* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] HAHC [Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on November 17, 2022.] IS CALLED TO ORDER. I'M COMMISSION CHAIR DAVID EK TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM. I WILL CALL THE ROLE. UM, THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. UM, IS VICE CHAIR, UM, ELIZABETH AUER JACKSON PRESENT VIRTUALLY. OKAY. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, UM, CROSS HER OFF FOR THE MOMENT AND SEE IF SHE JOINS. THE MEETING. IS COMMISSIONER ASHLEY JONES? PRESENT, PRESENT IS COMMISSIONER TANYA DEBO PRESENT VIRTUALLY CAN STAFF SEE AND IT CAN, CAN SEE THAT ONLINE. OKAY, SO NO FOR NOW. UH, COMMISSIONER SWEENEY SEN, I BELIEVE IS GONNA BE JOINING US A FEW MINUTES LATE. HE'S NOT HERE YET. UH, COMMISSIONER VEDA NOT PRESENT. I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER, UH, COSGROVE WILL NOT BE PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MCNEIL PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CURRY. I KNOW HE'S EXPECTED TO JOIN THE MEETING, SO MAYBE, PERHAPS WE'LL BE RIGHT HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER COLLUM, ARE YOU PRESENT VIRTUALLY? OKAY. COMMISSIONER YAP. UH, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STAVO. COMMISSIONER COUCH PRESENT. AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER OSLAN PRESENT. THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE QUORUM. GOOD. SO WE'LL FIRST START WITH THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, UM, FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S JENNIFER OSLAN. I'M ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. UH, THIS MEETING OF THE HAHC IS BEING CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT 900 BAGBY STREET AND COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE PUBLIC LEVEL IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX WITH A VIRTUAL TEAMS PARTICIPATION OPTION. UH, THIS ROOM HAS A FRONT AND A REAR DOOR, EASILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, OR IF YOU NEED TO STEP OUT TO TAKE A PHONE CALL. UM, A FEW SPEAKERS GUIDELINES. AS ALWAYS, THE AGENDAS AVAILABLE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM AND IT INCLUDES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RULES. PLEASE ONLY SPEAK WHEN YOU'RE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR. YOU CAN FILL OUT A SPEAKER FORM OR TYPE YOUR NAME AND ITEM INTO THE CHAT TO BE RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. PLEASE STAY MUTED UNLESS RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU. AND JUST TO NOTE, IF YOU'RE ON, UM, TUNING IN BY PHONE, STAR SIX IS, UH, USUALLY HOW YOU CAN MUTE AND UNMUTE, UH, REGARDING THE 2023 CALENDAR, WHICH, UM, COMMISSIONERS APPROVED LAST MONTH. WE HAVE, I NOTICED, A, AN ERROR OR A SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. UM, THE DATES IN THE FIRST PART OF THE YEAR ARE, ARE PROBABLY WON'T, I MEAN, WON'T CHANGE. SO IF YOU'VE ALREADY MADE PLANS AROUND, UH, COMMISSION MEETINGS, THEN YOU'RE GOOD. BUT WE WILL BE BACK. UM, UH, I ANTICIPATE NEXT MONTH WITH AN, UH, UPDATED CALENDAR FOR YOU TO REVIEW AND APPROVE. UM, AND, UM, JUST A SNAPSHOT OF SOME OF THE PRESERVATION WORK IN OCTOBER THAT IS NOT, UH, OR IS BEYOND TODAY'S AGENDA. STAFF HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 283 APPLICATIONS THROUGH NOVEMBER 1ST, AND THAT'S THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WITH 34 RECEIVED SINCE THE REPORT IN OCTOBER SO FAR THIS YEAR, THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED 108 OF THESE 283 APPLICATIONS. STAFF REVIEWED EIGHT ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED ITEMS WITH 80 AS OF NOVEMBER 1ST IN OCTOBER. STAFF ALSO RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR SIX PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEWS WITH A TOTAL OF 39 FOR THE YEAR. THE NEXT HAHC MEETING IS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14TH AT 2:30 PM IN THIS ROOM. AND ALSO THERE WILL BE A VIRTUAL OPTION. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL US AT, UM, THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. YOU MAY WANNA SEE IF BETH AUER JACKSON CAN BE RECOGNIZED. I SEE SHE'S JOINED VIRTUALLY, CERTAINLY IS. UM, COMMISSIONER AUER JACKSON PRESENT VIRTUALLY? YES. CHAIRMAN, I AM MAKING MY WAY TO A VIDEO CAMERA. I AM HERE. I JOINED AT 2 31. APOLOGIES FOR THE INTERRUPTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. [00:05:02] OKAY, MOVING ON. UM, I JUST WANNA SEE IF THE MAYOR'S LIAISON, UM, MR. CANO IS HERE FOR A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION NOT SEEING YOUR I, OKAY, WELL, WE'LL MOVE ON. SO THEN I BELIEVE WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM A, UH, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS FOR CONSENT. OH, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. LET ME, LET ME BACK UP. UM, UH, LET'S, LET'S REVIEW THE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY, UM, COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS ON THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, ARE THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES I PRESENTED. IS THERE A SECOND? JONES SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SORRY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES. TECHNICALITY. THIS RIGHT HERE? YES. OKAY. SO NOW MOVING ON TO CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, UM, APPLICATIONS, BEGINNING WITH CONSENT ITEMS. ROMAN, DO YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL? YES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. GOOD. AFTER. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC. UH, MY NAME'S ROMAN MCALLEN. I'M THE PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND I'M GONNA PRESENT TO YOU, UM, OUR CONSENT ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING. UH, IF I ALSO AM, REMEMBER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE STAR STAFF STARTS PRESENTATION. WE'VE DONE THAT STEP. WE'RE GOOD. ALRIGHT. YES, PLEASE. ALRIGHT, SO THE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FOR ACTION PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN ONE MOTION. BASICALLY IT'S ALL THE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 12 AND I'LL READ THROUGH THEM. THAT'S 85 15 DOVER STREET FOR AN ALTERATION IN GLENBROOK VALLEY. WE'RE ASKING FOR DENIAL AND ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION FOR THE WORK AS APPROVED, AS APPLIED FOR, UH, ITEM 2 10 14 WEST GARDNER STREET, DEMOLITION OF A GARAGE IN NOR HILL FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 3 19 66 WEST GRAY STREET ALTERATION A SIGN. AND THIS IS AT THE LANDMARK RIVER OAKS, UH, SHOPPING CENTER FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 4 19 16 50. MY APOLOGIES. ITEM FOUR IS 1650 CORTLAND STREET, AN ADDITION IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 5 36 18 BURLINGTON IN WESTMORELAND FOR APPROVAL. THAT'S IN ADDITION. ITEM 6 36 18 BURLINGTON NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE APARTMENT IN WESTMORELAND FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 7 9 1 6 KAISER STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN NOR HILL. FOUR. APPROVAL ITEM 8 3 1 9 EAST 18TH STREET. NEW CONSTRUCTION, SINGLE FAMILY IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 9 3 19 EAST 18TH STREET. NEW CONSTRUCTION, DETACHED GARAGE, APARTMENT IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST FOR APPROVAL. ITEM TEN TWO FIFTEEN EAST 11TH STREET. AND A ROOF CHANGE. SO WHEN WE CHANGE MATERIAL ON A ROOF, WE'VE GOTTA COME TO COMMISSION. AND HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST FOR APPROVAL. ITEM 11 8 0 4 HAWTHORNE, UH, AN ALTERATION IN AUDUBON PLACE FOR APPROVAL. AND ITEM 12 5 10 HIGHLAND STREET, AN ALTERATION EDITION, WOODLAND HEIGHTS FOR APPROVAL. WE ARE REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS. ONE THROUGH 12 ON YOUR AGENDA. THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU ROMAN, UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ON THIS CONSENT LIST THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? AVA, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM, UH, NUMBER 11 BECAUSE I'M UNABLE TO VOTE ON THAT ONE. OKAY. UM, NOT HEARING ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS. UM, [00:10:01] IS THERE, UM, WILL, SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO BRING A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA? AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE, THIS, THIS VOTE IS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT ALSO, UM, APPROVAL OF THESE ITEMS AS WELL IN ONE VOTE. UH, YAP MAKES A MOTION TO ACCEPT, UH, ITEMS ONE TO 12 LESS. 11. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I SECOND IT. COUNT SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION, UH, COMMISSIONER SAVA. OKAY, THE MOTION PASSES AND NOW WE WILL, UH, PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION. UH, THE REMAINING ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A, ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS. COMMISSIONER YAP. PULLED OUT ITEM 11, I THINK. YES. YES. I PULLED OUT ITEM 11 BECAUSE COMMISSIONER STAAVA CAN VOTE. SO THE CONSENT WAS FROM ONE TO 10 AND THEN 12. CORRECT. SO EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING EXCEPT 11. YES. YEAH. SO, SO CAN WE JUST GO AHEAD ON 1110, VOTE ON 11 WITHOUT REVIEWING IT? OR DO WE NEED TO REVIEW 11 IF THERE'S NO OTHER, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENT ON ITEM 11 OR QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, YOU CAN RE YOU CAN SIMPLY ASK FOR A MOTION UNDERSTOOD IN THE SECOND AND VOTE ON THAT AND THAT WILL REFLECT THEN, UM, COMMISSIONER STAVES, UH, RECUSAL. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS THEN THEREFORE IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM NUMBER 11 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA INDIVIDUALLY? YEP. SO MOVES, IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND AGAIN, ONE ABSTENTION COMMISSIONER STAVO. THANK YOU. SO NOW WE WILL MOVE TO THE TWO REMAINING ITEMS ON THE, ON THE AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, AND WE'LL BE STARTING WITH ITEM NUMBER 13. HELLO, THIS IS STAFF MEMBER COLEMAN. I PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEM A 13, UH, 32 15 AND 32 19 WHITE OAK DRIVE. IT IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 19, SORRY, 2002. AND IT ALSO CONSISTS OF A APARTMENT BUILDING CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1950. IT IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS DISTRICT SOUTH. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE PREVIOUS, UM, APPLICATION WAS APPROVED BY COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER OF 21. THIS IS CURRENT APPLICATION IS A REVISION AND REDESIGN OF THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS, THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS 2,402 SQUARE FEET AND A 735 SQUARE FOOT PATIO AREA. THIS IS A REDUCTION FROM THE PREVIOUS 3,137 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE PROPOSING A RESTAURANT BUILDING AS OPPOSED TO A RETAIL AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. THE HEIGHT IS MAINTAINED AT 19 FEET WITH A PARAPET, AND THE PRI PRIMARY ROOF IS IN MODIFIED BITUMEN AND THE PATIO ROOF WILL BE IN ALUMINUM. THE PROPOSED FRONT WALL WIDTH IS UPDATED TO 65 FEET FOUR INCHES, AND IT WAS PREVIOUSLY 88 FEET, UM, BEFORE THE SIDE PATIO, UM, IS ADDED FACING THE BIKE PATH. THE PROPOSAL ALSO, UM, INCLUDES UH, BRICK VENEER, STUCCO AND METAL CANOPIES, WHICH WILL BE USED AS THE PRIMARY FACADE MATERIALS ON THE STREET FACING WALLS. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPOSED STEEL COLUMNS HAS BEEN CHANGED AND THE CASTSTONE REMOVED LEFT CORNER OF THE FRONT FACADE WILL BE MODIFIED WITH FULL GLAZING FROM TOP TO BOTTOM METAL AWNINGS AND STEEL COLUMNS. THE FRONT WINDOW OPENINGS ARE ENLARGED AND THE FAUX WINDOW OPENINGS ABOVE, UM, ARE PROPOSED NEAR THE PARAPET. THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, MEASURABLE STANDARDS FOR AN ATYPICAL USE, BUT DOES NOT MEET THE QUALITATIVE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. UH, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SATISFY CRITERIA TWO AND THREE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND I BELIEVE THE ARCHITECT AND AGENT IS ONLINE FOR OUR QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. UH, FIRST ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS [00:15:01] WHO, UM, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OR ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THE ITEM? UM, YEAH. WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES THAT, UH, THAT TODAY DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA VERSUS THE APPROVED, UH, I ITEMS FROM BEFORE. THANK YOU. SURE. THE, UM, OVERALL HORIZONTALITY OF THE PREVIOUS DESIGN IS REFLECTIVE OF THE CONTRIBUTING CONTEXT ON WHITE OAK. AS YOU CAN SEE, I BELIEVE AT THE END OF THE REPORT I HAVE THOSE, UM, THOSE BUILDINGS AS A REFERENCE. UM, ALSO THE STEEL COLUMNS. UM, THE VARIATION IN THE PARAPET AND ESPECIALLY THAT ENTIRE WALL, UH, OF GLASS ON THAT CORNER IS A VERY DIFFERENT ELEMENT THAN ANY OF THE CONTRIBUTING CONTEXT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. UM, AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AND STAFF, I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED THERE ARE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. CAN ALL HEAR ME? YES. YES. UH, THIS IS COREY QUIRE. YES. UH, AWESOME. HOW ARE Y'ALL THIS AFTERNOON? MY NAME IS COREY QUI. THAT'S D AS IN DOG, E-C-U-I-R-E. UM, I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT. UM, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME. UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO ADJUST THIS, UH, NEW ELEVATION TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES SO THAT WE CAN ENHANCE THE DESIGN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHILE STILL MEETING THE STANDARDS THAT YOU ALL ARE REQUIRING, WHICH IS KIND OF WHY WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND PRESENT, GET YOUR FEEDBACK AND, UM, SEE IF WE CAN WORK WITH YOU ON THAT NEW CONCEPT. UH, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ENDED UP CHANGING THIS DESIGN FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IS AS WE WENT FURTHER WITH SOME RESTAURANT USERS AND SOME INTERESTED PARTIES, UH, THEY REALLY WANTED THAT EXTERIOR PATIO SO THEY COULD HAVE THE OUTDOOR DINING. UH, WE WANTED TO CREATE A PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT AROUND THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE TIER AND THE MULTIMODAL AND SAFETY AND DESIGN BRANCH TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THAT CORNER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE WE'VE KIND OF ADDED SOME LANDSCAPE AREAS AND REALLY MADE A DESTINATION AT THAT NEW CORNER. UM, YOUR RENDERING RIGHT THERE ACTUALLY IS FLIPPED. SO IT WOULD BE, UM, WE'VE REVERSED THE BUILDING SINCE THAT MODEL WAS DONE. UH, THE ONLY GLAZING WOULD ACTUALLY BE BELOW THE CANOPY HEIGHT. ANYTHING ABOVE WOULD BE EITHER A STUCCO OR A BRICK. UM, SO WE'VE REALLY BEEN WANTING TO CREATE THAT DESTINATION FOR A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT. WE'VE ALSO DONE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, UM, EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST, AND FOUND A FEW MORE CONTEXT ITEMS THAT WE COULD PERHAPS DRAW FROM, BUT REALLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE COULD DO TO EVOLVE THIS DESIGN SO THAT IT BEST ENHANCES COMMUNITY ON EVERYONE'S UH, LEVEL. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND I, I THINK I, I DON'T THINK PULLING THE BUILDING BACK, CREATING THE OUTDOOR SPACE IS AN ISSUE FOR STAFF THAT THAT'S NOT, NOT AN ISSUE. I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH THE, UH, MASSING AND HORIZONTALITY OF MANY OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT, UH, OR PERIOD SIGNIFICANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA. UM, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THAT YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME? NOT HEARING ANY? UM, MAYBE JUST TO YES, MR. MR. VAON? SURE. UH, SO QUICK QUESTION. UH, SO WOULD YOU BE OKAY, UH, THIS IS FOR THE OWNER, UH, KIND OF, IT'S OKAY IF YOU WANNA PULL, PUSH, PULL BACK THE BUILDING FOR AN OUT OUTDOOR SEATING AREA, BUT KIND OF WORKING WITH THE STAFF WITH THE CURRENT MASSING, UH, TO GET BACK TO THE OLDER DETAILS OF THAT HORIZONTAL IT HORIZONTALITY AND ALL THAT , BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE FOUR WINDOWS AND ALL AS IT'S POINTED IN THE REPORT. UH, IF IS THAT CRITICAL? DOES IT ADD VALUE TO THE SPACE OR THE IMAGE? UH, JUST LIKE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT, LIKE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. UM, [00:20:01] IF I MAY, UH, SO REMOVING THE FAUX WINDOWS IS NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL. ONE REVISION WE HAVE MADE TO THIS RENDERING FROM WHEN IT WAS DONE, WE'VE ACTUALLY RAISED THE STEEL COLUMN CORNER SO THAT IT IS IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE BUILDING. UM, WE'D BE HAPPY TO REMOVE SOME OF THE GLAZING IN THAT KIND OF CORNER ENTRY TO DO MAYBE LIKE A DOOR AND SOME SIDELIGHTS RATHER THAN A FULL WIDTH GLASS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY OPEN TO MAKING SOME REVISIONS TO THIS JUST MAKE AND HAVING THAT DIALOGUE. UH, WE EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT RAISING THE STOREFRONT WINDOWS ALONG WHITE OAK, MAYBE 18 INCHES OFF THE GROUND BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY COMMON CONTEXT IN THE AREA. SO WE'RE VERY OPEN TO MAKING SOME REVISIONS, UM, AND JUST LOOK FORWARD TO STAFFS COMMENTS AND DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE WE NEEDED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU. ANOTHER QUESTION, I HAD A QUESTION FOR LEGAL ON THIS, ON THIS ITEM, UM, OBVIOUSLY ONE OPTION A COMMISSIONER COULD BRING A VOTE TO DEFER TO LET THE APPLICANT WORK OUT WITH STAFF. SOME OF THESE ITEMS, STAFF, THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED SOME VERY SPECIFIC REC RECOMMENDATIONS. MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, CAN BE, CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, IF, IF THE COMMISSION IS GENERALLY, I MEAN, OUR ISSUE IS WE, WE HAVE TO SEE SOMETHING IN ORDER TO APPROVE IT. IS, IS, IS MY CONCERN HERE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICANT'S WILLING TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT, AND THAT MIGHT POINT TOWARD A DEFERRAL. UM, ARE, I GUESS, AND IF, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE THE, THE GENERAL CONCEPTS THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED THEY'RE WILLING TO DO. WOULD, WOULD THAT IN YOUR OPINION, BRING THIS IN LINE, UM, CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL APP, UH, APPROVED APPLICATION? YEAH. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN IN, IN, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION. I, I THINK THE QUESTION IS MORE, HAVE THEY BEEN SPECIFIC ENOUGH THAT YOU ALL WOULD BE COMFORTABLE GIVING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND LETTING THIS THEN BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL? CORRECT. OR ARE THEY GENERAL TO THE POINT THAT YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY SEE REVISED DRAWINGS AND SO FORTH? BECAUSE REMEMBER, IF YOU'RE DELEGATING THIS BACK TO STAFF, GENERALLY, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE IT AGAIN. SO IF, IF, TO THE EXTENT YOU ALL CAN BE CLEAR AND THE APPLICANT CAN BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT SPECIFIC CHANGES THEY WOULD MAKE, THEN I WOULD SAY YES, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WOULD WORK THEN IF IT'S DIFFERENT STAFF CAN BRING IT BACK HERE IF NEED BE. BUT CERTAINLY, I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE FOR STAFF OF WHETHER THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE FOR THAT, FOR THAT OR JUST FOR, OR, OR IF THEY WOULD PREFER A GENERAL DEFERRAL AT THIS TIME. UH, MR. CHAIR, CAN WE HOLD THAT THOUGHT? I I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, IN LINE WITH WHAT, UH, UH, CHAIR EK HAS ASKED, HAS ACTUALLY THE ARCHITECT, UH, COME AND WORK TOGETHER WITH THE STAFF AS WELL, OR THIS IS BA BASICALLY JUST PLANTED THIS, UH, ON YOUR DESK AND THEN SAID THIS IS GOING TO BE IT. HAVE YOU ALL BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO WORK WITH THEM? UM, BY THE TIME THEY SAW THE RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S WHEN THEY WANTED TO ADAPT AND MAKE SOME CHANGES. UHHUH, , UM, IT WAS JUST TOO LATE IN THE PROCESS TO, UM, TO PUT ANY OF THAT INTO THE REPORT AND TO CHANGE THE PROPOSAL. UM, BASICALLY THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT BOTH OF YOU ALL HAVEN'T HUDDLED TOGETHER YET. THIS IS HOW THEY WANTED TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF, UH, BACK AND FORTH AND THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT WITH THE, THE CLIENT AS TO WHAT THEY WANTED AND HOW THEY ADAPTED THE DESIGN. SO THEY, I THINK THEY WANTED TO SEE AND HEAR FROM YOU IF, UM, WHAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES MIGHT BE. UM, I DID RECOMMEND TWO OPTIONS TO DEFER HIM THEMSELVES OR TO COME AND ASK THE COMMISSION TO DEFER IN ORDER TO HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY PREFERENCE IS TO ENABLE, TO ALLOW STAFF TO ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK WITH THEM TO, SO TO DEFER AND COME BACK WITH A, AT LEAST A JOINT DRAWINGS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. OKAY. IS THAT'S A MOTION? YES. IF THAT'S UH, IF THAT'S AVAILABLE. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO DEFER SO STAFF CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT. OKAY. NOW I, UH, ASK FOR A SECOND, UH, IF THERE, UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I'LL SECOND IT. COUCH SECONDS. AND THEN ARE THERE ANY REMAINING QUESTIONS? UH, ROMAN UH, A COMMENT, I'M SORRY ABOUT ME JUST TO SAY IS A VERY IMPORTANT JUNCTION BETWEEN, UM, THE EDGE, THE WEST, THE EASTERN EDGE OF THIS DISTRICT, THE EASTERN EDGE OF THIS DISTRICT ENDS RIGHT HERE AT THOSE RAIL WHERE THE OLD RAIL LINE CROSSES. SO WE REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE [00:25:01] THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION ON, ON THIS. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT SITE AND IT CONFUSES A LOT OF PEOPLE WHEN YOU COME DOWN WHITE OAK AND YOU SEE THE AREA THAT'S NOT IN A DISTRICT AND THE INTERESTING BUILDINGS THERE. AND THEN YOU COME ACROSS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS ITEM. AND WE MIGHT BE CALLING ONE OR TWO OF YOU TO ASSIST IN A, A FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW. THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND. SO, OKAY. I'VE GOT A, A MOTION AND A SECOND AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DEFER. AYE AYE. AYE. AYE. ARE THERE ANY AGAINST ANY ABSTENTIONS? A MOTION PASSES. MR. CHAIR, MAY WE RECOGNIZE FOR THE RECORD THAT TWO COMMISSIONERS ARE IN THE ROOM? STEPHEN CURRY AND, UH, ELA SERINI VASAN DID JOIN THE MEETING. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, UH, STAFF, IF WE WILL NOW PRESENT ITEM 14, I PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ITEM A 14 10 29 ARLINGTON STREET. IT IS A CONTRIBUTING QUEEN ANNE RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1920, LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT SOUTH. A PREVIOUS, UM, C OF A WAS APPROVED IN APRIL OF 2013 FOR THE NORTHWEST REAR CORNER AND ALSO IN MAY OF 2022 FOR THE, UM, THE CURRENT EDITION. BUT THIS IS A REVISION TO THAT APPLICATION. THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 1,210 SQUARE FOOT EDITION AT THE REAR OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY 1200 SQUARE FEET. THE FIRST FLOOR WILL BE 460 SQUARE FEET, PREVIOUSLY 4 75. THE SECOND FLOOR WILL BE 750 SQUARE FEET, PREVIOUSLY 725. IT IS STILL SET BACK 75% FROM THE FRONT OF THE HISTORIC HOME. THE PROPOSAL, UM, INCREASES THE ROOF PITCH TO 12 OVER 12 TO MATCH THE HISTORIC. AND IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THREE OVER 12. THE RIDGE HEIGHT WILL BE INCREASED TO 29 FEET, EIGHT AND THREE EIGHTHS OF AN INCH. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY 26 FEET. THE EAVES WILL BE DEEPER AND MORE PRONOUNCED AT 19, AT THE HEIGHT OF 19 FEET, 11 AND ONE QUARTER INCH. THE SECOND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT WILL BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET, 11 AND ONE QUARTER INCH. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY EIGHT FEET, SEVEN INCHES. THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, STAFF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS TO LOWER THE ROOF PITCH AND WORK WITH STAFF ON THE FINAL DESIGN. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE ARCHITECT AND AGENT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AS WELL. THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SO, MR. COMMISSIONER, SO I DIDN'T CATCH IT. WHAT WAS THE REASON TO CHANGE THE ROOF? THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE THEY'VE DONE. HAVE I UNDERSTOOD THAT? CORRECT? UM, THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE, IN THE FOOTPRINT, JUST VERY MINIMAL. UM, IT'S JUST REORGANIZING SOME OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS. UM, AND OF COURSE CHANGING THE EAVES AND THE PITCH. BUT, AND THE ARCHITECT IS ALSO HERE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE APPLICANT OKAY. WANTED TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WAS JUST A PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF WANTING THAT HIGHER PITCH. OKAY. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. BUT GEN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS APP, THIS REVISED APPLICATION, IS THAT WHILE MANY OF THE WINDOW OPENINGS AND FENESTRATIONS ARE MORE CONTEMPORARY OF OUR TIME, LET'S SAY, UM, THE MAIN THE, THE MAIN CHANGE WAS THE MASSING TO HAVE A SOMEWHAT MORE TRADITIONAL FORM OF MASSING COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUSLY. UM, WHAT'S SHOWN IN YELLOW ON THE SCREEN CURRENTLY UP IS THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE, THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YES. AND THAT, AND PART OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REDUCE THAT DIFFERENCE IN SOME WAY TO REDUCE THE VISIBILITY. BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE SIDES, YOU'LL DEFINITELY SEE THAT, UM, GABLE QUITE A BIT MORE THAN YOU WOULD THE PREVIOUS GABLE. UNDERSTOOD. UM, SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THE SIDE OF, UH, COMMISSIONER MCNEIL? WHAT'S STAFF'S CURRENT THINKING ON REDUCTION OF THE PITCH OF THE PROPOSAL PROPOSED GROUP? UM, WELL OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN 12 OVER 12, BUT SOMETHING THAT COULD, WOULD BE MORE TYPICAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAYBE. UM, AND I'M, YOU MIGHT KNOW MORE OF THAT THAN I, BUT MAYBE SIX OVER 12 OR EIGHT OVER 12, SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS PRONOUNCED. REGIONAL HOUSES 12 OVER 12. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CERTAINLY PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND IF WE COULD GO TO THE LAST FEW PAGES, THERE'S [00:30:01] THE, THE BLOCK AND SOME OF THE CONTRIBUTING CONTEXT. UM, THERE DEFINITELY ARE OTHER HOMES THAT HAVE THE 12 OVER 12, BUT IT SEEMED MORE TYPICAL TO HAVE THE LOWER S SLUNG ROOF IN THIS AREA. SO THERE'S ONE YES ON THE TOP THAT HAS, AND THEN ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LOWER. I GUESS I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. 'CAUSE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE APPROVED, THERE'S ADDITIONS THAT ARE TWO FULL STORIES THAT COME OFF THE BACK OF A HOUSE. AND THIS ONE READS MORE LIKE ONE AND A HALF. SO IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE IT'S LOWER ALREADY THAN A LOT OF THE OTHER ADDITIONS THAT WE ROUTINELY APPROVE. SO I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. AND THEY'RE MATCHING THE PICTURE OF THE ROOF, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY'RE TAKING FROM THE HOUSE. SO I I I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTION HERE TO, TO THIS. SURE. UM, TYPICALLY WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO HIP ROOFS AS WELL AS OPPOSED TO MATCHING THE GABLE. UM, JUST SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE RECESSIVE, UM, JUST IN MY EXPERIENCE HERE. UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE, THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM HAS A HIP ROOF ADDITION AT THE REAR. BUT THAT WAS OUR, OUR REASONING. AND ALSO IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ONE, IT HAS A VERY DIFFERENT, UM, APPEARANCE. SURE. BUT I, I THINK IT, HONESTLY, IT LOOKS NICER THAN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. AND WE DO THESE HUMPBACK ADDITIONS THAT ARE JUST LIKE FRANKENSTEIN THINGS. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY ELEGANT AND WELL RESOLVED. I, I JUST I, AND UH, I THINK IT WAS JUST A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ONE. SO WE WANTED IT TO COME TO YOU TO MAKE THE CALL. SURE, SURE. YEAH. MRAP, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL? UH, YES. UM, GOING BACK TO, UH, RECENT HISTORY, MOST OF THE ADDITIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TWO STORY, TWO FULL STORY ADDITIONS, LIVING YOUR CONDITION, UH, ARE TWO STORIES. AND THEN TYPICALLY THEN THE ROOFS ARE EITHER HIP AND THEN THEY ARE BROUGHT DOWN TO TYPICALLY FIVE BY 12. UH, I THINK MAXIMUM I'VE SEEN MAYBE A SEVEN BY 12, SEVEN OVER 12. AND THOSE ARE TYPICAL FULL TWO STORY ADDITION. SO TO ACTUALLY BASICALLY CONTROL THE, THE, THE, THE RICH HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. AND MY QUESTION IS, IN, IN DOING A 1212 AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, HAVE THEY GONE OVER THE RICH HEIGHT THAT IS PROPOSED, UH, IN THIS, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT? NO, THEY HAVE A MEETING THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS. SO THEY ARE AT 29, 29 FEET, EIGHT INCHES. AND SO THEY COULD STILL HAVE A 12. THEY, THEY DO HAVE A 1212, BUT IT'S STILL LOWER THAN THE, UH, PERMISSIBLE HEIGHT. I, I WOULD IMAGINE. YES. IT'S JUST THAT I, I FEAR THAT PEOPLE WILL TAKE THIS 1212 AS A WHOLESALE AND NEXT TIME YOU HAVE A TWO STORY ADDITION AND THEN THEY SUDDENLY SAYS, WELL, SOMEBODY ELSE HAS APPROVED A 1212 BEFORE, BUT, BUT THERE'S A RIDGE HEIGHT. SO IT WOULD TRIGGER THAT REQUIREMENT ONLY IN THE HEIGHTS. BUT IF YOU ARE IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS, SOMEBODY COULD USE A, A HEIGHTS, UH, UH, RE RESOLUTION HERE AND THEN USE IT ON WOODLAND HEIGHTS AND SAY, WELL, THERE'S NO MEASURABLE HEIGHTS ON THE, UH, LIMIT IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS OR EVEN IN FIRST WARD. AND THEY WANT THE 12, THEY WANT A NINE 12 TO EVEN A 1212. TYPICALLY, WE DON'T EVEN ALLOW A NINE 12 IN WHEN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS A NINE 12 IN ONE IN OUR ONE STORY COTTAGES ADDITION TO THE ONE STORY COTTAGES. SORRY. THANK YOU. BUT I THINK IF I MAY SAY, I THINK IN THIS CASE WE DON'T HAVE A FULL TWO STORY. WE HAVE A PONY WALL SITUATION WHERE IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN ATTIC CONDITION. UM, SO IT IS LOWER, IT IS LOWER THAN IT HAS A FIVE FOOT PLATE HEIGHT. SUPER LOW. WELL, IF I MAY, IF UM, I KNOW WE HAVE A SPEAKER SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS, UM, WITH THE ARCHITECT. UH, SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND PERHAPS COMMISSION MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHITECT MARK SCHATZ WHO'S HERE WITH US HANDOUT SUPPLEMENTAL. HOW DO I GET THAT TO YOU GUYS? DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. HTV. YES. SO, UM, WILSON, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO TO THE PHOTOS. OKAY. OH, PERFECT. OKAY. UM, WELL MY NAME IS MARK SCH. I'M THE ARCHITECT AND BUILDER FOR THIS PROJECT. AND, UH, WE WERE HERE IN MAY AND GOT AN APPROVAL [00:35:01] AND OUR OWNERS WERE SO EXCITED BY THAT FIRST THING THEY SAID TO ME IS, THAT'S GREAT, CAN WE MAKE IT BETTER? AND I STUPIDLY SAID, WELL, OF COURSE WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE IT BETTER. UH, SO THEY ASKED ME TO GO IN AND REARRANGE SOME OF THE FOOTPRINT TO DO ENSUITE BATHROOMS. SO THE FLOOR PLAN IS OSTENSIBLY DIFFERENT, BUT IT'S WITHIN THE SAME BOUNDARY. PERIMETER FOOTPRINT BUILDING IS ABOUT THE SAME SIZE, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME MASS WINDOWS ARE IN THE SAME GENERAL DISPOSITION. THE REAL CHANGE HERE IS IN THE ROOF. UH, SO THEY ASKED ME TO DO STUDIES ON THE ROOF. WE LOOKED AT 4 12, 6 12, 8, 12. AND THEN WE LOOKED AT THE 1212. AND THERE'S JUST SOMETHING THAT REALLY MAGICAL HAPPENS WITH THE 1212. SO WE'RE MEETING THE QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS HERE. BUT THE ISSUE I REALLY WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU GUYS IS STAFF HAS BEEN REALLY GREAT IN WORKING WITH US ON THIS, BUT I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSION AS SUBMITTED WITHOUT THE CONDITION TO LOWER THE PITCH. THE REASON IS THE DRAWINGS, THE TWO DIMENSIONAL FLAT DRAWINGS REALLY DON'T TELL YOU THE FULL STORY OF HOW THE OVERALL MASSING AS PRESENTED WILL LOOK. THE EXISTING 1910S HOUSE IS A QUEEN ANNE WITH A TRANSVERSE GABLE THAT IS PARALLEL TO ARLINGTON. SO IT'S OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT IS ABOUT 21 FEET, SO IT'S TALL TO THE STREET. SO IT VISUALLY IS GOING TO OCCLUDE THINGS FROM THE BACK. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST PAGE HERE, THAT'S THE MODEL SHOT VIEW. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THE ADDITION FROM WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE WIDE ANGLE VIEW FROM THE STREET. NOW IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE ON PAGE TWO THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN THE NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THAT ADDITION. BUT I THINK THE ELEGANCE IN THIS SOLUTION IS THE EVE HEIGHT HERE HAS BEEN LOWERED BELOW THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. SO WE'VE TAKEN OUT ABOUT THREE, THREE AND A HALF FEET OF WALL SURFACE THAT WAS IN THE PRIOR APPROVED DESIGN. NOW, WHILE WE HAVE INCREASED THE OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION, ABOUT THE SAME, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THIS LITTLE PONY WALL WE HAVE HERE GOING AROUND THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. THE ISSUE IS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE ROOF IS NOT DOMINANT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LARGER. THAT SOUNDS IDIOSYNCRATIC TO SAY, BUT MY LOGIC HERE IS THE EVE IS LOWER THAN THE RIDGE OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. SO YOUR PERCEPTION FROM THE STREET VIEW IS GOING TO BE OF PLANES THAT ARE LAYERED. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE THE EVE LINE OF THAT ADDITION STICKING UP. SO IT'S A VERY, VERY SUBTLE WAY OF LAYERING THE ROOF PLANES. AND WE'RE STILL PLANNING ON MAINTAINING THE A HUNDRED YEAR OLD LIVE OAK AND MAGNOLIA TREE. WE'RE STILL PLANNING ON USING THE SO FUJI POND BURNT CEDAR SIDING. SO THE IDEA IS THIS ADDITION WILL BLEND BACK INTO THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE IN THE BACK. THAT'S SORT OF THE GENERAL GIST OF IT. BUT THE REAL POINT HERE, I THINK THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF CONSTANCY AND CHANGE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TWO PAGES ON THIS HANDOUT, WE'VE ADAPTED THE PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND CARRIED THAT INTO THE NEW ADDITION. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE DNA OF THE HISTORICAL BUILDING HAS NOW BEEN REPLICATED. SO WE ARE VARYING THE SCALE, BUT THE GEOMETRIC PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN ARE IDENTICAL. SO I THINK THIS REALLY HELPS WITH THE IDEA OF MAINTAINING THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AS AN ELEMENT OF CONSTANCY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT LETTING THE ADDITION BE SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT HAS AN ELEMENT OF CHANGE TO IT, BUT THEY'RE VERY COMPLIMENTARY TO EACH OTHER. UM, I AM DOING THIS AS A VOLUNTEER, NO FEE SERVICE TO MY CLIENT. THEY WERE THAT MUCH ON IT AND I'M THAT MUCH ON IT AS WELL. SO WE, WE HOPE THIS PRESENTS A REALLY GOOD ARGUMENT AND I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IN, IN DETAIL. 'CAUSE I, I REALIZE THIS IS, IT'S DIFFERENT, BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT AND STAFF DOESN'T SEE IT A LOT, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN MY VIEW AS THE ARCHITECT. THANK YOU MARK. UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS. ARE THERE QUESTIONS? MR. CURRY? I THINK YES. THIS THANK YOU CHAIRMAN HICK. THIS FIRST SHOT, UH, MARK, IT'S, IT'S A PHOTO OF A PHYSICAL MODEL. YES. AND CAN YOU TELL US, AND THAT IS IN THE REPORT AS WELL. UH, RIGHT. IT, I RECOGNIZE IT. AND, AND SO WHAT, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOU WERE MODELING EXACTLY. IS IT STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET? IS IT IN A CAR? IT IT, IT'S STANDING IN THE CENTER OF THE STREET LOOKING AT IT AT APPROXIMATE EYE HEIGHT. AND THE POINT HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING RIDGE ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THAT THERE'S THIS TALLER ROOF IN THE BACK. YOU CAN SEE IT WHEN YOU GET TO THE SIDE. THAT IS TRUE. BUT THE DOMINANT VIEW IS YOU'RE NOT REALLY GONNA SEE IT ACROSS THE LONG AXIS. YEAH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? YAP HAS A QUESTION. MR. YAP, PLEASE. YEAH. ON IF I GO BACK TO YOUR, UH, PAGE 26 OF 54, UH, ON THE ORIGINAL, UH, SUBMISSION HERE. OKAY. I'LL HAVE TO SEE THAT 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE THAT IN MY HEAD. , [00:40:02] CAN WE SWITCH BACK HTV PLEASE TO THE MAIN PROJE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. ON, ON THE TOP PICTURE THAT WAS APPROVED BY HAHC? YES. YES. UH, CAN YOU REMIND ME AGAIN WHAT WAS THE PITCH OF THAT ROOF? THAT WAS A THREE 12 WITH ITS RIDGE HEIGHT AT RIGHT AT ABOUT 26 FEET AS OPPOSED TO THE NEW PROPOSED, WHICH IS RIGHT AT 29. AND SOME CHANGE, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE EVE HEIGHTS AS WELL. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PRIOR APPROVED DESIGN HAS A LOT MORE VERTICAL WALL SURFACE THAT WOULD UNDERSTOOD. BE VISUALLY APPARENT. OKAY. SO, AND YOU SAID JUST NOW A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO THAT YOU TRIED MODELING IT AT DIFFERENT, UH, UH, PITCHES? WE DID, YEAH. SO DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE HERE THAT SHOWS ME SOMETHING WHAT A SEVEN 12 WOULD LOOK LIKE? NO, I DON'T. I BROUGHT YOU THE MAGIC SOLUTION THAT WORKS. JUST WORKS, WORKS, WORKS. OKAY. I GUESS CHRISTMAS IS CLOSE BY. THANK YOU. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WAS GONNA ASK STAFF IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER MEMBERS TO SIGN UP WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I, I ONLY HAVE, UH, MARK. OKAY. I'M GONNA CLOSE PUBLIC, UH, PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. AND, UM, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, IS THERE A COMMISSION MEMBER WHO WOULD BRING A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION COMMISSIONER COUCH THAT WE ACCEPT THE DESIGN AS IT IS. OKAY. UM, I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? CURRY SECONDS. OH, SECOND MCNEIL SECONDS. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? OKAY. UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED MOTION? AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? YEAH. OPPOSED? OPPOSED. OKAY. AND ANY ABSTENTIONS. SO THAT MOTION ALSO PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I THINK WE NOW WORKED THROUGH OUR C OF A LIST AND, UH, WE'RE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM B, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. ARE THERE ANY, ANY MEMBERS, UH, PRESENT PHYSICALLY OR VIRTUALLY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? OKAY, NOT HEARING, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE, UH, HAHC COMMISSIONERS? UH, YES. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP, UH, TO OUR, UH, ATTENTION AGAIN, AN ITEM THAT WAS NOT ANSWERED IN THE LAST HAH UH, C MEETING THAT, UH, THAT THE, THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN A TWO YEAR COR AND WHEN THE TWO YEAR HAS LAPSED, THAT MEANS DO THEY GET A FREE PASS OR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT TWO YEAR FOR THOSE BAD ACTORS THAT JUST WAITED IT OUT? AND I THINK, KIM, YOU WERE NOT PRESENT THEN. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO ANSWER FORTHCOMING. THANK YOU. WELL, AND, AND MS. ADAMS DID, MS. ADAM DID, UM, ADVISE ME OF Y'ALL'S QUESTION. I'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND GO THROUGH THAT YET, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS CLOSED. SO WE'RE STILL LOOKING INTO IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IS THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING, I PRESUME. YEAH, SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS NOT HEARING ANY? I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER D, THE HISTORIC PRESENTATION OFFICER'S REPORT. ROMAN. HI EVERYBODY. UM, WILSON IS, WHO'S IN, UH, DOWN THE HALL FROM OUR OFFICE. IF YOU COULD BRING UP THE, THIS IMAGE HERE. I WANNA SHARE JUST SOME GOOD NEWS, UM, THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. UM, IN OUR OFFICE, WE GET A LOT OF, UM, REQUESTS TO REVIEW PROJECTS FROM THE GLO. SO THIS IS REGARDING, UM, SOMEONE WHO'S A, A PROPERTY THAT'S GONNA GET FUNDING FROM HARVEY RELIEF FUNDS FROM THE GLO. AND FORTUNATELY, UH, NOW THE GLO AND THE THC ARE VERY AGGRESSIVELY RECOGNIZING THE PARTS OF THE INNER CITY OF HOUSTON AS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER. AND THIS HOUSE IS A LOCATED, UM, IN, IN, IN KIND OF THE THIRD WARD AREA, UH, U OF H, UH, A LITTLE TO THE EAST OF, OF U OF H WEST OF, SORRY, OF U OF H. AND WHAT WAS GREAT IS THAT AMANDA, ON OUR STAFF, UM, YOU KNOW, CAUGHT THIS ONE IN. AND WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE IS WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS BUILDING WOULD BE DEMOLISHED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE ELIGIBLE DISTRICT, AND THAT THE APPLICANT COULD THEN CHOOSE FROM THREE HOME [00:45:01] MODELS TO REPLACE IT. UM, ALL THREE OF WHICH ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AT ALL. AND THEN, UH, NOT EVEN KEEPING WITH THE QUALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE HOMES, LIKE THIS BRICK HOME AND THIS STREET IS ALL BRICK HOMES, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT REALLY GO WELL TOGETHER. OLD HOMES FROM THE THIRTIES OR FORTIES WHENEVER THEY WERE BUILT THERE. SO THE KEY THAT AMANDA COT IS, WELL, H HANG ON A SECOND. THIS IS CLEARLY A HOME THAT'S, UH, HAS A CO HAS A COUPLE ALTERATIONS A FILLED IN FRONT PORCH, AND THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED. BUT IT DOES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, UH, THE FEDERAL REGULATION ON WHAT'S A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY OR NOT, IT'S DEFINITELY A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY. SO WE SENT AN EMAIL AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PHOTOS TO SHARE THERE, BUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN NOW IS INSTEAD OF THE BUDGET TO REPAIR BEING $60,000, THE BUDGET TO REPAIR IS $200,000. AND THE GLO HAS ALREADY INDICATED THAT, UM, THEY AGREE WITH US AND THAT IT'S NOW BEEN, IT'S GONNA BE A REHABILITATION. SO THE GREAT, IT'S GREAT NEWS, AND THIS HAS HAPPENED QUITE A FEW TIMES LATELY, AND IT'S GOING IN OUR OFFICE, WE CAN'T, IT'S ACTUALLY LIKE DRINKING FROM A FIRE HOSE, THOUGH. THEY'RE COMING AT US FAST BECAUSE I GUESS THEY'RE FINALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH RELEASING THOSE FUNDS. UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE WIND HERE, RIGHT? SO WE, THE WIND'S PRETTY, PRETTY BIG FOR OUR CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE ONE, NOT TAKING FEDERAL MONEY AND DESTROYING HISTORIC RESOURCES IN OUR CITY, BUT THEY'RE SPENDING MORE MONEY AND WE HAVE A BETTER PRODUCT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR THE CITY, FOR OUR TAX BASE, FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN THIS HOME, FOR THE PEOPLE UP AND DOWN THE STREET. I MEAN, THE HOME THEY WERE GONNA BUILD WAS GONNA LOWER THE VALUE OF ALL THE HOMES ON THE BLOCK, ARGUABLY, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THE CONTEXT AREA IS SO DISRUPTED BY THIS MARTIAN INEXPENSIVE LOOKING STRUCTURE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN PLOPPED DOWN WHERE IT IS. SO JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT GOOD NEWS, BUT I GOTTA FOLLOW THAT NEWS WITH SOME BAD NEWS. UH, SO , UH, THIS IS THE LAST MEETING OF AMANDA COLEMAN WHO JOINED OUR STAFF A COUPLE YEARS AGO, AND SHE'S BEEN, UH, UNWAVERING IN HER DEDICATION AND DETERMINATION IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF PRESERVATION ON EVERY SINGLE PROJECT WITH GREAT TENACITY, UM, VERY, VERY ELEGANTLY HAS HAS DONE THAT JOB. SO I, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO HER. YOU'RE WELCOME TO SAY A FEW WORDS TO MAN. OF COURSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AMANDA . THANK YOU. UM, IT HAS BEEN ALMOST THREE YEARS. UM, IT WOULD'VE BEEN THREE YEARS IN, IN JANUARY, AND IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A JOURNEY FOR SURE. UM, AND IT'S BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH ALL OF YOU AND LEARN FROM YOU AND BE A PART OF THIS, UM, THIS PROGRAM AND THIS PRESERVATION INITIATIVE IN HOUSTON. UM, I, I WILL CONTINUE TO BE IN HOUSTON AND HELP SUPPORT, UM, IN WHATEVER MEANS I CAN. AND, UM, I'LL MAKE THE TRANSITION INTO WORKING ON, UH, STATE AND FEDERAL TRACK TAX CREDITS. SO, UM, THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AS WELL, PRESENTING SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS TO OUR COMMISSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING IS ALL I GOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ACTUALLY FOR, UH, THE RESERVATION OFFICER. NUMBER ONE, UM, CAN YOU EDUCATE ME WHAT IS THE GLO AND NUMBER TWO, GIVEN THAT THEY ARE NOW RECEIVING $200,000 IN, UH, RESTORATION FUNDING, HOW ARE WE TO PROTECT THIS HOUSE FROM LET'S SAY A NEW OWNER WHO'S THIS OWNER SELLS AND THEN A NEW OWNER AND A TOTALLY DEMOLISH FOR A THREE STORY TOWNHOUSE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WELL, THE GLO IS THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICE PRESENTLY. THE TEXAS, UH, LAND COMMISSIONER IS, UH, GEORGE BUSH STILL, I BELIEVE FOR A FEW MORE MONTHS, UM, THAT GO THE GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICE REGULATES LAND ACROSS TEXAS, I GUESS IS THEIR MAIN PRINCIPLE. I, I RAN FOR RAILROAD COMMISSIONER. I DIDN'T RUN FOR LAND COMMISSIONER YET, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE UP TO, BUT, UH, THAT'S WHAT THE GLO DOES. AND THE GLO, UH, I, I BELIEVE ACTUALLY TOOK CONTROL OF THE EXPENDITURE OF THE HARVEY FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON, UH, THAT THE CITY HADN'T BEEN SPENDING IT FOR. SO THEY HAVE, THEY ARE AWARDING OR ALLOCATING THOSE RELIEF FUNDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE BEEN, HAD THEIR HOMES, HAD THEIR HOMES DAMAGED DURING HARVEY, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHO THEY ARE. UM, THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, CAN YOU REMIND ME AGAIN, COMMISSIONER YES. WAS TO THE PROTECTION OF THE, YOU KNOW, YES, $200,000 HAS BEEN USED TO RESTORE YES. BUT WHAT KIND OF, UH, LANDMARK OR ANY KIND OF PROTECTION BE STORED ON THIS HOUSE? SURE. WE, WE ACTUALLY THOUGHT TALKED ABOUT THAT INTERNALLY AS STAFF. SO AT [00:50:01] THIS TIME, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST AN A HOME THAT'S ELIGIBLE. IT'S IN A DISTRICT THAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING. AND WE ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE WOULD REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO'S PERHAPS, FIRST OF ALL, WE, WE, WE ALSO STATE THAT WE WERE RELUCTANT TO GET TO VOCIFEROUS ABOUT THIS CASE. I MEAN, WHEN I SENT MY INITIAL EMAIL AND ASKED THE GLO TO LOOK AT, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S SOME RELUCTANCY IN THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME FOR RELIEF. AND THERE COULD BE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE, I, I, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DON'T LIKE THEIR HOUSE AND WANT THAT NEW HOUSE. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL YET. BUT THE GLO WAS QUICK AND IN MY MIND THINKING I, THAT MADE ME THINK THAT THEY WERE AWARE THAT THE OWNER WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THEIR HOUSE KEPT AS THEY WERE VERY QUICK TO JUST FLIP ON THE, AND SAY, YES, THAT'S, UH, PLUS IT WAS ACTUALLY THE LAW IT WAS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. SO, UM, THAT'S THE, WE'LL HAVE TO APPROACH THEM. THE OTHER THING I DON'T KNOW, AND I WILL ASK IS, DOES THIS, DOES THE GLO THEN, UH, LIKE YOU DO WITH SOME TAX CREDIT PROJECTS, HAVE A, UH, I FORGOT WHAT YOU WOULD CALL THAT. WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT THE GLO INCLUDES IN ITS DOCUMENTATION FOR THE LOAN THAT MAY PROVIDE A GUARANTEE THAT THE HOUSE CAN'T BE DEMOLISHED OR OTHERWISE ALTERED. I'M NOT CERTAIN FROM THE PLANNING SIDE, WE DON'T REALLY GET INVOLVED IN THAT, UM, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A DISTRICT OR OTHER PROTECTION. YEAH. THEN THAT WOULD BE UP THROUGH, UP TO STAFF TO BRING TO YOU ALL AND ULTIMATELY TO COUNCIL. BUT WE'LL FIND THAT ANSWER OUT AS WELL, COMMISSIONER. YEAH. YEAH. THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY THE HOUSE IS IN THIRD WARD, SO IT COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF CITY OF HOUSTON, RIGHT. SO YOU COULD BE GIVEN A PLM. EXACTLY. AND WE'LL, WE'LL CERTAINLY REACH OUT WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE JUMP IN. AND I ALSO WANT TO, I FORGOT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. IS THAT, CLEARS THAT UP. THEN I JUST WANNA ALSO SAY THAT YASMINE ALAN HAS RETURNED FROM MATERNITY LEAVE AND WE HAVE HER HERE, RIGHT HERE. WE'RE SO EXCITED THAT SHE'S BACK AND, UH, VERY EXCITED. AND, UH, SHE'LL BE, UM, SHE'S BACK AS A PLANNER FOUR IN OUR OFFICE, UH, WHICH MEANS SHE'LL BE HELPING WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE OFFICE. UH, YEAH, THAT'S IT. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THESE, THERE'S ANOTHER TWO STORY PROJECT IN RIVERSIDE, UM, IN, UH, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY HAS A DIFFERENT NAME, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE RIVERSIDE TERRACE TO MOST FOLKS. SAME THING WENT ON. AND I KNEW THAT OWNER WANTED TO SAVE THAT HOUSE. SO WE ACTUALLY GOT THAT. SOUTHWOOD IS THE SUBDIVISION, ACTUALLY SOUTHWOOD IS A SUBDIVISION THAT LOOKS ON THE MAP TO MOST FOLKS LIKE A PART OF THIRD WAR AND A PART OF RIVERSIDE TERRACE. THEY HAVE DESIGNATED ALL OF THAT AS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING. UM, SO THOSE, THOSE NUMBERS GO UP. I THINK IT REALLY HITS THE BOTTOM DOLLAR OF THE CITY. AND FRANKLY, I WAS PRETTY OFFENDED. WE, AT THE SAME TIME, WE LOST ONE RECENTLY. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS. UH, AMANDA, WAS THAT ALSO IN THIRD WARD? THAT ONE THAT WE, WE DISAGREED ON. IT'S A WOODEN STRUCTURE. IT WAS INDEPENDENCE. INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS. AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY INQUIRING A LOT BECAUSE WE HAD A WOODEN STRUCTURE IN INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS, MODEST A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AT THE MOST, WHERE THE CLAIM WAS THAT IT WAS GONNA COST OVER $200,000 TO REHABILITATE THAT HOUSE. SO THEREFORE WE'RE GONNA DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD ANOTHER. THAT WAS KIND OF A, IT DID, YOU KNOW. NO, THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T SEEM, SO WE WERE WONDERING THEN, WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY DOING AND COMING UP WITH THESE NUMBERS AND IS IT BEING DONE? UH, WELL, AND ROMAN, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE IN THIS CASE ARE THE RESPONSIBLE ENTITY FOR THIS GRANT. AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH SOME CASES WHERE OTHERS, OTHER CITIES, UM, ARE THE RESPONSIBLE ENTITY IN THE WAY THEY WROTE THE GRANT APPLICATIONS. UM, THERE'S STILL, YOU CAN'T GET ABOVE THE $60,000 THRESHOLD FOR REHABILITATION. THERE'S NO CAP ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, ONLY A CAP ON. YOU HAVE TO MATCH THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T EXCEED, OR WHEN THEY BUILD BACK, THEY CAN'T BUILD BACK BIGGER THAN THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS, WAS THAT, THAT THEY'RE TEARING DOWN. SO I DO THINK THAT, UM, IT IS VERY HELPFUL TO SEE THAT ESPECIALLY NEIGHBORHOODS HERE IN HOUSTON HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF, UH, INVESTMENT IN, UM, BUT HAVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES, OR AT LEAST GIVEN, AFFORDED THIS OPTION TO RE REHABILITATE AND MAINTAIN THEIR CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE THESE HOMES SAFE AND VIABLE, BUT ALSO RETAIN THEIR, THEIR HISTORY AND THE STORY OF THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND, AND I THINK YOUR OFFICE IS, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS YOUR OFFICE IS WHAT, UM, SHINED LIGHT ON THIS QUESTION AND THEN EVERYONE STARTED TAKING IT VERY SERIOUS AND, AND, AND THEREFORE THE, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THEN IS THAT THAT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE PRESERVATION OFFICE. I MEAN, UH, IS WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, FROM THE SIDELINE, SO YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND THE, AND THE BUILD BACK ON THIS PROJECT WAS 600 SQUARE FEET LESS IF THEY, IF THEY DID DEMOLISH IT. SO AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM DOLLAR AND THE BUILD BACK ON THE TWO STORY RIVERSIDE, TAKE ONE STORY, VERY FEW WINDOWS. YOUR, THE, THE CONCRETE SLAB IN FRONT OF IT. IT, IT, IT, IT'S REALLY QUITE, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU LOOK BACK ON IT, IT'S REALLY QUITE OFFENSIVE. IT WOULDN'T BE DONE IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. AND SO WE'RE REALLY GLAD THAT WE CAN STEP UP. 'CAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THESE NEIGHBORS DON'T KNOW ANY OF ABOUT THESE [00:55:01] WHAT, HOW THEY'RE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW. WOULD YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID? ABOUT 600 SQUARE FEET? YES. THAT PROPERTY THAT WE WERE SHOWN A PICTURE OF. WELL, I'M, I'M THINKING OF AS A CASE STUDY FOR, FOR THE, THIS BIGGER PICTURE. YES. YEAH. THE PART, THE, THE BRICK HOME THERE. UM, THIRD ONE, THE, THE, THEY WERE GONNA DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD BACK A HOME THAT WAS 600 SQUARE FEET LESS, UH, ONE BATHROOM LESS. I THINK AMANDA KNOWS MORE OF THE DETAILS AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY THAT THAT SEEMS IRONIC. UM, THEY, WELL THEY HAD THE SAME NUMBER OF, UM, BATHROOMS, TWO BATHROOMS, BUT TWO BEDROOM. AND IT WAS, IT, AS IT EXISTS, IT'S A THREE BEDROOM. SO THEY WERE TAKING DOWN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, REDUCING A BEDROOM. AND SO THE HAPPY NEWS IS THIS GRANT WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO A BETTER JOB OF REHABBING WHAT'S THERE. MM-HMM . ARE THERE STRINGS ATTACHED OR, OR PROVISIONS, UH, TO, IN OTHER WORDS, ANY CHANCE WE GET THE PORCH BACK? UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THEY HAVE TO RESET. THEY SAID THAT THE ESTIMATE WAS UNDER THE 200,000. SO THEY WILL SUBMIT AGAIN, WHAT SOMETHING CLOSER TO 200 THEIR BUDGET IS. AND, BUT, BUT, BUT THERE'S, BUT NOT A, THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT THAT, THAT IT'D BE A RESTORATION VERSUS A REHAB. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CAN SPEND THE MONEY TO PUT A ROOF ON IT, UH, ET CETERA. BUT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY TO, UH, UH, WE COULD DEFINITELY FEEL THAT QUESTION OUT TO THEM TO SEE IF THEY COULD FOCUS THINGS THAT WAY. BUT IS IT, IT IT LOOKED VERY INTACT EXCEPT FOR THE, THE OPENINGS, THE FENESTRATION WINDOWS, DOORS. THAT'S WHAT OUR CONCERN WAS WHEN I OPENED UP THAT, THAT FILE THAT'S RIGHT. WAS, THANK YOU. YEAH. YEAH. AGAIN, WHAT'S ENCOURAGING IS A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS ARE, ARE IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE, WE DON'T SEE PROJECTS FROM. THEY, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY HOMES THAT ARE SELF LISTED BY OWNERS. THEY'RE NOT IN DISTRICTS. THEY, SOME OF THESE ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE AREAS THAT HAVE REALLY NOT SEEN ANY INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY IN A LONG TIME. AND SO IT'S, IT'S JUST A WAY TO EXTEND, UM, THE QUALITY OF LIFE, UM, THROUGH, THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF HOUSTON, WHICH I THINK IS A, A NOBLE GOAL AS WELL. IF THERE, UH, NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN I WILL BRING THIS MEETING TO ADJOURNMENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WAS QUORUM IN CHAIR? WE WERE CLOSE AND. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.