2026.

Today's meeting of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission, HAHC is called to order.

I am Commission Chaired David Buch.

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

The Chair is present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Carl Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Blakely.

Not here.

Commissioner Zion.

Escobar.

Present.

Commissioner Hill.

Not here.

Commissioner Sidell.

Present.

Present.

Commissioner Browning.

Present.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

Present.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

Present.

And Deputy Director Warbert Williamson.

Present.

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to start with my chair report, which again will be just a review of the speaker's rules to be observed at this meeting as they were posted.

This meeting can be viewed on HTV, although virtual participation options are not available.

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

Speakers, if you wish to address the Commission on an item, please fill out the speaker's form before the item is called and turn it in to the staff.

Member nearest the front door.

Speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker sign-in form attached to the agenda.

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes time as well as rebuttals.

Non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes of time.

There is not an option for a rebuttal, even if you did not use your full time or your full for your full two minutes.

And with that, I'm going to uh hand this over to Mr.

Williamson for the director's report.

Thank you, Chair Buch.

Good afternoon, Commissioners and members of the public.

I'm Robert Williamson, Acting Secretary of this Commission and Deputy Director Houston Planning and Development Department.

That is there will be no action on the four HAHC policy and procedures items listed on the agenda as items F one through four.

There's no proposed language was provided for review.

A draft of HAHC rules of procedure will be provided ahead of the August 13th HAHC meeting whereby the item will be reconsidered.

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

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the consideration of the June 18th, 2026 HAHC meeting minutes.

Commission members have yet a moment to look through the minutes.

Are there any revisions?

If not, is there a motion to accept the minutes?

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Browning will second.

Okay.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Abstain.

Thank you.

Sorry, who was first motion?

Cosgrove.

Cosgrove.

Commissioner Browning is the second.

Okay.

Now we will move on to item A, public hearing in consideration of and possible action on a protected landmark designation application for the NC Crane House at 1914 Dunstan Road, Houston, Texas, 7705.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Isha Bafsar.

The four protected landmark designations we will introduce today are all located within Southampton Place.

This neighborhood was developed beginning in 1922 with deed restrictions helping to preserve the residential character that Southampton Place continues to enjoy today, creating a community of beautiful homes and harmonious in every detail.

Located near Rice University, these early planning measures helped establish the neighborhood's cohesive architectural character and enduring 1920s feel that continues to define Southampton Place today.

I submit for your consideration item A, the Inns Crane House for the protected landmark designation at 1914 Dunstan Road.

The Ince Crane House is a distinctive example of early 20th century domestic architecture and is two and a half stories, featuring asymmetrical massing and a dynamic composition of intersecting gabled roof forms.

Its continuous shingle cladding, complex roofline, and emphasis on overall massing rather than applied ornament reflect the shingle style, while the overall composition incorporates notable elements of both the shingle and Tudor Revival style.

The Inns Crane's house's first owner, Jeannie Crane, was described as a resilient and independent women who embodied the changing roles of women in the early 20th century, advancing from a stenographer to railroad supervisor.

Later, Leon Inz, founder and owner of the Leon Inns Company, a manufacturer of oil field equipment, became recognized as a distinguished engineer and served on the Texas Tech Board of Directors.

1914 Dunstan Road meets criteria one, four, and five for landmark designation, and criteria one and two for protected landmark designation.

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council the protected landmark designation of the Innscrane House at 1914 Dunstan Road.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

I do have one speaker who has signed up to speak on this item, Mr.

Joe Fisher.

If you could approach the podium and restate your name and the microphone further.

Good afternoon.

I'm Joe Fisher, a South Camp Protected Landmark Project Team.

Can you hear me now?

Thank you.

Speaking on behalf of all today's proposed designations.

Our project team challenged residents.

Do not take our architectural and cultural heritage for granted.

Preserve it.

Designate your home a protected landmark.

The response was incredible, and I'm thrilled that today's agenda proves it.

Researching one of the homes, the Donaldson home at 2306 Tangley, I found its connection to another business leader, CB Delholm, whose home was designated a landmark in 2011.

Delholm chart chaired the Board of Methodist Hospital, served on the Baylor College of Medicines Board, and was active in the Good Samaritan Foundation.

The foundation, still active today, financed its key achievement in $80 million dormitory in today's dollars housing 1,000 nursing students funded partly through Rice Stadium fundraisers featuring Bob Hope, Jerry Lewis, and Mickey Mantle.

And here's that connection.

One of the founders of the foundation was John Wallace Donaldson of 2306 Tangley.

And looking at the view of the Delhom Street today, I'm sorry, the Del Home Landmark, I found that it had been replaced by a concrete slab supporting a home three times the original size.

7,0884 square feet.

This is why all of today's designated protected landmarks matter.

We need visible reminders of Houston's heritage that will be standing for the next generations.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this item?

If so, please.

Um if you could please come to the podium.

Okay, not seeing anyone.

Or is there a motion?

Cosgrove moves to accept staff's recommendation.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Jones seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Then motion passes.

We'll move on to the next item, which is item B, a public hearing in consideration of and possible action on a protected landmark designation application for the Helen and Jesse O.

Webb House at 2322 Dungston Road, Houston, Texas, 7705.

Good afternoon, Commission.

This is Isha Bafsar.

I submit item B for your consideration at 2232 Dunstan Road for the protected landmark designation of the Helen and Jesse O.

Webb House.

This house is a Tudor Revival style residence that was constructed in 1936 by builder Walter Aidon Plaster.

The Helen and Jesse O.

Webb House is a two-story structure.

The primary facade is defined by a steeply pitched front-facing gable intersected by a side gabled wing with its own projecting front-facing gable.

The exterior is clad in patterned brick with a regular stone masonry accenting the base corners of the facade.

The use of textured brick, contrasting stonework, and varied window groupings, a substantial chimney, and steeply pitched multiple facade gables, identify the structure as tutor revival style.

The Webb House is one of the few remaining examples of tutor revival style homes within Southampton Place that has maintained much of its historic integrity.

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

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommends to City Council the protected landmark designation of 2232 Dunstan Road, known as the Helen and Jesse O.

Webb House.

Chair and members of the commission, I am available for any questions.

The homeowners have provided a comment that I will be submitting for public record.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I open the public record.

I don't have anyone sign up to speak, so if you would like to read that statement to the commission.

Is there anyone else in the public who wants to address this item as well?

Not hearing anyone, so if you can read the statement, thank you.

2232 Dunstan Road is a classic of its time with the brick work and limestone particularly attractive.

It is a great privilege for us to live there and the current custodians, and we sincerely hope that the request for designation will be favorably viewed.

And just to clarify, that letter was for 2232 or 232.

2232.

Which I think is item C.

That was item B.

I see.

Okay.

Okay.

I think it's misspelled in the Thank you.

Okay, at this time I'll close the public hearing.

Is there are there any questions of staff?

Or is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation?

Cosgrove moves to accept staff's recommendation.

Is there a second?

Jones seconds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

That motion passes.

And now we'll move on to item C.

Public hearing in consideration of and possible action on a protected landmark designation application for the Meyer Jones House at 2232 Tangley Street, Houston, Texas, 7705.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Emily Ryan.

I submit item C for your consideration at 2232 Tangley Street for the protected landmark designation of the Meyer Jones House.

Constructed in 1925, the Myers Jones the Myers Jones House is a two-story painted brick structure that reflects the colonial revival style through its symmetrical composition and classical detailing.

Its principal facade is organized around a central arched entry flanked by two pairs of windows, and the house is capped by a low-pitched side-gabled roof clad in brown shingles, completing the colonial revival composition.

Alice Sterling Meyer, oh Alice and Sterling Meyer were prominent figures in Houston Society, with Sterling serving as man as a managing partner of the Cortland Improvement Company and as partner in law firm Campbell and Meyer.

In 1964, the Jones family bought the house and became the longest standing owners.

2232 Tangley Street meets criteria one, four, and five for landmark designation and criteria one and two for protected landmark designation.

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council the protected landmark designation of 2232 Tangley Street Houston, Texas, 77005, known as the Meyer Jones House.

Chair and members of the Commission, I'm available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing.

Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item?

Don't have anyone sign up to speak currently.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing.

Is there a motion or questions of staff?

Cosgrove moves to accept staff's recommendation.

Is there a second?

Jones seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

And motion passes.

We'll move on to item D.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Commission.

Again, this is staff person Emily Ryan.

I submit item D for your consideration at 2306 Tangley Street for the protected landmark designation of the May and John Wallace Donaldson House.

Constructed in 1931, the May and John Wallace Donaldson House is a two-story structure that exhibits the defining characteristics of the colonial revival style, including symmetrical organization, brick cladding, multi-paned double hung sash windows, a classically articulated central entry, and a side gabled roof with dormers.

The exterior retains a high degree of integrity in massing materials and architectural detailing.

One of the original homeowners, John Wallace Donaldson, who moved to the property in 1931, possesses historic significance for his active role as a civic and business leader.

Donaldson founded and led the Donaldson Lumber Company, a major supplier of building materials, and served as president of the Retail Lumber Dealers Association, guiding the industry through wartime regulations and post-war expansion.

He also served as a founding trustee of the Good Samaritan Foundation, which has supported the advancement of nursing education since 1951.

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

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council the protected landmark designation of 2306 Tangley Street, Houston, Texas, 77005, known as the May and John Wallace Donaldson House.

Chair and members of the Commission, I'm a bit I am available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Not hearing anyone.

I'll close the public hearing.

Uh Commission members, are there questions of staff or a motion?

Cosgrove moves to accept staff's recommendations.

Is there a second?

Joan seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion passes.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to item E, consideration and possible action on the following applications for certificates of appropriateness.

One or more items may be taken in one motion as consent items.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and the public.

I'm staff member Terrence Jackson.

Today staff recommends the following items for action.

Per staff recommendations in one motion.

Items E1, 202, East 31st and a half street.

Demolition of single family residence in the Stark Weather Historic District District.

No recommendation.

E2509 Euclide Street, alteration addition in the Woodland Heights Historic District, approval with conditions.

E3, 310 West 13th Street, alteration addition in the Houston Heights West Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

E4 938 Harvard Street, addition of a garage or a carport.

In the Houston Heights South Historic District, recommendation denial.

Item E5, 7923, Glen Alta Street, alteration addition in the Glenbrook Valley Historic District.

Recommendation approval with conditions.

Item E6 901 Commerce Street, alteration of a sign in the Main Street Market Square, and that's denial of a COA issuance of a COR.

Item E7 3415, White Oak Drive, alteration of a sign in the Houston Heights South Historic District recommendation approval.

The planning and development department requests approval for all staff recommendations for these preceding items.

Items, there are no items for individual consideration.

We are here for any questions.

Thank you.

Commission members, are there any of these seven items you would like to pull for individual discussions?

Number one.

Okay.

Is there any other items?

Okay, at this time I'll open the public hearing.

Um I do also have a speaker who assigned it for item two.

If you would like to pull the item for individual discussion, let me know if you are supportive of staff's recommendation.

Commit Mr.

Chair, I'll I'll go ahead and pull it to give that person an opportunity to speak.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah, I have two.

Okay.

Um, so the consent agenda that I have, I'll close the public hearing, Commission members is item three, five, six, and seven.

Is there a motion to accept the revised consent agenda and the recommendations by staff?

Conscript so moved.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

C.

Smith.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you.

Those items pass.

And we'll now move on to item one.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC.

This is again Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item E1 at 202, East 31st and a half street in the Starkweather Historic District.

The property included a historic 962 square foot one-story, sing one-story wood single family craftsman style residence constructed in circa 1930, situated on a 5,000 square foot interior lot.

In October of 2025, the contributing structure was demolished by the applicants due to there being no historic holds on the property, a permit was issued.

One staff was notified by a resident of the district.

Staff went into ILM went into the ILMS system and placed the historic holds on the five properties that did not have historic holds on them.

The properties were 202, 204, 210, 213, and 215 East 31st and a half street.

The applicant is requesting the approval of the demolition of a contributing home in a historic district.

Staff received two public comments in opposition.

See attachments.

Staff has no recommendation.

Due to the demolition of the contributing structure structure, the demolition must be approved by the HHC.

Chair members of the HHC, I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

At this time I will open the public hearing.

I do have three speakers who have signed up for this item.

The first speaker is Tanya Wells.

To be followed by Dr.

Sabrina.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Tanya Wells, and I am the executive director of the Independence Heights Redevelopment Council.

I come before you again.

Commissioners, today, you are not simply reviewing our certificate of appropriateness.

You are deciding whether Houston's historic preservation ordinance has real meaning or whether it can be circumvented without meaningful consequence.

The home at 202 East 31st and a half street was a contributing historic resource within the Starkweather Historic District.

Before the required certificate of appropriateness process had been completed, that home was demolished.

The city did not stop the project until the error was brought to its attention.

By then, the historic house was already gone.

That home cannot be replaced.

This was not a situation where the property's historic status was unknown.

The property was identified as being within the Starkweather Historic District through the purchase disclosures, HCAD records, and the historic district signage in the community.

The preservation requirements were public and documented.

The owner disregarded them.

The question before you is will you reward him for the violation of the historic preservation ordinance?

Disturbing is the city failed to protect this historic resource and not openly acknowledge that failure to the community.

Equally disturbing is the city planning director left a voicemail stating that the historic the independence heights redevelopment council had no standing in this matter.

The Historic Heights Redevelopment Council did not just participate in this Starkweather Historic District designation.

It initiated, it organized, and it led the effort that resulted in its designation.

Just like the residents of Southampton Place that desire that their homes and their aesthetic lasts for generations, so do we in independence heights.

And I asked for additional info uh time to complete my statement.

Motion to extend speakers' time by one minute.

Is there a second?

I was grabbed seconds.

I asked I asked that you respect I respectfully ask you to deny this certificate of appropriateness.

I asked that no redevelopment of pro uh proposal be approved and that the city fully re-enforce its historic preservation ordinance.

Historic designation must mean more than words on paper.

The residents of Independence Heights are demanding accountability, transparency, equal enforcement of the historic preservation ordinance, and respect for the history of Houston's first incorporated BRAC municipality.

Could this happen in in River Oaks?

Could it happen in your neighborhood?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dr.

Sir Brennan.

Followed by Amy Den.

Document camera, please.

Okay.

Those houses are constructed.

And if you could restate your name in the microphone for the record, thank you.

Good afternoon, Dr.

Sabrina Norman.

First and foremost, I want to again thank you for the opportunity to express the concern of my street, the historical street, and the uh descendants who live upon that street.

Um want to make one correction on last the last meeting.

I requested quickly that we consider a garden.

I was reprimanded on that.

I met with the older generation on my street, and they said no that we want the house to be replaced.

We do not want, we do not want a garden, we want a house on there, and we want to again halt in construction because of the legal demolition of the house that was torn down.

I am going to show you some pictures quickly of the residents who now live there.

I am a descendant.

Most of us moved back in to make sure that our parents and our grandparents' houses were protected.

So these are what the houses are looking like now.

If you notice they're landscaped, they're well kept.

The young man or whomever have bought the property there at 202 East 31st and Half Street, he has not been cutting the lawn.

I have pictures of that.

He only cut it today.

It was only cut today.

We have been cutting the line on the upkeep.

I'm saying that again.

So this is where our landscape, and this is this is it.

This is where he cut it today.

This is a picture of him or the owners cutting it today.

I have pictures of them not cutting it.

We've been cutting it.

We want, we don't want anything in that neighborhood.

Motion to extend speakers' time by one minute.

Yeah, we don't want any new.

Okay.

Okay.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

No, no new construction.

If you're not invested in the property when you first bought it, we can imagine what we're going to have up there.

This is what that's my house, 82 years old.

We do not want any construction done there.

No new construction on that house because it was illegally demolished.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And good trouble.

One moment.

Is there a question of the speaker?

I do have a question.

Um were you referring to um Commissioner Escobar?

Um, were you referring to two separate houses?

Uh the one of discussion last time, and this when you said the elders said that they did not want a garden, they want something to be replaced and then extended.

Yeah, instead of yeah, clarification.

You ended with we don't want any new construction.

Can you I have to do that?

Let me do the clarification there.

We're not requesting that um a garden.

For which address they're referring to?

To go to East 31st and a half street for the house that was demolished.

We're requested that no new construction be placed on that property.

Also, they're saying that they do not want a garden there.

Okay.

Okay, because I went back to the move.

It would be maintained in mode.

It's to be maintained in mode.

No, but we are requesting that we be allowed an opportunity to have something placed there for neighborhood use.

Like a house for like a meeting place, because we have nowhere to meet.

Our senior citizens have nowhere to meet.

But as far as construction on their property, no new development on that property.

But but if you're gonna meet somewhere, you're gonna have to do some new construction to create that facility, no?

No.

No.

No, we're gonna find a house.

Uh we're gonna find the old house is not going to be torn down.

This is a historical house and place it on that property.

Oh, okay.

I see what you're saying.

So not new construction, but there will be some.

Yes, it has a rehab structure, yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, I just I didn't know that.

I missed a piece.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker who has signed up is Amy Den.

If you could restate your name in the microphone, thank you.

Yes, hello, good afternoon.

My name is Amy Den.

I'm an attorney at Texas Community Law Partners.

I've been representing the Independence Heights community and specifically Independence Heights Redevelopment Council since 2017.

Presentation one, please.

Um sorry and in support of the community, including uh my efforts to help uh Tanya DeBose around the North Houston Independence Heights um the highway redevelopment project up there, and that's when I first learned about the historic um importance of independence heights to the city of Houston and how important and instrumental um Tanya DeBose and the IHRC were in establishing the Stark Weather District.

It is very important to the community's legacy and the fact that this house was torn down without any protection by the city that's implemented under the historic preservation ordinance, just really is upsetting given my work with Tanya.

We have some we have submitted supp uh written comments uh that were filed with the commission on July 17, uh July 14th, and this is a supplement.

The applicants here to ask forgiveness.

The property is no longer there.

They would not qualify for the certificate of appropriateness if they were asking permission.

If we went back to the time frame when the property stood in existence, it would not qualify.

The city's own acknowledgement of that in the documents that are before the commission show that it does not meet the criteria that are under historic preservation ordinance, yet the city refuses to make a recommendation to the commission on what it should do.

Well, I'll make a recommendation.

This application is incomplete.

The omissions of the available evidence to the applicant speaks volumes.

There's no seller disclosure, which would have required disclosure not only of the condition of the property at the time it was purchased, but also that it was part of this historic district.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor.

I because this application does not meet the criteria.

This commission can't approve it.

Why the city hasn't made that recommendation already?

It's leading letting the community down a second time.

Why did the city let this happen?

I don't know.

It really hurt the community.

It really hurt me, and I'm sure Tanya is hurting in her grave.

We don't even know when the property was torn down.

There's still a date discrepancy in the record that's before the commission, and that date is very important because there's a two-year penalty from the date that the uh uh property is torn down that's in place.

And they did not even provide any information regarding the the service that tore it down as far as when they did it or whatever.

And in fact, the community member that was here that just spoke, Dr.

Norman says that the date was December 4th, 2025, not October, as in front of you.

The applicant's thing is is silent as to the exact date.

So what penalty should be assessed against the applicant, the full extent of section 33-203D, which require two-year penalty and moratorium on building the lot.

Here the applicant knows better.

We had a seller's disclosure statement that was part of the documents that he should have received at the time of contract.

We even snapshot at HCAD, which shows that the property is historic for anybody just wanting to take a look.

He wanted to redesign this neighborhood in his own vision, which has little respect for the Stark Weather District that was established by the HRC in 2014.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

To be followed by Jeff Sturman.

Good afternoon.

My name is Darnell Peters.

Thank you for hearing me today.

I want to be direct.

But I'm not here to make mistakes.

I will say a demolition permit was issued by the city of Houston.

Um and it wasn't identified as historic on the title, sellers seller's disclosure or appraisal at that time.

What I want you to understand is why I'm here.

I didn't come into this district to erase this history.

I came because I believe in what the neighbor neighborhood can become, excuse me.

I've also purchased and now live in this neighborhood on 32nd Street.

That's the intent behind everything I do.

Um not to bypass the rules, but to uh protect the strict district.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next speaker is Jeff Sturman.

If you could restate your name in the microphone and confirm my pronunciation.

Yes, Jeffrey Sturman.

Um just want to uh to state that, you know, if this was the demolition was on accidentally were unaware of the status, as an you know, forgive it.

Um, we would love to build something back that contributes to the neighborhood.

That would be our plan uh to try to build a contributing structure, or even maybe move an existing home of the lot so a family could benefit from it.

Um like I said, ignorance isn't an excuse.

Uh like Darnell said, is the seller's disclosure, which we can provide a copy of.

I'm sorry, we've never applied for this before.

Uh so it was my fault.

Um and we've built many homes in the neighborhood on 35th Street, 36th Street, 33rd Street, 32nd and a half street, and we've never uh exalt with a historic district.

So uh we're very, very sorry for what was done, and that obviously will not make the house come back, but we love to you know put something on the property that way somebody can live in it, whether it's like I said, it's us building a new contributing structure or even moving an older home uh on the lot.

Um, you know, just wanted to go ahead and all right.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would speak on this item that has not signed up?

Okay, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Commission members.

Um do you have questions for staff?

Or legal.

Browning.

Mr.

Browning.

Um why isn't there a staff recommendation?

Well, so there is no staff recommendation because this is a very complicated um project.

Um there are uh I'll call them provisions in the ordinance that give clear um suggestions on what the HHC can rule.

And because of that, um staff decided that we did not want because of the severity of this, as you can see.

Um staff did not want to make a ri recommendation that was gonna appear too lean one way or the other.

Because this is something that staff felt that the HHC should fully discuss uh without a recommendation from us because if I could get the document camera, please.

So in this highlighted section, this is as um I'm sorry, I forgot her name.

Um but as she mentioned, the ordinance states that um the HHC well it kind of instructs what the H H C or gives options to what the H C can do.

Um there are uh two-year two-year suspension of construction.

There's a 10-year um, there's you know, you guys can choose to have them build back what was there.

Um you could say, you know, hey, we don't we I don't want to say we don't care, but you could say that they could build back whatever it is that they please, right?

So to answer your question, staff just felt it was in the best interest of the owners and the residents for us not to make a recommendation and to have you guys discuss this, you know, and give you all the information that we've been provided so that you can you know decide without any influence from staff if uh if you will.

Another question.

If I may follow up, thank you for that, and thank you for putting that on the screen.

I remember that from one of our earlier meetings, so I do appreciate that.

It seems like the issue ultimately boils down to knowledge about whether it was known or unknown, whether this was a historic district.

I appreciate the staff's position and I understand it.

In your investigation, what have you uncovered about whether it was known or unknown that this was a historic district?

So um in talking to the owners, the owners were not aware that this was in a historic district.

Now I haven't seen you know sellers disclosures or anything like that that were previously mentioned.

I've only seen what's been provided by the owner in the report.

Um what I can tell you is that when Dr.

Sabrina Norman called and told us that the house has been across the street from her has been demolished.

Um we immediately started panicking because we needed to see what happened because once we found out that a permit was issued, then we needed to see how such a thing would happen.

Um in our investigation, as far as that is concerned, what staff determined is that when this district was created before any of these staff members were were uh employed by the city of Houston, there were five houses that did not receive the historic holds on the properties, um, which I mentioned 202, 204.

Um I don't I can't remember off the top of my head, but 215, 213, and 210.

Um so um immediately we went in, put the whole uh the historic holds on those properties.

Now that's how we got here because when they went to apply for the permit for their new construction, the historic hold was triggered, and then therefore they had to then contact us, and then that's when we were able to have the conversations and let them know that this was historic property and um yeah, but it's just according to from my conversations with the owners and the agents, they were not aware that you know uh East 31st and a half street was a historic district.

Sorry, last question.

That's fine.

Would we benefit by providing staff an additional 30 days to conduct that investigation into sellers' disclosures, publicly available information, information on websites, those types of things to determine knowledge.

Um I mean, I I don't think so, honestly, because this they've been waiting on this for a long time.

This thing has been pushed back for several several months, and and um it was mainly because the owner had to take their time to get the information that they gathered.

Um if you guys so choose to um give us an additional 30 days to do so, um we would definitely take it, but um honestly I think that I I can't speak for Dr.

Norman, but I'm I'm pretty sure Dr.

Norman and the residents are looking for some sort of resolution.

Um I'm pretty sure the owners are looking for some sort of resolution because like I said, this is I think they deferred it.

I think they deferred it maybe two or three times before we even got here.

So um the property has been sitting for months um or the lots been sitting vacantly for months, so I am sure um that everyone involved would like to just move on, but again, it's totally up to you guys how you would want to thank you, Terrence.

I think you know, I think we we have a procedure we need to we'll we'll be going through because the application or the what was submitted in in this application was whether or not it merited a C of A of demolition and that we need to have a discussion, but we have three speakers that signed up.

So first will be Commissioner Davis, followed by Commissioner Seidel, and and then last um Commissioner Escobar.

I'd like to add a few dates.

Um because I did a little bit back research.

I know you're shocked by that.

Um this house, um Ruby Rose, I think passed in like 2021, and uh her grandson and her uh son and grandson inherited the house.

And uh her grandson and her uh son and grandson inherited the house.

Um they put it on the market on August 14th of 2025.

The agent knew it was historic district, and I um and the uh how are uh uh Howard Rose, um, they knew that it was a historic district.

Whether they put that information on a seller's disclosure or not, that's um you know you have a cause of action against a seller who does not completely disclose what um what is going on.

But um it went under contract in 23 days, and it was initially under contract with MAF 14th investments.

They are a wholesaler.

And um within a couple of days of straight striking the uh purchase amount, it was then purchased by Bayou City Strategic Realty.

Um I suppose in that couple of days, they may not have done the homework that was done during the time that the the house was on the market.

Um the listing in HAR shows it as a restricted property, both on the public and on the private side.

Now you provided a lot of information, um, including a title commitment, but that was not the final title commitment, that was the title commitment um from the uh original signers of the contract MAF 14.

So I don't know what the title commitment actually said.

However, if your title commitment didn't say that on it, there's another avenue for you to go back to.

Um and they have deeper pockets.

So what and I've got a lot more dates, but I think at the end of the day, I think there was adequate information available.

Um that they should have, if they didn't know, they should have known.

But the other question I have is that there's actually two lots, and I see that Bayou City strategic realty sold one of the lots.

And um, and so I'm not sure what their what the proposal then is if they don't own both of the lots because their COA covers the full um the full lot, the full two lots.

Okay, um I'll try to um I'll try to uh answer all of that.

Um so to the first point, um I can only go based off of what is provided to me by the applicant and everything that you have in the staff report.

If we can go back to the staff report, please.

Um everything provided in the staff report is what um everything that was provided for to me is what I provided in the staff report.

Now, what I can tell you in my conversations with the owners, and I hope I don't mess this up, and you guys can correct me if I do, but the way I understand it from from my conversations that we had with them is that yes, it was a wholesaler, but um they came in and it it I mean I guess the way to describe it with there was a third party, it was being sold to someone else that fell through, and then they kind of swooped in and got it.

That's what I was told, or that's the way I understood it.

So um as far as the investigations or research that you've done, um I mean I I'm not privy to that information or to those systems that you probably got that information to.

Um, but to the second point as far as the lot.

So um originally there was uh they were planning on doing two structures um until um the historic hole was placed on the property, and then you can go to the very end.

They were proposing to do um a new construction where I'm assuming that the lots where it's to remain um as a single lot um or not to be replatted.

Yeah, this right here is what um was the last proposal that I saw.

So um, yeah, those those are those are the comments I have to that.

Um I appreciate the information that you have provided, but um of course, yeah, I just I mean I just that's a rabbit hole.

I don't I don't know if uh uh um it would be appreciated if I went down though.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Davis.

Okay.

Commissioner Sudell, before uh you ask your question, I have received one more speaker's uh request from the public.

And at this time, just to give more information for for our deliberations, I want to open the public hearing for Mr.

Russell Etherton.

If you could reset your name in the microphone, sure.

Sorry about that.

Uh yes, my name is Russell Etherton.

I'm Councilmember Castillo's chief of staff, District H, of which this house is or uh this property is in.

Um in speaking with the council member, he did request a delay um on voting on this item.

Uh there are still some questions that he would like answered uh or would would like to get answered before a decision is made.

And so he did ask that I come and bring that to your attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing again.

And Commissioner Seidel, you have a question for staff?

I don't know if it's uh question for staff in particular, it's more of discussion opening up to the commission itself.

I think got a conundrum, clearly.

We cannot put the house back on the property.

I am viewing this as a builder who applies for permits often as a logistical misstep in the system.

If there's not a historic hold, and you apply for a demolition permit and it's granted and you tear the house down.

I mean, I know that sounds very simple, but I I think we could spend probably the rest of the evening trying to dig through paperwork.

Who knew what, when, where, and why?

But I really would like to encourage that the protocols that prevent this kind of thing from happening are taken a look at.

I think we had a situation about three meetings ago where we had a C of R because there was a note that was added to a drawing that didn't get picked up in the review.

All right.

I mean, I think that's that's a key component to all of this.

You know, I I if I just heard the current owners proposing and I'm seeing what their their proposal is a home, a single home that it's it's it look, it's not the house that was there.

That house is gone.

We nobody here can make it come back.

Uh I think if they're willing to uh adjust course given the scenario and and build something that is like in kind and would pass uh clearly there's a violation on the demolition, right?

I mean, that that I don't think we can undo.

Um, but instead of uh cramming, you know, moving forward and saying I still want to try to maximize my my return on this situation by putting two homes on it.

Um they're open to you know basically to the best of the ability, recreate the house that was there.

And I think that's what we all ought to consider to me.

We review all the time here whether a new construction house conforms and you know we we we put it through the ringer uh and approve or or deny the construction of of the houses for the simple fact that we're trying to keep the character.

The house is gone.

They're proposing something that is getting pretty close to to meeting the character of the neighborhood.

I think we ought to consider that.

That's my comment.

Thank you.

Next question.

Uh please.

Yeah, so the the proposal I want to make sure that the commission understands that the new construction is not on the agenda that is only in the packet because it has to be.

Um so I just want to make sure that that is stated.

Right.

And I think after these questions, we're still going to be evaluating the application that before us about whether or not demolition was warranted.

But um before that, because there this there are so many angles to this, I think it's wise to add these questions.

So, Commissioner Escobar, followed by Commissioner Broadback.

Uh thank you.

Um my question, and this may require some research, and I agree with you.

I think all parties probably want to have a decision.

Heard that council member Castillo's office would like to have a pause.

Um my curiosity is um I heard the applicant mentioned that they have developed on a couple blocks over multiple houses in this neighborhood in this area.

Um, whether it's the applicant, the owner, the wholesalers working before or after, however, the transaction is being passed around.

My curiosity is has any one of those properties ever had to have any type of historic approval?

Basically, like is this the first time ever you've working in independence heights ever had to have uh address a property that had any kind of historic designation?

Um and he he was willing to stand and answer.

But that would be kind of my first question.

Right.

So I and uh and so as far as um like East 35th or East 32nd, those are not part of the historic districts.

Dark weather is um weather is oh yeah, well, go ahead.

Yes.

Stark weather is only one street.

Um so um, you know, it's it's a bit I mean, we don't have any other historic districts like it, right?

Right.

One it's it's um only the African American historic district that we have, and two, it's it's a just a single street, right?

It also, which we uh found out in discussion uh recently, doesn't have the historic street markers, but there is a sign as provided.

So um yes, so Independence Heights, however, is a national register of historic places.

That unfortunately is not regulated by the city and does not require them to you know seek um historic preservation approval or HAC approval to have projects altered or new construction or demolition or whatever the case may be.

Anything outside of that boundary um unfortunately can be built um or torn down uh without our or you guys' involvement.

So my curiosity would be for the applicant specifically, and I I think he was wanting to answer or address it is have you never ever come up against a project where you had to have any kind of historic preservation component if you if you'll approach the the podium, I will open the public hearing so you can respond to the question.

If you can restate your name for the record as well, thank you.

Jeffrey Sturman.

So to your your uh question over the dozen plus homes, we've never had this happen before.

You've you've never had any historic, you've never dealt with any historic home in your development experience.

When I first started doing houses, I did a lot in these done that had historic character, and we tried to renovate them and preserve the character.

And if our demolition permit would have been denied and we've been informed at that time that it was historic, we would have would have been gladly you know changed course and renovated it to the historic character.

Okay, can I ask you how you missed um the agent knowing and being aware of the fact that it was a historic stated on the documentation?

Oh whole salary taxes that I have this property under for for the this price, do you want it?

I then my numbers said okay.

Never looked at HR.

So I just ran my numbers, I buy over all the time.

Uh so then in that instance, I mean the the failure in due diligence is on your part.

Yes.

Yeah, I failed to be able to do that.

But you do two set you acknowledge.

Yeah, I acknowledge.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll close the public hearing.

Uh Commissioner Broadbeck, you had a question?

Uh yes, uh, quick clarification, either for legal or staff.

Um the request from the folks in the neighborhood that spoke earlier was that uh uh some new house would be found historic in nature.

I'm gonna I'm guessing and placed on the property.

Is that what maybe I'm not gonna do that?

Please please don't address the commission.

Um you could approach the um the microphone and I can open the public hearing if you wanted to speak.

But we need all conversations to be recorded for the public who are not here in person.

If you could just briefly restate your request, what I'm getting at is I want to find out if what the neighborhood's asking for is even within our purview.

Okay.

Um and then and then we can move forward.

I'll make a statement after that.

Yes.

Um, uh let Council um Dr.

Sabrina Norman.

I was on that committee.

I have to say this.

I was on the committee, the original committee, who worked very hard with it was three of us to so you need to know that part to make sure that that was a historical uh street.

I actually got signatures from the roles on that street.

But let me I'm confused because when I spoke, when I when I realized that they were demolishing it, I couldn't believe it.

I talked to Mr.

Jackson.

He told me, so we're going to do this for the sake of transparency.

How could this have happened when the Rolls House is on your website?

He told me, I'm doing this for transparency now.

He said that that had been an update in the software for identifying the homes on Sarkweather Street.

And all the houses had not been updated on your new software.

So all the houses originally, let me say this to you.

All of those houses were originally because I sat there and we had to sign up on the paperwork, and everybody in the neighborhood, we knew that those houses could never be demolished.

And we could never do anything on those houses before going through the historical.

So now he's telling me years later, that the software identifying the historical houses have been updated.

And that there were houses when I talked to him that were not on there.

So there is no misunderstanding here about who was designated or not.

Additionally, there were forms sent out to everybody on that street that said, hey, if you do not want your house, you know, you had to sign off whether or not you wanted your house to be designated as a historical house.

If you didn't sign that form, it was still going to be a historical house.

So I'm really confused when I'm hearing this conversation, as if we dropped the ball, we didn't drop the ball.

The software did.

You told me y'all did it.

He might be mishearing some of that part because that's not what he's actually getting towards.

Oh, so what your question is, we don't want them to look, we don't want we we want to reclaim that property.

The redevelopment of the uh uh independent house, we want to reclaim that property.

We want it back to us, and we're not asking you or anybody else to put a house on that.

We will find a house and the funds to put it back on there.

We reclaiming our property.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um for staff or legal, is that request within our purview?

Even if we wanted to, could we do it?

Yeah.

So I think what bef what's before the commission right now is a COA for demolition.

So we have yet to review and discuss which which is and I promise I'm going to get there.

So once uh the Commission makes a determination on whether the criteria for a COA of demolition is met.

Depending on what that finding is, a COA for uh relocation of a home could be something that could be considered.

Um it it really depends on where we go.

I'm going to guess that we're going to go with that, we're going to find that the COA for demolition, the criteria for that is not met.

And so then it in my analysis of the code has been that, so now you reach an impasse.

So it two points.

So you can either choose to issue a COR for the reconstruction or a uh restoration of the building that was there, or you can choose, no, we're not going to issue a COR.

The two-year slash 10-year moratorium period is going to be what this property cannot be developed for those periods.

Um the COR, if you go if the Commission does choose to issue the COR, um, they can condition it upon the reconstruction or the restoration.

Whether that extends to relocation of a house from another historic from another contributing structure, that's unclear.

Um my understanding is that would have to be part of a new application.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

So I'll make a brief statement for the Commission.

Um obviously there's a lot of tensions in the room.

I also hear agreement though on one thing, which is that I don't think anyone thinks this should have happened.

We shouldn't be here right now.

Um Commissioner Davis, I heard you hear you loud and clear that um if people didn't know they should have.

But that being as that being as it is, we're here.

It got torn down.

Um I heard from the applicants that they're willing to work with the neighborhood to find something the neighborhood can live with.

We also have a member of council asking us to defer.

So what I'd like to throw out there, I'm not going to make a motion, but what if we were to defer with a request that the applicant and the neighborhood sit down and I'll go ahead and nominate uh council person Castillo to facilitate that discussion.

That's my proposal.

Just one note.

I think sounds great.

That if a COA is been deferred three times, it's considered uh accepted.

So just want to I know we haven't reached that point, but just want to keep that on your forefront of your mind.

Can you remind us?

Where are we?

Yeah.

Where are we in this list in this count?

I think this is the first time we've seen this COA for demolition.

It was deferred by applicant, which doesn't count to that uh Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And for the audience, um, if you have already spoken in the public hearing, unless there's a question from Commission, there's you're not allowed to speak again.

So I want to remind the Commission that we're here to take action on the um the application before us, which is um based on what the applicant submitted, was there grounds to demolish the structure?

And that determination is not um that's my understanding from a legal standpoint.

That determination doesn't has no bearing on whether there was a hold or not a hold in the city software system.

It does has no bearing on whether the applicant knew or didn't know that it was a story.

We we are asked, does the information that we have been provided to meet the level that would allow us to vote for demolition?

And we need to review that, discuss that at this stage in this conversation.

Umce you determined what your thoughts are on that, then we can discuss other uh items, including deferral.

But we we need to still address that main item.

Mr.

Davis, you you have a question.

I can address it.

In your microphone is on.

Yes.

Um if what were to decide today is whether we would have granted a demolition, a COA for demolition, the answer is no.

There's no way to get around that.

But I would make a motion because I think the the ordinance is incredibly clear on this.

And I would make a motion to uh deny the COR or COA or however they presented it.

Uh sorry, you you're saying you would make a motion to deny the request for demolition.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah, and I think that it's important that we perhaps just go through um what that is based on.

Um I've heard, for instance, the application is incomplete.

I've heard that it doesn't meet the requirement.

Um Commissioner Cosgrave, you have been our expert all these years that I've said on this commission.

And I'm I'm just curious if you have any thoughts to share with the commission.

Thank you.

I mean I would point of order.

Is there a motion on the floor?

There's a motion.

If you can someone can make a second, but then I'll go to discussion.

You you I'm not looking to make a second.

Before we can do anything else, there's a motion on the floor.

Can the motion be repeated?

I would make a motion to deny the COA for the generalization.

And um if if I may ask a question of legal so um, there's a request for demolition, and then there's what we where we go from here, right?

So um I know that the council member's office is also requested referral, but I'm not exactly sure what the deferral is for, the vote for demolition or the vote for what we might do if that vote were to go a certain way.

Um because I think that uh to council member Davis's point, the determination of whether demolition would be allowable or allowed by this commission based on the evidence presented to us as if it were still standing today, is can only be made by this commission and still needs to be determined.

Um that doesn't preclude what happens next, right?

And I think if if I had a question for the the council members, um uh Mr.

Etherton, if I I have a question for you if you don't mind.

Um I have to call for a second uh soon.

Open public hearing.

My question for you is simply um we need to vote on whether or not we believe there is substantial evidence to support demolition.

That doesn't have any bearing.

Well, it that's that doesn't that vote is all all the options that we have before us are still before us uh after that vote and and we can potentially defer any of those items.

What did they call it?

If there's consensus to do so, as has also been suggested.

But um I just want to make it clear to the council member that we are we do need to vote on whether or not the standard was met for demolition as a formality so that we can work through this process and step forward.

Sure.

That I think I understand.

Uh that I understand.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I'll close the public hearing.

Um I want to ask for a second for the motion and then I'll have further discussion before we vote.

Point of clarification?

Yes.

Um if we were to vote to deny an application to demolish something that's already been demolished, that wouldn't be a forward moving action because we'd still be where we were.

Is that we we still have all of the options before us, but we need to determine, for instance, if the application if just satisfies the requirements that it was so far deteriorated that it was that it could not be rehabilitated that it met all met the standards within our ordinance to allow for a demolition.

And there was consensus amongst this body hypothetically that uh we could grant approval for the demolition that has already occurred.

Okay, so but but we're voting as if it's still standing at this point because it's immaterial to what has happened.

Did it meet that standard?

And that's what kind of what I was asking Commissioner Kosgrove just to state, because that's that question is separate from what where do we go after that?

Okay.

Um so that we can um start to discuss the motion.

Um I'll go ahead and second, but as of this minute, I'm I'm not on I'm not on board with denying it as of this minute, but let's let's go forward to discussion.

Okay.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Yeah.

So I mean, I think the most important part of the whole application is the opening sentence of their application, which is they have no they do not possess photographs or documentation evidence evidencing that the former structure was seriously deteriorator to an unusable state or beyond reasonable repair.

I mean, that pretty much makes the decision for us that we would not have granted this application to demolish the house.

Um I think where I get hung up is if we say if we're saying no no to the demolition, is it then in a legal demolition since it has been demolished?

And at that point we have to consider what the ordinance allows us.

And I don't know whether it's we can say no to the demolition and then address that at a future date.

And maybe legal can answer that.

Or do we need to specify today that it was illegally demolished and we are denying the I guess COR for its demolition?

Um I don't see too much clarity in the code, but I would think that you should dispose of it fully today.

So if you're denying the a the COA for demolition, you're also deciding on how to approach a COR for reconstruction.

So if you're deciding that no, we're not going to issue a COR for reconstruction or for any other relocation or whatever, um you're letting 203D kick in where there's two years before anything can be built or 10 years, depending on the size of the structure.

So if there's an unlawful uh demolition.

So if this body determines that the demolition was unlawful, they didn't meet the criteria, um, then it has a decision to make of what whether they want to allow for the SCOR to be granted um to uh to you know actually put something back and there's options there, or not to issue the COR at its discretion.

Um in which case 203D would be live.

You know, what 203 would allow, which is the COR for reconstruction or all those alternatives.

Um it basically says that it's basically the commission saying what you did was wrong, you didn't meet the criteria, but we're going to um have you fix what you did wrong.

Um and when you fix it, you've now um you've now uh removed the permit moratorium and 203D.

So they could potentially come back um with uh some sort of COA for new construction, the though I doubt that would get very far because the COR would put something on that um on that property.

Um kind of complicated sorry, I'm not explaining it very well.

So you we could not you're not saying that it would be okay for us to do it in two separate parts, whereas we denied the demolition.

I mean, because that puts a lot of I mean, we have to now make a decision on how we're going to move forward with this property.

And then I'm not a hundred percent sure that we are allowing the community and the owner and the councilman to have this opportunity to discuss like if I I think for me this is very community driven and that they you know the parties involved need to to I guess um happy is not the right word, but if you know tolerable of the of the solution that we come up with, and if allowing them time to do that will allow us to make a better informed decision, then I would be more supportive of that.

But I am a hundred percent supportive that this was an illegal demolition and that it should be denied.

Uh going forward, I'm not I would need to see the options and I would really want the community and the the owner to So if we're keeping these votes separate or sorry, combined, um and we want to include the community, which I'm all supportive of, you know, I think that's that'd be great.

Um then I think that this COA for demolition should be deferred so that we have time to determine what that COR is actually going to consist of.

Um Mr.

Davis followed Savel uh do you have any other questions with this new information?

Um, excuse me, before you start, um I have a message from the good folks at HTV.

I'm not trying to cut you off and be rude.

Um they're asking that once you guys are called on and you start speaking, if you could turn your uh name tag, your name uh badge back down because it's covering your face for the camera, and they want to give you guys a space on camera.

Okay.

Well let's flip it around and say, okay, we did, and we approved the COA.

That would, as far as I can tell, give them permission then to do whatever they wanted because we would have approved the COA where they demolished the house.

That's how I am reading that.

Am I wrong?

No, you're correct.

Well, uh I'm I'm confused.

So if this commission decided this the criteria for a demolition was met, um then if it determined that.

And if that was it's a big if um if that was determined, then um yeah, the per that applicant could come to the next meeting with a COA for new construction because they've been given by getting uh their COA for demolition approved, they've been given um like permission to continue building.

But they could build whatever they want.

Um it's in a complied with the ordinance.

I mean, you have to keep in mind that if we give them a COR, we're saying it was okay you demolish the house, now build what you want.

And that's I'm not on board with that.

And they could build two houses.

Um that was the original intent.

And I took a drive over there to look at the district, and I saw several um houses where and they were the newer construction where they were two on one lot.

They were still um his kind of historic, but they were just real small.

And you guys can correct me if I'm I'm wrong about that.

So we could see multiple house two houses instead of just one.

Commissioner Seidel, you had a question.

I think one of the questions that Commissioner Broadbreck asked you that I don't think we got answered was is it in our purview at all to talk about uh reclaiming the lot and anything outside of that?

Just want to get that on the record.

I don't believe so, but I'll ask illegal to it's still owned by a private party or you know it's we can't compel them to put in a garden or a meeting house as great as that might sound.

Yeah, I just wanted to get that on to um the record.

And then you know if I'm hearing you like clearly, this does not meet the criteria for demolition.

Any common sense would tell you that.

If the denial of the demolition C of A is voted on today, what restrictions does that place on this property in terms of building something that meets it?

And you started down that road.

Yeah.

Well, if I you know, if I can ask the question just to clarify as well.

My understanding based on the motion, what I heard is if we voted to affirm that motion, we would not be allowing any construction on the site for two years.

That is what the motion.

Right, without without a different imminent.

Without a different narrative behind that motion describing another action, my understanding from legal counsel is that if we vote to affirm what was stated, we are saying no to the demolition, and we're saying no new construction for two years, period.

So the other options are to change that motion.

Um there's another there's been discussion of also because the second may disappear from that motion and may want to defer because we have time to defer, uh and then we would then we would give the parties in the community a chance to communicate, but also the council members district to communicate with the parties, um, as was the request from the chief of staff.

And then we can decide what to do later.

But if if this body decides we're gonna not we're not gonna issue a COA and leaves it at that, then the two-year permit moratorium, that's what happens to the property.

So but if this body decides we're not gonna the COA for demolition is denied, and we're gonna issue a COR for a reconstruction or for a relocation of a contributing structure, then um then those other parts kick in.

Which is which is you if I understand it, y'all's point of consideration of the deferral to say clear up some of that in the next thirty days.

Correct.

And and and see if you guys can't come to a tolerable resolution.

And as as as I see it, the possible options for that would be no construction for two years, rebuild what was demolished exactly as it was, move something in from another property, or approve what they submitted.

Those are all potential options that a deferral would allow some discussions between the community developers and the council members' office.

Okay.

Yeah, because I I originally didn't want to waste any more time, but I mean, clearly there there are no there are there is no more information related to the demolition of the house.

I mean, correct.

Okay.

Can I withdraw my own?

Okay.

And so and replace it with a motion to defer.

Commissioner Broadbeck, would you second that motion?

Happily.

And before I vote, uh Commissioner Escobar, would you like to say anything?

Yes.

I would like to call Tanya uh from the audience, because if if if what we're hinging uh hedging the bet of deferral on, is that a reasonable agreement can be arrived at between parties.

I would like to hear what is your understanding.

I will open the public hearing and if you can restate your name, um what you're doing.

So there's a sign.

Amy, uh our attorney Amy Dan sent you guys the paperwork.

There is a sign that says this is the historic independence heights, number one.

There was a sign or there is a sign somewhere on the street that identifies it as a historic district, number two.

Um we are not inclined to meet with the owner or whoever this individual is with him because the arrogancy of him to come up here and say that he's coming because he wants to make the district look like what it could be, when in actuality he is entering the first black city in Texas.

So it is what it is, number one.

Number two, there were pictures that shows there's nothing wrong with that home.

There are pictures in the inside of the home that shows you it may have needed some rehab, but there's nothing to show there's an outside view of the home at all.

There is nothing to show that this was a dilapidated fixture.

So we're just really baffled at why everyone is going back and forth and no one has the integrity to be able to address the issue of this was wrong.

It should not have happened.

He should not be rewarded for greed.

And that's all this is.

It's because he came back with not one house, as she mentioned, with two.

So understood, understood, hearing you.

What I'm trying to get to is we've all kind of agreed it's egregious.

So no one's skirting responsibility on the fact that it was egregious.

It should have never happened.

We shouldn't even be having this conversation.

So I'll speak on that behalf of there's no one trying to avoid that here.

Um the confusion was on the technicality of if we're blocking a pathway towards a solution that you don't end up having to pay for, that's something that could be you can you're negotiating with the owner and the other developers to find a better solution that meets both things in the middle, so that maybe y'all negotiate, and one of those four options is you say, hey, there's a house over here that's going to be demolished, we know the house.

We'll tell you homeowner, you put that house over here, we've saved the house.

That's an option that helps.

We've done that in Friedmanstown when there was something that was going to be demolished.

So I think what you're seeing here is the inquiry of how do we leave the most latitude for the the best thing to happen the soonest?

Because the alternative we're wearing here is to say no, and it's two years and it's no period.

No one gets anything.

You don't get anything there for two years, they don't get anything there for two years, you don't get a house identical to the one that was torn down, built back so that it looks exactly like this one was, if that's what you got you all negotiate.

I'm sure they're going to be interested in negotiating to move the process forward, period, so they can start reclaiming dollars lost from not being able to have any development there.

We were trying to leave room for development.

So are any of the options that that have been discussed nothing, some hybrid of something that you're negotiating with the property owner, up a house move from another place that's going to be demolished otherwise, or some other option.

Are none of those things worth negotiating for you?

Because if so, then we're faced with the option of not deferring because there's going to be nothing to defer for when you guys are going to come to an agreement.

We'll just deny, and then there will be nothing there for two years, and you get nothing and they get nothing.

So what would you like?

So it uh Dr.

Sabrina Norman came up there and said they would like to have a house moved over.

Right.

That would be used as a meeting place.

And you would have to negotiate that.

That would be that would be an option.

That would be an that would be an option if that if that's you know what the residents are asking for.

We stand by the community behind the community on what the community wants.

So this is what she's brought to the table.

This is what independent Heights Development Council has always done, despite the fact that we are being told we have no standing.

So we have always uh advocated for the community for them to get what they want.

Same.

And we want to leave you the largest latitude for that.

With that, thank you.

I have no further questions.

Um I'll make a statement that um I I will also either make a motion for deferral so that this third rail can be figured out.

We have we have a motion for the same.

Okay, sorry.

We have a second statement.

Can I ask a question legal?

Yes, and followed by Commissioner Broadback.

After the two years, if that is what ultimately is decided.

What can then be done with the site?

Yeah, so that's a good great question.

Um so after two years, the the property owner can uh request a building permit uh for a structure that's of the same size and I think dimension of what was demolished after ten years from the data demo demolition, that size and limitation requirement is no longer in effect.

So after ten years of demolition, after the data demolition, the owner can come ask uh come to the commission and request to build something that it doesn't meet that doesn't match the same size limitation, size and dimensions of what was demolished.

Commissioner Broadbeck, one last question, then we'll hold a vote.

Um for discussion within the motion.

Um I don't hear anyone in the room that likes the idea of nothing happening for two years.

I haven't heard that.

Um to the members of the community, I hear you loud and clear.

I'd be pissed too.

But a longtime mentor once told me that you know what happens when people don't talk?

Nothing.

So really I think the best move here is for us to defer and ask that the party sit down and talk.

The council member's office facilitates the discussions because that'll that'll move the ball forward faster.

At the end of the day, the property owner is the property owner, and we can't force them to do things.

So that's that's what I'm encouraging the commission do.

Thank you.

With that, all in favor of deferral.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Deferral passes.

And we'll move on to item two.

509 Euclid Street.

I think it just must be me.

Yeah.

Requires long discussions.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC.

This is again staff person.

And today I submit to you item E2 at 509 Euclid Street in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

The property includes a historic 1,651 square foot one-story wood single family bungalow residence built circa 1920 and detached garage situated on a 6200 square foot interior lot.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,228 square foot addition, bringing a total from 1651 to 3,769 square feet with 400 4,000 611 square foot cover.

The addition will include uh it will include an addition at the front of the home and at the rear of the home.

They were demolished a non-original addition to open the original porch, removing the windows and the wall to be removed and install new wood columns with brick bases.

Remove the existing asbestos siding and repair and replace as needed the four-inch reveal wood siding beneath.

Install new smooth cementation siding with the eight-inch reveal on the addition.

Maintain the original wood windows of the existing home.

The attached garage will have a 26 foot six and a half inch maximum ridge height.

It will have a 21-foot maximum top plate on the second floor and a 12-foot top plate height on the first floor.

The new roof will have a 6 over 12 roof pitch.

The existing garage will be moved forward eight feet to minimize the amount of tree trimming that will need to take place.

The addition will have an attached garage and a garage apartment above.

Staff receive six public comments in opposition.

Please see attachments.

Thank you.

At this time I open the public hearing.

I have a two speakers signed up to speak.

The first speaker is Paul Whitehouse, followed by Patrick Scales.

Good afternoon, Chair Puchek and Commissioners and members of uh staff.

My name is Paul Whitehouse.

I've owned and lived at 513 Euclid Street, next door to the subject property for 10 years.

At the last hearing, before the applicant asked to defer the application, there was a move uh to deny, with several commissioners commenting on the extreme size and massing of the plan.

Despite this, a revised plan has been submitted that may attempt to address some of the preservation criteria, but not the size and mass to any extent.

So we're surprised to hear that there's a recommendation to approve with conditions regarding the siding.

I maintain that the planned alteration is far too big, and it does not do enough to protect the giant historic live oak at 504 Woodland Street.

That was discussed during the uh June hearing.

I've submitted a letter demonstrating that the alteration was would result in a structure significantly larger than others in the context area, and the percent increase in size relative to the existing structure will be larger as well.

This is not a neighborhood resident extending their home.

This is about nothing more than a property developer maximizing square footage for profit.

Regarding the live oak tree, the alterations made to adjacent homes have been done in a manner sympathetic to the tree.

It's a defining feature of the neighborhood, presumably named Woodland Heights for good reason.

The tree is likely to be older than the country, and it has both historic and environmental significance.

The tree should be preserved and celebrated, and we respectfully ask you to deny this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Patrick Scales.

Could we state your name in the microphone?

Afternoon, everybody.

My name is Patrick Scales.

I'm a resident at 501 Euclid Street, which is next door to the 509 residence.

First, the criteria of 9 and criteria 11 are not met.

There is it does not address the percolation factor, the crushing of the slab or the slab that will be crushing the roots of the tree and will eventually kill it.

There's a arborist uh document that was provided during the last meeting, which goes into this.

That is not addressed, so the tree will die over time.

Second, the size of the structure.

The new structure is 26% larger than the average size of the neighbors within the neighborhood.

This does not lend itself to the neighborhood.

It's not part of the neighborhood, it's not trying to fit into the neighborhood.

It's just trying to be a mass and get the massive most square footage out of the plan.

The elevation, as you've seen, dwarfs the existing structure.

So instead of being the highlight of the neighborhood, the focal point of the lot, you'll see this mass behind it.

It is not it does not fit into the neighborhood.

Third, the HACHC criteria for the site and its environment is violated.

Criteria one and criteria four, the risk to the tree.

Criteria eight, the tree, the damage to the tree, you can rebuild, may I have an extra minute to motion to extend speakers' time by one minute.

Is there a second?

Criteria.

I please proceed.

Criteria eight, the damage to the tree, once this is done, you cannot rebuild a centuries old tree.

It's going to be gone.

And criteria nine, the tree has been around again for centuries.

So it makes it a historical and culturally significant contributing factor.

With that, we ask that you deny this request.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this item that is not signed up?

Okay, we'll close the public hearing.

Commission members, are there questions of staff.

I have a question for staff.

Mr.

Smith Carl Smith.

Hi.

Obviously, two speakers brought up the issue of massing.

I remember this from last commission meeting.

Uh we discussed the massing of it.

Um it seems like this plan has an even larger square foot than the June.

Well, why does staff think the masking was okay with this modification?

Uh so things.

One, the garage has now been attached.

Um it's been moved up.

Um then the porch at the rear was made larger.

Um so as you can see, if we go to the front elevation, um, I mean, it's not really much that changed as far as the front elevation, besides they moved uh the set the portion on the left, they moved that back to take it to the uh 50 percent mark at on that side.

Um we also went out uh and and did a site visit after the meeting and realized that a large portion of the uh right wall was unoriginal and the left side was original.

Um I want to clarify that um staff's main reason for uh the denial recommendation last month was because one they were uh demolishing um a uh portion of the contributing home.

They were removing the original siding.

Um and they were I believe they were getting rid of the original windows.

Uh so and of course the the addition being up on on the uh over the original structure.

So once the applicant um remedied those issues, um staff felt that um they were meeting uh criteria.

They also lowered the ridge heights um on both the home and the garage.

Uh so it's an interior lot.

Um because of the way that it's built, there's a lot of this that you probably would not be able to see from the street.

Uh so that is the reason for for staff's uh change in recommendation.

But we are absolutely subject to what you guys rule.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Seidel.

Just from my knowledge, does the commission have any responsibility related to trees?

I will ask that of staff.

I I don't know that we have in our ordinance.

Trees.

I know that the city um protects trees within the right of way, certainly.

And I don't know um if there's a provision about the trees, but clearly it's a important element for the community.

Um it's been there a long time and um and it's um part, I guess it seems to me that it is part of the character of the the neighborhood in terms of the criteria that it is of certain size and weight that it has made its presence known.

Uh I'll say that.

I I don't know if there's a specific passage in our ordinance regarding this, but I do think it is of note.

Yeah, it still remains the question.

Like, no, I mean it's staff can't consider the tree because it does I mean, there's uh there's no mention of trees in the ordinance as far as the criteria is concerned.

So um, you know, we're we're going based on the eleven criteria, and in that 11 criteria, it's talking about the historic structure and not not trees.

And typically we're not regulating landscaping, right?

So that's that is written in the ordinance, but I'll ask legal for clarification.

Yeah, you're correct.

There's um but I guess so I want to ask Terrence, is there isn't there a criteria you know, considering any other sort of special circumstances about the property?

Is that that one of the Yeah, I mean there there are it's it's um unusual circumstances, yes.

Um does a tree qualify for that?

I I'm not sure.

I I mean just for clarification, the changes that were made by the applicant were made based on uh the the position of the tree.

Um I mean, so I mean I as much as I would like to consider the tree, um I mean going out there and seeing how beautiful the tree is and what it does for the backyard.

I mean I would encourage anyone to save it.

I would think that that would, you know, make the property value, you know, pretty darn high.

So um all those things considered, again, I I can only advise the applicant to to let him know, hey, this is your situation based on what people came to say, right?

I mean, when we went on the site visit, that was kind of the talking points.

I mean, you know, without instructing them how it needs to be designed, was just basically telling them, hey, I I can't tell you to change your square footage.

I can't tell you to make it bigger, I can't tell you to make it smaller.

That's all on you.

But we what I can try to encourage you to do is to try to design around the tree so that way, you know, you can get what you want, the residents can get what they want.

And as a result, him connecting the garage is is what happened and and made the the space a little bigger.

Um so yeah, I mean I I'm sorry, that's a really hard question for me, but I can't I I just can't uh with the criteria, I don't believe that the unusual circumstances I mean I I I would imagine that has a lot to do with site, but I don't know if a tree would be independent of that, if that makes sense.

Thank you, Terrence.

I'm gonna ask Commissioner Jones if she can opine on that question and what her question was.

I will just say that whether a tree dies or not, it's usually typically mainly based on impact of the root zone.

Yeah.

So um trees require oxygen and air exchange and you know moisture water, but it's the air or so they suffocate when they are um if they don't have breathing tube or breathing tubes, which is one one method is used when slabs are used or um raised.

Uh yeah.

I've seen slab, you know, um slab on grade foundations that were elevated above grade just to have an air space.

So um it there there are ways of doing it, and but the fastest way for a tree to die is to is to compact the root zone or to smother them and they they they suffocate.

With that, Commissioner Jones, followed by Commissioner Broadbeck and Commissioner Cosgrove.

Okay, I agree with discussion about tree, and I think that it does contribute to the overall feel of the neighborhood, but I know that's not in the ordinance.

Okay.

Can we look at page 14 of 51 in the packet?

I believe it's the left out elevation.

There we go.

So I have the same concerns about this that I did the last meeting in terms of how much historical material is coming off of the home.

Um is this the side that has an original material on it, or is it the other side of the house?

So this is mainly original.

Um well, I'm sorry, this is mostly original here.

Actually, it's all original.

So where the um indentation starts, that is the original corner, which is why they now indent uh to save that original corner.

Um the other side is the side that's been heavily altered.

Um basically that whole wall had been altered, they've uh torn out windows, they've got a patio door, um, and then the whole back wall on that right side has also been heavily altered.

But everything on that left side where you see where they indented, that's all original.

Thank you.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

Um yes, uh brief response to um Commissioner Seidel.

Um I know it may not trees may not specifically be in the ordinance, but I do believe in this instance it falls under the uh subjectivity part of our charge with compatibility.

And if something we're looking at uh approving or denying would impact some uh something like a tree that in this neighborhood is as integral to that environment as this tree is, then I think it fits under um compatibility.

Uh moreover As a matter of policy in the city of Houston, my understanding is trees are pretty important because if you touch a tree uh in the uh uh in the right-of-way between the sidewalk and the street in front of your house, it's like a seven thousand dollar fine or something pretty stiff.

So I know that in Houston trees are important.

Uh and with that said, I'm ready to make a motion to deny as soon as uh Commissioner comments are over.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

I was just gonna say that I accompany Terrence to the to the site visit.

And I will say that the applicant was receptive of a lot of ideas, and we did spend a tremendous amount of time focused on the tree because when you are standing under it, you realize its magnitude, which is not portrayed in this application.

Um we talked about and I believe the application has it this.

I mean, the uh addition will be on a peer and beam and the garage will be on a slab, but it will be moving forward, which was actually my suggestion to get it out from under the one branch that is so large.

Um and I believe he was going to switch the driveway from concrete to gravel to allow more water.

Um so he was agreeable to some changes.

Now I did not leave the meeting believing that we were going to see a house that was several hundred feet larger than what he had proposed before.

Um we did discuss a lot about scaling back the size of the addition and the necessity of all those rooms on the second floor.

Um he did remove one of the two staircases, which was also a recommendation, but I can't say that looking at this design that I am supportive of it for the reasons stated by my fellow commissioners.

Commissioner Hill, you have a question.

Uh excuse me.

I'd like to comment on the approval criteria number one, uh, that the proposed activity must retain and preserve the historical character of the property, not just the house.

Am I reading that correctly?

Well, I may yet I'm not sure whether legal has a can open on that or when there's staff.

Um staff.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um if you if you're able to do that.

I don't think that's a that's a law school uh subject matter.

But uh yeah.

Um I mean that uh you got me.

Well, I mean I think I think that the quadrant here I have here is that we don't regulate landscaping.

Um but this tree is more than a normal tree, and so and um you know it it is it it is something.

So it's uh I don't know that may be something we have to address um you know in the ordinance as we go forward, but I mean beyond the tree, there's still the issue of scale and though that's what's before us in spite of that issue.

We still have the issue of um a very large addition.

So um there are many ways that this commission can look at this uh application and make it a judgment.

I just my opinion that the tree is a big part of the historical character of the property.

Okay.

I believe there well Terrence, you have one thing to add.

Yeah, I I know you guys are about to make a motion.

Um the owner is not present.

Um, but I would like to believe that he would that they would like the opportunity to bring this back.

If it is denied, then they have to start the process all over.

Um so if it's deferred, then they can come back next month.

I just want to put that out there.

And this would be our second deferral.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Given Terrence's statement that you believe the owner would be open to another deferral, I'll go ahead and make a motion to defer.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Side L seconds.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Thank you, Terrence.

No, thank you guys.

I'll see you in a bit.

We'll now move on to the next item, which is item four, nine thirty-eight Harvard Street.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff First and Samantha De Leon.

I submit item E4 at 938 Harvard Street in the Houston Heights South Historic District for your consideration.

The 4,000 uh 809 uh the 4,089 square foot non-contributing two-story new style single family residence was built in 1997, situated on a 6,600 square feet lot, interior lot.

The applicant proposes to demolish 219 square feet from the existing non-contributing 704 square feet detached one-story garage and and construct a 714 square foot second-story garage addition on top of the existing garage.

Staff recommends denial as the proposal does not satisfy floor uh floor area ratio or the second story plate requirements and the heights design guidelines.

Chair and members of the commission, I am here to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Um I will open the public hearing at this time.

I do have one speaker signed up, uh, which is um Mr.

Mike Shelton.

If you could please um approach the podium and restate your name in the microphone.

Sure.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mike Shelton.

Uh give my notes.

I uh with Harvard Heights construction, and I'm the design builder for this project with over 25 jobs on my street, Harvard alone, and actually live next door.

Is a picture of my house right next door.

So these are my neighbors.

And uh we want to add a second store to their existing garage.

We wanted to go right straight up because it makes sense.

We are taking out a little bit of the uh bottom of the garage for a little bit of extra space by their swimming pool.

And they made it slightly over our far.

And the owner started working from home after the pandemic and have four Roddy boys.

I know I know them all.

And they wanted a home office separate from their house.

And I wanted to see if you guys would consider uh our approval.

Thank you.

Have any questions?

Uh if there are questions, we'll let you know.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak on this item?

Okay, I'll close the public hearing.

Are there questions of staff?

Um, can you can you remind the commission how far over the FAR they would be with this proposed um alteration?

Yes, I also provided documentation that shows specifically uh where this was over FAR, but document camera.

So as you can see on the screen, it is about 700 uh square feet above uh over FAR.

721 square feet Commissioner Davis.

So the original house, when was it built?

1997.

Okay, so it was built before the historic district.

Correct.

So and part of the reason it's going over far is because you're counting the house that exists there.

Correct.

Okay, so trying to try and understand why there's already a garage there.

Um I just don't understand penalizing these people who bought who built their house in 1997.

I don't know how old the garage is.

Does anybody know how old the existing garage is?

So original material.

They're proposing reusing ex uh original material and putting a second story on that.

And the only reason we're denying it is because the house is too big.

So since the house was created prior to since the house was built prior to the creation of the height historic districts and the heights design guidelines, they're therefore grandfathered in.

If they keep the house exactly how it is, they are able to keep it.

When we are adding on square footage, we have to consider the exemption.

So they would get 528 square feet for their exemption.

So theoretically, the applicant could have decided to go ahead and shrink that second floor addition and make it 528 square feet, and they would have been able to build this house.

However, as Mike just stated, they did not want to alter their uh their proposal, and that's why we're here today.

Okay, so follow-up question.

The what's the difference?

Because this is higher math.

What is the difference between the um sorry?

What is the difference between the 528 and the garage and the whole thing isn't 700 700 feet over?

So what is I think we are like quibbling over a couple hundred feet.

We're quiving over around 200 or 300 square feet.

Okay.

But again, staff has no, but the net increase is 721 because of the primary house.

The weight the the the overall house is over is over what's allowable allowed, but it is grandfathered, and so part of that extra square footage massing is part of the equation that's being presented by staff.

And I understand and I I get that.

Um, but far is not a massing standard, it is a proxy, and we use it as that, but we are the house is the house.

We are only talking about 200 square feet here.

And I just don't think that uh that the math maths correctly for this for this edition.

And I love the fact that they're using the original building and not tearing it down.

If they could tear it down and build a new 528 square feet, but they want to preserve it.

I think we should reward them for that.

I just want to go ahead and just provide clarification that staff cannot recommend approval because it goes against Heights design guidelines.

However, this was brought in front of the commission.

So if you guys would like to change that recommendation and vote for it, you're more than welcome to.

Yeah.

And I'll just add, I mean, because some of us were here when the Heights Design Guidelines went through that process, but the FAR is the byproduct of the massing studies that the majority of the residents approved.

So they were presented with multiple massing studies, which also included the square footage is above a second story, uh like above above second story above a garage, were part of the community's voting at the time.

And that's why it it is the numbers that that's why the numbers are counted.

Um that was part of how the neighborhood reviewed their massing and from their massing um the majority of massing that was um had the most support, the FAR was created to reflect that massing.

So I I didn't quite understand the statement earlier, but the FAR is a direct it was created from that study of massing that was the majority of the residents uh wanted.

Um presentation mode, please?

I just say they're not separate things because one's a house, one's a garage, it's all part of the same massing on the property as it was presented to this community.

Okay.

I simply disagree that the additional 200 square feet is worth arguing about.

And I am sorry that Ms.

Blakely isn't here today because I think she would back me up and say, let's save the garage.

Any other comments or questions of staff?

Commissioner Escobar.

Has this been deferred before?

No, ma'am.

So just also to provide context.

Uh when this application was submitted, uh after reviewing the application, staff communicated with the architect to let him know that he had two options for approval, which were either to one lower the second garage, second floor garage edition to 528 square feet so it could be exempt from uh FAR calculations and maximum lock coverage, or two, have their application go in front of the commission as is with a recommendation of denial to have the commissioners decide to allow an addition that violates measurable standards.

The applicant emailed staff on June 26, 2026 to ask for the application to go on the July agenda as is.

So it has not been deferred, no ma'am.

Is there a motion?

I move that we approve the addition as drawn.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Garcia second.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Could we raise hands?

Just could.

So I have four.

Okay, thank you.

All opposed to the motion.

One, two, three, five.

Please note that Commissioner Broadbeck left the room and is not present for the vote.

Okay.

But I but I believe that motion did not pass.

Is there another motion?

Browning.

I make a recommendation for a denial.

Okay, is there a second to that motion?

I'll second it.

Cosmo seconds.

Any other discussion?

Yeah.

I'm still thinking.

Eventually I'm going to be forced to vote.

Understood.

That is why we are here.

Would the applicant prefer a department of the case?

But I I'm curious about the thing, yeah.

Like you have more than we can conditionally approve it if you make it 528.

They are open to opening, they are open to amending this.

Um if they were amend to amend it in the house in a way where it could be administratively approved, that is a possibility, or it can be amended and still come back next month.

But we don't, I don't have any other information.

Because if we did a if we did a conditional approval that they reduce the size of the upstairs to 528 feet, it then actually would be an administrative approval and not require us to vote on it.

Correct.

I'll withdraw my motion based upon the development that they will they don't want a straight up or down vote and vote for it to uh an approval with conditions if they meet the design guidelines.

Well they if they they don't need a vote from us if they if if they meet this it will just be approved.

You but you could make a motion to defer, and if there's a second and that were to pass, then they'd have the option to talk with staff and and talk and talk amongst themselves.

Thank you for that clarification.

Then I'll change for the third time.

And and do a motion to defer.

Third time is a charm.

Okay.

I will second the deferral.

And Chidel, Commissioner Siddell, do you any other comments?

Ready.

Okay.

All in favor of deferring.

I agree with the question.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

We have deferred that item.

Thank you.

And we're now going to move on to item F, which is a public hearing and I'm sorry.

No rules.

Okay.

Sorry.

Okay, so do you need to?

I'd like to make a motion to move item H ahead of item G.

Okay, is there a second to the motion?

I'll second it.

I'll have discussion if you like before we vote.

Um in this room that are still here are, I believe, here for item G, normal design guidelines presentation where staff is going to reveal how they um resolved the conditions that we placed on the neural design guidelines that were approved with conditions at our last meeting.

There is no public comment under item G.

So I have a stack of folks who would like to speak about item G.

And so we are we are going to move public comment to item G, and as a member of the public, each of you can address this commission.

If you I'll just say if you had comments about item G, you could mention those during public comment, and then the Commission would have the benefit of your thoughts and comments and concerns.

So that is why we are moving public comment ahead.

I do have have a question.

Please.

Um in the interest of time, um what I don't believe we could even act on the Norhill Um guidelines tonight, even if we wanted to procedurally.

Um because first of all, there was a unanimous motion passed at last month's meeting to move this forward.

Uh and there was no indication given on tonight's agenda that there would be any action taken.

Um it just says Norhill Design Guidelines presentation.

Last month it said Norhill Design Guidelines presentation and hearing, which suggests we would take action, which is what we did.

So all of that being said, there's no mystery that there's a lot of strong opinions uh about these guidelines on either side.

Uh that being said, I I've looked at those opinions and it was pointed out to me earlier that really the two sides are not that far apart.

And so maybe if there were a subcommittee of this commission that were to sit down and discuss those issues, open it up to the public so that those folks could come address the subcommittee, that committee could come back to this commission with a recommendation for a full package, or a recommendation not to even reconsider, because before we could do anything, we have a procedural requirement to reconsider the motion that was already passed last month.

So that's the only reason why I wanted to put that out there before we open it up for comment, because we can't even act tonight even if we wanted to.

This commission, well, I've asked that staff present how they amended the document per our request to make sure that this commission understands what they have done and that we are in agreement with what they have done per our instructions to them because we gave them a lot of conditions.

There are a lot of this is a pretty extensive guideline, and I want all commission members to hear and see what they have done and be able to ask questions.

We are not going to be like, let's say that for some reason a member or this consensus to change or amend an item of the condition that we placed that we think wasn't what we intended.

We're not going to be voting on that today.

No, you're correct.

But because it's because the public will not have a chance to speak during item G, I would still would like to give the public, all the all the public a chance to speak to us so that we may hear from our public.

At our last meeting, I mentioned three times.

We had a number of speakers who came before us.

It's the only time in my entire time on this commission that every person who came to the meeting and spoke was for approving the guidelines.

No one spoke against it.

That has never happened in the history of this institution ever.

So nonetheless, um there are folks who have come to speak to us.

I'd like to hear what they have to say.

I'd like all the members of commission to understand what how staff interpreted our instructions.

I want to make sure, because this matters, that we as a commission are also comfortable with what those conditions are.

And only until we can have that discussion will we know how we feel about that or what we might do next.

So that conversation may still be discussed later this evening, but we will not be voting on amending anything in this.

I'll I'll say that, yes, you're correct.

But we we're looking for an open conversation.

And I'd like this to, you know, to go to quality of life so that we have the benefit of all this information and we're aware of that.

So that's that's why I'm proposing to move public comment as a procedural uh item.

Let staff present what they have done.

Let's have a conversation amongst ourselves, and then we can we can talk further.

Okay, I'll second the motion.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

We will now proceed with item H, public comment.

And if you would like to speak in public comment, um, I will ask that everyone sign up.

Um, and I do have a stack of folks who have signed up, and we will we will proceed in order.

Um the first speaker is Viola Torgeson.

Followed by Tracy Bowert.

First.

I didn't expect to be first.

This is a little okay.

Uh thank you, Commission, for allowing us to speak today.

Um I'm just gonna kind of go down my notes by bullet points because I'm a rambler, especially when I'm nervous.

So it's not the most eloquent speaking you here today.

I apologize.

Um I just wanted to start uh telling you just a little bit about me.

Um when I got married, my husband and I lived in Montrose in a 950 square foot bungalow with a large backyard.

We loved that yard.

I had a garden back there.

Um, and we thought we had room to expand the house when it would come time for us to start a family, and then something happened.

Our next door neighbor sold her home and they built a huge addition on the back of that house.

And my ability to enjoy myself in my large backyard and tend to my garden and everything else was completely disrupted because her whole second story looked down into my kitchen windows and my backyard.

So my husband and I made the decision to move and we chose the North Nor Hill Historic District because it is a historic protected, deed restricted community.

Feeling safe that if we bought a house in this neighborhood, we would not have to deal with that issue that we had in our prior house.

Um we have raised two sons.

Now we've lived in our house for 22 years since 2004.

We've raised our two sons.

One is now in college, one is going into his senior year of high school.

And we raised them happily and comfortably in our home.

I have here only one copy, but I'd love to give you guys a timeline that some of us put together.

I know some of you have been on the commission a long time, and some of you haven't.

But I've been a resident of Norhill since 2004 and have been there through most of the stuff that's on this timeline.

The reason I want to give you this timeline is because it's been over 10 years.

We've been waiting for these guidelines in Norhill.

And everything that you see here highlighted in yellow were public outreach that you did, and that doesn't even count count the public outreach that the residents of Norhill elected to the board have done.

So it's time to pass the guidelines, please.

Thank you.

And if you if you could hand that document to staff, they they can pass it along to commission members.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Tracy Bowert.

Followed by Adam Tilly here.

Tracy Buller is no longer here.

Okay.

So we'll move on to Adam Till, followed by Brett Bacchus.

Document camera, please.

Hello, Adam Till, uh, resident of Norhill on Petty Street.

Uh, this View Gate home needs no introduction.

Uh one we have all discussed much in the past and recently listed for sale, despite its unfinished nature.

This 3,133 square foot house on a 5,000 square foot lot is utterly and completely out of context and character for our neighborhood and a blight on the charming and historic landscape of Norhill.

I'm showing this house now to highlight the very real and current threat we are facing from developers and real estate opportunists.

These guidelines that were approved at the last meeting of this body with unanimous support from those making in-person comments, do the very important task of providing an effective bulwark against this for the majority of residents of Norhill.

Affordability for young families and new homeowners that seek simplicity, modesty, privacy, and a real connection to the historic roots of this valuable neighborhood.

There is ample compromise and space within these guidelines, as written, to improve, expand, and modernize a home in Norhill.

A traditional historic 1100 square foot bungalow, such as mine could double its square footage in size.

So the opportunity for appropriate expansion is absolutely there.

But what it protects against is this.

And this is what those that will speak the loudest against these guidelines envision on every square 5,000 square foot lot in Norhill.

With its oppressive massing and scale, it robs neighbors of openness, light, and privacy, the very things that we should all have an expectation of and are entitled to in our homes.

The very things that these guidelines were written to defend and protect.

So with that, I am humbly asking that you please approve these guidelines again as written.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Till.

The next speaker is Brett Bacchus, followed by Bruce Michelle.

Good afternoon.

I'm Brett Back.

And I happen to be president of the Norhill uh neighborhood association.

But more importantly, I'm just a resident of Norrhill.

Um and I think I mentioned to you two months ago when I thought we might pass them that night.

Um I moved from Montrose to Norhill specifically because of the size of massing of the homes.

They were single-story bungalows with detached single-floor small garages.

And I understood it to be a historic district.

And I had to leave Montrose because of the McMansions that went up all around my house.

And much like Viola mentioned, uh, and posed on the backyard and robbed of the backyard.

I always say that I can now see out and see the sky from every window in my house.

And if you've ever been in a bungalow, there's a lot of windows.

But that's important to me and why I moved there.

Um so I again second the items that have already been mentioned and asked that you pass the the deed restrictions as were previously approved.

And uh to the point that it's been 10 years.

The cop the public had plenty of time to comment.

Uh we need these because I can also tell you we spend a lot of time and effort on things like the Pugate House that you just saw.

So passing these will help us avoid um those legal issues going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Bruce Michelle, and I'm a Norhill resident since August of 2024.

Uh I moved into a house that was built in 2010, so clearly it is not of any historical value.

Uh when I moved in, I needed to replace the windows because they were leaking.

I was a member of the Noor Hill Association.

I went down there and I met with them, and I was told flat ass no, excuse my language, that I could not replace the windows with violent windows.

That's what the House had.

City restrictions, your rules, everything is replaced with like material.

And I said, Well, everything I've read says like material.

Oh no, you have to replace it with wood.

I said, I'm replacing my windows.

If you want to see me in court, I'll be more than happy to do so.

I looked at the charter for Noor Hill and the charters for beautification.

Okay.

When they passed these new guidelines, I say they, the board, and a very, very small number of people at that particular meeting with not much, if any, notification to the general public that they were having this.

I was one of, I think the eight people in there that voted against them.

Because they're not reasonable, they're too ambiguous, they don't call out anything for a house that's I don't know what the term is, non-conforming, non-contributing.

Choose choose your language.

Doesn't matter to me.

Mine's a 2010 house.

I didn't build it.

Y'all let it happen.

They let it happen.

I don't know if y'all had anything to do with it.

So I'm not accusing anybody on this board.

But the simple fact remains, as I'm a taxpaying citizen and a disabled veteran, within the guidelines, I believe that I should be able to do what I need to do to my house to fit my liking without everybody telling me what I can and can't do with the property.

May I have an additional minute, please?

In public comment, it's it's it's it's simply the time allowed.

Okay.

Thank you.

But thank you.

Uh the next speaker is Dwayne Bradley, followed by Allison Alexander.

And if and just for my kitchen member, sorry, for my commission members, there are no questions of speakers during public comment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Got it.

Dwayne Bradley here.

Saw y'all last month, saw you the month before.

Uh I was really happy uh to linger with you last month uh and watch you, in my estimation, pass conditionally the neighborhood guidelines that we've been struggling to get through.

As I mentioned to y'all last month, every month that this continues to hang, things like our friend showed you about this massively beautiful but too massive for a Norhill kind of home pop up because people are trying to make money off of our little bungalow properties, and and that's just not right.

Uh it's about quality of life in our neighborhood.

And uh as far as I understood, you guys made a lot of specific conditions that Terrence and the crew here had to jump through before the Fourth of July so it could get to quality of life, but that didn't happen because of the you know the holidays and you know time crunch and all that.

But it got done apparently.

You've been given it.

We're gonna hear if there's any real big discrepancies.

But as far as I'm concerned, you all voted to pass this through, and unless there's some real problem with what they did that you don't like, you really should just bless it, send it to quality of life so we can get this in front of the city council and say, finally, the first historic district is kind of a sign sealed and delivered thing that we can count on for the rest of our lives and move on and use that as an example to do right in other parts of our city as well.

So for doing that, and I hope you will continue to tread in this correct path.

I want to thank you for that uh very much.

Yeah.

And I think there's a little bit of a discrepancy some people might have between the guidelines that we've worked on so much, and then the deed restrictions, which is a totally another matter, more internal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next speaker is Alison Alexander, followed by Andrew Thrapp.

Sorry.

Um good afternoon.

Thank you for having me.

I want to begin my stating that I'm not here because I completely oppose Norhill Associations wanting guidelines.

In fact, is we need them.

The problem I have is there was no due process, and the broad community was not made aware that this was going for vote.

The last the community was made aware was in the fall of 2024 that guidelines were being proposed.

And then there was a meeting after that in December that Terrence led that we attended.

When we learned that a void had taken place, we walked the community to speak with everybody, that the future of our neighborhood should reflect the broad community, not just the opinions of a small group.

For that reason, we respectfully ask the matter to be sent for revisions.

I do not think we are far off, which I agree.

We are not.

And we do need them.

We do not want people coming in our neighborhood, tearing down these homes, and putting up monstrosities that do not go with the neighborhood.

In researching historic districts across the U.S., FARS are everything from point four to.

I do think.

I'm sorry, to make more reasonable improvements.

It's a historic neighborhood.

It's not frozen in time.

It wants to grow with the people who invest in it.

Thoughtful preservation and sensible progress, they're not mutually exclusive.

When balanced appropriately, they strengthen one another by ensuring historic neighborhoods remain vibrant, economically stable, which is what we need in this neighborhood, and relevant for future generations.

I just please reconsider taking this back and let the broader community have it have a voice.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um following Andrew Thrapp will be Alex Sheffield.

Afternoon.

Sorry.

Um and to give you a little bit about me.

I'm a native Houstonian.

Um I'm uh proudly gay, trilingual.

Um, grew up here in my third generation Houstonian and went to Texas IM.

So if there's anything about me that comes first, it's Houston and then Texas.

Um when I moved to the Lower Heights in 2018, I hadn't ever been to the Heights.

I don't recall ever growing up, and we didn't come up to the heights very often.

Um, but I was drawn to the area, it was vibrant, growing.

Um, and then I was living at Eighth and Yale, and I saw everybody townhouses moving up, and I said the same thing that my neighbors are saying behind me that I wanted to move to a historic district, and so I found Nor Hill.

I bought my house on one of the esplanets between 14th and North Main.

Um, and I love it.

And the best part isn't is the houses.

I think everybody's drawn for the charm of the houses themselves, and then they meet the neighbors.

And the neighbors are the reason that I stay.

I've been in a neighbor's wedding that I didn't know before I moved in.

We've traveled, we've done all these things together, and then so many of them have to up and move.

From my front yard, I can actually see my mother's first house in Houston on Petty Street.

And she had to move to Southgate because her family was expanding because some of these rules.

So 35 years later, that it's still happening is fine.

Families expand, circumstances are different.

We do need the still need the guidelines, but they need to be reasonable and they need to be singular.

We need one set of standards that's applied so that everybody knows the rules under which they're going forward with this process, because I am considering an addition to my house that's nowhere near the limits of what this commission and what the guidelines say in Norhill, but still I don't know which standard to follow, and I'm not going to spend $15,000 to just get one opinion from an expert because I don't know which one to go with, and I'm not an architect.

So I don't know how to read ambiguous guidelines and interpret them.

And if my neighbors can't do that either, but they do want standards, we just need them to be consistent.

Thank you.

Okay.

Document camera, please.

Okay.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Alexis Stifel.

I am here in opposition of the design guidelines in their existing form.

We most certainly I echo everyone's concern.

We want historic homes and we want clear, consistent guidelines.

As a lay person, it is very hard to read through these.

An architectural professional struggles to even read through these.

I'd like to go through some of the items of significant concern, starting with the FAR.

In your FAR, um, it appears to be the fourth book.

Oh, let me reference the document camera.

I don't just come to speak for myself and with the other neighbors opposing these guidelines.

We have block walked for the past seven days and reached out to the community, as should have done, been done by many others before.

And we have 11 Nor Hill residents, people who live in the neighborhood, who specifically oppose the guidelines in their current form and are asking for further community outreach and further consideration to the specific items that I will discuss this evening.

Okay.

Item number four on the FAR.

It specifically says excluded from FAR calculations are items fully enclosed in the attic or newly built detached garage garages with no openings or penetrations through the exterior.

I called Terrence to discuss this point.

To me, no openings or exterior or exterior penetrations states anything.

My attic has bars on the front and the back that allow for air ventilation.

Is that a penetration?

Nothing about my attic is livable.

That square footage should not count against me.

And so my my garage was dilapidated.

It actually caught fire and stood there, burnt to a crisp for a long time.

Would that count against me because it had a door and a window?

That's illogical, and that cannot be included in the guidelines.

I go on to the page about plate height.

It's page 21 if you happen to have the guidelines open.

It specifically states.

May I have an additional minute, please?

I'm sorry.

We're just using standard time and public comment.

There's no additional time.

Okay.

I'll email the rest of my comments.

But the the point holds, these guidelines are not complete, and it would be a failure to the people of Norhill and a failure of the commission to put them through in their current form.

Thank you.

You can hand the comments to staff, and they will add that to the record.

The next speaker is Mary Schulte, followed by Bob Rubinowitz.

My name's excuse me.

I'm Mary Schultz.

And when we came home to the neighborhood after last month's meeting, we felt like we were going to get our guidelines finally passed, and a lot of the neighbors were very happy about that.

However, in the meantime, we've we've been dealing with a lot of activities going on in the neighborhood, alerting people to fears and and uh misinformation about what the guidelines really mean.

For one thing, that uh some of us have been made into memes on social media about how we're trying to defeat any kind of change or progress in the neighborhood, that we're making the neighborhood be defeated, that we do not want any kind of additions or mod modernization.

And that is all misinformation.

And because that's happening, I wanted to bring a picture, and I brought uh four uh it's four different homes in the document camera, please.

Yeah.

Four different homes in the Nor Hill area, which are well, they are not single story, they are not uh bungalows to in the classical sense.

They've had additions made for families that needed to get bigger.

They're not just 1,000 square feet.

So it's quite real that even before we got the guidelines, there was a flexibility where people could build on and accommodate families.

But I do well also want to say that I I really sympathize with owners, especially newcomers who feel like they haven't had things very specific.

And that is exactly why we need guidelines.

We've had uh deed restrictions for decades, but they are general.

They need measurement guidelines, and that's why we are so waiting on getting these passed.

Um that's my basic message.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Rachel.

Sorry.

Sorry, the next speaker was Bob Reminowitz, followed by Rachel Beaton.

Sorry.

Document camera again, please.

My name's Bob Rabinowitz, I'm an architect, longtime heights residence, and my farm is located in the heights, and we've done a ton of projects there.

Um the neighborhood definitely needs guidelines.

I think we're real close.

Um I just have a couple points I want to make.

I'm sorry I couldn't make the last meeting on our block for some reason, not on the mailing list.

Uh I my understanding is that uh the living area inside a garage being finished was counting as living area.

I heard that was addressed because the last draft still states that that counts towards living area, and I don't think that should be that way.

So I hope that's been addressed.

Um what I want to talk about, my my really single main problem I have right now with the guidelines is on the one hand there's a 19-foot rear setback, but on the other hand, you can't go out beyond the side of the building with a two-story edition at the rear.

And it's a combination of those two things, two things that I think is really highly restrictive and should be reconsidered.

Um, and I just want to show you this was presented a couple of uh meetings ago.

This was an approved COA where we went out the side of the building.

727 key.

The comments from the commission were that it was elegant and that they actually liked the side edition on it.

And uh at that time, Virginia from the NNA came up and she she showed an example of taking away the side and and folks liked it better.

So I just feel like there should be more freedom in this to get people more create architects more creativity to come up with solutions.

One thing we're able to do on this is we pulled the second floor in over the house to reduce the mass in there.

What I want to real quickly show you is I did some studies of here's what we did.

Here's what the guidelines are allowing, okay?

And we're I'm below the far calculation if I have a detached two-story garage.

I cannot meet the far calculations on this size lot.

And I'm gonna go through these quickly.

This is kind of complex a little bit.

So then I started interpolating, okay.

Now I'm sticking to the rear, and I've got a one-story garage.

Anyway, this is what you're gonna get by forcing everything to the side of the house is massing like that.

So I would suggest um if you were share that with staff so they could have that for the public comment.

I will.

Okay, let me organize if we want to get great.

Is Rachel Beaton in the room?

Yes.

Okay.

Followed by Lawrence Phibo.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rachel Beaton, and I live in Norhill with my husband and our two children.

When we were house hunting, we didn't just want any house in Houston.

We wanted to live somewhere with real character, where the streets, the setbacks, and the scale of the homes tell the story of the city's history.

Norhill is one of the best preserved historic districts in the city.

That's not an accident.

It's the result of decades of residents caring for the neighborhood, and it's why families like mine choose to raise our kids here.

I'm here today to speak in favor of the Norhill guidelines as currently written.

I want to be clear about something because I know it's being argued otherwise.

Preserving the scale and character of this neighborhood does not prevent families from living here.

My family is proof of that.

We have two kids, a modest historic home, and we love it.

The guidelines aren't about keeping people out.

They're about keeping Norhill recognizable as the place people moved here to be part of.

If a family wants to be in a much bigger house, Houston has no shortage of neighborhoods built for exactly that.

Builders have a financial interest in trying to delay or stop these guidelines.

But builders are not entitled to build whatever they want or what wherever they want on whatever scale they want in every part of the city.

Norhill has never been that kind of place, and the guidelines being proposed reflect years of community planning and public input from the people who live here and have a stake in what happens here.

Please honor that process.

Please protect what makes Norhill worth living in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Lawrence Phoebe, followed by Karen Stokes.

Thank you, uh commissioners, for hearing me.

My name is Lawrence Fibo.

I have been before you many times as a person submitting a home for renovation, which I have done.

And no, I didn't put that uh stained glass window in the gable, so we're good there.

But um having been a process part of this process, as Viola pointed out for the last 10 years, um, I do feel like we've had so many moments where we've gotten very close to the finish.

Um and I was a little bit surprised to hear about the opposition getting to this point.

And um someone mentioned a subcommittee.

And I know in the past we've talked about doing a walkabout through Norhill to look at all right, what we might think is too big, but what we think is okay.

And I do think that there is an opportunity here for everybody to get on the same page, because I think we need to find a way to de-escalate the situation.

And we don't want neighbors against neighbors because unlike you guys, we all have to live together.

And we should not be fighting about this in a stuffy room with very little air conditioning at times.

And um I think that we could build camaraderie, not further strengthen the divide with neighbors by just doing it here.

I think if we go out and look at these houses in person, then we will build a consensus together.

Okay.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Karen Stokes.

Nopes this time.

Um hello everybody.

Um thank you so much for your time and energy.

Um I wanted to just uh reiterate the duration of the work that y'all have done and the work that Terrence and this staff has done over several years.

And I know that there's a sense from some people that this has been a very rushed process and we're just throwing this guidelines together in some way.

But actually it's been a very open public uh transparent process, and not everybody is a member of Norhill Neighborhood Association.

We're not a homeowners uh association, um, but we are a civic organization that is mandated to work within the restrictions, the deed restrictions of the neighborhood.

So it's quite possible that there are neighbors um who have not joined NNA and are not within our normal range of getting information, but we would like to encourage any of those people who are here to join NNA so that we can talk to you about what's happening in NNA.

Um secondarily, I would like to say that the deed restrictions we're talking to talking about today are the work of a very long arduous work.

And the vote that y'all did last time um meant something because it meant that we were coming to a place where even though there's always going to be some people on one side that don't like it and some people on the other side that don't like that there was some middle ground.

I mentioned this flash, there was some middle ground that everybody was coming forward and saying this is the middle ground.

It'll become impossible if you continue to tweak everything that everybody thinks they need to pass this guidelines.

That's sort of what we've been doing in this process over a very long period of time.

So I want to encourage um you to move forward with your vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That is the last person who has signed up to speak on this item.

And if you have not signed up or want to speak, please please um approach the podium you're you may, and if you can state your name in the microphone for the record.

Do we need a press center anything or is it on?

It's on the Will Moody.

Um 14th Street.

Uh I stand here primarily because I saw a flyer when I was out on a walk made by the good people in the back.

Uh and that's really my reason for speaking here.

Is the only real tangible way of getting information out by joining this association?

And if it is, fine, I'll do it.

I I think my main concern with how this is brought on is the fact that I just didn't really get any sort of notification that a vote was happening, and maybe that's a me thing.

And if it is, then I'm apologies for wasting all this time.

But I I'm trying to figure out, you know, what are the reasonable ways where I can quickly get information about what is happening, both voting and just in general about design guidelines, because otherwise, like had it not been for a flyer, I wouldn't be here.

I wouldn't know this is happening.

So any suggestions, greatly appreciated.

Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to address the commission?

Okay.

At this time I'll close the public um hearing for the for public comment, and we will now um open item G, which is the Norhill Design Guidelines presentation.

You knew we were coming back, Terrence, so um, staff member Terrence Jackson.

Uh so I'm I'm just going to run through this really quickly.

This is uh just the changes based on the meeting that we had last month.

Um yeah, so I'll just I'll get right to it.

Okay, so first in section uh 2.2 point A, the FAR chart.

Um Commissioner Cosgrove had uh I apologize, Commissioner Crossgrove.

You spoke mostly in last meeting, so you will be mentioned a lot today.

Um Commissioner Cosgrove had two comments.

Uh he said since we are applying the 4.6 to 75% of the homes in a district.

I don't think applying it to a few more homes is really going to substantially change the fabric of the community.

And he also stated that going in 200 foot increment increments is too small.

Uh we would like to see fewer categories in larger ranges.

Um so with that being said, um you can see the difference from uh the the previous draft um where we went in two uh hundred square foot increments.

We now go um to four hundred and ninety-nine square foot increments.

Um and we go from uh.47 far in less than five thousand square feet and four points I mean.46 in five thousand square feet to six ninety-nine, and then uh greater than seven thousand square feet.

Um course the house size is going to vary, and we went with a point four five FAR.

Um the note at the bottom was always was I mean naturally removed because the um far chart is changed.

So that is uh change number one.

Um change number two in section two point two point A.

Um Commissioner Cosgrove had issue with the condition space in the garages.

Um as you can see on the left January 2026 draft versus the June uh 2026 revised draft.

Um you will see that it now says condition space space that is part of the primary structure or contributes to the overall massing of the property, including but not limited to coordinate uh conditioned attics, uh condition attached or detached garages and conditioned accessory structures of any kind.

It also says living space on top of garage is included in the FAR.

Excluded from the FAR, you have items fully enclosed in the attic or newly built detached garages, conditioned or not, with opening with no openings penetrations through the exterior.

Also excluded from the FAR, unconditioned space that is part of the primary structure, but does not contribute to the overall massing of the property, including but not limited to limited to unconditioned attics, carports, detached, unconditioned garages, other unconditioned accessory structures.

Moving right along to section 2.3 point C, the interior lot, two-story rear addition, uh the HHC.

You guys as a whole um what and and staff discussed removal of unless it is connected to a garage structure, which may extend past the side of the original structure, and as you can see, that's been uh stricken through and that portion has been removed.

And it was also, as you can see in the note below, it was also removed from section 2.3 point F.

Corner lot two-story rear edition.

There was also a discussion from you guys about having a diagram of a new single dormer where it's 60% boundary is on the original structure.

So staff has provided a uh you know simple diagram showing the 60 percent of a uh of a contributing structure and shows shows where the dormer would be located.

Section 2.4 point B to section 2.4.C, two-story addition.

Uh Commissioner Buchek and Commissioner Gark Garcia stated to reconcile 2.4B through 2.4 C text to the diagrams or vice versa, confirm confirming whether the one-story plate cap is 11.6 or 117 and 18th.

Uh the HAC confirmed 11, 7 and 18th.

And as you will see, the uh ceiling heights were removed as part of that discussion as well.

Section 2.4 point B to 2.4 point C again.

Um that same comment, and then uh there was also a comment by Commissioner Crossgrove visual mass will be subject to the FAR, whether it is air conditioned or not.

Make sure that language is clear throughout the guidelines.

As you can see, it has been added belief beneath 2.4.

Section 2.3 point B side addition note.

Um this was by the public and um I'm sorry, I have uh that may be a typo.

So there was concern about the um should, must, shall.

Um I didn't put all of them in there because as you guys know, should, must, and shall was throughout the document quite a bit.

So I just put an example here and I'll give you a description of what what was left.

So I I've tip typically what I did or what we did, what staff did was we left should when we when it discussed a architect in the like pre-design phase, like an architect should contact you know staff for XYZ.

And then as far as shall and must, that was put in situations where legally it seemed like it would it clarified that okay, yes, this shall be done or versus should, right?

So that way um there's no discrepancy of okay.

Well, um I don't believe that I should have done that in case something one of those cases would have come back because it said should and then we have next steps.

Please forgive me.

I I hate presenting and reading exactly from the from the PowerPoint.

So uh so next steps um I mean it's probably gonna be TV D staff to make changes if necessary, public meeting date to be set for review by the quality of life council, uh public hearing date to be set with city council, um, and then final draft of the Nor Hill design guidelines and all of the all of these dates will be subject to change.

Um I was gonna say for the can you go to the next page for the gentleman that um next one uh that had questions about how to um get involved or how to uh contact staff.

There's a QR code here.

I see he's gone, but um he he's more than welcome to reach out to me if he happens to uh watch this playback.

Um and I I just want to clarify that um it seems like there seems to be some sort of disconnect between the neighborhood association design guidelines and the cities uh design guidelines.

That's what I took from some of the comments that was said.

I just want to put that out there for the record, and that concludes my presentation.

Any questions?

I'm sure we'll have a just a few.

Um Commission member, so um would you like to ask any questions of Terrence about his presentation?

Sorry, Commissioner.

Uh just a question.

Um June 18th, the commission approved the guidelines with two conditions that the posted draft did not implement.

One strike counting the attics or garages that are conditioned towards FAR.

That was Garcia at two minutes and 59 uh two hours and 59 minutes.

The rationale was to not regulate the interior use of their space if they are conditioned or can if they condition or uncondition it.

That was Cosgrove at two minutes, two hours and 51 minutes, and recalibrated the FAR chart to make it more logical and consistent.

Um that was approved.

Everything was approved, no opposition.

Um I don't see how those things were done in this draft.

Excluded from the FAR calculations, items fully enclosed in the attic or newly built detached garages conditioned or not with no openings, penetrations through this through the exterior are excluded from the FAR.

Um, why would you sorry?

Okay.

Um what we voted on was strike counting the attics or garages that are conditioned towards the FAR.

Not regulate the interior use of their space if they are conditioned or uncondition it.

And then recalibrate the FAR chart to make it more logical and consistent.

So I disagree that you did what we ask you to do on those points.

I guess my question because I'm looking at everyone else's faces here.

I guess my question is.

Maybe as you asked your question, maybe we could put the language your that when you refer to your changes, but can we blow that up a little bit larger on the screen?

Is that do we need to go a little larger?

The other side.

Yeah, that works a lot better.

There you go.

So can I just Okay, so included in the FAR, the reason why the language states that if you see conditioned space that is part of the primary structure or contributes to the overall massing of the property is included in the FAR.

From what I recall, and I sorry I can't give you a timestamp of when something was actually said.

I'm sorry, let me let me back up.

The way I under the way staff understood it was that yes, you will be allowed to have conditioned space on a on a garage that will be exempt from the FAR.

However, if it contributes to the massing, which is the reason why it's worded as such, then that is why that note was put in there as far as included in the FAR.

Um excluded from the FAR, um, which is items fully enclosed in the attic or newly built detached garages.

Um I mean, I guess staff felt that placing that note under excluded from the FARC calculations kind of um made that um explanatory with the with the bold note over the top of it.

Um but if it's unclear um, you know.

I apologize on the behalf of staff, but um I I am absolutely not arguing that some of the 2300 square foot houses plenty big for a family to live in.

I am not arguing that point at all.

I understand that.

Um I am though, I do believe that that cost was misinterpreted on that.

And I have a lot of other points in the um in the guidelines that um I feel need to be addressed.

And as part of your motion, we were allowed to bring um substantive questions to the table.

And so I have quite a few of those.

Again, not trying to build big houses, just making the guidelines work better, and so somebody can actually build from it.

Um, I think we should talk through these.

I mean, we we have the time to do so.

And again, I um I guess my question, Terrence, is I mean, this word, you know, the words unconditioned and conditioned keep coming, you know, they're they're in this document, but the mass is the mass.

I mean, it it doesn't I mean it doesn't matter whether it's unconditioned or conditioned if it's a visual mass, and I'm talking about ropes.

Like a room that has walls and ceilings and a floor is a makes a space.

So I I do recall um the comments from both Mr.

Cosgrove and Commissioner Garcia that attic shouldn't count toward the FAR.

And if you can habitate in that attic with the loft, let's call it a loft, and you could even have AC in it, but you didn't add anything on top of your roof, and and so I don't consider roofs to be a map of a visual mass, it's just a roof.

Um we encourage folks to use their attic space if they can for livable spaces and not count toward the FAR.

So earlier earlier in your presentation when you refer to Mr.

Cosgrove, you said that attics didn't count toward the FAR.

So I'm just I'm a little confused there.

Regarding the garages, it's my understanding that there is a amount of square footage.

I think it's 585 that you're allowed to build a garage for 585.

And it if you build a garage equals that amount, it does not count toward your FAR.

And that is still the case, is my understanding.

But you may want to build a bigger garage.

But anything beyond the 580 5 would be counted toward the FAR.

That that's my understanding.

And so I'm just trying to understand that with these descriptors.

And it doesn't matter whether it's conditioned or not conditioned.

It's still visual mass.

A question there that you to um better define.

To better define in in the text.

Yeah, we could we could talk about it.

Yeah, and and like so for me, I mean had we discussed the wording, then I would have gladly placed the wording the way you guys wanted it in, right?

I had to go based off of you know reviewing the meeting, listen to all comments that were made.

So I took the language that was some of the language that was stated in the meeting and applied it to what the interpretation was from what you guys stated.

Now, if the wording is problematic, um then you know I'm definitely open to clarifying that wording so that you know it's clear because it seems like that was a lot of the commentary for the opposition.

So if if that is or people that were in the opposition, I'm sorry.

Um so yes, I I mean I'm definitely open to rewording this if that is what needs to be done.

Um I'm sure the residents and any everyone would be open to the rewording.

Um but yeah, that's that's just kind of how we got here to this.

Okay, Commissioner Seidel.

Well, I just want to comment.

I mean, I think this is a like live example of perhaps why we may need a subcommittee.

It's very difficult, I and I'd I I can empathize like to try and take a lot of different comments and different notes and sorry, put them into the exact proper wording with consideration.

I mean, there's there's I I've you know had unfortunately was on a vacation last month.

That's my problem.

Um but you know, just just in and in my review and and noticing inconsistencies in here, uh some potential issues with just constructibility in general uh need to be addressed, and I want to say it because I know we're in a public meeting.

I like the uh it is the definition of not being very far apart.

Like the respect for the community and the the main points in the uh for the folks wanting to hurry up and get this approved, I think we can keep that.

But you know, from my seat, it's you know there has to be some some consistent and hard and fast and um rules that make sense.

Like uh, you know, what what we everybody can talk in theory and look at diagrams uh for me, I have to put it together.

And some of the things that are in here are still gray.

I don't think that we're talking about wholesale changes.

Um, like, you know, move the far to point eight.

I like that's not where where I'm going.

I just think that it is a more effective approach to subcommittee this out, give Terrence the or whomever else we want to put on that subcommittee the um time for lack of a better term to process what is being sayed, ask the questions, confirm it, write it down.

We could probably talk in here until midnight um on different things.

I I I still don't understand why a covered exterior first story porch is part of the far calculation.

And in this context of what we're trying to do historically, it makes zero sense to me.

There is no massing to that.

Well, why is that in why is that in the calculation?

But those kind of discussions would be uh figured out and someone wouldn't be able to take notes and get it right the first time.

Certainly, but I can answer.

I'm not I'll answer your saying that I understand why it's like well we did our best.

I'll but answer your question about the porches.

It's something that came about with respect to the heights.

There was a you know a late l effort to allow people to have an outdoor kitchen primarily.

But if you wanted to have a porch in the heights, there were really only porches on the front of houses.

There are very few porches on the rear of a home in the heights historically or on the side.

But uh everyone had a porch on the front, they might have had a wraparound porch.

If they were a two-story home, they'd have a porch that would be a double porch stacked one above the other.

And um, and so when you have an open porch where you screen it in, it's still considered open.

It doesn't count toward the far.

When you have a porch on level one and then you build conditioned space above it, you now have pumped up a visual mass on the second floor that makes it you balloon the structure by putting a void underneath it.

And what happened was before this commission was in in effect, the commission saw a project that had a 2500 square foot porch on level one with uh 2500 square foot addition on level two.

So that 2500 square foot of conditioned space on one level became a two-story mass, not a one-story mass, just because the porch was a void.

And you know, that's a bay house in Bolivar, basically.

That's not a porch.

I mean a porch is also defined like in the guidelines and terms of size and so forth.

But the at the end of the day, when when these neighborhoods looked at massing models, they looked at a mass and they voted on a mass that they saw, which was um in some cases two stories, and so the far is based on that shell, if you will.

And the idea was most homes that are storic have porches that are tacked on to the mass, and they they and there's no additional massing created by those open porches.

So they're they're encouraged.

It's only when they are in injected into that shell to pop to make that space even larger in appearance, that's when it starts to go beyond what the majority of the people signed off for.

So it's kind of um and that's why we also looked at if you do have an in-set porch, does it meet the historic dimensions and size?

Um, because many, many times we've allowed that to happen.

And so it's kind of just trying to understand what's driving mass, trying to keep control on that mass in a way that uses the elements that were in the neighborhood within the period of significance.

That that's that's my attempt to answer your question, but I didn't have a question.

Well, what you you asked?

I understand what you're saying.

Yeah.

Like I I get that.

I think that's at the center of what I'm trying to present is that all of those considerations probably go into I don't know, maybe 10 to 12 of these sections, and that's just a clarification.

And really, uh, you know, from from my standpoint, like I've always said the the clear and and concise and measurable guidelines is what I am after.

Uh because these were developed by you know a large group of people over time, that's great.

I respect that.

Don't have any issue with that at all.

But when there are contradictions and then some things that might not even work, we probably should take a look at that.

Yes, and that's why we're having this agenda item.

So I if I may uh make like a procedural comment.

Sure.

So these guidelines were approved at the January 18 meeting with conditions.

Um if the commission, and I think Commissioner Broadbeck, you might have mentioned this, and I would love to get your read on it.

If the commission wants to re-look at them, form a subcommittee and like take another look at them and actually talk about them, then I think that motion or that you know that vote needs to be rescinded or there's something that needs to happen for us to be able to come back and to actually have like make substantive changes.

Because right now we're just doing a presentation, um, having a discussion, but those all this discussion, whatever fruit comes from it, needs to be if if the commission decides needs to be implemented, then it that has to be done in another forum.

So I see Commissioner Broadback.

Um point of order real fast.

Are we in discussion right now or are we still asking questions of staff?

What are we doing?

Or both or both at the same time?

Yeah.

I mean we can we can openly discuss and ask questions about what is presented on the screen.

That that is our purview today.

Okay.

All right.

And if there are issues that we want to highlight that we have concerns with, we're here to discuss those to identify them.

We're not taking any action, you know, on any of these things today.

And if we but if there's a consensus that we want to revise some of these conditions, then we would need to rescind what was voted on the last time and then put that on the agenda.

But what I'm hearing you say is that um that's only if we could come to some resolution on what those what might be hypothetically.

So I mean, if we practically speaking, if we're gonna consider if we're gonna consider changes, I don't know that we can know when it will come back on the agenda.

Um but we're here to discuss these revisions and find out whether we agree or we have additional questions.

That that's that's what this meeting is about today.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

Okay.

Um to clarify the motion that was passed um uh last month was uh Commissioner Cosgrove made a motion to go ahead and forward the design guidelines.

Um uh and it was in light of the discussion, the the very full discussion that the commission had about the guidelines as they were.

Um I made a friendly amendment that was accepted by Commissioner Cosgrove uh because of my discomfort in voting on language language that we had not seen.

Um my friendly amendment was simply to ask that staff post the revised language by a certain date.

Um and that uh and that so long as that language was consistent with the discussion that we had, then it would move forward.

Um my question for staff real quick, and then I'll finish my statement is is it your understanding that the revised language that you posted was consistent with our discussion last month?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so that being said, we passed it unanimously.

I remember applause, I remember hugs and kisses.

Um it it passed unanimously.

Um that being said, as a quasi-judicial body, we always have the opportunity to reconsider, but there's a process associated with that as well.

Because we didn't know notice we didn't publicly notice that we might take issue that we might take action on this tonight, we can't even pass a motion to reconsider tonight because we have to notice the public that we're gonna take action on the Nor Hill guidelines.

That would be next month.

If that motion were to pass, then we couldn't take action on the guidelines until the following month, because you can't you can't presuppose what you're gonna do if you pass a motion to consider, reconsider.

So we've got at least two months before we could take any kind of action, which brings me back to the proposal of a subcommittee.

That gives a subcommittee plenty of time to act.

And their first task would be to convince the commission that voted unanimously last month to reconsider.

That would be task number one.

We have to be convinced to reopen the discussion.

Then if we choose to do that, then there's a discussion that can happen.

But one of the speakers earlier suggested that having that discussion in this forum is not really productive.

It would be much easier in the form of a subcommittee that we would allow the public to attend if they wanted to.

And then the subcommittee could bring any proposed changes back to us.

But this is what happens when you pass a motion, especially unanimously, you gotta be really careful about revisiting it because part of my concern here is about precedent.

We have to be really, really careful, especially about something as big as the Norhill Design Guidelines that was worked on for 10 years.

If we so easily reopen something, then anything can be reopened.

And I've got a list of a few things I'd like to reconsider, but I'm pretty sure my colleagues would really rather that we not.

So I will restate my suggestion that we just form the subcommittee now.

That doesn't require any kind of formal action, and then we move forward accordingly.

So would would the design guidelines go to the Quality of Life Committee as they are now, or would they like be kind of held in limbo?

Well, absolutely Deputy Director Williamson speak and then Commissioner Jones.

Well, I I just have a question uh for Matt, because uh part of the conditions and your friendly amendment was that we post them by a certain date, and we didn't do that.

So are they null and void because we missed our date?

I I wouldn't think so.

I think you'd still try to wanna comply with what was voted upon or what was my my point is because we had difficulty drafting those amendments, we missed our date.

And we're trying to get this done as quickly as possible.

And we believe that by rescinding the approved document, we can then draft these additional changes, which are on the margin.

We're not talking, as everybody said, we're not talking about a wholesale change.

We're not talking about doubling the far.

We're not talking about minimizing the set the rear setbacks, everything that's important in the neighborhood.

We're talking about, as Commissioner Seidel said, making a document that people in the field can pick up and read and understand and not have ambiguity like this language that we've got on the screen.

That's what we're trying to fix.

May I respond?

Um respectfully, I just don't think that missing a deadline uh rises to the level of nullifying that vote.

I just don't see how that would happen.

It's it sounds unreasonable to me.

Commissioner Jones.

I'm trying to collect my thoughts here because my brain is mush now at 549.

My concern is that you know we are on a certain timeline here, and there's very real consequences to continuing to kick this down the curb and having committees and subcommittees and everything.

And I also really understand getting this right and getting it out to be a usable functional document.

So we still have two more public hearings in the process of this, right?

One's before quality of life and the other ones before city council.

Is there room within that process to incorporate these changes so we can keep moving forward with the document, but still have something that works for everyone?

Works for most of the that uh you're making the bet that when it goes to quality of life, the quality of life is open to changes.

Quality life can say, no, we we think this should be passed as is, and then we've got an unworkable document.

So we can't submit an amendment with it or changes to it.

The public can speak at the quality of life committee.

I mean, if you were to send something or send a statement or speak at the Quality of Life Committee saying, you know, I these aren't ready, you should refer them back to HHC to make further amendment.

They may uh entertain that.

Okay.

But we're talking about anyone, any public member can we're talking about not substantive changes necessarily, but more clarifying editorial changes, correct?

That's correct.

Yes, but there are some but there are some significant things that have to be correct that have to be corrected.

There are definitions that left over from previous districts guidelines, et cetera, that don't apply to this.

There are things that we didn't define that we need to define so that these guys can build it.

An example, we use original structure and existing house in the same sentences, meaning different things, and we don't address how do we deal with a house that has an extension on it.

And what how does that count?

Because we're not supposed to go out wider or you know what is that extension?

How can you come over it?

Those are just things that we have to nail down so that we're not asking in the questions later.

Um ridge height.

We've got two different definitions of ridge height in here.

We should only have one.

That should be really clear.

Um the shall approve um section.

Uh we the they took out the shall approved so that we would all be voting on everything every time.

So any additions.

So there were so that uh staff can't approve an addition like they can say in the heights.

Can I just no that just I just want to add okay?

Yeah, yet.

Okay.

So uh because I'll forget what I'm gonna say.

So um, but we still have in the definitions, the shall approve addition is in the definitions.

So we either we have to reconcile those.

And so those are the kind of things that we've got to to got to talk about.

Um and some of them are um as simple as if you can't have a garage if your garage has to be the same plate as the existing house, you're gonna in a lot of these houses you're gonna end up with an eight-foot garage, which not a door.

It's not a workable thing.

I mean, it's a great thing to say, but it's not practical.

And we have to have practical rules um as well.

Um so those are the kind of things, and I send I think all of you got a copy of what I sent.

And I don't think any of those things were talking about making big houses in Norhill.

Um, but they are technical things that should be addressed in the document.

And so I do believe that the appropriate and uh we got this from legal appropriate thing to do is to rescind that vote, rework it, bring it back next month, and we'll be and then we'll be done.

But there's more work that has to be done on the draft.

Well, like like our meeting last month, I would suggest that we discuss these things and allow staff to address the that each of them individually, like we did, so we can see how they are addressed in the document, see whether they actually have a remedy that we're not seeing, um, so that we can identify exactly which what are the areas that that are being discussed for potential clarification.

So you like you named a number of things right now, but if we could go through each one of them one at a time, and I think Terrence would like to address what you had said, um, because for the for this commission to hear what what these things are, hear what staff has to say.

Let's look at this text so we can at least understand the this each of these points.

We're not taking any action on them, but at least we would be, while we're here, we would have an understanding of what you're what you're saying.

And I know Terrence, you wanted to respond, but I'd like to we could do it in organized fashion point by point so we could have a record of that.

Um is that possible?

Uh I mean I I was only going to comment on the the shell approved um because this is and and maybe even the definitions.

Um I mean there were only two definitions that were added uh June June in the June 18th meeting.

Um I was asked to uh you know add two definitions, so we added two definitions.

So I I mean I guess if if there were issues with the definitions, then you know hey, that that is what it is, and um we'll address when we get to it.

Um I just want the commission uh members to understand with let's let's just say the uh to the shell approves, that's what I was gonna comment on.

Um other things I wasn't, you know, I wasn't gonna comment on, but as far as the shell approves, those were voted on by the residents.

Um so that's um, you know, it seems uh counterproductive to um have the residents vote on not let allowing staff to approve shell approves similar in the way that old six ward does, uh not allow AA's because old six ward residents voted to do so and place it in their guidelines.

Now it also is counterproductive in staff's opinion is if we are going to do such a thing to not include the definition of what shall approve is.

So if the voters vote, I mean if the residents submit a survey saying that they don't want shall approves to be um approved by staff administratively or approved by the director administratively, and we put in that stated.

We need to have that definition in the definitions because otherwise we would get calls of people asking what exactly is a shell approve.

So that was really going to be my only comment to that.

I'm again I'm open to anything, any changes that you guys have.

Sure.

But you have to understand that this has been as these people have said and you know others have said, it's been 10 years of work for most of the residents, and it's been over three years of work for staff.

And in that that included public meetings, surveys.

Um I know a gentleman said earlier that you know they found out the information from the website and people going door to door.

But there have been many, many, many, many certified notices over 10 years.

Yes, and we went door to door in the summer.

So um Yeah, I I mean I I just I just want if it's gonna be a subcommittee, I'm open to a subcommittee.

If it's gonna be two months from now that we do it, uh I mean just point me in which direction you want me to go and I'll and we'll go.

That's fine.

But while we're here, mayor gathered, we don't have anything else on the agenda except for a few small items.

But like this item.

I guess I just want to instead of just stating a lot of things if it is it not clear that shall approves cannot be approved by staff.

And there's a definition of what a shall approve is, is that really a conflict in this document?

I mean, I'm just I'm trying to understand in terms of like if we could bring it up in the text, we can see it.

I'm just trying to take a pulse.

Does the commission internally inconsistent?

You have to add a few more words if you microphone, please.

It's internally inconsistent in the document, and you want the document to be internally consistent.

So if that is the intent, then we address it and we make it right.

Is it possible to bring up the text though that you're referring to?

Is that as staff understood it?

We were just doing the presentation.

I did not give uh uh Samantha the uh new draft of the guidelines.

I just understood that we were just presenting.

There was to be no discussion, and we were so I apologize for that.

That put that solely on me if you'd like.

That's not a problem.

Um Commissioner Davis, you did prepare a document that was chronological through that listed out the points.

So maybe she could go through that.

Point of order, Mr.

Chair.

Um what concerns me is that we are beginning to deliberate on a matter that has already been disposed of.

That's what this discussion is beginning to resemble.

Um I'm doing my level best to push us in the right direction.

Let's do this the right way, do it in a way where it can't be challenged, and we can form a subcommittee of people who care about this the most.

They can discuss it, decide whether or not to come back to the commission, and recommend that we number one vote to reconsider.

And then if we do the following month, come back to us with what we should reconsider upon.

But unless there's an open matter, we we're deliberating on a matter that's already been disposed of.

Um, for us to decide to go to form a subcommittee, we've got to decide why and for what.

And not just loose change talk to uh concepts, right?

So I'm trying to define the meat of these issues.

Commissioner Seidel, you have mentioned specifically dimensional issues with construction.

So I'm assuming you're referring to heights, wall heights, ridge heights, and so that is that's you have defined that for me.

Now I don't know which ones in in total that you're referring to, but I know what a ridge height is, I know what a plate height is, and I I understand that question with the shall approve.

I don't still understand the issue with what's in the document.

That's why I'm asking Terrence to explain the document so that we have that understanding.

But I know there uh Commissioner Davis, you've raised many, many points, and and I just want to get them out so we can understand what they are and give staff a chance to at least give us some insight in that.

We don't have to deliberate ourselves, but I am trying to get an understanding of the totality of these things and and whether or not the what Terrence has done still satisfies some of these things, or there's some other clause that take care of them.

That's all.

And I think legal counsel uh well, I see your your flag is up.

So I'll let you address, but I think that um you're gonna keep us out of any areas that we shouldn't be discussing.

So hopefully.

But I saw Commissioner Gros Cosgrove wanted to speak before I just had a question that I mean we approved the document with conditions, and it appears to me as if the Commission is not satisfied with the conditions.

And I I want to know from your standpoint how where that puts us.

Like I mean, it it was approved with these certain conditions, and it seems like the language that has come back to us is not you know acceptable to the Commission, and does that allow us to accelerate the pace of opening it back up and redoing it.

I mean, I consider this as the posting that we required, right?

Your friendly amendment was that it, you know, we didn't get it online beforehand in the time frame, but we do have it now, and now we are looking at it and saying we may not like the the way the staff, no offense, interpreted the conditions that we you know accepted it upon.

So just had that question.

Right.

So the I think that you know we're and the whole point of presentation, giving a presentation today from what I understand was so that everyone can see what conditions were made, you know, if whether or not that was satisfactory.

Um we had members of the public speak, say some said we don't like it, some said we go ahead and keep going forward forward with it.

Some of the commissioners, Commissioner Davis had some uh well researched, you know, well written um issues written out.

Um I would advise that the commission make motion or make a move to rescind the whatever was uh approved for failure of you know wasn't it didn't meet the conditions of what um was voted upon in the last meeting um and then put it on the agenda for reconsideration uh in the August Commission meeting.

Um so that can be like a a double a dual motion, but we don't we want to avoid going back and forth with the quality of life committee or um you know if they kick it down, we're gonna just have to then we'll have to go ahead and do the same process over again.

Um so we kind of just want to be able to provide the quality of life committee with a clean document that everyone in this commission says this is what we want, we would like you to approve this.

Um so to get to that point, I think like I said, I think we need to to this committee needs to move or this commission needs to move um to rescind or say that what was approved at the June meeting, that those conditions weren't met, um, and then move to place the design guidelines for consideration uh on the August agenda.

Um and I think that will allow us to get to the point where we can tell we can give the Quality of Life Committee a clean document that has all this discussion that we're doing right now as part of that.

So that's what I would recommend.

So first question as was asked earlier by Commissioner Broadback.

Do to legally can the Commission vote to rescind the decision from the last month in order to seek more clarity on the revisions that we intended at this meeting.

Yeah.

There's not a there's not guidance to say that we cannot.

So I mean, as a um, as the committee, you guys or as the commission, you guys have a lot of deference to to make decisions as to procedure.

So I think this would fall within the power that you all have to do.

And my understanding is that we what we cannot do at this meeting is vote to make any changes to the document at this meeting, however.

That's right.

Um that's the difference between what what we're I just want to clarify that.

Hello?

Right.

Um this meeting was or the agenda item for today was only a presentation and then allow for the commission to discuss.

Okay.

We'd have to move to make some sort of change or to allow for some change in the future.

Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes our planning director of trend.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for everybody.

This is a very important endeavor.

I feel like we are at a place that is very, very important.

And the discussion is what I like to sh to bring in at this point is that first and foremost, at this meeting on the agenda, this item is set as a presentation to the board.

There is nothing on the agenda that say that we are to make a consideration.

So just to be clear, the presentation from the staff is to present whether or not the staff hit the target of what your guidance were.

It appears from listening to the I've been sitting in the audience that we the staff and my team has not met the target.

There are still areas that are needed to be clarified, in addition that the language needs working on so that there is clarity to the public and anyone who picks up this document in the future that there is not going to be any confusion.

So where we are right now, as Matt, I think gave us one option, but where I would like to guide this board is that because staff has not hit your target, what I like to do is for you to consider that just state that staff has not hit the target.

At the next August meeting, you can request that we put on the agenda for this to be considerate to be considered.

Then you can make a motion on all the things.

Commissioner Bodrick suggests it forming a subcommittee.

Other people say keep working staff.

You didn't hit target.

We cannot make a decision.

We cannot make a vote today.

If you want to make any changes, it has to be at the next meeting, the August meeting.

All right.

We come back, you you open this item up again, and then you can say, I suggest, Commissioner Bodrick, you can make your motion.

Can we form a committee?

Someone else can say, no, we keep working.

In the meantime, if we want to, the staff can continue to work on the red line from what we captured.

But again, I think that this is a lot trickier than what we need everybody.

We need the red line to be distributed to everyone so that we did what you ask us to do.

So I just want to clarify that.

All right.

We cannot make a vote.

We cannot make a consideration.

So what I can say is that if you want to, you can close this and continue it next time where we have on the agenda that you have the ability to make a motion.

Are we in agreed agreement?

I think so.

Commissioner Seidel has a question.

So I don't understand why we can't discuss and form a subcommittee.

That's different than like in the interest of time.

I mean, I just shared my my view of this.

It's been 10 years.

Um I've been on this commission very short time.

It's been 10 years.

If it's if it's two more months, let's get it right.

Like that makes sense.

I feel though, as if we don't do anything, we come back here, we have another discussion that produces some confusing tasks for staff, then they don't get it right.

I'm trying to be as efficient with time.

Is there a reason why we couldn't create a subcommittee, hammer home the significant points, make it clear, and then take a look if that fulfills what everybody's looking for.

I understand that, but for the sake of what Commissioner Bodric brought up that you are at risk of doing something that we don't have now.

Obviously, you can continue to contribute your red lines.

You want to you're making an action.

We are at risk of you doing something that is not on the agenda.

And that's not to say that you cannot continue to work with our staff.

Okay.

You can you call it whatever you want to call it, subcommittee.

Send us your comments in the in in the meantime.

Okay, that that clearly answers.

We're not saying we're gonna stop working.

Yeah.

All I'm saying is that it is not on the agenda today to make any kind of motion.

We we presented to you.

Did we hit the mark or not?

We heard you, we didn't hit the mark.

We're gonna continue to work on on this.

Okay.

Next time we'll come back, it will be a presentation and a consideration.

At that time, when we re-present to you and we hit the mark, you can consider and go, done, move forward, as we said, or mm-mm, we we need to form a subcommittee or whatever.

There is not a vote on the table today.

Quick question.

So at the next meeting, we would have the option, I just want to make sure we could do it in one meeting, that we could rescind the previous vote and vote.

I mean, just so that however the agenda needs to be a good idea.

We just didn't have a consideration, yes.

Are you saying we can't?

I I disagree that we can.

We it would still have to take place over two meetings.

The reason why is because the Norhill guidelines involve very specific language.

And so if we're going to be voting on specific language, we gotta post that in advance so that the public knows what we're voting on.

So it would be so to be consistent with the directors council, the soonest we could make any changes if we did at all would be September.

Um but before that, I believe that because of the nature of the unanimous vote, applause and hugs and kisses, we need to be convinced just to reconsider first in order for us to have credibility moving forward.

That's my that's my position.

Matt, please chime in.

I know we talked about this, and I think that Commissioner Bodreck stated exactly when we were looking at the process.

So please chime in.

But that is how I understood it.

All right.

It's gonna be till September.

And I'm so sorry that anyone in this room is disappointed, but this is really important work.

And you don't want this to fall apart because of process.

Like you said, Director.

Um on the head.

Um so we're gonna have to go through that process, and it's gonna take a bit more time.

And that's just because of the way um where we have to operate.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Garcia.

Director Tron, uh, I I want to commend your staff.

They've worked really hard and the timeline that we put on them originally was um unreasonable.

But um, Terrence, you're you're partially guilty for that for saying yes.

Um But they're they're doing a great job, and uh, they've done everything that the commissioners have asked of them.

I want you guys to recognize that we recognize that.

Thank you for your support.

And it really means a lot to us too for your service and your contribution, because I know that you guys have a lot of more important things to do at 6 o'clock right now, uh, but this means a lot to the community.

This means a lot to the city of Houston.

This is really important work.

And I really, really also am very honored to be a part of this work.

I know I've been behind the scene, uh, and then most of all I wanted to acknowledge Chara Buchak, who has been here with us for many, many years, and this is a work of love, and it's a uh it's a gift to our city, it's a gift to our community, and that's why I apologize that um it's a disappointment that this is gonna have to drag out two more months, but this is really important to Norhill, and we want the community to be able to read this document and really understand it, okay, and we need more work, and I I want to get us there, okay?

And thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we'll take no action on item G, and we'll move on to item I, comments from the H A H C.

There doesn't have to be any comments, by the way.

Okay, we will move on then to the historic preservation officers report.

I don't know if Robert did you intend to say anything or I think it's best from that side of the podium as well.

Thank you.

There is no report today from the historic preservation officer.

Thank you.

Then the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you all.