.

Estoy dispuesto a trabajar con ustedes.

I'd like to propose a motion to provide the speaker one more minute of time.

All in favor.

Thank you.

Here is a direct translation of his statement.

When I painted the house, I was unaware that it was located within a historic district.

It was never my intention to break any rules or do anything wrong.

Had I known that approval was required, I would have sought it before undertaking the work.

The reality is that removing the paint would be very costly, and I do not currently have the budget for it.

Furthermore, I feel the house looks much better than before and it is well maintained.

A view shared by several of my neighbors.

I even have letters of support from neighbors who believe the house has been improved and looks good within the community.

But removing all of the paint would place an extremely difficult financial burden on me.

Thank you for your time and for hearing me out.

I guess I have a question.

Okay, Commissioner Blakely.

Was it not done properly?

No, what I believe was that the roof just needed some repairs, so the shingles were changed out and then just some electrical work.

So to my knowledge, there were no outstanding issues or anything like that, just maintenance it's electrical work isn't really something we had we adjudicate, right?

Correct, but you still have to technically go to the permitting center and acquire a permit for electrical work.

So even though that's not under the purview of our particular office, it's still technically a violation of the city of Houston, I guess, uh code.

And was there a builder involved or was this sort of self-done I assume I can go ahead and ask it uh but I assume that he it was self done.

I mean if I could just speak to what I see as the issue here.

I think on one hand we have a very compelling personal story um that brings our sympathy.

Right but on the other hand we have the question of what kind of precedent would we set if we said okay this time and others um might follow suit so we would then be faced with violating what's essentially our responsibility per the ordinance which is to s to maintain the criteria that govern this historic district.

It's our dilemma point of order?

Yes, Commissioner Broadbeck.

Typically once uh a denial is issued um how what what's the timeline thereafter for enforcement or whatever the applicant may be required to do.

Staff can answer that question.

So there is essentially no timeline.

It's just essentially the next time that him or if he sells the house the next owner when they go to the permitting center they would not be able to obtain a permit until this is resolved.

So technically you could say that he needs to remove the paint and maybe there's not another permit filed for another 30 years.

And so in that case yeah.

That's where I was going thank you.

Uh Director Williamson this painted brick in um Glenbrook Valley has been a big issue um with trying to find some enforcement mechanisms because under uh the building code you don't need a permit to paint your brick so there's no way to really enforce this yes it's in the historic guidelines for the district and um but we've been roundy roundy roundy round trying to come up with a solution on painted brick and unless you catch them red handed and can stop them that's about the only way to do it.

If it's after the fact you could put a re you put a uh denial on the house which is basically an encumbrance that lives with the house but it's a it's a very very difficult situation uh and almost impossible to enforce Commissioner Hill followed by Commissioner Davis.

So he has a couple of bids here for uh remediating this removing the paint so it's it's not a permanent damage to the house it's something that can be undone at some point pressure Davis.

My question is I realize you'll put a tag so it can't be permitted so I was thinking that why aren't these things tied to title um because I see this where um I go in to a home on a listing and I know that and I look it up and there was the COA and they just didn't do it.

And it seems like attaching to a title would make as much sense as to a permit.

And I also just wanted to state for the record that staff did provide the applicant with a list of vendors that uh staff had previously worked for or worked with in the past who did remove paint and the quotes that he received are from the people on that list because it turns out it's a little difficult just to find someone on your own so we were glad to assist him with that list.

I'll move to accept staff's recommendation.

I mean, I don't want to, but I feel like it's a slippery slope, and the the district is defined by its houses.

And if we allow painting of brick and they all become painted, then the district is no more as it was.

So as much as it might be a hardship or not, if he chooses not to do it.

Um that's my motion.

Is there a second?

I blakely seconds.

Any other discussion for I call the vote?

Yes, I would I would ask that um after the vote, if staff could make sure the applicant's fully aware that if this passes, he doesn't need to do anything until such time as he files for some kind of a applies for some other type of permit.

Well, point of order, he is selling the house and moving out of the neighborhood.

So this is honestly kind of understood.

Okay.

It's deterring future buyers and some I we actually received a few calls from our office because they thought that we were the realtor because of the COA sign.

And I had to explain no, we are not a real estate office.

This is the Office of Historic Preservation, and all the buyers said that they really like the paint on the house, which was okay.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Thank you.

All in favor of the motion.

All opposed.

Motion passes, and we now move on on the agenda to item F public comment.

Open the public forum.

Is there any member of the public remaining would like to make a comment?

You're not required to, but you are you but you can uh I just wanted to state that uh on uh 509 Euclid, we never intended on demoing or re fully removal of the tree.

Uh we did want to preserve the tree, however, there were limbs that are obstructing over into our property that we would need to modify in order to get the proper uh structure um uh erected.

Uh but then also to uh we also weren't opposed to uh which I believe was said uh all the windows, the whole front portion of the home, the uh from the front uh to the the integrity of of what you guys want to see, and I and I get it there's a small limb on the on the west side that we uh that we did take out, but we were open to uh any different type of wood modifications, excuse me, siding modifications.

We were keeping all the existing windows, the wood windows are already there.

Uh the new addition uh re uh was also going to uh incorporate wood windows.

Uh everything that we were trying to do was still trying to be in line with what we understand the historic uh preservation to uh accept and want.

Uh it is uh hard to understand a masking of the home when we see multiple homes in the area that has this large footprint.

And again, I'm speaking of woodland heights.

You know, I get Norhill is one and uh historic heights is uh is is is a different um concept as well.

But uh again we weren't trying to change the full-on integrity of the home.

So uh you know, I just wanted wanted that to be clear because I think some people pointed out that you know we're trying to demo the or or trying to remove the tree and damage uh you know we're not trying to kill the tree, we're just trying to move some limbs.

We've been out there, we've talked about it.

Um, and so that that's that's you know, I just want to put that out there.

Sure, thank you.

Mr.

Rapsett, could you still re restate your name just for the record just for the reporting?

Sorry, that is hot.

Thank you.

Okay.

Point of order, Mr.

Chair.

Um, just to clarify during public comment, um that just that dialogue cannot refer to specific applications, correct?

It's just in general.

Well, there are comments, there's no discussion with the applicant.

There's no there are no conversations with the applicant.

Um the applicant, but the he did need to state his name for the record in the stone understood.

But um the applicant, I I believe can stay whatever they want to say.

Um it's just that if for this at this point in the meeting, there's not a dialogue.

We're we're just listening and and re and we're hearing what is stated to us.

And so uh that we're we're not responding to the uh in any way.

And with that, we'll move on to item G, which is comments from the HAHC is there any member of commission wanting to make a comment not hearing any we'll move on to the historic preservation officer report and you see Terrence you weren't done.

Yeah I'm not uh please don't confuse me with the preservation officer I think I have enough duties um at this time uh we do not have a uh preservation officer report then we will move on to item I adjournment thank you very much thank you everyone